I’ve noticed .When anyone would dare to suggest that perhaps religion needs
regulation further regulation.Those that oppose the idea, will often put forward reasons smoke screen like what ill list below
1. Danger of stepping onto a slippery slope
2. Would stop religious liberty
3. It would amount to our society implementing a form of thought police (ludicrous idea)
Or concerns to that kind of effect
I suggest, that these concerns, are not worthy of our worry or fear.Amount to knee jerk reaction.Scare mongery. For the reason ill list below
1 .We are already faced with dangers of a slippery slope now already anyway.The dangers of the slippery slope of what exist between faith group what cause harm to some people due to fate of birthright , or through fate of falling into a cult trap of what perhaps might connect back to aspect of family dysfunction. And faith groups of what don’t cause harm. This is the danger of a slippery slope that we already face. So to become overly concerned about something of what we are already faced with now already anyway, is fear unworthy of this depth of concern . Its fear monger’s tactic
2. Religious liberty is already regulated anyways, right now,by fateful aspect of life. Fate of birthright. Religious liberty is often subject to religious cultural choices of children’s parents.Religious liberty that exist today is a negative form of liberty (not positive form) ,as too often liberty is in fact
dependent on bound in chains by cultural religious choice of children parents (children’s freedom of choice has little to do with it). This explain why children’s lives can then become entwined an entrapped within the harmful confines of so many different kinds of extremely dangerous cults as well too, that exist universally worldwide. If religious liberty actually existed, then how the hell does this harmful situation happen?
3. Regulating harm, does not require, that we would have need to implement thought police . As we are already regulating aspect of harm within religion now already anyway, we do so without need of pretending that we have implemented any form of thought police. We already regulate the religious right of parents, should they dare decide to refuse their own children the human right to obtain proper medical care, even when they claim it to be their religious right on grounds of their own faith belief. We dont need to implement thought police. The act itself is whats deemed to be harmful, therefore it follows that it then also becomes an illegal act (IE: still not an illegal thought) .
Consider this .
Whenever our society, deems that violence used against children, is to become an illegal act . Then is this then also an act of implementing a form of thought police as well too?. Or when society has deemed theft to be an illegal act, is that then another form of thought police as well too ?
We dont need to implement thought police. When we wish to help regulate harmful acts
Do we ?
People are still free to think that they’d love to be able to beat hell out of their own children
People are still free to think they might like to
- Speed and kill
- Drink and drive while drunk
- Rely on prayer, rather than to use any medication to help heal their own children
- Kill anyone convicted of heresy
- Burn sorcerers and witches at the stake
The only change that occur, is that we would have imposed regulation of harmful acts
Peoples own thoughts, have still not been policed
Have they ?
If we were actually ever able to police peoples thoughts . Then perhaps we should also be able to prevent acts of
4.Speed that kills
6.All children from dieing through lack of medication
7. Prevent anyone from dieing upon being accused of heresy
8.Save all people from death by burning
And so on
So perhaps we cannot police people’s thoughts .
That seems correct . Little doubt
And yet that fact still doesn’t stop us from still deeming acts of extreme harm to be an illegal act
Does it ?
There is no good reason why society, cannot take the same approach, with extreme harm caused by religion, as what it already does with regard of extreme harm caused within other aspect of our human society (religion shouldn’t be made taboo, or be considered out of bounds)
Religion should not be protected against facing justice and judgement in regard of acts of extreme harm
Why should it ?
Mark my word .In time to come, religion will face further regulation, soon enough. It already is regulated, to some extent (degree) already.And yet no sky has suddenly fallen in on anyone’s head?. Has it. And besides,there is still no need for any thought police,either, right? .
There is common sense obvious reason why acts of extreme harm would need to be regulated
Faithful folk will not stop this
Wont be able to, stop it, forever more ,anyway
Although they can still stubbornly continue to help make matters far worse than need be, for themselves. By making themselves continue to look real bad as uncaring ignorant people whom act indifferently toward harm whats already being constantly caused, to other unlucky people , in this year 2018
That’s still their choice. It’s still their own choice to think to oppose progress in regard of further regulation of harm . (no thought police are involved in imposing these stupid thoughts upon choices made by religious people, who still continually refuse to reform, and cease harm. They decide about following that action by themselves)
As there is no thought police involved in stopping them from thinking what they will ?
The idea of thought police is used as a scapegoat adopted by cunning folks of faith who’d still wish to remain free from regulation in regards to harm they are still able to cause. The argument is sophistry employed by theist to use as a smoke screen . Its used to help confuse the people gullible enough to easily fall for it
So they like to paint a fearful picture (scare monger) . Hoping that people may then be alarmed and therefore will also become foolish enough to swallow this bull
Police can begin to regulate extreme harm, occurring within religion, by using some of the same methods like what they already do.They have methods of surveillance that they can adopt to help blow the cover of people actively involved in faith abuse in the same way they also already use them to help blow the cover of drug rings , or pedophile rings
And absolutely no need to impose thought police . Is there ?
Only need to regulate actions of what are causing extreme harm (plenty of science is already available, now, to help them to define this extreme harm)