When religion becomes toxic: Religious Trauma Syndrome

[IndigoChild5559]

It is common nowadays to think that "all paths lead to the same God," that all religions teach the same basics and are therefore pretty much equal. I myself am pretty much open about things. Although I want Jews to be Jewish, everyone else can worship God and live good lives in whatever religion helps them to that end. But I will not go so far as to say all religions are equal, and certainly individual churches can be highly toxic to some of their congregants.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/re...anized-religion-leads-mental-health-problems/

This article discusses Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) -- a set of descriptions one sees when a person is seriously hurt by a toxic religion and subsequently leaves and remains injured. Although the article uses examples only from Christianity, it could have taken examples from ANY religion.

The elements of RTS are as follows:

• Possible physical or sexual abuse
• Emotional Trauma such as chronic anxiety and depression, even cognitive and social impairment. One can see self rejection.
• Eventual leaving of the sect
• Sometimes there are flashbacks

Now to be CLEAR, the article is not saying that religion is bad, or even that all churches or whatever of any given religion are bad; only that some of each faith cross the line into toxicity.

It gives as its example a woman with bulimia who went to her church for advice and was told that if she prayed God would heal her. When it didn't happen, she felt she was spiritually unacceptable to God. Even after she left the church, this feeling continued, and interfered with regular psychological counseling. She ended up trying to kill herself. It was a long, long road for her to come to the realization that it was not her that was broken but that church.

So what do we mean by toxic? There are of course true cults, but a toxic church simply has elements of a cult without being a full blown cult. It will include some of the following:
1. Highly controlling. This is the #1 feature.
2. Emphasis on punishment, such as an obsession with eternal damnation.
3. Physical or sexual abuse.
4. Black and white thinking
5. Emphasis on sexual guilt, sometimes even within marriage
6. Keeping the person from exposure to ideas that would help them develop normally.
7. Sometimes cutting them off from family and friends that are non-believers or non-practitioners.'
8. Centered around fear and anxiety, such as an impending apocalypse that is obsessed over.

For those of you that are seekers, I would look for these signs of toxicity, and avoid those houses of worship. Find someplace spiritually healthier -- there are many.

 

[InChrist]

It is common nowadays to think that "all paths lead to the same God," that all religions teach the same basics and are therefore pretty much equal. I myself am pretty much open about things. Although I want Jews to be Jewish, everyone else can worship God and live good lives in whatever religion helps them to that end. But I will not go so far as to say all religions are equal, and certainly individual churches can be highly toxic to some of their congregants.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/re...anized-religion-leads-mental-health-problems/

This article discusses Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) -- a set of descriptions one sees when a person is seriously hurt by a toxic religion and subsequently leaves and remains injured. Although the article uses examples only from Christianity, it could have taken examples from ANY religion.

The elements of RTS are as follows:

• Possible physical or sexual abuse
• Emotional Trauma such as chronic anxiety and depression, even cognitive and social impairment. One can see self rejection.
• Eventual leaving of the sect
• Sometimes there are flashbacks

Now to be CLEAR, the article is not saying that religion is bad, or even that all churches or whatever of any given religion are bad; only that some of each faith cross the line into toxicity.

It gives as its example a woman with bulimia who went to her church for advice and was told that if she prayed God would heal her. When it didn't happen, she felt she was spiritually unacceptable to God. Even after she left the church, this feeling continued, and interfered with regular psychological counseling. She ended up trying to kill herself. It was a long, long road for her to come to the realization that it was not her that was broken but that church.

So what do we mean by toxic? There are of course true cults, but a toxic church simply has elements of a cult without being a full blown cult. It will include some of the following:
1. Highly controlling. This is the #1 feature.
2. Emphasis on punishment, such as an obsession with eternal damnation.
3. Physical or sexual abuse.
4. Black and white thinking
5. Emphasis on sexual guilt, sometimes even within marriage
6. Keeping the person from exposure to ideas that would help them develop normally.
7. Sometimes cutting them off from family and friends that are non-believers or non-practitioners.'
8. Centered around fear and anxiety, such as an impending apocalypse that is obsessed over.

For those of you that are seekers, I would look for these signs of toxicity, and avoid those houses of worship. Find someplace spiritually healthier -- there are many.

It is also called "Spiritual Abuse". Here is an insightful book on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Power...id=1546831721&sr=1-1&keywords=spiritual+abuse

 

[Cooky]

I hope people don't brush this stuff off. If Peter Popoff, the sociopath, was able to do what he did, sociopaths of other stripes can do equally evil things. It happens all the time.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I hope people don't brush this stuff off. If Peter Popoff, the sociopath, was able to do what he did, sociopaths of other stripes can do equally evil things. It happens all the time.

One of the hardest treatments I did was for a woman whose healing was very slow because she had to drop pt after a mva...
Because her sister killed her youngest kid in ritual sacrifice in a cult and went to prison, and my patiant had taken on her two remaining children.

It makes me physically ill and I have to try really hard to not have patient transference.

 

[Quintessence]

I've preferred Bonewitz' framework myself, all of which are to be evaluated on a scale. The scaling is important, because it's the nature of social dynamics for many of these to be present to a greater or lesser degree in organizations:

• Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.
• External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.
• Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.
• Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.
• Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or“fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.
• Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.
• Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.
• Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.
• Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.
• Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.
• Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).
• Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.
• Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.
• Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).
• Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.
• Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
• Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
• Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

The above list is adapted from The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame​

 

[Vinayaka]

I've preferred Bonewitz' framework myself, all of which are to be evaluated on a scale. The scaling is important, because it's the nature of social dynamics for many of these to be present to a greater or lesser degree in organizations:

• Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.
• External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.
• Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.
• Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.
• Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or“fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.
• Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.
• Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.
• Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.
• Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.
• Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.
• Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).
• Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.
• Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.
• Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).
• Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.
• Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
• Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).
• Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

The above list is adapted from The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame​

Run. Fast.

 

[Quintessence]

Run. Fast.

If you realize what you're involved with. It's not always a religious context - circles of friends can operate in a cult-like fashion. That can make it difficult to recognize, since they are your friends, right? Your brain doesn't recognize the danger, much less that it needs to cut ties.

 

[Vinayaka]

If you realize what you're involved with. It's not always a religious context - circles of friends can operate in a cult-like fashion. That can make it difficult to recognize, since they are your friends, right? Your brain doesn't recognize the danger, much less that it needs to cut ties.

So true.

A bit off topic, but your mention of friends reminded me. I recently came across an article on the detrimental consequences of friendship evangelism. Because dysfunctional people often have high social needs, and they do get accepted in by friendship evangelism, the result is that because of the high number of dysfunctional people in the group, the whole group gets that way. That's also partially why some of the the cult-like behaviour listed above gets more common. In actuality, it's mimicking for social acceptance, and not true belief at all, even though the individual may not be able to differentiate.