Thread: ARS and 60 minutes supports deprogramming
CAN nothing to envy CoS, dp, etc. TP freaking women - others dpers busy in room. Lie no referral: admit participate. Ambiance put together. Blocksom lies. Formal denial. Not warned people against dp, even though circumstances. CAN follow up of TP, had to stop dp cause courts. Webbed dp stories. Links and core belief of CoS. (8)
31 Dec 97
>The Church of Scientology helped rid the country of a deprogramming reign of terror that lasted until the demise of Cynthia Kisser's CAN.
I disagree with the the Church of Scientology absolutism and its intimidation of critics, but anticult organizations and their proponents have *nothing* to envy the CoS when it comes to heavy hands tactics. Quite on the contrary. Their historical background is speaking loud and clear against them. They are every bit as dangerous for civil rights as cults, if not dozen times more so.
>This is what 60 Minutes did not tell America about deprogrammers. Deprogrammers drummed up business at CAN conventions.
I spoke to Ted Patrick in the CAN convention of 1987. He was actively busy freaking out a woman with horror stories about cults. In the hotel room where the convention was held, I witnessed 2 or 3 deprogrammers making active arrangements to snap someone.
The denial of CAN that it does not make referrals to deprogrammer is obviously a lie. For a start, CAN *admits* that they allow deprogrammers to participate at their conventions! Now, what do you think is the result of freaked out parents put together with deprogrammers in an atmosphere of awe about how evil the cult and mind-control is? Of course, it is pure coincidence that a parent happens to ask a deprogrammer "do you know by any chance someone who can free my daughter from this dreadful cult mind-control?"
I think Blocksom lies when he said he did not tell the truth in his declaration. His description fits CAN to a T. Compare it with other testimonies and information. Furthermore, what Blocksom says against CAN is *so* gross that it is very indicative that CAN didn't sue him for libel.
Also: check DejaNews. I have repeatedly asked a CAN former employee posting in a.r.s. (or anyone else) to post here CAN's formal denial of forcible deprogramming, together with the context for this statement. For *months* they have failed to do so and we are still waiting for it. Why wasn't CAN actively warning its members *against* forcible deprogramming? Knowing the circumstances and the risk, any responsible organization would have done so. They didn't, and for very obvious reasons.
CAN was a direct result of the deprogramming activities of Ted Patrick, who helped to found the CFF, the former name for the same organization as CAN. Check http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/smartin1.htm. They had to stop with their activities when the academics dissociated themselves with the mind-control doctrine used to justify their abductions and the courts increasingly turned against them for their vigilante activities. Their forced deprogramming began to be seen more and more for what they are - physical, mental and emotional assault with the aim to force their point of view against persons whom behavior they disagreed with.
I posted some deprogramming testimonies for those who don't realize what it involves. The testimonies were taken at random for lack of time, but I have hundreds of them, gathered through the ACLU or through press clippings. I webbed some of them at:
Deprogramming/Conservatorship from the Unification Church
Deprogramming of a pregnant Krishna devotee by strangers to "save" her baby
Deprogramming from a lesbian relationship
I made a study of a recent a recent case of attempted abduction in the UK to show how anticult thinking still disrupts families and how courts are still influenceable by its fallacious theories (at least in Europe):
U.K. Kidnapping attempt case
If you want more information about the criminal past of anticult organizations like CAN and anticult proponents, check the excellent article of Wayne Sage at http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/sage1.htm, or the ACLU report I posted about conservatorship at http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/aclu1.html
More up to date cases and facts can of course be found on the new CAN site at http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/. the site is now admitedly controled by the CoS, but, as far as I can tell, the cases and the facts are true, and people should check the site to have *both* sides of the story.
For independent information about the anticult movement, check http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm
or the excellent scholarly site of the Virginia University at http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/antilinx.html
By the way, on both of these sites, you'll also find independent information about the core beliefs of Scientology - not the demonized version promoted in a.r.s. or trough cyberhate pages.
1 Jan 98
<clark: admit scio, does mean support scio? A:forced admit. Not typical. Ample documents exists re connection. Documents re guidelines. Kelly paid. + dismiss re pitiful and strawman re proof blocksom.> (6)
>> The denial of CAN that it does not make referrals to deprogrammer is obviously a lie. For a start, CAN *admits* that they allow deprogrammers to participate at their conventions! Now, what do you think is the result of freaked out parents put together with deprogrammers in an atmosphere of awe about how evil the cult and mind-control is? Of course, it is pure coincidence that a parent happens to ask a deprogrammer "do you know by any chance someone who can free my daughter from this dreadful cult mind-control?"
>i was at a CAN conference where they allowed scientology goon john carmichael to peddle brazen lies such as kim baker's coerced and retracted declaration. does that mean that CAN supports scientology?
Of course CAN does not support Scn. I don't know the circumstance of the particular incident you are referring to. I can only conclude that if this happened, they were forced to admit Carmichael's presentation. It certainly is not typical of CAN and I have never seen anything like it or close to it.
Ample documents exists, however, to show the active interaction between CAN (or CFF) and deprogrammers. I posted some time ago a paper I received from the CFF in 1984, dated 18th of December 1980 and entitled "Guidelines for Deprogramming". It ended up with a list of "current deprogrammers". These were Galen Kelly, Gary Scharff, Joe Alexander Jr., Joe Alexander Sr., Kathy Mills, Ted Patrick, Erica Heftman, Steve Hassan, Ken Connors, L. Streiker, Paul Engel, Mike Treman, Judy Powell, Martin Faiers, Jim Knoblock, Dave Grossehme, and Evelyn Einstein. Rick Ross has been praised by Cynthia Kisser as being "among the half dozen best deprogrammers in the country". Expense reports seized by the FBI revealed that Galen Kelly was paid a regular retainer of $1,500 a week in 1992 by CAN, etc, etc. In the light of all of these and many more evidences, CAN's denial of referral between deprogrammers and distraught parents is just plain absurd and false.
>this argument is just completely pitiful.
What is pitiful is to see anticultists and arsoid trying to peddle out from what is overwhelming evidence for anyone who cared to study the issue.
>the later argument about CAN not suing for libel proving blocksom's accusations correct is equally ridiculous.
I don't claim that it is a proof, only an additional indication. You can all rationalize it by saying "it cost money to sue", etc, etc... I say that it's simply because it was true and they knew they would have no chance to win it in court and would amount to nothing more than unearth further evidences against them.
Q:CAN driven in bankruptcy.
A:dozens dismissed. Scott unique re knp. Lost mainly because showed context. Failed clearly dissociated. Maintained ambiguity up to very language. (6)
1 Jan 98
>I'm afraid I don't agree.
>CoS is unique in it's litigious behavior.
>And once again, the POINT of the 60 minutes expose was that CoS bullied, harrassed, drove into bankruptcy and then absorbed an enemy. Nicebehavior for a 'church'.
