May 22, 2013 – Over bearing, Domineering and Controlling

I’m pissed … so I am going to rant for a while.


Some people cannot understand or figure out that their ability and willingness to aide does not give them the right to dominate and control another, who is the recipient of the desired aide in question. To offer support, material and other, does not implicitly, and most definitely not explicitly, grant one the right or perceived obligation to control the lives situations and circumstances of the one receiving the desired support. The knowledge and ability of the one rendering aide is not a “carte blanche” permission to manage the one in need. Any knowledge is limited in its scope, and incomplete to understand the full nature of another’s personal situation. There are innumerable gaps which though presumed understood are in actuality misconceived and potentially destructive as they may be misinterpreted and/or ignored by the managing provider, in actuality a state of ignorance.

The responsibility and the right to determine the course and content of one’s life is that of the individual whose life’s situations are in question and not that of any “so-called” benefactor.

This is an area where I have found, through a rather broad range of experience, that there are significant differences in the attitude amongst religious groups. Not so much denominationally defined as they are regionally. Religious adherents in the northern areas of the United States tend to be more domineering and offer assistance “with strings attached”. In the south, there seems to be a general understanding and willingness to give what is needed as is necessary and observable … without strings and in consideration of the individual’s inherent personhood.

As a general rule, this is an area the “Christian” Church falls well short of. Aide may be offered, but seldom without a minimal expectation to assume a controlling influence over the recipient of the charity. The “Church” or possibly better stated “the mindset of the charity providers” fails to understand the ultimate “spiritual” work they would wish to see accomplished in the life of the one in need. There is a failure to learn from history and human psychology that “Spiritual” changes of a positive nature cannot be dictated from the outside, no matter how well intentioned they may be. Spiritual work and change is an individual process and is unique to every person in question. There are no hard fast rules of how it is done, or what may be expected. By force of will, or resource, alienation of persons so affected is the inevitable result. Spiritual effects, like the wind, cannot be controlled by one’s desires, but happen where they will, as may be thought a product of the divine influence. Religious creed, doctrine and dogma and the parties motivated therewith, regardless of emotional attachment to either “faith” or persons in need, have no understanding, except as is experienced in actual confrontation with the divine in their own life.