by VorJack
In reading Robert Kunzman’s Write These Laws on Your Children, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the families involved. I wouldn’t necessarily want to live with any of them, and they’re all pretty conservative, but they mostly seem like they’d make good neighbors. Granted, Kunzman may be going out of his way to be generous to the families that allowed him into their homes, but on the whole even the most reactionary family seems lucid and aware of the issues they’re dealing with.
Then you run across stories like this, from an excerpt from Max Blumenthal’s new book, Republican Gomorrah:
A few miles down the road from Colorado Springs [a home to James Dobson's Focus on the Family], in the quiet bedroom community of Eldredge, a deeply disturbed young man named Matthew Murray followed the unfolding debacle at New Life Church [once under the stewardship of Pastor Ted Haggard] with an interest that bordered on obsession. Murray, a sallow-faced, bespectacled 24-year-old, had been indelibly scarred by a lifetime of psychological abuse at the hands of his charismatic Pentecostal parents. Murray’s mind became crowded with thoughts of death, destruction, and the killings he would soon carry out in the name of avenging what he called his “nightmare of Christianity.”
Via The Nation, the excerpt contains the story of Murray, who was home-schooled using a program inspired by the Dominionist R. J. Rushdoony. I suspect you can guess what it was like, but Murray spells it out:
“We couldn’t have ANY christian or non-christian music at all except for a few charismatic worship CDs…. Pastors would always come and interrogate me over video games or TV watching or other things. There were NO FRIENDS outside the church and family and even then only family members who were in the church. You could not trust anyone at all because anyone might be a spy.”
And that, plus a helping of parental abuse, makes up Murray’s education until college. Given two bad options for higher education, Murray chose the “Discipleship Training School” run by an organization known as “Youth with a Mission” (YWAM). Things spiraled out of control:
But as soon as Murray enrolled at YWAM’s training center in nearby Arvada in 2002, he found himself trapped in an authoritarian culture even more restrictive than home. He realized that, as another student of YWAM bluntly put it, the school’s training methods resembled “cult mind-controlling techniques.” Murray became paranoid, speaking aloud to voices only he could hear, according to a former roommate.
As you can tell, the whole piece is written in a sensational style. It’s hard to be sure how much of this is accurate, as people fleeing from bad situations often exaggerate. But it paints a very ugly picture of an upbringing in an extremely conservative Fundamentalist family.
My father was an extreme, authoritarian fundamentalist. He literally believes the verse that says a man must be willing to hate his children to follow Jesus. He thinks that all the “sinning” I did as a young child meant that I deserved the “spare the rod” style of punishment I suffered. He didn’t homeschool us, but we went to a wacky private school. It was an ugly, extreme upbringing. And people wonder why I’m so vocal about homeschooling when it is done by religious nuts.
(I went to wacky private school for 2 years in 5th and 6th grade until I could move in with my mom and resume my public school education)
pps (one of the great aspects of my job as an educator is to have the chance to monitor students and report bad parents to CPS… something that only happens very, very rarely, but I’m glad to be a defender of children’s rights!)
Congrats LRA, for escaping such a bad situation and for doing such an idealistic job. =)
Well I had a few things on my side:
- a progressive mother
- intelligence
- a beautiful education
- lots of therapy
:)
Intelligence! Soemething lacking in many people.
Yet still you seem to have turned out more than OK. Reading stories like this one makes me feel nauseous, and happy that I live in a country where nonbelief is the norm (atleast in my surroundings).
Thank you Erik. :)
My father was part of the Worldwide Church of God led by Armstrong (it has since changed its stance on many things.) He took (the church) took the “hate your mother/father, etc and follow me (Jesus)” verses quite literally as well.
I had no contact with him from the time I was about 7 until I was 15 when I took the initiative and reached out to him.
When I was 18 we got into an argument over travel plans and I’ve not heard from him again despite my numerous attempts to reach out to him through letters. That was 21 years ago.
Thanks, religion.
Exactly.
The case of Murray seems a bit of a long tail….
Do you mean tall tale? I’m not sure what “long tail” means…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail
Orsenigo: Nazi Bishop I presume?
My surname? oO
Kind of typical of North-Eastern Italy, (the area around Venice)
Even if this story is sensationalized, and even if not each and every one of those things happened to Murray, all of those things could happen to an individual. I’ve repeatedly said that I think parents should have options for their children’s educations, but this story, even if embellished, goes a long way toward making the case that parents need regulation and supervision.
Maybe you can understand my passion for kids having a decent upbringing a little better now. :)
Hey, we do too! :)
(in other words, maybe you can understand my distrust of parents a little more now)
ps BRG, if I was queen of the world, I’d totally let you homeschool your kids. You are a great guy and very intelligent. I wouldn’t let people like my dad do it, though.
Wow, what’s with the sudden articles about him? It’s been two years…
I knew Matthew John Murray. Just online, for all that “just” is worth, but the “sensationalism” is pretty accurate. He had a lifetime of pent-up rage from abuses heaped on him by a fanatical Christian cult and it spilled out back at them. He wanted his shootings to be Christian American’s Columbine, he wanted to knock sense into people’s heads, he wanted it to change something but he knew it would probably be blamed on music and video games like every other shooting. (He hated that the media jumped to video games to blame for every shooting instead of looking at the real reasons.) He was a human being, one who was horribly hurt.
I was raised in the same homeschooling curriculum as Murray. I’m ‘lucky’ in that I only had ‘minor’ issues getting out. (no desire to go kill people, etc). My family is still involved in the program. I know exactly where the line is to get cut off from the family. That program is so totally a cult. It’ll be a happy day for the world when Bill dies of natural causes. Though, a bit of visible insanity would be kinda cool to see, watch the ‘ministry’ self-implode. :-)
I didn’t know of Murray, and however sensationalistic the story, he is hardly “long-tailed” as I see it from these paragraphs. Rather than being some statistical rarity outlying of the bell curve , I see him as typical, sounding like one more version of stories I’ve read in Lobdell”s book, the news, advice columns, this site, etc..
(Do you use one period for “etc.” and one for the sentence? Maybe not, but for me it’s the right thing to do! Looks funny though.)
People growing up in christian environments being controlled, interrogated, checked up on, limited in choices… gee, how rare is that? The conclusion: if christianity has to be forced, it can’t be natural or innate. Or healthy, or happy, or good for people.
You can obviate the problem by never saying or writing “et cetera”.
“Etc” is bad for formal writing, instead give the entire list (“etc” implies there are more items to list but they are too obvious to name, which insults the reader) or use an English phrase that means the same thing (such as “and so on”, “and suchlike”, “and others”, and more… see how bad that sounds?).
“Etc” is also bad for informal writing or speech because no one actually ever says it in normal speech… and if you do, the punctuation doesn’t matter, it’s informal… do whatever you like.
In conclusion, “etc” is always bad.
Compare:
Also, to actually answer your question: in theory, you would use two periods (one for the abbreviation, one for the sentence; in reality, if you’re using an abbreviation of a non-English word, it doesn’t really matter how you punctuate it.
It can have utility even in formal writing if the elided list would otherwise be prohibitively big to enumerate.
Plenty of pieces of bad writing can have utility; good writing has all that and more. There is no case where “etc” is optimal. It’s acceptable at best, plain wrong at worst.
“And so forth” > “et cetera”, unless the rest of the work is also in Latin. Write in English.
Just a point about ‘writing in English,’ I’ve underlined the words of Latinate origin in your previous post.
Your speech is already peppered with Latin, why not throw another word in the mix.
Question mark.
And apparently by ‘underline,’ I meant ‘bold’.
The Good Book (aka Strunk and White) says:
Elements of Style is an outdated, prescriptivist collection of grammatically unfounded pet peeves of two men who know little more about syntax than you or I: Strunk, who acquired his native English grammar during the Civil War reconstruction era (and whose opinions on Modern English Grammar should be dismissed on that basis alone) and White, whose most monumentous anglophone accomplishment was the children’s book Charlotte’s Web.
Neither was a trained grammarian, and to quote them is to simply regurgitate their idiosyncratic, pompous, unfounded preferences.
From an article written by Geoffrey Pullum (my old grammar professor, and co-author of the Cambridge Grammar of the English language):
You can read the whole article here.
[Elements of Style]’s toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules.
Wow. So they’re grammarian fundamentalists?
Precisely.
English is so fluid anyway, I’ve never seen the point of carefully codifying its ‘correct’ usage. The greatest hero of the English language just mutilated it whenever he had the chance (Billy S, I’m looking at you…) The English language has been compared (accurately, I think) to a back-alley mugger who steals anything it likes from the pockets of more respectable languages, savagely beats them, and leaves them to die.
I like to think of English like the Borg. Both in its ability to assimilate strengths from other languages, and it’s “resistance is futile” attitude.
Words and phrases go in and out of fashion like clothes. If the language changed to accommodate every linguistic whim, it would be a chaotic mess, like a sport without foul lines. It may be fluid, but it is extremely viscous.