Scott's case is not the result of an accumulated series of lawsuits. The other suits , to my knowledge, related to allegations of discrimination against Scn membership in CAN and were all dismissed as far as I know. Scott's case is an independent case that would have happened whether the other preceding cases existed or not. What happened, is that Scn found a *real* case representative of CAN's abuses and which they could use against them. It was entirely legitimate in the little war cults and anticults wage between themselves. No matter how we may otherwise object to Scn, they were right in what they did in this particular case.
The point is that CAN lost not so much because one of their volunteer made the referral, as portrayed by anticultists, but mainly because the whole context made CAN's denial totally incredible. This is what Shupe demonstrated in the Court. CAN created and maintained an atmosphere of intolerance and hate towards groups they labeled as "cults", bringing about hysterical reactions from parents and authorities.
In addition, CAN failed to clearly and prominently dissociated itself with its own open history of support to forcible deprogramming, which is a logical consequence (and the source) of the whole doctrine they are promoting. They maintained the ambiguity, up to their very language, where they often referred to "deprogramming" independently of whether it involved physical coercion or not, even though they had the vocable "exit counseling". They freely allowed deprogrammers to "shop" in their convention, they praised and defended them to the press, failed to speak and warn clearly
against this practice, etc, etc.
The ex-CAN now tries to portray itself as a poor victimof a conspiracy mounted by the CoS and tries to deny what is obvious for anyone who studied anticult movements. IOW, they continue to dupe the uninformed public at large. Their demises was in fact long overdue and the CoS is, for once, to be congratulated for having brought that about.
Q:only found one case out of thousands.
A:other cases just admission to CAN meetings. Lost academic battle, etc. Easy to defeat dp (proof no such as mc). Parralel with Nazi. Dp deniers.
Q: CAN last resort.
A: problems, but ready made explanations.
Q:nothing CAN could have done, so there
A:Many things could have done (clear delianation, etc). Both cult and anti-cult equally deluded cause think partial explain is whole truth.
A:only support this action. (7)
Pamela Fitzpatrick <email@example.com>
3 Jan 98
>Out of curiosity Bernie, just how many cases were there before the Jason Scott case? How much did it cost to defend those cases even though they were dismissed by a judge? After how many years Co$ found *one* case that was "representative of CAN's abuses"? Out of *all* those phone calls made to CAN every year they found *one* case?
The other cases were, to my knowledge, mostly cases where Scientologists were denied participation in CAN. They were independent and unrelated to Scott's case.
The numbers of forcible deprogramming have diminished by the end of the 80s. Not only the anticult movement lost the academic battle to make their theories accepted, the legal battle to make their activity excusable, and the legislative battle to pass laws that would allow them to "legalize" their activity, but it also became obvious as to how easy it was to defeat deprogramming. The person just had, at some point, to pretend to go along with deprogrammers. The deprogrammer then "recognized" that the person had snapped out of the cult "mind-control" (which proves that this notion is based on nothing else than animus towards the person's choice) and switched to the "rehabilitation" phases, then released him - after which the deprogrammer found himself in front of the Court.
I am convinced that anticult proponents still believe in this practice, though, and despite the setback they suffered at all levels, they keep spreading the same Singer/Hassan model of mind-control. It's like neo-Nazi pretending that they don't kill Jews anymore, but still support and promote the very same ethnic superiority theories. I also observe that many anticult proponents are forcible deprogramming deniers, pretending that the violent deprogrammings either didn't exist, or was exceptional, or less than what is made of it, etc, etc.
>And so Scientology was "right in what they did in this particular case"? --
>sounds like a divorce case were there is a dispute over child custody. Right doesn't equal might comes to mind.
I don't know what you are referring to.
>Interesting -- you make this statement about parents and authorities,behaving like these people will buy "CAN's gospel" hook line and sinker. As a rule, especially for parents, CAN was the last resort!!! After having read books, talked to librarians, talked to clergy and friends. After realizing that something was really wrong going on -- not because their child is in some religion that they don't understand (as I get that you >would like to believe)...parents have had to deal with a lot that they didn't understand about their child before they got to that point...teenage years come to mind there :-)
Some parents of persons who join a cult encounter a phenomena that they do not understand and are not able to deal with on their own. They then look for outside help and find a cult that will provide them with a complete, ready made, and paranoid explanation, and that will play on their worst fears and guilt. This cult is the anticult organization. If to their inability to understand and deal with the situation on their own in the first place, the parents also lack the critical thinking skill to see the holes and fallacies of the anticult theories and practices, they are hooked and join up the hysteria - they become anticult members in their own rights.
>You know, there is nothing that CAN could have done that would have made you happy. So, this argument is a one-sided conversation.
There are quite a few things that CAN could have done. For a start, they could have put a prominent disclaimer that they do not endorse, nor support, nor advice forcible deprogramming; they could have educated their members about this danger; and they could have dissociated themselves completely with deprogrammers. That would have been a very good start. A few European organizations have done something along this line and I don't have particular problems with them, even if I don't share their view of the cult world.
>Excuse me? I was duped? By the time I had called them I had read just about everything that was out there about my group that I could find (after having had all the propaganda from the group that I could stomach). They gave me some more suggestions on other sources to look at (not people by the way) because I could not afford the packet of information. Yes, I am *fully* aware that the documents would have been negative/critical in nature -- but I was only getting one side of the group up to that point (from the group) -- I wanted to know what the heck was going on, what happened to me!!! Gee, and that's when the stories started matching *exactly* to what happened to me. And this is the stuff that Scientology (and now Landmark Education Corporation) doesn't want people to have, why? I can only guess so that when someone like me comes along that they can continue on with the lie that I was not intelligent enough to understand the work, that there was something deficient in me that kept me from "getting it" -- in other words the same crap that I got on the newsgroups about my group/relationship experience.
There is always an explanation for everything. To think that this is the only and exclusive explanation is a delusion. In my book, both cultists and anticultists are sorely deluded, because they only see a partial aspect of the whole picture and think that their partial perception represents the whole and unquestionable truth.
>So, Happy New Year Bernie -- you are going to have to somehow live with the fact that you support a group that is now censoring information that used to be made available for people to make up their own minds about what is happening.
Where did you read that I support the CoS? I support this particular CoS *action*, but I don't support the CoS, and I have made several statements in this thread to that effect. But again, people read what they want to read, not especially what is written.
Can and deprogramming
Q:convention participation does not equal referral
A:not equal but strong indication lie when say does not make referral
Q:parralel with auto convention and garage
A:yes - if convention admits and fail to denounce clear krooks
Q:dpers happens be those have information
A:a lot have info without knp, no link. Where point?
Q:since we know at least one testimony a lie, how about others?
A:quick acceptance as a fact. Which part? A liar either way.
Q:Can not sue cause busy
A:say cause would unearth more
Q:not one testimony from this decade
A:source is old, historical value and psychological mechanism
Q:new can spin
A:disagree on psychiatry and money aspect. Facts open to cross examinations. Refuse read is like cult, unable discern. Actionable snip through testimonies.
