WAVES: Prophets or Pushers?

This is an article I wrote back in 2008, but I thought it was relevant enough to repost. Enjoy!

WAVES: Prophets or pushers?

By Katherine Concepcion

At what point do the interests of the student body take precedence over the granted free exercise of a student club?

WAVES ministries is just one of the over 35 student-run organizations at Miami Dade College - Kendall campus. Their vague and seemingly innocuous one-line mission statement is printed on the Student Life website: “To provide an organizational atmosphere through which students can have an opportunity to worship God.”

Despite their good intentions, there have been several reported instances where WAVES affiliates have proselytized to students and faculty.

During the past two Club Rush events, Richard (no last name provided), the elderly father of the main non-faculty adviser for WAVES, has acted with hostility against the president and faculty adviser for MDC Secular Humanists, a campus student club devoted to promoting science, reason and the acceptance of Atheism.

At a recent event, Richard commenced verbal attacks on a student who was guarding the MDC Secular Humanists booth, but not himself a member of the club. When the president returned from his class, there was a stack of articles on the club table about the Archaeoraptor, a dinosaur fossil hoax that is cited by creationists as “proof” that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. In fact, various other verified fossils linking the two species have been found, and birds and dinosaurs share more than 100 anatomical features and similar rates of bone growth. Richard lied to the student guarding the Secular Humanists booth, saying the articles belonged to the club president. When said club president returned and confronted Richard about the articles, he proceeded to act aloof about placing them at the table. Richard rounded out his Club Rush visit by shouting vitriolic non-sequitors into conversations between curious WAVES members and MDC Secular Humanists members.

WAVES ministries is affiliated with another college missionary group, Youth With A Mission (YWAM). On several occasions, members of YWAM have come on to the campus in an attempt to preach to students.

During one incident, two male students were having a conversation outside a classroom when a young, attractive girl who appeared to have been listening in, approached them and began making comments about the biology of the human body.

She claimed that it was “so amazing” how the human body functioned, how every part seemed to be “designed” and perfect, and cited an example of how the stomachs digestive juices amazingly did not disintegrate the organs in our bodies.

One student, who had a science background, gave an alternative reason why the acid isn’t corrosive to tissue, an explanation that did not involve the instance of a “creator.” Another, male individual got involved in the conversation, agreeing with the girl and eventually stating that dinosaurs were actually approximately 4,000 years old.

An argument soon began, and the pair, both members of YWAM in Orlando and not a registered MDC students, began to claim that the two guys were being “narrow-minded” and told them they should “think outside the box.”

The YWAM missionaries continued to pursue the argument and made antagonizing comments to the students until the students left for class.

It is unclear whether the visiting Richard or the YWAM members were cleared by student life. The student life handbook does not list clear rules or regulations for bringing club visitors on campus without a club event being held.

The antagonistic proselytizing and other related topics were discussed with the vice president of WAVES in a recent interview. When asked about the general purpose of WAVES, the vice president’s response indicated that their main and only intent was self-promotion. After given several opportunities to give examples of ways in which WAVES benefits the community, the vice president revealed that the club does not participate in community events, if they wanted to do that, he said, they "might as well just join a church." One opportunity that WAVES could have used to be part of something bigger than themselves was Relay for Life, an overnight event benefiting the American Cancer Society that will be held at this campus on the 28^th of Feb. When asked about their possible participation at this event, the VP said that although WAVES considered being part of the event in order to raise funds for themselves, they did not have room in their calendar because of a retreat they planned to attend. Keep in mind, all the funds clubs raise at Relay for Life are to go to the American Cancer Society. When this fact was explained to the VP, he mistakingly recalled the Student Life Director saying clubs could keep a portion of the profits raised at the event for themselves.

The WAVES representative felt the need to clarify that WAVES was NOT a church, nor were they in the business of converting people on campus, but when asked a question regarding their “spreading of Christ’s word”, the VP said he believed all of the world’s people should accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, but stopped short of saying that they should all convert to Christianity. Clearly, not a fine distinction between the two was made, and a disturbing disparity remains.

