Danger: Inciting Persecution [Cult Myths]

[Updated Aug 30, 2024.]

Persecution is an unfortunate part of life in this world. No matter what you believe, how you behave, or how you look, there are people who will harass you and try to stop you from living your own life or sharing your ideas. All because they believe themselves to have the authority to be the arbiters of what is acceptable to look like, behave or believe. They may even try to kill anyone whose beliefs or teachings they do not like.

Persecution

Let us look at the definition of persecution we will be considering here. Persecution is the purposeful neglect, oppression or violence committed toward someone whom one considers different than themself. It is a crude and selfish behavior that arises from the failure to recognize the autonomy of other people while simultaneously assuming one’s own superior authority to condemn them.

It is not simply words spoken from a platform identifying bad actors and bad behaviors. It includes intent to affect the lives of those with whom one disagrees or does not like for whatever reason. They may even persecute anyone who would make themselves vulnerable to a supposed offensive teaching or group.

This kind of persecution is not simply negative speech about another religion or political group, nor public preaching of every kind. This is speech or actions specifically designed to fan the flames of violence and oppression. There is a difference between a negative doctrine about another group and actually persecuting that group. Persecution involves words and actions designed to negatively impact that group or person or otherwise put them in fear for their life, health, property or autonomy.

Lies about that other group are also a form of persecution since lies can easily negatively impact them; if not within the group, then as the lies spread outside the group. Such lies do not typically remain isolated. (See Danger below for more details.)

Harassment, intimidation and threats, also known as bullying, are also a form of persecution. This is making one’s unwanted presence felt, in person or by message, whether locally or long distance, so as to make the others fearful or uncomfortable. It is often touted as a form of protest, but is actually a form of invasive harm; it negatively impacts the mental health and stability of the affected persons.

Such behavior can cause extreme stress and provoke a fight, flight or freeze response from the affected persons. If a fight response is activated, violence could ensue by the affected persons. This would increase their troubles as it gives legal recourse of the offending group to self defense. The authorities may then view the affected group as the offenders, causing a bad outcome for them.

If a freeze response occurs, the offending group or individuals may be emboldened to step up their tactics to inappropriate  contact or violence. Flight can also embolden to violence, but, along with silence in the face of their persecutors, gives the greatest legal recourse and a chance at escaping.

What do you think? 

Is this a proper definition of persecution? (Reply below.)

Healthy

A group is not considered dangerous just because they receive persecution. That would be blaming the victim and condoning neglect, oppression or violence for resolving disputes. As long as they have not actively incited their own persecution, they are innocent.

There is a healthy way to deal with persecution. First, when someone begins to persecute a group or its members for any reason, a group that simply walks away without retaliation or even reply is doing everything they possibly can to mitigate the circumstances. This can go a long way to changing minds.

If, though, there is no way to walk away so that damage is unavoidable, then if the group does not retaliate in word or deed, then they have the best chance of minimizing the damage by their persecutors as well as minimizing their legal liability and maximizing their chances at eventual reparations. (In cases of sexual assault, self-defense is a matter of conscience and situational survival, and calling out and seeking escape improves outcomes.) This is healthy and should not be seen as dangerous or destructive. By doing nothing to aggravate their persecutors, they maximize their chances of survival, whether now or in the future.

The group leadership should be contacted by the affected members to make them aware and get advice (because the group has been affected as an entity, not just the members). They should also contact a legal service (who should always be contacted in legal matters, especially before contacting the civil authories) and then the local civil authority (if that group feels the other group is a physical danger or liability to itself or others; unless that civil authority is known for harsh treatment of the affected group or under the influence of the persecuting group; consider the pros and cons and follow legal advice that does not conflict with the affected group’s conscience). The affected group should also not penalize any of its members for contacting the civil authority at all.

The decisions of the local group should be distinguished from the decisions of the parent group, especially where they conflict. The local group’s decision should be followed by members where the local group’s decision parts with the parent group’s counsel unless it could significantly negatively impact the local members or the parent group. If there are consequences to the local group, the local leadership will bear them. If there are consequences for following the parental group’s counsel, both groups will bear it, usually with less impact to the local group than otherwise. (But follow the parental group’s counsel where it does not conflict with the local group’s conscience or situational awareness.)

Practicing these things in this way is always the best look and practice for any group, religious or otherwise, despite the claims of their detractors or news agencies that try to put a negative spin on it.

What do you think? 

