Fundamentalism and Children

[Meadmaker]

In my state, it's illegal for girls 14 and under to marry even with parental consent. That would qualify as statuatory rape here. At any rate, I think we can agree that it isn't a mainstream religion in the U.S.

It qualified for statutory rape there, too:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070925/ts_nm/usa_polygamy_trial_dc_5;_ylt=Ag509P8ZjEscRys4vs3QqlME1vAI

(The link is to an article in which the FLDS church leader was convicted for arranging the marriages.)

 

[qayak]

I don't see how the description of brainwashing techniques apply to the parent raising a child in their religion. Perhaps you could list the techniques you think are both commonly used by most mainstream religions and also qualify as 'brainwashing'.

I am sick of debating hypocrites. When you make that list of important things religions teach that are true, then I will make a list of brainwashing techniques religions use. And don't ask for any other lists until you provide something for your side of the debate.

That is NOT what I have said and I specifically addressed which part I don't agree with it in my last response to you. In fact, I don't think anybody on this thread has indicated that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.

Once again, go back and read and you will see they really did say it.

This may be a reasonable argument to try and persuade parents from raising their child in a religion, although I think it's a stretch to claim that they are creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that the child will need to spend a lifetime overcoming.

It is so staggering that the adults in the church, and we must assume somne of them are of average, or above, intelligence, have not been able to shake it.

We know they do shake it though because we never see any really old people in church. Certainly none over the age of 60!

They aren't creating false memories and many people don't feel it necessary to 'overcome' the religious beliefs instilled as children. However, my main point is that it isn't sufficient to call a religious upbringing abusive.

Of course they are. Just as surely as the people who convinced the children that they had been to Disneyland created false memories, religions do the same thing. That's what children do when they are told things by people they trust.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am sick of debating hypocrites. When you make that list of important things religions teach that are true, then I will make a list of brainwashing techniques religions use. And don't ask for any other lists until you provide something for your side of the debate.

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother; to perform acts of love and kindness; to attend to your studies daily; to welcome the stranger; to visit the sick; to rejoice with bride and groom; to console the bereaved; to pray with sincerity; to make peace where there is strife.

I'm not so impressed with number eight there, but 8 out of 9 isn't bad.

For a more familiar list, I think commandments 5-10 out of the familiar list are pretty good ideas, too.

Once again, go back and read and you will see they really did say it.

If by "they" you mean me, "they" most certainly did not. It seems you have misunderstood.

 

[Slimething]

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother; to perform acts of love and kindness; to attend to your studies daily; to welcome the stranger; to visit the sick; to rejoice with bride and groom; to console the bereaved; to pray with sincerity; to make peace where there is strife.

I'm not so impressed with number eight there, but 8 out of 9 isn't bad.

For a more familiar list, I think commandments 5-10 out of the familiar list are pretty good ideas, too.

Looks pretty much like what I've taught my kids, without no. 8. I've witheld the fact that they'll burn for eternity if they fail to live up to the lessons at or near the time they bite the dust, though. Their reward? Being a good person.

So, why do kids have to be threatened? Sound almost...primitive.

 

[Meadmaker]

Looks pretty much like what I've taught my kids, without no. 8.

Well, then, be sure to make sure qayak understands that in your opinion there are at least eight true things that at least one religion teaches.

 

[Slimething]

Well, then, be sure to make sure qayak understands that in your opinion there are at least eight true things that at least one religion teaches.

Something tells me those aren't the ones he's thinking of. The more questionable teachings of religion have more to do with tribalism, manifest destiny and exclusion than with platitudes. Moreover, it's not established that those verities wouldn't be taught despite the religion.

 

[qayak]

If by "they" you mean me, "they" most certainly did not. It seems you have misunderstood.

There's another way of looking at this, and it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. I believe that they are indeed capable of thinking. Therefore, I believe that I can tell them to pray, but I cannot force them to believe the prayers.
If ineed they are sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK, then there really isn't any danger in sending them to Jesus Camp, much less to my son's parochial school. My kid seems to be coming along quite well in the thinking department, as are the graduates of the school to which I spoke before sending him there.

They most certainly did.

 

[qayak]

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother; to perform acts of love and kindness; to attend to your studies daily; to welcome the stranger; to visit the sick; to rejoice with bride and groom; to console the bereaved; to pray with sincerity; to make peace where there is strife.

I'm not so impressed with number eight there, but 8 out of 9 isn't bad.

For a more familiar list, I think commandments 5-10 out of the familiar list are pretty good ideas, too.

