Laura sat silently in the room, almost in a lobotomized state.
Still seated, even though it was long past midnight.
That's because she was being punished and was not permitted to sleep in her bed that night by the cult she belonged to.
But unbeknown to her, outside the silent walls of her cult compound, a quartet of liberators were moving to rescue her.
They were a committed organization of faithful known as Christians Against Cult Activities (CACA), dedicated to freeing those who had been brainwashed held against their will.
They didn't always stalk outside cult compounds in the dead of night. Occasionally, they infiltrated cults and sprang cult members from the inside, as it were.
But they had trouble infiltrating this particular cult, known only as Spiritus.
But dispite the humble name, Spiritus was an immensely powerful international spiritual moviement/post-modern religion/cult, with assets in the billions.
But along with all the fame and wealth came hushed accusations that Spiritus subjected some members to mind control practices, such as prolonged isolation (as in the case of Laura) and sensory deprivation.
The four CACA members just outside the Spirtus walls all knew that; Matt, Marcus, Lucas and Jonathan. They moved in syncopated unison, guided by a single purpose; rescuing that innocent girl from the dangerous cult.
They ran through practice drills, studied maps of the immediate area surrounding the compound, and had even gathered intelligence on where Laura was being held, obtained from a compound worker who had recently quit Spirtus and converted to Christianity.
Once they were across the street from the Spiritus compound, the other three went back around behind the compound, while Lucas created a distraction near the entrance, drawing the attention of guard dogs and security personnel.
Meanwhile, Marcus, Jonathan and Matt made their way undetected by the delivery truck entrance at the back, and then successfully scaled the fence.
A security camera spotted them, but there was no one at the Security Center to pick it up on the monitors, because they're all distracted at the front, as was intended.
This allowed the trio time to locate Laura's room on the third floor, as their contact told them she would be. Using mini-explosive charges, they blew open the door.
So tranced-out was Laura, she didn't bat an unblinking eye at the explosion and the entrance of her three saviors.
"My God, she is a veritable vegetable," Jonathan declared.
"There's no time to diagnosis her. And keep your voice down. We just have to get her out of here," Marcus intoned.
Matt nodded and lifted Laura out of the chair, while Jonathan held open wide a giant potato sack he had carried over his shoulder. Matt lowered Laura into the potato sack and then Jonathan hoisted the sack o' zombie onto Matt's brawny shoulder.
Mark exited the room first, peering out in the hallway to see if anyone was there. It was clear, apparently Lucas had done an excellent job in luring the Security completely to the front of the compound.
He signaled for Matt and Jonathan to follow in tow, and they successfully slipped out of the building.
Getting the sack of Laura over the fence took some doing but they were waiting at their designated meeting point when Lucas showed up with the mini-van to pick everyone up.
Once safely in the van, the sack was untied, and Laura was permitted to come up for air, though she was still terrified at the prospect of being surrounded by these four cleancut strangers.
"It's alright, you have nothing to fear," Marcus sought to reassure her. "You were being held against your will, brainwashed, by the Spiritus cult. But we have rescued you, because your parents told us you wanted to be rescued and to be reintroduced to Christ."
Jonathan took this as his cue, and leaned forward towards Laura, with a Bible in his hand, "See, we don't force the word of Christ upon you. It's your choice whether or not to receive Christ as your personal savior, Laura. You can walk towards Christ or away from Him, but we want it to be your choice and to make it with a clear, unclouded mind, do you understand that?"
Laura nodded affirmation, biting her lip all the while in a way that turned Marcus on, though he managed to suppress that wrong thought. This woman was a victim, and a sister in Christ, not some sort of sexual object.
"You were under mind control," Matt told her, "but now you're free."
Still shaken and numb, Laura managed to look up at him, and nod with a slight glimmer of understanding.
Matt, Marcus, Jonathan, and even Lucas, in the rear view mirror, all shared a glance of recognition that they had saved another soul from the clutches of a soulless cult.
Christian counter-cult groups like CACA, the fictional one depicted above, exist primarily because their members oppose the tendency of cults to replace a person's faith with a new measure of control - namely the cult's own leader and (usually) dogmatic doctrine. Or if the new cult member was non-religious, or even hostile towards religion, then the cult serves to fill a void that likely resides within nonbelievers. The ideals of the cult become either the replacement for Christianity or the alternative to it.
Each one of the essays in this book is intended to challenge Christianity, to confront it, to ask it basic questions.The question here is: Is there any difference between the fictional cult of Spitus and the Christian rescue group, CACA?
When Johnathon told Laura that she is free to walk towards Christ or away from him, that may be true, but look at the 'reward' for turning away from Christ and truly thinking for herself--eternal damnation.
Both are measures of control. Both attempt--and quite often succeed--in subverting the individual will in a given person and transforming them into a vessel through which the cult leader's will/philosophy/Christ flows, replacing the individual will, be it cult or church the results are the same, even if the methods are quite different, if not the opposite in approach.
A person's moral decisions are based on pleasing God, thus motivation is redirected from self-interest or protecting the family to acting in accordance with the prescribed moral standards of God as codified by a given religion.
This is a critical concept for people to grasp; that the methods aren't as important as the results, as what is being turned out. christianity/the church puts a traditional, pious, and generally warm face on things, a cult puts an occult, secretive, sometimes sinister face on things, but both have the same intention--to subvert the individual will in favor of the cult/faith becoming the central concern of the individual above all other things.
Christians will argue that the above isn't the case for all churches and all denominations. Some progressive churches believe that one's particular faith should be a balanced component of life, not the overriding factor.
But then logically it must follow that neither is it always the case that all cults or all alternative groups seek to have the follower completely turn over their life to the cult. Some cults and underground religions allow for personal freedom.
That little piece of rationality is conveniently ignored by Christian apologists. Keep in mind that although Christianity is the dominant religion on earth today, in its humble beginnings, it too, was an underground cult.
So the question that should truly be posed is; Is there any difference between the Spiritus cult and...Christianity?
Though the title of this essay, 'Christian mind control' may seem garish or even exploitative, but it is not without merit. After all, Christianity is a system of control, and it is through psychological manipulation that Christianity actually wields its control.
It is true that mind control is hardly limited to the church; it is and has been utilized by hypnotists, parents, witch doctors, governments and secret societies throughout the ages.
In fact, the ultimate irony of this essay's position on Christian mind control is that Christianity is generally portrayed and viewed as being the alternative, or even the antidote to mind control, at least by the mainstream media.
Nothing could be further from the truth--replacing mind control with christianity is like offering salt water to someone dying of thirst. Tis Christianity that is guilty of the most heinous forms of mind control that even the CIA at its most paranoid would far fall short of duplicating.
Christian mind control robs the individual of his/her individuality, yet never robs the subject of his/her faculties. An enthusiastic christian is not a drugged out robotic assassin, staggering around looking for the programmed 'hit.'
How did Christianity first gain its foothold, how did it first come to indoctrinate believers with its fantastic tales of resurrection and salvation?
Throughout history (long before Christ), people and factions and cults generally coped with the harshness of life (especially ancient life) by either turning to a life of indulgence or living a life of pious morality.
(In modern culture, things have become more specialized and people peruse a variety of lifestyles, but in earlier times the options were more black-and-white extreme).
Those who preferred moral asceticism were instinctively drawn to Christianity, as a replacement for the moral philosophies that had been previously extant, the remnants of Greek concepts of freethought, rationality and for the Platonists, doubt.
But after centuries, those philosophies did not provide the peace and happiness devotees sought, especially as Rome became increasingly corrupted.
Christianity replaced freethought with faith. Rationality with pie in the sky promises. Inquisitive doubt with absolute moral certainty.
And logic with emotion; if Christianity is anything, it's an emotion-based religion. Trouble is, relying on emotions as any kind of spiritual and especially cultural guide leads to instability in that spiritual/cultural system.
So, the glorious promise of Ancient Greece ultimately went unfulfilled, instead of progressing further out towards the individuality originally fostered (and all the uncertainty that unbridled individuality brings), people opted for false promises, emotions and ignorance offered by the new religion called Christianity.
Individuality, genuine individuality, scares a lot of people. Most people. People gravitate towards the comfort and security of community and conformity.
Man/woman are social animals, this is true. But it is that need to socialize that is inevitably manipulated by those who lust after power. The trick is maintaining unbridled individuality within the social context. But that takes too much work.
And once freethinking and rational thought had been eliminated, it was then easy to utilize that old standby, fear, to draw legions of followers. The positive aspects of Christianity could only appeal to so many.
Fear motivates the masses. Paranoids are always going to outnumber idealists. At least they will in a culture that encourages paranoia over idealism.
And the primary fear is fear of Hell; eternal damnation. Here Christianity plays upon the human instinct to avoid pain; Hell is portrayed as a dominion of pain and suffering. [More on Hell (and Heaven) in an upcoming essay]
There is also the fear of being cast spiritually adrift. This is fear that can be associated with insecurities the may be deep-rooted, such as substituting God/Christ for the father/mother who failed to provide sufficient nuturing (or too much!) the child that later became the needy, insecure Christian.
And last but not least there is 'Fear of the Lord', one of the "seven gifts of the Holy Spirit" (not to be confused with the seven dwarves of the Snow White).
The Vatican tries to rationalize this by proclaiming it is not 'servile fear' (fear of getting in trouble) but rather 'filial fear' (fear of offending someone one loves).
Yet it is fear nonetheless, and certainly seems to contradict the notion of any kind of 'personal relationship' with Christ (if Christ is supposed to be the same God that is supposed to be feared...uh, filially, that is).
Christianity is predicated on fear, without fear the religion would be nearly as impotent if faith suddenly went out of style.
Fear of death has been described as a instinctual necessity of evolution; if living things did not fear death, they wouldn't struggle/have the will to stay alive (as non-existence would not be feared), and would not reproduce.
Christianity manipulates that fear of death by promising a glorious afterlife where all true believers live forever and are even reunited with friends and family.
Then there is the story of Little Albert, in which a nine-month old boy was conditioned to fear a rat that the baby previously liked by associating it with a frightening noise. This was fear conditioning, and Christianity has made "Little Alberts" out of millions and millions over the millennia, by associating the fear of death with damnation or salvation.
And alongside fear is his equally evil twin emotion, guilt.
As it has done so successfully with fear, Christianity has manipulated the natural guilt that is associated with the individual conscience to serve its own ends.
Some argue that guilt is a the product of rationality; a self-defense mechanism. Guilt over doing harm to others prevents one from continuing to do harm to others, and thus not put him/herself at risk of being retaliated against by those he/she wronged, not to mention no longer harming others and putting them at risk.
Other theories posit that guilt is a curse of rationality, that we experience guilt as part of need to justify our existence.
Genuine guilt is derived from within and is a matter of conscience; guilt of doing harm or a person or animal. Not because it's an act that will result in punishment, but as part of a (likely subconscious) realization that all people and things are one and that when you harm anyone or anything else, you are harming yourself. Also empathy over the pain one has suffered can result in genuine internalized guilt.
Such feelings of genuine guilt often inspire people to improve themselves, and thus the culture at large; for example, guilt over eating meat has caused people to become vegetarians, out of compassion for the animals being eaten. As a result, the society at large is improved, as a vegetarian diet takes up far fewer natural resources to sustain.
However, internalized guilt over committing a sin or breaking a rule or law (where no one is harmed) is not genuine, but a product of external forces (such as Christianity). It's guilt over failing to win the approval of others, and undercuts individuality in the process.
External guilt is the concern here, and it is completely without merit. Christianity uses guilt over otherwise normal human acts (such as sexuality and self-intoxication) to adhere more strictly to Christian ethics. The motivation for guilt is not improvement of the individual or improvement of society in general, but to strengthen the bond between the believer and the faith.
Christianity administers the guilt, and then offers the guilt stricken the solution of 'relieving' the unbearable (for some, anyway) guilt with forgivenesss, and ultimately, the promise of eternal salvation.
Feeling guilt justifies the necessity of faith in the Christian's life. The faith will relieve the guilt
Information Control
This compliments the earlier comparison between Christianity and the Spiritus cult; for what else is a cult good at but controlling the flow of information that its adherents receive, especially those of the live-in variety.
Christianity has done and continues to restrict those things which contradicts its self-declared infallibility, particularly when it comes to science. Originally branded as witchcraft and heresy, now self-evident realities, such as evolution, are cast in doubt and politicized as part of a 'whacko liberal socialist' agenda according to extreme right-wingers.
