Don't know if anyone's been following the trial of evangelist Tony Alamo; truly stomach churning stuff there:
Alamo, 74, is accused of taking five girls across state lines for sex between 1994 and 2005. The woman did not testify about any specific allegations before the judge ordered a recess so workers could fix a broken computer monitor at the defense table.
The woman said her first memory of Alamo was from age 3, when his ministry was based along Georgia Ridge in far western Arkansas. Her family moved to New York briefly in 1991 after federal marshals seized the land amid Alamo's disputes with the IRS and Labor Department.In the fifth grade, she said, Alamo ordered boys and girls into separate classrooms.
"He said he didn't want, as he put it, any hanky-panky between boys and girl," the woman said.
In 1992, the girl was a young teen and had returned to western Arkansas. She and other girls worked as baby-sitters and also had to help in the church office or wrap candy at one of Alamo's business ventures. Her mother, she said, purchased groceries to feed the flock.
Prosecutors alleged in their opening statement Tuesday that Alamo took a girl as young as age 8 as a bride and repeatedly sexually assaulted her and that at least four other girls were raped or assaulted as well. Defense lawyers say the girls traveled the country for outreach and to support the business interests of a "bona fide religious group."
Alamo's defense team is being a little creative:
Defense lawyers say the government targeted the ministry for prosecution and Alamo says the trial is part of a Vatican-led conspiracy against him.
"This investigation, this prosecution was fueled by prejudice the government and law enforcement have against Tony Alamo's church because of its practices," said Don Ervin, who is leading Alamo's defense team.
That's the kind of Vatican conspiracy most of us could support, I'd think.
In all seriousness, though, this ties in a bit with Rod's discussion of religious leaders and the danger of following someone who ends up using religious authority to prey upon believers; it also touches on a different problem, which is that when people define Christianity any way they like, the door is opened for truly vile people to claim that they are only doing what the Lord wants them to do, and to manipulate, as Tony Alamo is alleged to have done, parents into handing over their very young daughters to be the leader's "brides."
The Roman Catholic Church's scandals should have taught us, by now, the danger of letting pedophiles cloak themselves in religion in order to have access to children. But what happens when the pedophile convinces parents that his abuse of their children is the Lord's will--and there are no official religious teachings or guidelines which say otherwise?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Avoid all authoritarian associations.
"How do we determine what is a cult and what is a legitimate religious practice?" Geoff G.
TR: There are proposed methods and check-lists. Like
1. The leader claims to have a special authority that is not to be questioned or discussed.
2. All members are expected to limit or end contact to non-members, including relatives. In extreme cases by relocating to an isolated commune. (Alamo used to have a compound, even in the nineteenth century Popes would occasionally meet with non-believers as would Catholics)
3. The group considers themselves to be at war with a force trying to destroy them. (Alamo's Vatican conspiracies, Scientology's weird obsession with the American Psychiatric Association)
4. The group has "unequal ethics." Non-members can be cheated, tricked, lied to, or destroyed if it'll benefit the group.
5. (The only one important from the vantage point of government) The group and its leadership openly encourages criminal violence or destruction.
"As an Orthodox-inquirer, I'm really taken aback at Rod and Erin's suggestions that the submission to a spiritual father or adviser is generally a danger to be avoided." Kirk
TR: I think they mean in extreme cases where the authority becomes totalitarian. Although in Rod's case he may mean more as he strikes me as still being a bit more "disillusioned ex-Catholic" than current Orthodoxer.
Isaac Bonewits has a cult evaluation checklist: http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html
I think really all one needs is basic liberalism - always ask questions; never be cowed by authority figures; use common sense, logic and gut-feeling; be prepared to be selfish; and be prepared to talk things over with different people, who you trust and who have different perspectives. It's not really all that difficult.
When I was Christian, the churches I attended were mostly gentle, open to debate, and very un-cult-like.
On the other hand, there are also non-religious cults. There are three in particular with which I have had some involvement, and found it difficult to keep my head straight:
1. The Trotskyists who dominated UK student politics 25 years ago: They had numerous front groups, tried to insert themselves into every popular cause, shouted down anyone who disagreed, and were obsessed with persecution and secrecy.
2. Japanese corporations: Employees have almost no time off, all socialising and leisure are controlled by the management, family life is devalued, there is an obsession with spies and imaginary enemies, and almost all alternatives and exit routes are shut down.
3. PETA: Debate is prohibited, even about clearly inconsistent principles, and there is a leadership cult around Newkirk.
Surely there are evil leaders who would draw their flocks into oblivion, but the alternative, as far as I can see, is for each person to become their own authority; their own pope.
There is a middle ground. In fact, there are probably lots of different ways of resolving this. Here's just one example.
In my own community (Religious Society of Friends, aka Quakers) we don't have any ordained authority figures. Decisions by the Meeting are made by consensus, via a process that involves a lot of talk, a lot of prayer, and a lot of silence. When individual members of the Meeting need spiritual guidance, they will ask for a "clearness committee", a voluntary group of Friends who meet with them to help them consider whatever it is.
For example, a couple meets with a clearness committee before the Meeting agrees to approve their marriage. Likewise someone who feels they have a divinely inspired leading to quit their job and volunteer for some good cause would ask for a clearness committee to help them discern whether they're really following God's will or whether they're just doing it for reasons of egotism or whatever.
In general, having to explain yourself to a bunch of other (often "weighty") Friends has a tendency to focus the mind. The system somewhat keeps people from getting too caught up in fads or obsessions or whatever. It's a system that's worked pretty well for American Quakers for the past three centuries.
Charles Cosimano
July 15, 2009 10:36 PM
There is only one way to cut this Gordian. "When Authority speaks, it is lying."
Never believe what you are told, especially if the person telling you is a clergyman. (I was going to say "and a blogger" but I may start my own blog.) That is the safe way to deal the matter.
****
Chuck, I love how you've authoritatively exempted yourself here.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.