Can we really allow "freedom" of religion?

Miscellaneous General
1

In fully organized religious establishments with a clear hierarchy and clearly stated mandates on their actions, if their actions end up ordering or encouraging criminal harm to other people, would that not essentially make those organizations themselves criminal?

Particularly - since their organized actions tantamount to criminal activity, the existence of these organizations is of criminal nature.

And when those religious organizations start showing cases of sexual trafficking of children and honour killings, then we really can not see those crimes in isolation of the organization which ordered.

It would be time to move against them and crack down on their organizations. When the Uighur riots happened in China, local authorities declared it a crime to go to a mosques for a brief while. An extreme action, no doubt, and yet, I don’t think any less could be done when you are dealing with people who inherently don’t have a respect for peace or private property.

The state normally thinks that decisive actions would solve problems. Obviously in problems as large as the economy as a whole, it is trying to grasp something which is far too complex for it to understand or handle. In matters like criminal behaviour by private citizens, the only thing that can ever be done wrong is to not do enough. When riots broke out in the 1960s in the US, Chicago didn’t have much rioting at all, even though the police there were given orders to “shoot to kill”. Yet, Detroit, with police ordered to be restrained, showed the worst rioting.

In the context of Third World countries like mine, most religious groups and institutions are nearly criminal institutions and I don’t think they deserve any kind of free pass.

2

Can you prove they are criminals?

3

Are you serious? You are in favor of collective punishment of groups whose members commit crimes?

You’re familiar with the property rights formulation of freedom of religion, right? I assume you’ve covered some Rothbard.

Basically, the so-called freedom of religion stems from the right of individuals or groups of individuals to think whatever they want and perform whatever acts of worship they wish on their property, so long as they do not aggress against others.

Insofar as religious groups get hold of coercive power, they are culpable, but to deny “freedom of religion” is to deny people the right to property ownership and (to try) to deny free thought.

Those guilty of committing aggressive actions should be punished. People should not be given a free pass to coerce others because they are a member of any group, religious orders included. But to conclude from the existence of criminals acting under the cover of religion that coercion is a necessary part of religion, and therefore we should generally curtail the right to property and free thought is ridiculous.

4

Any group above 10 people that organize is most likely going to end up insane. Picking out “religion” is just stating some aesthetic you probably don’t like.

5

Who cares if they’re insane, can you actually prove that they’ve “ordered or encouraged criminal harm to other people?”

6

We both have two different points. To answer yours though, “criminal harm” is a 100% arbitrary term, so I guess it would all depend on the justice system one cares to discuss.

7

True. I’m not even sure which institution he’s talking about or specifically which crimes these institutions are supposed to be guilty of.

8

What do you mean by ‘we’?

9

Exactly. That’s the mistake, Prateek. In fact, I recommend as an exercise, whenever you write down an argument regarding legitimate/legal behavior, that you go through the writing with a fine-tooth comb and eliminate any non-descriptive reference to a collective (such as, “we should” or “they should not” or “society may”).

Clayton -

10

(Hang on, guys. I got this one.)

In fully organized religious establishments with a clear hierarchy and clearly stated mandates on their actions, if their actions end up ordering or encouraging criminal harm to other people, would that not essentially make those organizations themselves criminal?

(You just described every government ever. Just thought I’d point that out.)

Particularly - since their organized actions tantamount to criminal activity, the existence of these organizations is of criminal nature.

(There’s, of course, the obvious problem of what activities are defined as criminal. Are they protesting against a certain political party in a country that has laws against that? Are they encouraging people to speak their minds in a country that does not allow “dangerous conversation”? Or are crimes defined by your own personal opinion of what is criminal? I’ll let you dwell on the implications of that.)

And when those religious organizations start showing cases of sexual trafficking of children and honour killings, then we really can not see those crimes in isolation of the organization which ordered.

(So who do you punish? Do we punish every member of X religion? Every X-religion card-carrier, so to speak? What if there’s a percentage of members, or even one person, who joined believing a core message of religion X, and just didn’t get out in time after they turned to whatever random crime you care to name? You’re right, though. It’s easier to just shoot them all.)

It would be time to move against them and crack down on their organizations.

(It might be prudent to just crack down on criminals. I know this is an alien thought in, like, 99% of the world…even places where EVERYTHING is a crime…but still. We could try that.)