Q:not beliefs but actions
A:right: actions of acm interested in, and context
Q:not religions but cults
A:Islam and algeria examples
Q:CoS shut down CAN
A:CAN shut through own faults. And Quote from Scott's case. (6)
William o west
Q: need evidence
A: same thing led CAN lost. Context.
A:outrageous crime yawn and slight made into crime (+LSD prisoner and washing powder)
Q:criminal opponent so small barely bear weight
A: List crimes
A:two wrongs (+no basis for)
A:cult basher, laughing stock
Q:Cos CAN out
A:CAN on own (6)
Pamela Fitzpatrick <firstname.lastname@example.org>
1 Jan 98
>>The denial of CAN that it does not make referrals to deprogrammer is obviously a lie. For a start, CAN *admits* that they allow deprogrammers to participate at their conventions! Now, what do you think is the result of freaked out parents put together with deprogrammers in an atmosphere of awe about how evil the cult and mind-control is? Of course, it is pure coincidence that a parent happens to ask a deprogrammer "do you know by any chance someone who can free my daughter from this dreadful cult mind-control?"
>This is not necessarily directed towards you Bernie...since there are others beating this same drum.
>But I do have a question (comment?) about this particular line of thought. When does being at a convention equate a referral?
It does not equate a referral, but it is an extremely strong indication that CAN's claim that it does not make referrals is an outright lie.
>If that was so, then I should be able to sue the pants of the convention gathers/promoters when the auto body repair guy I met there screws up on my car? According to the above logic that would be so...
If the organizers allows people who are known to screw up cars to participate, if they support them and brags about them, favor their contacts with clients, have an history of close interaction with them, build a whole framework in which it makes it easy for them to find their clients, and never prominently object, denounce nor warn their clients against these people's mispractices other than a line somewhere down an obscure leaflet for legal reasons, I would say that yes, you would have many reasons to sue them just as well.
>Something else to ponder. It has been my experience that the very people that have been labeled as these vicious horrible deprogrammers (kidnappers, rapists etal as others have labeled them) are for some odd reason the very people that happen to have the information -- letters, documents, news clippings etc. that the "cults" don't want others to see or read or even know about.
A lot of people have the same information without necessarily engaging in kidnapping and mental/emotional assault on people. There is no connection between the two. I don't see what is your point here.
>Since we now know for a fact that one of the depositions that Scientology is waving around to be the utter truth is a lie -- what is to say all those other declarations/depositions/court documents that have been waved around stating these horrible crimes are also not false?
Because you know that for a *fact*?? All we know for sure is that Blocksom is a liar. He either lied in his deposition or he is lying now. You can pick up which ever you like. Reading his deposition, and comparing it to others and to other information, I have all reasons to believe that he is lying now and that his declaration is true. Does a simple statement that "I lied" dismissed all of his testimony? Which part of it was partly true, which part utterly false, which par "enhanced", which part valid, etc? Even though his latter statement does shred a shadow of doubt upon his deposition, I certainly wouldn't say that we know for a fact that the depositions is a lie.
>(in particular, the ones that you are pointing people to go and read) I'm not saying one way or the other here...I just have seen how easy it is for some to lie and use that lie to make bigger lies for others to believe.
It is something that people should evaluate for themselves. They should compare his testimony to others, and to other available information.
>> I think Blocksom lies when he said he did not tell the truth in his declaration. His description fits CAN to a T. Compare it with other testimonies and information. Furthermore, what Blocksom says against CAN is *so* gross that it is very indicative that CAN didn't sue him for libel.
>You must have missed it somewhere that CAN was a little on the busy side providing information...court battles *are* expensive. Sometimes you just have to walk away from those type of issue --
YMMV. I say that it was because they simply did not have a case and it would only have amounted to dig up further the truth about CAN.
>Bernie -- I remember the posts of all those stories regarding forcedvdeprogramming -- not a one of them was from this decade.
There are several reasons for that. (1) most of thevdocuments I have date back from the early 80's and I got mostvof them through the ACLU, referring to cases initiated a fewvyears before. (2) I have so many of them that they are in kind of a mess, and I picked them at random (except for the Reithmiller case that I referred to specifically). I probably have more recent case but I would have to search of it and even so, because of (1) above, they may still be a bit old. This does not remove anything from their historical value, though, nor does it removes anything from the psychological mechanism at work in forcible deprogramming, which is mainly what I wanted to show.
>> More up to date cases and facts can of course be found on the new CAN site <snip> site is now admitedly controled by the CoS, but, as far as I can tell, the cases and the facts are true, and people should check the site to have *both* sides of the story.
>And as I have already commented on *this* issue -- these cases are with a mighty nice spin by the new CAN.
It depends. I have read there things with which I don't agree, namely anti-psychiatry rants or allegations that deprogrammers are only in for the money. I don't think that this is the case for most of them. I think that they are just as deluded in the anticult craze as any other anticult proponents.
This being said, if you disregard the spin, they cite a lot of facts, and these facts are open for cross-examination and counter-arguments. I do think that the very vast majority of these facts are true. People who dismiss the whole site because it is "CoS" owned and are afraid to read it, are behaving exactly like cult members who only want to see their own side of the story and are unable to apply their own critical faculties to discern what is true from false.
If they posted testimonies, I am quite sure that these are the original ones, just as the ones I received through the ACLU or gathered through press clippings. It would be actionable to snip through them.
All in all, I of course prefer to refer people to independent and scholarly sites, as I did, and to post myself information. But I am cruelly lacking time to do that.
>There are not the complete documents included *anywhere* only bits and pieces.
I don't know about that. I think that they do have complete testimonies posted.
>We also don't have from you where all these declarations belong...what cases...what the actual court testimony was from both sides (which you state that we should have but *you* don't provide)
Hey - if you pay me, say, five times what I earn now, and if you cover all of my travel expenses, I am willing to quit my current job and work full time on these cases :-)
Furthermore, I don't know what "all these documents" means. The ACLU reports comes from the ACLU, a newspaper articles comes from the newspaper, an affidavit is an affidavit, etc. I post what I have.
>etc. -- and again, on something *current* -- other then Jason Scott because that is still working it's way through the court system.
You have to take the background history into account just as well. To claim that current neo-Nazi parties aren't fascist just because there aren't current cases of abuses is again just another cultish rationalization.
>I don't think it is so much the beliefs that have people upset Bernie -- it's the activities. If people want to believe that fiction writer's mental delusions then fine -- it's their *criminal* activities that have people upset. And rightfully so.
Right - and it is the criminal activities of anticultists I am interested in, together with the context that brings about these criminal and discriminative actions.
>Even in it's "best" days I don't think that you could even accuse CAN of trying to shut a religion down. They provided information.
They had their own theories, doctrine, and agenda, and the "information" they provided were strongly tainted by it. I hardly would call that "information".
>There are plenty of people (in private) that would like to see these abusive religions and organizations shut down...but we Americans have these particular beliefs about freedom.
Just your spin on it. I personally think that the killing and torture of innocents in Algeria is worst than anything blamed on the CoS. However, I can *still* make distinctions between these fanatical acts and the valid aspects of Islam - something that anticult proponents seem unable to make when it comes to "cults". They just label the whole group as "criminal" and want it shut down. That's the type of things that leads me to say that they are *more* dangerous to civil liberties than cultists and cults themselves.
>So, we hope that once someone hears both sides of an issue then they can make a more informed choice. Now Co$ shut down one source of information...but at the same time goes around claiming all these American rights and privileges...something is very wrong here.
CoS didn't "shut down" anything. CAN lost in court fair and square because of their own proven misdeeds and what was demonstrate as the atmosphere of hate and intolerance they nourished. Anticult proponents *still* try to depict the verdict as if it only is a conspiracy from the CoS and not as a result of their own actions, just, like they did, unsuccessfully, during the case, and I quote from the verdict:
"The court notes each of the defendants' seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their
conduct towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this litigation they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of Mr. Scott's counsel's alleged agenda. Thus, the large award given by the jury against both CAN and Mr. Ross seems reasonably necessary to enforce the jury's determination on the oppressiveness of the defendants' actions and deter similar conduct in the future."
"The continued use of euphemisms such as "involuntarily deprogramming" does not alleviate the fact that the actions in furtherance of the conspiracy involved the forceful abduction and retention of an adult against his will."
William O. West <email@example.com>
3 Jan 98
>> It does not equate a referral, but it is an extremely strong indication that CAN's claim that it does not make referrals is an outright lie.
>That doesn't follow. It's a minor bit of evidence, still requiring proof.
The "minor bit of evidence", as you have it, was the very kind of thing that lead CAN to lose the Scott's case. The context made it very obvious that CAN was involved
>The biggest point against CAN is that they operated on the basis of undifferentiated "complaints." Complaints from a cult-victim should be taken more seriously than complaints from parents, and complaints from parents more seriously than complaints from strangers.
>Two factors will contribute to the frequency of complaints: the size of the organization and the destructiveness of the organization. Larger organizations will tend to get more complaints from strangers where more destructive organizations will tend to get more complaints from victims and their loved ones.
>If we set aside, for the moment, destructive anonalies such as those created by the "cultic relationships" Pam points out, the two factors seem to have considerable predictive ability.
>I now think of the Jehovah's Witnesses as a neutral cult. Co$ is, on balance, a mildly destructive cult, much more destructive for some than for others. Landmark Education and The Forum, on the other hand, do more good than harm. The Alamo Christian Foundation is extremely destructive, although it is rather small. Tibetan Buddhism is larger than the Alamo foundation but quite positive. However, Landmark graduates can be obnoxious, so I would expect that there would be numerous complaints from individuals offended by the graduates' behavior rhan complaints from relatives, and very few complaints from the participants themselves.
What does this drivel have to do with the subject of this thread?
>> Right - and it is the criminal activities of anticultists I am interested in, together with the context that brings about these criminal and discriminative actions.
Yep - alleged crimes from cults are made into outrageous crimes, and real outrageous and proven crimes of anticult proponents are being dismissed with a big yawn. This will go as far to enhance your credibility as when you advised the use of hard drugs in forcible therapy against the Manson family members, or when you claimed that house wives were being hypnotized by washing powder boxes in supermarkets.
>The criminal activities of cult opponents are so infrequent and mild as to be trivial and uninteresting.
Hundreds of forcible deprogrammings, dissent and misunderstanding between family members, Waco, the atmosphere of intolerance and misunderstanding between conflicting parties, trying to involve the State in the abuse of other's civil rights, all of these things and many more are "trivial and uninteresting", of course...
>The business of mailing oneself a bomb threat and trying to blame it on the lady whose stationery you stole is a lot more intense.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
>> Anticult proponents *still* try to depict the verdict as if it only is a conspiracy from the CoS and not as a result of their own actions just, like they did, unsuccessfully, during the case, and I quote from the verdict:
>Excuse me, but what are you saying here? I'm a cult opponent (to avoid your stilted and defamtory term),
You are not just a cult opponent, you are a cult basher, a forcible deprogramming supporter, and for the most part a laughing stock.
>and no action of mine injured CAN. In fact, I was never a member or financial supporter of CAN.
>It is quite clear that the fifty-odd spurious lawsuits prevented CAN from paying the judgment by bleeding the organization to the point where bankrupcy was inevitable. This was not the result the plaintiff wanted. He had, I think, been wronged by someone, although it's really questionable whether it was by CAN. That's your spin. He wanted money. He didn't get the money. The Co$ lawyers put CAN out of business, which is what they were after.
Of course they were after CAN, but nobody else than CAN brought it on itself through its own actions. The demise of CAN isn't just an isolated event. It came after a long trend of mounting discredit towards anticult theories and practices. CAN couldn't fool people as easily anymore, and people came to see more and more CAN for the hate monger it was.
Q:which acm refer to?
A: CAN etc
Q:where find histories
A: Webpage + list of books
Q:Re "Killing of McPherson"
A:not view as killing. Paranoid picture or CoS.
A: context etc
Q:cause post strong should be banned?
A:no, but goes further, as already explained
Q:why formal denial? Don't have that not murdered
A:not history of, etc (7)
3 Jan 98
>> I disagree with the the Church of Scientology absolutism and its intimidation of critics, but anticult organizations
>Which anticult organisations are you referring to here? Please be specific if you can.
Organizations historically linked to the initial effort of Ted Patrick: FREECOG, CFF, CAN, and others.
>> and their proponents have *nothing* to envy the CoS when it comes to heavy hands tactics. Quite on the contrary. Their historical background is speaking loud and clear against them.
>Cite these histories please? Which anticult organisations are you referring to? Where can we find their histories?
I started to web documents I have at http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/acm.htm. These represent maybe only 1% of the total I have, but time is a problem. http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/antilinx.html and http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm have information too, and, if you take the Scn spin away, http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/ have loads of facts and testimonies that, IMO, are correct as well.
Books are available too, and despite the claim of anti-Scientologists that they provide references for both side of the story, these books are never, to my knowledge, referred to - yet, these are the very kind of studies that defeated the anticult movement in the 70S/80s. Some of these many books are:
Bromley, David G. and Anson D. Shupe, Jr. 1995. "Anti-Cultism in the United States: Origins, Ideology and Organizational Development." Social Compass 42:221-236.
Robbins, Thomas and Dick Anthony. 1979. "Cults, Brainwashing and CounterSubversion." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 446:78-90.
Shupe, Anson D. and Donna L. Oliver. 1984. A Bibliographic History of the Anti-Cult Movement. New York: Garland Publishers.
Richardson, James J., J. van der Lans, and F. Derks. 1986.
"Leaving and Labeling:Voluntary and Coerced Disaffiliation from Religious Social Movements." Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change. 9:97-126.
