Cult prevention

[Bolshevik]

TWI was started by an alcoholic gathering up a bunch of hippies. Hippies on drugs, no? Altered minds get things going.

Of course modern TWI takes a stance against those things. Things conveniently change.

So perhaps firm enforcement against drugs and alcohol will prevent more cults from popping up?

If the above is bunk, could Law prevent groups like TWI from forming? (If TWI is corporate alone, wouldn't it be Law that needs to help?)

[Broken Arrow]

TWI was started by an alcoholic gathering up a bunch of hippies. Hippies on drugs, no? Altered minds get things going.

Of course modern TWI takes a stance against those things. Things conveniently change.

So perhaps firm enforcement against drugs and alcohol will prevent more cults from popping up?

If the above is bunk, could Law prevent groups like TWI from forming? (If TWI is corporate alone, wouldn't it be Law that needs to help?)

You mean, like, state-approved churches?

[waysider]

Of course modern TWI takes a stance against those things. Things conveniently change.

So perhaps firm enforcement against drugs and alcohol will prevent more cults from popping up?

It's not just a modern thing. When I took the class in 1972, drugs were very much taboo in The Way. The story they gave was that drugs open some kind of trap door that allows debil spirts to enter your mind. A couple years later, when I was in FellowLaborers, alcohol was strictly forbidden. We weren't even allowed to keep beer in our communal "houses". That was a peak period of growth for The Way so I don't think enforcement would be effective.

[Bolshevik]

Thanks Waysider, I don't know if you read Mrs Owens book, I seem to remember her driving some point home about "no drugs" for the hippies and how vpw was so strict about it. I've wondered why that was written. I assume for appearances.

You mean, like, state-approved churches?

It is an un-regulated industry. Some order is not a bad thing I don't think.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Bolshevik

[Rocky]

TWI was started by an alcoholic gathering up a bunch of hippies. Hippies on drugs, no? Altered minds get things going.

Of course modern TWI takes a stance against those things. Things conveniently change.

So perhaps firm enforcement against drugs and alcohol will prevent more cults from popping up?

If the above is bunk, could Law prevent groups like TWI from forming? (If TWI is corporate alone, wouldn't it be Law that needs to help?)

What kind of law did you have in mind?

The questions you ask about preventing "more cults from popping up" are not answerable in sound bytes that would be readable on a forum.

These are complex sociological, psychological questions/discussions. Get into the realm of legislation or constitutional law and it gets even more complicated.

I'm really wondering what your overall intention is with these threads.

[Bolshevik]

What kind of law did you have in mind?

The questions you ask about preventing "more cults from popping up" are not answerable in sound bytes that would be readable on a forum.

These are complex sociological, psychological questions/discussions. Get into the realm of legislation or constitutional law and it gets even more complicated.

. . .

Are you saying you've gone down that road?

[waysider]

Are you saying you've gone down that road?

Meta

[Twinky]

If the above is bunk, could Law prevent groups like TWI from forming? (If TWI is corporate alone, wouldn't it be Law that needs to help?)

And then you'd have a shedload of people jumping up and down and saying that it was unconstitutional, and that the constitution guaranteed freedom of religion.

If you are talking about (pseudo) religious cults like TWI, the answer is surely in more mainstream churches, to teach and live the gospel more effectively. If taught properly, thoroughly, and with conviction, then potential cult joiners will know when something has been perverted; if lived effectively, there will be both a calm expectation and a joyful excitement about daily life.

It was the zeal for life, and the lifestyle, that drew people to the early Christian church. Where's that, in many churches today?

[Bolshevik]

Hi Twinky,

There's always innocent bystanders that get caught up. Can you rely on churches to self-govern?

Perhaps, Remove tax-exempt statuses across the board, would that remove incentive for evil?

[Raf]

I could see removing tax exempt status from churches IF those statuses are allowed to remain for particular good things the churches do.

For example, a church that runs a food bank should be taxed, but the food bank itself should not.

But I'm MORE inclined to leave it alone.

***

Incidentally, I am sensitive to how easy it would be to become a one-note poster, and I'm trying not to do that. But on this thread with this topic, I think the following observation has a place:

As long as we're in a country that is religiously free, cults cannot be prevented from forming. Not by law, anyway.

As long as people believe in a god, they are susceptible to abuse from anyone believed to speak for that god.

