Coercive persuasion is secular conduct. Insofar as it is recognized as coercion and "undue influence," it is illegal conduct. Prohibition of this specific conduct will protect the State itself and the free exercise rights of all citizens without infringing on the free exercise rights of religious organizations.
Coercive persuasion is antithetical to the First Amendment. It achieves much of the harmful result of fraud, false imprisonment, coercion, undue influence, involuntary, servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct, and other tortuous acts.
Coercive persuasion is unfair manipulation of the biological and psychological weaknesses and susceptibilities of one's fellow men. It is an opposite to charity and kindness. It is a psychological modus operandi of a criminal or totalitarian society.
Coercive persuasion is not a religious practice. It is a covert control technology. It is not a belief or an ideology. It is a technological process that impairs rationality.
As a process it can be examined separately from any message content that may be associated with its practitioners. This is like examining the technical processes used in hypnotic induction separately from examining the meaning or value of any hypnotic suggestion given during hypnosis. Examining processes, never beliefs, will not violate anyone's First Amendment religious protections.
John Dewey believed that, "the human power to respond to reason and truth protects democracy." Any organization using coercive persuasion on its members that also claims to be a religion is turning the sacred trust and privileges of our democratic First Amendment sanctuary into a fortress for psychological assault. It is covertly twisting "religious freedom" to deny our more basic constitutional right to unfettered rationality in our freedom of thought and free will.
Freedom of religion cannot exist without first having an absolutely protected freedom of thought. Freedom of religion without freedom of thought is an absurdity.
"... [a] church cannot seek the protection of one constitutional amendment while it allegedly deprives citizens of the protection of other constitutional guarantees."
--Robin George v. International Society of Krishna Consciousness 473 F,
Supp. at 312, U.S. 89-1399.