>> They are every bit as dangerous for civil rights as cults, if not dozen times more so.
>A "dozen times more so". Please post your evidence or where we can find it.
Involvement and direct/indirect support of forcible deprogramming, abuse of the conservatorship law, attempts to have laws passed that would allow parents to legally seize their children under the pretense of "mind-control" (something I have press clippings about but will only be able to post in February if I ever come back from my most dangerous OSA mission of sea, sex, and sun), Jonestown, Waco, the current German discrimination, etc.
Note on Jonestown and Waco: this, and probably other similar events, happened as a combination of hysterical reaction from *both* sides, so I am not *exclusively* blaming the anticult movement for it.
>In the case of the killing of Lisa McPherson, what do you specifically have in mind that is a dozen times worse than that?
I do not view the Lisa McPherson dramatic incident as a "killing" - so your comparison is irrelevant.
I would admit, however, that if Scn or any other totalitarian church were to come in power, they would probably represent a danger for others civil rights as well, but that's *precisely* why we have the principle of separation of Church and State. History have shown that it is a *very* bad idea to let a church make the rules, as what happens in Iran demonstrate this currently as well. Presently, however, this isn't the case with Scn and the paranoid fear that a few thousands Scientologists would "take over the country" is nothing else than just that: a paranoid and completely unfounded fear.
>> The denial of CAN that it does not make referrals to deprogrammer is obviously a lie.
>Explain. Why is it obviously a lie?
For anyone having studied the anticult movement, the involvement of CAN is very clear. I explained how the context shows this, but this was even better demonstrated during the Scott's case.
>You mean that they can tell who attends their conventions and it should only be open to people they approve of, and not just anybody? So an interested party, whom you describe as "deprogrammers" should not be allowed to attend? Is that what you are saying? Take my case for example. I speak out loud and clear against the disgusting cult of Scientology. Because some of my posts have been, let us say, a little strong. Because I have a tendency to let others hear my point of view, and because it is sometimes not very nice, then I should be spotted by an organisation such as CAN and barred from attending?
No, I don't think they should be prevented to participate, but it goes much further than that, as I already explained in my answer to Rob, Pam and William.
>What makes you think they should have a formal denial? I don't have my own formal denial that I have murdered someone lying around. Does that mean that I have murdered someone?
You don't have an history of murdering people, at least notbthat we know of :-) CAN history originate in forcibleb deprogramming, and they openly bathed in it for at least two decades. It also is a logical consequence of the theories they continue to promote despite the fact that they have lost the battle at the academic and legal level. Without such a clear demarcation from its wn past, they are about as credible as the GO changing its name to OSA.
Can role in deprogramming
William O. West <firstname.lastname@example.org>
1 Jan 98
William O. West
>A Moonie, using numerous id's including Usernet566 has been posting voluminous verbiage, including long quotations from the $cientology CAN site in the newsgroup alt.support.ex-cult. Until this attempted disruption ceases, please cross-post all articles to alt.religion.unification.
Why not. This seems on-topic for all concerned groups. I even added alt.meditation.transcendental, because I think that Judy Stein may be interested in this subject as well. If she asks me to remove it from there, I will, even though this is only one of three related threads crossposted to alt.support.ex-cult and alt.religion.scientology.
>> > The Church of Scientology helped rid the country of a deprogramming reign of terror that lasted until the demise of Cynthia Kisser's CAN.
William O. West:
>"reign of terror?" Give me a break.
This is not my quote, but I would say that the threat of kidnapping and coercive mental/emotional assault on someone else's belief that anticult organization and anticult proponents were allowed to indulge in the 70s/80's would certainly qualify as reign of terror from the targeted groups point of view.
[snipped usual anti-Scn accusations]
I agree fully that Scn indulged in despicable actions themselves. I don't see, however, how this justifies anticults own vigilantes and strong harms tactics. It does not.
>> I spoke to Ted Patrick in the CAN convention of 1987. He was actively busy freaking out a woman with horror stories about cults.
>So what? They were probably all true.
The point was the denial of CAN that they don't make referrals to deprogrammers. Patrick was freely walking around and allow to do all of his "magic" to distraught parents.
>> In the hotel room where the convention was held, I witnessed 2 or 3 deprogrammers making active arrangements to snap someone.
>"snap?" What does that mean? Nothing illegal about that.
Snap: abduct, kidnap.
>> The denial of CAN that it does not make referrals to deprogrammer is obviously a lie.
>So what? You aren't proving your thesis here at all. CAN probably lied in self-defense,
We have here an admission. That's precisely what was denied in 60 minutes, though. But since it is an almost impossible position to defend, anticultists will now continue blaming the "cults" for "lying", but will carefully justify and brush under the carpet their own lies...
>> Compare it with other testimonies and information. Furthermore, what Blocksom says against CAN is *so* gross that it is very indicative that CAN didn't sue him for libel.
>Where would CAN get the money to sue an impoverished drug-addict for libel, assuming they could find him?
Are you saying that CAN didn't mind to have its reputation slandered as long it couldn't gain financially from it? Are you saying that the lawsuit Kisser brought against the CoS for a *much* lesser claim that she was a topless dancer and supported forcible deprogramming was motivated by money?
I am much more inclined to say that the real reason was that they simply did not have a case, because Blocksom's (and others) allegations simply were true.
>> CAN was a direct result of the deprogramming activities of Ted Patrick, who helped to found the CFF, the former name for the same organization as CAN.
>Now, you're propagating the same like as Usernet566. Are you becoming a Moonie, or is his he becoming a $cientologist? Are the two "religions" merging?
>Ted Patrick had nothing to do with CFF. I was a guest in the homes of several CFF board members, and they were distraught parents of cult victims who were eager to start their own organization as alternative to Patrick's "Volunteer Parents of America." Patrick was hardly supporting people to take business away from his own group.
Seems like you didn't even take the time to check the document I webbed at http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/smartin1.htm and of which I provided the URL in the very post you are answering. Here it is for your eyes only:
Parents Form Group to Fight Religious Cults' Hold on Young
James P. Sterba
New York Times
2 September 197
Posters in alt.religion.scientology claimed that anti-cult organizations didn't originate with Ted Patrick. This article proves that they did. CAN was just the new name for the CFF.
DENVER, Sept. 1--A small group of parents whose children have become members of fringe religious groups announced yesterday the formation of a national organization to fight the
influence of so-called religious cults on young people.
The group called the Citizens Freedom Foundation, was organized by Ted Patrick, who has specialized in taking young people out of such groups, "deprogramming" them and returning them to their parents.
About 25 persons met in Denver this weekend to form the group. They said they would return to their homes around the country and organize locally. Many of them were parents whose children are or were members of the so-called cults. Six youths, some of whom Mr. Patrick had recently talked out of allegiance to their religious groups, including the Hare Krishna sect, also said they would work against such groups.