Jesus H. Christ I'm an F'ing jew! Or maybe you're an atheist along with all the other jews, christians, muslims, and Bob Marley worshippers.

Nice evasion but I said, "important things." Things that seperate your religion from the others, or at least things that define what you must believe to belong to your religion, and that at the same time are true.

For instance: one would have to believe in your god to be in your religion. Now the only question is: Is your god true?

 

[Meadmaker]

There's another way of looking at this, and it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. I believe that they are indeed capable of thinking. Therefore, I believe that I can tell them to pray, but I cannot force them to believe the prayers.

If ineed they are sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK, then there really isn't any danger in sending them to Jesus Camp, much less to my son's parochial school. My kid seems to be coming along quite well in the thinking department, as are the graduates of the school to which I spoke before sending him there.

There was a certain degree of irony intended in the above post. Qayak had
rather haughtily claimed the high ground by suggesting that his preferred non-religious form of education respected the child's ability to THINK, whereas a religious upbringing did not. In reality, neither is more respectful than the other. Also, in reality, the claim that children are "sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK" is a somewhat overblown claim. They are, by definition, not mature, and their ability to think is a developing process, not developed as highly as an adult's abilty to think.

Of course, it should be obvious that children are impressionable, and likely to believe what trusted adults tell them, whether it be that God exists, or that there is no god. Parents can influence their children, and society at large can influence the chidren of that society. No reasonable person could doubt it. Their minds are likely to be filled with whatever you put into them, whether religious or irreligious.

On the other hand, those children aren't mind numbed zombies, either. More importantly, they will not be children forever. You can do what you want to try and get them to believe your religion and you can bias them toward belief, but if it doesn't make sense to them, they'll mumble the words until they can make their own car insurance payments and then they will give up the faith.

So, I would say that children are not perfectly capable of sorting out truths from falsehood, nor are adults perfectly capable of brainwashing children into believing whatever they wish the kids to believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Meadmaker]

Jesus H. Christ I'm an F'ing jew! Or maybe you're an atheist along with all the other jews, christians, muslims, and Bob Marley worshippers.

Nice evasion but I said, "important things." Things that seperate your religion from the others,

Don't you think it's a bit pretentious to tell people what is important? I'm absolutely certain that there are a lot of people in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples that teach that the important things about their religion are the things they have in common with the other religions.

or at least things that define what you must believe to belong to your religion, and that at the same time are true.

I am also extremely confident that if you were to ask the rabbi at the synagogue I attend whether it is more important to believe the list I posted, or more important to believe in God, he will tell you the former.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm an F'ing jew!

And by the way, "Jew" is a proper noun, and thus should be capitalized, while "F'ing" is an ordinary adjective, and thus should not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In my state, it's illegal for girls 14 and under to marry even with parental consent. That would qualify as statuatory rape here. At any rate, I think we can agree that it isn't a mainstream religion in the U.S.

But it would fit more into the religion catagory than cult.

So we just have to let them force their children into believing that homosexuality is sinful and can be cured through jesus. That is a mainstream religious belief. So as they view such things as positive we should also.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother;

Why? This assumes that they are worthy of an honor.

see this This I Believe

Recently I emailed my father. I wrote: ''It was good to hear from you. I’m glad you’re well. Take care.'' I last heard from him he emailed my webpage wishing me a happy belated birthday. He wrote in February. My birthday was in October.

Forgetting my birthday is the least of my father’s failings. I was five when my parents divorced. He moved across the country and I rarely saw or heard from him. When I was 17, I watched him beat a woman in the street. His violence wasn’t a revelation. I’d already witnessed him shoot my mother

How much honor does that man deserve?

 

[Beth]

I'm posting the definition we're discussing again. It get's hard to recall after so many posts.

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.

Direct would be an open, direct statement : Questioning our agreed upon theology is forbidden. It will result in shunning. But they don't say that...it's just how it turns out when one attempts to understand from a perspective of disagreement.

You already mentioned ostricism under the 'powerful peer pressure' point. At any rate, I find it hard to fathom that people would consider parents sending their children to Sunday school as an "unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control". In general, it just doesn't fit that description.

Well, I can think of at least a few examples that are harmful. Does living with a daily sense of guilt and shame over masturbation count? What about the shame that gay kids feel?

Yes, I agree that some people are harmed by some churchesm but in terms of defining whether or not mainstream churches constitute a totalist type cult, no. I think that churches that would insist that parents cut off contact with openly gay children would be crossing that line, but that's the strict fundamentalists, not the mainstream.

Not strictly forbidden but it's strongly encouraged that they "not be unequally yoked with unbelievers".

Yes, but cults strickly forbid it and will even take steps to prevent contact over the objections of the individual. That churches only discourage such contact rather than forbidding it is an indication they are NOT a cult.

I dunno...the freeflow chanting of many Sunday and Wednesday night worship services can be pretty darn hypnotic.

If you say so. But I think when they talk about "use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" they are referring to techniques like keeping people awake for 20 hours a day and never allowing them to be without a cult companion who constantly talks about how great the group and the group's leader is, not chanting in unison for 5 to 10 minutes once or twice a week.

Would you say the mega churches are more dogmatic or inclusive?
In my experience, here in the south, the megachurches are all extremely dogmatic, and the inclusive churches are both rare and smaller.

I don't have much experience with megachurches. I live in a modest sized city in the midwest; we have a few such churches here, but I've never attended services at any of them. Also dogmatic and inclusive are not mutually exclusive properties. Theoretically, a church could be dogmatically inclusive.

That is what kids in the youthgroups of the megachurches are taught. It's in Jr. High where those teachings start popping up. It's not some rare exception. I'm not sure how to prove this, though.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you here. Going back through our posts, I think this is referring to the 'information management' aspects of cults. I'm not sure what 'teahcings' you're referring to here or how they relate to the 'information management' aspect of cults - usually accomplished by getting cult members away from the rest of society where the group leaders can control their access to other information.

I'm talking about the giant protestant Evangelical churches. The ones with very in depth, all consuming youth programs and discipleship programs. These are simply not rare exceptions. This is very much a big chunk of "mainstream Christianity'.

Okay, it's a big chunk of mainstream religion, but I don't think you've made a good case for their being cults.

It's nothing like goth culture or fan clubs. Nothing.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that goth culture or fan clubs were like churchs, just that some elements of the above definition of totalist cult is present in those groups. That doesn't make them cults either.

In a great many of the churches in America with 6,000+ membership, basically all the elements of brainwashy cults are present. It's just accepted as "normal" because it's popular.

No, I don't think all the elements are there. Yes, some of the elements are there, but not enough to convince me that evangelical churches are as cultish as the moonies.

That said, I'm still not part of the "religion is child abuse" camp. I mean, I guess it flirts with the line at times, but I find the idea of legally forbidding it even more frightening.

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that. That's my biggest concern. Such bans have occurred in other places and times and the results have never been pleasant.

And I agree with you that there are some aspects of fundamentalist churches that are harmful to some people. In particular their attitude towards homosexuality can be very damaging to gay people and their relationships with their families.

 

[kellyb]

You already mentioned ostricism under the 'powerful peer pressure' point. At any rate, I find it hard to fathom that people would consider parents sending their children to Sunday school as an "unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control". In general, it just doesn't fit that description

I'm really talking about the intense youth group stuff that starts around 7th grade...not sunday school so much.

Yes, I agree that some people are harmed by some churchesm but in terms of defining whether or not mainstream churches constitute a totalist type cult, no. I think that churches that would insist that parents cut off contact with openly gay children would be crossing that line, but that's the strict fundamentalists, not the mainstream.

The JW's are the only group I can think of where parents might be told to totally cut contact with their children. But either way, I think fundamentalism is part of mainstream Christianity.

Yes, but cults strickly forbid it and will even take steps to prevent contact over the objections of the individual. That churches only discourage such contact rather than forbidding it is an indication they are NOT a cult.

It doesn't matter if they strictly forbid it or not. Kids who don't act like "good Christians" and do what they're supposed to do get socially punished. They get snubbed by the church leaders and their peers within the group. The pressure to do everything "right" is really quite strong.

If you say so. But I think when they talk about "use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" they are referring to techniques like keeping people awake for 20 hours a day and never allowing them to be without a cult companion who constantly talks about how great the group and the group's leader is, not chanting in unison for 5 to 10 minutes once or twice a week.

I think there's a spectrum of brainwashy creepy stuff, I guess. Most bona fide cults aren't completely extreme on every point.

I don't have much experience with megachurches. I live in a modest sized city in the midwest; we have a few such churches here, but I've never attended services at any of them. Also dogmatic and inclusive are not mutually exclusive properties. Theoretically, a church could be dogmatically inclusive.

