Thread by @sepeku

:Long thread:

Forcing people in crisis to adhere to, to conform to, or to practice customs that do not reflect, or that directly oppose their own, in exchange for assistance,
Is a form of cultural violence.
"Spiritual abuse" may seem an off term, but it's not wrong.
It can be considered part

of the pyramid of cultural genocide.

Right there with the central American missions, and the Canadian boarding schools.

The power dynamic of who has resources vs who needs resources, establishes a position of authority, aside from the longstanding social assumption that a

church holds authority.
When someone in a position of authority, uses injury to control a dependent individual, regularly or repetitively, it becomes an act of abuse.
While that injury may not be recognizable, or looked over as it is imbedded in good intentions,
It is no ...

different than withholding basic life sustaining necessities until a dependent conforms to expected behavior.

Example:
I can tell my kids "I believe that your life will be better if you participate in after school sports"
That's fine.
However, if I was to tell my children "...

you are too effeminate and I will not feed you or allow you to rest, untill you man up" that's abuse.

Now on the same page,
If I tell someone "I believe you will have a better life and and possible after life, if you learn and participate in the same religious practices that I

do"
Vs
"I will not feed you or let you rest unless you change your beliefs and internalized identity to conform to my own".

Any authority (even if self imposed), who acts in such a way (especially if "it's just how we've always done it") is abusive (even with the best of

intention).

To compound the aspect of control, we can add a typical modern social expectation.
"The homeless should be moved. There is a (insert religious organization) shelter right here that will feed them and only ask that they attend church services".
This might not seem

horrible.
But considering the lack of accessable resources, and the expected aggressive response from the community if a homeless individual does not comply, this becomes a controlling act, rather than an option.
Now considering that the homeless population will reflect the

general population,
It can be fairly assumed that only half of the dependent individuals will share the same beliefs as the religious organization.
Religion (or the lack of) is deeply engrained in an individuals cultural and personal identity.
Telling them they MUST change, is

injurious to their mental well being.
It is telling them that what they are, the very aspects of self, are wrong and must change if they want to be allowed to exist.
They cannot expect to move forward to recovery unless, not their behavior, but their self identity conforms to

expectation. They can not go back, out of fear of punishment for not abiding by social expectation.

Offering the hungry, food, and saying "while you're here, can I talk to you about my beliefs or maybe just give you some pamphlets" is manipulation.

Telling someone they have to

attend and participate or be denied assistance is abuse.
If it is the ONLY existing adequate and accessable resources AND is endorsed or enforced by the state, city, or community ...

(such as the case in Puyallup Washington, where the city has contracted with salvation army and has actively blocked alternative options)
It is systematic cultural violence.