This is not to say atheists are not susceptible to abuse. It just wouldn't come from a religious cult, per se.

[Bolshevik]

I could see removing tax exempt status from churches IF those statuses are allowed to remain for particular good things the churches do.

For example, a church that runs a food bank should be taxed, but the food bank itself should not.

. . .

I like the distinction you made here. TWI rarely did these sorts of things for the community at large, in my experience, only at times for appearances and for the "faithful". Other church-groups can do things differently.

[Bolshevik]

. . .

As long as we're in a country that is religiously free, cults cannot be prevented from forming. Not by law, anyway.

. . .

Religion vs cult, might be better to say religion vs organization. I think Law can, and is responsible to, protect its citizens. A healthy society surely can do without groups like The Way (corporate). Individuals can carry their beliefs, why do you need HQ?

[JavaJane]

You can't prevent cults.

You can't prevent evil.

You can educate people in critical thinking skills... that would help. Education in how to debate properly and disagree with civility. Education in how to spot manipulators and con artists. Logic... How to spot fallacies. How all-or-nothing thinking is incorrect.

All of that is pretty lacking in our society now. It took heading to GSC for me to learn a lot of them. I never learned how to argue, just how to listen and respect my elders. Even to the point where I wouldn't argue with my husband about anything after we were married, because he was supposed to be my head. Not so much now. Now arguing is almost a fun way to pass the time when we get bored. I never knew you could argue with someone, never come to a shared opinion, but still respect and love that person.

[Bolshevik]

You can try education. But groups can gather to fight that too. What education would have helped someone like me? Knowledge is not enough. There's got to be some teeth.

GSC is a history book. Some background helps, yes.

There has to be more Law. Someone who knows how would have my vote. The carnage affects society as a whole.

I don't expect much . . . just throwing this out . . . If anyone knows more about that

[Broken Arrow]

You can try education. But groups can gather to fight that too. What education would have helped someone like me? Knowledge is not enough. There's got to be some teeth.

GSC is a history book. Some background helps, yes.

There has to be more Law. Someone who knows how would have my vote. The carnage affects society as a whole.

I don't expect much . . . just throwing this out . . . If anyone knows more about that

I agree that the carnage affects society as a whole, but should we turn to the government to protect us from ourselves once again? What you are suggesting has been attempted and it didn't work so well. It was during the middle ages and it resulted in inquisitions. It came to where if you didn't agree with the king or authority you risked persecution, or even execution. Then a different authority would gain power and they would persecute for different reasons. There was no freedom for the individual and the carnage was much much worse. I would suggest that tyranny exists where dissent is forbidden and governments as a rule to not like dissent.

Adolf Hitler allowed churches to exist but they had to agree to support his agenda. If they did not they were shut down. The same holds true in certain dictatorships today such as China. They are deemed "not good for the people". Is that what we want? Churches or worship centers that have to abide by rules set by a governmental authority in order to function? What about those who refuse to abide by the governmental requirement, what should happen to them? Should we arrest them, perhaps put them in labor camps or perhaps (ahem) concentration camps?

With respect to the U.S. government, they have a lot of problems as it is. Congress just approved a spending bill and it's considered a great victory, even an historical event. Well woop de doo, they agree on something! Let's see, what have we seen from the U.S. government since 9/11?

Now they listen in on your phone calls and they read your emails-invasion of privacy. They've also taken to tapping the phone lines of other governments, even our most trusted allies, just to listen to what's going on. The IRS has been caught targeting certain conservative organizations in order to delay their formation. Not because the organizations were subversive, but because their political views were at odds with current administration. Their department head even lied to a Congressional investigation then hard evidence surfaced leaving no doubt as to the antics of the IRS and he was dismissed. The Veteran's Administration has come under fire for failure to address the health needs of veterans resulting in death in some cases and serious complications in others. They have muddled in the affairs of foreign governments, bribed, and in some cases assassinated other leaders in order to gain an advantage on the world stage. All of these things were done for the "good of the people". This week it was learned that our CIA was engaging in torturing prisoners to get information. When confronted, the answer we heard was this was necessary in order to get information to save American lives. In other words, it was for "the good of the people".

I could go on and on, but I ask you, are these the people you want deciding where who and what you can worship (or not worship)?