I think they are mutually exclusive. I guess by "dogmatic" I'm meaning in following the Bible as a key part of the dogma, though.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you here. Going back through our posts, I think this is referring to the 'information management' aspects of cults. I'm not sure what 'teahcings' you're referring to here or how they relate to the 'information management' aspect of cults - usually accomplished by getting cult members away from the rest of society where the group leaders can control their access to other information.

What I'm saying is that teachings like "Don't listen to secular radio; listen to the Christian stations"..."Don't watch the Discovery channel; it's controlled by Darwinists"..."Don't get your news from channels that push a homosexual agenda" are MAINSTREAM teachings in youth groups. These are the kinds of things they're talking about on Wednesday nights.

ETA: I really didn't explain my train of thought there well. Sorry. I was thinking of a personal anecdote. When I dutifully informed my church-attending family in the 8th grade that the Discovery channel was part of a massive Satanic overtake of the media, they were SHOCKED. They went to the adult sunday morning service every week, and had no idea that those kinds of ideas really were considered "the truth" by the church elders. The "extremism" isn't pushed on the adults the way it is on the preteens and teens in the large evangelical/fundamentalist churches. What's common in youth groups isn't addressed on Sunday mornings in the big services a lot of times.

Okay, it's a big chunk of mainstream religion, but I don't think you've made a good case for their being cults.

I think you might be defining "cult" as anything you personally find "way over the line"?

No, I don't think all the elements are there. Yes, some of the elements are there, but not enough to convince me that evangelical churches are as cultish as the moonies.

What do the moonies do that's so much worse?

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that. That's my biggest concern. Such bans have occurred in other places and times and the results have never been pleasant.

I don't think it would even work in the US anyway. The fundies over here would see this as absolute proof that Jesus was about to come back and the tribulation was starting or something. Which would actually be sort of understandable, I guess....lol

 

[Beth]

I'm really talking about the intense youth group stuff that starts around 7th grade...not sunday school so much.

The JW's are the only group I can think of where parents might be told to totally cut contact with their children. But either way, I think fundamentalism is part of mainstream Christianity.

The Amish as well, not just for homosexuality but also for simply being a non-believer. Are the Amish a cult? They seem to fit the definition fairly well. The thing that sets them apart for me is that they don't actively recruit others to join them, much less use deceptive or unethical means to do so.

It doesn't matter if they strictly forbid it or not. Kids who don't act like "good Christians" and do what they're supposed to do get socially punished. They get snubbed by the church leaders and their peers within the group. The pressure to do everything "right" is really quite strong.

I agree that the peer pressure is quite strong. Peer pressure is quite strong at that age, whether you're discussing christians, goths, druggies, or athletes. But I think that it makes a huge difference whether contact with those outside the group is strictly forbidden or merely discouraged. If it's strictly forbidden or allowed only under close supervision by other members of the group, then you have good case that the organization is a cult. If it is merely discouraged, then I don't think it fits the definition of a cult.

I think there's a spectrum of brainwashy creepy stuff, I guess. Most bona fide cults aren't completely extreme on every point.

I agree, there's a spectrum. I guess we just disagree on where to draw the line on what is and isn't a cult. I just don't think that typical church services, even if they do include some chanting in unison, qualifies as cultish.

What I'm saying is that teachings like "Don't listen to secular radio; listen to the Christian stations"..."Don't watch the Discovery channel; it's controlled by Darwinists"..."Don't get your news from channels that push a homosexual agenda" are MAINSTREAM teachings in youth groups. These are the kinds of things they're talking about on Wednesday nights.

Again, this is like the isolation issue. Simply discouraging their members from getting their information from sources they don't trust is not the same as cults which forbid or actively work to prevent their members from having access to other sources of information.

I think you might be defining "cult" as anything you personally find "way over the line"?

I'm just using the definition provided in the report that was linked to earlier.

What do the moonies do that's so much worse?

Hmm...I going off of some rather old memories, so this is probably out of date with their current practices, but my recollection was that they would invite unsuspecting prospects (usually young adults or older teens) to a 'weekend retreat'. Once there, the potential recruites were not allowed any time alone, they were not allowed much sleep (2 to 4 hours a night) and were subjected to a constant barrage of lectures and sermons about the church. If they didn't join voluntarily after 3 days of this (many did), sometimes they weren't allowed to leave anyway. Once they joined, they weren't allowed contact with anyone who was not a member until they had 'moved up' in the organization. I also recall a mass wedding cermony involving hundreds of couples, paired by the church leader, many of whom never met thier spouse prior to the ceremony.

