Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


Support of forcible deprogramming


The rationale behind forcible deprogramming has been defeated in the court arena in the late 1980's. While anticultists have been forced to stop their abusive practices, many still think along the same line. Although they have to be cautious in what they say, their real thoughts transpire in some of of their statements in ARS. Here are some examples:


Keith Henson

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: More on the Last CAN Files report

From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@netcom.com

 

Message-ID: <hkhensonFBnv7v.5JD@netcom.com>

It's not an easy thing to advocate, but I support intervention, independent of age, when people have an out of control drinking or drug or cult problem. There is enough reluctance for people to act in this direction that it seldom is unjustified. Jason Scott, the guy who's case broke CAN, eventually came to realize that he wanted out of the cult he was rescued from and came to be on friendly terms with Rick Ross, the guy who tried to deprogram him in the first place.

Humans did not evolve in the kind of environment we find ourselves in today--and most of our problems stem from this fact. The libertarian rules Size is trying to apply to human relations were not laid down by God or evolution. Human sanity--orientation to the real world--is maintained  by sensible feedback from people around you. Cults don't give sensible feedback, and in the worse cases, can lead people right over the edge.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: More on the Last CAN Files report

From: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson)

 

Message-ID: <hkhensonFDK0wy.BKp@netcom.com>

A person in a cult will chose to do certain things by what--to them-- seems like a free choice. A few weeks later, after a "brain-un-washing" session with a deprogrammer, they will make entirely different choices. Again, by what seems to them to be free will. From our viewpoint, people who are making choices which are the kinds we would make look like free will and other choices look coerced. Mainly I don't think we have nearly as much "free will" as we think we do. It was essential for our ancestors to make most "free will" decisions based on what the tribe needed and to a large extent we do what is expected of us by the "tribe."

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: More on the Last CAN Files report

From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@netcom14.netcom.com>

:

Message-ID: <7n3bcm$9or@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>

>On 20 Jul 1999, Prignillius wrote:

>3. This "cult personality" is used to assert that a responsible adult is not capable of making rational decisions, a case which has also not been demonstrated.

Is it rational to kill yourself? Sometimes, such as terminal illness, yes. How about the 30 healthy adults in the Heaven's Gate cult? If you call what they did "rational," you are not going to get much agreement.

>4. The above 3 concepts have been used many times to violate the civil rights of adults.

Maybe not often enough.

 

From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@netcom14.netcom.com>

 

Message-ID: <include/xaraud90ftcgaa9b0o5sl3c9441pod7efti5gu@4ax.com>

My suggestion is that people who are concerned about a friend or family member in a cult situation be permitted to post a cash bond and, using the police, take the person into temporary custody. Perhaps they should be limited to using a licensed deprogramming agency. If it is later determined that the action was unjustified, the person taken into custody gets the bond money, if not, the bond is returned. I might suggest $5k for the bond unless the person was earning more in which case it might be a month's wages or if $5k was too much of a burden on the people asking for the temporary custody. I think the person(s) who get such an order should be limited to people who are family or friends of the person being taken into custody.

 

Arnie Lerma

From: Arnie Lerma <Arnie_member@newsguy.com>

 

Message-ID: <include/xara7lqinq$oqq@edrn.newsguy.com>

>Diane Richardson:

>I take it this means you approve of forcible deprogramming. Thanks for that admission, Arnie.

Arnie Lerma:

yes I do, it works, thats why you oppose it. Thats why Co$ opposes it

Note: In a typical fashion for anticultists nowadays, when they realize they let too much of their real thought transpire in a recorded media, Arnie Lerma tried to correct his statement in subsequent posts. Based on the bulk of Lerma's position in the past, however, there is little doubt that the above statement reflects his actual position.

Elizabeth Ann Cox

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: What's wrong with deprogramming people?

From: "Elizabeth Ann Cox" <elizanncox@chesapeake.net>

 

Message-ID: <s3b06lje3ef23@corp.supernews.com>

If "deprogramming" can save this person from the ravages of the cult, then yes, I will support it.

Much has been said about individual rights here. And yes, I am a strong supporter of individual rights and freedom of religion. However, the cult of scientology is hardly a church. At best, they are a multi level marketing corporation. As to individual rights, well, once that individual has signed on staff, at the SO or an Org, individual rights are immediately subjugated.


