Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 18:47:13 GMT -5
I think it was more a case of the Holy Spirit renouncing me. It seems like there really is no hope. Matt10 that's not really answering the question but I think the picture is more clear now you've left your self an out so there is still hope even when you don't think there is...good to know Wally, I genuinely admire your optimism. However I do think you are underestimating just how hopeless my case is. I don't even have a soul to save. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 8, 2015 18:47:52 GMT -5
Given What Hat's hysterical reaction to the simple question posed in this thread a few years ago, I guess it is predictable that he would find the title of Elizabeth Coleman's book Cult to Christ objectionable! What hat doesn't have an hysterical bone in his body Mr. Grey! He also comes across as well read, intelligent and compassionate. Comments like this one do nothing to increase your level of credibility. What makes you think that you have any right to judge who is a Christian and who is not? You can't prove your beliefs are any more valid than those of the 2x2's. It's so ironic really. Especially since you are not supposed to judge according to your sacred book of choice.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 8, 2015 18:50:17 GMT -5
I think it was more a case of the Holy Spirit renouncing me. It seems like there really is no hope. Matt10 that's not really answering the question but I think the picture is more clear now you've left your self an out so there is still hope even when you don't think there is...good to know Wally, just how does one go about renouncing the Holy Spirit? I have always wondered about that.
|
|
|
Post by xna on May 8, 2015 19:19:36 GMT -5
Islam and Christianity each have an unforgivable sin. Muhammad declared if you confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and pray in the name of Jesus, this is the only unforgivable sin. UNFORGIVABLE SIN OF SHIRK. www.brotherpete.com/unforgivable_shirk.htmIf you pick sides then you are going to someone's hell, and if you don't pick sides Islam and Christianity will fight over your reservations.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 8, 2015 20:08:26 GMT -5
Islam and Christianity each have an unforgivable sin. Muhammad declared if you confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and pray in the name of Jesus, this is the only unforgivable sin. UNFORGIVABLE SIN OF SHIRK. www.brotherpete.com/unforgivable_shirk.htmIf you pick sides then you are going to someone's hell, and if you don't pick sides Islam and Christianity will fight over your reservations. Well I think I'll let them fight over me! Ha! Maybe it'll keep them distracted long enough so I can sneak out the back door to oblivion...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 20:34:23 GMT -5
that's not really answering the question but I think the picture is more clear now you've left your self an out so there is still hope even when you don't think there is...good to know Wally, just how does one go about renouncing the Holy Spirit? I have always wondered about that. Mar_3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: Mar_3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
as far as I know its to say things like: denying the holy spirit ever existed, cursing the holy spirit, renouncing that you ever had the holy spirit, speaking out against the holy spirit, reviling the holy spirit, slandering the holy spirit, (from wiki)to speak impiously or irreverently of the holy spirit...
its not something you would do by accident it would be deliberately done probably in anger or rage...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 8, 2015 21:06:59 GMT -5
I never intended this to be a personal issue with Irvine Grey. The article on the use of the word "cult" that I posted in the second or third post on the thread has been posted fairly regularly by me for many years before Irvine Grey or his book came on the board. I also re-read the first dozen or so posts on this thread now some years later, and perhaps my tone of mock indignation and colorful hyperbole, for example, kicking butts into the Irish Sea, when referring to the august QUB, did not come across. Unfortunately I believe Mr. Grey took my reaction straight up so I am sorry that he feels as he does.
To clarify one point - I have very little problem with Elisabeth Coleman using the same word in the title of her book. Hers is not an academic work and she's entitled to frame her experience however she wishes. I do disagree with her on the question of calling the friends a cult, but it's not a big deal.
In an academic work one has to exercise more caution, and much of my reaction on this thread relates to using a pejorative in an academic context. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks the word 'cult' has no place in a scholarly work except in the most extreme circumstances and then purely based on a sociological definition, not a theological one. But I won't repeat myself any further - it's all in the early part of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on May 9, 2015 6:24:20 GMT -5
I believe your logic here is flawed. very concerned. look I wouldn't be too concerned about irvine grey's posts. This post you quote is just one of a number of his which reveal that he is quite out of touch with reality. It was 'tongue in cheek' I used the word delusional lie in my previous post. But really I could probably remove my tongue from my cheek and still get away with it. That he and Coleman use the c word is evidence in itself about the lack of Christ within them. They use the word, write and publish books...and all the while the people/the group they write keep living in Christ enjoying fellowship with God and each other. Irvine's book flared in the sky for a short while and became forgotten, Coleman's will be no different. I had an initial print run of 1500 and so far more than 1200 have found their way to various parts of the world, many to the US, Australia, New Zealand as well as in Ireland and the UK. I would hardly call that a 'flash in the pan!' I have no doubt that Elizabeth Coleman's Cult to Christ and Pamela Ruth Stewart's The Certainty of the Unexpected will, like The Secret Sect be around for years to come. Here we have two women, on different continents who found similar difficulties in coming to faith in Christ because of the brainwashing and fear instilled by workers and overseers. Fixit's snide remark about Westbro, if that is the most intelligent response you can come up with you really are to be pitied.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 9, 2015 6:32:59 GMT -5
Here we have two women, on different continents who found similar difficulties in coming to faith in Christ because of the brainwashing and fear instilled by workers and overseers. Fixit's snide remark about Westbro, if that is the most intelligent response you can come up with you really are to be pitied. Easy to contend that all of conversions to Christianity is due to brainwashing and fear.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 11, 2015 14:09:12 GMT -5
Fixit's snide remark about Westbro, if that is the most intelligent response you can come up with you really are to be pitied. Perhaps an intelligent response from Irvine Grey is called for? Is the Westbro Baptist Church a "particularly dangerous cult"? Trinitarian groups down through history have beheaded, burned at the stake, or otherwise murdered millions of people. My respect for "orthodox" Christianity is not great.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on May 11, 2015 15:33:43 GMT -5
