Reddit delivers again, this time from the personal experience of one redditor with the Mega-conman Benny Hinn. The whole story is very cringe-worthy, particularly the way that people are manipulated shamelessly and then blamed for the lack of success. Some choice quotes that made my eyes pop in surprise.
We sat next to a latino family who, by the looks of their clothes, did not have a pot to piss in. Upon the first offertory (and there were 4 offertories that evening), the family father cut a check for $3500 and slipped it into the lock box carried by one of the three dozen visibly armed ushers. Each lock box had a sign on the front reading, Suggested Donation: $1000.00. The family gave additional money each time the lock box went by, but I am not sure how much.
Which is a perfect example why the poor in very religious countries have so much more difficuly rising out of poverty. The fact that the scum that is Benny Hinn can accept such donations for nothing more than a stage show is sickening.
Well, the old lady who fell was crying. Not because she injured herself. But because the men in blue told her (according to one of the Pepsi Center employees who allowed us to stand nearby) that she couldn’t be healed because her faith in God was not 100%. She was told to stand against the wall until she confessed to God that her faith was shaken and be forgiven for it, or confess the sin she was hiding that was preventing God from healing her. A sixtysomething woman, bawling her eyes out (old people crying really gets me).
This is the face of fucking evil folks. This is what you indirectly support as a moderate christian who tolerates faith healing nonsense just because you can’t bring yourself to admit that your God is not omnipotent.
Fuck. This. Shit.
It wouldn’t be as bad if it was simply foolish people losing their money to a professional conman and thus taking themselves out of the social pool in a Darwinian sense (although that’s pretty bad anyway.) It’s the fact that a scum like Benny Hinn achieves so much financial power that he can easily start lobbying politicians for policies that benefit him (even scarier, imagine politicians actually attending and believing his shows…) and he can purchase and control actual capitalist businesses and run them according to his greedy-scummy nature.
Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.
As a bit of a closet atheist when it comes to one segment of my family, religious discussions between my father and I can be…awkward, at best. After all, he’s a Catholic, raised me to be Catholic, and assumes that despite our differing political beliefs that I still am. Usually this isn’t a problem, but alas, the recent controversy around the National Day of Prayer, every May in America, inevitably brought it up. You’ve all heard the arguments, I needn’t re-hash them for you. What was disconcerting to me was to hear the statement that non-Christians, specifically atheists, should leave the country. I’ve heard the sentiment many a time online, on television, on the radio, etc…hearing it from a parent is another experience. As most atheists are aware, that sort of experience is quite unpleasant, and a little terrifying.
Because of it, I wanted to talk about the sort of mentality that lead to the statement and why it, and Christianity as a whole, should concern Americans more than Islam. While this website isn’t specific to America at all, the world is nevertheless affected by America’s policies—for better or for (in my opinion) much, much worse. Compared to other developed Christian countries, the United States is obsessed with it’s religion. We’re a diverse country, but the majority group—that is, those who practice Christianity—feel that the country “belongs to them”. And they are willing to enforce that belief. That, ladies and gentlemen, makes Christianity a greater threat to “our freedom” than Islam ever was.
Now, I won’t pretend America is the beautiful shining “land of the free” it’s made out to be. We all know better.
The mindset, it’s a rather common one in America and, I’m sure, in much of the Christian world. I imagine it’s a fascinating thing to feel that an entire country and it’s history, laws, and resources belong to you. While as a white, able-bodied person I am privileged, it is one thing to be in a privileged group and another to feel that said group is entitled to something as, for example, white supremacist groups feel. And Christian nationalism is the religious and cultural equivalent of white supremacy, and the two are intimately entwined.
