The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
I disagree. I doubt that it's often selfish. These people genuinely believe in the ideology of their cults and see it as their highest duty on earth to do whatever they can to safeguard and propagate that ideology.
Religions have long understood the idea of "memes" and much of their social organization and doctrine is basically dedicated to memetic warfare. The fathers aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for fidelity to their governing meme.
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
I disagree. I doubt that it's often selfish. These people genuinely believe in the ideology of their cults and see it as their highest duty on earth to do whatever they can to safeguard and propagate that ideology.
Religions have long understood the idea of "memes" and much of their social organization and doctrine is basically dedicated to memetic warfare. The fathers aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for fidelity to their governing meme.
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
Guys, let's not fight about this. There's no reason they can't be both incredibly deluded AND sociopaths.
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
I disagree. I doubt that it's often selfish. These people genuinely believe in the ideology of their cults and see it as their highest duty on earth to do whatever they can to safeguard and propagate that ideology.
Religions have long understood the idea of "memes" and much of their social organization and doctrine is basically dedicated to memetic warfare. The fathers aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for fidelity to their governing meme.
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
Guys, let's not fight about this. There's no reason they can't be both incredibly deluded AND sociopaths.
I will grant that they can be both incredibly deluded and sociopaths, but I find it doubtful that there aren't people at the top who know damn well what they are doing is "wrong" by their own standards but do it anyways because they love the power/control. Saying they are deluded by their own religion doesn't hold water for me, it's like saying there is no one at the top of the pyramid scheme....someone knows it was wrong but would work to their benefit.
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
Leaders, I'll agree with. These organizations are almost always authority cults. I was referring more to the flock.
And what wazilla said. It could be both. I have no doubt that many authority cult leaders want to safeguard their own power, but at the same time want to use that power to do the greatest amount of good for their meme.
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
I disagree. I doubt that it's often selfish. These people genuinely believe in the ideology of their cults and see it as their highest duty on earth to do whatever they can to safeguard and propagate that ideology.
Religions have long understood the idea of "memes" and much of their social organization and doctrine is basically dedicated to memetic warfare. The fathers aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for fidelity to their governing meme.
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
I think you need to take them on good faith. Chances are high that they actually believe it is the "proper" place for their daughters and wives, and while they may also be perpetuating the meme for selfish reasons, it's possible they don't even realize it.
edit: ah, yeah I'd say the leaders are cognizant of what they're doing.
I will grant that they can be both incredibly deluded and sociopaths, but I find it doubtful that there aren't people at the top who know damn well what they are doing is "wrong" by their own standards but do it anyways because they love the power/control. Saying they are deluded by their own religion doesn't hold water for me, it's like saying there is no one at the top of the pyramid scheme....someone knows it was wrong but would work to their benefit.
I think it's easy to understate how much religious people are capable of cognitive dissonance. It's easy for us to identify the people you're talking about as moral hypocrites. But you basically have to be a moral hypocrite to be a religious person in the first place—we are talking about a sacred text that explicitly commands slavery and genocide.
The idea that a person's beliefs and actions should be unified in a consistent ideological structure is a rational idea and, more often than not, a liberal idea. Consider the way most religious people argue against, for example, evolution. They will unhesitantly bring up any idea, any article, any point of contention with evolution to "win" the argument—regardless of whether or not those ideas and articles are consistent with each other or with their own beliefs. They already know they're right, both morally and rationally, and I honestly think that it doesn't occur to most of them to actually bother to check if their arguments and behaviors in pursuit of that "rightness" are at all consistent.
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
Leaders, I'll agree with. These organizations are almost always authority cults. I was referring more to the flock.
And what wazilla said. It could be both. I have no doubt that many authority cult leaders want to safeguard their own power, but at the same time want to use that power to do the greatest amount of good for their meme.
Fair enough.
This is why any system of government has to be beholden to the people and have acting in the best interests of the people as core tenants. Any system that tries to act in the best interest of a meme is bound to be morally bankrupt.