Claiming to be a greater authority on English than Strunk and White, or that it has no authority, severely damages your credibility.
I fully agree that language has rules, but Strunk and White are not their arbiters. In fact, as pointed out above, they aren’t professionally trained in English grammar, and they don’t even have a firm grasp on its rules. Rather, they are trained as writers — just like most people, they’re trained to use English expressively, but not to analyze its structure. There are far better books on English grammar out there.
Strunk and White are nothing more than a pair of grammatical curmudgeons, who, by some quirk of fate, got famous for extolling their own linguistic preferences. Sure, there’s some good stuff in Elements, but there’s also a lot of bullshit grammatical dogma unfounded in linguistic science.
It seems your earlier comment about consulting “the Good Book” is ringing truer and truer: your clinging to Elements eerily parallels fundies and the Bible.
Just like any other field of human inquiry, grammar has its fair share of dogma, and Strunk and White are its high priests.
Hm.
That article is like The Strunk and White Delusion. I am totally deconverted*. What do you think of as a scientifically-sound grammatical guidebook?
* Although I maintain that “Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short, or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.” is one of the best English paragraphs ever written.
The most definitive guide would probably be the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, but at over $150 (and probably over 15 pounds) it’s probably overkill for most purposes.
I’ve heard good things about the Merriam Webster Concise Dictionary of English Usage. It’s more like Elements without the prescriptivist tone.
Also, for usage issues (not grammar issues) I use the Associated Press Stylebook. It’s useful for rules on hyphenation, compounding, abbreviation, spelling and punctuation.
I’ve commented in the past on this web site. I just want to say that most of the Christianity that is ridiculed here is, first, ripe for such picking. Second, that Christianity is not what Jesus Christ EVER wanted to bring. True Christianity is an open, accepting thing.
It’s deeply saddening, reading stories like these of people like VorJak. It’s equally as saddening to see how such stories, and how the ridiculousness that is popular Christianity, elicits such mockery and contempt. It’s understandable. It’s just sad.
It was never meant to be this way.
Also, I think I used variations of the word “ridiculous” too much in this comment, because now the word looks totally awkward.
It was never meant to be this way.
This may sound a little cold, especially for me, but who gives a damn what was meant to be? It is what it has become. Christianity, for whatever its aesthetic and ethic virtues, has, like all human creations, a petty, malignant, cancerous side which is ascendant enough of the time that it cannot be hand-waved away as some historical aberration. The roots of that malignancy run all the way back to the very beginning, with apocalyptic revenge fantasies and in-group/out-group hate fests being features of the early texts.
One cannot seriously hope to separate a kinder and gentler yet more-accurate-to-the-original-vision Christianity from what passes for Christianity today; there is some significant malignancy at the root.
They weren’t True Christians! You non-Christians can easily tell by looking for the distinctive warm fuzzies, and no cold pricklies.
A lot of people care what it was meant to be. If you looked, you could find Christianity done right. There are books, there are churches, that address the problems within Christianity. I’m reading one right now you might enjoy called The Reason For God by Timothy Keller. I actually posted a blurb from my reading last week on my blog if you want to check that out.
I really don’t care about converting anyone. That’s not why I’m here. I’m honestly not sure why I’m here. I don’t like coming here because it’s a place so against what I love. And that’s OK. I have no problem with what Daniel’s done here. I mean that. Everyone has their right to say and do whatever they want, and Daniel’s become successful as a professional skeptic.
I just want to implore all of you to not blindly follow your frustration with Christianity the way you ridicule Christians for blindly following inane pastors and teachings. There is a Christianity with common sense out there. And it’s really quite kind and graceful and, gasp, tolerant.
It’s never been about being perfect. I don’t know where that came from, that ideology, that we’re supposed to live perfectly and love perfectly and all that. The truth is those Christians who wholly trust God will be less perfect than some who aren’t even trying to be “Christians.”
Anyway, I’ll stop rambling for now and just invite you to my blog to see that post about Keller. This isn’t some shameless plug for my site. His book just really lays things out in a way that I enjoy reading. He’s fair and non-condescending.
Daniel, I actually thought about you when I started reading the book. I know you’re a fan of, at the very least, intellectual dialogue, and Keller’s book is that.
Just click my name for the blog. Thanks.
I’m familiar with Keller and have looked through his book. Didn’t see any new evidence for Christianity. However, I’m sure his arguments are compelling for those who already believe.
Didn’t see any new evidence for Christianity.