Jesse, your relentless obsession with whether or not you are going to hell is really starting to intrigue me. On and on it goes for umpteen pages of complete pointlessness to the very edge of exhaustion. Now I want to know what you think. Am I going to hell? I don't believe in God, I refuse to follow Jesus, I think the bible contains a lot of old wives takes and I think the crucifixion was a hoax. I have heard the gospel preached a thousand times by workers, ministers and priests, I have sang hymns about The Lord and been baptised and at one stage was convinced that I even heard God speak. But yet I still firmly reject the idea that Jesus can save me from my sins or that there is a God who gives a hoot. So let's get to the bottom of this. Do you think I am hell bound in a hand cart or not? Matt10 Matt, Can I have a go at answering? Look I don't think you'll be bound in a hand cart, you'll need to go just as you are, perhaps make your own way there. See I doubt if there would be anyone who would risk taking on the task of seeking to bind you. You can take this complement; you sound a little like Legion in the Bible (he was bound with chains at time.. but no mention of a hand cart). Jesus was the only one who could help him and I would think it will be the same in your case. Now how is that?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 11, 2015 15:45:13 GMT -5
Jesse, your relentless obsession with whether or not you are going to hell is really starting to intrigue me. On and on it goes for umpteen pages of complete pointlessness to the very edge of exhaustion. Now I want to know what you think. Am I going to hell? I don't believe in God, I refuse to follow Jesus, I think the bible contains a lot of old wives takes and I think the crucifixion was a hoax. I have heard the gospel preached a thousand times by workers, ministers and priests, I have sang hymns about The Lord and been baptised and at one stage was convinced that I even heard God speak. But yet I still firmly reject the idea that Jesus can save me from my sins or that there is a God who gives a hoot. So let's get to the bottom of this. Do you think I am hell bound in a hand cart or not? Matt10 Matt, Can I have a go at answering? Look I don't think you'll be bound in a hand cart, you'll need to go just as you are, perhaps make your own way there. See I doubt if there would be anyone who would risk taking on the task of seeking to bind you. You can take this complement; you sound a little like Legion in the Bible (he was bound with chains at time.. but no mention of a hand cart). Jesus was the only one who could help him and I would think it will be the same in your case. Now how is that? Now, I am going to have a go at this. Matt10 is this guy who sits in empty churches listening to majestic music on his ipod. He is the guy where the "God of Nature" is deeply meaningful to him. He is the guy who writes with passion, and with devastating honesty and succinctness, on this forum. Seeing as I was recently a resident of Calgary, AB (for over 18 years) - if I was given a choice to give him a white cowboy hat or a black one - it would be definitely be a white one. (I know Matt10 does not care, either way - that is intrinsic to who he is.) Now how is THAT?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 11, 2015 21:00:16 GMT -5
Irvine are you serious? The numerous reviews that document the failings of your book and then the figures you quote, how many 0s did you mistakenly omit off the end of the numbers you quoted: ! You quote Stewart's book. I had sincerely forgotten about it. I wonder how many other forum readers are the same? The latest attempt by this sadly obsessed author will be another 'flare in the sky' that will appear for a month or three. Some books of course will be purchased. Cherie got in early with her glowing review of it. Those of a similar ilk will follow. Then in the main along with your book they will gather dust on book shelves until the time when the owners downsize house or depart this earthly tabernacle and the long forgotten book finds it's place in a garbage land fill or is recycled for use of the paper ..... All the while the members of the 'cult' you, Coleman, knoop etc write of continue enjoying life in Christ. Well Mr Review, I think you will be proved wrong on this issue ! With all the CSA issues in Australia in the pass few years (workers jailed) ex-workers being re-baptised, papers like the Age in Melbourne printing stories I think Elizabeth book will do very well ! A lot of people have had enough of all the cover-ups, workers being sent home because they dared question the Head worker about CSA issues, remember there is a Royal Commission going on in Australia too about abuse in Churches. Just another thought, you only have to look at the number of people at Conventions & Special Meeting to see they are declining ! So people are waking up Review !
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jul 19, 2015 10:10:39 GMT -5
Irvine are you serious? The numerous reviews that document the failings of your book and then the figures you quote, how many 0s did you mistakenly omit off the end of the numbers you quoted: ! You quote Stewart's book. I had sincerely forgotten about it. I wonder how many other forum readers are the same? The latest attempt by this sadly obsessed author will be another 'flare in the sky' that will appear for a month or three. Some books of course will be purchased. Cherie got in early with her glowing review of it. Those of a similar ilk will follow. Then in the main along with your book they will gather dust on book shelves until the time when the owners downsize house or depart this earthly tabernacle and the long forgotten book finds it's place in a garbage land fill or is recycled for use of the paper ..... All the while the members of the 'cult' you, Coleman, knoop etc write of continue enjoying life in Christ. Well Mr Review, I think you will be proved wrong on this issue ! With all the CSA issues in Australia in the pass few years (workers jailed) ex-workers being re-baptised, papers like the Age in Melbourne printing stories I think Elizabeth book will do very well ! A lot of people have had enough of all the cover-ups, workers being sent home because they dared question the Head worker about CSA issues, remember there is a Royal Commission going on in Australia too about abuse in Churches. Just another thought, you only have to look at the number of people at Conventions & Special Meeting to see they are declining ! So people are waking up Review ! The bile and bitterness that flows from Review shows how bankrupt he is of any Christian grace. Roselyn I can report that over here in Ireland Elizabeth Coleman's book is very much in demand as is Pamela Ruth Stewart's book, The Certainty of the Unexpected. Especially Pamela's book given that the Irish worker, the late Irvine Pearson was her great uncle. As for numbers attending conventions in Ireland and the UK I am reliably informed that these continue to decrease and the age band of those attending increasingly older.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 11:49:36 GMT -5
From what I remember of them and the affect they had upon me, I was "stirred up" in conscience, yes. On the other hand, a lullaby also put me back to sleep by the constant bombardment of our being "the only way..."
