A thing about religious (and other) people and the illusion of free will

[Angrboda]

It seems to me that we can say that someone is an arsonist, and say that they are responsible for the fire, and say that we are going to prevent them from lighting any more fires, and say that they may not be responsible for -the way they are- but they will be responsible for repairing the damage that they've done to whatever extent they can.  Better outcome than any other animal could expect.  We'd just shoot em and not worry about whether they freely willed to burn down the zoo.

If there's no moral culpability involved, on what basis do we deny them the right to start more fires? We don't deny anyone else that right, so where's the reason?

We don"t restrict people for amoral acts unless there"s a relevant community interest. We don't try to isolate people for eating spam so they don't eat spam again.