CRINGE!
I've [STRIKE]read the quoted excerpt[/STRIKE] now read the whole article, and [STRIKE]don't see what point he's trying to make, if any[/STRIKE] :confused2: am fucking annoyed. You know, to the point where I feel like I'm growing a pair of horns.
The point where cats start to slowly whip their tail. Too interesting not to stare at it, but...
Ken Chitwood reminds me of James Beverly and the rest of these "religious scholars of religiosity". (Even before I went to the whole article, where, oops, stood that he's indeed a student of religion.) Even if not "shilling for the cult", they still keep "shilling for religiosity in general", and its little (and IMO even more sinister) brother, the "due respect, awe, reference, for people who still ACHIEVE (LOL/cringe) to maintain their religiosity, in these difficult times"...
All belief systems are meme viruses and their hosts will do anything to defend their belief systems and seek to clutch any straw and to create sympathy and to beg or demand "tolerance" just when it all tends to crumble down, yawn.
This is nothing than another desperate attempt to promote a "pro religiosity" attitude. I don't say he has a hidden agenda, I say he has an agenda he's unaware of. That's, to say the least, often the case with religious people. Religiosity is just a feeling of being-in-love that is not focused at a specific person, with the trance backed up and maintained by elaborate belief systems. Religiosity, as a system of delusions, inevitably makes people dumb and actually
reduces their self-awareness - as psychology defines it, such as awareness of one's own motives and emotions and issues, because some spiritual pipe-dreams about metaphysical realities and fantastic interpretations DON'T count for me as "points of self awareness achieved".
The result are arguments that go in circles and certain points (or vocabulary, such as "CULT" or "MIND CONTROL") can never be approached because with it would come the essential need to acknowledge that their
own belief system is bullshit
as well.
Yawn.
What I see here, is a person infected and blindfolded by the virus of spirituality, unable to call a dangerous, brutal cult with heaps of abuses a fucking CULT, because it's "something spiritual". The main program of this person is SPIRITUALITY = GOOOOOD.
The "SPIRITUALITY = GOOOOOD" virus, again. Spirituality must be justified, talked-up, held up, at EVERY cost. What an idiot.
Oh, so cool. Why not open your own Indie group, and try to "salvage" what is salvageable. It's a belief system and somewhat "spiritual", so SOMETHING must be groovy about it, because, after all, they're on a spiritual mission and feeling spiritual, right...? Circular thinking much...?
I still think he's a fool, and I still despise this approach. I think it's useless, superfluous, a fancy mindgame, fancied by people who are "into the spiritual" (of whichever kind, and whether they're tolerant of and interested in other belief systems, or not), and they're confusing this need to feed their natural, overly distinctive schizoidity with "being into improving the world". Really all what they're doing is
entertaining themselves.
To make it plain, I know what he INTENDS to say. I DO understand what he's thinking, and THAT he's thinking.
But all he achieves with that kind unctuous fluffy, wishful talk, is to steer up and revitalize the Satanist in me.
The urgent need of these religious scholars to strive for "tolerance" and "fairness" in regards to belief systems is nothing than a sign that religiosity, with its extraordinary claims (many refutable and indeed refuted by now) and hopelessly outdated explanations for natural phenomena, is overall becoming so cornered that its hosts are gradually switching from vindicating a specific belief system to vindicating ALL belief systems. I'm referring to something similar to instinct here, unconscious moves, urges that are implanted by the mental virus that has infected their minds. It's a numbers' game. Shilling for "acceptance" and "reference" for ALL religions is, under the conditions given, simply the more effective strategy to maintain a friendly climate for A SPECIFIC religion. It's, after all, important to keep politicians getting voted who tend to be compliant to religious agendas. (So sorry I couldn't find a better translation for the wonderful, salacious, no, somewhat incredibly nutty German term "GEFÄLLIG". ) In former times, local religions didn't have to face much concurrence because people hardly travelled - nor could they read. In situations of concurrence, rude authority or throwing some good speeches was all what was needed for one religion to be victorious and the otehr one eradicated - locally. But the game has changed. Vindicating one belief system over another, no matter how charismatic the preacher and how elaborate the language used and how shiny the academic credentials of the presenter (hello, Mr. I-know-it-all-so-I-must-know-it-all Beverly), can still become a lost cause with so many people having easy access to (and curious about) comparative informations.
"Yay, so, let's sing together.
Let's SHILL together.