Now: a quick bit of sidetracking. If you don’t care about semantics, just skip this paragraph. To build on ACP’s previous post—What is religion?—I will give my own definition of religion. A definition is possible, as most can agree on which things are religions and which are not, except for when an ulterior motive is involved. One of the problems with definition is that while a religion often acts as a social group, it is possible to adopt the rules and even partially the culture of a religion yet be disconnected from the group. Adding to the problem is that religions rarely follow their own rules, are too organic to be considered organizations (rather, organizations exist within a religion, and religions exist outside of organization). The cultural and often racial aspects of religion are too strong to deny—race and culture go hand in hand, and religions change entirely when adopted by new cultural groups. A religion is looser than an organization and tighter than simply being “like-minded”—it is a loose group of people who share specific beliefs concerning the supernatural, from which extends a shared culture and morality as well as different interpretations of the beliefs, which may be enforced by organizations representing the religion. Anyway, that’s the definition I’ll be using—mostly I just discussed it because I’d like to encourage the definition to be talked about.
Onwards:
The danger of Christianity in America is twofold. First, it is a negative influence on decisions which affect the entire country and, two, Christian nationalism threatens to turn the country into more of a theocracy than it already is, at the cost of non-Christians in America and around the world. Islam only poses a true threat to freedom in the countries where it has legal clout—for the same reasons Christianity is dangerous in Christian countries. Outside of Islamic governments, Islam poses little threat to the rights of Americans and others. That sounds rather insane to say, but consider that Islam’s only threat to America lies in its few radical extremists’ ability to cause fear by taking lives. Yet the actual number of lives they take is small compared to even the seasonal flu.
To the average American, even the Christian ones who are only moderate or Christian in name, Christianity poses a greater threat. The reason is that as a Christian-controlled government with significant support from certain politically inclined sects, America’s policies are not being decided on facts and reason but on faith, which can fit any preconceived viewpoint. It’s not just an accident of human nature—it’s what Christian nationalists want.
Like extremist Muslims, the Christian establishment (as well as the other Judeo-Christian religions) uses terrorism to enforce it’s morality. Where radical Islamists use direct violence and threats of direct violence, Christian organizations use other methods to induce fear (the threat of Hell, for example). Not a big deal, right, after all, so does every political group. There are a few problems, however. Unlike white supremacy groups and specific political parties, Christianity is not a fringe political group, nor is it’s pull kept to one side of the political spectrum. Christianity exerts a pull over anyone who proclaims themselves to be a Christian, even if they disagree with the specific message. The fear of Hell can influence any Christian.
And Christians have long since declared war on secular America. As Atheist Revolution recently mentioned, America’s top Republican presidential candidates for 2012 have made it clear there is room only for the Christian god in the nation they plan to run. In the documentary Jesus Camp, Christian fanatics train children to be “soldiers of God” in order to “fix this country”. We’ve all heard the rhetoric—“take this nation back for Christ”. Christians have for years been attempting to forcereligion back into the classroom, and continue to expectshows of faith from citizens. The sense of Christian entitlement in this country is so strong that non-Christians are often told to simply leave the country if they don’t like it—the presumption being that Christians own the nation. All of this leaves an increasingly small amount of space for an increasingly larger group—that is, those in America who desire secular government. History has shown that formerly powerfulgroups who have lost their power and feel (justified or not) oppressed lash out legally and violently.
Radical Islamists can frighten Americans who fail to put death tolls into perspective. Their real power lies in their ability to frighten critics of Islam—and that is truly terrible—but the overall effect of censoring criticism of Islam does little to really harm this country and much of the world. If Islamists really wanted to destroy America and Western culture—as we are constantly told—they need only give Christian nationalists more power.
“The thing about religion is that it provides a powerful language through which you can justify any ideology.” —Reeza Aslan, author of God Or No God.
As the only person who seems actively interested in social science beyond the layman perspective, I’ve come to realize that even though this site is about religion (and the lack thereof); we have written nothing about what we mean by religion and how it’s possible to study various religious groups and organizations. One of the reasons why could possibly be because religion is a very troublesome term in and by itself. It is not constructed with a scientific perspective in mind, so when people refer to religion it can have vastly different meanings, especially within the academia. As a social anthropologist, it is not possible for me to attempt to frame in all these different definitions within social science, but I can at least start by referring to the most common definitions used in anthropology.