Note that Elizabeth Ann Cox here unknowingly comes up with the same rationalization used by Ted Patrick to justify his kidnappings: by the simple fact of joining the group, cult members have de facto signed away their rights, and kidnapping isn't therefore an infringement of these:

PLAY BOY: "But, again, aren't you the one who is abusing people's freedom? Aren't you the one who is depriving them of their First Amendment rights?"

PATRICK: I will fight and die to protect the First Amendment. That is what I am fighting for. I believe a person should have the right to worship the way he pleases, but when someone destroys your free will and your ability to think and takes your mind, you don't have any more rights. They have destroyed your human rights and your constitutional rights. And I haven't broken the law. These people have been rescued, not kidnaped, and we have a law of justification that states that a person is justified in committing an apparently illegal act in an emergency to prevent a greater harm, if it is the lesser of two evils. We now have conservatorship laws to give parents custody of their children when they are in that state of mind. Those laws didn't exist before I started what I am doing.

Rod Keller

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: Rick Ross Replies [Was: Hadden Gets A Quote In]

From: rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller)

 

include/xaraMessage-ID: <78nfct$frn@netaxs.com>

I have a question about this. I can see that you are opposed to involuntary interventions for competent adults. This is really the only way I can see that anybody can continue to help people. But is it a practical decision or an ethical decision? An ethical code seems to imply that you would criticize or condemn a family that decided to save the life of a loved one with an involuntary intervention. I think there would be a lot of sympathy for a family that made that choice. Is this really an ethical code, or is it a code of practice that conforms to the laws of the U.S. and is really the only way to conduct yourself in helping families?

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: Lerma Admits He Favors Forcible Deprogramming (Was Re:

From: rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller)

 

include/xaraMessage-ID: <7lr7o2$nkc@netaxs.com>

I think it's a good thing that kidnapping of competent adults is illegal. But if I were to meet the family of a cult member, if that person were about to be married to somebody they don't know, if they were about to be castrated or sterilized, if they were about to be moved to another country against their will, and if this family decided that they needed to do something to keep that family member safe, then I would not be one to condemn that family. Of course it's illegal, and should be, but sometimes it's important enough to protect your family, regardless of the legal consequences.

Note here how, despite the legal precautions anticultists feel they have to take, they really are basically not opposed to forcible deprogramming.

  • "This is really the only way I can see that anybody can continue to help people" : forcible Deprogramming now being recognized as illegal, the cost of being involved in them is too high. An illustrative example is the closure of CAN, which is now unable to "continue to help people". Apart from these legal implication, Rod Keller doesn't object to the practice of forcible deprogramming on ethical ground.

  • "I think it's a good thing that kidnapping of competent adults is illegal" :  In the cult context, this sentence doesn't mean anything, because anticultists position is that the "mind-control" the cult is supposed to exert on the cult member makes him incompetent. This reasoning is similar to that of Elizabeth Ann Cox and Ted Patrick above. If you don't believe anticultists would use this argument to justify forcible restrain of cult members, or anybody they decide have become incompetent for reason of "mind-control", read this ACLU report, as well as this article by Wayne Sage.

  • The examples given are also tendentious, but it would be too long to deal with them here. What is important to note is that Rod Keller is in favor of breaking the law, kidnapping the person involved and forcing them to change their mind in these cases, and of course for quite a few other "reasons".

Joe Cisar

Joe Cisar published a positive review of Ted Patrick's book and defended him and his practices, although, as with many proponents, in somewhat veiled words. Here is an excerpt:
 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: Book review of Ted Patrick's book

From: Joe's Garage <swatron@xenu.net>

 

Message-ID: < Pine.LNX.3.96.991120171751.124A-100000@darkstar.zippy>

As part of his job, he checked into what could be done to keep kids from being picked up off the streets as the COG was doing. He ran into the same problems we have in America today. No government agency will help. He checked everything he could, but could find help nowhere

So he looked at the law to see what he could do. He ended up helping the lady get her kid back and put the kid in a room and questioned the kid. He did the same thing the COG did to him in that he would not let the kid get away, but he did it to get the kid to start thinking again instead of what the COG did, which was to stop people from thinking.

Reading the paragraph above you may think that Patrick found some way of holding the girl legally. Of course, it wasn't the case, and it was a straight kidnapping case.



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

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
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless