Julie Scheeres had a shitty childhood. Now you might think you've had a shitty childhood and feel you could hold your own in the Shitty Childhood Championships but, unless you have a particularly harrowing story or were her brother David, it is unlikely to be as shitty as Scheeres. She grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household with parents who she paints as unloving and scary. Her father beat her adopted brothers brutally. Her mother had an intercom system set up so she could monitor conversations anywhere in the house.
She also experienced sexual abuse from her older adoptive brother, Jerome, who made her young life a living hell. Meanwhile her brother David suffered racist abuse on an almost daily basis growing up in "Hicksville" as a black adopted member of a white family.
And what did the two of them get for their troubles? They got sent to Escuela Caribe, a Christian reform school in the Dominican Republic, where they were subjected to emotional and physical abuse "for their own good".
Sounds like a depressing book right? But instead Scheeres manages to maintain a balanced look back on her youth weaving in humourous episodes and giving full and balanced perspectives on all involved (rather than the deeply bitter perspective one could reasonably accept from someone who has been through what she went through). But above all else the love she had for her brother David shines through and this book is really a story about how they stuck it out together dreaming of a better life.
This is a story of religious excess, abuse, racism and of family. And it is one I'll admit to shedding a tear over in the final pages. Scheeres really doesn't hold back much detail on what happened to her which gives this book the credibility that many memoirs I've read recently desperately lack.
There's more on the abusive atmosphere at Escuela Caribe here.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
A Thousand Lives: The Untold Story of Jonestown by Julie Scheeres
A Thousand Lives. What an absolutely excellent book. Julie Scheeres has a real talent for bringing history to life. Whilst Reiterman's "Raven" (which I read a couple of months ago) gives a detailed history of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple this book gives us an insight into the people of Jonestown and how they fell in love with the Peoples Temple and how it turned out for them on November 18th 1978.
You follow the lives of people like Hyacinth Thrash who was with Jones from his early days in Indiana all the way through to that last evening when she managed to survive the massacre in her cottage. You see how she changes from true believer to disgruntled resident. Unlike other books you get a real sense of the humanity of the Jonestown residents.
Another person who the narrative follows is Edith Roller. An intelligent, middle class former college professor she truly believed in the project. She also kept an incredibly detailed journal describing life in the colony and honestly discussing some of its drawbacks. She died that tragic November evening.
But the true tear-jerker story is that of teenage rebels Tommy Bogue and Brian Davis. They were desperate to escape the Hell that was their life in Jonestown. They were inseparable. Except on the final day when Bogue finally got his wish and fled with his family. Davis, a minor and unable to leave without his family's permission, was murdered that night. You can read Bogue's moving tribute to his friend here.
If you want a blow-by-blow account of the rise and fall of Jim Jones, go read "Raven". If you, however, want to really understand (as close as anyone so far removed from the events can anyway) what the people of Jonestown went through and how they were led to the slaughter this is the book for you.
Some may just mock the victims of Jones and put it all down to them being crazy cultists. But they were so much more than that and Scheeres really brings home to you that each one of those people who died were individuals. All undeserving of their fate.
Scheeres ends the book with words that have haunted me for days after finishing it. "They believed in a dream, how terribly they were betrayed."
You follow the lives of people like Hyacinth Thrash who was with Jones from his early days in Indiana all the way through to that last evening when she managed to survive the massacre in her cottage. You see how she changes from true believer to disgruntled resident. Unlike other books you get a real sense of the humanity of the Jonestown residents.
Another person who the narrative follows is Edith Roller. An intelligent, middle class former college professor she truly believed in the project. She also kept an incredibly detailed journal describing life in the colony and honestly discussing some of its drawbacks. She died that tragic November evening.
But the true tear-jerker story is that of teenage rebels Tommy Bogue and Brian Davis. They were desperate to escape the Hell that was their life in Jonestown. They were inseparable. Except on the final day when Bogue finally got his wish and fled with his family. Davis, a minor and unable to leave without his family's permission, was murdered that night. You can read Bogue's moving tribute to his friend here.
If you want a blow-by-blow account of the rise and fall of Jim Jones, go read "Raven". If you, however, want to really understand (as close as anyone so far removed from the events can anyway) what the people of Jonestown went through and how they were led to the slaughter this is the book for you.
Some may just mock the victims of Jones and put it all down to them being crazy cultists. But they were so much more than that and Scheeres really brings home to you that each one of those people who died were individuals. All undeserving of their fate.
Scheeres ends the book with words that have haunted me for days after finishing it. "They believed in a dream, how terribly they were betrayed."
Saturday, 23 August 2014
Ervil LeBaron & The Extremes Of Religious Conviction
I've just finished two books which detail the bloody history of two Mormon sects headed by two very different brothers. The 4 O'Clock Murders gives a very well-written overview of the history of the LeBaron family, their Mormon fundamentalist faith and the events leading up to and following the religious split that would lead to a great deal of misery. Cult Insanity: A Memoir of Polygamy, Prophets, and Blood Atonement by Irene Spencer, a personal memoir of her time as the plural wife of Verlan LeBaron. As a (then) member of the family and someone who was privy to the internal politics of the sects it is an interesting insider account which complements The 4 O'Clock Murders and also contains a few moments of light relief.
The history of the faith journey of the LeBarons is far too convoluted (comprising as it does a few different claims to Mormon prophethood) to go into here. However the short (comparatively) story is that in the 1950s Joel LeBaron founded the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times claiming to be the "One Mighty and Strong" that the founder of the Latter-day Saint movement Joseph Smith had claimed would arrive to put the affairs of the church and the world in order. Many of Joel's brothers, including Verlan and Ervil, quickly accepted his claims. However Ervil hungered for power and eventually split the church. He and his followers, believing Ervil to be the true "One Might and Strong" founded the Church of the Lamb of God.
Ervil couldn't believe that many had failed to accept his claims and had stayed loyal to Joel. Hungry for power and desperate to take over Joel's church Ervil had Joel murdered by his followers. When this act failed to bring many converts (with the Firstborn members being quite understandably rather terrified by the events and scared of Ervil) he ordered an attack on Los Molinos, a Mexican colony of the Firstborn church. Drawing a crowd to fight a fire they had lit, Ervil's followers (hoping to catch Verlan, the new Firstborn leader) opened fire killing 2 and injuring dozens. Growing dissent and "disobedience" within his own church lead Ervil to order the murders of others including his own daughter.
Ervil's downfall came when he planned once more to ensnare Verlan. He decided the only way to draw an understandably paranoid and elusive Verlan into the open was a major funeral he couldn't fail to attend. Rulon Allred, then leader of one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist groups in the USA, was the target. Two women, one Ervil's plural wife Rena, murdered Allred at his place of work but a large police presence at his funeral meant the attempt on Verlan's life was aborted. Rena was acquited of the crime but later admitted it in an autobiography.
Ervil, however, finally faced justice for orchestrating the murder of Rulon Allred and died in prison in 1981. Unfortunately that was not the end of the horrors. Ervil left a list of people (mainly followers who abandoned his church in the aftermath of Allred murder trial) who he wanted "blood atoned" (murdered). And he also left over 50 children among whom a number were willing to carry out his orders. Many have died since (including 4 people all at once in the "4 O'Clock Murders) and some of his children and followers remain on the loose even today.
What on Earth possessed ordinary Americans and Mexicans to turn into cold-blooded killers? A mixture of unquestioning faith and tribalism allowed them to follow the orders of a crazy man preaching discarded Mormon principles. Both books give different insights into what drove Ervil (power, money and attention mainly) and how his followers were completely unable to see that (or, in some cases, embraced it). The events are a warning of where extreme belief can lead us.
The history of the faith journey of the LeBarons is far too convoluted (comprising as it does a few different claims to Mormon prophethood) to go into here. However the short (comparatively) story is that in the 1950s Joel LeBaron founded the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times claiming to be the "One Mighty and Strong" that the founder of the Latter-day Saint movement Joseph Smith had claimed would arrive to put the affairs of the church and the world in order. Many of Joel's brothers, including Verlan and Ervil, quickly accepted his claims. However Ervil hungered for power and eventually split the church. He and his followers, believing Ervil to be the true "One Might and Strong" founded the Church of the Lamb of God.
Ervil couldn't believe that many had failed to accept his claims and had stayed loyal to Joel. Hungry for power and desperate to take over Joel's church Ervil had Joel murdered by his followers. When this act failed to bring many converts (with the Firstborn members being quite understandably rather terrified by the events and scared of Ervil) he ordered an attack on Los Molinos, a Mexican colony of the Firstborn church. Drawing a crowd to fight a fire they had lit, Ervil's followers (hoping to catch Verlan, the new Firstborn leader) opened fire killing 2 and injuring dozens. Growing dissent and "disobedience" within his own church lead Ervil to order the murders of others including his own daughter.
