I think they are WRONG. But...

[Dien Rice]

Originally Posted by GordonJ

The CATHOLIC church, and like the one across the street, has centuries upon centuries and millions and millions of people who are members of the cult.

How do they get deprogrammed?

Hi Gordon,

I haven't read any of Steve Hassan's stuff directly, but I've seen how others apply the BITE model...

I'll just talk about Information Control as an example...

Firstly, information control absolutely happens with kids, everywhere. We keep them away from pornography, violence (sometimes), swearing, and so on...

So, at least when people apply the BITE model, they're generally talking about adults...

And with information control, they are talking about (as you also mentioned) not only providing information, but also more generally about restricting access to "outside" information...

One example is Scientology. They have the concept of an "SP" - or a Suppressive Person. That generally means someone who is against Scientology, or who is a former Scientologist who left.

Scientologists are (to my understanding) absolutely not supposed to associate with SPs at all - even if they are your parents, your siblings, or your kids...

Tom Cruise (a well-known Scientologist) and Nicole Kidman adopted two kids when they were married - Connor and Bella. Connor and Bella are adults now, and are Scientologists - and apparently have nothing to do with Nicole Kidman. That is said to be because Nicole is an "SP" - so Connor and Bella should not, and do not, associate with her in any way according to Scientology beliefs, even though she is their adoptive mother.

This is a form of information control - the Scientology organization don't want Scientologists being exposed to "harmful information" (from Scientology's point of view) from SPs...

Now, with Catholicism... To my knowledge, at the present time, they don't restrict information that way. Catholics (again, to my knowledge) can pretty much talk to anybody. In practice, they can read what they want (they may need to go to confession and say some Our Fathers to absolve themselves of sin, but that's a pretty light "penance" I think)...

So, I don't think Catholicism, as it is practiced today, fits the description of Information control, at least how I understand it...

(Now, the Catholic Church in the past was a lot more restrictive! Banned books, the Spanish Inquisition, the trial of Galileo for saying the earth goes around the sun, and all kinds of "information control" along those lines... But these don't - to my knowledge - happen today...)

Best wishes,

Dien

From what I can tell it's not only the Catholic Church, but in general religions have this issue. By supressing emotions and access to information, they hope to keep everything and everyone in control. As we can see, they're having a harder time maintaining this since we have access to Internet.

Now this brings me to another issue - social media. I'm sure you have noticed how they are currently supressing people who think differently. At the moment it's only extremist right wingers, but what will stop them from limiting others from free speech if it doesn't seem fit to their TOS? They are in the goverment now. People from Twitter, Facebook, Amazon etc. I'm fearful of what's to come if they know everything and will use all of their power against us.

[GordonJ]

Originally Posted by MM1969

From what I can tell it's not only the Catholic Church, but in general religions have this issue. By supressing emotions and access to information, they hope to keep everything and everyone in control. As we can see, they're having a harder time maintaining this since we have access to Internet.

Now this brings me to another issue - social media. I'm sure you have noticed how they are currently supressing people who think differently. At the moment it's only extremist right wingers, but what will stop them from limiting others from free speech if it doesn't seem fit to their TOS? They are in the goverment now. People from Twitter, Facebook, Amazon etc. I'm fearful of what's to come if they know everything and will use all of their power against us.

The problem, like in defining a cult, is having an agreed upon definition of what the Internet is. China, N. Korea and other countries around the world define it as a public utility, with all the red tape, rules and regulations which come with it.

Most of the free world does not. Obama called on strict mandates for broadband providers. This WAR is just beginning, albeit, the battles have been ongoing since long before the Internet.

Then, there is the ownership perspective. And honestly, your post is a bit on the conspiracy side of things...THEY already know everything and THEY have always been in power. Left, right, Democrat or Republican or whatever THEY call themselves doesn't matter.

It is and always has been a fight between those in power and those NOT.

The Internet was to be the great level playing field, but it was never home to free unedited speech.

Do we have the right to 'suppress' (which is another conspiracy trigger or dog whistle word) the people who come to SowPub and start bashing someone? We say YES, we do and we have suppressed those types.

Now, all social media, as you call it, is OWNED by someone, usually a corporate entity, and if that is a publicly traded company have fiduciary responsibilities to their share holders.

Twitter in USA, is a different thing than in China. At the end of the day, we may see the THEY in power deem all TOS to be illegal.

