How Traditional Religions Ensure Their Tradition of Dominance over Individuals

One Sunday last August, my nuclear family decided to attend what was billed as a mindful parenting and meditation class at the local brick and mortar location of the international Brahma Kumaris (BK) religious movement. I had driven past the location every day for more than a year on my way to drop my oldest daughter off at school each morning and gradually got curious about what the group was all about. The BK belief system is conveniently disguised for casual day-trippers like ourselves, but over the course of the two-hour class, I was nonetheless able to get a glimpse of the psychological gambit BK leaders employ to seek to inculcate in potential adherents both self-doubt and longing for a need they never knew they had for something which, not coincidentally, the BK movement itself is attempting to provide. I remember reading once about how, in the early days of the Ford Motor Company, budding marketing whizzes figured out that the trick to corporate longevity and dominance wasn’t simply fulfilling the real needs people already recognized they had, but creating entirely new “needs” they never even imagined and then promising to fulfill those. Traditional religions work in the exact same way. Rule number one in traditional religion: convict them of their sickness in order to convince them of your cure. Get down with the disturbing details by clicking here.

2 thoughts on “How Traditional Religions Ensure Their Tradition of Dominance over Individuals

  1. I have been checking out the work of Hector Avalos, professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University. He sees religious violence as rooted in the concept of scarce resources embodied in traditional religious thought- “scarcities” such as “salvation,” “revelation,” and “holy space.” He sees religious violence as the most immoral of all because it causes people to persecute and kill others over a perceived scarcity of resources that there is no evidence even exist. Found it food for thought and has some parallels with your ideas on invented “needs” that sustain religious dominance.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve written of Avalos’ views. Thanks for sharing. One of the hallmarks of delayed-return worldviews is seeing the world as a source of scarcity rather than the abundance immediate-return thought usually emphasizes. Once the name of the game is grab and hold on to as much as you can of scarce “resources,” it becomes very easy to justify violence against others who would grab some for themselves or even take your own. This is the game Satanism usually does and must continue to eschew.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s