No, he goes straight back to Augustine. He argues that human longing for meaning and beauty imply that God exists to provide meaning and beauty. IIRC, even Aquinas had some problems with this one, though CS Lewis liked it. Frankly, I think it’s teleological assumptions don’t really work for us today.
Not a true Scottsman – Check.
Not here to proselytize, but you’re doing it anyway – Check.
Assumes reader hasn’t “seriously” considered christianity.
Not a true Scottsman, we’re not like those other guys – Check & Double Check.
Not a true Scottsman, we’ve got different teachings – Check, Double & Triple Check.
Book that reconfirms pre-existing beliefs – Check.
Claim that intellectual contortions will appear to be thoughtful and compelling – Check.
Shameless plug for your site – Check.
A lot of people care what it was meant to be.
No offense, but do you really care about what it was “meant to be?” Every single reform in Christian history has been accompanied by the pronouncement that the religion was returning to it’s original form, even as it moved farther and farther away from the 1st century Judaism that gave birth to it. My hunch is that people really want a Christianity that meshes with their modern preconceptions and morality, and they’ll call that the “original Christianity” as a salve to their sense of tradition.
For example, many of the earliest church fathers took Jesus very seriously when he spoke about giving everything you own to the poor. They looked at the parable of Lazarus and Dives and wanted to be on the side of Lazarus. Poverty was considered a virtue, and the phrase “live simply so that other may simply live” would have resonated with the first Christians. But are you prepared to live as the apostles did in the Acts of the Apostles?
My guess is, no. Nor are more than a tiny fraction of modern Christians. Christianity was born amongst the poor, but is now the religion of the richest countries on the planet. And we’re not going to give up our lifestyles just so that we can live the way that Jesus would have wanted us to.
I do care what it was meant to be. That’s the only reason I’m here, trying to discuss things with you folks here. I’m trying to understand more of what’s turned people off of Christianity, and this is a great place to learn.
I really wasn’t trying to plug my site. I just thought it’d be better to link to where I’d already written the stuff out rather than fill up this page with it.
And not to be snide, really, but don’t you folks also read things that reconfirm pre-existing beliefs? That’s fine, just don’t talk down to someone in Christianity about it just because they’re Christian. Like I said, I’m trying to learn. I’m not here to pick fights or anything. I just want to talk. Well, write.
Of course we read things the re-confirm pre-existing beliefs. But we also don’t expect it to convince people who don’t already think like us. Christian apologetics is pitched as something convincing to outsiders, but it never is — it just gives “reasons to believe” for the folks in the pews who already believe because of an emotional/communal experience.
As for what turns people off Christianity, the answer for most of us is the lack of evidence for Christianity’s historical and miraculous claims — the same thing that turns us off all other religions.
I agree with Daniel -
As for what turns people off Christianity, the answer for most of us is the lack of evidence for Christianity’s historical and miraculous claims
- but I’d like to add that it’s very frustrating when folks just don’t seem to get that.
We’re not mad at God. We’re not mad at Christianity. We’re not mad at the Christian church. We simply see no reason to believe in a deity.
I’ve read the reader’s guide for The Reason For God by Timothy Keller, which sums up twenty of the major points of the book. Of them, only two address the issue of whether or not God exists. They consist of the arguement from desire and the argument from morality, both of which are time-worn and problematic.
And so, I think this goes to Daniel’s first point. Keller has nothing new to say to the person who simply doesn’t believe. Anyone who’s familiar with CS Lewis is going to know these arguments already. So why pretend that this book addresses the problems of non-believers?
Well for me it isn’t the lack of evidence exactly. I mean if someone just generally believed there is life in other solar systems I wouldn’t be “turned off” by that. There is no evidence for it but it isn’t demonstrably false or harmful. Just like if someone believes in a generic higher power. The turn off is specific dogmas that are based on obvious falsehoods like YEC or ridiculous premises like God sacrificed himself to appease himself.
I have to agree with cello, insofar as it is not the mere non-existence of what is believed, but also the bad effects those beliefs have caused and continue to tend to cause. Merely holding silly beliefs is not really a big deal, but it becomes a big deal when those beliefs motivate stupid actions which affect others.
That actually makes a lot of sense.
And I wasn’t trying to convince anyone of anything. The book was just a new thing I’m reading and enjoying, and I was curious if anyone here had read it before and what they thought about it.
There is a life involved with Christ beyond the emotional/communal experience, though. I’ll stop there so as to avoid overstepping the “no evangelizing” portion of your policy, but there is.
Anyway, Daniel, I had a couple of other thoughts but since I didn’t want them to cross as disrespectful, I’m emailing you.
Good talk everyone, and thanks for the feedback. Take care.