Let these atheistic suckers get the feeling that they're hopelessly OUTNUMBERED.
That's all that counts.
That's, in fact, all we still have: trying to make them feel insecure, and feeling guilty over "dropping their faith"."
The Scientology phenomenon needs SCIENTISTS investing it neutrally, pursuing a SCIENTIFIC point of view, and methods. Only this helps to unravel the mind control and to inoculate people forever, against this con, AND similar ones. And every ex is, in some way, an expert in doing that kind of work, so yes, their testimonies have a central role in this. I actually used the term "scientist" very loosely here, more as a label and not an official job description, happily including good journalists who dig up stories, meticulous book authors who sample testimonies, etc. - In other words, what has to be encouraged is analysis by psychology, psychiatry, and sociology. Political science, economics and criminology may chime in.
Religious scholars, on the other hand, are ... religious scholars. There's the history of religion, theology, including the histories and belief systems of cults, which can be documented and sorted and labeled, and then there's all sorts of philosophical pipe dreams. One can spend their whole life comparing the rant of one philosopher/guru/wannabe-therapist to the rant of another, whether the supernatural is involved in their rants or not.
Will the "religious scholars" with their utopic-humanistic pipe dreams and unworldly idealistic rants please take their paws off the Chult of Scientology and go fuck themselves, because obviously that's what they miss most in their lifes. (I'm totally serious about all parts of that sentence.)
(Red emphasis mine.) Here you have it. "MUST-AVOID-THE-CONCLUSION. MUST-AVOID-IT!!! MUST-NOT-MAKE-ANY-JUDGEMENT!" A mind that is desperately trying to avoid the issue, which results in nonsensical gobbledegook, almost (?) confusion technique applied on himself. Idiot.
Yeah, but he seems to think that's because of shere unfairness and bigotism, some sort of mindless habit, and NOT because what is likely the MAIN reason for that "bias": the public is watching the enormous amount of abuses and atrocities PER CULTIST, IN AVERAGE, and gets grossed out hopelessly. The true explanation is likely that the "new religions", the "cults", had less time than the old religions to learn to shove aside the most crazy, brutal, inhumane aspects of their "scriptures", instead of taking them literally and implementing them ruthlessly, just like the radical movements within the "old" religions seek to do. Scientology, ISIS, "evangelistic" churches, mormonism - all these are radical movements, and they're all CULTS. (And esoterics and some others, from NLP-fanatics to militant vegans, are "cultish" in my book, for what's it worth, because they show some cult-like behavior and thought schemes, but typically they're not members of a controlling organization.)
We can still assume that the craziness of the official "scriptures" of old and new belief systems lies within the same order of magnitude of craziness, but really the main factor whether the result is "RELIGION" or "CULT" seems to be how they're APPLIED, and it COULD be that the main factor here is TIME. In other words, all religions might have started out as cults.
I know that for many, the article of this student of religion may come around as thoughtful and contemplative, as open-minded and fair, and within that, as overall agreeable, but I say he's just going in circles, focusing on meaningless pipe dreams that ALL evolve around the Central Meme That Must Be Vindicated, - "SPIRITUALITY IS GOOOOOD".
There are arguments and issues, perspectives, well within their field, that these "thoughtful", "contemplative", "fair", "open-minded" (appearing) religious scholars NEVER will approach, that really are taboo for them, and that is ONLY because of their own religiosity. Their own belief systems are installing thought-stopping mechanisms and wicked priorities in their minds. In other words, their own religiosity is what makes them BAD SCIENTISTS. LOUSY SCIENTISTS, SLOPPY SCIENTISTS, PHOBIC-PLAGUED SCIENTISTS, SCIENTISTS HAUNTED BY NEEDS OF AVOIDANCE AND INHIBITED BY MENTAL BLOCKADES.
In other words, INEPT Scientists.
LOL. How about, ANTI-FAITH engagement? How about, religious people daring to face atheists? How (the fuck!) about, religious people gaining some greater literacy particularly on psychology and neuroscience? How about, communication of religious people with non-religious people instead of dwelling mainly in comparative theology and, overall, relying on their thought-stopping formulas and rushing into one evasive rambling after another? Ofcourse, ANTI-religious engagement, engagement of religious people in listening to atheists, that doesn't even seem to be worth mentioning as an option, for a RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR OF RELIGIONS.
Mark my words, the argumentation and research of these religious scholars is flawed, and condemned to stay flawed, unless they drop their faith, completely.