Ervil's downfall came when he planned once more to ensnare Verlan. He decided the only way to draw an understandably paranoid and elusive Verlan into the open was a major funeral he couldn't fail to attend. Rulon Allred, then leader of one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist groups in the USA, was the target. Two women, one Ervil's plural wife Rena, murdered Allred at his place of work but a large police presence at his funeral meant the attempt on Verlan's life was aborted. Rena was acquited of the crime but later admitted it in an autobiography.
Ervil, however, finally faced justice for orchestrating the murder of Rulon Allred and died in prison in 1981. Unfortunately that was not the end of the horrors. Ervil left a list of people (mainly followers who abandoned his church in the aftermath of Allred murder trial) who he wanted "blood atoned" (murdered). And he also left over 50 children among whom a number were willing to carry out his orders. Many have died since (including 4 people all at once in the "4 O'Clock Murders) and some of his children and followers remain on the loose even today.
What on Earth possessed ordinary Americans and Mexicans to turn into cold-blooded killers? A mixture of unquestioning faith and tribalism allowed them to follow the orders of a crazy man preaching discarded Mormon principles. Both books give different insights into what drove Ervil (power, money and attention mainly) and how his followers were completely unable to see that (or, in some cases, embraced it). The events are a warning of where extreme belief can lead us.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Raven: The Untold Story of the Rev. Jim Jones and His People
Tim Reiterman's "Raven" is one of the most compelling and complete histories of a New Religious Movement that I've ever read (up there with Atack's Scientology history "A Piece of Blue Sky"). His book follows Jim Jones' life from his birth to his death and captures the parallel track of the life and death of his Peoples Temple.
This odd man, who seemed to move from sincere Christian belief to atheism and back in his early years, evolved into an atheistic con man who lead over 1000 people on a journey from Pentecostal worship at his faith healing meetings in Indianapolis to communal "socialist" living in Guyana.
He, and his close aides, conspired to deceive his followers, critics and neutral observers at every turn. Fake attempted assassinations, claims of hate crimes, imaginary miracles and over-egged promises of a paradise in Jonestown are just a few of the lies he put out (and it was the fear of those lies being exposed to ultimately lead to the exodus to Jonestown and the ultimate end for over 900 people).
He was a utopian who seemed to believe the ends justified the means. Though it is an age old story, he was just one of many such men who left the 20th century littered with bodies in their wake. He raped women and men, he instigated "catharsis" sessions where members of the Temple were forced to confess to sins and take abuse (sometimes physical) from other members (a similarity with Scientology's Int Base antics) and ran fake suicide drills.
Reiterman had the misfortune to be in Jonestown on its last two days and was among those shot as Congressman Ryan's party tried to shepherd to safety those Temple members who wished to escape the growing madness of Jonestown . His narrative of the end days, however, remains as neutral as possible and with interviews with the handful of survivors and members not in Jonestown that weekend he manages to paint a near complete description of the horror that unfolded as Jones directed his people to die (some of whom did not go willingly).
This is a big book, and it is very thorough going over every detail of the rise and fall of this man and his movement. The people, good and bad, who rose and fell with him get their stories told as fairly as possible. If you want to understand where religious and political ideologies can go wrong and how normal people can be lead to their deaths by a con man, this book gives you plenty to ponder.
This odd man, who seemed to move from sincere Christian belief to atheism and back in his early years, evolved into an atheistic con man who lead over 1000 people on a journey from Pentecostal worship at his faith healing meetings in Indianapolis to communal "socialist" living in Guyana.
He, and his close aides, conspired to deceive his followers, critics and neutral observers at every turn. Fake attempted assassinations, claims of hate crimes, imaginary miracles and over-egged promises of a paradise in Jonestown are just a few of the lies he put out (and it was the fear of those lies being exposed to ultimately lead to the exodus to Jonestown and the ultimate end for over 900 people).
He was a utopian who seemed to believe the ends justified the means. Though it is an age old story, he was just one of many such men who left the 20th century littered with bodies in their wake. He raped women and men, he instigated "catharsis" sessions where members of the Temple were forced to confess to sins and take abuse (sometimes physical) from other members (a similarity with Scientology's Int Base antics) and ran fake suicide drills.
Reiterman had the misfortune to be in Jonestown on its last two days and was among those shot as Congressman Ryan's party tried to shepherd to safety those Temple members who wished to escape the growing madness of Jonestown . His narrative of the end days, however, remains as neutral as possible and with interviews with the handful of survivors and members not in Jonestown that weekend he manages to paint a near complete description of the horror that unfolded as Jones directed his people to die (some of whom did not go willingly).
This is a big book, and it is very thorough going over every detail of the rise and fall of this man and his movement. The people, good and bad, who rose and fell with him get their stories told as fairly as possible. If you want to understand where religious and political ideologies can go wrong and how normal people can be lead to their deaths by a con man, this book gives you plenty to ponder.
Wednesday, 11 December 2013
Scientology Orgs are a "place of meeting for religious worship"
In a ruling that shall be repeated ad nauseum on Scientology videos, posters and websites, the Supreme Court has agreed that weddings can take place on the premises of Scientology Orgs, as they constitute a "place of meeting for religious worship"
"Religion should not be confined to religions which recognise a supreme deity," said Lord Toulson as he made the judgement. Whilst this is clearly right morally and in terms of things we already accept as religions, this is going to cause a headache for a lot of people and not least the Charity Commission and the tax man.
The real problem is the very concept of a Government trying to define what it, and what is not, a religion. It is akin to attempting to argue what makes up Doctor Who's canon. What makes up my Doctor Who canon is not what makes up your Doctor Who canon. This is quite true for religions too. What I consider a religion, others will not. Some might consider certain religions as a "cult" whilst others just don't think it is a religion at all. Such arguments have raged for years and not just on small New Religious Movements like Scientology. Confucianism and Buddhism are both hard to define as a religion and even some adherents wouldn't describe them as one. Even some, mainly born-again, Christians will swear blind Christianity is not a religion but is (depending on who you ask) a "faith" or "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ".
And if one cannot truly define what is and what is not a religion it does seem somewhat silly to attempt to give religions tax breaks that other groups and organisations cannot expect.
The court's decision was the right one in allowing Scientologists, no matter how ridiculous one finds their beliefs and how dangerous one might consider church practices, to marry in their orgs but one would hope that one day someone will finally tell the emperor that he has no clothes and stop the whole nonsense that is attempting to define a religion in law.
The real problem is the very concept of a Government trying to define what it, and what is not, a religion. It is akin to attempting to argue what makes up Doctor Who's canon. What makes up my Doctor Who canon is not what makes up your Doctor Who canon. This is quite true for religions too. What I consider a religion, others will not. Some might consider certain religions as a "cult" whilst others just don't think it is a religion at all. Such arguments have raged for years and not just on small New Religious Movements like Scientology. Confucianism and Buddhism are both hard to define as a religion and even some adherents wouldn't describe them as one. Even some, mainly born-again, Christians will swear blind Christianity is not a religion but is (depending on who you ask) a "faith" or "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ".
And if one cannot truly define what is and what is not a religion it does seem somewhat silly to attempt to give religions tax breaks that other groups and organisations cannot expect.
The court's decision was the right one in allowing Scientologists, no matter how ridiculous one finds their beliefs and how dangerous one might consider church practices, to marry in their orgs but one would hope that one day someone will finally tell the emperor that he has no clothes and stop the whole nonsense that is attempting to define a religion in law.
Monday, 21 October 2013
Atheists: Don't Be Those Guys!
I'm a confirmed atheist. If you believe in something supernatural I think you are a wrong. I'm not flinging insults here, I even think I'm wrong.
Somethings I particularly hate about most religious folks are their attempts to suppress art, free expression and enforce their worldview on the rest of us. However I have come to realise that religious beliefs are just a human construct and, thus, getting rid of religious belief doesn't really stop puritanical campaigns against art and free expression. Being boring puritans is obviously something that dwells deep within the human psyche, and thus (it turns out) atheists can be killjoys just like anyone else.
Which takes us to the 9/11 Cross argument. Many people will have seen the pictures, or at least heard about, the 9/11 cross (bizarrely some beams that were in a cross shape stayed in a cross shape, it's a miracle!). It is a silly, silly thing and I have to say it was somewhat insulting to the memories of all those who died in the terrorist attacks in New York to have even a small part of their stories overtaken by news of this cross. But they always say funerals are more for the living than the dead, and I suppose that holds up for clean up operations at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11 just as well. And, I'd accept, it probably gave some comfort to some people (the ones who weren't dead and quickly being forgotten as 9/11 was hijacked for political and social purposes).
Whatever one may feel about it, it was a part of the narrative of the post-9/11 cleanup and thus the fact it gets included in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum's collection should be fairly uncontroversial. Not for David Silverman of American Atheists who, after losing a court fight to have it removed, had this to say:
"What would Jesus do?" guides many believers (supposedly, though I never feel they quite get it right). I tend to follow the far better guide to moral living "What would a professed believer in Jesus do?". Once you know the answer, do the opposite (which is often actually what Jesus would do, but with less Jewish apocalyptic undertones). Don't be those guys. We shouldn't be launching lawsuits or protests because someone, somewhere has two metal beams stuck together in their museum display.