Indeed, I heard little if any about my Lord, a living being, as "the way."
If this has changed, and testimonies and sermons are about Him as such, rather than the "workers" and the 2&2 worker system, great! If it still hasn't hit the theme of a convention, pity that. Que sera, sera.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 20, 2015 9:23:53 GMT -5
"Very much in demand". The books are of little import in the big scheme of things. Just opinions pro- and con-. There is a small market who will buy everything on the subject, and that includes me. But there are literally dozens of groups like the friends actually and anything short of a mass suicide, or lurid sexual immorality does not draw public interest. The Royal Commission in Australia is a good thing and should not unduly alarm the law-abiding members of the friends. "The commission will examine the history of abuse in educational institutions, religious groups, sporting organisations, state institutions and youth organisations." They may make legislative changes as a result and that will benefit all organizations. Most Catholics also are good people, by and large, and their leaders are welcoming the commission. At a local level there has been confrontation between Catholic clergy and police, so there is some bad blood on both sides. We know that Irvine Grey's church also has many sexual predators. stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm It's not my wish to castigate the Baptist church but point out that this is a societal problem, not local to any particular church. So the stone-throwing based on the CSA issue is not warranted. Sadly, no one has a clean slate on this one.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 20, 2015 10:12:54 GMT -5
I'm taking more of an interest in the resurgent anti-cult movement and the way it is repressing freedom of religion. We lived for two decades in a conservative Mennonite area; our kids attended a school that was 40 to 70% Old Order Mennonite kids. When I was on the parent-teacher committee for a few years I noticed there was always a lot of sniping at the Mennonites, but basically they got along okay. But they do face active resistance and prejudice in the community, and they need the protection of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the freedom to observe religious practices and life as they best see fit. I'm concerned about anti-cult'ers, basically high minded, religious do-gooders and the impact they may have on freedom of religion. This morning I ran across an interesting group called "The Twelve Tribes" and to say the least, their lifestyle is a different one. However, they have faced active persecution over the years, leading one of their apologists to recently write: "The ACM (anti-cult movement) takes advantage of both mainstream religions and insecure government officials by invoking fear and inducing “moral panic” in the public arena. The result is to convince governments that true religious diversity is unnecessary, and at the same time to convince established religions that anything outside the mainstream is dangerous and deserves to be destroyed. This trend is happening now and it is escalating around the world. To maintain a democratic social order, it is essential that false information, induced hysteria and fear, do not replace vigilant, conscientious, and effective law enforcement and government policies. If you value freedom and democracy, you are justified in being scared of the anti-cult movement." twelvetribes.com/controversies/scared-anticult-movementIs this an over-reaction? Certainly not in terms of the experiences of this group over the last decades, and this is why I think we need to be so careful when we sling the word "cult" around loosely, and make up definitions that suit a particular religious agenda. I am not against the correct use of the term - to mean a religious or social organisation whose leadership and doctrine indicate widespread unlawful and harmful practices. I'm also in favour of use of the adjective "cultic" to indicate individual harmful practices, when used to refer to those practices. By the way, there may well be issues with the group, and the question becomes, how much State oversight should there be of religious groups?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 20, 2015 14:55:54 GMT -5
I'm taking more of an interest in the resurgent anti-cult movement and the way it is repressing freedom of religion. We lived for two decades in a conservative Mennonite area; our kids attended a school that was 40 to 70% Old Order Mennonite kids. When I was on the parent-teacher committee for a few years I noticed there was always a lot of sniping at the Mennonites, but basically they got along okay. But they do face active resistance and prejudice in the community, and they need the protection of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the freedom to observe religious practices and life as they best see fit. I'm concerned about anti-cult'ers, basically high minded, religious do-gooders and the impact they may have on freedom of religion. This morning I ran across an interesting group called "The Twelve Tribes" and to say the least, their lifestyle is a different one. However, they have faced active persecution over the years, leading one of their apologists to recently write: "The ACM (anti-cult movement) takes advantage of both mainstream religions and insecure government officials by invoking fear and inducing “moral panic” in the public arena. The result is to convince governments that true religious diversity is unnecessary, and at the same time to convince established religions that anything outside the mainstream is dangerous and deserves to be destroyed. This trend is happening now and it is escalating around the world. To maintain a democratic social order, it is essential that false information, induced hysteria and fear, do not replace vigilant, conscientious, and effective law enforcement and government policies. If you value freedom and democracy, you are justified in being scared of the anti-cult movement." twelvetribes.com/controversies/scared-anticult-movementIs this an over-reaction? Certainly not in terms of the experiences of this group over the last decades, and this is why I think we need to be so careful when we sling the word "cult" around loosely, and make up definitions that suit a particular religious agenda. I am not against the correct use of the term - to mean a religious or social organisation whose leadership and doctrine indicate widespread unlawful and harmful practices. I'm also in favour of use of the adjective "cultic" to indicate individual harmful practices, when used to refer to those practices. By the way, there may well be issues with the group, and the question becomes, how much State oversight should there be of religious groups? What hat, do you see the anti cult movement to be predominately done by theists? For me, all religions are cult like. I don't really see how any of them are good for society for the most part, but as long as they don't do a lot of harm, I agree people should have religious freedom. Life experiences are subjective I would say and if someone wants to live a life of the Amish or the Catholic then they should be able to. What I do have concern over is that there can be a lot of harm done in some of the more exclusive, rigid groups, psychologically and sometimes physically. How do we address these concerns and still allow for religious freedom? From my pov teaching things that do not line up with science is not a good thing. I think that the more fundamentalist religious groups try to prevent their children from learning what science has discovered because more and more it is pointing away from what their holy books tell them and cause children to leave religion when they are more educated in the sciences. I know personally that my birth family home schools for that reason. They don't want their children learning about evolution etc., until they are well indoctrinated in the beliefs of the parents, which in their case is creationism and the quiverful mindset. How does society address these problems and allow religious freedom and at the same time teaching children all the options so at some point they can make informed decisions based on fact rather than just learned religious dogma?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 20, 2015 15:59:55 GMT -5