This is why I don't go to church anymore. Which is more important, the welfare of the congregation or god? When people start trying to justify putting humans further down on their list of priorities (by saying your soul is eternal or whatever) that's when you need to re-evaluate your beliefs.
Someone noted the Amish before as living a cloistered lifestyle which is entirely true, however, at least they have the option of leaving.
The Rumspringa at least gives the illusion of choice to Amish youth. Wiki says that it isn't terribly effective in influencing a teenager's choice to leave and become "English." Though I would venture that few religious groups provide their youth with the opprotunity to leave the fold of their own volition.
Of course, Amish who leave the fold are shunned, as I understand it. So it sacrifices the family for the individual.. In the end I couldn't say how great freedom would be if it meant alienating all the people you were close to.
Someone noted the Amish before as living a cloistered lifestyle which is entirely true, however, at least they have the option of leaving.
The Rumspringa at least gives the illusion of choice to Amish youth. Wiki says that it isn't terribly effective in influencing a teenager's choice to leave and become "English." Though I would venture that few religious groups provide their youth with the opprotunity to leave the fold of their own volition.
Of course, Amish who leave the fold are shunned, as I understand it. So it sacrifices the family for the individual.. In the end I couldn't say how great freedom would be if it meant alienating all the people you were close to.
It depends on the group, and also how they leave. I think if they leave during the Rumspringa they aren't shunned. My cousing married an ex-Amish and all his family came, and they live in a house that his father built and gave to them. There's a pretty wide spread of Amish beliefs. The company I work for makes lawnmowers, and we have several dealerships run by Amish. Which are tricky to work with because they will flex enough to use email, but no other internet activity. Including our automatic software updates.
I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If someone says that they homeschool their kids then I am automatically suspicious of their motives. Sometimes it can be a good decision, but the number of parents who are capable of providing a better education than even the public school system is very low.
I've considered homeschooling my (hypothetical future) kids, mostly because my experience with public education was so horrible.
Moral relativism was already brought up, but I can safely say that I think moral relativism is a load of crap to a large degree.
It's a lot harder when I try and think of in what way legislators could make good arguments for creating laws to change child-rearing like this.
They need to take a good hard look at home schooling.
ugh. I kind of want to home school my kids, but the thought of being lumped in with dangerous wackos like this leads me to take pause.
Let me be clear, I don't mean to say that homeschooling should be banned or severely limited or anything like that. Draw from that that I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with homeschooling.
That said, I'm not sure that fear of association would be too good a reason to not home school your children. I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If a given parent wants to homeschool their kids, they should be required to teach a minimum curriculum comparable to the public school system.
No child should grow up stupider for having been homeschooled.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If someone says that they homeschool their kids then I am automatically suspicious of their motives. Sometimes it can be a good decision, but the number of parents who are capable of providing a better education than even the public school system is very low.
I've considered homeschooling my (hypothetical future) kids, mostly because my experience with public education was so horrible.
I have a couple of friends who have done this, and unfortunately, I have to say the experience has made me even less sympathetic to the idea.
I mean, it seems like these people are doing it for all the right reasons. They're not cultists; they're smart, liberal, and educated, but don't make a whole ton of money and so live in an assy part of town that manages to be half ghetto and half Deliverance. There's no parental involvement at the local school and the education standards are lax. When their kid went there for first grade he started forgetting things he had already learned because they were so far behind the curve.
But. But but but. As they homeschooled for a few years, he did well, but over time it became increasingly apparent that the kid has various developmental and psychological issues (the diagnoses were all over the map, but I guess it's now down to Asperger's with a dash of Tourette's) and his progress slowed and then started going backward, and meanwhile he is massively undersocialized and is actually getting less so by the day (to the point where a few of our mutual friends have started avoiding the couple because they hate being in the same room with the kid) and also starting to exhibit disturbing behaviors like lying and theft.
So this past year they put him back in for what would be fifth grade, and it has turned out that the shitty school district actually has a reasonably decent special-ed program, and that combined with his new medication has led to gradual improvement. But his mom is still adamant that this is temporary and she has been on the prowl for any excuse to pull him out and start in again; and one night I asked her why she seems eager to do that since he's improving and she has time to work and earn money now, and she became very emotional on the subject of public school and started talking about how horrible it all is and how cruel kids are and how it eventually drove her to drugs and risky behavior and a couple of suicide attempts.