The broadest definition in anthropology of what a religion is “is a belief in Spiritual Beings” (Bowie, 2006). This seems to agree with the more common and general definition of religion in everyday language. When someone says that he or she is religious, it is most likely a reference to a belief in a spiritual being, for example the Christian God. From a philosophical perspective, spiritual can be replaced with metaphysical, and it becomes possible to understand this being as existing beyond or after the physical (world) . What is implied here is that this spiritual being is more often than not a single substance on its own residing outside the universe as we know it. The problem with this definition is that there are religions that can be classified as atheistic in nature. A classical example includes Hinduism while more modern examples are modern Satanism and thelema. Pantheistic religions are not necessarily included in this definition either, especially the naturalistic strain. So while Bowie’s definition is useful especially when studying more classical religions, it also leaves something more to be desired.
Clifford Geertz offers another which doesn’t refer to the actual belief system itself, but rather the social meaning a religion can carry to those who practice it. To him, religion is
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
The positive side of this definition is that religion certainly fulfils such a social role in different societies. Christianity wasn’t really that questioned as an authentic and realistic belief system until the Enlightenment which led to such beliefs that the earth was indeed flat and in the center of the universe. Atheistic religions such as modern Satanism and thelema are also safely encompassed because they too function in such a manner to the practitioners. The biggest critique against this definition is how it is possible to basically take any system of symbols and make it seem like a religion. Is it a religion to be a vegetarian? To be a vegetarian usually includes following specific norms and ethics which are felt as true to those who are professed vegetarians.
Same problems arise when attempting to refer to how the word religion is described in a dictionary:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow .
It is possible to ignore point 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. So instead I will start by addressing the first point. The biggest problem with this definition is that superhuman agencies should preferably be involved, and as discussed against Bowie’s definition, same critique applies here. It also assumes that religious practice must contain some kind of rites of rituals. In this day and age where individual spirituality is becoming increasingly popular , it is questionable whether it is needed for a person to be classified as religious. A deist is a very typical and good example of this. A deist is not necessarily a part of any organization, does not necessarily perform and rites and rituals in his or her worship and a deist might even follow a typical scientific approach when it comes to the creation of the physical universe. It is therefore highly questionable whether these beliefs can actually be called “beliefs” except for the actual belief in a spiritual being, in this case a deity of unknown properties. Pantheists also fall short in this definition since there’s nothing that says that a pantheist cannot follow a typical scientific description of the universe, and the most common interpretation of pantheism usually excludes any form of spiritual being. It becomes even more troublesome when studying modern Satanism which falls short on everything but on a moral code that dictates how people should attempt to live, but even then there is such a large difference between individual practitioners even this point can be questioned.
A fault of this definition therefore lies in its assumption that a person must be a member of a religious institution or organization and how it presupposes a belief in a spiritual being in order to be classified as religious.
2 is very similar to Geertz’ definition and same critique applies there. Don’t members of the Weightwatchers agree on certain fundamental beliefs and practices of how to lose weight? Here I mean that it is actually a belief to consider it better and healthier to lose weight than not to, as there are plenty of serious studies showing that the relationship between obesity and unhealth are not as crystal clear as have been previously believed.
3 is not very different from 2 except that it attempts to frame in a more global and general perspective, so same critique again applies. Even if the way of how to lose weight may be different among those who attempt to eat according to different diets, they all seem to share and espouse similar ideas why overweight is bad and what general methods to use to lose weight.
To sum it up, there is no real good definition of what a religion is as all of them got some major critique against them for not being inclusive enough or for being too vague and broad. It is however possible to attempt to find suitable definitions depending on what kind of definitions one is looking for, and then have an open discussion why that definition would be better over the other.
I have uploaded my thesis about Satanism in black metal on Academia.edu and it will thus be fully viewable for everyone as an online resource. The file conversion didn’t seem to like some format editing in the original version, but it should not distract the reading experience too much. I have changed the file from .doc (mostly because it felt too public and easy to access and change the content) into .pdf. Now the online version will appear as it does in the original paper.
No one is allowed to reproduce my thesis without my permission. Any attempts to claim authorship and profit out of my thesis will be strictly forbidden.
