Does anyone known as to how well religious fundamentalist organizations are networked, specifically Christian ones?
It might be possible to deal with many of these issue via public debate. If atheists, religious fundamentalists, and a very good moderator could be brought together, it might be possible to get hardliners to adopt a more moderate stance. If fundamentalist organizations are strongly networked, such an effort might have a ripple effect.
Then again, if such a public debate broke down, it might promote worse behavior on both sides.
From what I have seen, they are not strongly networked. And, it seems the more hardlined a church gets, the more it generally slides into "cult" territory (the modern definition), so the less likely it would be for the moderates to have any effect on it.
Consider these hallmarks of a cult (taken from the
Cults 101 website):
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
The defining characteristic of a cult is the way it controls and dominates its members. It's not the beliefs that make a cult; it's the abusive way in which they treat their members that makes it dangerous. The more contact with the outside world the cult's members have, the harder it is for the cult to maintain control. Consider also that coming into contact with other people and groups would require the cult to submit to the judgment of peers and to work harmoniously with people who may have a more moderate way of looking at the world.
So while your hope that this can all be solved via public debates or mediation is a noble one and would certainly be nice, in reality it wouldn't work. Cults are not set up to allow their members to get away so easily. Generally the ones who allow their members access to other groups or to the outside world in any capacity have other ways of keeping
very strict holds on the members.
Generally I don't see the point in arguing moderate people about religion; they're not dangerous. It's the people who are causing harm to others that are dangerous, and 99% of the time, these people belong to cults.
Aside from theories on the topic that I have, since I did spend some of my early years in a group commune that has since been identified as a cult, I've seen this work firsthand. We never had contact with the outside world--we weren't even allowed to leave the commune without a few friends along with us, and only for very good reasons. There were facilities for meals, school, entertainment, worship, etc. etc. Literally the only time I ever had contact with anyone outside the group was when I would go for visitation with my father. Which, btw, is what got us kicked out of the group; my mother tried to deny my father his visitation rights and he made a big legal stink about it.
EDIT: And yes, I consider WBC to be a cult.
Author
Topic: I have a fun game (Read 10873 times)