And I realized that this kid's entire future is basically at the mercy of whatever random shit happened to her in a different school on the other side of the country a decade ago. Like those parents in the cliche who push their kids to be NFL all-stars because dad never got a chance to. It doesn't matter that they're smart, and they genuinely love their kid and want what's best for him; their own deepseated issues can still overrule all that at a moment's notice. So I now think maybe it's a good thing for a kid to go to a school - even a subpar one - and be exposed to all those other perspectives and experiences. If it sucks, that's where the parenting comes in; you try to find a different school, or help supply the necessary emotional support. I can't help but notice in my friend's case that her family was notably absent from all of this - and if they hadn't been, her experience might have been considerably different.
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
I disagree. I doubt that it's often selfish. These people genuinely believe in the ideology of their cults and see it as their highest duty on earth to do whatever they can to safeguard and propagate that ideology.
Religions have long understood the idea of "memes" and much of their social organization and doctrine is basically dedicated to memetic warfare. The fathers aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for fidelity to their governing meme.
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
I think you need to take them on good faith. Chances are high that they actually believe it is the "proper" place for their daughters and wives, and while they may also be perpetuating the meme for selfish reasons, it's possible they don't even realize it.
edit: ah, yeah I'd say the leaders are cognizant of what they're doing.
I dunno isnt the leader in this case the great beard in the sky? are these all necessarily cults of personality? I thought they were more grassroots, egalitarian movements rather than pyramids of illiteracy
I have a couple of friends who have done this, and unfortunately, I have to say the experience has made me even less sympathetic to the idea.
I mean, it seems like these people are doing it for all the right reasons. They're not cultists; they're smart, liberal, and educated, but don't make a whole ton of money and so live in an assy part of town that manages to be half ghetto and half Deliverance. There's no parental involvement at the local school and the education standards are lax. When their kid went there for first grade he started forgetting things he had already learned because they were so far behind the curve.
But. But but but. As they homeschooled for a few years, he did well, but over time it became increasingly apparent that the kid has various developmental and psychological issues (the diagnoses were all over the map, but I guess it's now down to Asperger's with a dash of Tourette's) and his progress slowed and then started going backward, and meanwhile he is massively undersocialized and is actually getting less so by the day (to the point where a few of our mutual friends have started avoiding the couple because they hate being in the same room with the kid) and also starting to exhibit disturbing behaviors like lying and theft.
So this past year they put him back in for what would be fifth grade, and it has turned out that the shitty school district actually has a reasonably decent special-ed program, and that combined with his new medication has led to gradual improvement. But his mom is still adamant that this is temporary and she has been on the prowl for any excuse to pull him out and start in again; and one night I asked her why she seems eager to do that since he's improving and she has time to work and earn money now, and she became very emotional on the subject of public school and started talking about how horrible it all is and how cruel kids are and how it eventually drove her to drugs and risky behavior and a couple of suicide attempts.
And I realized that this kid's entire future is basically at the mercy of whatever random shit happened to her in a different school on the other side of the country a decade ago. Like those parents in the cliche who push their kids to be NFL all-stars because dad never got a chance to. It doesn't matter that they're smart, and they genuinely love their kid and want what's best for him; their own deepseated issues can still overrule all that at a moment's notice. So I now think maybe it's a good thing for a kid to go to a school - even a subpar one - and be exposed to all those other perspectives and experiences. If it sucks, that's where the parenting comes in; you try to find a different school, or help supply the necessary emotional support. I can't help but notice in my friend's case that her family was notably absent from all of this - and if they hadn't been, her experience might have been considerably different.
Another, less scary option is to not have kids.
I'm trying to maintain my hatred of children beyond my girlfriend's menopause so I'm never tempted to expose myself to a situation like this.
I dunno isnt the leader in this case the great beard in the sky? are these all necessarily cults of personality? I thought they were more grassroots, egalitarian movements rather than pyramids of illiteracy
In order to be a leader, you generally first need to exist.
