All is good then.
Upon careful review, I think there’s been altogether too much focus on the rhetoric and virtually none on the actual message.
It does sometimes feel as if the wheels are spinning furiously without the old skeptimobile going anywhere, huh? :
But his sense of humour! Priceless. 
Mintaka
Given such obvious contrition and the attendant positive resolve to name gardening implements aptly, it is my strong recommendation to the Court that your client be released, without prejudice, on his own recognisance. ;D
'Luthon64
Irreverend, I plead guilty to all your charges except the one below. My only defence is that I say what it occurs to me to say, I can say nothing more.
I also admit to being lazy, and high most of the time. I was perhaps hoping for too much that someone would instantly be able to to explain to me the flaw in my reasoning. I generally grasp most concepts quite quickly but some of those which I do not, bug me. This one is bugging me enough that I am reading and re-reading the articles you linked to. I would even be willing to subject myself to further abuse in exchange for additional pertinent information.
I was most certainly not! It is undeniable that an invalid argument is in a sense unintelligible, but that is by no means the only reason why I might not understand something. The point was that for me to believe something I would have to understand it. I suppose I could always take it on authority, but then I wouldn’t really believe it. To really believe something I have to be able to imagine it.
OK, I’m done reading for now. I have more questions. If it will help anyone answer them, I will acknowledge at the outset that I am probably wrong in my skepticism. I am only looking for clarification as to the extent to which I should respect this “right to believe”.
According to the SEP article:
It is interesting to consider why these epistemic, affective, and conative realms contain no claims, powers, or immunities.
Which effectively means that they cannot by Hohfeldian analysis obligate me with any duties, liabilities or disabilities. This is a good thing, because if they did I think it would seriously mess up the whole Hohfeldian system. Epistemic rights are classified as privilege rights or as I prefer liberties.
A has a privilege to φ if [b]and only if[/b] A has no duty not to φ B has a claim that A φ if and only if A has a duty to B to φ.
If it could be imagined that A had a duty to believe something that would not necessarily imply that A would not be at liberty not to and we would be left with the much weaker association:
A has a privilege to φ if A has no duty not to φ
Yet we hear people making claims based on this “right to believe” all the time. It seems to me that the moment they make a claim or demand some kind of power or immunity they undermine the basis of the entire legal system.
Peter, from you’re blog, Scifiwriter:
Firstly, one should not claim a right unless that right can be taken away or limited to some degree.
So,
1.One’s beliefs cannot be influenced
2.Rights are meaningful only if they pertain to something that can be influenced
3.Therefore, a right to belief is meaningless
Correct?
But then you also say:
If someone has the “right” to believe something then that necessarily means that we must loose the right to argue with them about it.
Which now seems to imply that mere argument can influence belief after all. Does this not somehow contradict your first statement?
Mintaka
Or has it?
Class discussion:
Peter holds the belief “I do not base my beliefs on that which makes me happy.”
rOn1n then implies that Peter believes that which makes him happy.
Peter disagrees passionately. Why?
Mintaka
Thanks for the response.
Almost. I’m not saying that beliefs cannot be influenced, but that the influence is subjective. An argument I present to you may or may not convince you. The same argument will not convince everyone.
Here I am speculating about how someone might attempt, perhaps unsuccessfully I would argue, to control belief by avoiding the influence of all argument.
If any of my other points are unclear, please let me know! This all started out as a vague feeling of uneasiness, but through discussion and research I find these ideas becoming a lot clearer.
I thought the crux of your argument was that a right to believe is superfluous exactly because beliefs cannot be influenced/ enforced/ affected by others or even by oneself?
What do you mean by “the influence is subjective”? Is it because different people will have different responses to the same argument?
Mintaka
Because at the time I was rather hoping God would have a few better arguments. At least one or two I hadn’t heard before! 
Without the influenced and effected I think that statement would be correct:
beliefs cannot be enforced by others or even by oneself
Yes.
Would you agree that beliefs are the result of personal interpretation of sensory inputs ?
