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.
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.
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.
>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.
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 $5k was too much of a
burden on the people asking for the temporary custody. I think
the person(s) who get such an order should be limited to
people who are family or friends of the person being taken
into custody.
>I take it this means you approve of forcible deprogramming.
Thanks for that admission, Arnie.
Arnie Lerma:
yes I do, it works, thats why you oppose it. Thats
why Co$ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