In USA, THEY use eminent domain to seize property for the common good, and what we are witnessing may be the virtual equivalent of that, THEY are behind closed doors even as we speak, and THEY have been there the last four years too.

I don't see anyone's view being suppressed, but if social media is one's only soap box, then maybe getting a different street corner might bode one well.

Gordon

[GordonJ]

Yes, fair enough. But Hassan, is just one person and his definition has to suit his purpose, the person in charge of the definition is the power.

But, a look at standard dictionary and modern psychology definitions and one that seems to be a good definition is found at Wikipedia of all places:

In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[1][2]:348–56 The word "cult" is usually considered pejorative.


And I contend it is controversial, because the definer, may have something different in mind. People like Colin Theriot of The Cult of Copy Facebook page doesn't consider it pejorative, nor his 31k followers (more than some religious cults).

So, I don't accept Hassan's BITE definition. And Scientology is cherry picking of the cults, I'd bet a majority of people think of it as a cult.

My issues stem from not knowing what someone means, when they use the word, without context...cause I may think differently.

I've known several deprogrammers, and I think their zealous attempts to REconvert a "lost soul" to the fold of any given belief system, may make them a cult unto themselves.

And SP is right out of Amish land, shunning being a form of excommunication. Old L. Ron borrowed from several cults to form his. The fact it is called a church, is all about TAXES and collections, and was a legal battle they won in courts.

I like to study and talk about cults, but I want to make sure we are clear about the context and what we bring with us, as to what and how it is defined.

Gordon

Originally Posted by Dien Rice

Hi Gordon,

I haven't read any of Steve Hassan's stuff directly, but I've seen how others apply the BITE model...

I'll just talk about Information Control as an example...

Firstly, information control absolutely happens with kids, everywhere. We keep them away from pornography, violence (sometimes), swearing, and so on...

So, at least when people apply the BITE model, they're generally talking about adults...

And with information control, they are talking about (as you also mentioned) not only providing information, but also more generally about restricting access to "outside" information...

One example is Scientology. They have the concept of an "SP" - or a Suppressive Person. That generally means someone who is against Scientology, or who is a former Scientologist who left.

Scientologists are (to my understanding) absolutely not supposed to associate with SPs at all - even if they are your parents, your siblings, or your kids...

Tom Cruise (a well-known Scientologist) and Nicole Kidman adopted two kids when they were married - Connor and Bella. Connor and Bella are adults now, and are Scientologists - and apparently have nothing to do with Nicole Kidman. That is said to be because Nicole is an "SP" - so Connor and Bella should not, and do not, associate with her in any way according to Scientology beliefs, even though she is their adoptive mother.

This is a form of information control - the Scientology organization don't want Scientologists being exposed to "harmful information" (from Scientology's point of view) from SPs...

Now, with Catholicism... To my knowledge, at the present time, they don't restrict information that way. Catholics (again, to my knowledge) can pretty much talk to anybody. In practice, they can read what they want (they may need to go to confession and say some Our Fathers to absolve themselves of sin, but that's a pretty light "penance" I think)...

So, I don't think Catholicism, as it is practiced today, fits the description of Information control, at least how I understand it...

(Now, the Catholic Church in the past was a lot more restrictive! Banned books, the Spanish Inquisition, the trial of Galileo for saying the earth goes around the sun, and all kinds of "information control" along those lines... But these don't - to my knowledge - happen today...)

Best wishes,

Dien

[Dien Rice]

Originally Posted by GordonJ

I like to study and talk about cults, but I want to make sure we are clear about the context and what we bring with us, as to what and how it is defined.

Hi Gordon,

I agree the definition of a cult is a slippery thing!

I've only recently come to like the "BITE" model... The reason why I like it is mainly because it seems it can be used for what I'm calling "non-traditional" cults...

A "traditional" cult the way I'm using it is one where there is a charismatic leader on top, who everyone follows obediently... Examples are NXIVM, Heaven's Gate, Scientology, Jim Jones, and so on...

But there are definitely "cult-like" entities where this is not the case... Landmark is one... the "cult" of Trump could be another...

A guy named "Telltale" on YouTube often analyzes cults using a form of the BITE model in quite an effective way, I thought...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgI...BQ8HKL8QUccsOQ

(I think he was once a Jehovah's Witness - which he considers a cult...)

An interesting perspective I came across is the view that something is a "cult" not based on their beliefs (which could be about anything) - but rather based on how they control people... In this view, the beliefs are almost incidental!

But - you're right... There are a lot of disparate views here!

Best wishes,

Dien