Quote :The Questioner Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:05 am “My view is that a government body is not going to do something which might be interpreted as limiting freedom of religion. They will only act on clear illegality. I think it would be impossible to show that breaking up a family was a) caused by the EB – they would claim it was personal excercise – and b) it probably isn’t illegal, however undesirable.
It isn’t the role if government to determine doctrine: just the consequences.” see here http://wikipeebia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=890 (my blod and underlining)
And yet our freedom of religion, is already being limited . By theists
So then , one wonders.What? evidence do theists actually have at hand , that might suggest that we might somehow actually need to end up with being any worse? off, if instead it were our governments whom might need to also get involved as well too
None ! . There is no evidence to suggest, we might necessarily need to end up being any worse off . Than what we are already
None at all
And yet plenty of theist are still happily busily promoting this kind of unfounded mantra . Often because of their bigoted Church-based biased in-bred ignorance
The poor things. Ignorant fools, whom have already helped to uphold harm, for so many generations past already. Faithful folk , mainstream folk, laying claim to only be following in the footsteps of Jesus
Government can-do, and will get involved. And in some cases they already do get involved now anyway, hence why it is now been made a criminal offence, and even for Christian folk to cause harm to their own child, for instance like by an act of “faith” in choosing to rely on faith-healing . If it is judged to have helped cause their child to die
The reason being – because it is now been deemed to be thought far too harmful ,for a child’s own parent to be even be allowed to decide to rely on their own faith in faith healing,to heal their own child .
And by our Governments
Government’s in this manner, is thus way are also helping to determine what doctrine may in fact be acceptable,and what doctrine is possibly totally unacceptable.And judgement is being made, based around amount of harm, deemed to be caused.
However we can still plainly see, how there are still many a theist, whom are all still fighting against the idea, of any more Government intervention.Theists whom are even willing to lie and enter into all manner of deceitful practices, while they are involved in the act of trying to retain their right to have this kind of overbearing religious power,they retain over our lives
So then, why?” dont our governments choose to step in, a little more often in regards to these issues of faith abuses . In regards to this issue of harm being caused , within religion .
The reason that are governments, and even government agency’s (like the charity commission) don’t step in more . Is due to the fact that there are still far too many faithful folks (many of them being mainstream Christians) whom are actively involved in fighting against government intervention
And so when ever any of our governments will suggest that they may in fact soon need to begin to intervene more.
There is two things that will constantly happen
- There will always be so very few Christian folk, whom are willing to take action and stand up and write and offer these governments, with any hope of support.So therefore our government are being left to hold the whole weight of fears ,on their own shoulders .With many politician, thus then also being forced to need to feel fear in regards to “stability” of their own future prospects to even be able to retain their own jobs
- Then to make these matters even far worse. To seal the fate of cult members.There will also be plenty of theists too whom will actually be quite willing to take prompt action, in regard to contacting and writing letters to these governments and politician’s, so as to try any warn them against ever daring to try and intervene, any more than what they already are
The effect of all this is that, the general overriding feeling that is then left, is that there is “very-little” support for the idea of “more intervention” by government authority. And also that there is in fact “plenty” of widespread opposition, existing toward anyone whom might dare try-it