What an odd complaint

Thomas Csordas, an anthropology professor at the University of California San Diego who has studied the issues around communities like People of Praise, said it was wrong to focus attention on whether the group could be a considered a “cult” in the spirit of Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple. It was much more appropriate, he said, to examine what he called the “intentional community” of People of Praise and its nature of being “conservative, authoritarian, hierarchical, and patriarchal”.

“I think they’re potentially more dangerous and much more sophisticated [than a cult],” he said. “It is not the kind of group where submission of women to men means that they have to stay barefoot and pregnant. Instead, they have to be lawyers and judges and submissive to men at the same time. They have to be able to have a career and seven kids at the same time.”

An organisation which enables, nay insists, that women have it all is to be anathematised now?

18 thoughts on “What an odd complaint”

  1. He seems to be objecting to the subjugation of women bit, not the careers and families. Seems a reasonable enough objection to me.

    Still, interesting to see which side of the political spectrum is now complaining about cat licks having positions of power. Plus ca change…

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    Commander Jameson October 11, 2020 at 8:28 am – “Seems a reasonable enough objection to me.”

    Where is the reason? Women want to be subjected, within reason. They won’t stop writing soft-porn books about it. Women should be subject to their husbands. This is how you build successful families and health societies. On what possible ground could you object?

    Keeping in mind that if women do this as part of a non-traditional sexual practice, as BDSM, it is Protected. So if my wife wants to be whipped, tied up and beaten that is fine if it goes with support for abortion. But if she believes that God has designated her husband the head of the family – something roughly 90% of the planet believes – then it is a crime? How is that reasonable?

    DocBud October 11, 2020 at 8:30 am – “More dangerous than cults that kill people.”

    Dangerous to whom precisely?

    John Galt October 11, 2020 at 9:07 am – “If you have to ask the question “Am I in a cult?” the answer is always “Yes”.”

    Nonsense. If you never ask yourself if you are in a cult, the answer is yes. People who have to ask that question have the freedom to ask it. The Left never asks itself that question. Because they are.

  3. Anthropology. Says it all. Beat Sociology to the academic clown car by a few decades and still as absurd and discredited as ever.

  4. Any lawyer who subjected herself to men wouldn’t last five minutes. She’d lose every case by being unable to oppose a man.

    If she is meant to bow to her husband’s wishes in family affairs, that’s a personal matter. (Also unlikely to be true, of course.)

    =============

    One of the requirements to be a cult is closing yourself off from the world. You don’t mix with the impure except as required to live.

    They almost all keep their dogma secret too. Only the select get to know. Religions literally put it in a book.

  5. “One of the requirements to be a cult is closing yourself off from the world. You don’t mix with the impure except as required to live.” That was probably the original point of the Hebrew dietary taboos, according to Spinoza. (Who was certainly a shrewd cookie.)

  6. SMFS,

    While one may argue that adults who join cults are responsible for their own behaviour, including if they commit suicide, although I’d argue that they are mentally ill, but the nearly 300 children who died at Jonestown and the 20 who died at Waco were undoubtedly innocent.

  7. @ dearieme
    “That was probably the original point of the Hebrew dietary taboos, ” but coincidentally they reduced the risk of food poisoning by 99%.

  8. Powers’ sister had shown a gift for speaking in tongues, a defining trait of the followers of the small charismatic Christian community

    Dunno, “speaking in tongues” is goofy af and you wouldn’t catch any self-respecting British or European left-footer doing this. Maybe the USA is different?

    It has taken decades of therapy and hard work to overcome the intense feelings of shame and fear of damnation that she said marked her childhood.

    Interesting take.

    Xtian bigots: you are a sinner but can be redeemed in Christ

    Clownworld enlightenment: you are a racist, sexist, homophobe carrying an invisible knapsack of capitalist white supremacery and can be cancelled at any time even if you spend the rest of your life ostentatiously grovelling to brown people and perverts. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Women who are married, like Barrett, count their husbands as their “heads”.

    An insane fringe belief that only the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived share.

    “I don’t think we should put her Catholicism on trial, but the Catholic conservative legal movement is putting liberalism on trial.

    So they should. Liberalism is a culture of death that preys on unborn babies and encourages primary school children to experiment with homosexuality and transgenderism. Wake me up when the headsmen, carnifexes and inquisitors arrive.

  9. “but coincidentally they reduced the risk of food poisoning by 99%”: oh go on with you. Attempts to rationalise Hebrew food taboos (or, I dare say, many others) always seem feeble to me. My money is on Spinoza. Otherwise you have to explain why everyone else in Canaan, Egypt and so on didn’t adopt the same taboos.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    DocBud October 11, 2020 at 11:15 am – “the nearly 300 children who died at Jonestown and the 20 who died at Waco were undoubtedly innocent.”

    Well yes. Who would dispute that? But you said,

    “More dangerous than cults that kill people.”

    ACB was in a cult more dangerous than Jonestown? Fascinating. Why? More dangerous to whom precisely?

  11. @ dearieme
    “That was probably the original point of the Hebrew dietary taboos, ” but coincidentally they reduced the risk of food poisoning by 99%.

    Dearieme. You’ve obviously never had to live with Jewish food taboos. That’s unmitigated bollocks. There is an argument about abstaining from pork. Because the pig can share ailments in common with humans. But in practical terms, over here in Iberia we have virtually the same climate as Judea & pork has long been a major part of the diet. With no effect whatsoever on the incidence of food poisoning. And Kosher seems remarkably easy going about chicken, fowl being a major culprit as reservoirs of nastyness.

  12. Commander Jameson said:
    “He seems to be objecting to the subjugation of women bit, not the careers and families. Seems a reasonable enough objection to me.”

    He seems to regard the large family as proof of her subjugation to her husband, which is ridiculous.

  13. @BiS: you’ve got it arse over tip. It’s me who’s mocking attempts to rationalise Hebrew food taboos in terms of health, john77 who is doughtily advancing the opposite case.

  14. SMFS,

    My comment was a direct response to: I think they’re potentially more dangerous and much more sophisticated [than a cult]

  15. Yes. Apologies dearieme. We do sing from the same…well, not hymn-book, but…

    They are basically to entrench a semi-nomadic goatherding culture. Priests doing what they always do. Ensure they stay on the top of the pile.

  16. “but the nearly 300 children who died at Jonestown and the 20 who died at Waco were undoubtedly innocent.”

    Wat? What’s Waco got to do with it? One can consider the Branch Davidians a cult, but it was the government – Janet Reno – that killed them. The “cult” was not responsible; it wasn’t suicide. It was mass murder by government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *