From: TurquoiseBee <turquoi...@yahoo.com> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another view of the "Maharishi pandit program"
This bodes well. :-) You can always tell when Judy has gone totally apoplectic and is about to launch into another round of "shoot the messenger" and other forms of cult apologetics when she can't figure out how to reply and makes two "empty" posts in a row. Much to look forward to... :-) Definition: Cult Apologist Apologetics is the study and practice of the intellectual defense of a belief system. An apologist is someone "who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution." A cult apologist is someone who consistently or primarily defends the teachings and/or actions of one or more movements considered to be cults - as defined sociologically and/or theologically. Note that the term ''cult apologist'' is technical, and not (as some of them claim) derogatory - in the same sense that cult defender Massimo Introvigne mentions ''... apostates' (a technical, not a derogatory term).'' Alternative terms used include: ''cult defenders,'' ''cult sympathizers.'' Cult apologists generally defend their views by claiming to champion religious freedom and religious tolerance. However, they tend to be particularly intolerant toward those who question and critique the movements they defend. Some cult apologists and their supporters (including, sadly, a handful of Christians, spend much time and energy attacking the very term "cult apologist." It is telling that, for the most part, they refuse to deal with the very serious issues surrounding cult apologists. Their Tactics Cult apologists employ a number of tactics in their fight against the anti-cult and counter-cult movements. Appeal to Academic Position Some academic cult apologists attempt to create a credibility gap between themselves and what they refer to as "so-called 'cult experts'" or "self-proclaimed 'cult experts'." In doing so they try to create the false impression that a) there are no - or few - academics within the anticult- or countercult movements, and b) that one can not be an expert without being credentialed. Appeal to Religious Position Some cult apologists are theologians, and some even act as ministers. Incredibly, a few claim to be Christians. Don't let titles and positions fool you. Keep in mind what the Bible says about people who claim to represent God, but who support and promote false teachings: For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 NIV Attacks on apostates Among the most dangerous challenges to the work of cult apologists is the testimony of ex-cult members (apostates). Therefore, cult defenders claim that apostates can not be relied upon to tell the truth (e.g. this statement by J. Gordon Melton, and this one by Lonnie Kliever). However, professor of psychology Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi states: Recent and less recent NRM catastrophes help us realize that in every single case allegations by hostile outsiders and detractors have been closer to reality than any other accounts. Ever since the Jonestown tragedy, statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of apologists and NRM researchers. [...more...] Source: Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi Attacks on their critics Increasingly, cult apologists and their defenders spend much time and energy attacking their critics, while refusing to deal with the issues their critics draw attention to. Dismissal of brainwashing/mind control theories A second serious challenge to the work of cult apologists is the fact that people sometimes can be influenced to do things that go against their nature, rational beliefs and common sense. Cult defenders vehemently oppose brainwashing and mind control theories. Yet other sociologists clearly recognize the 'social and psychological forces' unleashed by cults: I am not personally opposed to the existence of NRMs and still less to the free exercise of religious conscience. I would fight actively against any governmental attempt to limit freedom of religious expression. Nor do I believe it is within the competence of secular scholars such as myself to evaluate or judge the cultural worth of spiritual beliefs or spiritual actions. However, I am convinced, based on more than three decades of studying NRMs through participant-observation and through interviews with both members and ex-members, that these movements have unleashed social and psychological forces of truly awesome power. These forces have wreaked havoc in many lives - in both adults and in children. It is these social and psychological influence processes that the social scientist has both the right and the duty to try to understand, regardless of whether such understanding will ultimately prove helpful or harmful to the cause of religious liberty. Source: Benjamin Zablocki, The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion. ________________________________ Social scientists seeking to debunk the brainwashing conjecture have often spoken as if extensive research has already been done on the behavior of cult participants and as if definitive conclusions could now be formed. And, indeed, there has been a great deal published concerning cults in the past ten years. However, a close examination of this vast quantity of writings shows that it is based upon a very skimpy body of actual data. Most of the best research that has been done consists of ethnographic monographs on single NRMs, and all of this remains to be synthesized. The few epidemiological or other comparative and quantitative studies have most often been based upon small sample sizes and unrepresentative samples.69 I also think some researchers have been naive in underestimating the ability of cults to put a favorable spin on research findings by "helping" social science investigators get in touch with subjects to be interviewed. At the other end of the spectrum, samples based upon psychiatric outpatient lists are similarly biased. Benjamin Zablocki, The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion. ________________________________ My work on the subject as well as that of Richard Ofshe, Marybeth Ayella, Robert Cialdini, Amy Siskand, Roy Wallis, Philip Zimbardo, and