I am guessing that the Warren Jeffs cult of personality model is the norm in these communities, based on what I've seen on other message boards dedicated partly to the subject. And anecdotal evidence! My step-brother (related to step-cousins) is not a Hasidic Jew but he's super-orthodox and he and his wife have joined a rather secluded community. Their rabbi leader apparently controls who they vote for (he made them vote for McCain).
I think it's possible to be grass-roots and simultaneously a cult of personality. Though maybe "cult of personality" isn't exactly the right word because a grass-roots church leader may not have an outsize personality but still act as a supreme authority within his cultlike community. I earlier used the word "authority cult," which I've seen a bunch of ex-Christians use to describe their old churches.
Protestant groups like this are unusual in that, historically, a big plank in the Protestant worldview (especially the more extreme manifestations thereof) has revolved around the idea that each individual is their own "priest". The idea of large groups of people spread out over wide geographical area who all follow a single, charismatic leader seems anathema to them.
This is not to say that charismatic Protestant leaders don't emerge - they do - but it manifests itself in different ways from the standard Moonie-esque cult, with the near-godlike figurehead at the top of a very wide pyramid. Usually it involves large groups of congregations who all have similar belief systems but, at least nominally, don't answer to any single figure. Usually, the pastor becomes the de facto charismatic head and, in these extreme communities, has a great deal of power over his own congregation but no power over the congregation next door. The collective personalities of these groups then vary considerably based on the personality of its leader. However, these groups usually all share religious literature, which usually gives them their beliefs that distinguish them as a group. But they might not necessarily revere the person who wrote those books, or even think much about them one way or the other.
Also, I would imagine that this liberal parent would be able to handle her child being exposed to a Barbie and willing to explain why it's harmful, rather than toss on the blinders and earplugs.
Well, that's because your liberal parent would be able to argue the point in the marketplace of ideas. These folks aren't as capable.
Also, I would imagine that this liberal parent would be able to handle her child being exposed to a Barbie and willing to explain why it's harmful, rather than toss on the blinders and earplugs.
Try explaining shit to a nine year old.
Hachface on
0
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Protestant groups like this are unusual in that, historically, a big plank in the Protestant worldview (especially the more extreme manifestations thereof) has revolved around the idea that each individual is their own "priest". The idea of large groups of people spread out over wide geographical area who all follow a single, charismatic leader seems anathema to them.
This is not to say that charismatic Protestant leaders don't emerge - they do - but it manifests itself in different ways from the standard Moonie-esque cult, with the near-godlike figurehead at the top of a very wide pyramid. Usually it involves large groups of congregations who all have similar belief systems but, at least nominally, don't answer to any single figure. Usually, the pastor becomes the de facto charismatic head and, in these extreme communities, has a great deal of power over his own congregation but no power over the congregation next door. The collective personalities of these groups then vary considerably based on the personality of its leader. However, these groups usually all share religious literature, which usually gives them their beliefs that distinguish them as a group. But they might not necessarily revere the person who wrote those books, or even think much about them one way or the other.
Protestants like to segregate themselves over differences in Tradition, or forms of worship or similar things. They don't need a leader, they just need a critical mass of people who believe that everyone else is doing it wrong. Then they start their own church and wait for the inevitable schism.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this if these people were separatist and didn't vote. If they want to create some sort of dystopian neo-Amish hell out in the backwoods, well fine. There's plenty of disadvantaged people in this country who actually want education and improved quality of life.
Just cut these fuckers off and let them figure out how to make fire on their own.
I don't think there's enough of them to make a difference voting-wise anyway. It's a small subculture and they all live in the reddest of red states. Politically speaking, Quiverfull is about as influential as PETA or some other fringe, single-issue demographic.
Duffel on
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
Unlike PETA, they always come scary close to power because they have God on their side and people still believe in that crap.
I don't think there's enough of them to make a difference voting-wise anyway. It's a small subculture and they all live in the reddest of red states. Politically speaking, Quiverfull is about as influential as PETA or some other fringe, single-issue demographic.
