Christianity Can Be Cultish Part 3

 Language, Attire, & Othering

"It all goes down to language; you just have to know what to listen for."

-Cultish by Amanda Montell

Every group has a unique way of communicating. We echo each other inside a chamber. From language to symbols, art to dress we create mini versions of those we idolize. Groups provide the community, stability, and protection our species needs. Montell repeats what numerous sociologists have said before her: we are social beings; we are wired for community. 

It takes a brave and wonderous mind to step outside of their box to ask: But does this all make sense? Does it matter? What is truth?

Recently I have been listening to the call-in show The Line or The Atheist Experience on YouTube. The Theist callers remind me of myself. The show has made me more aware of how a belief system, such as Evangelical Christianity, can be illogical. 

It makes sense that humans gravitate towards groups, but the group can not be the end-all-be-all. We can not lose our self of individualism if we only have one life to live. We can deconstruct this "cultish by nature" or fear of alienation, as the author notes, by examining the language used.

"With words, we breathe reality into being."

Montell highlights three ways cults use language: 

1. omission
2. distortion
3. lies

Callers and I claimed that faith is greater or "in a different realm" than logic. However, faith defined by the Holy Bible is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance in what we do not see." (Heb.11:1). We willing accept, praise, admire, and preach blind faith. Faith is nothing more than a wish. It lacks evidence and clings to smoke. 

I was drowning in Theism and wanted everyone along with me. Here is just a small example of how our language was different: Pouring It Out Like Salt. Terms like, "in my heart," "in the Word," and "tempted" were also common. In my experience, Evangelical Christianity flips the script and is proud of it. They are proud to see the world in a "different light"-we'd even sing songs about being "in the Light" (i.e. Jesus). 

But like a lot of religions, they omit the fact that faith is not logic, distort the importance of it, and lie that it will save you from eternal punishment. 

Faith was my everything; here's another post to explain how important it is in Christianity -Faith Culture. Faith is the foundation built on the sand, not the rock.

It is because of faith that we believed that we were to be holy as God is holy. We revealed this in dress as well. The language from Purity Culture stings just as much as its practices and principles. Clothing couldn't be flashy, revealing, short, or tight. No bra straps, cleavage, upper thigh, and god, forbid any ass to show! I once came to a crux with this doctrine when my doctor told me I needed to start letting my breasts breathe due to a rash buildup. How are people with big boobs supposed to fit into this box? 

Dress is meant for you to stand out just as much as it is made to make you fit in. Depending on the sect of Christianity one is from you can find attire that is as strict as the Amish to the casual, hip youth leaders with ripped jeans. Special clothing and designs can be seen from the roots of Judaism to seasonal garbs of the Pegan holidays. In my Lutheran Church, we had to wear long white robes with tassels. In Baptist churches, I had to make sure I wore the best of the best because we were taught that's what God deserved, especially in His house. When I volunteered at churches in Kentucky, we had to wear long skirts and shirts with sleeves.

Clothing brands you. Language controls you. Faith can harm you.

After the language and clothing are in place, it becomes much easier to "other" the rest of the world. I'm clean. You're not. I'm worthy. You're not. I'm saved. You're not. We are swept away from reality into a world we're made to believe is the Truth. We exchange our questions for unjustifiable answers and our individuality for a chance at Heaven.

My Mom despised the fact that I acted like I was better than everyone else because I didn't swear, gossip, curse, or get into trouble. Classmates outside my circle saw my church for what is was-just another cult. Inside the church I thought I was "trading my sorrows, trading my shame." Instead, I was laying myself down to die. Christianity boasts about crucifying the self because the flesh is corrupt and the soul is broken, but people need to know that this is just their language and is not reality.

I was a Christian for almost thirty years. It's hard to deconstruct your identity after so long, but it is so worth it. I believe in free speech, but tact. I believe in wearing what we want to wear but with respect to the occasion. If there is anything to take away from Christianity let it be: treat others how you wanna be treated, not brainwash them into your control. 

Petty

Has anyone ever called you petty?