The church is also coldly effective at controlling the information flow of their own misdeeds; in other words, they play defense as well as they move the ball on offense when they attack evolution, cloning, and any other scientific discipline or innovation that threatens their
Further exploration of these issues, while germaine to Christian psychological/mind control concerns, are better suited for a later essay titled "The Bu$iness of Christianity".
The remainder of this essay will be rounded out by discussing other psychological/mind control issues, including:
Christianity and Freewill
Christians in many denominations are told they are granted freewill by God, and thus are free.
Of course, this 'granting' of freewill by God is a rationalization, intended to explain why people go about doing anything they want, perpetrating the most heinous crimes, even against innocent children without any intervention whatsoever from the Almighty.
In other words, people have freewill because there is no God to ever stop them from doing anything, no matter how grievous the sin.
Christian freewill is counterfeit currency; it's only free will to do what God/Christ has pre-determined you may do.
There is no freewill granted to question one's faith---not on any kind of prolonged basis. Perhaps a temporary excursion down the path of doubt (also known as rational thinking) will be permitted, but nothing that can persist.
For ultimately, if one has doubt in God, one will not gain entrance into the kingdom of Heaven.
And without the capacity to doubt, freewill is not possible.
Psychological Superiority of Christians
Christians, particularly born-again, but the following is true of most Christians when faced with an atheist/nonbeliever, will often adopt a tone of moral/psychological superiority to the nonbeliver. For example, the nonbeliever does not have a "personal relationship with Christ" (more on that in an upcoming essay), and therefore does not possess the suitable knowledge of God/Christ to have an opinion on it.
Adopting such a tone clouds intellectual honesty and quite simply, it makes it hard to relate to the person.
One of the ideas this essay is attempting to get across is that Christianity is psychologically damaging to any and all who who adopt it, and this is one such example. Not necessarily resulting in a mental illness (although this is possible--and documented), but impairing the individual from accurately gauging the world around him or her.
If everything is viewed through the lenses Christianity, then those things are perceived as they truly are, but instead only in the context of Christianity, which gives off a 'false reading' every time.
The Christian view on the theory of evolution is a perfect example of this. Instead of honestly considering both the harsh realities and the occasional faults or unanswered questions of evolution, the Christian generally regards it as secularist fiction, created to discredit the religion.
Christianity and Mental Illness
Is it really fair to compare Christianity to mental illness, the reader may be asking?
Perhaps, and at the very least, its poetic justice for all those years Christian-centric societies put mentall ill people to death, or locked them away, for being 'possessed by demons.'
Self esteem is an important component to the mental health and well-being of an individual. But Christianity undermines, if not outright stamps out self-esteem.
Self esteem is seen as something that must be attained in conjunction wth Christ. One can feel proud of him/herself, but only as they are reflected in Christ.
This is an illegitimate sense of self-esteem, which must always be generated from within to be genuine, if it is imposed through external, artficial forces, it will not sustain.
The hatred of life and the subsequent denial of self-determination means that beyond a lack of self-esteem, a form of self-loathing can manifest, unconsciously if not more overtly. Self loathing is even more serious in that
Mental illness is defined as an abnormal mental condition or disorder associated with significant distress and/or disfunction.
The unnatural impact of Christianity on the psychology of its faithful would seem to be worse upon those who are indoctrinated at birth. This is a subject that needs greater study, but not one this Christian-centric culture would ever commission a think tank or research center to study.
Christianity is only offered as a solution to problems by the mass media, never as a detriment or a hindrance. Or the church often portrayed as a source of solace for disaster victims or anybody struck with sudden tragedy, a gathering place for the mounful and suffering to cry on one another's shoulders.
The only instances when the church and/or Christianity receive bad press is when there's some kind of scandal, usually just of a sexual nature.
Although the typical response from the media is to soften the blow (so to speak) by issuing editorials to reassure readers that religion/the church will continue to offer 'spiritual guidance' to those seeking it, and that one should never permit a scandal to diminish one's faith.
A scandal, whether it be child molestation or otherwise, actually increases the rallying support for Christianity in general the media foists upon the culture at large.