They could potentially fuck with local elections though.
Two words: school vouchers. "Why should I have to pay for a [godless liberal secular] education system I don't use?"
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I have recently come around into the thinking that the difference between religions and cults are that religions are respected and left alone.
These people are doing an excellent job of providing evidence for that claim.
I have recently come around into the thinking that the difference between religions and cults are that religions are respected and left alone.
These people are doing an excellent job of providing evidence for that claim.
That depends on how you define "cult".
The word "cult" can technically refer to any religion with an established and systematic practice, IIRC. Some major religions even embrace this term - in the Catholic Church, for instance, you have cults of various saints. In India, each deity or the various aspects thereof probably has their own "cult".
However, "cult" as it is used colloquially refers to a fairly specific social phenomenon. Most of the time it involves an enclosed, isolated group (not necessarily geographically isolated, although that is sometimes the case) which is not part of larger society (unlike more established religions, which are usually integrated to society at least somewhat). Hallmarks of a "classic" cult include a charismatic figure at its head, who is usually treated as a deity or someone who is in contact with divine powers, and who is given spiritual and temporal authority over the rest of the cult, and, often, subordinates who enforce the wishes of the charismatic leader. There is often a series of rites of passages that a cult member goes through when being initiated into the cult, which often involve systematic depersonalisation and a loss of individual identity (being given new names, special clothing, etc.). It is also common for new cult members to give away all their property to the cult or the cult leader, and for the cult itself to forbid contact with the outside world to most cult members, forcibly if necessary. Often, these cults fail to outlast the death, abandonment or imprisonment of their charismatic leader.
Quiverfull meets some of these criteria - forbidding contact with the outside world, especially - but I'm not sure if I could call it a "cult", since they lack a single charismatic figure at the top of the pyramid, the existence of private property and (most importantly) I'm not sure if membership is enforced on a larger scale than the nuclear family.
the names and clothing are built in from infancy, and I'm willing to bet that tithing takes place. Rites of passage would probably be more closely related to age milestones than anything else. I recognise that I'm speculating here, but I think they function similarly enough to your traditional cult model to fit the definition. It'd probably look more obvious if they were taking converts, but I can't see much mention of that.
the names and clothing are built in from infancy, and I'm willing to bet that tithing takes place. Rites of passage would probably be more closely related to age milestones than anything else. I recognise that I'm speculating here, but I think they function similarly enough to your traditional cult model to fit the definition. It'd probably look more obvious if they were taking converts, but I can't see much mention of that.
It's definitely a blurry line in this case. I really wouldn't consider tithing to fit the property factor, though, because in the cults I was referring to people usually sign away literally everything to either the charismatic leader or the religious organisation itself. Think Jim Jones or the Church of Scientology here. If these people have their own homes, vehicles, gainful employment - in other words, if they can support themselves outside the religious structure - then that wouldn't fit the model exactly.
However, the really important thing is this: are these people allowed to leave if they desire to do so?
Yeah, its a different kind of thing, but I don't think its any less worrying.
I'm original article mentioned some girls being pressured to come back, or not being able to cope alone, which is really common in these isolationist religions. Not sure the same overt pressures would be on males, since it would conflict with their 'teh menz are in charge of their own destiny' ideology, but the shunning would still occur and that can place a lot of pressure on someone.
I really hate isolationist religions. If they don't want to be part of society, they need to stop expecting to be let in to shops. Hypocrites.
Posts
No, they are doing it for themselves.
The leaders are only trying to perpetuate the meme because it grants continued power/status/control to the leaders.
Guys, let's not fight about this. There's no reason they can't be both incredibly deluded AND sociopaths.
I will grant that they can be both incredibly deluded and sociopaths, but I find it doubtful that there aren't people at the top who know damn well what they are doing is "wrong" by their own standards but do it anyways because they love the power/control. Saying they are deluded by their own religion doesn't hold water for me, it's like saying there is no one at the top of the pyramid scheme....someone knows it was wrong but would work to their benefit.
