"It's
not so much a matter of whether anticultists are any more deficient in
critical thinking than the average person. It's that anticultists who are
deficient in critical thinking pose more of a danger to society than the
average person, because their thinking has the potential to have a
negative impact on a constitutional right."
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
You say you "agree" that anticultists are likely to have
the power of critical thinking, but what I'm saying is that they are likely to
be *deficient* in critical thinking.
They may not be controlled by what they *define* as a cult,
but I maintain their definition of cult is faulty *because of this deficiency in
critical thinking*. Moreover, they often tend to be controlled by what I'd call
the *anticult cult*, again because of this deficiency.
The "anticult cult" is more difficult to identify because
it isn't a specific group with a prominent leader; it's more a way of thinking,
a "doctrine," as it were, that is held in common by most anticultists; the
control is exercised by mutual reinforcement rather than by a leader.
In any case, my thesis is that former members of cults
turned anticultists haven't become anticultists because they've suddenly
discovered the power of critical thinking; rather, they've just switched the
*object* of their *noncritical* thinking from the cult to the anticult cult. The
same deficiency that made them vulnerable to control by the cult makes them
vulnerable to control by the anticult cult, in other words.
Judy Stein:
> > In any case, my thesis is that former members of cults turned anticultists
haven't become anticultists because they've suddenly discovered the power of
critical thinking; rather, they've just switched the *object* of their
*noncritical* thinking from the cult to the anticult cult. The same deficiency
that made them vulnerable to control by the cult makes them vulnerable to
control by the anticult cult, in other words.
mabel@clear.net.nz
> I disagree that "anticultists" are likely to be deficient in critical thinking, although this is what cult leaders try and convince their members is the case.
Just for the record, my remarks are based on my observation
of
what anticultists say, not what anybody else may have said.
>There are large numbers of people
who are concerned about the potentially destructive effects of certain cults, who have never ever been members of cults. These people could be labelled as anticultists, but they are able to see through the motives and operations of certain cults and their use of meditation as one of their mind controlling techniques. Such people are certainly not vulnerable to mind control by organised groups of either pro cult or anti cult people.
Well, I don't know that this is *necessarily* the case. It
has
certainly been my observation that at least *some* anticultists
who have never been in a cult do not think critically about their
opposition to cults. And anyone who is deficient in critical
thinking is vulnerable to mind control, whether it be deliberate
or simply a function of group dynamics.
However, if you'll reread what I said in the fourth
paragraph
from my post quoted above, I was referring there to anticultists
who *had* belonged to a cult.
With regard to anticultists who were never cult members,
their
attitudes may be due to just plain bigotry, an inability to
tolerate the existence of belief systems significantly different
from their own. I'd suggest that bigotry *in general* is a
function of lack of critical thinking.
One of the most glaring examples of such a lack is the
contradiction between the insistence that the anticult movement
espouses freedom of belief, on the one hand, and on the other the
rejection of the beliefs of groups the movement deems to be
cults. This translates into "freedom to believe whatever you
want as long as it's what *I* believe."
Another example is the inability or unwillingness to
provide a
definition of "cult" that clearly distinguishes the kinds of
groups anticultists consider cults from other groups that nobody
would think of as cults. A group is a cult because anticultists
call it a cult, in other words. Anticultists tend to be unable
to see the need for safeguards to ensure the right to freedom of
belief is not abrogated as a consequence of efforts to remedy the
effects of what they consider to be mind control. It's a fine
line, granted, but it's a fundamentally *subjective* line, and
anticultists, in my observation, have difficulty perceiving how
important it is to think very critically about where and on what
basis that line should be drawn.
Yet another example is the tendency of anticultists to
attribute
any criticism of their efforts to the effects of mind control.
(Above, for instance, you suggested the charge of deficient
critical thinking against anticultists emanated from cult
leaders.) There seems to be an inability to accept the
possibility that there can be any *objective* criticism of the
anticult movement--which is, ironically, mirrored by the cult
position that criticism of the cult is made on the basis of
prejudice. Just as criticism of a cult may be objective, so may
criticism of the anticult group.
Indeed, many of the characteristics attributed to cults
that are
decried by anticultists are mirrored in the doctrine and
activities of their own movement. I'd suggest the inability to
recognize this is a function of deficiencies in critical
thinking.