"It has become more and more obvious, considering the fact that there are now 5,000 cults registered as nonprofit organizations boasting a membership of over two million people, that our efforts to fight against this ever-increasing menace to our society must become a national one," Mrs. Henrietta Crampton of Redondo Beach, Calif., said in a letter to concerned parents.
Saying that the Federal Government has shown little interest in aiding distressed parents....
Mrs. Crampton said that Mr. Patrick had been the prime force in organizing the group. Prefered posts from alt.meditationEarlier this summer in Denver, Mr. Patrick was found guilty of a charge of false imprisonment after he held two young women, who had left their homes and the Greek Orthodox faith against their parents' wishes for "deprogramming." They and three other plaintiffs have filed a $2.5-million civil damage suit against Mr. Patrick.
>> I posted some deprogramming testimonies for those who don't realize what it involves. The testimonies were taken at random for lack of time, but I have hundreds of them, gathered through the ACLU or through press clippings.
>Show me a person who was successfully deprogrammed who claims his rights were violated. We don't need any more cult propaganda here.
Once the person is successfully "deprogrammed", he re-interprets everything according to the new doctrine forcefully nailed down his head by deprogrammers. He simply replaces one uncritical acceptance of a doctrine with another uncritical acceptance of another. He is not free at all. He simply has been duped twice.
Of course, the hundreds of those who resisted such indoctrination and who simply view their abduction and mental/emotional assault on them for what they are: an abject violation of their right to believe as they will and decide for the course of their own life, and those who suffered gross abuses at the hand of deprogrammers, all of this is just a "yawn" for you. And *you* are the one make a whole fuss for similar alleged abuses perpetrated by cults and that are *much* less of a violation, if any... I see. I think that my point that anticult proponents are *more* dangerous to civil rights of others than cults themselves is fully proved by this.
>> I made a study of a recent a recent case of attempted abduction in the UK to show how anticult thinking still disrupts families and how courts are still influenceable by its fallacious theories (at least in Europe):
>We've seen that one already. The family was already disrupted by the cult. In fact, that wasn't just any cult, was it? That was the Co$ itself.
Which is one of the reason why I picked up the case, and it is quite clear for those who would read it without bias, that the dramatic outcome of this case was due to the mother who, reacting along a typical anticult way of thinking, tried to force her way against her daughter's will.
>Sorry, not interested. The "criminal" activities all involved abductions of individuals so clearly damaged or endangered by their cult victimization that their distraught parents were willing to face the possibility of being sued by the cult if their children escaped again.
Here we have a plain rationalization, justification and support of forcible deprogramming. The arguments used fit *exactly* with the anticult doctrine promoted by anticult organizations like CAN and others. This is why the claim that CAN did not support forcible deprogramming is an outright lie.
>In some jurisdictions, they would never have been prosecuted, and in the case of Ted Patrick's most celebrated conviction, he was not permitted to tell the jury the simple truth that he had been hired by the cult victim's parents.
>> More up to date cases and facts can of course be found on the new CAN site at http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/. the site is now admitedly controled by the CoS, but, as far as I can tell, the cases and the facts are true, and people should check the site to have *both* sides of the story.
>Oh? Where are they going to find "both" sides of the stories on the $cientology CAN site?
More display of the amazing critical thinking and logical abilities of anticult proponents "free" from "mind-control". Who ever claimed that they will find both sides of the stories on the CAN/COS site? The other side is of course to be found on the anticult sites.
>And, OOPS! I snipped the line where you were promoting the true "core beliefs of $cientology." Are you finally revealing your true colors, Bernie?
The URL are those of sites independent from both the Scientology and anti-Scientology sites. Since anti-Scientology sites stress points that are their own agenda rather than the real core of Scn beliefs and the Scn sites may be viewed with distrust, these independent sites do a much better job at giving a picture of what Scn really is than anything else. They *also* happen to point to the abuses and bias of anticult organizations. That's why they are independent. These third neutral parties are the real referee in the conflict and those mostly responsible (rightly so) for the downfall of CAN and the overall demises of the main anticult ambitions (which happened much before).
William O. West
3 Jan 98
William O. West
>After reading these "testimonies," those who don't know what deprogramming normally involves will know even less.
That makes sense. The more information you have, the less you know...
>Bernie is saying, here, that although cult brainwashing, including brainwashing people not to listen to other opinions, isn't real, that anti-cult deprogramming is real brainwashing.
Show me were I ever said that deprogramming is real brainwashing. I don't even thing forcible deprogramming is brainwashing, although if anything can come as close to it, that would be it.
There has been long threads in a.r.s. about the fallacious anticult theory of "mind-control", and it has been largely shown that there is no such thing, at least not according to the Singer/Hassan model, and of course even less according to Patrick's model.
This does not mean, however, that illusions aren't possible, and I think that this is what happens in both the cult and anticult cases. A partial truth is provided, along with unwarranted conclusions that are constantly being repeated and reinforced. The lack of critical thinking skill leads the member/ex-member to unquestionably accept these unwarranted assumption. Furthermore, his *need to believe* also leads him to make a faith leap between this partial truth and the alleged absolute truth.
The assertion that the member is under "mind-control" and is unable to quit the group without a forcible intervention is an example of such an unwarranted conclusion.
With time, doubt accumulates and cult members may see for themselves that it isn't what they thought it was, or they see the limitations involved and leave. It's all part of the freedom of people to explore alternative and unpopular venues, *and*part of their right to be wrong.
"Right" and "wrong" isn't an absolute notion either, and those who chose to continue in their faith may not be especially wrong, because, IMO, it isn't so much *what* you decide to do that counts, but *how* you do it. I would give much more credits to a cult member who genuinely tries to apply the precepts of his faith, even if he is "wrong" (as long as he does not violate the civil rights of others), than an ex-member who may be "right" in seeing the limitations of the group but behaves like a jerk, in total disrespect of other humans and spends his time trying to destroy the genuine efforts and faith of others.
>> > Of course, the hundreds of those who resisted such indoctrination and who simply view their abduction and mental/emotional assault on them for what they are:
William O. West
>Hundreds? Impossible. Most deprogrammings work. With dozens of deprogrammers, however there may be dozens of non-deprogrammed individuals around.
Hundreds of cases were reported through the Courts and affidavits, and not every failed cases have been reported. Even in the case of "successful" deprogramming cases, many suffered untold and unnecessary psychological trauma.
>> > violation of their right to believe as they will and decide for the course of their own life,
>Again, this is simply impossible in the case of the worst cults.
Marc Galenter, M.D., of New York University showed that only 9% of those who attend a Moonie workshop end up joining them. After four months, 3% of these 9% already left. In another study, he showed that 90% of those who joined left on a voluntary basis. The results of these studies have been replicated by Saul V. Levine, M.D., of the University of Toronto, and many others who studied a great variety of groups labeled as "destructive cults". Your assertion that a decision in this regard is "simply impossible" is not supported by evidence and is just one of the many superstitions of your new cultic doctrine.
