In article <882434895.586022...@dejanews.com>,

Can they really?  What are their sources of information, and how
reliable are they?

 Why is this? Simply because the outsider is prepared to discuss and

This is certainly possible in some cases.  But again, the
outsider needs to be very careful about the sources s/he consults
for information about the cult.

 I have experienced situations where the victims

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

I'm delighted to have been made aware of the Neural Surfer
site--thank you, Mabel--and would strongly recommend it to
anyone who is interested in examining these issues.

<snip>

Oh?  If this isn't an example of unclear thinking, I don't know
what is.

Sri Chinmoy is claiming to have exercised a *supernormal* power,
one that ordinary human beings (including Olympic champions) do
not possess.  All Todd's "rebuttal" does is contradict this claim
(i.e., there *are* no humans who have such powers); it offers no
evidence against it.

To disprove the claim, Todd would have to demonstrate that Sri
Chinmoy did *not* lift this weight.

You sure you want to rest your case, Mabel?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+     Judy Stein  *  The Author's Friend  *  jst...@ziplink.net    +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++