Mintaka
I can’t see anything wrong with that definition.
I am trying to locate the point where we find this loss of control (or choice) over what we believe.
Can my sensory inputs be controlled by others? Obviously. The methods of mind control, propaganda, schooling and all manner of learning etc. relies on this.
At what point can my “personal interpretation” possibly be controlled by others?
First, what is the mechanism of “personally interpretation” of sensory input?
It is reasonable to assume that acceptance or rejection of a new idea/statement must rely heavily on a whole host of “reference beliefs” - that is, beliefs already firmly held prior to making sensory contact with the new input. So we form new beliefs or change old ones from within a framework of existing beliefs.
Examples:
If you already hold the belief that mangoes are expensive in temperate regions, you will easily believe that mangoes grow in the tropics.
A young child has very few “reference beliefs”, except that mom and dad are always right.
It will be far easier to convince a Christian about my fictitious personal experiences with Jesus than it will be an atheist.
So to sum up, the mechanism is as follows:
Now it seems to me that in order to force someone to believe something, you also need to somehow change the applicable set of “reference belief(s)” that will inhibit him from adopting the new belief. Do you think that is impossible?
Mintaka
I don’t think it is necessarily impossible, but it would be extremely difficult. One would first have to discover exactly what these “reference beliefs” are for each individual. Then there would be the difficulty in determining if these beliefs had actually changed. The individual might lie. I don’t see how it could be done without first infringing on any of their other rights though, even in theory.
I don’t think it will be difficult at all. But it will take a lot of time. Maybe years.
I don't see how it could be done without first infringing on any of their other rights though, even in theory.
Which rights do religious parents, wishing to install belief in Deity X, infringe by setting their children up with a set of “reference beliefs” as read from Holy Book X’ ?
Mintaka
I guess it depends on the individual, but one would hope that someone would come looking for him before then.
I don’t really follow where this is going. Saying that it might be possible to “mind-control” one individual if one ignored all their other rights, is not the same as suggesting that one could base a legal system on it. For someone to claim a right they must not be under any duty not to. There is no way anyone can be under a duty not to believe.
I don't really follow where this is going.I'm trying to test your claim that my beliefs cannot be tampered with. This is still pivotal to your argument, yes?
The question of whether you can force me to believe something has been reduced to whether you can force apon me a modified set of “reference beliefs”, without infringing any other rights.
I am trying to come up with an example.
Watch this space.
Mintaka
Let us call the above “Posit 1.” It is described in two of the links Irreverend posted.
…from which it follows logically and inevitably, by Posit 1, that one can claim a right to believe.
Your picture of the kind of rights in question is still all wrong, it seems. A right need not necessarily enable a choice: a right to life does not imply a simultaneous right to death.
Still, you can conceivably ask or pay someone to change your beliefs using all of the best methods we know of for accomplishing this, including brainwashing, psychotropic drugs, indoctrination, etc. (Note that a more subtle form of this already exists anyway in the form of psychotherapy.) Since all of this would happen with your consent, it would not infringe on any of your rights. Even in such a contrived circumstance, you are exercising your right to believe that your beliefs need changing.
'Luthon64
Howzaaaaaaaaaaat! 
Don’t shilly-shally about with outmoded methods like psychotherapy. Come to the Rwenzori Rehabilitation and Wellness Centre at Camp Quatro. There, for a small consideration, our trained instructors will change your beliefs to whatever you wish. Want to get religion? No problem! Want to be cured of religion - easy! Want to become a pinko-commie bastard? Your wish is our command.
Nestling on the peaceful banks of the Cunene River in southern Angola, Camp Quatro is an ideal location for your re-education. Re-socialise in our pristine compulsory communal cells: lose that flab helping to haul the camp water tank up from the river each day: confront your fears by crawling naked through red ants: experience the joys of breaking rocks, just like on Robben Island. Children welcome!
Only US$2500 for a whole month of fun - the opportunity of your lifetime. Don’t delay, enrol today!