RIGHT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY
Believing is just seeing that something is probably true. It means accusing
anything that contradicts it of being false.
There is no such thing as a right to believe what you want. Rights don't apply.
It is like saying you have the right to smell bacon. You just smell it and
rights don't come into it. You just have permission to believe what you want.
And the reason is that censoring beliefs and making thought crimes destroy any
chance of learning and learning is about figuring out the truth or what is
probably the truth.
With or without a right to believe anything at all, we would remain responsible
for the harm and inconvenience our belief inflicts upon others. Your beliefs
always potentially say something about how you relate to others. If you put what
you want to think before what another person knows a person should think that is
just arrogance. That is one example.
If you claim the right to believe what you want you imply that wanting to
believe it is paramount. That makes it about you and gives another reason for
being responsible for the harm this does.
It is only within the realm of religion where it is considered offensive to
investigate an idea, no matter how improbable, for its credibility, let alone to
determine culpability for damages arising from a belief. Our judiciary is the
only mechanism we have available to impose limits on the scope and extent of
religious dogma and to hold those who cause harm accountable for their actions.
Sadly that is the theory but extremely difficult to put into action.
We are told that Criminal Law is for protecting the innocent and punishing the
guilty. If it only were that simple.
The Criminal Law can't punish every wrong. It should restrict itself to social
wrongs such as stealing or rape and so on. Religion should only be taken up by
Criminal Law if it sends people out to murder or rape or steal. In practice this
would mean suing the religion in the form of the prophets or leaders who command
these things. Otherwise religion should be let alone. Criminal Law seeks a
verdict of guilty or not guilty and the verdict must be established beyond all
reasonable doubt. Only the state can take a criminal law case against a person
or persons.
Civil Law is not for punishing the guilty in the real moral sense but you are
called guilty as in legal fiction when you break the law. When a rapist is
punished he is not punished for hurting another person but for offending the
law. He is guilty morally but it is only looked at from the legal perspective.
In Civil Law the innocent is only a person who by legal fiction is declared
innocent but who morally speaking not be innocent at all.
That aside, Civil Law deals with private disputes -
disputes between persons. It results in compensation or damages being awarded.
Any wrong can be grounds for a Civil Law case. Religion should be taken up under
Civil Law when it does wrong - when the action is wrong not illegal. Civil law
seeks a verdict of liable or not liable and has a lesser standard than beyond
all reasonable doubt. Slander is not a crime but if religion slanders atheists,
atheists have a right to seek compensation from religion.
A man who sleeps with a girl who is only a few months underage will be a
criminal and go to jail. A man who sleeps with a girl who is two years underage
will get the same fate. Is this fair? It is possible for a child to be more
damaged by a religious upbringing than by being sexually molested. One is a
crime and the other is not. It is possible that if religion declines enough in
the future, the Law will start making actions such as religious indoctrination
of children illegal or criminal and punish religion for taking money off people
who are only paying because they don't realise they are being lied to by the
religion. The point is that Criminal Law has the right and freedom to do that if
it so chooses regardless of the opposition. Even if it doesn't have the moral
right it has the legal right to do it. The Law has the right to make immoral
Laws up to a point for it is decided by fallible people and we live in an
imperfect world. The Law is based on the idea that regulating society comes
first and it must do that as it sees fit and it must be respected even if it is
wrong and it states too that there will be casualties no matter what kind of
laws are made. Nothing is perfect.
Religion pays lip service to the Law. It is lip-service for it believes the Law
has no right to start censoring religion or preventing it from engaging in
manipulative activities such as indoctrinating children or threatening them that
they will be sent to Hell forever if they don't believe in God. Religion is
intrinsically treasonous. On that basis, it could get into big trouble with
Criminal Law. Its treasonous nature certainly warrants that it be looked upon by
disfavour in the Civil Courts.
It is possible to imagine a state where stealing is made a matter for the civil
courts and a private dispute. The division between crimes and matters for the
civil court is more or less arbitrary. You are a criminal if you are caught
stealing a toothbrush but you are not a criminal if you shamelessly trick a
senile parent to bequeath all their property to you. Religion has poor loyalty
to the Law when it would refuse to approve if the Law forbade Hell to be
mentioned to little children as the Law threatens to pursue it through the
criminal courts.
Religion makes misrepresentations. A misrepresentation is something that is said
to persuade a person to make a contract which they wouldn't do if they were told
the truth - it is making a person mistakenly believe they should ratify the
contract. Even if the victim accepts the contract, the victim is not bound by
the contract if misrepresentations were made. Religion makes misrepresentations
to persuade people to go to it for baptism. Baptism contracts the recipient to
God, or more accurately the religion for people only worship what others say God
is like. The contract is made for the baby by godparents at baptism and adults
make their own contract. Misrepresentations are a legal matter. And especially
considering that baptism seeks to make the baby a member of the baptising Church
in the eyes of the law. The failure of the Church to provide any evidence that
baptism does any supernatural good shows that baptism is a very manipulative and
cheating contract.
Religion despite having no qualifications in Counselling, Psychiatry and
Psychology always presents itself as emotional and psychological therapy. It
takes money for fraudulent magical therapy. It wastes people's time. It dashes
their hopes. This is not malpractice - it is quackery. It should not be legally
tolerated.
The doctrine of strict liability is now built into the law. It means you can be
liable for some damage THOUGH YOU WERE NOT NEGLIGENT. This being so, how much
more should clergy and religion teachers be sued for damaging and misleading
people?
Promote the secularisation of society. That way the more people become
non-religious the better. That way there will be less legal trouble as a result
of religion. When religion becomes a minor thing in society, it will be easier
to sue it to kingdom come. To sue every religionist who is guilty of preaching
nonsense and lies as fact, would leave the legal system unable to deal with
anything else. It would be overwhelmed. And the reason is that there is too much
religion.