Abstract for those too lazy to read it on Academia.edu:
Satanism and antichristianity have always had prominent roles in black metal. While most musicians and fans would claim that true evil is organized religion and even more so Christianity, black metal also appears as a new religious movement, making this statement highly paradoxical. One way to understand this is the constant search for an authentic masculine identity, and how the modern consumerist society is perceived to create a social climate that make some groups within the society feel alienated. Such a group includes heterosexual, working class men that made up most of the early black metal scene.
With the help of the anti-aesthetic, which can take such expressions as self-mutilations and in the forms of opinions that it is good for humans to suffer instead of being happy, black metal men attempt to find their True Selves by separating that which they find masculine from the feminine – where Satanism and antichristianity become tools to do this. By idolizing and revering Satan as the perfect man, black metal men have started a war against Christianity to conquer which they think always belonged to them – namely their masculine identity from the on-going “feminization”.
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.”
But Mr. President, my (lack of) faith does not have any equivalent to prayer, I don’t have any God to give thanks to, or ask for guidance or protection. You “call upon” me to do what, then?
Even if we put aside the fact that prayer has not been proven to provide a result more consistent than the randomness that would occur naturally, even if we grant that some people “enrich” their lives with it (without questioning exactly how talking to themselves enriches their lives, of course), and even if we acknowledge the role in the history of the United states played by Christianity… I’m sorry, I mean, “a generic concept of religion without referring to any specific denomination or faith but slightly alluding to Christianity, so as not to blatantly exclude or offend anyone except atheists and agnostics”, then it still begs the question, what about those of us who DON’T pray, for whatever personal reason? Effectively, you’ve just told us to participate in a religious exercise, and no matter how much of a “universal” spin you try to place on it, the fact remains that it is not universal. The fact that it is fundamentally unique to specific spiritual worldviews indicates that the government should keep its hands out, or violate the freedoms of those who do not hold the worldview that includes the exercise.
This fact makes these words incredibly hollow:
Let us rejoice for the blessing of freedom both to believe and to live our beliefs, and for the many other freedoms and opportunities that bring us together as one Nation.
Yes, the blessing of freedom to live our beliefs. That implies that no government official ever tells you what you should be doing in your personal, private, spiritual life. EVER. Well, Mr. President, by issuing your Proclaimation “calling the citizens… to pray”, you are doing just that.
Ever since Last.fm sold out to corporate interests I was expecting the day would come when the many anti-religion groups that existed there were taken down to avoid offending the sensibilities of the increasing pop audience. Well it seems that happened while I was not looking as the first thing I heard about it is this post from Anath in the forum. Apparently the last.fm admins purged many of the existing anti-religion groups with the reasoning that they were promoting “hatred” but fortunately spared the ACP which was seen of keeping things more civil. This message was sent to Anath:
Hi,
As you might have heard, some anti-religion groups have been deleted recently. I have been looking at your group as well, and a few things are beyond what I would normally authorise, but most of the contents are discussion orientated and not just plain bashing and hatred. This is the reason why I am not deleting this group. But I strongly encourage you to keep a strong moderation going, so it does not become mindless hatred.
As an example, “Metal against Islamism group was deleted… BASTARDS!” and “Oh good grief. Stupid bastards, creating a mass of groups for exactly the same thing. That’s just confusing.” are the kind of things I would rather not want to see appearing.
In this thread various opinions were heard, some coming from the Metal against Islamism admins who tried to explain that they had no warning and no chance to fix things before being deleted. The admins of Last.fm also chimed in to explain that they would simply prefer to avoid rampart hatred but have no problem with reasoned arguments. Apparently one of the main reasons why MAI was deleted was their shoutbox was flooded with seething anti-Islam posts, far too many to delete individually. So the whole thing had to be taken down. It reminds of how the Protoss used to clean the Zerg infestations in the popular Starcraft[I] PC game.
The ironic thing is that the reason the ACP group was spared was the strong moderation we were seen of having which prevented a lot of the most questionable stuff. This moderation, which takes the form of requiring people to join the group before posting in the forum or shoutbox, was implemented in fact to prevent Christian trolling as we would often get fly-by posts and shouts from people who only wanted to disrupt. They would spam the forum with dozens of pro-christian nonsense for example and then leave before being banned, making it impossible to stop them.