And what wazilla said. It could be both. I have no doubt that many authority cult leaders want to safeguard their own power, but at the same time want to use that power to do the greatest amount of good for their meme.
edit: ah, yeah I'd say the leaders are cognizant of what they're doing.
The idea that a person's beliefs and actions should be unified in a consistent ideological structure is a rational idea and, more often than not, a liberal idea. Consider the way most religious people argue against, for example, evolution. They will unhesitantly bring up any idea, any article, any point of contention with evolution to "win" the argument—regardless of whether or not those ideas and articles are consistent with each other or with their own beliefs. They already know they're right, both morally and rationally, and I honestly think that it doesn't occur to most of them to actually bother to check if their arguments and behaviors in pursuit of that "rightness" are at all consistent.
Fair enough.
This is why any system of government has to be beholden to the people and have acting in the best interests of the people as core tenants. Any system that tries to act in the best interest of a meme is bound to be morally bankrupt.
This is why I don't go to church anymore. Which is more important, the welfare of the congregation or god? When people start trying to justify putting humans further down on their list of priorities (by saying your soul is eternal or whatever) that's when you need to re-evaluate your beliefs.
are statements like these necessary for you to make your point?
i don't think so
The Rumspringa at least gives the illusion of choice to Amish youth. Wiki says that it isn't terribly effective in influencing a teenager's choice to leave and become "English." Though I would venture that few religious groups provide their youth with the opprotunity to leave the fold of their own volition.
Of course, Amish who leave the fold are shunned, as I understand it. So it sacrifices the family for the individual.. In the end I couldn't say how great freedom would be if it meant alienating all the people you were close to.
I've considered homeschooling my (hypothetical future) kids, mostly because my experience with public education was so horrible.
If a given parent wants to homeschool their kids, they should be required to teach a minimum curriculum comparable to the public school system.
No child should grow up stupider for having been homeschooled.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Except there are children involved.
And they're not playing.
I have a couple of friends who have done this, and unfortunately, I have to say the experience has made me even less sympathetic to the idea.
I mean, it seems like these people are doing it for all the right reasons. They're not cultists; they're smart, liberal, and educated, but don't make a whole ton of money and so live in an assy part of town that manages to be half ghetto and half Deliverance. There's no parental involvement at the local school and the education standards are lax. When their kid went there for first grade he started forgetting things he had already learned because they were so far behind the curve.
But. But but but. As they homeschooled for a few years, he did well, but over time it became increasingly apparent that the kid has various developmental and psychological issues (the diagnoses were all over the map, but I guess it's now down to Asperger's with a dash of Tourette's) and his progress slowed and then started going backward, and meanwhile he is massively undersocialized and is actually getting less so by the day (to the point where a few of our mutual friends have started avoiding the couple because they hate being in the same room with the kid) and also starting to exhibit disturbing behaviors like lying and theft.
So this past year they put him back in for what would be fifth grade, and it has turned out that the shitty school district actually has a reasonably decent special-ed program, and that combined with his new medication has led to gradual improvement. But his mom is still adamant that this is temporary and she has been on the prowl for any excuse to pull him out and start in again; and one night I asked her why she seems eager to do that since he's improving and she has time to work and earn money now, and she became very emotional on the subject of public school and started talking about how horrible it all is and how cruel kids are and how it eventually drove her to drugs and risky behavior and a couple of suicide attempts.
And I realized that this kid's entire future is basically at the mercy of whatever random shit happened to her in a different school on the other side of the country a decade ago. Like those parents in the cliche who push their kids to be NFL all-stars because dad never got a chance to. It doesn't matter that they're smart, and they genuinely love their kid and want what's best for him; their own deepseated issues can still overrule all that at a moment's notice. So I now think maybe it's a good thing for a kid to go to a school - even a subpar one - and be exposed to all those other perspectives and experiences. If it sucks, that's where the parenting comes in; you try to find a different school, or help supply the necessary emotional support. I can't help but notice in my friend's case that her family was notably absent from all of this - and if they hadn't been, her experience might have been considerably different.