Is it wise to peacefully walk away from persecutors or otherwise not retaliate in any way? Should the authorities be contacted no matter their attitude or affiliation? Is there no situation in which the local group should diverge from the parent group or legal counsel? (Reply below.)

Harmless

A group that has no policies in place for dealing with persecution of its members is not liable unless it has spoken out against the persecuting group. If a group does not speak against another group and has not previously received persecution, it is under no obligation to put procedures in place to deal with persecution. However, it is always recommended to have such in place. A lack of procedures is, therefore, not a red flag. It is simply an unwise lack of preparation.

If its members persecute any group, the group to which they belong is not responsible as long as the group has never said anything negative about the other group. It is recommended that the group speak out if it becomes known, but they are not obligated to form policies around it so long as they do not state negative things about the other group. This is harmless. It is only that individual who is responsible, not the group.

What do you think? 

Should a group be counted dangerous if it does not have policies to curb persecution though they never speak negatively of other groups? (Reply below.)

Potential Red Flag

A group that speaks out against anyone for any reason is not persecuting that group if their words are truthful or cannot be proved untruthful. As long as they do not promote persecution and do not directly address that group or its members, they cannot be accused of persecution.

But this group must have in place policies for not only dealing with persecution by the other group, but forbidding their own members from engaging the other group with persecution. They should also provide deterrents from engaging in persecution up to sanctions or removal. As long as all these things are in place, the group is technically not dangerous or destructive. Their words and actions do not technically promote any sort of persecutive action.

A group that has no history of negatively impacting another group in such ways cannot be said to be persecuting them. No matter what is said about the group from the platform, no matter how vile the belief (based on some interpretation), is not persecuting as long as it is not misleading. But one simple untruth, rabble-rousing or violent implication can change that. Groups with oppositional messaging are walking a very fine line. It is good to keep an eye on any such group, but it should not be seen as strictly objectionable. If no one spoke out against anyone doing wrong, the world would be far worse than it currently is.

Leaders of a group have a right to remove from their group anyone who breaks their rules or causes divisions. They may even choose to drive them out by a reasonable show of force, if necessary. They have a right to determine how their property, or rental property, is used and who has access to it. The leadership insulting such ones who have invited themselves into their presence is also not persecution, but is simply marking and deterrence. Laws could be made against such things, but they are not persecution in themselves unless the leaders themselves are the unruly guests to another group’s meeting.

Speaking against another group while failing to have procedures in place to prevent persecution of the other group by its members is certainly a red flag, if not a danger. The intensity or frequency of the rhetoric is typically where the line is drawn.

Posting slogans or the names of talks disparaging or implying negative opinions of a specific group in a public place may be interpreted as a form of persecution. This is because it seeks to promote negative opinions of the group to the general public. It also makes sure that members of the other group see it and become offended. This may incite persecution of the other group by its own members and the public or persecution by the other group against the inciting group.

Handing out to the public publications and leaflets with disparaging content against the specified group, even if just a single line in the publication, can also be seen as persecution. Sometimes such things have been deemed necessary. Political action groups may seek to protect the public so long as no false or misleading claims are made nor violence suggested. But you are left to determine for yourself whether these last things rise to the level of dangerous or not.

What do you think? 

Are groups that speak negatively of other groups to their members dangerous? Should they not be required to curb persecution by their members? (Reply below.)

Danger

If a group either incites persecution of others or provokes their own persecution, they are dangerous to those victimized by the persecution they incite. They are also dangerous to their own members who may be retaliated against for their provocations. They typically incite opposition toward or by another group, with messages of judgment or insults about or toward the target group to inspire the persecution.

Inciting persecution of another group is the deliberate intent to incite anyone (e.g., members, a government, society in general, etc.) to attack those of another belief, former associates, political ideology, bodily distinction (such as skin or hair color), ethnicity, biological sex, sexuality, criminal status, social status, school, gang or community secular group. They may use the pretext that they deem the other group to be objectionable or inferior, or else fail to denounce such activity by their members. This leads to neglect, oppression of every kind, violence and very often death.

“We did not intend this” is not a defense. If they make no attempts to curb such tendencies in their members when condemning such groups from their platform, it is the same as condoning it. This is especially true if they do nothing to change it after violence or oppression arises.

