Another thing that I found fascinating was that she had also been a recent staunch defender of
EFT (energy field therapy), which is a highly dubious alternate medicine plan where it's believed you can cure all trauma faster than therapy by simply tapping on various parts of the body. I knew that people tended to repeat the cycle of abusive relationships by dating abusers who were just like their parents, but I hadn't seen that cycle applied to the field of philosophy/religion before. EFT has its own pseudo-cult following, nothing so bad as scientology (as far as I know) but a lot of the patterns of claims are the same.
There was also a man on this group who had been raised in a fanatical and abusive Mormon family. He described how when he was younger, he was a major public defender of Mormonism. How anytime someone even mentioned the word, or some aspect of Mormon beliefs, he would get a huge adrenalin high and immediately have to defend it,
or else. Because the abuse was so closely tied to the beliefs that even thinking about denying the beliefs was tantamount to admitting that what people had done to him was abuse.
And then of course there are the Christian priests who are major activists against gay sex, and then eventually it comes to light that they've been having secret gay relationships all along.
Which means so much of these huge public debates over hot-button issues trace back to individual psychology. The gaps can't be bridged by arguing about the issue alone - you have to figure out
why people believe what they do, before you have any hope of changing their minds.
Interesting applications when you consider how to approach the terrorism question.