A SCOTUS Opening

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't share your optimism that someone would do something if there were religious cults running around. I think cults are largely allowed to remain as long as they are not harming non-members.

Look at Scientology. Judging simply by conventional wisdom, it seems fairly clear that they are a cult that is exploiting its members for financial gain. But they are still granted religious tax exemption and are allowed to continue on relatively unabated. Why? Because joining them is completely optional and they aren't hurting anyone outside of their cult. If you try to leave, the church does their best to ruin your life but strictly through legal (or arguably legal) means, like pressuring other members to black list the deserter and spreading rumors/bashing them on the internet.

I could see a religious cult like what people purport People of Praise to be operating under similar conditions. They may be indoctrinating their women to be a man's property, under the guise of traditional Christian values (which do have some outdated and harmful beliefs about women that have been mostly removed from modern Christianity and Catholicism) but they aren't hurting anyone outside of the cult and joining is (mostly) optional, with the main exception being born into the cult and being raised by their parents in said cult.

Again, I don't know enough about People of Praise to say that they are a cult in this way. I'm just saying that I think it's possible that such a cult could exist legally and without anyone trying to stop them.

If this were true, which it seems Nati is convinced it is, I don't think calling a cult a cult could be fairly considered religious bashing or anti-religious sentiment. It would just be criticizing a group who are abusing religious sentiment to take advantage of people.

You know what I mean?

I'm not arguing it is or isn't a cult. What I'm saying is that if PoP really treated women as property, there'd be plenty of real world examples to highlight instead of constantly referencing a fictional piece of work. 

You bring up Scientology. There are plenty of examples of negative things Scientology is guilty of (excuse, me, ALLEGEDLY guilty of ). If ACB was a scientologist, they would be pointing to those examples not equating scientology to some fictional equivalences (equate it to Dianetics, maybe ).

In any event, arguing her beliefs would impact postively/negatively on her ruling is one thing. Belittling her because of said beliefs is altogether different, unnecessary and SHOULD have no place on these forums.