The interesting thing is that all this purging has given a very strong boost in activity to the ACP as it has now become a haven for all those people left groupless in the anti-religion department. Hopefully this will make for a healthier and more active anti-christian community that does not devolve into a circle-jerk of mindless christian bashing.
It also points out the benefits of having an external website complementing your last.fm forum such as the one you’re currently reading. In case the ACP had been taken down, we would still be able to use this area for a staging area until we found a new home, either under a new name or a new forum.
As for Last.fm, unfrtunately it seems to be taking more and more of the corporate route. One can only hope that they won’t go to the extent that Microsoft has for example when they started banning all mention of homosexuality in their allowed usernames. One can only hope that if “hateful” anti-religion groups have been deleted, the same has been done to the hateful religious, fascist and racist groups but I have no knowledge of this either way.
Footnotes
I was thinking of linkin to a wikipedia article of this but then I thought: Seriously, if you don’t know what Starcraft is, you’re probably too old for this site anyway [↩]
The most important reason for my atheism is the absence of both evidence and arguments (both sound and valid) for the existence of God. This can be extended for for my rejection of essential passages in the Bible which endeavour to establish the incidence of certain events in world history. These span the creation myth from the book of Genesis to Jesus’ miracles in the Gospel books. But parallel to the empirical criticism of such truth claims, there are also reasons why I reject Christianity as a collection of philosophical doctrines. Never minding whether the truth claims in the Bible actually stack up, I want to criticize some of the more abstract ideas tied into this religion. In this short essay, I want to criticise Christian ethics – or rather lack thereof, which I will explain in full.
It is a common argument by theists that without a god, there are no morals and everything is permitted. In the absence of a god who sets a standard of wrong and right, man is argued to be clueless as to whether, for example, murder is a good thing or not. I will not go very deep into alternative approaches of morality, but simply analyse the abovementioned position and draw conclusions from it. But first I should establish the specific ethical theory that is immanent in Christianity (but which is also true for Islam and Judaism). In these montheistic religions, the god is the giver of the moral law. Because God is said to be benevolent, all-knowing and all-wise, he is the giver of moral laws which are absolute and eternal. This idea of ethics is commonly referred to as Divine Command Theory (DCT). I will focus on two main problems with DCT.
The first one is in the form of a dilemma, originally found in Plato’s dialogues, posed by a philosopher called Euthyphro. It can be adapted to fit a core problem of DCT as found in philosophical theism in the following way:
“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”
This is Euthypro’s Dilemma[I] . The question is fundamental and must be answered, but both answers pose serious problems for DCT. I will first discuss the second part of the dilemma.
If what is moral is so because it is commanded by God, then that means that anything that God commands is moral by definition. Whatever God commands to be moral is arbitrary, thereby reducing God’s benevolence to meaning absolutely nothing. Gottfried Leibniz wrote[II]“So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?” And that sums the problem up quite nicely – if we choose to answer the problem by saying whatever God commands is moral, we forfeit any rational consideration of morals and allow ourselves to be subjected to the whim of God.If God were to command that the rape of altar boys is an moral imperative, those who accept DCT would have to accept that in that scenario that action is indeed moral, and have to try their very best to make sure as many altar boys are raped as possible. The consequences of accepting DCT are clear: it replaces any moral predispositions one has by the perceived commands of God, without allowing the intellect to evaluate them. I reject this as I perceive it as nothing less than moral self-enslavement.
So what if we were to accept that what is good is commanded by God because it is good? Then we are left with the question: well what is God good for? In this possible response to the dilemma God is the messenger who tells us what is good in itself. However: morality itself is independent of God, as without God the moral laws that God otherwise would communicate to us in his commands would still exist and be in effect. However, there is still a problem with this approach, and the problem is epistemic in nature. The same problem arises for the other approach, but it is of less importance there because of other objections. Here, however, we must deal with how we can know what God commands. A theist might point to scriptures and claim we can find what God commands in there, but in practice this is a futile attempt. Thousands of years of interpreting scriptures has lead to various religious denominations that have decided upon mutually exclusive moral laws based on what is according to them the correct canonical collection. Furthermore, there are moral problems in the modern world for which no guidance can be found in these scriptures, revealing a moral vacuity.