If we are to go by the vice president of the organization’s own words, the sole purpose of WAVES is missionary work- spreading the teachings they feel everyone should follow.

Should a club that provides no other service, either to students on campus or the community get funding or even be allowed to operate?

Other officers and members of WAVES were present when Richard was acting up at Club Rush. A responsible student organization would have acknowledged that his demeanor was giving their group a bad name and would have reprimanded him and told him to leave the premises or stop his behavior. Instead, the VP claimed that it was important to “respect your elders.”

After pondering the aforementioned questions, also ask yourselves: Should there be hard and fast rules for clubs to follow in terms of their mission? Should certain clubs be more regulated than others to ensure that no injurious pandering is being committed

--

While I realize this is an old article, it is still relevant enough for students of the same campus, or other universities. Individuals who are not particularly religious often have no problems with recalling incidents such as those listed above. Because of this, I thought to bring back the article in an attempt to create a dialogue. If you or a friend has dealt with similar issues on a college campus, please feel free to leave your comments here, or email me directly at: five31@gmail.com. Thanks!

Firebrand Loyalty

My responses to this FuturePundit.com article, on religiosity and brand loyalty. My comments are in bold.

--

Lost Religion Leads To More Brand Loyalty?

By Randall Parker at 2010 November 15 09:04 PM Brain Loyalty

Prof. Ron Shachar of Tel Aviv University's Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration says that a consumer's religiosity has a large impact on his likelihood for choosing particular brands. Comsumers who are deeply religious are less likely to display an explicit preference for a particular brand, while more secular populations are more prone to define their self-worth through loyalty to corporate brands instead of religious denominations. Here is where the obvious bias creeps in like a thief in the night. Notice the use of “define their self-worth” now look at how the sentence would look without this passively inflammatory distraction: “…while more secular populations are more prone to loyalty to corporate brands instead of religious denominations.” Still makes sense, eh?

This research, in collaboration with Duke University and New York University scientists, recently appeared in the journal Marketing Science. What is charming, is that the research is hinted at here, and in the lede, but that’s the end of it discussion. The result? "Here is some recent news that shows how silly and materialistic those atheists are, nevermind about causation and correlation, let me quote clichéd aphorisms to prove my point."

Now, without having read the report, or having done further research on what it said but merely commenting that it does not appear the writer of this article did much research either, I could, for the sake of argument, advance past studies in an attempt to find a correlation between non-religion and brand loyalty. First, numerous studies have concluded that non-believers tend to be more highly educated than believers. (Here is one such study: http://freethinker.co.uk/features/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people/) If we grant that higher education (remember, this article is talking mainly about academics) leads to higher income/fewer children, this might mean an individual who is more tech savvy. After all, what is this research really about, whether or not atheists always go for Cheerios rather than generic wheat circles, or whether they go for specific brand-name electronics? So, yes, an academic who is more tech savvy, might be brand loyal one way or another. It seems silly if the results of the study showed allegiance toward a particular food or toiletry item, they likely were looking at products that are more involved. And if they weren't, what is the conclusion? Heavier marketing toward atheists? Is that the point of the marketing research?

More simply, higher education = higher wages = more likelihood of shopping the brand name and not buying generic/store brand.

There are a number of reasons this connection could have been shown, hell, I might be wrong, but to jump to the conclusion that “It’s because they’re de facto worshipping corporations” is ludicrous.

I am reminded of a quote (comes in variations) attributed to G.K. Chesterton: "When a Man stops believing in God he doesn¹t then believe in nothing, he believes anything." The real origin of the quote might be Emile Cammaerts writing about Chesterton:

The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything. Wrong. The first effect of not believing in God is not beliving in God. The first step in believing in God, for which no good evidence exists, is to believe in anything (witches, goblins, unicorns, the tooth fairy – all have equal lack of evidence for their existence.)