[snip]
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
mabel@clear.net.nz
> I have experienced situations where the victims will maintain a contact with outsiders only on the grounds that none of the new-found beliefs of the victim are discussed.
In some cases this may be entirely justified, i.e., if
contact
tends to involve endless challenges to the cult member. Who
wants to have to be continually defending their beliefs?
Note also that you use the term "victim" in a blanket
fashion to
refer to cult members. In your mind, it seems the two terms are
synonymous. This demonstrates the tendency of anticultists I've
been pointing out, the unwillingness to engage in the difficult
task of making distinctions. It also demonstrates the use of the
"thought stopper" technique anticultists claim cults use as a
form of mind control.
> Alternatively, the victims will direct parents and friends to the cult’s hierarchy for answers to the various questions, without trying to think through the issues in the same way the outsiders have.
This doesn't apply to TMers, just for the record. One
of the
newsgroups this thread is posted to is alt.meditation.transcendental,
almost all of whose pro-TM participants are just ordinary TMers
responding to challenges and questions concerning TM.
> If sects and cults encouraged all members to openly debate the group’s philosophy with outsiders, then some of the friction that exists today between cult members and outsiders might be avoided.
Such debate could prove useful in many cases, but in
others it
could lead to a situation in which the only interaction between
cult members and outsiders consisted of endless challenges, as I
suggested above, especially if the outsiders have already bought
into the anticult doctrine.
> I think that Judy and Bernie have
gone a bit overboard with all their questions. To deal with these in the researched and detailed manner they seem to be demanding, would result in a dissertation acceptable for a Ph.D!
When a situation involves potential abrogation of
constitutional
rights, it deserves *at least* this much consideration.
> I wish that Judy and Bernie would do
themselves what they seem to want from others, that is, back up every assertion with solid verifiable research.
Judy and Bernie are individuals reporting their
personal
observations. We aren't a *movement*, institutionalized into
well-funded organizations with specific agendas and programs.
And we aren't advocating for actions that might result in
abrogating the right to freedom of belief.
> However, because I have run out of
time and am about to go on holiday for a few days (to a place thankfully where there are no computers), I suggest that readers who are following this debate should spend some time visiting Professor David Lane’s excellent "Neural Surfer" website.
I spent a couple hours there this afternoon. It *is*
an
excellent site, representing a wide range of perspectives. I
particularly liked the response of Pierre de Villiers to a
lengthy negative profile of his teacher, Suma Ching Hai.
Very little of the material I read reflects knee-jerk
anticultist
doctrine of the type I've been complaining about. Most of the
anti- pieces I was able to have a look at were thoughtful and
analytical, going to considerable lengths to make appropriate
distinctions. In many cases they were supportive of some groups
even when they were critical of others.
> Some of the material on this site
may serve to illustrate why thousands of people all around the world have very legitimate concerns about certain sects and cults. The site’s address is:
Note that I have *never* suggested (nor has Bernie,
that I've
seen) that there weren't any legitimate concerns about certain
sects and cults. What we've been pointing out is that the
anticult movement generally is not as careful as it should be
about defining what it considers legitimate concerns.
[snip]
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
mabel@clear.net.nz
> I have experienced situations where the victims will maintain a contact with outsiders only on the grounds that none of the new-found beliefs of the victim are discussed.
In some cases this may be entirely justified, i.e., if
contact
tends to involve endless challenges to the cult member. Who
wants to have to be continually defending their beliefs?
Note also that you use the term "victim" in a blanket
fashion to
refer to cult members. In your mind, it seems the two terms are
synonymous. This demonstrates the tendency of anticultists I've
been pointing out, the unwillingness to engage in the difficult
task of making distinctions. It also demonstrates the use of the
"thought stopper" technique anticultists claim cults use as a
form of mind control.
> Alternatively, the victims will direct parents and friends to the cult’s hierarchy for answers to the various questions, without trying to think through the issues in the same way the outsiders have.
This doesn't apply to TMers, just for the record. One
of the
newsgroups this thread is posted to is alt.meditation.transcendental,
almost all of whose pro-TM participants are just ordinary TMers
responding to challenges and questions concerning TM.
