Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS)

sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers

<< < (6/6)

Anonymous:

--- Quote ---Why is it Atheists that are so dogmatic and inflexible(?)...not to mention close-minded to anything contrary to their convenient interpertation of the world.
--- End quote ---


Of course, atheists say the same thing about christians. I guess it depends on which side of the fence one sits.

I don't think faith is really a matter of choice. We either believe or we don't. At an early age, I came to the realization that all religions were just 'made up.' I have never been able to convince myself (or have someone else convince me) otherwise. I did not choose my interpretation of the world because it was 'convenient.' It was actually rather traumatic. It is a simple matter of faith. You either have it or you don't.

I would not make the generalization that atheists are any more or less inflexible than any other group. I, for one, don't give a rat's ass what other people believe as long as they are not trying to force me to believe the same thing or live by their arbitrary set of restrictions.

Anonymous:
From what I can see, we all were born in the same way, we all die in the same way. So maybe -- just maybe -- we are all the same thing; start in the same 'place' and end in the same 'place'. Since I believe this, religion to me is irrelevant. I am agnostic, if I have to choose a label, and I do hope that after I die, I will still remain 'me', but honestly, I hold no reservations about that nor expect it. It's life's greatest surprise! Wouldn't it be boring otherwise?

I think a lot of religious activies, is more about order, organization and power (money) as much as a byproduct of civilization. I think every person on earth, has their own sense of spirituality, or whatever term one chooses to use to describe this. I don't condemn religion as a whole, or praise it, I don't paint with such a wide brush. I do notice faith and hope seem to really help the human psyche deal with the negatives in life. In my opinion, religion is more of a good force, than a negative one on this planet, at this time.

I figure, when I die, either I'll be ecstaticly happy about still remaining 'me' or not know any difference anyways... I have no memories of before I was born, so I figure death will be the same. Or will it... ?  ::burger::

Deborah:
?Fuck Yes? Philosophy- Fuck yeh, I?ll give you your axe back, but only after I call your wife and give her a 30 minute head start. By the way, you don?t seem to be thinking very clearly. What?s eattin ya? What has your wife done that would cause you to risk your freedom and liberty by committing murder? How will killing her make your life better/easier? Can you arrive at any other possible solutions, like the very obvious, leave?

This kind of rational engagement doesn?t happen often because we?re all so divided and separated, no real vested interest in the distressed neighbor- or even family member. Because we haven?t been treated this way, we don?t know how to extend the same thoughtful courtesy to others. Current solution? Call the police or psychiatrists or escort service. Put the ?problem? out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Let the ?expert professionals? deal with it. The public has been brainwashed/conditioned to believe that they are incapable of ?helping? in any meaningful way- basically stripped of their inherent abilities- and to defer to the authorities.

Gotta stick up for consensus, which is a great way to reach agreement in a group.  If anyone is coerced, then you DO NOT HAVE consensus. It?s possible that someone who lacks critical thinking skills may feel coerced, but that is their problem. My experience in groups with a common project or decision to make, has been very positive. Goes like this.

Facilitator (neutral) states the issue/project: No anonymous posts at Fornits.
For some period of time everyone in the group presents their best arguments for and against, which the scribe notes on a pad or chalkboard.
Facilitator sums up the points made in discussion and asks for consensus.
If consensus isn?t reached- more discussion. Those who are still opposed (blocking), particularly, have the opportunity to express their concerns again- it sometimes happens that the one person blocking is actually the clearest thinker in the group.
Most groups have agreements about what will happen if consensus isn?t reached. Depending on the size of the group, it could be Consensus minus one, two, three, etc- some percentage of the total number of participants.
But, the ultimate goal is that there is enough discussion/debate that everyone can eventually get on the same page, without being coerced. Very similar to what happens less formally in SOME family decision making. As some parents have learned, there is less resentment about a group decision if all have participated in the decision making process. Can it be abused. Yeh, as anything can. A parent could actually control the decision while presenting the illusion that consensus is being employed. I think this process is alien and scarey to most Christians because they are accustomed to someone else making the decisions, rules, and laws. All they have to do for a free pass to heaven, is abide by them. As parents, they then rise to authoritarian dictator over thier children.

Back to the process. The one (or several), still ?blocking? is asked if they are willing to step aside and let the group move forward with what the overwhelming majority have consensed on. This can be difficult if the one blocking is set on the group adopting their thinking. It sometimes happens that the group must take a certain course, even if it is not the best, most efficient course, and learn from their mistakes.  The rational blocker realizes that just as an individual needs to learn from mistakes, so do groups of people, and will step aside allowing the group to move forward with the agenda.  

Consensus is more egalitarian than voting- which doesn?t allow for everyone in the group to be heard. It eliminates the possibility of one person or group making decisions for the majority. It?s roots are in Native and Quaker cultures, which I can imagine might be frightening to the control freaks of Christianity- although I originally learned consensus from a christian, a lovely woman. Time consuming, yes, but worth it. Also, no one is forced to participate or to adopt another?s view. If the issue before the group is not of interest one way or another, then you choose not to participate and in so doing are agreeing to support the decision that comes out of the consensus process. It?s as you were saying AA, convince me through respectful debate that your thinking is better, but don?t force/coerce me. There are no ?consequences? or punishments associated with consensus. Psychological bullying, character assassination, labeling, spreading lies are not part of genuine consensus.

I really resent that the industry co-opts and bastardizes, sometimes really useful techniques and processes. I have heard of no examples of genuine consensus in programs. The program my son attended went so far as to refer to their rules as ?agreements?. No one there participated in the creation of the ?agreements? or agreed to abide by  them. Mindfuck #1. They are rules, so call them what they are. They aren?t negotiable- so don?t imply they are. Participants aren?t allowed to question the rules and are punished for doing so or violating the ?agreements?. They aren?t given the rationale (if it exists) for the rules- because to do so would expose their agenda.  There is no Consensus in programs- it is the antithesis of their objective to suppress and subdue their subjects. The use of terms like ?agreements? and ?consensus? softens the rigidity and absolute control of the program/ seminar- on the surface. Works the very same way in our 'judeo-christian' culture. I can't decide to have an abortion, euthenize myself, or smoke pot- amongst other insane laws. Where is my right to self-determination? This is not freedom.

The author states:
 ?There are four key elements necessary for a successful 'consensus process' operation. They are:
(1)multicultural and/or diverse groups fueled by resentment and envy (necessary for causing social conflict)
(2)a social issue around which conflict can be created (example: Christmas, which is labeled 'exclusionary, insensitive, and hurtful' to diverse groups)
(3)the dialoguing to consensus process (psychological manipulation leading to abandonment of principles and positions)
(4) a predetermined outcome (example: Christmas parades successfully recast as 'Festival of Lights" or "Winter Holiday" parades that are inclusive of gay pride celebrants)?

That is so not true Consensus, but clearly describes the status quo, which could use some ?unfreezing?. Precisely the way the Bush administration uses it. They have no idea what true consensus and/or their goal is not to achieve consensus. True consensus is a threat to authoritarian/facist power and control, so what do they do? Co-opt the term, misuse/ misrepresent it to confuse the public, just as the author does, and just as programs do. Oldest trick in the book.  I think this piece also serves to distract from the Bush et al, ?One World Order? plan.

And if we take this hot button issue of Xmas?. Consensus would never be arrived at, clearly. The compromise might be- practice your religion in your home, don?t force it on the public. Putting up lights and nativity scenes (Ten Commandments, draping nude statues, etc) is a form of advertising your religion/belifs and shouldn?t be done in public places. The majority (not consensus) in this country seems to be holding this view. I can imagine it?s a scarey time for Christians. Oh well, what goes around, comes around, as they say. Let the thawing commence.

And good lord, what could possibly be wrong with ?sensitivity training?? Remember the blue/brown eye class experiment to demonstrate the hurtful effects of prejudice? Totally useful!! Many would love to put program people through a similar ?training?.

And what could possibly be wrong with two ?opposites? being reconciled, the antithesis being resolved in a higher synthesis? Nothing, unless of course, your agenda is to maintain ultimate authority and control.

As to this: I think it is more about how Christianity is a barrier to the efforts of the facilitators in LGAT.
I think of church as an LGAT. Who knows for certain, but it?s my understanding that the jesus person, if he existed, did not want all the formal structure of religion. No infrastructure, no dogma. The message was simple and universal and to be taught one-on-one, modeled. He led a radical grassroots movement that met in nature with an agenda of teaching peace, love, and forgiveness. It didn?t go over well then and it doesn?t go over well now. And guess what, his ?movement? got co-opted, bastardized, misused, and misrepresented. Seems to be a recurring pattern, when things start to thaw.



[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-02-05 12:08 ]

Deborah:
***ADHD is nothing more than society narrowing what it considers acceptable behavior of what are really normal boys (84% of ADHD diagnosis are boys), and reflect an anti-boy bias in elementary schools. Young boys are not wired to sit still at desks for hours on end.


AA, You might enjoy this article
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... it/?page=1

Schoolboy's bias suit
Argues system is favoring girls
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff  |  January 26, 2006

BuzzKill:
Hi Deb.
 
Your comment about "church" & LGAT - I would agree that in many cases you are right. I've attended a few that seemed to have a lot in common with LGAT. They are not all like that tho. Anyway, I would argue 'the church' is actually made of those believers who do believe in Christian doctrine and who try to live accordingly. They may or may not be part of a particular group, that meets in a particular building.
 
As for Christianity being a barrier to LGAT - I base that largely on my own experience. With out ever having attended, I can tell you I created a good deal of friction, arguing against much that was being parroted by those who did attend. It is the belief in absolutes, and an inflexibility on some points, that make it hard to accept the traing that takes place in the seminars.
 
Not saying that Christians don't very often abandon their beliefs to embrace the lessons they are exposed to in LGAT. Many do. Often, IMO, because they lack an understanding of why they believe what they do in the first place - and b/c they lack an understanding of what is happening to them in the seminars.
 
But, It seems to me, the eastern religions and their relatives, are far more flexible, and able to incorporate the philosophies entrenched in LGAT. If one is of a more eastern mind set to begin with - they will have less to abandon, and so less to resist - making them more susceptible to the training.
 
Thats my theory anyway.
 
I'd need to re-read the article, but as I recall she seems to be saying that Christians are more resistant to the re-training taking place in society at large - making them targets for societal retaliation.
 
I've mostly been arguing that a shift in societal thinking has taken place, and is resulting in very negative feelings toward Christians; and that this is something new in western society.

The masses are being re-taught what to think about Christians and Christian thought. It is having an effect. Much the same effect as LGAT.
 
Personally, I am not frightened about it - or even upset over it. I am just interested in the hows and whys and feel it is worth exploring.

Also - it *might* serve to wake a few sleeping Christians up to what is happening to them in the damdable seminars.
 
Ginger:
 
 On 2006-02-04 14:24:00, Anonymous wrote:

Just once I would like to meet an Atheist who would allow him/herself to be tortured to death for the sake of their "beliefs"...no takers to date but, I take your presence here as a miracle

you write:
For beliefs? You think Jesus suffered and died for beliefs? No, I don't think so. I think 'he', as in the character in the Christian Bible, died for speaking the truth in a political era when that was intolerable act; would have (and did) disrupt the orderly system that kept the decision makers fat and happy. ///
 
Maybe they are talking about the martyrs - and not Christ Himself?
 
Anyway - from a Christian's perspective - Jesus didn't die for what He believed - He died to pay the price of sin for all man kind.
 
Those who took part in the trial, condemnation and crucifixion, may have done so b/c of what He taught and believed - but He died for the sake of man kind.

Caiaphas (the presiding High Prist) explained it (tho he didn't realize what he was saying) when he said - better one man to die, than the whole nation perish.
 
But many martyrs have died, b/c of believing this, and not being willing to say otherwise.
That inflexibility the Christian is so noted for.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page