There is a headteacher (sorry, Principal) in the USA currently suggesting Halloween themed celebrations at school are prohibited due to the separation of church and state. Can you imagine how joyless a life it would be without celebrations and fun? School is horrific enough as it is without the need to take away those small moments of fun we allow kids.
Surely I'm not the only atheist pissed that the Statue of Zeus at Olympia is lost to us? When I went to Thailand I was all over their temples, spirit houses and statues. Accepting religious art, holidays and even their expressions of grief doesn't mean we accept their dodgy beliefs or even accept that one can't have inspiring art, holidays and expressions of grief without religion. It is simply a matter of accepting that beauty, horror and fun are part of the human experience and expressed by EVERYONE. So we atheists need to stop pretending that religious history and culture does not exist and accept that it will always be part of humanity (even if religion itself finally disappears).
Once we accept that, we can enjoy that which is to be enjoyed whilst pointing out to anyone who thinks Zeus is/was a real god that they are very wrong.
Somethings I particularly hate about most religious folks are their attempts to suppress art, free expression and enforce their worldview on the rest of us. However I have come to realise that religious beliefs are just a human construct and, thus, getting rid of religious belief doesn't really stop puritanical campaigns against art and free expression. Being boring puritans is obviously something that dwells deep within the human psyche, and thus (it turns out) atheists can be killjoys just like anyone else.
Which takes us to the 9/11 Cross argument. Many people will have seen the pictures, or at least heard about, the 9/11 cross (bizarrely some beams that were in a cross shape stayed in a cross shape, it's a miracle!). It is a silly, silly thing and I have to say it was somewhat insulting to the memories of all those who died in the terrorist attacks in New York to have even a small part of their stories overtaken by news of this cross. But they always say funerals are more for the living than the dead, and I suppose that holds up for clean up operations at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11 just as well. And, I'd accept, it probably gave some comfort to some people (the ones who weren't dead and quickly being forgotten as 9/11 was hijacked for political and social purposes).
Whatever one may feel about it, it was a part of the narrative of the post-9/11 cleanup and thus the fact it gets included in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum's collection should be fairly uncontroversial. Not for David Silverman of American Atheists who, after losing a court fight to have it removed, had this to say:
"We are confident that we will eventually win this case and that cross will be removed, or atheists will be allowed to have our own symbol in there,"Fascinating. What symbol did we have? Did the image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster appear in some shattered glass bringing comfort to atheist rescue workers and clean up crew? There is no doubt atheists died in 9/11 (at the hands of religious nutcases no less!). And they will be remembered by their families and by everyone with a heart. Everything that reminds us of that day should be enough of a memory jog of the horrors that befall so many innocent people (of many different beliefs). The whole rest of the collection in that museum is for secular people. I think we can allow Christians a small token of remembrance of an event that happened after 9/11 that meant something to some people.
"What would Jesus do?" guides many believers (supposedly, though I never feel they quite get it right). I tend to follow the far better guide to moral living "What would a professed believer in Jesus do?". Once you know the answer, do the opposite (which is often actually what Jesus would do, but with less Jewish apocalyptic undertones). Don't be those guys. We shouldn't be launching lawsuits or protests because someone, somewhere has two metal beams stuck together in their museum display.
There is a headteacher (sorry, Principal) in the USA currently suggesting Halloween themed celebrations at school are prohibited due to the separation of church and state. Can you imagine how joyless a life it would be without celebrations and fun? School is horrific enough as it is without the need to take away those small moments of fun we allow kids.
Surely I'm not the only atheist pissed that the Statue of Zeus at Olympia is lost to us? When I went to Thailand I was all over their temples, spirit houses and statues. Accepting religious art, holidays and even their expressions of grief doesn't mean we accept their dodgy beliefs or even accept that one can't have inspiring art, holidays and expressions of grief without religion. It is simply a matter of accepting that beauty, horror and fun are part of the human experience and expressed by EVERYONE. So we atheists need to stop pretending that religious history and culture does not exist and accept that it will always be part of humanity (even if religion itself finally disappears).
Once we accept that, we can enjoy that which is to be enjoyed whilst pointing out to anyone who thinks Zeus is/was a real god that they are very wrong.
Friday, 4 October 2013
Student Unions Opposing Atheist Freedom Of Expression
Students just aren't what they used to be. Maybe they never were the rebellious, course work shy, last minute crammers stereotypes portray. I remember my brief stint at university being fairly memorable, involving the removal of bras in record time (undefeated champion, I'll have you know) and a disturbing game known only as "Nervous". Good times, good times.
Alas such fun seems completely beyond the comprehension of the stony faced union enforcers who rule at fresher's fairs.
Last year the University of Reading's Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society was kicked out of their fresher's fair for naming a pineapple Mohammed. It is hardly the most sophisticated way to start a conversation but I can see what they were aiming for. But they didn't just provoke a debate about blasphemy, they were basically accused of it (blasphemy is showing contempt for that which is held as holy which, by definition, upsets believers and the RAHSS was accused of upsetting people). The Reading University Student Union has now forced out the RAHSS by attempting to get them to agree to not upset anyone ever again ("Just shut up you blasphemers!").
Meanwhile, in another rather unsophisticated move, the LSE atheist group decided to wear "Jesus and Mo" t-shirts to their fresher's fair this year. I find the Jesus and Mo cartoon strips pretty boring and don't really see the attraction. But different strokes for different folks and all that. Well it hasn't gone down too well. Even when they covered up the t-shirts with censored stickers today they appear to have been intimidated by student union officials and security whilst leaving the fair.
Having your beliefs insulted isn't nice. We all accept that, and understand it. But having my relationship dismissed and insulted by other's beliefs is also not very nice. That is the world we live in, one where grown ups have to put up with some people not being nice. We can moan about it, shout about it, but silencing others just because you don't like what they say isn't a sign of a healthy free society. It is the sign of a disturbing authoritarian mindset that is creeping into a lot of "progressive" thought (again).
One Law For All's excellent document "Siding with the Oppressor" shows how the left are starting to move from preaching tolerance for all beliefs into actively siding with the more extreme wing of Islam over pretty much everyone else (including Muslims and ex-Muslims alike).
Thankfully Maryam Namazie isn't going to let the LSE just ban free speech without at least a token fight, and will be attend a debate on the burqa there on the 15th of October in a Jesus and Mo t-shirt. I hope there will many people there to support her.
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
Can Jehovah's Witnesses SURVIVE? - Trevor Willis
Ok. Ok. I'm ending my run of Jehovah's Witnesses books on this one (I've moved on to Christopher Hitchens' The Missionary Position).
Can Jehovah's Witnesses SURVIVE? is a very decent guide to the beliefs, practices and errors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. It is truly disturbing that such a malignant religion has grown so common place. Lots of us know where the nearest Kingdom Hall is. Many of us share the same "Oh God, the Jehovah's are at the door HIDE!" experience. They are not your tiny band of Scientologists or your less harmful group of Latter-day Saints. This is a creepy, controlling organisation that treats its members incredibly badly.
Sure I remember when I was younger hearing my family discuss someone they knew who had been converted in the sort of tones one discusses someone who has died. I know lots of people are aware that this is a dangerous group to get involved with. But too many still fall for their lies.
Next time you open your door to the Jehovah's Witnesses beware. But also do as Trevor Willis suggests and offer them an a friendly face and try to let them know you want to help them if they ever need a person to turn to. There is no good to come of trying to argue theology with a Witness (though I did enjoy it when I did it back when I was a smug A-Level student. I nearly turned one! I'm certain of it). Try instead to be their ticket to freedom.
A decent book on a worrying subject.
Thursday, 19 September 2013
The Truth About The Truth - Tami Dickerson #jehovahswitnesses
Whereas "Journey To God's House" was mainly a view from within the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's main headquarters, this book is a tale of one woman's life as a Jehovah's Witness and her journey out (and into a Christian church). It gives a good overview of life in a North American congregation and showcases the "humanity" of members of the Society; the good and (to a greater extent) the bad.
Through her story we learn more about the basics of being a Jehovah's Witness from the importance of baptism, through the grind of door-to-door missionary work (something the author was very uncomfortable with) and to "disfellowshiping" a form of clannish shunning equivalent to Scientology's "disconnection" policy. It is something that obviously causes create heartache for members.
Her realisation that the Society was not "true" came through a rather interesting finding regarding, of all things, the United Nations. Jehovah's Witnesses denounce all "worldly" organisations and their publications quote their absolute disdain for the United Nations. When Dickerson discovered that the Society had registered as an NGO with the United Nations, and signed up to defend the aims of the UN, she discovered the Society's frequently used ability to downplay it's past actions, and fabricate what really happened, and she was eventually disfellowshiped.
Dickerson writes well and the appendices for the book contain a sizeable amount of information refuting several Society doctrines. And. despite being a Christian still, her book is far from preachy and very much evidence-based. I liked her approach and her thoroughness. And I enjoyed her personal story too.
Through her story we learn more about the basics of being a Jehovah's Witness from the importance of baptism, through the grind of door-to-door missionary work (something the author was very uncomfortable with) and to "disfellowshiping" a form of clannish shunning equivalent to Scientology's "disconnection" policy. It is something that obviously causes create heartache for members.
Her realisation that the Society was not "true" came through a rather interesting finding regarding, of all things, the United Nations. Jehovah's Witnesses denounce all "worldly" organisations and their publications quote their absolute disdain for the United Nations. When Dickerson discovered that the Society had registered as an NGO with the United Nations, and signed up to defend the aims of the UN, she discovered the Society's frequently used ability to downplay it's past actions, and fabricate what really happened, and she was eventually disfellowshiped.
Dickerson writes well and the appendices for the book contain a sizeable amount of information refuting several Society doctrines. And. despite being a Christian still, her book is far from preachy and very much evidence-based. I liked her approach and her thoroughness. And I enjoyed her personal story too.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Journey To God's House - Brock Talon #jehovahswitnesses
A light-hearted but bitter look at the (then) Jehovah Witness headquarters in Brooklyn, New York in the 1980s, Journey To God's House can't help but be interesting.
The HQ, known as Bethel, is described in grim detail in a series of vignettes. For all its claims to godliness Bethel seems very "worldly" (which is how we unbelievers are described by followers of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), with its very corporate way of working and instances of very human power struggles and jealousy.
Talon's (not his real name) writing style is jokey and sarcastic. He writes well but his style isn't really my style. That said he does come across as believable and his insights into the flawed humanity of those who profess to be holier than others is something that is often missed in more academic or clinical descriptions of religious institutions.
This is not a chronological memoir, and it jumps about a lot as Talon explores individual aspects of life at Bethel (such as alcoholic consumption or "Watchman duty"). And Talon's perspective, whilst interesting, is that of (and I don't mean this offensively) someone who wasn't part of the decision making processes at Bethel which is what I really want.
The similarities between his experiences and those of Scientologists working at Int. Base are fascinating. The poor pay, the isolation and the physical labour expected of even those who are injured or sick are all there.
Despite not meeting my hopes, Journey To God's House helps remind everyone that even the most "godly" are human and that all authority should, at the very least, be questioned and never blindly accepted.
The HQ, known as Bethel, is described in grim detail in a series of vignettes. For all its claims to godliness Bethel seems very "worldly" (which is how we unbelievers are described by followers of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), with its very corporate way of working and instances of very human power struggles and jealousy.
Talon's (not his real name) writing style is jokey and sarcastic. He writes well but his style isn't really my style. That said he does come across as believable and his insights into the flawed humanity of those who profess to be holier than others is something that is often missed in more academic or clinical descriptions of religious institutions.
This is not a chronological memoir, and it jumps about a lot as Talon explores individual aspects of life at Bethel (such as alcoholic consumption or "Watchman duty"). And Talon's perspective, whilst interesting, is that of (and I don't mean this offensively) someone who wasn't part of the decision making processes at Bethel which is what I really want.
The similarities between his experiences and those of Scientologists working at Int. Base are fascinating. The poor pay, the isolation and the physical labour expected of even those who are injured or sick are all there.
Despite not meeting my hopes, Journey To God's House helps remind everyone that even the most "godly" are human and that all authority should, at the very least, be questioned and never blindly accepted.
Sunday, 8 September 2013
Memoirs Of A Scientology Warrior - Marty Rathbun
Well this was quite different to my usual Scientology reading material. I wasn't really looking forward to this memoir
mainly because Marty Rathbun has been the "villain" in many other memoirs I've read. He has been accused of some nasty stuff.
He was, according to Lawrence Wright's "Going Clear
", involved in the recapture of Annie Broeker who was fleeing the Church to be with her husband. After her recapture her husband never saw her again (she died in 2011). When I first read that my heart broke a little. He was also involved in a "gang-bang sec-check" of Jeff Hawkins. Of course others have also been part of the unhealthy practices of the church and finally come to their sense so it is perhaps unfair to hold such things against him.
Another difference is that Marty Rathbun is still a believer. He may have left the Church of Scientology but he still believes in the efficacy of Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard's "tech". This makes him an unusual animal (if no longer a rare one as other people like him, such as Mike Rinder, are adding their voices to the criticism of the church itself whilst maintaining a belief in the benefits of LRH's teachings) as so many who have been hurt by their time in the church have given up their faith along with their church.
Rathbun was the sort of person Jeff Hawkins described, in his book "Counterfeit Dreams", as a seeker. The ideal candidate for Scientology proselytizing. His youth was troubled by the early death of his mother and dealing with the psychological troubles of his two older brothers (these, no doubt incredibly painful, incidents can be seen as yet more reasons that Scientology would appeal to him). He sought ever greater spiritual understanding from various traditions until one day he finally agreed to take the infamous Communication course offered to so many people who've encountered a Scientologist "body router".
With some personal "wins" (i.e. spiritual moments) and the hope he might one day learn how to cure his older brother Bruce he fell deeply into the church, eventually signing up as a member of the Sea Org. A traumatic event, a murder of a fellow Scientologist by her deranged husband who he was escorting home, which he valiantly tried to stop brought him to the attention of L. Ron Hubbard himself and he went "over the rainbow" which is Scientologese for heading to the bases LRH had based himself in.
What follows is a fascinating account of the internal workings of Scientology's legal troubles towards the end of LRH's life as Rathbun moved up to one of the highest positions in the church. Though much of it was things we already learnt, we hear more about the motivations and emotions of the key players in events such as the Battle of Portland. But the narrative ends with the death of LRH and the more interesting stuff (the slow death of the church under Miscavige) is sadly not covered in detail.
And I was expecting Rathbun to offer some insight into the mentality behind some of his angry or morally suspect actions whilst in the church. Though he does give a little insight into his belief that he was a "warrior" for Scientology and that he did have reservations about how the church was run, he doesn't really get into this much. And his leaving the church is given little more than a paragraph when it warrants far more illumination. This he may well have done on his blog or in one of the other books he has written but it was deeply annoying to hear how, whilst assaulting Mike Rinder, he finally realised he needed to leave when Rinder plead: “Marty, I don't want to play this game anymore.” without much further elaboration. I wanted to know more, how Rathbun really felt, was he ashamed? Did he regret his actions in the church? It was hard to tell.
But it was another piece of the Scientology puzzle and a worthy addition to the historical record. And Rathbun writes well and keeps you engaged as he spins his tale. But I can't help feeling it was missing that little bit extra.
mainly because Marty Rathbun has been the "villain" in many other memoirs I've read. He has been accused of some nasty stuff.He was, according to Lawrence Wright's "Going Clear
", involved in the recapture of Annie Broeker who was fleeing the Church to be with her husband. After her recapture her husband never saw her again (she died in 2011). When I first read that my heart broke a little. He was also involved in a "gang-bang sec-check" of Jeff Hawkins. Of course others have also been part of the unhealthy practices of the church and finally come to their sense so it is perhaps unfair to hold such things against him.Another difference is that Marty Rathbun is still a believer. He may have left the Church of Scientology but he still believes in the efficacy of Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard's "tech". This makes him an unusual animal (if no longer a rare one as other people like him, such as Mike Rinder, are adding their voices to the criticism of the church itself whilst maintaining a belief in the benefits of LRH's teachings) as so many who have been hurt by their time in the church have given up their faith along with their church.
Rathbun was the sort of person Jeff Hawkins described, in his book "Counterfeit Dreams", as a seeker. The ideal candidate for Scientology proselytizing. His youth was troubled by the early death of his mother and dealing with the psychological troubles of his two older brothers (these, no doubt incredibly painful, incidents can be seen as yet more reasons that Scientology would appeal to him). He sought ever greater spiritual understanding from various traditions until one day he finally agreed to take the infamous Communication course offered to so many people who've encountered a Scientologist "body router".
With some personal "wins" (i.e. spiritual moments) and the hope he might one day learn how to cure his older brother Bruce he fell deeply into the church, eventually signing up as a member of the Sea Org. A traumatic event, a murder of a fellow Scientologist by her deranged husband who he was escorting home, which he valiantly tried to stop brought him to the attention of L. Ron Hubbard himself and he went "over the rainbow" which is Scientologese for heading to the bases LRH had based himself in.
What follows is a fascinating account of the internal workings of Scientology's legal troubles towards the end of LRH's life as Rathbun moved up to one of the highest positions in the church. Though much of it was things we already learnt, we hear more about the motivations and emotions of the key players in events such as the Battle of Portland. But the narrative ends with the death of LRH and the more interesting stuff (the slow death of the church under Miscavige) is sadly not covered in detail.