When the Uighur riots happened in China, local authorities declared it a crime to go to a mosques for a brief while. An extreme action, no doubt, and yet, I don’t think any less could be done when you are dealing with people who inherently don’t have a respect for peace or private property.

(Well, people could take responsibility for their own property and shoot people who try to deprive them of what is theirs. Of course, I suppose some places don’t allow defense of private property. Hey, what do you get when you have criminals that can’t gather at mosques anymore? Got a guess? No? Criminals that gather elsewhere. The extreme action did nothing but prevent people from practicing their religion. Your suggestion implies that if we outlaw guns we have solved the problem of people being shot. I…don’t think I have to explain the problem there. I hope to god I don’t…)

The state normally thinks that decisive actions would solve problems. Obviously in problems as large as the economy as a whole, it is trying to grasp something which is far too complex for it to understand or handle.

(They do a bang-up job in small problems all the time, though, don’t they? Like when they told people not to go to mosques and that solved some problem, Z, right? I already used X. Hang on, hang on…this is great…I totally see how this went down:

“Hey, if we tell people not to go to mosques, only the criminals will go! See, because criminals don’t obey the law!”

“Holy shit, you’re right! I’ll get my gun!”

Yeah. Just like that. Case closed.)

In matters like criminal behaviour by private citizens, the only thing that can ever be done wrong is to not do enough.

(“This man stole bread!”

“Cut off his hand.”

“That’s not enough.”

“Hang on. I’ll get my gun.”

Are you starting to get the theme here? It’s not that your logic has huge problems. It’s that there are gaping holes in the “consequences” department.)

When riots broke out in the 1960s in the US, Chicago didn’t have much rioting at all, even though the police there were given orders to “shoot to kill”. Yet, Detroit, with police ordered to be restrained, showed the worst rioting.

(Now THIS is a gaping hole. Let me show you why. “When the riots broke out in the 1960s in the US, Kansas City, Missouri didn’t have much rioting at all. The police were given no orders. In Detroit, the police were ordered to be restrained, and they showed the worst rioting.” I hope I don’t have to explain the logical disconnect.)

In the context of Third World countries like mine, most religious groups and institutions are nearly criminal institutions and I don’t think they deserve any kind of free pass.

(No one says criminals deserve a free pass. You’re implying that crimes are overlooked because of affiliation with an organization. This probably happens, because people in charge of telling the police what to do are engaging in criminal behavior themselves, by profiting from the criminal activities of a religious group. They don’t deserve a free pass either, do they? Unfortunately, you have followed this to a bad logical end. You aren’t trying to solve the problem by making it too much trouble for such institutions to operate criminally. You are just saying “shut them down.” You might not know you’re saying that, but it is the logical end of what you are saying. Shut them up, keep them quiet. No free passes. No more church. No spreading of ideas. Ideas are dangerous. This is why we don’t put everyone who worked with or around Bernie Madoff in prison.)

11

Supposedly, there are religious teachings that give a green light to crime against heathens, such as the Talmud.

12

I wonder if a orthodox Jew who condones the harm of heathens and other radical traditionalist will see the irony in that and anti-semitism.

13

Ok, I see there is some merit in viewing some religions as criminal groups. The trouble is who decides? Who decides which religions are permissible and which are not? There is not any moral or objective way to crown anybody the Religion Czar. That “decision” about who is criminal and who is not is always made by whichever group or faction has the most guns–or, in other words, a state.

With that in mind, let’s set aside the question of religion and say, Can we really allow “freedom” of (insert ideology here). Maybe “we” should ban certain varieties of economic thought (communism, for example). Since, after all, communists “inherently don’t have a respect for peace or private property.” So who qualifies as a communist? Who decides? Me, of course.

The moment you cross that line of deciding what ideologies or groups can or cannot be permitted, you inherently have no respect for peace or private property.

14

But merely belonging to a criminal group is not a crime to begin with anyway. Merely joining a street gang does not create any victims.

15

It does warrant the expectation that you would commit crimes. If I carried a membership card for a club that mandates or allows for burning redheads at the stake, the only reasonable assumption would be that I intend to do so or would be not inhibited from doing so. It is tantamount to a threat issued by every member. Redheads could be forgiven for taking preventive action against any member, regardless of the actual attitude of the individual member.