> If sects and cults encouraged all members to openly debate the group’s philosophy with outsiders, then some of the friction that exists today between cult members and outsiders might be avoided.
Such debate could prove useful in many cases, but in
others it
could lead to a situation in which the only interaction between
cult members and outsiders consisted of endless challenges, as I
suggested above, especially if the outsiders have already bought
into the anticult doctrine.
> I think that Judy and Bernie have
gone a bit overboard with all their questions. To deal with these in the researched and detailed manner they seem to be demanding, would result in a dissertation acceptable for a Ph.D!
When a situation involves potential abrogation of
constitutional
rights, it deserves *at least* this much consideration.
> I wish that Judy and Bernie would do
themselves what they seem to want from others, that is, back up every assertion with solid verifiable research.
Judy and Bernie are individuals reporting their
personal
observations. We aren't a *movement*, institutionalized into
well-funded organizations with specific agendas and programs.
And we aren't advocating for actions that might result in
abrogating the right to freedom of belief.
> However, because I have run out of
time and am about to go on holiday for a few days (to a place thankfully where there are no computers), I suggest that readers who are following this debate should spend some time visiting Professor David Lane’s excellent "Neural Surfer" website.
I spent a couple hours there this afternoon. It *is*
an
excellent site, representing a wide range of perspectives. I
particularly liked the response of Pierre de Villiers to a
lengthy negative profile of his teacher, Suma Ching Hai.
Very little of the material I read reflects knee-jerk
anticultist
doctrine of the type I've been complaining about. Most of the
anti- pieces I was able to have a look at were thoughtful and
analytical, going to considerable lengths to make appropriate
distinctions. In many cases they were supportive of some groups
even when they were critical of others.
> Some of the material on this site
may serve to illustrate why thousands of people all around the world have very legitimate concerns about certain sects and cults. The site’s address is:
Note that I have *never* suggested (nor has Bernie,
that I've
seen) that there weren't any legitimate concerns about certain
sects and cults. What we've been pointing out is that the
anticult movement generally is not as careful as it should be
about defining what it considers legitimate concerns.
[snip]
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
kar@neosoft.com (Kurt Arbuckle):
> I am no fan of the typical anticultist. I have yet to agree with very much of what any one of them has said. However, I think that it is their ideas that are bs, and it is very easy for all of us to have bs ideas. I have run accross anticultists on the net who were, IMO, very dishonest amoral people with secondary gain agendas. But I have also run accross many anticultists who just live by reaction just like most of the population does. I don't find anticultists to be any more out of it in general than we all can be at times. Humans have not survived on critical thinking as much as good reflexes.
That may be the case. But if it
is, what sort of position is the
typical anticultist in to claim purported cultists are unable to
think critically?
If you're going to charge the other guy (or group) with
deficiencies in critical thinking, you'd darn well better make
sure your own critical thinking is in order.
I don't think the phrase is used with much of a sense of what it
means. It's a "thought stopper." In my observation,
anticultists tend to use "lack of critical thinking" as a synonym
for "belief in something I think is nutty."
In Mabel's post, we saw that her criterion for the ability to
think critically was the ability to reject the supposed cult one
had belonged to.
It's not so much a matter of whether anticultists are any more
deficient in critical thinking than the average person. It's
that anticultists who are deficient in critical thinking pose
more of a danger to society than the average person, because
their thinking has the potential to have a negative impact on a
constitutional right.
It's a similar situation to those who would impose censorship on
the Internet.
What's of concern is that the anticult movement institutionalizes
the thinking of its members. If that thinking is insufficiently
critical, while it may at first have a negative impact only on
cultists, the institutionalization of a threat to *anyone's*
freedom of belief poses dangers to the freedom of society as a
whole.
When a right guaranteed by the Constitution may potentially be
jeopardized, even if that jeopardy appears to be legitimized
because it rights other wrongs, it's absolutely essential that
the situation be subjected to the most rigorous critical
thinking.
> While I would be among the first to point out
to a specific person the folly of his/her thought processes, I would like to think it is at least in part a desire to give them constructive imput
If rigorous critical thinking does not come from within the
anticult movement, it's incumbent on those outside the movement
to provide it.
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.
