People have speculated about it for years and years, and today new evidence was revealed that strongly suggests The Polyphonic Spree are actually a cult. A source high-up in the Kool-Aid organization has admitted that they are in fact secretly sponsoring the band and all of their activities. Not only that, but as part of said sponsorship members are entitled to as much of the powdered fruit drink as they'd like for free.

"I didn't think it was possible, but apparently they're all drinking the Kool-Aid," said Richard Milton, head of the Anti-Cult Movement (ACM).

Read more...

One of the great things about being a famous rapper and cult expert is that, since no one will admit to being a cult, no one can prove that I'm not an expert. It's almost exactly like claiming to speak for god, because somehow God never shows up to prove otherwise. If I say you're the devil, you're the devil for now, and that is enough for folks to ignore my feet of clay. If a single attorney can convince one judge that I have special knowledge I am declared an official "expert witness" and with a web site and a bit of good old-fashioned schmoozing, I have parlayed that into it a pretty nice payday. I'm no Xavier Von Erck but I get by.

The entire "expert" thing, though, is a double-edged sword, and one that I handle by never going into battle. Sure I may get paid to be some lawyer's butt-boy before viagra-popping judges, but real debate such as academic experts face is something I just don't do. Instead I use the terms and phrases of the academy and social sciences to sound more authoritative to people who crave authority. They crave confirmation of their prejudices more than truth, so scams such as life coaching, Robert Kiyosaki's "rich dad" schtick and "bible colleges" abound. With parents so cheap they prefer to let their kids bang the bible than attend real schools, I get to make money throwing red meat to curs. I don't advocate violence or endorse any religions explicitly, but you understand how it is.

The first trick of any good parasite is to never kill the host. That was Jim Jones' great mistake, and one that true religious parasites understand.

There is much more money in teaching Krav Maga or Tae Kwon Do than in prize-fighting, especially when you are skinny or weak.

Of course you are right. Of course you are smart. Of course all therapists are skilled. Of course your religion is good. For a small fee I will even tell you this online, in your church, on the stand or from the tee-vee.

CENTERTON, Ark. -- The mayor of an Arkansas town resigned on Wednesday, claiming he was abducted and brainwashed by Satan worshippers nearly three decades ago.

Centerton Mayor Ken Williams said he has been living under an assumed name for nearly 30 years. He had been mayor since 2001.

Williams told authorities he was born Don LaRose and that in the mid-1970s, he was a preacher in Indiana. He said he was abducted and brainwashed into forgetting all about his life as Don LaRose.

Golly, but I hate it when that happens. I just hope he finds the courage to tell his story so that I can get back on teevee.

How can you people not believe in brainwashing now, eh? Is that enough proof for you?

Apologists! Trolls!

It was a really good week for me this week, and looks to be a profitable month. A story about The Mankind Project got picked up by The Houston Press and featured a great quote that should drive a lot of traffic to the LGAT section of my web site, which is hilarious, because MKP isn't even a real LGAT. Given that HP is a Village Voice newspaper this article may get picked by those pompous pricks across the river and lead to some serious interviews and speaking engagements among those evangelical goyim, and probably some good gigs as an expert witness. It is in Texas this time, which I loathe, but with all the churches down there I should be able to bunch trips, double or triple-charge for the airfare and enjoy some cable teevee at the hotel.

These MKP folks are really turning out to be useful for me, and the winged monkeys from my boards are doing a great job of spreading the word. The MKP thread is by far the best draw I have, pulling in almost a thousand replies and over 100,000 hits. Sweet! All I need now is for someone from MKP to sue me, if only they had any more money than me.

After that 1993 business in Waco, Texas has left a bad taste in my mouth, so it will be good to go back in triumph and make a few bucks off of a relapsed coke-head and his mackerel-snapping parents. Thank you Allah, Jesus and G-d for the Scintos. Ka-ching!

Michael Scinto killed himself and now I and the lawyers get paid off his suicide. Hey-ho Houston, here I come!

One of the great things about being a cult expert is that I don't have to do a lot of work. Like the night-shift guy at the Star Ledger I just watch my automated search queries as if they were the AP wire and then pick and choose which stories to post on, providing a paragraph or three of links to someone else's work and pretending that is work on my part. Since most of my clientele seems to be close-minded religionists, critical thought isn't really necessary; I just read the client and tell them what they want to hear with a few footnotes to seem worldly, collect my fee and head on out. The DVD sales aren't going was well as I would like, but perhaps it is the production values. I should really phone the famous Rick Ross and see if I can borrow a few of his videographers. Maybe if I sampled a few of his tracks and used abusive language I could sell more of this stuff. Should I assemble a special "bible study group" package? Bundle the videos with some photocopies and pass it off as an adult education course, perhaps? I'll need to make a note of that in my PDA when Star Trek is over...