Have you ever called anyone petty?

Like most people, it's easier for me to "dish it out" instead of "taking it." It's easier to point out someone else's pettiness than to look at our own. But if we're going to make the world a better place, we must always begin with as Michael Jackson once sang, "The Man in the Mirror" and not Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" right? But what if we are both? We might know that one person who's always complaining, but have we ever been the one who's been more "concerned with trivial things than what's important?"

I remember the first time my close friend called me petty..."It's been 84 years" since anyone's seen them now...jk jk 

Call it stubbornness or Hedonism, but I started pondering: What's wrong with being petty? Why is it even called that? What's its history? When did it start and why? 

Did you know that it means something totally different in the military? A Petty Officer in the Navy are comparable to a sergeant in the Army according to Google AI Overview.

From what I gathered from online dictionaries, it doesn't sound like a negative trait to have. Why wouldn't you want someone who cares so much about the little details when everyone else just sees the bigger picture? 

I discussed this with my friend this morning; in trying to come up with an example I had to laugh at how subjective the word even is! The same friend who had called me out for being petty over a work policy situation had taught me that words are descriptive, not prescriptive-they change because they are based on the culture and context. 

Culture and context is always key!

You see I always considered my Mom petty. She'd see that the dishes were dried with the wrong towel and thus, had to be rewashed; she'd see you got a C in P.E (from the P.E teacher being petty about the shirt you wore not being the perfect uniform) when every other class was an A. I hated these traits at the moment, but I hate (love) to say it...I thank her for some of that "pettiness" now. She knew that the wrong dish towel had germs. She knew I could do better. She knew I was smart. 

There is no doubt that I'm a spinning image of my mother regardless of how much I try to run away from it. Sometimes pettiness isn't just making a "mountain out of a mole hill;" it's paying closer attention.

I may be biased... But I think we need more petty people. 

Similar in relationships, I would say boundaries are key. Pick your battles. Examine yourself first, why is this (insert "petty" thing) such a big deal to me? What are the pros and cons to pursuing this conflict? 

Psychology courses have taught me to be less reactive to other's actions and more curious about their brain chemistry shaped by their surroundings. I think we should take this to heart before we call someone "petty." 

So...

• When was the last time you asked the person you call "petty" the reasons behind their actions?

Perhaps there needs to be dialogue instead of demonization, hmm? But where is the line drawn between being facetious and childish?

I had ripped down the "Hairnets & Gloves Are Required" paper sign from the office that faced my station. It had been an on and off again war with staff (me) and other managers (mainly just one of four kitchen managers). He was an ass in my (and others) opinion...But his enforcement had now been picked up by our department's new manager and despite not working with open food, here we were (in my opinion) wasting hairnets & gloves by having to wear them. I took out my frustration by dancing upon the now floor-bound signage only to be tormented by it again a few weeks later. But my mistake was telling my friend only my actions and not what lead up to it. Does that dismiss my actions? I don't think it was a big deal, but it depends who you ask.

My employer wanted to enforce hairnet and gloves rule regardless if we worked with open food all because we worked with vulnerable cliental. Our passive aggressiveness towards one another could have ended, I believe, if we all just sat down and talked it out. 

Before you point out the petty people, look at some of those fingers pointing back at you. Perhaps learning more about their point of view could be exactly what you needed to hear. And maybe, just maybe, you'll thank them for seeing something you hadn't! 

*image taken from Facebook repost

Project Angel Fouls Part 7

 As a student of both psychology and philosophy, I pay a lot of attention to the whys. Working at Project Angel Food, a well-known Los Angeles nonprofit, has made me realize they operate from a “the end justifies the means” point of view. You may have heard this phrase before, but what does it mean? In my Philosophy classes, I learned this is a logical fallacy (invalid, flawed, error-filled) found in political Consequentialism. Linguistically, Affirmating the Consequences assumes the ending or result of something while also ignoring interferences. In syllagim form it looks like this: if A then B, it’s B therefore A.

For example: recently PAF is having a conflict with my Cesar Chavez Holiday benefit. Our Employee committee voted to have an extra Floating Holiday (8 hrs of basically vacation) on top of our already given one for the year. Thus, every employee would have 16 Floating Holiday hours. However, despite working on the Federal Holiday (my regularly scheduled day) I was informed that I only have 8 hrs of Floating hours because last year there was a glitch that didn’t put a cap on my Floating Holidays resulting in a -8 hrs this year. Despite this being their error and the fact that on my end it shows no request for this third Floating Holiday, they replied “At least you got paid” and “Legally businesses don’t have to give you Holiday benefits.” If (A) you got paid, then (B) you got your holiday benefit. It's (B) therefore (A). 

They are ignoring the fact that the pay app constantly has errors and that a holiday benefit is yearly. This can lead to a circular argument.

If (A) you used three Floating Holidays last year and you're only allowed two a yr, then (B) you only get 8 hours this year. It’s (B) therefore (A).

Again they're ignoring Federal Holiday "rules" to pay me less.

Another example: In our last Dispatch meeting our Supervisor addressed the ever-present problem of staff conflicts. She called it pride since we weren’t working as a team and to “just help.” She said we shouldn’t ask if it’s within our parameters/scope/department/wants; “we’re here to work so work.” If (A) the staff are not getting along, then (B) it’s their primary fault. It’s (B) therefore (A).

This assumes the problem is one-sided and easy to fix.

 If (A) staff just work as a team then (B) there will be less complaints. It's (B), therefore (A)!

This assumes that if staff just do this one thing, everything will get better. As well as ignoring that our complaints aren't about team members. Work culture is created top down.

It makes sense that a business would operate in such a way that they are not to blame. It makes sense that a business would justify their ways if it meant making (or keeping) their status (money and power). However, as stated above (and in previous posts), this is a nonprofit. We are for the people, made by the people. PAF time and time again seems to battle this ethical question: who’s important- the clientele, the volunteers, or the staff? When the answer is everyone; however, if the net is weak how will it be a good support? Yes, we serve a very ill clientele. Yes, we need to stay open because hunger never ends. But this does not diminish, rather demands the rights of workers. We need to be constantly reminded of our value just as much as being reminded of our mission.

The logical argument against our flawed one is dennying the consequence: A, then B. It's not B, therefore not A (Modus Tollens) Simply put, it is a logical argument based on deduction and noting the conditionals in either one or both premises. It uses the rule of Inferences. Remember correlation does not mean causation! 

If we run this through our two examples without first filter of benefiting profit over people we would change the argument possibly like this:

1. If (A)all Federal holidays are honored by PAF, there (B) is a benefit for Caser Chavez of +8 Floating holiday hrs by PAF. If there's no (B) benefit given for Cesar Chavez; therefore, not (A).
   

I am the only I have found having this problem so far. But others has expressed lost vacation and sick hours which runs in the same system.

2. If (A) the staff are properly equipped and supported with their conflicts, there would be less meetings about not working as a team. If there's no (B) decline in meetings about working as a team; therefore, not (A).

Just telling someone to do something doesn't imply they know how to do it. Although we would want to hire healthy employees, we can't be sure of people's coping mechanisms until the moment arrives. As leaders, will we model the teamwork we expect?

I have studied Principles in Nonprofits, Multicultural Issues in Human Services, Research Methods for Human Services, History of Modern Philosophy, Community Change in Human Services, Multicultural Psychology, and Philosophy of Social Work. I know some things I fear they should have known. We all need to continue to learn and grow. I’ve learned that I can’t trust management at my job. I’ve learned that for PAF, “as long it takes” translates to “by whatever means it takes.” This might seem great, but it’s full of brokenness like the internal fallacies they’ve given sway to. So long story short, I’ve decided to go back to school in hopes of one day taking over my HR’s job…Do you think they’ll cover some of my cost? (It’s in the handbook.)

*For information on this logical fallacy here are some resources to better explain

Affirming the Consequences Video

Critical Thinker

Logical Thinking

Validity and Soundness