Okay, without taking a side in the God Stuff debate can we think rationally about what is going on here? (the answer to that question might depend on our specific brand loyalties - not sure if my fairly shallow loyalties to Google, Amazon, or Norelco will serve as an obstacle). My take: I suspect we all have a finite capacity for loyalty or feeling of being allied or bonded. Take away a supernatural belief and reverence and basically some unused capacity for loyalty (need for loyalty?) becomes available for hijacking by corporate marketers. Is this an improvement? It depends on the specific beliefs and loyalties. For example, I'd rather someone have loyalty to a brand of running shoes or cell phone than loyalty to a diety who he thinks wants him to blow up tube stations. Obvious anti-Islamic sentiments here. Imagine if it had read “…than loyalty to a diety who actually expects me to believe he had a son who he put on earth for my sins and was killed on the cross by a pack of Jews and then came back to life a few days later.” But loyalties to cigarette brands or sugary soda brands are definitely harmful to health.

Think religious thoughts before shopping and your purchasing choices will be less driven by brand loyalties. (Hah, hah.) Better yet – spend your money on tithe?

Researchers discovered that those participants who wrote about their religion prior to the shopping experience were less likely to pick national brands when it came to products linked to appearance or self-expression — specifically, products which reflected status, such as fashion accessories and items of clothing. For people who weren't deeply religious, corporate logos often took the place of religious symbols like a crucifix or Star of David, providing feelings of self-worth and well-being. According to Prof. Shachar, two additional lab experiments done by this research team have demonstrated that like religiousity, consumers use brands to express their sense of self-worth. Because the crucifix and star of David aren’t well-marketed and also serve to glibly show the wearer’s sense of worth or person?

Ever noticed how some ex-religious believers are incredibly bitter toward their former religion? This seems most visible with some ex-Catholics. Well, since brand loyalty seems to develop more strongly when religious loyalty is absent loss of brand loyalty makes people extremely emotional about their former loyalty.

It's just like a bad breakup: People get emotional when they end a relationship with a brand. A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research examines what happens when people turn their backs on the brands they once loved.

"Customers who were once enthusiastic about a brand may represent a headache for the associated firm beyond the lost revenue of foregone sales because they sometimes become committed to harming the firm," write authors Allison R. Johnson (University of Western Ontario), Maggie Matear (Queens University, Kingston, Ontario), and Matthew Thomson (University of Western Ontario).

Online forums are overloaded with customer complaints from people who once loved or were loyal to particular brands but now strongly oppose them. "I used to love (name of store), let me tell you all why I plan to never go back there again; I hate them with a passion now," writes one unhappy former customer, for example.

Why do these people feel so strongly about brands they once favored? According to the authors, some people identify so strongly with brands that they become relevant to their identity and self-concept. Thus, when people feel betrayed by brands, they experience shame and insecurity. "As in human relationships, this loss of identity can manifest itself in negative feelings, and subsequent actions may (by design) be unconstructive, malicious, and expressly aimed at hurting the former relationship partner," the authors write. Also, it might be because online reviews are usually highly favorable or highly unfavorable. No one goes on a website to post a comment about having a mediocre experience at a particular shop. “I’ve been indifferent to going there before, so when the time came to go there again, as expected I wasn’t smiling ear to ear, but the products I bought were in relative order and I made it home with minimal pain and suffering. Overall, I probably won’t remember the experience in a week.”

Do you have any strongly felt brand loyalties that might disappoint you? Might want to try some competing products before you become disappointed. Is this a hidden way of saying "Has your old faith failed you, try out some others" - as if religious belief were a cheese of the month club. (This insinuation should bother believers and non-believers alike.) That way your loyalty will weaken before your loss of brand faith. That'll make it easier to move on.

There are a number of very interesting theories regarding the evolution of religious belief. One, advanced by Richard Dawkins is that belief is the byproduct of an evolutionary cognitive module that served to help us cope with problems of survival – these feelings can spread like a mental virus. It doesn’t have to be religious belief. It can be any type of belief, or piece of information.

In general, this type of research seems like it wouldn’t arouse genuine intrigue in most people, it will probably arouse contempt for atheists, even among hypocritically brand loyal believers – how are companies going to use this information? Will we see more ads targeted at non-believers? The answer is more than likely, no – but I guess this remains to be seen.