What is interesting about Christianity is that ethics based on DCT is mostly prevalent in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, seems to also place importance on a different meta-ethical system which focuses on having certain virtues rather than following certain rules – virtue ethics. This is explicitly expressed in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount[III]. Some virtues that are blessed by Jesus are “poorness in spirit” (“humility”), “meekness”, “righteousness”, “mercy” and “purity of heart”. Jesus also blesses those who are persecuted, those who are peacemakers and those who mourn. In other passages, Jesus emphasizes on virtues like “love” and “service”. In virtue ethics the emphasis is on the person, who is good if he/she embodies these virtues, rather than the actions of the person. This could partly explain the reluctance of Christian denominations to require abiding the full Mosaic Law, and why these denominations place emphasis on “The Ten Commandments”, rather than all 613 of them[IV]. Virtue ethics has its own problems, like internal consistency (should one embody benevolence and tell a white lie, or embody truthfulness and tell a hurtful truth?) and a lack of basis and therefore external inconsistency, a foremost example of which is voiced by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche rejected various Christian values (virtues can be understood as are moral values) such as pity and faith, calling these decadent values as they are antagonistic to Nietzsche’s Will to Power and the higher sort of man[V]. There is no basis for deciding which set of values/virtues are better than another.
Any system of ethics which does not rely on rational analysis of its precepts, but rather on obedience and authority, is inherently prone to abuse, and should therefore be rejected. We are all moral people, and I am saddened when I see people defend the tyrannical actions of the Old Testament god. I not only believe that I am more moral than that god, I also believe that people who are defending this god are more moral than it. It is exactly as Steven Weinberg said[VI]:
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. “
In response to the controversial blasphemy laws added to the constitution of Ireland, a few artists came together and made blasphemous art, collected and displayed in a new exhibition in Dublin. The exhibition opened on Good Friday, the day Christians celebrate (?) the crucifiction crucifixion.
Having grown up as the youngest son of a Christian minister, first in the Baptist denomination, then into Pentecostal and Non-Denominational Churches (part of the Charismatic movement for the most part), I was heavily indoctrinated in Protestant Christianity from a very young age (since birth really). From my earliest memories, I was in church everytime the doors were opened (mainly because my father usually was the one who opened them). For much of my early childhood, we even had a family bible study every single weeknight. As a result, I have a very strong understanding and knowledge of this religion, and it’s sacred writings.
Another effect of this style of upraising is that I have undergone a long, painful, arduous journey escaping what I now think of as the brainwashing that I was subjected to for more than half of my life. To this day, I still have not escaped all of the effects of this time in my life. After all, it was perpetrated at the most developmentally important part of my growth. My natural bend to intellectualism was discouraged and stunted, because it does not fit with the practice of blind faith. My kneejerk sense of morality, which has both negative and positive aspects, does not always correspond with a realistic purview of ethical behavior. Depite my initial liberation from irrational beliefs, I still pay a penalty for the brainwashing I endured in these, and many other different ways. I am progressing daily. But, it seems such an unnecessary struggle should have been avoided.
The steps of Brainwashing according to:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm
1.Assault on identity
2.Guilt
3.Self-betrayal
4.Breaking point
5.Leniency
6.Compulsion to confess
7.Channeling of guilt
8.Releasing of guilt
9.Progress and harmony
10.Final confession and rebirth
Why do I think of this as brainwashing? Let’s consider the definition of brainwashing (according to Oxford American Dictionary): make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.
1. The first step to brainwashing is to attack the subject’s sense of self, or identity. Since a child is developing his/her sense of self within the context of the religious teachings, this step is fulfilled by default, as there is no prior sense of self to overcome.