The boards are going really well. Talk about outsourcing! I have to pretend to be a few regulars to keep it active, but like a lazy graduate professor I have winged monkeys and crackpot minions who do all the work. They can post stuff and I get to sidestep the copyright laws, and then I assemble a bunch of old news stories and the rubes who read my site think I wrote it all.

I just have time for another bowl of fruit loops before Star Trek Voyager begins...

It has been a hard week here in anti-cult land. After spending hours reading Google alerts for stories I could snarf and regurgitate for my CultNews.com blog I barely had time to look at some cute boy-porn when my cutting-edge world headquarters was attacked by spambots. As if that wasn't enough some dickwad revived the same old tired arguments against 1950's brainwashing rumors and some middle-aged guy in Arizona claimed I didn't know what I was talking about. Then that RickRossIsAdick.com guy made fun of me on Wickedpedia so I had to go all John Mackey on his ass and defend my good name.

Can't a fella just enjoy a few Cher records in peace? I want a hot dog.

It's almost enough to make me want to get a real job.

Central to the concept of anti-cult activism is the concept of "brainwashing," a term which first gained popularity in the early 1950's as a sinister, Oriental technique used by the atheistic, communist Chinese during the Korean War. The idea spread throughout the culture and (like hypnosis over a century before) made it out into the general culture and was featured in such movies as the 1962 film "The Manchurian Candidate" with Frank Sinatra.

In 1894, the popular sensation was George du Maurier's "Trilby," which featured an evil, Jewish hypnotist named Svengali, who used his occult powers to seduce young, white Christian women. The basic storyline of the anti-cult activists is the same: sinister foreigners seek to draw away innocent youth and manipulate them for their own evil purposes.

The terms used for "brainwashing" vary somewhat, with more precise language being used in academic, psychological or semi-scientific treatments. Anti-cult activists may use such terms, but essentially they mean "brainwashing" in the same sense that Svengali used hypnosis.

Among the differing treatments of this idea which may or may not be used by anticult activists are Janja Lalich's "bounded choice" theory, Margaret Singer's "psychological coercion," Robert Jay Lifton's "thought reform" or sensationalistic treatments such as Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman's 1978 book "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change."

Whatever the term, a central tenet of the anti-cultists is that something has been done to an innocent person, as if the person were an object which sustains property damage. To the extent that the person is an object, it can be owned, and is seen as the property of the family, church or ethnic group: a valuable item essentially stolen or vandalized by the evil cult.

People involved in such "cults" are rarely treated as adults, considered capable of making their own decisions and choosing their own religious beliefs, and certainly the religious beliefs or doctrinal assumptions of the anti-cult activists are above suspicion, and involve no "thought reform," "bounded choice," "psychological coercion" or "deceptive and indirect methods of persuasion and control."

The game of religion is not wrong to the anti-cult activist, so long as one is playing on the anti-cult activist's side. The primary sin of those they attack is having left the fold or questioned the authority and infallibility of mother church, their owners or parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Anton_Mesmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svengali
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilby_%28novel%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate_%281962_film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism:_A_Study_of_%22Brainwashing%22_in_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cults_in_our_Midst_%28book%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMPAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_%28religious_practice%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_persuasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Religion and movies very clearly don't mix, as my recent viewing of John Travolta's Battlefield Earth proves. Based on the crappy 1980 novel by the pathetic novelist L. Ron Hubbard, this movie was only made because a rich actor happened to be a customer of brilliant con-man L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. The obsession with cult of personality and deification of mediocre art by religionists should not surprise anyone. Expecting a believer to make a good religious movie is like expecting a parent to provide objective feedback on their own child.

With the possible exception of Cecil Demille's 1956 The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner, I cannot recall a single good religious movie made by a believer, ever. To say that most movies are good would be to abuse the term, so one would expect that most religious movies would be bad, but there are a few good films with religious themes: 1991's The Rapture with Mimi Rogers or 1997's The Apostle with Robert Duvall. But when a believer makes a movie about their religious love-object one gets stuff like 2000's Battlefield Earth or Mel Gibson's homo-erotic snuff film from 2004, The Passion of the Christ.

