For Patio34:
: Hi Alan, here's an answer:
::: 1. Should Catholics be banned for allowing their priests to molest children?
:: If they had refused to reform, and as a matter of policy continued to let priests do that, then yes. But since they've done a lot to clean up their act, no.
: I don't know how much the Catholic religion has done to clean up their act.
Quite a bit, actually. The American Catholic organization has publicly apologized for harm done. The Church overall has put in place a number of policies that prevent the sort of "revolving door" problem that allowed abusive priests to go from parish to parish, starting a fresh round of abuse each time.
: But they have had to go to court and pay out a lot in settlements. This is what has made them do any cleaning up.
Exactly my point.
: I think this is a better way to go about it rather than making laws against groups that may have potential to be used against others. Actually, it could be taken care of with the JWs better by simply mandating and enforcing that every act of abuse must be reported.
But what if the Catholic Church had refused to clean up its act? Precisely who should be held responsible? And what punishment should they suffer if they had refused to do the right thing?
The JW organization still refuses to admit any responsibility for its nasty practices in this regard. They simply say, "We're doing what the Bible says and we won't change for anyone." What do you think a proper program should be for forcing them to quit protecting molesters?
::: 2. Should the Amish be banned for shunning?
:: They should be given a chance to quit that nasty practice. If they don't, then yes.
: Sorry, I disagree completely. It's their business if they want to do that; certainly not the government's business.
You should revisit your answer in light of whatever comments you make to my questions in the previous post.
::: 3. Should the Christian Scientists be banned for their stand on meds?
:: Yes, because dumb followers die from putting these beliefs into practice.
: Each person makes their own decision about their medical care. Should other medical options be mandated? In the case of children, as is done often, a court order should be obtained.
See my comments on this in the previous thread.
::: 4. Who decides what constitutes harm, if it already isn't against the law?
:: That's exactly my point. Harm is defined by the law. It's harmful to murder people. It's harmful to molest children. It's harmful to slander people. It's harmful to deliberately break up families. Don't you agree? And don't you agree that any group that advocates doing these things should be severely censured, if not banned outright?
: Of course it's harmful to do what you delineated. But "breaking up families"?
Yes.
: How would you prove that?
Very easy: put people under oath and ask them if they're shunning a person due to an organizational mandate or other pressure. If say, a parent disinherits a child due to enforced shunning, that's trivial to prove. Get a copy of the will and put the various players under oath.
: What about people who have affairs breaking up families?
Not relevant to this discussion. That's individuals acting on their own.
Now, if an organization advocated that people have affairs, knowing that it would break up families, then it should be censured, don't you agree?
: And I couldn't say that the JWs advocate doing this as overtly before the breakup--it's the shunning that causes it.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but it's the organizational mindset of shunning that prompts individuals to shun family members. Very few people voluntarily shun family on their own. That's simply unnatural. You know very well that most people who learn the full extent of JW shunning practices are horrified. Why? Because it goes so much against the natural affection that people have for their families.
: No, I do not agree that the government would have any say-so in banning such a group.
Then how would you address the harm done by organizationally enforced shunning?
::: 5. If other groups are not banned, then on what grounds should JWs be banned?
:: Since I think that other harmful groups should be banned or otherwise censured (perhaps via a streamlining of the process for individuals to win lawsuits against abusive groups), your question is irrelevant to me.
: Well, we do not agree.
I think you've changed your opinion on that, since you now agree that religions advocating certain beliefs or practices should be banned.
: People have a right to do what they want (of course, not including the egregious things you mention)
Precisely my point!
: and you do not have the right to tell me if I want to practice my religion in a certain way.
As a citizen of the supposedly democratic United States, I certainly have the right -- and the responsibility -- to see to it that no one is allowed freely to harm others. If your religion advocates killing people, then through the process of lawmaking and enforcing such law, I certainly have that right. It's a basic function of government, to stop people from hurting others.
: You have lumped what is "harmful" and "abusive" into a large group that includes murder, human sacrifice, etc. with shunning and medical care. This is polemic and misleading, imo, as they don't compare.
They most certainly do compare. If I kill you, it's obvious that that's a bad thing. How about if I influence or even force your sister to kill you? Isn't that just as bad? Obviously it is, because we have laws about that. Once again my point is, where do you, Patio, draw the line and by what standards?
: This seems similar to saying a pregnant woman who does drugs and abuses the unborn is lumped together with a pregnant woman who has a drink or takes an aspirin or eats junk food. There's a wide spectrum and a lot of degrees of "harm."
What I've said is not like that at all, but you do raise good points. It's a matter of where you draw the line between what's acceptable behavior and what's not, and between personal rights and organizational rights. It involves what's ok for individuals to do and what's ok for organizations to do.
AlanF
