Someone must have a problem with de-programmers

On the left-wing Captain Comics site, the official owner wrote a blog post about "what we truly fear", and even goes so far as to imply that it would be wrong to de-program a convert to the Religion of Rape:

We have actual industries in place to reverse these transformations. We have "de-programmers," for example, that kidnap family members who've joined a cult and essentially brainwash them into being like they used to be. That kinda creeps me out, too, and not just because it suggests how programmable -- how malleable and potentially transformational -- we all are. It's also because virtually all major religions were considered cults when they began, and only lost that tag when they became large enough to be institutional. In other words, from a classification perspective, all religions are cults until they become popular.

So who's to say we're right and they're wrong? As an illustrative example, I daresay we'd all be outraged if a de-programmer kidnapped a Southern Baptist and brainwashed him or her into becoming, say, Catholic. But what about an unpopular religion? What about a Hare Krishna? A polygamist Mormon? A Muslim? (It's now the second-most populous religion on Earth, but I bet a lot of Christian parents would gladly pay a de-programmer to "fix" a child who joined Islam -- and probably many of their neighbors, and the police, would look the other way.) What's the cutoff point where we say, "Oh, OK, that religion is all right. But those other ones have got to go."? Food for thought.

Boy, is that disgraceful to claim that de-programming is just "brainwashing". As it so happens, it can also be psychology and psychiatry, which is certainly an important factor in curing mental illness and criminal thinking.

And is he saying that the neighbors are wrong to "ignore" that a Christian family would want to prevent their loved son/daughter from degenerating into submission and potentially turning to violence via the Religion of Rape's indoctrination? If that isn't some of the most disrespectful propaganda one's ever seen, I don't know what is. What he's saying there is offensive to Americans who want to defend their families from evil influences, and I don't think I agree that all major religions were ever merely cults when they started out. It's only when a religion is as violent and racist as the Religion of Rape is that it could be considered cultist. For the record, even Scientology could be regarded as cultish.

Another example of an anti-transformational industry, I believe, are the so-called "pray away the gay" groups. Your son or daughter comes out? Changes before your eyes into a "stranger"? Drag them to a religious-oriented programmer, who transforms them back into what you want. Evidently the "transformation" scares some parents, and even some gays, and they want to change it back. The parents long for their world before the transformation, like Rick & Co. in The Walking Dead, and struggle to re-establish it.

So he's inciting against opponents of homosexuality too, I see, and resorting to the unverified argument that homosexuality is genetic. Most parents who want their gay kids to be sane take them to see a psychotherapist, and some have succeeded. And most therapists are hardly what one would call "religious", and aren't exactly acting only according to their religious beliefs.

That said, one can only wonder if the clod who wrote that is ever concerned about Islamofascists who practically murder gays because the Religion of Rape condones it. He probably isn't.

If there's anything we should truly fear, it's the influence leftists of the sort who wrote that intellect-insulting op-ed there can have even today.