And I was expecting Rathbun to offer some insight into the mentality behind some of his angry or morally suspect actions whilst in the church. Though he does give a little insight into his belief that he was a "warrior" for Scientology and that he did have reservations about how the church was run, he doesn't really get into this much. And his leaving the church is given little more than a paragraph when it warrants far more illumination. This he may well have done on his blog or in one of the other books he has written but it was deeply annoying to hear how, whilst assaulting Mike Rinder, he finally realised he needed to leave when Rinder plead: “Marty, I don't want to play this game anymore.” without much further elaboration. I wanted to know more, how Rathbun really felt, was he ashamed? Did he regret his actions in the church? It was hard to tell.
But it was another piece of the Scientology puzzle and a worthy addition to the historical record. And Rathbun writes well and keeps you engaged as he spins his tale. But I can't help feeling it was missing that little bit extra.
Thursday, 5 September 2013
A Schism Of Skeptics
Back in 2008 I discovered skepticism. I was, by then, an unbeliever but I hadn't really been introduced to any thoughtful considerations of atheism or real useful criticisms of religion, quack medicine and the paranormal.
Though I'm sure my growing interest in Scientology and the Latter-day Saints plus research for then latest blog on the paranormal played some part in moving me towards seriously questioning things, it was really my need for more podcast listening material for a recently extended commute that lead me to first discover the Skeptics Guide To The Universe. I loved it.
The reasoned debate was interspersed with hilarity and fun. I always looked forward to the next episode and soon supplemented the unbearably long waits (A WHOLE WEEK!) with other skeptic community podcasts. Skeptics. They seemed awesome. I started reading more science based books, and found myself reading Richard Dawkins.
I was never a paid up skeptic. I was, and am, a non-conforming atheist but I loved them skeptics. Then Elevatorgate happened. Oh Elevatorgate. There's a history of the dispute here.
This was the event, as the martyrdom of Joseph Smith was for the Latter-day Saints, that began the skeptic community on a road towards a schism.
Many religious critics of atheism (usually the insane ones) like to claim that atheism is a religion. I don't accept this description (and that's despite being someone who is open to things like Communism being considered a system of belief and perhaps even a religion of sorts) but the events that have occurred since Elevatorgate certainly given some ammunition to this claim.
Peering back into the skeptic and atheist "community" once more recently I discovered that what was some very violent disagreement over feminism had turned into a definite (and perhaps permanent) schism.
Extremely harsh words have been spoken. Bridges burnt. And there seems like no turning back.
Atheism+ has spun off from what I'd call the New Atheist tradition to pursue more political (of the left-wing variety) aims than the main body. It is the new home of Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers and Richard Carrier. Whilst they seem to have tried to brand themselves as the lovely, anti-hate version of atheism you only need to read some of the comments left on their blogs by supporters to see hate for those who disagree with them pour out. In a worrying move akin, I'm obsessed I know, to the Scieno Sitter someone has even created @the_block_bot which blocks those who are offensive and/or critical of Atheism+, women, etc automatically from your Twitter feed so you don't have to even think about it.
As an individualist, freedom lover I won't condemn it but, like all forms of censorship, it does send a shiver up my spine. This really does back up my Suppressive Persons analogy from July. Creepy stuff.
Meanwhile... the rump of the New Atheist folks who haven't been won over to Atheism+ are trying to get by but they often seem unable to respond to their rhetoric with anything more than swearing (though there are still plenty of thoughtful responses such as this out there). If it wasn't for the invective from this side I'd probably stick my flag to their mast but... I can't. Take this series of videos for example.
There are some extremely good points in there, some bullseye take downs of some of the darker, nastier clannish and cliquey type shenanigans that are occuring with Atheism+. BUT... it is a polemic and far from the reasoned, iron clad criticism I am desperate for.
Sigh. Certainly if I'd ever once described myself as a skeptic, I certainly don't now. I'd say I grow ever more sceptical by the day on a whole raft of issues but I want to cry out "NOT IN MY NAME!". Rape accusations and infantile internal politics have destroyed something that could have been beautiful. I mourn for what could have been.
But disbelief is not going to go away. We are growing stronger. Hopefully we'll also grow up soon too.
Though I'm sure my growing interest in Scientology and the Latter-day Saints plus research for then latest blog on the paranormal played some part in moving me towards seriously questioning things, it was really my need for more podcast listening material for a recently extended commute that lead me to first discover the Skeptics Guide To The Universe. I loved it.
The reasoned debate was interspersed with hilarity and fun. I always looked forward to the next episode and soon supplemented the unbearably long waits (A WHOLE WEEK!) with other skeptic community podcasts. Skeptics. They seemed awesome. I started reading more science based books, and found myself reading Richard Dawkins.
I was never a paid up skeptic. I was, and am, a non-conforming atheist but I loved them skeptics. Then Elevatorgate happened. Oh Elevatorgate. There's a history of the dispute here.
This was the event, as the martyrdom of Joseph Smith was for the Latter-day Saints, that began the skeptic community on a road towards a schism.
Many religious critics of atheism (usually the insane ones) like to claim that atheism is a religion. I don't accept this description (and that's despite being someone who is open to things like Communism being considered a system of belief and perhaps even a religion of sorts) but the events that have occurred since Elevatorgate certainly given some ammunition to this claim.
Peering back into the skeptic and atheist "community" once more recently I discovered that what was some very violent disagreement over feminism had turned into a definite (and perhaps permanent) schism.
Extremely harsh words have been spoken. Bridges burnt. And there seems like no turning back.
Atheism+ has spun off from what I'd call the New Atheist tradition to pursue more political (of the left-wing variety) aims than the main body. It is the new home of Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers and Richard Carrier. Whilst they seem to have tried to brand themselves as the lovely, anti-hate version of atheism you only need to read some of the comments left on their blogs by supporters to see hate for those who disagree with them pour out. In a worrying move akin, I'm obsessed I know, to the Scieno Sitter someone has even created @the_block_bot which blocks those who are offensive and/or critical of Atheism+, women, etc automatically from your Twitter feed so you don't have to even think about it.
As an individualist, freedom lover I won't condemn it but, like all forms of censorship, it does send a shiver up my spine. This really does back up my Suppressive Persons analogy from July. Creepy stuff.
Meanwhile... the rump of the New Atheist folks who haven't been won over to Atheism+ are trying to get by but they often seem unable to respond to their rhetoric with anything more than swearing (though there are still plenty of thoughtful responses such as this out there). If it wasn't for the invective from this side I'd probably stick my flag to their mast but... I can't. Take this series of videos for example.
There are some extremely good points in there, some bullseye take downs of some of the darker, nastier clannish and cliquey type shenanigans that are occuring with Atheism+. BUT... it is a polemic and far from the reasoned, iron clad criticism I am desperate for.
Sigh. Certainly if I'd ever once described myself as a skeptic, I certainly don't now. I'd say I grow ever more sceptical by the day on a whole raft of issues but I want to cry out "NOT IN MY NAME!". Rape accusations and infantile internal politics have destroyed something that could have been beautiful. I mourn for what could have been.
But disbelief is not going to go away. We are growing stronger. Hopefully we'll also grow up soon too.
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, & the Prison of Belief
I've read many, many books on Scientology and I think I can safely say that this is the most well-written of them all. The beautiful prose made this an absolute joy to read (even if I read most of it sat in a hospital car park!), and it tells a fascinating story indeed.
I love the history of religions and this book is the definitive history of Dianetics and Scientology. For people who have only the vaguest of interest in the church, this book will give you an easy to read but in depth look at the history of the church. Even for people like me, who've read their fair share of Scientology history, there is still enough new information and a fresh perspective on oft-repeated events to keep it interesting.
And the history is intertwined with the story of Paul Haggis, from his early life through his time as a loyal public member to his apostasy. It helps imbue the narrative with a human story told by a master of his craft. It doesn't get much better than this.
There are excellent tellings of the stories of Quentin Hubbard (L. Ron Hubbard's son who committed suicide) and of David Miscavage's early years. And some little insights into John Travolta's journey inside the church.
Buy it. Read it. Love it.
I love the history of religions and this book is the definitive history of Dianetics and Scientology. For people who have only the vaguest of interest in the church, this book will give you an easy to read but in depth look at the history of the church. Even for people like me, who've read their fair share of Scientology history, there is still enough new information and a fresh perspective on oft-repeated events to keep it interesting.
And the history is intertwined with the story of Paul Haggis, from his early life through his time as a loyal public member to his apostasy. It helps imbue the narrative with a human story told by a master of his craft. It doesn't get much better than this.
There are excellent tellings of the stories of Quentin Hubbard (L. Ron Hubbard's son who committed suicide) and of David Miscavage's early years. And some little insights into John Travolta's journey inside the church.
Buy it. Read it. Love it.
Thursday, 8 August 2013
Scientology And Some Interesting Times Ahead
We are not quite at the excitement levels that Project Chanology caused, but there are two very big events (one newsworthy and one less so) that are likely to make Scientology pretty interesting for those of us who find the Church so fascinating.