Consider the following list of films about Jesus Christ, for example, and of those you have seen see if you can guess which were made by believers.

• Alice Guy's 1898 Jésus devant Pilate
  
• Kalem Company's 1912 From the Manger to the Cross
  
• Cecil B. Demille's 1927 The King of Kings
  
• Nicholas Ray's 1961 King of Kings
  
• Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1964 Il Vangelo secondo Matteo
  
• George Stevens' 1965 The Greatest Story Ever Told
  
• Gareth Davies' 1969 Son of Man
  
• Norman Jewison's 1973 Jesus Christ Superstar
  
• David Greene's 1973 Godspell
  
• Franco Zeffirelli's 1977 Jesus of Nazareth
  
• Terry Jones's 1979 Monty Python's Life of Brian
  
• John Krish & Peter Sykes' 1979 Jesus
  
• James Cellan Jones' 1980 The Day Christ Died
  
• Martin Scorsese's 1988 The Last Temptation of Christ
  
• Denys Arcand's 1989 Jesus of Montreal
  
• Regardt van den Bergh's 1996 Matthew (Visual Bible)
  
• Hal Hartley's 1998 The Book of Life
  
• Roger Young's 1999 Jesus
  
• Derek W. Hayes & Stanislav Sokolov's 2000 The Miracle Maker
  
• Philip Saville's 2003 The Gospel of John
  
• Mel Gibson's 2004 The Passion of the Christ
  
• Mark Dornford-May's 2006 Son of Man
  
• Jean-Claude La Marre's 2006 Color of the Cross
  
• Catherine Hardwicke's 2006 The Nativity Story
  

What is it about religion that so totally destroys artistic judgement? Too many of the films are merely the high-budget equivalent of macaroni craft projects made my children in Sunday school.

Stumbled across a fun little book yesterday by someone named Christopher Hitchens. Titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything it is a quick, light read for those who often tire of indulging well-meaning, cunning or malicious chowderheads who insist that their obsession with fairy tales is some sort of political or philosophical position.

It will persuade no one, but it is good to see clear ideas so distinctly put, making it my new favorite critique of religion since a bumper sticker which said simply "Yer Gawd es Domb."

Excerpts available at http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/

There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.

He also makes an interesting argument that much of religion is also child-abuse.

Death to the empire.

Apparently the white Rick Ross would like people to believe that he is some sort of intellectual hero rather than a slightly masochistic dude stuck in New Jersey trying to sell his services as an expert witness and periodic talk show guest.

His latest insinuation is that I want to attack his web site. Ah, but how he flatters me.

Once upon a time I found Ricky's web site and saw there a character named Ginah who may or may not really exist. Past stylometric analysis of his message boards shows that he may post under several different names himself, but at the time I did not know this and logged on to answer "Ginah's" questions. The white Rick Ross banned me shortly thereafter, asserting that I had somehow flamed someone, which is an interesting assertion given the general storyline within this particular thread at Ricky's sandbox.

1. "Hurtgirl" complains or asks a question about MKP or her husband/boyfriend
   
2. "MKPguy" tries to answer, explains own experience.
   
3. MKPguy or partial material is mocked by someone with no direct experience
   
   
4. MKPguy" tries to answer again, explaining own experience
   
5. "RRModerator" calls MKPguy "apologist," reposts earlier allegations as established fact
   
6. MKPguy gives up or is banned by RRModerator
   
   
7. New Hurtgirl complains about MKP, asks question.
   

Having watched it happen over and over, I suspect that Ross writes many of the "responses" to his web site himself, using a variety of sock puppets to make his work seem more exciting and relevant than it really is. Heck, I may even be such a puppet myself.

Rick Ross would like people to believe he is worthy of some sinister computer attack, but Ross lives in New Jersey where it is much simpler to bother people than by playing with their computers. While it is flattering that Ross thinks I am such an evil genius that I would spend my time messing with his webhost, the level of my interest and sophistication is to periodically post to this blog and to have started a mild Yahoo group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anticult/

At one point I had hoped to enlighten Rick Ross, but now I am happy enough to annoy him, and to show my maturity and the level of my regard for Ross' search-engine games I invite everyone to visit and link to http://RickRossIsAdick.com

Smoochie smoochie.

I hope to see you at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anticult/ where the proprietor writes under only one name and dissenting, informed opinions are welcome.

Anti-religious bigots are welcome there, so long as they are articulate, cogent and well-informed.

There are many things in life that are matters of personal taste: body position while sleeping, favorite colors, pet names for loved ones and so on. Many of these things are important to the person who likes their coffee or toast or tea "just so" but are realistically no on else's business or concern. Why are religious and spiritual beliefs (or the lack of them) any different?

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The reason, I believe, is a concept of ownership on the part of some people and organizations. Many religions exist as business entities and have an essentially military or market model, a "zero-sum game" where a gain by any other is perceived as a direct loss to them. In addition to representing political and economic power, human minds and souls are seen as objects in themselves, to be owned and deployed like coins or pieces on a chess board. To these people a change in belief or allegiance is seen as a personal threat or attack, and this is very odd. Why should I care where my neighbor finds solace any more than I care what his favorite color is? Yet many do.

Many "anti-cult" activists are merely afraid or jealous. Evangelical Christians and Muslims alike welcome people who convert to their religion, but often become enraged if anyone leaves. They are like men who refer to a woman as a "slut" when that attractive woman will not sleep with them. Other churches such as the Catholic and Russian Orthodox see certain populations as their property, and object to infringement by evangelical groups as "poaching souls" and invading their territories.

To the extent that religions are just economic, political and military organizations this makes sense. In all other ways it is petty, small and miserly.

One of the primary pleasures of religion is the belief that one is a part of something larger than oneself: the "saved," the "chosen," the "enlightened," or what-have you. This concept of "in group" and "out group" (us versus them) is reinforced in a variety of ways, and constant reinforcement is crucial to the maintenance of religion. Ultimately this is a matter of subconscious thought and belief, but one of the most useful tools in control of such thought and belief is language or, more specifically, jargon.

Jargon is language used as shorthand, to quickly convey extremely broad or important concepts quickly. Much of the time the common usage within a religious community is not to convey an idea but to signal an understanding of the jargon itself. One uses "buzzwords" or phrases that mark one as an insider, and the repetition of these words over and over again does not so much convey meaning as it does identify the user. Much as birds use particular songs or calls to identify themselves to others of the same species or to stake out territory, so do religious people use religious terms.

Among political cults these may include the talk-radio phrases that so dominate talk shows and Fox News: "cut and run," "flip flop," "tax and spend," "stay the course." Among psychological cults these may include phrases such as "resistance" or "projection" while in cults of pseudo-science they may be "intelligent design," "irreducible complexity," "thetan" or "clear."

The "thought-stopping" nature of such pithy phrases within the though process of the religious or cult member is a topic for another day, but the main use of jargon is to separate one group from another: friends from enemies.

From the Temple Mount to Al-Aqsa, it has always been thus. Inclusive language is, by its very nature, hostile to sectarian factionalism and war. Religious jargon is a marker and tool for division.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon

When considering the criticisms of the religious against members of some other "cult" I like to remember the great satanic ritual abuse scares of the late 1980's. The McMartin Preschool trial was probably the most famous, but just up the road from me a piece another organization called the Church of the Living Water was having an even odder case. A deputy sheriff by the name of Paul Ingram had been accused of various foul and satanic deeds, and was so devout that he believed that he had done them and confessed, being sentenced to prison for his religious lunacy, as detailed in a Summer 1991 Mother Jones article, "The Devil in Mr. Ingram."

We don't hear much mention of Satanic Ritual Abuse anymore, as one doesn't hear much about witch burnings, or pogroms or lynchings. Perhaps we should hear more of them, though, as vaccination against a connection that Voltaire reportedly noted: Believers of absurdities all too often commit atrocities.

One of the more interesting and objective measures of a controlling group that I know is Steven Hassan's relativley simple "BITE model" as found in Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves. The model is simple enough to apply quickly, yet content-neutral, applying to popular and unpopular groups, secular and religious. Using the acronym "BITE" it identifies four different kinds of control that organizations exert over their members to keep them bound or captive to the group and its ideology.

BEHAVIOR Control of physical space such as clothes and behavior, which demonstrate physical control but may also use rituals and processes such as the Catholic confessional to maintain monitoring control when the member is out of direct observation.

INFORMATION Control such as the establishment of parallel media channels which explicitly exclude unauthorized information or interrupt criticism. The rise of "Christian broadcasting" and niche cable channels have made this possible over a wider range than was possible even thirty years ago, such that people are encouraged to "self-select" into like-minded groups which echo the "party line" in a seemingly dense but homogenous "echo chamber."

THOUGHT Control follows from information control, but is internalized through "frames" or "memes" or worldview, thought being actively discouraged as "ungodly" or interrupted and short-circuited with such pithy phrases as "godless communist," "radical feminist" or "fundamentalist Christian." Nothing from outside the group is ever to be trusted, as the intellectual prison of information control is completely internalized.

EMOTIONAL Control uses basic concepts of "in group" and "out group" to make the member believe that there is no identity or future outside of the group. One is "saved" or "elect" and banishment or removal from the group is absolute social death. Alternating cycles of criticism and praise may be used in a combination carrot-and-stick approach which rewards compliance with love and non-compliance with a total loss of love.

Every group will inevitably have these characteristics, which is partly why it can be identified as a group. The issue is how these factors work together to exert undue influence on the person that is being controlled or attack. Much of this is the sort of thing that is conveyed quickly and imprecisely with popular phrases such as "brainwashing" but is broadly present in all social groups, for good or ill.

One of the most common tactics over at the Rick Ross "Cult Education Forum" is mockery. Someone shall ask a question about a group, someone may post some sort of verifiable or neutral information about the group, someone else will try to elucidate the target group's views or rationale on a subject, but mostly Internet wags will chime in with snarky comments and mockery. Mockery and satire definitely have their place, and are properly to be used in constant measure against the powerful, but when a group of people begins piling on a group which cannot effectively defend itself, or one person repeatedly pounds the same point, we have moved beyond the realm of satire into bullying. Well-placed comments and observations in the interest of insight may be satire, but snarky and repeated thumping on an opponent or subject whom cannot defend themselves is just bullying. Although mockery is frequently an ingredient in criticism, it is not itself criticism, anymore than the addition of MSG to a recipe is gourmet cooking.

There are lots of things about me which can be mocked, most of which I am more than happy to acknowledge. The tendency to take ourselves too seriously is a dangerous one, because it makes us rigid and close-minded, unable to adapt, evolve or to grow. I am reminded of various great men in history who have replied to a critic who had pointed out a flaw that the critic was correct, but did not know the half of it: each of us has far more and greater flaws than are first apparent. When accused of being two-faced, for example, the gaunt and homely Abraham Lincoln is said to have replied "If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?" Ronald Reagan similarly, when his age was mentioned by Walter Mondale, famously noted that that he was "not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.". To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I have read Abraham Lincoln, I have studied Abraham Lincoln, I have admired Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan was no Abraham Lincoln.

A primary flaw in most Internet bulletin boards is the cliqueshness that emerges, marking the "in group" from the "out group," a primary characteristic of so-called "cults" or religions. This is part of their group bonding, so much so that it is not seriously to be questioned. Such dynamics will emerge in any sort of social group, but when the in-group bonding becomes more important than the ostensible purpose of the group (such as education, spiritual evolution or serving the poor) it is dysfunctional. The repeated mocking of others and a sort of gang-rape mentality can too easily emerge, poisoning the possible good a group may serve.

There are a lot of things to criticize about any group or religion, from Scientology to Mormonism and Catholicism. Shall we talk about the planet Xenu or the amazing Golden Plates? Shall we clarify exactly how it is that indulgences work or that the eucharist transubstantiates? Let's refer to Mormon temples as "rockets to God," shall we? Or go on about the "holy longjohns?"

There are many reasons to holds Scientologists, the Catholic Church or the Latter Day Saints in contempt, chief among them to my mind being venality, male supremacism and indifference to injustice when perpetrated by their members against non-members, but too heavy a dependence on mockery undermines the more serious criticisms one may have. Or perhaps an over-reliance on mockery is used to cover a lack of substantive criticism.

Do not confuse snarky one-liners and partisan lies or half-truths as substantive criticism. It makes you less and insults the listener. If your opponent is weak, wrong, lame and small, there is rarely any need to mock them. Self-serving pity of other is often self-delusional smugness in a white hat, but in criticizing groups and people of various sorts, it is important that we not confuse our self-serving mockery with substantive criticism. If such things really worked, Rush Limbaugh would be respected, and not a public joke with a bottle of pills somewhere between Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith.

Mockery is not criticism but, like other things, it can serve to consistently draw flies.