I'm taking more of an interest in the resurgent anti-cult movement and the way it is repressing freedom of religion. We lived for two decades in a conservative Mennonite area; our kids attended a school that was 40 to 70% Old Order Mennonite kids. When I was on the parent-teacher committee for a few years I noticed there was always a lot of sniping at the Mennonites, but basically they got along okay. But they do face active resistance and prejudice in the community, and they need the protection of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the freedom to observe religious practices and life as they best see fit. I'm concerned about anti-cult'ers, basically high minded, religious do-gooders and the impact they may have on freedom of religion. This morning I ran across an interesting group called "The Twelve Tribes" and to say the least, their lifestyle is a different one. However, they have faced active persecution over the years, leading one of their apologists to recently write: "The ACM (anti-cult movement) takes advantage of both mainstream religions and insecure government officials by invoking fear and inducing “moral panic” in the public arena. The result is to convince governments that true religious diversity is unnecessary, and at the same time to convince established religions that anything outside the mainstream is dangerous and deserves to be destroyed. This trend is happening now and it is escalating around the world. To maintain a democratic social order, it is essential that false information, induced hysteria and fear, do not replace vigilant, conscientious, and effective law enforcement and government policies. If you value freedom and democracy, you are justified in being scared of the anti-cult movement." twelvetribes.com/controversies/scared-anticult-movementIs this an over-reaction? Certainly not in terms of the experiences of this group over the last decades, and this is why I think we need to be so careful when we sling the word "cult" around loosely, and make up definitions that suit a particular religious agenda. I am not against the correct use of the term - to mean a religious or social organisation whose leadership and doctrine indicate widespread unlawful and harmful practices. I'm also in favour of use of the adjective "cultic" to indicate individual harmful practices, when used to refer to those practices. By the way, there may well be issues with the group, and the question becomes, how much State oversight should there be of religious groups? What hat, do you see the anti cult movement to be predominately done by theists? For me, all religions are cult like. I don't really see how any of them are good for society for the most part, but as long as they don't do a lot of harm, I agree people should have religious freedom. Life experiences are subjective I would say and if someone wants to live a life of the Amish or the Catholic then they should be able to. What I do have concern over is that there can be a lot of harm done in some of the more exclusive, rigid groups, psychologically and sometimes physically. How do we address these concerns and still allow for religious freedom? From my pov teaching things that do not line up with science is not a good thing. I think that the more fundamentalist religious groups try to prevent their children from learning what science has discovered because more and more it is pointing away from what their holy books tell them and cause children to leave religion when they are more educated in the sciences. I know personally that my birth family home schools for that reason. They don't want their children learning about evolution etc., until they are well indoctrinated in the beliefs of the parents, which in their case is creationism and the quiverful mindset. How does society address these problems and allow religious freedom and at the same time teaching children all the options so at some point they can make informed decisions based on fact rather than just learned religious dogma? That's the big question, isn't it? This particular group, and I'm tempted to start a thread on them, have gotten into trouble for severe physical discipline of their children. In fact, recently, in Germany, they had 40 children removed from the group because of this issue. We've had issues like this in Canada with some extreme Mennonite groups, I would stress, not the normal Old Orders, although they do use physical discipline. However, I believe these are the concerns of police organizations, and perhaps to a lesser extent, child and social welfare agencies. And to some extent academics and journalists have a role as well. The problem for me is less the activities of these groups, for which there is plenty of oversight, than it is a problem of the various watchdogs overstepping their bounds. Here is an example from our own history that not many Canadians are aware of. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3946115.stm
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 20, 2015 18:04:15 GMT -5
Yes I remember hearing about the Doukhobors when I was growing up. I do agree that sometimes the reasons are not because of abuse per se, but because they are doing something 'different' that people presume is abuse. The churches did that with our Native children too. Having said that though, do you really think that religious freedom is being compromised now? There seem to be a lot of different religions and they are pretty much left alone unless there is issues of abuse. I have no problem with abuse being dealt with. Do you really thing the watchdogs have overstepped their bounds in most cases? I wonder what it is that you think will happen to these fringe religions by the 'watchdogs'. I am sure they have guidelines in place.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 20, 2015 22:03:23 GMT -5