The first news-friendly story is the ongoing fallout from Leah Remini's defection from the Church. John Sweeney's excellent Panorama documentary "Scientology and Me" was the first time I'd ever heard of Leah Remini. In it Remini is shown as a loyal member of the Church aghast at the evil BBC's distortion of source. But we now know that just months before Remini had began to ask questions about the whereabouts of her friend, and COB RTC David Miscavige's wife, Shelly Miscavige. These questions would ultimately lead to her leaving the Church last month and have now resulted in what could be quite an interesting moment as Leah Remini pursues, 7 years after she first raised concerns, information as to where Shelly Miscavige may be by registering her as a missing person.
Though the Church regularly faces open opposition from former members, and even people who were in very senior positions during their time in the Church, it rarely has to face with such vocal opposition from one of its most cherished celebrity members. With her name recognition (with people who aren't me anyway!) and desire not to be silenced, we could be looking at one of the more serious threats to the status quo of the Church in recent years.
She is also planning to release a memoir which may provide some fascinating insights into life as a celebrity in the Church of Scientology. We've had plenty of info on the workings of the Celebrity Center from former employees but how it looks from the other side of the bar might be revealing indeed.
It was already being speculated, prior to the missing person report, that Shelly might make an appearance at an upcoming Celebrity Center event. Time will tell.
The other news is less media friendly and more for the Scientology anoraks but... the long overdue Super Power Building (yes, Dear Constant Reader, this is a real thing) is quite likely to be opened within a matter of weeks. And, quite possibly, at the same time COB RTC might announce a new model of e-meter in what is being call the "The Golden Age of Tech 2". Both will probably done in an event in Clearwater that seems to be replacing both a formerly annual IAS event in the UK and an event on the Freewinds (a ship Scientology operates in the Caribbean). With an obvious reduction in the Scientology event calender we may want to count the heads at the Super Power Building opening and see if the recent great apostasy is finally causing Scientology to have to scale back its pomp!
And how the Super Power Building and GATII will effect the way the church works moving forward, if there is a future for the church, will be something to watch.
Very interesting times ahead Scientology watchers!!
The first news-friendly story is the ongoing fallout from Leah Remini's defection from the Church. John Sweeney's excellent Panorama documentary "Scientology and Me" was the first time I'd ever heard of Leah Remini. In it Remini is shown as a loyal member of the Church aghast at the evil BBC's distortion of source. But we now know that just months before Remini had began to ask questions about the whereabouts of her friend, and COB RTC David Miscavige's wife, Shelly Miscavige. These questions would ultimately lead to her leaving the Church last month and have now resulted in what could be quite an interesting moment as Leah Remini pursues, 7 years after she first raised concerns, information as to where Shelly Miscavige may be by registering her as a missing person.
Though the Church regularly faces open opposition from former members, and even people who were in very senior positions during their time in the Church, it rarely has to face with such vocal opposition from one of its most cherished celebrity members. With her name recognition (with people who aren't me anyway!) and desire not to be silenced, we could be looking at one of the more serious threats to the status quo of the Church in recent years.
She is also planning to release a memoir which may provide some fascinating insights into life as a celebrity in the Church of Scientology. We've had plenty of info on the workings of the Celebrity Center from former employees but how it looks from the other side of the bar might be revealing indeed.
It was already being speculated, prior to the missing person report, that Shelly might make an appearance at an upcoming Celebrity Center event. Time will tell.
The other news is less media friendly and more for the Scientology anoraks but... the long overdue Super Power Building (yes, Dear Constant Reader, this is a real thing) is quite likely to be opened within a matter of weeks. And, quite possibly, at the same time COB RTC might announce a new model of e-meter in what is being call the "The Golden Age of Tech 2". Both will probably done in an event in Clearwater that seems to be replacing both a formerly annual IAS event in the UK and an event on the Freewinds (a ship Scientology operates in the Caribbean). With an obvious reduction in the Scientology event calender we may want to count the heads at the Super Power Building opening and see if the recent great apostasy is finally causing Scientology to have to scale back its pomp!
And how the Super Power Building and GATII will effect the way the church works moving forward, if there is a future for the church, will be something to watch.
Very interesting times ahead Scientology watchers!!
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
Pope Francis Reminding His Flock That They Actually Have To Follow The Tenets Of Christianity
The media and Twitter exploded in gushing over some quotes from an in-flight press conference by Pope Francis. Among some gay tweeple you'd think we'd had the Second Coming. But the most interesting thing to me was that we should be surprised at all by what the Pope said.
Isn't that basically how anybody who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth should act? It is pretty damning that the Catholic Church has moved so far away from those teachings that when the Pope simply reiterates Christian concepts as found in such passages as Matthew 7:1 there is surprise! Surely that is meant to be the Pope's job.
For us atheists there isn't much joy to be had, the Pope is simply restating the same position the Church has held for a while. And he's hardly kind about activism to protect our freedoms (throwing us in with greedy people, politicians and Masons!!).
"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge? The catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalised because of this but that they must be integrated into society."
Isn't that basically how anybody who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth should act? It is pretty damning that the Catholic Church has moved so far away from those teachings that when the Pope simply reiterates Christian concepts as found in such passages as Matthew 7:1 there is surprise! Surely that is meant to be the Pope's job.
For us atheists there isn't much joy to be had, the Pope is simply restating the same position the Church has held for a while. And he's hardly kind about activism to protect our freedoms (throwing us in with greedy people, politicians and Masons!!).
"The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem."Move along people, nothing to see here.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
UK Sleepwalking Into Censorship? More Like Running Into It At Full Pelt
We do not live in a free country. We all know that. Our libel laws are ridiculous. Our freedom of speech is curtailed should we be "offensive". We live under the gaze of corporate and Government officials. Even some websites are blocked. But we can at least try to hold on to some of the freedom we do have; we aren't Saudi Arabia or China after all.
But won't somebody think of the children? Every debate seems to revolve around those special transient state human beings under the age of 16. Marriage equality was bad because "children need a mother and a father" (we all saw what happened to Lot's daughters after their Mum died after all). And an open internet is bad because children might see things they shouldn't. And when we say "see things they shouldn't" we don't necessarily mean "what their parents or their future informed selves wouldn't want them to look at" but rather we mean "what the Government and ISPs have decided they shouldn't look at".
And we aren't talking about just porn here. Much has been said about how David Cameron's anti-porn filters will not work (and that the case that porn is harmful is still not firmly made). But more needs to be said about how these are not just porn filters. These opt-out filters will almost certainly default filter things from websites about suicide and self-harm through to "extremist material". Who will decide what constitutes extremist material? I find a book that discusses incest, murder, genocide, praises family breakdowns and proscribes execution for the smallest of crimes very distasteful and extremist. But are ISPs really going to block the Bible? Will Scientology websites be blocked? Or Greenpeace? Will the Rapture Ready forums be off limits? Or Queerty? Where will the line be draw and will it be fixed or ever changing?
Isn't it optional though? Yes of course it is. For people like me it'll be optional. Sure we'll then appear on some list at an ISP somewhere and the police will occasionally check whether a "person of interest" has his/her filters on or off as a way of deciding whether to investigate further (because it'll be a sign they are up to no good of course!). But it is optional. Will it be optional for women with controlling husbands? Or for men with overbearing wives? Will it be optional for kids in a religious household? Will it be optional in web cafes? Will it be optional in houseshares or when you are renting a room which comes with wi-fi? "Oh could you remove the filters for me?" will be regarded as "I wish to do something very naughty online". Who is going to ask it in anything other than the most open relationships and friendships? The Governments continued conflation of child abuse pictures, simulated rape imagery and porn does nothing but shame those who just want the Government to leave our internet alone and hardly promotes an honest conversation in the home.
I said 3 years ago when this was first proposed that porn was the litmus test of freedom. Sadly I didn't have the foresight to see that the Government wouldn't be satisfied with just porn. This isn't even a slippery slope argument... these extra options will go live with the porn filters.
As a Lib Dem I'm very, very ashamed that these proposals have come from a Government containing members of the party. And I'm equally saddened to see so many social conservatives who've spent the last year moaning about their freedom of speech suddenly so enthusiastic about censorship. Well when I say "saddened" I mean "unsurprised and slightly amused". They are predictable buggers.
But won't somebody think of the children? Every debate seems to revolve around those special transient state human beings under the age of 16. Marriage equality was bad because "children need a mother and a father" (we all saw what happened to Lot's daughters after their Mum died after all). And an open internet is bad because children might see things they shouldn't. And when we say "see things they shouldn't" we don't necessarily mean "what their parents or their future informed selves wouldn't want them to look at" but rather we mean "what the Government and ISPs have decided they shouldn't look at".
And we aren't talking about just porn here. Much has been said about how David Cameron's anti-porn filters will not work (and that the case that porn is harmful is still not firmly made). But more needs to be said about how these are not just porn filters. These opt-out filters will almost certainly default filter things from websites about suicide and self-harm through to "extremist material". Who will decide what constitutes extremist material? I find a book that discusses incest, murder, genocide, praises family breakdowns and proscribes execution for the smallest of crimes very distasteful and extremist. But are ISPs really going to block the Bible? Will Scientology websites be blocked? Or Greenpeace? Will the Rapture Ready forums be off limits? Or Queerty? Where will the line be draw and will it be fixed or ever changing?