I dunno isnt the leader in this case the great beard in the sky? are these all necessarily cults of personality? I thought they were more grassroots, egalitarian movements rather than pyramids of illiteracy
I'm trying to maintain my hatred of children beyond my girlfriend's menopause so I'm never tempted to expose myself to a situation like this.
I am guessing that the Warren Jeffs cult of personality model is the norm in these communities, based on what I've seen on other message boards dedicated partly to the subject. And anecdotal evidence! My step-brother (related to step-cousins) is not a Hasidic Jew but he's super-orthodox and he and his wife have joined a rather secluded community. Their rabbi leader apparently controls who they vote for (he made them vote for McCain).
I think it's possible to be grass-roots and simultaneously a cult of personality. Though maybe "cult of personality" isn't exactly the right word because a grass-roots church leader may not have an outsize personality but still act as a supreme authority within his cultlike community. I earlier used the word "authority cult," which I've seen a bunch of ex-Christians use to describe their old churches.
True.
This is not to say that charismatic Protestant leaders don't emerge - they do - but it manifests itself in different ways from the standard Moonie-esque cult, with the near-godlike figurehead at the top of a very wide pyramid. Usually it involves large groups of congregations who all have similar belief systems but, at least nominally, don't answer to any single figure. Usually, the pastor becomes the de facto charismatic head and, in these extreme communities, has a great deal of power over his own congregation but no power over the congregation next door. The collective personalities of these groups then vary considerably based on the personality of its leader. However, these groups usually all share religious literature, which usually gives them their beliefs that distinguish them as a group. But they might not necessarily revere the person who wrote those books, or even think much about them one way or the other.
Why don't you just get a vasectomy?
Well, that's because your liberal parent would be able to argue the point in the marketplace of ideas. These folks aren't as capable.
Try explaining shit to a nine year old.
Just pray over her ovaries.
Chanting "Away demon seeds! Away!"
they dont' cut your penis they puncture your scrotum
Just cut these fuckers off and let them figure out how to make fire on their own.
They could potentially fuck with local elections though.
Two words: school vouchers. "Why should I have to pay for a [godless liberal secular] education system I don't use?"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, that sounds SO MUCH better.
These people are doing an excellent job of providing evidence for that claim.
The word "cult" can technically refer to any religion with an established and systematic practice, IIRC. Some major religions even embrace this term - in the Catholic Church, for instance, you have cults of various saints. In India, each deity or the various aspects thereof probably has their own "cult".
However, "cult" as it is used colloquially refers to a fairly specific social phenomenon. Most of the time it involves an enclosed, isolated group (not necessarily geographically isolated, although that is sometimes the case) which is not part of larger society (unlike more established religions, which are usually integrated to society at least somewhat). Hallmarks of a "classic" cult include a charismatic figure at its head, who is usually treated as a deity or someone who is in contact with divine powers, and who is given spiritual and temporal authority over the rest of the cult, and, often, subordinates who enforce the wishes of the charismatic leader. There is often a series of rites of passages that a cult member goes through when being initiated into the cult, which often involve systematic depersonalisation and a loss of individual identity (being given new names, special clothing, etc.). It is also common for new cult members to give away all their property to the cult or the cult leader, and for the cult itself to forbid contact with the outside world to most cult members, forcibly if necessary. Often, these cults fail to outlast the death, abandonment or imprisonment of their charismatic leader.
Quiverfull meets some of these criteria - forbidding contact with the outside world, especially - but I'm not sure if I could call it a "cult", since they lack a single charismatic figure at the top of the pyramid, the existence of private property and (most importantly) I'm not sure if membership is enforced on a larger scale than the nuclear family.
However, the really important thing is this: are these people allowed to leave if they desire to do so?
I'm original article mentioned some girls being pressured to come back, or not being able to cope alone, which is really common in these isolationist religions. Not sure the same overt pressures would be on males, since it would conflict with their 'teh menz are in charge of their own destiny' ideology, but the shunning would still occur and that can place a lot of pressure on someone.
I really hate isolationist religions. If they don't want to be part of society, they need to stop expecting to be let in to shops. Hypocrites.