Skip to main content

View Diary: Dominionist cell churches and religious abuse (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Hate" isn't even a reliable thing with cults (5+ / 0-)

    A cult isn't defined on what it hates or what it doesn't; the definition of a coercive religious group is whether or not it practices above a certain threshold value of abusive tactics widely documented in groups known to be abusive.

    Nothing more.  Nothing less.

    Does it ping each and every one of the listings in the "BITE Model"?  Then you are probably dealing with something abusive.

    No?  They might be assholes, but not necessarily spiritually abusive assholes.

    IMHO the RCC counts in the latter--whilst there are movements in the Roman Catholic Church that do border on being coercive religious groups (like Opus Dei or many of the ultramontaine groups), it isn't the level that you see in the Assemblies by far.  Even the SBC is a bit of an iffy case (they're definitely dominionist, they are in the process of being transformed into a coercive religious group, whether or not they are there yet depends on the church congregation).

    The European countries that have had specific task forces on coercive religious groups (Belgium, France and Germany) have been very careful not to use theology as a basis--rather, they simply have measured whether those groups use well-agreed-on tactics of coercion.  Seeing as at least one of the countries in question is still heavily Catholic and the other two still have substantial Catholic populations... :D

    I'm not sure whether a federal taskgroup on coercive religious groups would fly, though.  Among other things (as others have mentioned), we do run into First Amendment issues (and the very groups that promote dominionism have multiple legal foundations whose whole purpose is fighting laws in court that are unfriendly towards dominionism)--you'd almost need an amendment establishing a right to be free from coercion.  (One possible reform model would be that of Mexico or Turkey who have general prohibitions on involvement of religious groups in politics and which further prohibit religious figures from running for office.)

    •  Right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dogemperor

      I understand what you are saying and agree that coercion is a far better way to define them. I still think it would be not possible to have those kind of laws here, barring (as you say) some sort of amendment to the Constitution.   It is not dissimilar to the way that some European countries ban certain hate groups or certain specific examples of expression, but we can not.  However, doing what you are doing and exposing these people is a great way fight these kind of practices, and I thank you for the work.

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

      by bythesea on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:36:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  None of it matters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dogemperor

      Because these groups have co-opted our government into using our military against anyone who disagress with them now.  They have even taken over part of the Democratic party in the form of Lieberman, and the DLC.  They have the control. That is what this latest FISA ruling was all about.  Using the mighty power of spying to coerce people into their beliefs.  And if you don't believe the government is using nanotechnology to further its control, as well as the eves dropping into phone conversations, then I have swampland in the middle of the Gulf to sell you. Further more none of it is about helping our fellow man, it is all about subjugation and control of our fellow man. As evidence I provide New Orleans.  Until we get the conrol back from these people, all the rest is just masturbation IMHO.

      •  one last comment (0+ / 0-)

        They, the dominionists, GWB, the Fascists capitalists, are not only using nanotechnology to further their goals, they are also using foreign nationalists to do it.  That way they can claim plausible denialability, and that they weren't violating the constitution.  How do you think the 9/11 hijackers got here in the first place?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site