Dealing with cults (new religious movements) in courts has been an ongoing problem because courts are forced to consider these groups as religions and thus they are protected by the First Amendment. In the book Cults in America: a reference handbook, it is stated that "while Congress cannot prescribe laws against what one may believe, it may legislate against actions harmful to society" (132).
However these decisions are based on "socially accepted, traditional notions of religious practice" (Cults in America: a reference handbook, 132). If it is society that makes the rules then how are the decisions fair? On the other hand though, if the cult is harming others in pursuit of religion and they are convicted by the court that is helpful to society. But does this restrict people's First Amendment rights?
If a cult truly is harming other people then I don't think that it's a restriction of a person's rights if the ability to continue those actions is not allowed. Sometimes a cult leader even harms his own members, such as tricking a person into giving the cult leader access to the person's money. Even though its the person's right to grant the cult access, I don't think that this is just or fair. Does your Junior Theme relate to cults? It sounds like a very interesting topic :)
ReplyDelete