Although there's no doubt that the Catholic Church has suffered in general due to all the publicity about covering up priests involved in molestation of altar boys and other youths.
But that could be seen as the more powerful Protestant element of Christianity in America making sure that their foothold on American culture remain more influential than Catholicism, what with its ritualistic nature and priests who turn to perversion because they cannot wed.
But contrary to the perception, religion is responsible for impairments in individuals that rival their real-life counterparts such as schizophrenia, which is of course characterized by delusional thinking. Is there anything more delusional than a Christian who believes he has a personal relationship with a Jewish prophet who died over 2,000 years ago?
There are four major categories of impairments that affect most people afflicted with mental illness:
Cognitive: Being Christian and suffering cognitive impairment would seem to go hand-in-hand as far as I can see. Christianity inhibits rational thought and instead, demands that the thinker resort to rationalizations. Coming to logical conclusions is subordinate in the Christian to his/her faith. If an otherwise logical conclusion (such as the inevitability of evolution) conflicts with a matter of faith ("God created humans, they didn't evolve from primates."), then the matter of faith more often than not determines the reality that the Christian will accept.
Emotional: Christians can be emotionally immature, and this is often exposed when their faith and/or contradictory facets of their religion are challenged. Also, Christians are guided by emotions more than freethinkers and nonbelievers. Christians let emotions such as fear dictate their choice to be Christians, the fear of going to Hell, or conversely, the fear of not going to Heaven. Rather than being in control of their emotions, many Christians are controlled by their emotions.
Since their capacity for rational thoght is either diminished or abandoned altogether (in the most pathetic cases), the Christian has to subsitute emotion for the void of rational thought.
Behavioral: To the extent that Christianity afffects believers' behavior has not properly been studied. While it is unlike that Christians suffer from a higher amount of behavioral problems that the populace at large, it can be stated that, especially when it comes to born-agains.
Christian apologists argue that their ilk are generally 'better behaved' than the populace at large, and while many Christians may maintain civility in public due to their fear of 'sinning,' their behaviors are not genuine, not sincere.
Never more can it be demonstrated that Christianity is a system of control is in the way it keeps one from expressing her/his sincere thoughts...emotions...behaviors.
Interpersonal: Christians can't relate to people without Christ being in on the conversation. Christ can be seen as a barrier between two people relating in any sort of sincere way, especially when the relationship is between a Christian and a non-Christian.
The non-Christian may feel inhibited by not being able to fully/honestly express her/himself. The Christian may find her/himself judging their friend's words and/or actions, instead of accepting the friend for who she/he is.
In a Christian marriage, Christ is always in the bedroom, like it or not. And there is always the residual guilt that hangs around a couple's sexual activity like a prudish albatross (unless it's the missionary position intended to bare children).
In all four categories, the need to consider the abstraction known as Christianity interferes with
the person's otherwise healthy decision making process, as well as all but the most superficial of interperonal relationships.
Christianity and alcoholism/drug addiction. Substance abuse and Jesus have always gone hand-in-hand. Alcoholics Anonymous has been identified by some researchers as being a Christian Cult, where any questioning (re: freethinking) mentality is usually met with scorn or outright rejection.
As far as any sort of serious investigation into Christianity's affects on mental health, that won't be done until the culture is rendered more sane at large. Presently, Christianity is never questioned by the corporate/mainstream media, as far as its effect on people, both in regards to each individual psyche (as noted in the above text), as well as its undue influence on the culture at large.
Christianity is only offered as a solution by the mass media and the government (such as offering 'spiritual guidance' to the masses during times of crisis), not as the problem nor the cause of wider problems. Hell, it's never even cited as a contributing factor. Christianity is only portrayed in a positive light, with the exception of the altered boy molestation scandals, and those serve the dual purpose of both titilating the public for higher ratings as well as make Prostestant religions looks all the better by comparison.
While the notion that being a Christian (particularly a born-again) is the equivalent of having a mental illness will be outrageous to most (and all Christians), the bottom line is Christianity interferes with rational decision making.
Aristotle correctly declared human as a rational animal; and despite our best attempts to make Aristotle out a fool, rationality is essential to being human--and to being mentally healthy, and Christianity stands in direct opposition to rational thought processes, to fully realized mental faculties, and ultimately, to mental health.