This is often accompanied by all manor of antisocial and violent rhetoric toward any outside or misbehaving subordinate group that does not conform to their ideals. This is not simply disagreeing with a group, nor identifying a group as incurring God’s wrath, but language that gives explicit, implicit or tacit permission (such as through stories, rewards or non-punishment) for members to exercise violent or denigrating behavior toward a specific group.

Inciting the persecution of groups that do not match one’s ideal is the leading cause of violence in the world throughout time. It was the cause of the holocaust and its rhetoric is one of the first signs of the rise of authoritarian dictatorships in any country.

But today, groups that practice religious persecution are increasingly aggressive. Such groups gave rise to forced conversion and "deprogramming" of other groups from the 60's to the 90’s.

Accusing an innocent group of inciting their own persecution just because you do not like them, and calling them “extremists” because they live by their beliefs or political ideals makes you the destructive danger, not them. If you have a strong desire to hurt or otherwise yell at them, when you could just as easily politely say, “no thanks,” as to wireless sales person, then it is recommended that you seek help to overcome your antisocial tendencies from a mental health professional.

If you have been incited to such behavior by your group, then it is strongly recommended that you do everything in your power to get away from them. You should never have anything to do with them or any group like them. They are not only making you a danger, but are a danger to you and destructive to your welfare and potentially your freedom.

The way to prevent yourself from getting involved with such people is to have a strict personal policy never to persecute anyone and to steer clear of any group whose rhetoric makes you feel like you should persecute someone without their counteracting such inclinations.

What do you think?

Are groups ever justified in oppressing, lying against or violently attacking another group? (Reply below.)

Provoking their own persecution is the deliberate intent to provoke another group or government to attack or spread propaganda against their own group. It is meant to negatively impact their members to promote a sense of their “doing the right thing.” Some may even falsely generate their own propaganda against themselves or claim propaganda that doesn’t really exist in order to make their members feel persecuted.

This is a trait of many destructive religions and political groups who seek to dominate others. They try to force them by threats of "hellfire", collapsing economies or other divine punishment or the fulfillment of a conspiracy theory to conform to their way. They may verbally attack other religions or the public at large, sending out their preachers or advocates to street corners, clinics and political rallies to condemn the world, their political rivals or other religions.

Some groups may even intend to incite their own persecution by performing their aggressive tactics toward groups known for their violence. These are easily recognized because they are usually quite visible and outspoken in ways clearly designed to provoke a response.

These pose an easily preventable danger to their members. They can be recognized by their yelling at individuals on the street, public condemnation of sinners, pushing invitations to their meetings against a lack of interest (not simply handing out pamphlets or talking to people who show interest), praying and reciting prophecy loudly in public and by their frequent references to the persecution they receive. They thus make their preaching more offensive than it needs to be.

If a religion makes it its mission to harass any or all people in any way, or incite their own persecution by obnoxious forms of public preaching (not simply talking to people) or by verbal harassment, it is strongly recommended that you avoid them. No one should ever need to incite their own persecution. Just sharing a message of peace is enough to inspire violent people to persecute you, so you should not need to do anything more.

What is more, provocation is no justification for persecution. You are just feeding into their narrative. The best damage you can do to such ones is ignore them and let the authorities handle them.

What do you think?

Are groups that provoke other groups to persecute their own members dangerous to their members? Is any group justified in persecuting such a group? (Reply below.)

Abusive Excommunication and Disassociation

Abusive excommunication and dissociation is not simply not talking to former associates. It involves the group persecuting former members or former members persecuting the group by overt words and actions.

Persecution in any form is wrong, but this sort of persecution is specifically designed to instill fear in members. This generally evokes fear of the group either from becoming former members or of staying with the group to which the persecuting former member belonged.

This includes actively seeking to financially damage the group or individual by communicating to others not to do business with them, lying about them so as to damage their reputation, damaging their property (by smashing, setting it on fire or polluting it, such as with fecal matter), insulting them, threatening them, attacking them or any of the other persecution behaviors mentioned in this article.

What do you think?

Are groups or individuals ever justified in oppressing, lying against or violently attacking former associates? (Reply below.)

Think Before You Accuse

So do not be quick to blame a group for their own persecution. Know, instead, that any group that persecutes or does not curb a group-wide tendency to persecute individuals or groups by its members, is most definitely a dangerous and destructive group. These should be avoided as you would avoid pestilence because their plague will come back on them.

The words of any group involved in persecution or inciting their own persecution should not be trusted as they are most certainly involved in deception. Trying to distinguish their “truths” from their lies is a fruitless endeavor.