Let's go back and compare that to the definition:

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing - Yes - the Reverend Moon
and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Yes. Described above. Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc. Yes - Described above. I think the moonies, at least the way the organization operated back in the 70's and 80's easily fit the definition of a totalist cult. I don't think that mega-churches do, despite their sometimes overbearing tactics.

I don't think it would even work in the US anyway. The fundies over here would see this as absolute proof that Jesus was about to come back and the tribulation was starting or something. Which would actually be sort of understandable, I guess....lol

I wish I shared your confidence.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why? This assumes that they are worthy of an honor.

see this This I Believe



How much honor does that man deserve?

I'm sure that for every piece of advice, no matter how good it is, one can find an exception. There are times when it is appropriate to steal, covet, kill, and commit adultery.

Nevertheless, thou shalt not do any of these things is still good advice.

 

[kellyb]

The Amish as well, not just for homosexuality but also for simply being a non-believer. Are the Amish a cult? They seem to fit the definition fairly well. The thing that sets them apart for me is that they don't actively recruit others to join them.

I guess I do see the Amish as a type of cult in a way. It's just sort of different because they're a whole different culture entirely.

I agree that the peer pressure is quite strong. Peer pressure is quite strong at that age, whether you're discussing christians, goths, druggies, or athletes. But I think that it makes a huge difference whether contact with those outside the group is strictly forbidden or merely discouraged. If it's strictly forbidden or allowed only under close supervision by other members of the group, then you have good case that the organization is a cult. If it is merely discouraged, then I don't think it fits the definition of a cult.

But the effect ends up being the same, whether it's completely forbidden or just strongly discouraged. So I think they're more similar than different.

I agree, there's a spectrum. I guess we just disagree on where to draw the line on what is and isn't a cult. I just don't think that typical church services, even if they do include some chanting in unison, qualifies as cultish.

I dunno. To someone unfamiliar with Christianity, the Lord's Supper (communion) would probably seem extremely culty. I think a lot of it just doesn't seem so cultish to "us" because it's "normal" to people from a Christian country.

Again, this is like the isolation issue. Simply discouraging their members from getting their information from sources they don't trust is not the same as cults which forbid or actively working to prevent their members from having access to other sources of information.

Again, I think it is the same. Mainstream religion just makes it a self-imposed restricition, but the effect is the same. The cynic in me suspects that the only reason it's not overtly forbidden is that it would freak out new converts. So the method of it being a sort of restriction that one "grows into" as you "grow in Christ" or whatever is simply more effective in the long run.

I'm just using the definition provided in the report that was linked to earlier.

It never specifies that every element be present in the extreme. And there is no definite, solid definition of a cult, anyway.

Hmm...I going off of some rather old memories, so this is probably out of date with their current practices, but my recollection was that they would invite unsuspecting prospects (usually young adults or older teens) to a 'weekend retreat'. Once there, the potential recruites were not allowed any time alone, they were not allowed much sleep (2 to 4 hours a night) and were subjected to a constant barrage of lectures and sermons about the church. If they didn't join voluntarily after 3 days of this (many did), sometimes they weren't allowed to leave anyway. Once they joined, they weren't allowed contact with anyone who was not a member until they had 'moved up' in the organization. I also recall a mass wedding cermony involving hundreds of couples, paired by the church leader, many of whom never met thier spouse prior to the ceremony.

I think some of that might be a myth, to some extent at least. The mass wedding stuff is for real, though, from what I understand. That's more simply bizarre than cultish, though, I think.

Yes - Described above. I think the moonies, at least the way the organization operated back in the 70's and 80's easily fit the definition of a totalist cult. I don't think that mega-churches do, despite their sometimes overbearing tactics.

Well, at the least, the evangelical mega-churches are "soft core" totalist cults. How's that?

I wish I shared your confidence.

It'll never happen, anyway. Not in our lifetimes, at least.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure that for every piece of advice, no matter how good it is, one can find an exception. There are times when it is appropriate to steal, covet, kill, and commit adultery.

Nevertheless, thou shalt not do any of these things is still good advice.

I don't think it is good advice as a general statement. I think there are enough bad parents out there that honoring is silly.

For example if your mother takes a credit card out in your name with out informing you as a teen, racks up dept for you, how much honor is deserved.

To honor or not honor should be entirely based on their actions and history.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I guess I do see the Amish as a type of cult in a way. It's just sort of different because they're a whole different culture entirely.

If the FLDS are a cult it is likely the Amish are as well. As well as any of the various religious comunities that isolate themselves in this country.