>One problem with CAN was that they operated on a "complaint" basis, with all complaints treated equally. Obviously, a complaint from a former cult member should be taken more seriously than one from his parents, and a complaint from a family member should be taken more seriously than a complaint from a total stranger.
>Benign cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Seventh Day Adventists would produce few complaints. Mildly negative (on average) cults like $cientology would produce more complaints from the people who were more extremely victimized. Positive (on average) cults like Landmark Education (for which the term "cult" may be defamtory) will produce complaints just because of the number of their graduates and the obnoxiousness of some of their recruiting efforts, but most complaints will come from co-workers and other casual acquaintances.
Irrelevant drivel that you simply cut and pasted from an other post. It is just as irrelevant here as it was in the other post.
>> > and those who suffered gross abuses at the hand of deprogrammers,
>Don't you mean "both of those?" Anything which could be described as "gross abuse" would be an extreme and exceptional case, if the term "gross abuse" could be applied at all.
Kidnapping, forcible mental/emotional assault on one's chosen faith, sleep deprivation, etc, etc, is good enough for me to be qualified as "gross abuses", and I don't speak about the cases where it got even more out of hand. Hundreds of cases are more than"exceptional" as well. Your arguments are as absurd as those of holocaust deniers.
>> > all of this is just a "yawn" for you.
>Yup. I find distorted cult propaganda to be a big, totally predictable bore.
Hundreds of testimonies, sometimes relatively restrained in face of what really happened, is no cult propaganda. Numerous Court cases is no propaganda. Loads of human distress and suffering created in the wake of deprogrammers heavy handed actions is no propaganda. What you are yawning is all of that, all of which you justify and rationalize away. If you think that you are doing any promotion for the anticult viewpoint, think again.
>> > I think that my point that anticult proponents are *more* dangerous to civil rights of others than cults themselves is fully proved by this.
>More defamation. There is no such thing as an "anticult," and I never joined one.
The anticult movement is recognized phenomenon studied by sociologists. Check
William O. West
3 Jan 98
>> This is not my quote, but I would say that the threat of kidnapping and coercive mental/emotional assault on someone else's belief that anticult organization and anticult proponents were allowed to indulge in the 70s/80's would certainly qualify as reign of terror from the targeted groups point of view.
William O. West
>That's still a considerable distortion.
>I was deprogrammed by Ted Patrick in November of 1973. I was not kidnapped, or assaulted. The coercion was little more than average and no more than what was already done to me by Divine Light Mission.
>Deprogramming is a conversation. Period. The meditation I had been taught to perform during every waking moment by Divine Light Mission, was, despite their denials, in my case, half of a hypnotic situation. The other half was the communal environment including people in leadership roles who had some sense of what was going on. Higher-ranking members were told not to meditate, by the way.
>Ted made an assertion and a request while I was still meditating: "you have been brainwashed and hypnotized without your knowledge or consent. Stop meditating."
>I had no choice but to stop meditating. It's ironic, but he used the hypnotic process to stop the hypnotic process. That was, to some extent, coercive, but it was all verbal.
How does this address the paragraph saying that the threat of violent intervention conducted on a large scale against members of cults in the 70s/80s can be viewed as a reign of terror from their point of view? It doesn't address it at all. You are just ranting about things you have already written dozens and dozens of times. Do you even bother to read the paragraph you are responding to?
>> I agree fully that Scn indulged in despicable actions themselves. I don't see, however, how this justifies anticults own vigilantes and strong harms tactics. It does not.
>Ultimately, of course not, but, interimly, it's the lesser of two evils.
That's *exactly* what democracy, democratic principles, and freedom of beliefs are about. Democracy and freedom certainly brings a lot of problem, but history have shown that this is a much lesser evil than having totalitarian goons decide upon what is best for others. No better solution than democracy and human rights has been found yet, and all of these principle are based on *personal responsibility*. Heavy harms tactics promoted by anticult bigots such as yourself are the exact contrary of these principles, and the irony of it is that they promote them in the very name of these principles themselves.
>I suffer from a medical condition for which there is a supporting newsgroup. Other people with this condition participate in the newsgroup. Physicians who specialize in treating the condition participate. Does this mean that the person who originated the newsgroup is making referrals to physicians? Clearly not.
I already answered this question to Pam and others. If quacks are allowed to participate in an official reunion of physicians and their customers, if these quacks receive support from these organizers, if they are praised and defended by them, and if they aren't denounced by the oranizers and their quackery aren't warned about to potential customers, it is an implicit endorsement. If testimonies exists about referral of theseorganizers to the quacks, it would be highly credible and the organizers denial would bear little credibility.
>> >> In the hotel room where the convention was held, I witnessed 2 or 3 deprogrammers making active arrangements to snap someone.
>> >"snap?" What does that mean? Nothing illegal about that.
>> Snap: abduct, kidnap.
>"Snap:" to experience or cause a sudden personality change. Vide "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Changes" by Conway & Siegel.
Nit picking. Snap is also slang for kidnapping. Don't you have better arguments?
>I'm simply speculating. I have never belonged to CAN, and it's quite possible that anyone there who did make referrals to deprogrammers was doing so as an individual private citizen and not as a representative or agent of CAN.
That's the anticult proponents stand, one that has been completely disproved in the Scott case:
United States District Court Western District of Washington At Seattle
Case No. C94-0079
"The Court concludes that the evidence supports the jury's finding on the negligence claim against CAN. CAN's attempt to distance itself from Ms. Landa's actions and Mr. Scott's deprogramming through the use of phrases such as "contact person" and "volunteer" belies the great weight of the evidence. For example, there was an abundant showing that Ms. Landa was an active member of CAN, the contact person for CAN in Washington during the time of the events in question, and under CAN's control and supervision during the time. Further, evidence also shows that Ms. Landa acted in accordance with CAN practices by distributing information on cults and referring Mr. Scott's mother, Ms. Kathy Tonkin, to Mr. Ross for deprogramming. This combination of factors, along with the rest of the evidence contained in the record, makes judgement as a matter of law or a new trial on the negligence claim unwarranted."
>> Parents Form Group to Fight Religious Cults' Hold on Young
>> James P. Sterba
>> New York Times
>> 2 September 1974
>No, the article doesn't prove anything, does it? It's no more accurate or infallible than any other newspaper article. I was there, and I knew these people.
Your own assertion as no value compared to written evidences, especially not in the light of the type of ludicrous statement you are prone to make and have made in the course of the past year alone.
>> DENVER, Sept. 1--A small group of parents whose children have become members of fringe religious groups announced yesterday the formation of a national organization to fight the influence of so-called religious cults on young people.
>> The group called the Citizens Freedom Foundation, was organized by Ted Patrick,
The evidence I posted says otherwise. If you have any other evidences contradicting this, please provide them.
>> Once the person is successfully "deprogrammed", he re-interprets everything according to the new doctrine forcefully nailed down his head by deprogrammers. He simply replaces one uncritical acceptance of a doctrine with another uncritical acceptance of another. He is not free at all. He simply has been duped twice.
>So now, if we combine your statements with those of, say, Diane Richardson, there is no such thing as "cult mind-control," but "deprogrammer mind-control" does permanent damage to someone?
See my answer other answer to you in this thread. Who spoke about "deprogrammer mind-control" and "damage". You are reading things that is no written anywhere nor even ever meant.
>> Of course, the hundreds of those who resisted such indoctrination and who simply view their abduction and mental/emotional assault on them for what they are: an abject violation of their right to believe as they will and decide for the course of their own life,
>(1) Hundreds? Nonsense. Dozens, maybe. There just haven't been hundreds of failed deprogrammings.
>(2) If a person was in one of the more controlling cults - say the Tony and Susan Alamo Christian Foundation or Divine Light Mission, they had already probably lost their "right to believe as they will." The self-hypnotic practices (labelled as something else, of course) in both of those cults constituted a total denial of their freedom.
Blah blah looney tune.
>> all of this is just a "yawn" for you.
>What's a "yawn" for me is your persistance in posting gross exaggerations. As I stated, I participated in several deprogrammings. In the case of the Children of God victim, the Spanish police simply arrested her and handed her over to her father. They don't put up with these pseudo-religions over there. I talked with two former cultists who were assaulted or battered during their abductions, and both were extremely grateful to have been rescued from their cults by their alarmed parents. I helped out in a few other deprogrammings, all of which used no force or minimal force to get the cultist to listen. One individual was even brought out of the Alamo foundation by order of a judge.
It is clearly illegal and the Court don't fall for your kind of false logic anymore, so, were you to participate and be caught in such rescues, I wish you many happy yawns in prison.
>You, of course, want to dictate that you are in a to know better than someone's own parents what is good for that particular individual based, not upon the real situation, but on some far-fetched absolutist theory of civil rights.
What is better for the individual in the field of spiritual quest, or other fields, is what he decides himself out of his own free will. Only nuts like yourself pretend that parents know that better than their adult children. The personal responsibility is prevalent opinion of today's Courts too, so just keep on ranting in cyberspace if you like.
>> And *you* are the one make a whole fuss for similar alleged abuses perpetrated by cults and that are *much* less of a violation, if any... I see.
>Let's see.... The captain of one of Elrong Hubbard's sea org ships said he knew of more than one hundred deaths at sea and you're saying that all of those murders are "much less of a violation" than a temporary restriction of an individual's freedom of movement by people intending to protect him from gross financial exploitation and possible physical harm (not to mention the possibility, if he's a $cientogist, of being hog-tied in a church basement, starved to death and fed to the cockroaches)?
The violations of deprogrammers are documented in court cases by the dozens and hundreds. Your "hundred deaths" are mere rumors and fear tactics, and absolutely false. Quite typical of anticultists "information", the same kind of "information" that CAN delighted into and which they provided to worried parents pretending this would "help" them.
>> I think that my point that anticult proponents are *more* dangerous to civil rights of others than cults themselves is fully proved by this.
>Moi is dangerous? Ha!
You only are potentially dangerous. You obviously don't currently have the resources to implement your "solutions".
>> Here we have a plain rationalization, justification and support of forcible deprogramming.
>Only if that's what it takes. Voluntary exit-counseling is, obviously, preferable.
Nope - involuntary deprogramming is not only illegal, it also is a moral crime. There is no excuse for going against the will of and civil rights of deserving adult.
>> The arguments used fit *exactly* with the anticult doctrine promoted by anticult organizations like CAN and others.
>Of course. As I think you pointed out, once you accept the existence of various mind-control mechanisms, you have to recognize that certain cult-victims are being defrauded.
Thanks for confirming my argument. Since the theory has been debunked for many years, and only anticultists in their own narrow circles still believe in it, it has no supports nor justification whatsoever on a legal or scientific basis. This of course does not prevent anticultists to keep drumming on the same theme again and again. There will always be superstitious and uninformed people would will take the bite.
>That doesn't follow. It's quite possible that CAN did not officially support forcible deprogramming, but I find it hard to believe that any individual parent in that organization who learned that someone else's daughter was a recent convert to the Charles Manson family but hadn't taken much LSD in Manson's presence yet would fail to condone physical force. There is still such a thing as common sense.
Your attempt to link Charles Manson to thousands or hundreds of thousands people doing nothing else than experimenting alternative approaches is of courses another scare and thought-stopping tactic typical of the type of "information" and manipulation of anti-cultists. It is easy to decides on the Manson case with hindsight, it is not possible to predict such outcome without risking to penalizes hundreds of thousands of innocents. This is the price of freedom. Thought police are certainly not an answer to prevent crimes and abuses, even though there will always be fascist goons who will believe and promote such an approach. Constitutional guarantees are aimed to protect honest citizens precisely from people like you and your ilk.
>> >In some jurisdictions, they would never have been prosecuted, and in the case of Ted Patrick's most celebrated conviction, he was not permitted to tell the jury the simple truth that he had been hired by the cult victim's parents.
>Read Patrick's book, "Let Our Children Go." He discusses this. His defense, in general, depends upon telling the truth about his having been hired as an agent of the child's parents. His defense further depends on the admissability of the Common Law defense of Necessity, as elaborated by Blackstone and incorporated in the Model Penal Code. In some jurisdictions which do not recognize either Common Law or the Model Penal Code, few juries will convict if they know that the deprogrammer was hired by the victim's parents. In the Denver case, Patrick was screwed by the judge.
Is this your evidence? You must be joking, right? Please provide tangible evidences. Your interpretation, or Patrick's interpretation, are utterly uninteresting.
>Given that clams believe in a "gradient of truth," such that it's OK to lie to protect Co$, nothing on a Co$ website can be accepted at face value. Given that, unless there is a matching post for the particular cultist's claims, there is no way to get the other side of the particular story or to determine what the truth is. Why would I want to expose myself to massive propaganda from a faction that claims that it's OK to lie?
That's exactly the type of propaganda put out by cults to prevent their member to access outside information. When I say that anticult proponents are just as deluded and incapable of critical thinking, I really mean what I say, and you do a splendid job at demonstrating that loud and clear.
>> The URL are those of sites independent from both the Scientology and anti-Scientology sites.
>That's assuming that I believe that there is such a thing. Why would a neutral party be motivated to create a neutral web-site? That's not consistent with human psychology. That's too much work. This isn't a topic on which anyone much is going to be neutral.
They are scholars. Sociologists, theologians, psychologists, and others. It's their job. They study sociological, theological, psychological phenomena and report their result. Their job is to provide balanced and independent information based on researches and tangible evidences. There are dozens or hundreds of good and valid motives for doing so. It's quite incredible that even something as simple and obvious as this should be spelled out to you.
Return to Bernie's Posts Page
Return to alt.religion.scientology Page
Random Quote :
This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
Quick Map :
About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links ┌Home