Thanks, jdg. I will have to watch the videos (assuming they are available at no cost;^)

"Who defines a cult?"
I agree with AJ, Snoogoo, and Olduglycarl that cults are not clearly definable and there should not be laws focused on cults. That's why I said people could be prosecuted under existing laws.
Even if a "cult" were a clearly definable problem, anti-cult powers would quickly expand beyond their original purpose, like the PATRIOT Act and RICO Act.

"If the child comes to harm they are negligent and can be brought up on charges."

Unfortunately, this is currently not the case in the examples I have found, but I agree that it should be.

I'm just guessing, but I think jdg could be referring to the fact that those who leave and speak out against Scientology are stalked, threatened, and blackmailed. They have also been known to use violence and extreme physical neglect and imprisonment on members who step out of line. That could happen to Obama followers too I guess.

http://www.aetv.com/shows/leah-remini...

The example I'm thinking of is far more straightforward than this. Let's say a teenager has a serious accident and loses a catastrophic amount of blood. The parents refuse the child to receive a blood transfusion. Would you call that a lame stream definition of life saving? Massive hemorrhage after child birth is another example in which doctrine can lead to death.

To clarify where I am coming from, I am premising this question based on the following definition of a "cult": A small group or individual that use methods to create a group by means of behavior control, thought control, emotional control, and information control. In essence, extreme mind control. I am on the side of No ban. To ban something doesn't really fix the underlying problem which is a mind that is not free.

By your definition, which is not wrong, the government decides what is dangerous, harmful, full of lies...do we want to go down that road?

Occultation in astrophysics is likened to an eclipse. Blocking the view between two objects could be considered hiding or blocking the truth.

What we consider an occult and what others consider an occult could be quite different.

Meaning: secret, obtuse, hidden, mysterious, concealed.
By that definition, Freemasonry, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, The Bohemian club, Global Warming advocates, The Deep State or Shadow Governments would be examples of an Occult.

On what evidence do you conclude that Scientology is a "dangerous cult"?
Based on historical evidence to date, I'd say the cult of people who voted for Obama is much more dangerous than Scientology.

Using what definition of evidence?
20 years ago the FBI and BATF decided a group in WACO was a "cult" (which is a biased weasel word connotation of the word "culture." )
Then the FBI burned about 90 of them to death with no evidence against them, which simultaneously destroyed evidence, if any existed, that could have proven them innocent (and possibly sent the BATF and FBI agents involved to the electric chair for murder.)

Federal government should keep its meddling, murdering nose out of the homes of people, and has zero authority under the constitution to do anything whatsoever about so-called "cults."

Could Galt's Gulch online considered a cult?

"cults capitalize on a persecution complex"
That's maybe the strongest point among all these good reasons not to have special laws against cults. If you prosecute them under the same laws we all live by, e.g. child abuse, conspiracy to commit murder, it's harder for them to present themselves as persecuted victims.

We must be careful of the definition of what the lame stream means by life saving medical treatments, example: remove or freeze the appendix?, broken leg, bad cut? Why would anyone refuse those treatments or on the other hand...chemo, vaccines, drugs...the latter, usually means death/ or sickness at one point or another - now these "treatments", I would call occultist.

Case in point, a Minnesota family was told that their son was too rambunctious and should take prescription drugs for ADHD... he was an A student and otherwise well behaved...they refused and the child was taken away.
Now it will cost them millions to fight the deep state to get him back.

I'm sure the state deems the parents members of an anti science/medicine/ADHD cult.

If such a law were enacted, I would expect groups like ourselves to be among the first targets -- while really dangerous cults such as Scientology would be left untouched because they are well connected politically.

The way to put a stop to harm by cults (such as holding people prisoner) is to enforce existing laws against those specific harmful acts.

On issues of accidental harm "caused" without initiating force (such as the examples someone posted of medical neglect by parents, or a child's suicide after being shunned) I believe it would do much more harm than good to allow government to prosecute anybody. But a lawsuit might very well be called for. If there is legal liability in such cases, each individual should be held responsible for his own actions. No blaming the cult or its leadership for your own behavior unless they threatened you with serious consequences (let the courts determine exactly what that phrase means).

As far as the broader question of the law limiting how a parent may treat his children -- I lean toward non-intervention up to the point where visible injury (severe bruising or loss of blood) takes place. However, if a teenager insists on running away from home and is willing to work to support himself, I would have the law allow it and not compel him to go back.

Question:
Is it your right to tell a parent what they must do for their own child? On what basis to you validate your intrusion?

That is the entirety of the issue at hand. The individual is paramount. A dependent child (below 18) is the parents responsibility. The parent has the sole responsibility to do what in the best interest of their child as they see fit. If the parent exercises their right as a parent and the child comes to harm they are negligent and can be brought up on charges. That's the role of society in the relationship.

Society has no legitimate place in the discussion, but it does anyway.

So allowing a minor child to die for the parent's belief when the child may not hold the same beliefs is acceptable?

Or you can not believe in anything and wind your toys up to kill. Helter Skelter.

The individual foremost, the leadership if action is doctrine.

Life saving is a BS excuse. If the individual wants to die its his/her choice. If a person has the responsibility of making choices for another, its that person choice on how to proceed (eg. a minor, someone on life support). It 's not anyone's place to make that choice for another.

Should the individuals be prosecuted or the cult's leadership? What if the member who follows doctrine enforces a shunning policy that results in a child's suicide? They would claim religious freedom in court and there is a good chance they would go free. Same thing if they coerce someone out of accepting life saving medical treatment.

Most cults capitalize on a persecution complex using opposition as "proof" they are special, think first century Christian martyrs. Furthermore, a ban on beliefs, however strange they may be, is immoral. Fighting mind control with more attempted mind control doesn't seem like a logical solution.

This is the tricky part, what is the difference between a religion and a cult? Granted many mainstream religions don't shun you for leaving or having debate with those on the outside, they still use guilt and promises of an afterlife to exert some control over people.

Slippery slope CG. Who defines a cult? Why should you or government have more say than a child's patent? So much for limited government. So much for the first amendment.
Could loose interpretation eventually made objectivism a crime? " Taxation is theft' making refusal to pay the responsibility of the group?

No. first amendment. However, criminal acts or harm resulting from doctrine should be punished and fined.

My first thought is if the cult is telling lies that result in suicide or refusing vital medical treatment for kids too young to decide for themselves, the cult member doing it is probably already breaking existing laws. Making a law aimed just at cults feels too narrow. I'm interested in what people more knowledgeable about cults think.

If the gov't did pass a law just aimed at cults, it would most likely grant some special new powers to the gov't, supposedly specially geared toward this problem. Within 10 years, probably way less, those powers would be used in all types of cases having nothing to do with cults.