If you're going to have a government that allows freedom of religion then you're going to have cults. If you're going to have a government with freedom of speech then you're going to have hate groups spouting venom. If you want to be "free" from all of that then your only alternative is tyranny and thence a forfeiture of your freedom.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Broken Arrow

[Bolshevik]

Thanks for your input Broken Arrow.

Dictating who worships what is not at all something I'd want to see. But I do believe laws can be drafted and enforced that protect individuals (especially children) and society. No I don't know what those are yet. A non-draconian effort in that area, that'd be huge.

And yes, nothing we do is a secret.

[Rocky]

Are you saying you've gone down that road?

Are you saying your comments are just idle chatter? You asked questions. Have you actually pondered how they might be answered?

The road I've traveled includes pondering questions of group development and maintenance as well as, on many additional issues, awareness of political processes such as legislating.

[Rocky]

You can't prevent cults.

You can't prevent evil.

You can educate people in critical thinking skills... that would help. Education in how to debate properly and disagree with civility. Education in how to spot manipulators and con artists. Logic... How to spot fallacies. How all-or-nothing thinking is incorrect.

All of that is pretty lacking in our society now. It took heading to GSC for me to learn a lot of them. I never learned how to argue, just how to listen and respect my elders. Even to the point where I wouldn't argue with my husband about anything after we were married, because he was supposed to be my head. Not so much now. Now arguing is almost a fun way to pass the time when we get bored. I never knew you could argue with someone, never come to a shared opinion, but still respect and love that person.

Along with that education -- which probably is most feasible in the family/home -- there would need to be nurture of each person's emotional development to maturity... which is not something society today seems to do well across the board. Some do, some don't.

[waysider]

In order to regulate cults, one would first have to formulate a clear definition of cults as a reference point. That might initially seem like an easy task but we've seen from pornography/obscenity regulations how vague and diverse such definitions can become.

[Bolshevik]

Government easily regulates issues more precious than religion. Regulating religion, not heavily, not having fingers in doctrine, but perhaps not tax benefits and a little more openness. Religion affects things more important than the religion itself, IMO.

[Rocky]

Government easily regulates issues more precious than religion. Regulating religion, not heavily, not having fingers in doctrine, but perhaps not tax benefits and a little more openness. Religion affects things more important than the religion itself, IMO.

What do you propose?

[Bolshevik]

What do you propose?

I think I can only get a feel for how others feel about this subject, having the common twi experience, on this site. I think I've suggested a couple concepts, at least.

I get the feeling you're aware of something more detailed somewhere?

[Rocky]

I think I can only get a feel for how others feel about this subject, having the common twi experience, on this site. I think I've suggested a couple concepts, at least.

I get the feeling you're aware of something more detailed somewhere?

I've worked in government and journalism covering government. I'm not aware of anything more detailed proposing control or mitigation of cult risk in society.

Instead, I am aware of how huge of a sociological conundrum the entire notion presents. At this point in world and US history, I don't know that anyone has or can have

any detailed plan, that doesn't infringe on religious liberty, to control cults.

If you're so inclined to commit to years of study of public policy, psychology and sociology, maybe you can come up with something... eventually.

It's such an overwhelming idea that it's difficult to imagine what such a solution could look like.

[Twinky]

It's not just Christian cults. There are all sorts of cults.

The ones that bother me at the moment are the Muslim cults, the ones that talk terrorism and "training" overseas. These young people that go on their misguided trips to "fight" for their beliefs are just as badly treated as we were, wrongly taught in the mosques by leaders who hide behind a face of legitimacy. I do not believe that mainstream Muslims condone such behavior and no doubt many of those kids' parents are just as appalled and concerned as our own parents were as our involvement in TWI increased.

Heck, I myself went "overseas" for "training" and we did weapons training. You could make something of that! Prior to my time there were those MALpacks in preparation for a warlike status.

You could require leaders of small groups to be properly educated/accredited - by a reputable organisation - but where do you draw the lines there? VPW had a fake doctorate degree but perhaps a real theological degree (to be accepted as a priest in Van Wert). DonW did have a degree and reputable status as a teacher.

But what if it's just a cult around guns where people develop outrageous ideas? Or around motor vehicles? Or flying planes?

Very difficult to legislate for those who hide behind the scenes.

[Bolshevik]

Oh I'll take your word for it Rocky, that it's something of a pipe dream. I do like everyone's take on the subject though.