Perusals .....

I was perusing some of past blathering and came across something I posted on a forum on June 12, 2012.

I'm sharing that post below.

Why am I sharing this on my blog?
I don't know.
Maybe because the Knapp drama is coming full circle soon. At least I hope so.

So...below is what I posted elsewhere (with some edits for grammar, spelling, and maybe clarification).

******************
******************
{Begin my June 12, 2012 post on an online forum}

[Johnny Profane - John] Knapp recently started a discussion on his FB wall.

I don't converse with Knapp (and have no desire to without a third 'impartial' party present) and he has blocked me from seeing his FB wall, but still others have access. His wall is public to any member of FB.

The man is not honest.
He is a change artist.
But it is false change.
True change involves accountability.
He has lots of catching up to do in that category.
He'd need a new sets of books.
"Penny Thoughts"

I'll post below what I wrote in my journal on the fly after I initially read John's thread on FB linked above.

These were simply my initial thoughts, endeavoring to unspin Johnny webs for my own head. That is, my thoughts aren't an official critique...just thoughts out loud.

**********************
{Begin Johnny Profane's public statements and my journal entries to unspin Johnny webs from my head.}

[John Knapp's / Johnny Profane's public statements are in red.
My journal scribblings are in green.]
___________

[Johnny Profane-Johnmknapp had posted this link (Mysterious Buddhist Retreat in the Desert Ends in a Grisly Death) prefacing his comments.]

There is no such thing as a cult. But spiritual abuse happens in every human group.
J.P.

Not so Johnny boy. There are healthy human groups where spiritual abuse does not happen.

The established definition, guys, doesn't work. It's not recognized outside the anti-cult world for 3 very good reasons: Lifton's 'criteria' describe general behavior that happens in EVERY human group, there is no way to operationalize the definition so impartial observers define one group as a cult and another as not, the same sort of abuse claims may be made about any human group that survives long enough. I suggested for many years as a spiritual abuse counselor that we define the abuse operationally nd forget about labeling unpopular religions, political groups, and businesses as 'cults.' After some 40 years of anti-cult activism, if we don't have n operational definition of a 'cult,' it probably is no more likely to exist than Big Foot, Nessie, or the Easter Bunny.

But if you have a definition that can be operationalized for research, I'd love to learn about it.
J.P.

Don't know if it's not recognized outside the "anti-cult world" or not. If not, who are these people that don't recognize it? Who are the people that do recognize it? Of those that do, who is and who isn't part of the anti-cult world? Johnny needs to back up his statements.

Again, not EVERY human group lives up to Lifton's criteria. There are healthy human groups.

There is no such thing as an impartial observer; that does not exist in any field. People have biases and those biases play into their observations.

There is an operational definition or rather are operational definitions. As you have stated yourself in your previous writings (and referred to others' writings) cultic behavior happens on a continuum. Check out Dr. Langone's paper again on the usage of the term cult. Or check out Diekman's essay again.

As far as comparing whether or not a cult exist to the existence of the Easter Bunny or Lochness, I guess one could say the same about God? I mean, what is the operational definition of God? I guess it'd be creator. And one can go all sorts of directions from there.

A cult is a group of likeminded people that believe something that is non-conventional. At least that is my understanding of the word cult. From there we can go all sorts of directions. To say cults don't exist is nonsense.

Who says spiritual abuse exists? To some that term "spiritual abuse" would be hogwash. Would not a better way to state "spiritual abuse" be "emotional and psychological abuse in the name of God"?

So...for an operational definition: Would you really love to learn it? Bullshit. You're just placating & buttering any one who reads your forked-tongue speech.


[J.P. addresses a FB commenter] abusive groups and individuals certainly do exist!!! But the attempt to define some groups as 'cults' and some as legitimate fails. Can you tell me why Scientology is a cult but the Catholic Church is not?
J.P.

Yuppers Johnny, abusive groups and people exist. You are a fine example of such an individual.

The only way to answer your question regarding Scientology and the Catholic Church is for you to tell me what you mean by the word "cult."


[J.P. addresses a FB commenter], good discussion! Many, many see the Catholic Church as destructive-in many of the same ways that Scientology is accused of: psychological, financial, sexual, and physical abuse. Can you explain why Scientology is a 'destructive cult' but the Catholic Church is not? There are documented abuses-even systemic-in many if not most human groups-religious or not. I'm of the studied opinion that the 'cult' label-which nearly always means 'destructive' in contemporary times applies to so many groups it is meaningless. Abuse can be defined. But labeling a yoga group, for instance, as a cult is simply hurtful-and does not acknowledge the real problem, spiritual abuse. Abuse, and the damage and pain it causes, seems demonstrably real.
J.P.

So, what would your term be for a group that is abusive? 


[J.P. addresses a FB commenter], I think in some ways you are arguing my point-even tho orgs like the ICSA insist that non-religious groups may also be labeled 'cults.' If everything can be labeled a cult, in the anti-cult movement sense-then nothing is a 'cult.' Why continue to use a word whose sole purpose appears to be used as hate speech?
J.P.

There you go again with the word "everything." Not everything can be labeled a cult. Where do you come up with that, Johnny? Where do you come up with the sole purpose of using a term to describe someone's experience in a group as "hate-speech"? Is it less "hateful" to call the group "a group that has exhibited abusive tactics?" What's the difference Johnny?


[J.P. addresses a FB commenter], I respect your experience. And the pain I suspect you went through. The problem is, I still have no idea of how to differentiate between a 'legitimate' group and a cult. Many would argue that the Catholic church, the Mormons, and non-religious groups meet the criteria for a cult as defined by the ICSA and similar anti-cult orgs. Do you have a definition that makes it clear which groups are 'cults' and which are not?
J.P.

Bullshit. Yes you do. You supposedly researched this field for years. You headed up your own non-profit that had healing culitic abuse right in the title.

Again, what term do you want to use to describe when a group (or faction of a group, or small circle within a group) exhibits abusive tactics? How do you define abusive tactics?
_____________

{End Johnny Profane's public statements and my journal entries to unspin Johnny webs from my head.}

{End my June 12, 2012 post on an online forum}

******************
******************