others has never been directly confronted, much less refuted by sociologists of religion. Rather it has been defamed,ridiculed, or ignored. There has been a sophisticated and subtle form of intellectual bullying by an entrenched majority within the discipline of a small minority composed of both sincere scholars and academic opportunists. Benjamin Zablocki, The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion. Additional excerpts from Zablocki's article can be read here. The Apologetics Index position on brainwashing and/or mind control is shown here. Semantics Games Cult apologists don't like the word "cult." They say that the word has taken on negative connotations, and claim it is generally used pejoratively. Therefore, instead of educating the public on the proper meaning of the term, they promote the use of what they consider to be more neutral terms. These include New Religious Movements (NRMs), Alternative Religious Movements (ARMs), or simply Religions. (They'll use the term "cult" in their marketing efforts, though. Check their self-produced site descriptions in search engines, and take a look at their META tags). Leo Pfeffer's illogical and inaccurate statement on religions, sects and cults is often quoted by cult apologists in their efforts at redefining terms. Too, cult apologists sometimes claim that counter-cult professionals are "anti-religion" - a ludicrous lie that demonstrates the length to which these cult defenders will go in their deceit. Misrepresentation and/or Bias While cult apologists frequently chide cult experts in anticult- and countercult movements for allegedly misrepresenting the beliefs and practices of cults and sects, cult defenders themselves have regularly been caught in blatant misrepresenation and/or bias. >From the claim by James Lewis, J. Gordon Melton and others, that Japanese cult >Aum Shinrikyo - a terrorist group - was innocent of criminal charges in the >poison gas attacks and could not have produced Sarin, to Melton's claim that the Local Church, a cult of Christianity is an orthodox movement, cult defenders often are dead wrong and refuse to correct their errors. This problem is addressed in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's article, Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, and is documented extensively by Stephen Kent and Theresa Krebs in their paper, Alternative Religions and Their Academic Supporters. See also, The Farce Revealed: Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective, by Peter Arnone Beit Hallahmi writes: Something like a party line has developed among NRM scholars about the way NRMs are described and analyzed. This consensus is responsible for a new conformity which seems to put strict limits on researchers' curiosity. This it has also led to advocacy, as in the cases of Aum Shinrikyo and David Koresh, public expressions of support for an NRM in conflict with its environment. NRM researchers engaged in advocacy are expressing a feeling and a reality of partnership and collaboration with NRMs in a common cultural struggle. [...] It is not a question of some loose cannons on the margins of the research community. What we have is not an ''activist'' minority and a silent majority, but a supportive, collaborating majority. Our colleagues are entitled to many presumptions of innocence, but not just doubts but pieces of evidence are piling up. I personally feel embarrassed, ashamed, and betrayed. In light of what we have witnessed we are forced to re-read, our eyes fresh with suspicion, the whole corpus of NRM literature. Source: Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research Cult defenders also tend to misrepresent the anticult- and countercult movements (as well as invididuals within these movements). One way they attempt to marginalize or dismiss these movements is by - ironically - misrepresenting their beliefs and practices. A prime example, is the paper From Parchment to Pixels: The Christian Countercult on the Internet, by rising cult apologist Douglas Cowan (1) . Cowan's comments on Anton Hein, publisher of Apologetics Index, are addressed here. Matt Slick, who operates CARM counters Cowan here, especially paying attention to Cowan's perculiar - and clearly biased - choice of words in describing organizations and inviduals. See also these comments by CARM's Matt Paulson. One can only wonders why an academic like Mr. Cowan persists in misreprensenting people and issues he writes about. Lying Some cult apologists go a step further. For example, on a Christian mailing list, one amateur cult-apologist with a particular interest in defending Jehovah's Witnesses - theologically, a cult of Christianity - blatantly lied in response to a statement I made.I wrote: The vast majority of anti-cult and counter-cult professionals support freedom of religion. What we object to, however, is physical, mental and/or spiritual abuse. Source: Anton Hein, Message to CHRISTIA (bit.listserv.christia), Feb. 4, 1999. Message ID: 36be9da6.45499...@smtp.xs4all.nl Mr. Hardy's response: The problem is however that there is no proof of such abuse. Rather people like you attempt to manufacture it to sustain your cottage industry. Source: Barry L. Hardy, Message to CHRISTIA (bit.listserv.christia), Feb. 5, 1999. It is somewhat ironic to hear a law student lie by suggesting someone he disagrees with manufactures evidence. Sadly, there is of course ample, documented proof of cult abuse - much of which is documented throughout this site. That includes - but is not limited to - killing people with poison gas, like Aum Shinrikyo did; engaging in hate- and harassment activities, like Scientologists do; encouraging people to commit suicide, like (among others) Heaven's Gate did; heavy-handed 'discipling,' such as employed by the International Churches of Christ; or forbidding members to obtain proper medical care, such as Jehovah's Witnesses do. Despite Hardy's claim, I do not earn any money from apologetics and countercult work, and thus am not interested in maintaining an alleged "cottage industry." Not all cult apologists are such blatant liars or have such a poor grasp of facts, but the record shows that most of them misrepresent important issues in their eagerness to defend cults.