2. Christianity is built upon the concept of guilt. We sinful creatures must be redeemed from the sinful nature we inherited, that was passed down through the generations from Adam and Eve. So, the second step, which is guilt is obviously fulfilled.
3. Attending church, listening to the songs, the sermon, and just the casual conversation of the congregation, constantly reinforces to the child how guilty everyone including the child him/her self are. This fulfills the step of self betrayal by convincing the child of his/her own lack of intrinsic worth. The child is forced to admit this, at least inside, if not to others. Ultimately, this step is about internalizing the guilt that is hammered down in step 2.
4. This leads to the point where the child wonders what he/she, the wretched sinful creature can possibly do about his/her dismal state. Obviously, there is nothing that he/she as an inherently evil creature can do. This is the point where God and Jesus come in. They are willing to forgive you, and give you a new life, one without the sinful nature that makes you so evil. The child is worn down to the point of relinquishing his/her control of self, the breaking point. I clearly remember spending many sleepless nights at the tender age of 8 crying out to God to save me. I was terrified of going to hell. It was much worse than any horror movie, or any other source of fear that I had felt before or since that time. It is a very powerful motivator to embrace the teachings of Christianity. To this day, I still have a deep fear of going to hell, even though I no longer even believe in such a place.
5. The step of leniency is fulfilled by the grace and mercy that God exhibits by giving the child a chance at salvation, simply by believing that Jesus died as a sacrifice to redeem him/her from his/her wretched sinful nature. He/She can now go to heaven, because she/he believes. Isn’t God good to help that child. Isn’t He showing leniency to such an unworthy creature.
6-10. To save time and space, I won’t belabor the obvious. I think that you get the gist of what I am saying here. For these reasons, I will summarize the rest of the steps in one short paragraph. The child is encouraged to confess his/her sins often, at various times, in various ways. The pain that is associated with the guilt is attributed to the “world” as opposed to the “things of God” or the “Kingdom of Heaven”. This encourages the child to avoid the “evil” things of the “world”. After the conversion experience, it is the world that is blamed for the evil that may occasionally overtake the child. To remedy this, the child is encouraged to avoid the world. It is by renewing his/her mind in the Word of God that he/she insulates him/her self from the world, and the attendant guilt. This renewing and dedication to the things of God are put forth as providing the peace and harmony that has been denied the child through the aforementioned mechanisms. This, in turn, provides a sense of comfort and a cessation of a sense of responsibility within the child, as long as he/she continues to live in the prescribed way.
Considering that nearly every one of these steps can take place in a single church service, and that many children go through thousands of these services in their lifetimes, one can easily see the erosive power of such a mechanism on a person’s will, especially as the personality, will, emotions, virtually every aspect that we think of as representing the very humanness of humanity, is yet to be formed. I have often thought that continuing to teach something that has already been learned ad nauseam must be a form or step of brainwashing. In what other aspect of life is this sort of instruction used, and considered normal?
The alert reader may wonder how the definition’s statement of adopting radically different beliefs is fulfilled. Well, I’m glad you asked. Part of what led to my eventual deconversion was my noticing the fact that many of the most important claims made in the Bible are of a supernatural nature. Though I have spoken with a few people who claim direct exposure to what they consider to be supernatural events, I have not witnessed nor heard of any experience or phenomena that could not either be explained using natural means, or reasonably doubted (most often because of humanity’s notoriously untrustworthy mechansisms of perception). This has lead me to ask the question, both of myself and others: What in our daily experiences supports the idea of the supernatural phenomena reported in the bible? Is there any reason or evidence that shows that such claims are truly possible/probable. These beliefs that we are expected to hold in Christianity really are radically different from our personal experiences of the natural world. What reason, other than the teaching (brainwashing), and widespread acceptance of such beliefs, do we have to believe these truly incredible claims?
Not sure how many who actually like to cook around here, or bake bread, but I was doing exactly that at my aunt’s place. As some of you may know, baking bread requires the dough to rest for a certain amount of time, usually thirty minutes or more, so I had nothing to do and joined my cousin who was zapping on the TV. Then this movie shows up and the whole premise sounds very exaggerated and bound to fail: Christian girl attending a Christian school leading her perfect (Christian) teenage life gets to know that not only is her boyfriend actually homosexual, but he also made her pregnant. Now, I am certain most people would go “Ewww!” over that, and I certainly did as well. However, my cousin decided to give this very convoluted plot a go, and I decided that at least I can laugh over how ridiculous it could turn out. The movie does start out decently with an ironical tint in the eye. It would possibly trick you to believe its general message would be religion sucks, but not quite. First we get to follow the main character, ironically named Mary, as she introduces us into what would seem to be the perfect teenage life. Then the scenery changes where Mary and her boyfriend Dean are telling each other secrets while under water in a swimming pool, and Dean tells her that he thinks he is gay. The events that follow are actually pretty genuinely funny, not because it sucks so much. Mary hits her head in shock, she gets a revelation that Jesus is trying to tell her that the only way to save Dean is to sacrifice her virginity to him, so so she does. Of course how Dean could even possibly be physically attracted to her so he can actually bang her is an interesting question, but she became pregnant nevertheless. The first half of the movie then revolves around how Mary is trying to avoid getting caught up and exposed by her more radical Christian friends as well as her mother and how Dean was sent to a place called Mercy Camp that “treats” homosexuals. In the second half, we are introduced to Roland and Cassandra, two students who both attend this Christian school without really being Christians themselves but really got no other choices left unless they would want homeschooling. Cassandra is depicted as your typical troublemaker – but this doesn’t bother you because in a way she is portrayed as an antihero and an antithesis to that which is Hilary Faye, the super-ultra conservative Christian girl who’s the also of course the most popular at the school they both attend. Now the movie tries less to be a comedy and more a drama, and the result is pretty much so-so. What is mostly lacking is character depth. Take for example Roland, who I don’t know who he is and where he came from and what motivates him. It might be that I missed some background introduction scenes while I had to run away to attend the dough, but obviously being wheelchair-bound would still warrant more character development than what he is doing in this very moment, which is basically following Cassandra around (they later become a couple). Roland and Cassandra befriend Mary, because they aren’t as bothered by her pregnancy as others and they support her in her choice to rather keep the baby than aborting it. So what happens at this point is that a war breaks out between Cassandra and Hilary Faye which is slightly over-the-top and unrealistic. It ends up with Hilary Faye spraying cuss words and other offensive statements (to Christians) all over the school walls and then tries to blame Cassandra for it since Cassandra is the trouble-maker. Then there’s the guy called Patrick who has a crush on Mary and also the principal’s son. All of this of course accumulating with the prom as the climax. The problem I had was that Hilary Faye was portrayed as single-minded. There was a mention of how she looked like before she took her diet pills and facial makeup and how that was suppose to fit her inside, with the movie hinting that maybe she really is so aggressive as she is because she’s really insecure and scared deep down, but she doesn’t get more development than that. And same unfortunately applies to the rest of the characters. Tagged along with a liberal message of being accepting and not judgmental, the second half felt cliché and trite. It kind of felt like the movie itself didn’t quite know whether it wanted to be a more light-spirited comedy or a deep drama, and it was really saved by Cassandra’s actor, Eva Amurri. She just stole all the light whenever she was around, because unfortunately, she was actually the really decent actor in this movie, and she carried her character well. Think of Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean, and you should get an idea how it felt like whenever she was on the screen. That she lied, stole, smoked and basically did every other immoral thing a teenager can do didn’t bother you so much because you could sense her rebel spirit. It should be noted that Cassandra was also portrayed as a Jew.
Anyway, my conclusion of “Saved!” as a movie is that it’s half-decent high school stuff if one can bother to overlook the extreme Christian overtones. On the other hand, I do like how it tries to approach young Christians (obviously this movie has a very peculiar target audience which didn’t really include me) and tell them that being caring and loving is more important than judging others because they don’t fit into your particular worldview. There’s actually a quite nice quote uttered by Mary which goes; “If God wants us all to be similar, then why are all we so different?”.
The Antichristian Phenomenon
[
Loading ...