Now this is plain wierd... (ritual, pray, spiritual, prayer)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Regardless of beliefs and the relative merits thereof, its still against the law to choke and beat a child bloody for any reason.

Yes. I realize that. I'm testing an idea, so bear with me please. I've had discussions with some members who take the position that subjectively maintained beliefs about reality can never be questioned by reference to some other person's state of belief.

So, given that premise, who's to say the grandfather did not do what was necessary?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

But in this case, the one involved doesn't think that . . . so we are back to square one . . . who are you to say that this wasn't what had to be done?
As long as the actor genuinely believes it's necessary, then it's not our business to argue with him or try to get him to see he is wrong, right?

This person is part of the human community, and we know that he's causing harm to a child, which is completely unacceptable in this community. The first step is preventing the action, and the second optional step is to address the beliefs that influenced him to act. For the sake of the community - and human compassion - we've been known to build assylums for the insane.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

But in this case, the one involved doesn't think that . . . so we are back to square one . . . who are you to say that this wasn't what had to be done?
As long as the actor genuinely believes it's necessary, then it's not our business to argue with him or try to get him to see he is wrong, right?

When he's in the process of killing a defenseless child and other options have not been explored, yes, it is our business to argue with him. His religious belief is harming someone that is defenseless. He can believe what he likes, but his actions are criminal.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Booko

When he's in the process of killing a defenseless child and other options have not been explored, yes, it is our business to argue with him. His religious belief is harming someone that is defenseless. He can believe what he likes, but his actions are criminal.

Continuing the role of "devil's advocate" - isn't "his religious belief is harming someone that is defenseless" a statement of belief as well? From his perspective, he is saving an immortal soul, which is infinitely more valuable than the shell of a body in which it resides. Are "belief" and action separable in that sense? Your act of "criminalizing" his actions are a manifestation of your belief as well.

Let's try this: Is there a point at which "belief" can be "unreasonable" or indicative of "insanity" (as A_E suggests) warranting stricture of the belief to prevent it manifesting in unacceptable action? Where is that point and how do we know where to fix it?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Let's try this: Is there a point at which "belief" can be "unreasonable" or indicative of "insanity" (as A_E suggests) warranting stricture of the belief to prevent it manifesting in unacceptable action? Where is that point and how do we know where to fix it?

The going standard seems to be when the person is deemed a harm to others or themselves. This harm, of course, is taken more seriously when it is directed towards children, the handicaped, or the elderly.

This standard is usually applied when a close friend or family member notifies the police and a judge reviews the case.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

The going standard seems to be when the person is deemed a harm to others or themselves. This harm, of course, is taken more seriously when it is directed towards children, the handicaped, or the elderly.

Okay, but what if the person is "right" in their "beliefs" and you just cost someone their immortal soul because you lack the proper discernment? You've answered where you'd mark the standard, but not the "how do you know?" aspect.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Okay, but what if the person is "right" in their "beliefs" and you just cost someone their immortal soul because you lack the proper discernment?

They're going to have to find another way to save souls.

You've answered where you'd mark the standard, but not the "how do you know?" aspect.

In the end, we can only measure physical harm and not spiritual truth. That is, we know what actually hurts people and we must prevent harm to have a healthy society. If an insane person thinks that it causes spiritual harm, they can continue doing so in a place where they cannot do anyone else physical harm.

Generally, when a person thinks that harming others or themselves is healthy, it's a pretty good indication of insanity.