From http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html

Rick Ross Live Journal

This page was put together by Rory Bowman an Oregonian and former school teacher who is now a "Macintosh consultant" based in the Portland/Vancouver area. He wants people to know that I am a "sycophant" catering to my "many 'Christian' supporters." And that the Ross Institute database has somehow failed to properly expose and/or criticize "'fundamentalist' and 'evangelical' groups, including such sacred cows as...Roman Catholics and Mormons." He also says, "More than anyone else alive today, I believe that Rick Ross is abusing the corpse (and reputation) of a good woman, Dr. Margaret Singer." Margaret Singer was a friend and an Advisory Board Member of the Ross Institute until her death. Bowman then goes on to abuse Dr. Singer posthumously by claiming "at the end of her career" she was "dramatically insulted and dismissed by her peers." Sounds like this former school teacher needs to go back to school. Margaret Singer was lauded by the New York Times as "a leading brainwashing expert" upon her death and praised by her peers for her professionalism and research. The "peers" Bowman prefers are probably better described as "cult apologists. He cites Wikipedia, which is less than a reliable source, dominated by "editors," often with their own agenda. Wikipedia's disclaimer notes that there is no "guarantee of validity" regarding any of its entries. Bowman deserves two flames, which is one more than Wikipedia received.

One of the things I find most annoying about Rick Ross' "cult education forum" is the way in which it consistently uses the pain of real people to advance its own agenda while NOT offering them any substantive help. Basically they are brought on board as freaks to point at other freaks whom they mock, all in the "interest" of "exposing dangerous cults." A good example of this is the woman "Ginah" who is having trouble in her marriage, as can be found at http://forum.rickross.com/viewtopic.php?t=1881&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=660

Analysis of the characters in this thread will have to wait for another day, but this woman came to the board for insight into what was going on with her marriage. For various reasons that are not relevant here, I felt her marriage was doomed pretty quickly, but she came asking questions about a particular group as it related to changes she had seen in her husband. Her basic narrative was that she had a wonderful relationship with her husband that was somehow based on full disclosure and "no secrets" but that he had attended a weekend men's training and would not discuss the details with her. As she pressed him and he refused, she became increasingly upset and wanted to believe that her perfect marriage had somehow been damaged by this group. Rather than suggesting she speak to a counselor about this or consider marriage therapy, she found a lot of people who wanted to talk about how bad and cult-like the group was, posting parts of alleged training manuals out of context and absolutely NOT helping this woman with a serious problem: the perceived collapse of her marriage and concerns that her husband might become abusive.

HELLLLLLO! This woman is in pain and needs some useful advice: talk to a trusted counselor, look at marital counseling, call a women's crisis line or something. Rather than provide her with tools to better analyze her own situation and address the personal tragedy of her collapsing marriage, these widgets want to to prattle on and on about how the problem is some irrelevant third-party group, The Mankind Project (MKP).

There are some people who have alcohol problems. There are some people who lie or are physically abusive. There are some people who cannot maintain a healthy relationship. While it might be nice to establish direct causal relationships among these things the important thing is to help people who are immediately in pain, not to use that pain as a convenient springboard to one's own agenda. Ginah's husband may very well be an abusive, lying asshole, and Ginah may be an insufferably critical shrew. I have no idea. My experience is that MKP helps men to examine their own lives and feel supported in that examination. It stands to reason that for some men that will mean feeling more supported to be assholes, but the group is no more responsible for them being an asshole than alcohol is responsible for people who lie or are physically abusive.

The problems that Ginah stated are clear: she feels that her marriage is starting to fall apart. Rather than point her toward resources such as counseling or a women's crisis line of some sort, these vultures ignore the problem as others try to log on and explain that the problem is not MKP or her husband keeping secrets, but her need to consider how important that is to her and make some clear, healthy, psychological decisions for herself.

Ginah (and many other people who get religious help) needs support and space to figure out what is going on in her own heart and soul, but religious groups or groups with religious agendas are only interested in using people like Ginah (or drug addicts, or photogenic children, the hungry homeless or street drinkers) to promote and reinforce their own agendas. Religions as a whole do not care about people except as pawns for their own ends. Does anyone? I'm not so sure, but religions seem particularly in denial about this semi-hidden part of themselves, a part they would like to hide, repress or deny.

I knew someone once who worked year-round in a homeless shelter and one year noted a constant flood of calls. Beginning in October or early November, various "youth pastors" from suburban churches would begin to call: Would it possible, they wondered, to bring a group of teen-agers down to help during the holidays? Yes it would, she wanted to say, but let's start in January and be here for two days other than Thanksgiving or Christmas. Helping "victims" only when it helps us to look good is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 6:3:

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.

This is bad enough, but even worse is to use the victims for a photo op while not giving alms or helping the suffering at all. I would like to believe that much of this is cluelessness and self-delusion, but the ongoing pattern makes me think otherwise.