Isn't it optional though? Yes of course it is. For people like me it'll be optional. Sure we'll then appear on some list at an ISP somewhere and the police will occasionally check whether a "person of interest" has his/her filters on or off as a way of deciding whether to investigate further (because it'll be a sign they are up to no good of course!). But it is optional. Will it be optional for women with controlling husbands? Or for men with overbearing wives? Will it be optional for kids in a religious household? Will it be optional in web cafes? Will it be optional in houseshares or when you are renting a room which comes with wi-fi? "Oh could you remove the filters for me?" will be regarded as "I wish to do something very naughty online". Who is going to ask it in anything other than the most open relationships and friendships? The Governments continued conflation of child abuse pictures, simulated rape imagery and porn does nothing but shame those who just want the Government to leave our internet alone and hardly promotes an honest conversation in the home.
I said 3 years ago when this was first proposed that porn was the litmus test of freedom. Sadly I didn't have the foresight to see that the Government wouldn't be satisfied with just porn. This isn't even a slippery slope argument... these extra options will go live with the porn filters.
As a Lib Dem I'm very, very ashamed that these proposals have come from a Government containing members of the party. And I'm equally saddened to see so many social conservatives who've spent the last year moaning about their freedom of speech suddenly so enthusiastic about censorship. Well when I say "saddened" I mean "unsurprised and slightly amused". They are predictable buggers.
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Review: The Church of Fear: Inside the Weird World of Scientology by John Sweeney
If you are looking for a thorough history of the Church of Scientology, then this book is not for you. I'd recommend Piece of Blue Sky or Inside Scientology instead. But if you saw either of John Sweeney's Panorama documentaries and came away wondering what happened between scenes, like I did, then this is most definitely the book for you.
John Sweeney's "exposes" of Scientology turned into more a study into just what the Church does to those who try to expose it. And here, with the benefit of hindsight and evidence from the Church's side of the story, John Sweeney paints a vivid picture of a Church that is dying from within but still strong enough to lash out at those it feels oppose it.
It was fascinating reading the (allegedly real) leaked documents showing the communications between the infamous Tommy Davis and Scientology HQ. The level of abuse in those communications is not surprising to someone who has been studying the workings of the Church for a while, but the documents still leave one
feeling very uncomfortable.
It's an easy read, and makes a good way to introduce yourself to some of the basic history of Dianetics and Scientology. That history is nothing if not utterly fascinating and, occasionally, deeply disturbing.
And to get a picture of the inner workings of the Sea Org, Scientology's holy order, and to get corroboration for what may seem some outlandish claims made by Sweeney, check out Blown For Good.
John Sweeney's "exposes" of Scientology turned into more a study into just what the Church does to those who try to expose it. And here, with the benefit of hindsight and evidence from the Church's side of the story, John Sweeney paints a vivid picture of a Church that is dying from within but still strong enough to lash out at those it feels oppose it.
It was fascinating reading the (allegedly real) leaked documents showing the communications between the infamous Tommy Davis and Scientology HQ. The level of abuse in those communications is not surprising to someone who has been studying the workings of the Church for a while, but the documents still leave one
feeling very uncomfortable.
It's an easy read, and makes a good way to introduce yourself to some of the basic history of Dianetics and Scientology. That history is nothing if not utterly fascinating and, occasionally, deeply disturbing.
And to get a picture of the inner workings of the Sea Org, Scientology's holy order, and to get corroboration for what may seem some outlandish claims made by Sweeney, check out Blown For Good.
Monday, 11 February 2013
Is Pope Benedict XVI's Resignation A Chance For Reflection?
Pope Benedict's time as the Pope is coming to a, rather surprising, end. I won't pretend I've ever been a fan. From his linking of my lack of belief with Nazism to how down he was on my relationship with Jim I don't think we would ever have gotten along. And it wasn't just me who didn't appreciate his rather unkind words, I'd wager that most secular people weren't really that into him.
Perhaps that is a failure of his Papacy, the failure to reach out and embrace others. But perhaps that is also a failure on the part of many of us who "opposed" him on some level. He was hardly greeted with tolerance wherever he went. His time in the Hitler Youth (something that was not voluntary) is often dragged out to suggest he was some sort of Nazi (although, as we see above, messing around with Godwin's law wasn't only limited to one side of the argument!). And his anti-gay views, pro-life stance and attitude towards safe sex caused a great deal of hurt and anger.
Even during the Protest The Pope action during his state visit to the UK, a movement for which I had a great deal of mean-spirited sympathy, I expressed concerns that some were taking things a little too far. And today on Twitter the anger at his stances has lead to insults. Is this really a practical way for us to engage with the Pope or the Catholic Church itself?
I not only understand the anger and hurt from people on "my" side, I feel it too. Being treated like fascists, told you don't really love (and absolutely shouldn't love) your other half and seeing the pain some Catholic beliefs cause others is sometimes a little too much to bear with just a shrug of your shoulders and a polite smile. But we are never going to change the Catholic Church's beliefs. I'm not saying they can't be changed but they can only be changed from within. We may as well be tilting at windmills if we believe that the next Pope will somehow magically be any different in terms of belief to Pope Benedict XVI.
What we can hope to change, although it isn't completely within our control, is the language the Catholic Church uses about us and how it treats us as people. But we can only change this through engaging with the Church rather than standing around throwing insults. That does very much rely on the Church engaging as well but if we perhaps approach them in a more conciliatory way then perhaps there might be a chance for dialogue.
As shown by recent events surrounding LGBT rights and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, engaging with a church can sometimes lead to real change. I'm not suggesting anyone temper their demands or beliefs. People should still fight tooth and nail for better sex education and equal marriage. And the Catholics should be free to believe as they wish in their own spheres. But perhaps we can temper our language and start talking.
Can we at least try not to call each other names any more? We might get somewhere. Maybe. It is surely worth a try at least?
Perhaps that is a failure of his Papacy, the failure to reach out and embrace others. But perhaps that is also a failure on the part of many of us who "opposed" him on some level. He was hardly greeted with tolerance wherever he went. His time in the Hitler Youth (something that was not voluntary) is often dragged out to suggest he was some sort of Nazi (although, as we see above, messing around with Godwin's law wasn't only limited to one side of the argument!). And his anti-gay views, pro-life stance and attitude towards safe sex caused a great deal of hurt and anger.
Even during the Protest The Pope action during his state visit to the UK, a movement for which I had a great deal of mean-spirited sympathy, I expressed concerns that some were taking things a little too far. And today on Twitter the anger at his stances has lead to insults. Is this really a practical way for us to engage with the Pope or the Catholic Church itself?
I not only understand the anger and hurt from people on "my" side, I feel it too. Being treated like fascists, told you don't really love (and absolutely shouldn't love) your other half and seeing the pain some Catholic beliefs cause others is sometimes a little too much to bear with just a shrug of your shoulders and a polite smile. But we are never going to change the Catholic Church's beliefs. I'm not saying they can't be changed but they can only be changed from within. We may as well be tilting at windmills if we believe that the next Pope will somehow magically be any different in terms of belief to Pope Benedict XVI.
What we can hope to change, although it isn't completely within our control, is the language the Catholic Church uses about us and how it treats us as people. But we can only change this through engaging with the Church rather than standing around throwing insults. That does very much rely on the Church engaging as well but if we perhaps approach them in a more conciliatory way then perhaps there might be a chance for dialogue.
As shown by recent events surrounding LGBT rights and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, engaging with a church can sometimes lead to real change. I'm not suggesting anyone temper their demands or beliefs. People should still fight tooth and nail for better sex education and equal marriage. And the Catholics should be free to believe as they wish in their own spheres. But perhaps we can temper our language and start talking.
Can we at least try not to call each other names any more? We might get somewhere. Maybe. It is surely worth a try at least?
Sunday, 10 February 2013
Has The Prop 8 Campaign Changed The Mormon Church For The Better?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was pivotal in the 2008 Californian campaign that successfully passed Proposition 8. Prop 8, for those who have been living under a rock, amended the Californian constitution to allow only marriages between those of the opposite-sex. This overturned a previous Californian Supreme Court decision allowing marriages between same-sex couples.
The victory of the Protect Marriage coalition, of which the LDS Church was a part, was quickly marred as LGBT campaigners turned their ire on the Church itself (its huge contribution in time and means meant it was singularly targeted as an icon of the Yes on 8 movement). The Church seemed rather taken aback by the level of anger aimed at it.
To an outside observer (someone who doesn't live in the USA nor is a Mormon) this surprise seems a little naive. You do not lightly tell someone who has gained the right to marry that you wish to take that right away, and given the history of the Latter-day Saint movement and polygamy I would've thought this would be quite obvious. But to Mormons marriage is far too important to their worldview for them to have felt they could sit out, what they perceived, a battle to protect it. Perhaps their faith blinded them to how it would make them look to those outside the faith.
The concerted campaign to punish the Latter-day Saints for Prop 8 has disappeared but it did succeed in linking the Church to Prop 8 and to anti-gay battles generally. And this bad PR came at a tumultuous time within the Church itself.
Elder Marlin K. Jensen (Church historian) said:
John Dehlin, of Mormon Stories, helped carry out a survey of the disengaged, inactive and former members of the Church to help the General Authorities find out what was going on.
Among the top 10 issues causing people to question their place in the Church is the Church's treatment of LGBT people and issues arising from its participation in Prop 8. And to make the matter worse, like many churches, there is a "LGBT friendly Mormon timebomb" waiting to explode. The LDS Church has many problems it needs to resolve and, based on its subsequent actions, it seems to have decided to try and do so.
Last year a new group called Mormons Building Bridges marched in the Utah Pride parade. 300 straight Mormons organised simply to try and combat the impression that Mormons are unloving towards LGBT people. What has caused some to dismiss them, i.e. the fact they are obviously a Church front group set up for PR reasons, is actually what makes me think they are something quite important. For the first time the Latter-day Saints are starting to realise that hurting LGBT people (both emotionally with their participation with anti-equality campaigns and physically through their attempts to cure homosexuality in the past) not only harms their public image but is hurting their bottom line: church members.
The absence of the Church from the campaigns in Washington, Minnesota, Maine and Maryland last year also speaks volumes to their changing priorities. Their recent support for anti-discrimination initiatives in Utah and now Idaho add to a growing picture of a church that is realising that dialogue may work better than opposition. Even their current response to the "Gays in the Scouts" debate is telling in its measured language.
Lest you think this is some LDS Church funded puff piece (I wish, I'm open to offers though), none of this means that the Church has changed its underlying beliefs. Its recently released "Mormons and Gays" website (I shudder at that name) might appear to be all sweetness and light but it is really more about having compassion for "broken" gays than about accepting them. This is progress of a sort though. And, taking us right back to where we began, the Church has filed an amicus brief against the Supreme Court confirming lower court's decisions to overturn Prop 8.
A change in doctrine, though, is hardly what your average LGBT American is looking for. They'd just like to be respected and left alone by a Church that has until recently been out to get them. And the LDS Church's attempts at dialogue and moderated language deserve to be lauded. If only the Catholic church would heed some of these lessons, we might be able to have a far more useful debate with them. Alas. But we can see that it is not impossible for demographics and internal opposition to help change even the most conservative organisation's attitude. That gives me some hope for the future.
The victory of the Protect Marriage coalition, of which the LDS Church was a part, was quickly marred as LGBT campaigners turned their ire on the Church itself (its huge contribution in time and means meant it was singularly targeted as an icon of the Yes on 8 movement). The Church seemed rather taken aback by the level of anger aimed at it.
To an outside observer (someone who doesn't live in the USA nor is a Mormon) this surprise seems a little naive. You do not lightly tell someone who has gained the right to marry that you wish to take that right away, and given the history of the Latter-day Saint movement and polygamy I would've thought this would be quite obvious. But to Mormons marriage is far too important to their worldview for them to have felt they could sit out, what they perceived, a battle to protect it. Perhaps their faith blinded them to how it would make them look to those outside the faith.
The concerted campaign to punish the Latter-day Saints for Prop 8 has disappeared but it did succeed in linking the Church to Prop 8 and to anti-gay battles generally. And this bad PR came at a tumultuous time within the Church itself.
Elder Marlin K. Jensen (Church historian) said:
maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right nowThe internet has finally brought questioning Mormons together and, with questions of Mormon history and several scientific issues, a growing problem with people becoming inactive in the Church has caused the leadership to start working on how it can keep people in the Church.
John Dehlin, of Mormon Stories, helped carry out a survey of the disengaged, inactive and former members of the Church to help the General Authorities find out what was going on.
Among the top 10 issues causing people to question their place in the Church is the Church's treatment of LGBT people and issues arising from its participation in Prop 8. And to make the matter worse, like many churches, there is a "LGBT friendly Mormon timebomb" waiting to explode. The LDS Church has many problems it needs to resolve and, based on its subsequent actions, it seems to have decided to try and do so.
Last year a new group called Mormons Building Bridges marched in the Utah Pride parade. 300 straight Mormons organised simply to try and combat the impression that Mormons are unloving towards LGBT people. What has caused some to dismiss them, i.e. the fact they are obviously a Church front group set up for PR reasons, is actually what makes me think they are something quite important. For the first time the Latter-day Saints are starting to realise that hurting LGBT people (both emotionally with their participation with anti-equality campaigns and physically through their attempts to cure homosexuality in the past) not only harms their public image but is hurting their bottom line: church members.
The absence of the Church from the campaigns in Washington, Minnesota, Maine and Maryland last year also speaks volumes to their changing priorities. Their recent support for anti-discrimination initiatives in Utah and now Idaho add to a growing picture of a church that is realising that dialogue may work better than opposition. Even their current response to the "Gays in the Scouts" debate is telling in its measured language.
Lest you think this is some LDS Church funded puff piece (I wish, I'm open to offers though), none of this means that the Church has changed its underlying beliefs. Its recently released "Mormons and Gays" website (I shudder at that name) might appear to be all sweetness and light but it is really more about having compassion for "broken" gays than about accepting them. This is progress of a sort though. And, taking us right back to where we began, the Church has filed an amicus brief against the Supreme Court confirming lower court's decisions to overturn Prop 8.
A change in doctrine, though, is hardly what your average LGBT American is looking for. They'd just like to be respected and left alone by a Church that has until recently been out to get them. And the LDS Church's attempts at dialogue and moderated language deserve to be lauded. If only the Catholic church would heed some of these lessons, we might be able to have a far more useful debate with them. Alas. But we can see that it is not impossible for demographics and internal opposition to help change even the most conservative organisation's attitude. That gives me some hope for the future.
Sunday, 20 January 2013
I Wish I Could Be Religious
When I was a teenager, I found great comfort in Christianity and then in paganism. Not only was the certainty of an afterlife and of a benevolent power watching over you reassuring but the "existence" of miracles and, in paganism, magic gave the humdrum life I led a tinge of excitement.
There is something rather attractive still about such beliefs. It is why I'm not only fascinated by the beliefs of more obscure/interesting sects (such as Scientology or the Latter-day Saint movement) but often sympathetic to them (more so to Mormons than to Scientologists I admit).
Yet my "spiritual" path took me out of belief in the supernatural down the route of skepticism into a complete lack of belief. I could now no more believe in the existence of a God than I could believe I could fly (without the assistance of some device anyway!). And I often find that a little sad. Sad because life isn't a story, it is now just a thing. There is, as far as I believe anyway, no saviour waiting to expunge your "sins" and lead you into an eternal paradise. No hero to keep you safe, no sanctuary to rest after all your woes. As Spike once sang in Buffy: "Life is just this".
And yet is it totally bleak? No, I don't think so. Life is filled with a great deal of beauty on epic scales and on small ones. Astronomy brings us pictures of beautiful cosmic phenomena our ancestors never had the chance to see. And on a small scale I take a great deal of pleasure from seeing and interacting with animals. The world and this universe are full of harsh realities and cruel truths but it has some compensations too.
But I'm still pretty annoyed there isn't any magic in this world. So if I mock your religion (I try not to, but sometimes it is pretty hard) or dismiss your assertion of something which I don't believe in, take heart that part of it may simply be my jealousy that you can allow yourself to believe in something more.
There is something rather attractive still about such beliefs. It is why I'm not only fascinated by the beliefs of more obscure/interesting sects (such as Scientology or the Latter-day Saint movement) but often sympathetic to them (more so to Mormons than to Scientologists I admit).
Yet my "spiritual" path took me out of belief in the supernatural down the route of skepticism into a complete lack of belief. I could now no more believe in the existence of a God than I could believe I could fly (without the assistance of some device anyway!). And I often find that a little sad. Sad because life isn't a story, it is now just a thing. There is, as far as I believe anyway, no saviour waiting to expunge your "sins" and lead you into an eternal paradise. No hero to keep you safe, no sanctuary to rest after all your woes. As Spike once sang in Buffy: "Life is just this".
And yet is it totally bleak? No, I don't think so. Life is filled with a great deal of beauty on epic scales and on small ones. Astronomy brings us pictures of beautiful cosmic phenomena our ancestors never had the chance to see. And on a small scale I take a great deal of pleasure from seeing and interacting with animals. The world and this universe are full of harsh realities and cruel truths but it has some compensations too.
But I'm still pretty annoyed there isn't any magic in this world. So if I mock your religion (I try not to, but sometimes it is pretty hard) or dismiss your assertion of something which I don't believe in, take heart that part of it may simply be my jealousy that you can allow yourself to believe in something more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)