Yes I remember hearing about the Doukhobors when I was growing up. I do agree that sometimes the reasons are not because of abuse per se, but because they are doing something 'different' that people presume is abuse. The churches did that with our Native children too. Having said that though, do you really think that religious freedom is being compromised now? There seem to be a lot of different religions and they are pretty much left alone unless there is issues of abuse. I have no problem with abuse being dealt with. Do you really thing the watchdogs have overstepped their bounds in most cases? I wonder what it is that you think will happen to these fringe religions by the 'watchdogs'. I am sure they have guidelines in place. I didn't answer your original question as to whether the anti-cult movement are theists. Yes, most of them are, at least the vexing ones. I believe that there was more of a knee-jerk reaction against perceived cults in the 70s and 80s than there is now. At least if you look at how anti-cult people would kidnap adult children who appeared to be mixed up with cults, how children would be taken away, and so on. That was the experience of the "Twelve Tribes" group. (Their very interesting history is documented on wikipedia and elsewhere.) I'm not fearful of the 'freedom of religion' being eroded in any drastic or general way. It's very deep in our culture and our historical experience. But one thing that has happened is that we've moved from reliance on the nuclear family for people's social support to the 'nanny State'. And it just follows that the State will be more intrusive into peoples' lives when the State becomes one's Nanny. While I don't like that situation in some respects, I think the alternative is probably worse. Who is going to look after the disadvantaged, the poor and others in our present day and age? But, for example, the same social workers that are charged with looking out for the needs of children neglected by single mothers who are addicted to crack, have authority over conservative Christians who take "spare the rod" a bit too literally. To me, there is a world of difference between the two situations, and that we need them to sort out the former, also gives them authority to intervene in the latter. I'm just saying that more intervention, more enforcement of normalized social values is inevitable as part of the overall trend; it's not that anyone is picking on religions at all. While I do think the most extreme cases of child punishment require intervention; in most cases, the children should be left with the parents. Taking the children away is far too drastic and in most cases where that has been done, it has turned out to be very much the wrong thing. The fact it was done indicates a degree of high mindedness and misunderstanding by the people doing it. Anyway, that has nothing to do with the anti-cult movement. But I think the entire ethos of "anti-cult" fosters intervention and works against self-determination and freedom of religion and of the individual. But often cooler, more rational heads prevail when it comes to social workers themselves. Because we have social workers in the family, and from what I see in them in terms of training and attitudes, I'm not overly worried. Social workers are often on the leading edge in empathy and tolerance of different lifestyles, cultures and religious mindsets, compared to the population at large. There's no clear bogeymen in all this; it is a complex issue.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2015 12:06:02 GMT -5
Yes I remember hearing about the Doukhobors when I was growing up. I do agree that sometimes the reasons are not because of abuse per se, but because they are doing something 'different' that people presume is abuse. The churches did that with our Native children too. Having said that though, do you really think that religious freedom is being compromised now? There seem to be a lot of different religions and they are pretty much left alone unless there is issues of abuse. I have no problem with abuse being dealt with. Do you really thing the watchdogs have overstepped their bounds in most cases? I wonder what it is that you think will happen to these fringe religions by the 'watchdogs'. I am sure they have guidelines in place. I didn't answer your original question as to whether the anti-cult movement are theists. Yes, most of them are, at least the vexing ones. I believe that there was more of a knee-jerk reaction against perceived cults in the 70s and 80s than there is now. At least if you look at how anti-cult people would kidnap adult children who appeared to be mixed up with cults, how children would be taken away, and so on. That was the experience of the "Twelve Tribes" group. (Their very interesting history is documented on wikipedia and elsewhere.) I'm not fearful of the 'freedom of religion' being eroded in any drastic or general way. It's very deep in our culture and our historical experience. But one thing that has happened is that we've moved from reliance on the nuclear family for people's social support to the 'nanny State'. And it just follows that the State will be more intrusive into peoples' lives when the State becomes one's Nanny. While I don't like that situation in some respects, I think the alternative is probably worse. Who is going to look after the disadvantaged, the poor and others in our present day and age? But, for example, the same social workers that are charged with looking out for the needs of children neglected by single mothers who are addicted to crack, have authority over conservative Christians who take "spare the rod" a bit too literally. To me, there is a world of difference between the two situations, and that we need them to sort out the former, also gives them authority to intervene in the latter. I'm just saying that more intervention, more enforcement of normalized social values is inevitable as part of the overall trend; it's not that anyone is picking on religions at all. While I do think the most extreme cases of child punishment require intervention; in most cases, the children should be left with the parents. Taking the children away is far too drastic and in most cases where that has been done, it has turned out to be very much the wrong thing. The fact it was done indicates a degree of high mindedness and misunderstanding by the people doing it. Anyway, that has nothing to do with the anti-cult movement. But I think the entire ethos of "anti-cult" fosters intervention and works against self-determination and freedom of religion and of the individual. But often cooler, more rational heads prevail when it comes to social workers themselves. Because we have social workers in the family, and from what I see in them in terms of training and attitudes, I'm not overly worried. Social workers are often on the leading edge in empathy and tolerance of different lifestyles, cultures and religious mindsets, compared to the population at large. There's no clear bogeymen in all this; it is a complex issue. I guess I think that religious freedom isn't in any way endangered at present time anyway. I do think intervention needs to be happening with the extremes by parents that believe if you spare the rod you spoil the child. There needs to be some kind of intervention for those children imo. If not removing them from the home, at least having some kind of repercussion on the parent that beats the child to make him/her holy. We, as a culture, have changed considerably regarding child discipline. It will be inevitable that the groups that still adhere to the OT form of discipline of children are going to run into problems with society because people do not believe that a child even needs to be hit to raise it properly. When there becomes such a great divide, you will likely see more of these groups in trouble and their children removed. Not sure removing is the answer and some other form of re-education might be more in line. Children removed from parents they love in spite of the beatings they might take, are going to grieve. I think the anti cult groups really got going in the 70's because some pretty 'front page' groups surfaced on societies radar. The Moonies and Jim Jones are a couple that really made the headlines and got a lot of people scared and nothing motivates people to go to extremes better than 'fear'. My question would be, is religious freedom more important than doing something about the harm some of these groups can do to their members and their children? Like you point out, it's a complex issue. If people wish to live that way is it okay for others who live differently to have the power to say they can't? In Canada right now the issue I can think of is the Polygamist group of Mormons just south of Creston, BC. It it was just adults having many wives I would say leave them alone. Because it has been proved there are underage females involved, it becomes a whole different issue where imo harm is being done. That is when I believe society needs to intervene.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 21, 2015 12:45:11 GMT -5
I didn't answer your original question as to whether the anti-cult movement are theists. Yes, most of them are, at least the vexing ones. I believe that there was more of a knee-jerk reaction against perceived cults in the 70s and 80s than there is now. At least if you look at how anti-cult people would kidnap adult children who appeared to be mixed up with cults, how children would be taken away, and so on. That was the experience of the "Twelve Tribes" group. (Their very interesting history is documented on wikipedia and elsewhere.) I'm not fearful of the 'freedom of religion' being eroded in any drastic or general way. It's very deep in our culture and our historical experience. But one thing that has happened is that we've moved from reliance on the nuclear family for people's social support to the 'nanny State'. And it just follows that the State will be more intrusive into peoples' lives when the State becomes one's Nanny. While I don't like that situation in some respects, I think the alternative is probably worse. Who is going to look after the disadvantaged, the poor and others in our present day and age? But, for example, the same social workers that are charged with looking out for the needs of children neglected by single mothers who are addicted to crack, have authority over conservative Christians who take "spare the rod" a bit too literally. To me, there is a world of difference between the two situations, and that we need them to sort out the former, also gives them authority to intervene in the latter. I'm just saying that more intervention, more enforcement of normalized social values is inevitable as part of the overall trend; it's not that anyone is picking on religions at all. While I do think the most extreme cases of child punishment require intervention; in most cases, the children should be left with the parents. Taking the children away is far too drastic and in most cases where that has been done, it has turned out to be very much the wrong thing. The fact it was done indicates a degree of high mindedness and misunderstanding by the people doing it. Anyway, that has nothing to do with the anti-cult movement. But I think the entire ethos of "anti-cult" fosters intervention and works against self-determination and freedom of religion and of the individual. But often cooler, more rational heads prevail when it comes to social workers themselves. Because we have social workers in the family, and from what I see in them in terms of training and attitudes, I'm not overly worried. Social workers are often on the leading edge in empathy and tolerance of different lifestyles, cultures and religious mindsets, compared to the population at large. There's no clear bogeymen in all this; it is a complex issue. I guess I think that religious freedom isn't in any way endangered at present time anyway. I do think intervention needs to be happening with the extremes by parents that believe if you spare the rod you spoil the child. There needs to be some kind of intervention for those children imo. If not removing them from the home, at least having some kind of repercussion on the parent that beats the child to make him/her holy. We, as a culture, have changed considerably regarding child discipline. It will be inevitable that the groups that still adhere to the OT form of discipline of children are going to run into problems with society because people do not believe that a child even needs to be hit to raise it properly. When there becomes such a great divide, you will likely see more of these groups in trouble and their children removed. Not sure removing is the answer and some other form of re-education might be more in line. Children removed from parents they love in spite of the beatings they might take, are going to grieve. I think the anti cult groups really got going in the 70's because some pretty 'front page' groups surfaced on societies radar. The Moonies and Jim Jones are a couple that really made the headlines and got a lot of people scared and nothing motivates people to go to extremes better than 'fear'. My question would be, is religious freedom more important than doing something about the harm some of these groups can do to their members and their children? Like you point out, it's a complex issue. If people wish to live that way is it okay for others who live differently to have the power to say they can't? In Canada right now the issue I can think of is the Polygamist group of Mormons just south of Creston, BC. It it was just adults having many wives I would say leave them alone. Because it has been proved there are underage females involved, it becomes a whole different issue where imo harm is being done. That is when I believe society needs to intervene. The general problem to me from a social problem perspective is one of liberty/autonomy versus harm. If you have too much oversight you may prevent harms but restrict liberty. Too little oversight and you have great liberty but may not have sufficient control over harmful behaviour. One definition of a fascist/ totalitarian regime is that such a regime may have laudable goals but will go to draconian lengths to enforce those goals. I don't believe religious freedom is threatened because our court system has done a great job and the decisions they make, at least here in Canada, indicate sound jurisprudence on the principles of religious freedom. At the same time there are segments of society who argue or lobby for more control; whether that is over religions, businesses, unions or government. To me the anti-cult movement wants too much control over religion and I dislike that. Will they get what they want? I hope and think not. On the specific of child punishment the law in Canada is very clear. I personally don't believe in spanking. However, after observing over the decades, parents who spanked and those who did not, I see little or no difference in how their children turned out. Now, I'm referring to spanking as defined in the Canadian criminal code. Beating kids is not what I mean by spanking. Canada maintains strict guidelines on what constitutes a legal spank. The child must be between two and 12 years of age, the blows may only be administered with an open palm and the force used must be “transitory and trifling in nature.”
“There is a distinct difference between assault and discipline,” said Dave Quist, executive director of the socially conservative Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, adding that spanking remains a necessary part of the disciplinary “tool kit,” even if it is gradually falling out of favour.
We’re really past the point of calling this a controversy. That’s a word that’s used and I don’t know why, because in the research there really is no controversy
Frequently, Canadians who skirt the spanking guidelines are handed stiff criminal sentences.
In April, a judge ruled a Fredericton man guilty of three counts of assault after he beat his three children with a wooden fork to resolve a road hockey squabble. “The spanking was done in anger,” ruled Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Judy Clendening. (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-120-year-old-spanking-law-unlikely-to-change-despite-doctors-protest-justice-department)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2015 13:01:48 GMT -5
I guess I think that religious freedom isn't in any way endangered at present time anyway. I do think intervention needs to be happening with the extremes by parents that believe if you spare the rod you spoil the child. There needs to be some kind of intervention for those children imo. If not removing them from the home, at least having some kind of repercussion on the parent that beats the child to make him/her holy. We, as a culture, have changed considerably regarding child discipline. It will be inevitable that the groups that still adhere to the OT form of discipline of children are going to run into problems with society because people do not believe that a child even needs to be hit to raise it properly. When there becomes such a great divide, you will likely see more of these groups in trouble and their children removed. Not sure removing is the answer and some other form of re-education might be more in line. Children removed from parents they love in spite of the beatings they might take, are going to grieve. I think the anti cult groups really got going in the 70's because some pretty 'front page' groups surfaced on societies radar. The Moonies and Jim Jones are a couple that really made the headlines and got a lot of people scared and nothing motivates people to go to extremes better than 'fear'. My question would be, is religious freedom more important than doing something about the harm some of these groups can do to their members and their children? Like you point out, it's a complex issue. If people wish to live that way is it okay for others who live differently to have the power to say they can't? In Canada right now the issue I can think of is the Polygamist group of Mormons just south of Creston, BC. It it was just adults having many wives I would say leave them alone. Because it has been proved there are underage females involved, it becomes a whole different issue where imo harm is being done. That is when I believe society needs to intervene. The general problem to me from a social problem perspective is one of liberty/autonomy versus harm. If you have too much oversight you may prevent harms but restrict liberty. Too little oversight and you have great liberty but may not have sufficient control over harmful behaviour. One definition of a fascist/ totalitarian regime is that such a regime may have laudable goals but will go to draconian lengths to enforce those goals. I don't believe religious freedom is threatened because our court system has done a great job and the decisions they make, at least here in Canada, indicate sound jurisprudence on the principles of religious freedom. At the same time there are segments of society who argue or lobby for more control; whether that is over religions, businesses, unions or government. To me the anti-cult movement wants too much control over religion and I dislike that. Will they get what they want? I hope and think not. On the specific of child punishment the law in Canada is very clear. I personally don't believe in spanking. However, after observing over the decades, parents who spanked and those who did not, I see little or no difference in how their children turned out. Now, I'm referring to spanking as defined in the Canadian criminal code. Beating kids is not what I mean by spanking. Canada maintains strict guidelines on what constitutes a legal spank. The child must be between two and 12 years of age, the blows may only be administered with an open palm and the force used must be “transitory and trifling in nature.”
“There is a distinct difference between assault and discipline,” said Dave Quist, executive director of the socially conservative Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, adding that spanking remains a necessary part of the disciplinary “tool kit,” even if it is gradually falling out of favour.
We’re really past the point of calling this a controversy. That’s a word that’s used and I don’t know why, because in the research there really is no controversy
Frequently, Canadians who skirt the spanking guidelines are handed stiff criminal sentences.
In April, a judge ruled a Fredericton man guilty of three counts of assault after he beat his three children with a wooden fork to resolve a road hockey squabble. “The spanking was done in anger,” ruled Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Judy Clendening. (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-120-year-old-spanking-law-unlikely-to-change-despite-doctors-protest-justice-department)
Yes we have definite laws on what is acceptable disciplinary action for our children. But you were stating you didn't feel children should be removed. Did you mean even if they broke the Canadian guidelines? I am unclear what you think about that. As far as draconian measure in a fascist society, it always makes me think of the saying where a parent see's their child slap another child and the parent to discipline slaps the child saying 'we don't hit'. Or, in order to fight the devil you have to fight like the devil? How far should society allow religious freedom to go? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 21, 2015 14:50:03 GMT -5
The general problem to me from a social problem perspective is one of liberty/autonomy versus harm. If you have too much oversight you may prevent harms but restrict liberty. Too little oversight and you have great liberty but may not have sufficient control over harmful behaviour. One definition of a fascist/ totalitarian regime is that such a regime may have laudable goals but will go to draconian lengths to enforce those goals. I don't believe religious freedom is threatened because our court system has done a great job and the decisions they make, at least here in Canada, indicate sound jurisprudence on the principles of religious freedom. At the same time there are segments of society who argue or lobby for more control; whether that is over religions, businesses, unions or government. To me the anti-cult movement wants too much control over religion and I dislike that. Will they get what they want? I hope and think not. On the specific of child punishment the law in Canada is very clear. I personally don't believe in spanking. However, after observing over the decades, parents who spanked and those who did not, I see little or no difference in how their children turned out. Now, I'm referring to spanking as defined in the Canadian criminal code. Beating kids is not what I mean by spanking. Canada maintains strict guidelines on what constitutes a legal spank. The child must be between two and 12 years of age, the blows may only be administered with an open palm and the force used must be “transitory and trifling in nature.”
“There is a distinct difference between assault and discipline,” said Dave Quist, executive director of the socially conservative Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, adding that spanking remains a necessary part of the disciplinary “tool kit,” even if it is gradually falling out of favour.
We’re really past the point of calling this a controversy. That’s a word that’s used and I don’t know why, because in the research there really is no controversy
Frequently, Canadians who skirt the spanking guidelines are handed stiff criminal sentences.
In April, a judge ruled a Fredericton man guilty of three counts of assault after he beat his three children with a wooden fork to resolve a road hockey squabble. “The spanking was done in anger,” ruled Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Judy Clendening. (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-120-year-old-spanking-law-unlikely-to-change-despite-doctors-protest-justice-department)
Yes we have definite laws on what is acceptable disciplinary action for our children. But you were stating you didn't feel children should be removed. Did you mean even if they broke the Canadian guidelines? I am unclear what you think about that. As far as draconian measure in a fascist society, it always makes me think of the saying where a parent see's their child slap another child and the parent to discipline slaps the child saying 'we don't hit'. Or, in order to fight the devil you have to fight like the devil? How far should society allow religious freedom to go? Just curious. I think taking children from parents is an intervention that should only be used when there is abject brutality or neglect. In most cases, with conservative groups who have old fashioned ideas about child-rearing, forcible removal is going overboard. There was a case with a Mennonite group in Ontario where that was done, and also in Manitoba. The residential schools were another situation where do-gooders deprecated the native culture and lifestyle and thought that justified taking children from their parents. The motive is not much different with conservative cultures, and the results, in terms of outcomes for the children removed are almost as drastic. For example, in the case below 40 children were seized from a Mennonite offshoot in Manitoba and only one assault charge was laid in the final analysis. I think the stories about "cattle prods, whips and leather straps" are exaggerated because if there were reliable witnesses there surely would have been more charges. www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/seized-mennonite-children-home-soon-226562941.htmlThe massive FLDS seizure of around 450 children in 2008 was precipitated by a phone call that turned out to be a hoax. FLDS was a polygamous cult in which the group leaders married girls of 14 and 15 years of age. Of course, that needed to be dealt with and those men are now in prison. At the same time I don't see how taking children from their mothers helped to solve that problem.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2015 16:33:20 GMT -5
The problem is these things have to be checked out. If allegations are made and it's not just religious groups that have had this happen. A couple down in the states had their children removed from their home because they allowed the kids to walk somewhere alone. They are really getting pretty rigid about this and other parents are reporting parents that do let their children have some independence. Helicopter parenting I believe it's called. They call them Helicopter parents because they tend to get over involved with their kids in all aspects of their lives, hovering overhead I believe one definition stated. So we are going to see more and more of this likely in society in general.
The FLDS seizure was because they felt the children were in danger and it did turn out that some men went to prison, so it's a tough call. I think the mindset has been if there are allegations made, remove the children until you can investigate. I don't think it's the greatest way of doing it, but possibly the least dangerous. It can be traumatic for the child though, especially if there was nothing happening and it was done by a 3rd party in spite.
I guess bottom line for me is protection of children before worrying about religious freedom. The religion if it's worth anything will survive, but if kids are being abused, you sometimes have only a small window of opportunity to get them out and to safety.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 21, 2015 16:50:54 GMT -5
Good discussion WH and Snow.
What are your thoughts on removing children where genital mutilation has occurred or is in danger of occurring?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 21, 2015 20:35:21 GMT -5
The problem is these things have to be checked out. If allegations are made and it's not just religious groups that have had this happen. A couple down in the states had their children removed from their home because they allowed the kids to walk somewhere alone. They are really getting pretty rigid about this and other parents are reporting parents that do let their children have some independence. Helicopter parenting I believe it's called. They call them Helicopter parents because they tend to get over involved with their kids in all aspects of their lives, hovering overhead I believe one definition stated. So we are going to see more and more of this likely in society in general. The FLDS seizure was because they felt the children were in danger and it did turn out that some men went to prison, so it's a tough call. I think the mindset has been if there are allegations made, remove the children until you can investigate. I don't think it's the greatest way of doing it, but possibly the least dangerous. It can be traumat[ic for the child though, especially if there was nothing happening and it was done by a 3rd party in spite. I guess bottom line for me is protection of children before worrying about religious freedom. The religion if it's worth anything will survive, but if kids are being abused, you sometimes have only a small window of opportunity to get them out and to safety. Why did they need to take out 450 children in order to obtain convictions against these men? I don't really see the connection. Here is another raid on 'Twelve Tribes' that took place in France.
Raid on the Twelve Tribes community in France
In the beginning of the year 2014 an apostate raised charges against the community because his wife did not want to leave the community together with him and also did not want to have contact with him anymore. Out of revenge he swore to destroy the community and spread horror stories. The prosecution was ordered to investigate the allegations and after a year of investigations the well prepared massive action took place in the early morning hours of 16 June 2015.
At 3 o’clock in the morning 200 policemen in about 60 vehicles stormed the property with the necessary “court decisions” for a thorough search and the seizure of all children under 15 years old. The communal gathering hall was transformed to a temporary investigation office.
Tabitha'sPlace
All buildings were surrounded, the present persons were woken up and had to stay in their living quarters. All rooms were searched for money and other interesting items concerning the allegations:
violence against minors child labor psychological pressure – “brain washing” tax fraud money laundering fraud
Ten adults (6 men and 4 women) were taken into custody: the alleged responsible persons, the heads of the company and the book keepers and one couple with four children where they assumed problems.
Judges, prosecutors and criminal police were there and took pictures, filmed and searched everything. Medical officers examined all 52 children and no signs of abuse were found. On the four children of the family which was taken into custody supposedly signs of physical discipline were found and the children were placed temporarily into an institution. None of the other children were taken because there were no signs of violence against the children. Some older children were still questioned single but could only tell wonderful stories about their families and their life in the community.
The ten persons that were brought to the police and questioned for investigation purposes were released the same day. Yesterday, which is only two weeks later, a hearing was held for the parents of those four children, as is customary for emergency proceedings when children are involved. At the hearing, French social services recommended that all four children be returned home to their parents in the community at Tabitha’s Place. The judge immediately released the children to go home to their parents.
At the raid when the 4 children were taken, 48 other children from numerous families were examined by doctors, and NO signs of abuse were found at all. To their credit, French officials conducted the examinations in the parents’ living quarters so as not to traumatize the children!
The social workers of the German Jugendamt liked to talk to the judge during the current hearings about this event in France because they thought that it aided in confirming their attitude towards the community. Truth of the matter is that this raid aided in making the point that we are trying to make and that we claim that the Jugendamt did not proceed legally on 5. September 2013. It becomes more and more clear that this raid was initiated based on media pressure and that it was done without any legal foundation. The French officials were so much more professional in what they did…
This is from the 'Twelve Tribes' web site and may be a prejudicial account. I don't really know what information social services had, nor what went on there. However, I tend to believe 'Twelve Tribes' story and think social services just gets a bit too jumpy at times. And other times, when they have to deal with drug addicts, criminals and hostile parties, they do nothing ... and kids die. I know that sounds harsh, and I also think that the individuals in social services are committed, caring and doing their best. But their mindset is an issue. They have strange ideas about cults and religious groups, and they also often have enormous case loads, are stressed out, and cases fall through the cracks and children die. There are mitigating circumstances for the errors they make.
|
|