Message from discussion Degree of pathology among ex-members
From: "Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Degree of pathology among ex-members
References: <3908F600.23E5@user.name> <390A4D54.19CE@user.name> <3HLO4.40931$WF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <390B9A69.7EAA@user.name> <390BB0FA.63E5@user.name> <email@example.com> <390C46AA.2F8E@user.name>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 957112266 126.96.36.199 (Sun, 30 Apr 2000 16:31:06 GMT)
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 16:31:06 GMT
<n...@user.name> wrote in message news:390C46AA.2F8E@user.name...
> Tilman Hausherr wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 04:06:19 GMT, n...@user.name wrote in
> > <390BB0FA.6...@user.name>:
> > >Dr. Bromley's homepage:
> > d) David G. Bromley <dbrom...@saturn.vcu.edu>
> > http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dbromley/
> > Professor of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond
> > and Shupe's academic twin. He and Shupe regularly publish books together
> > about the nastiness of "apostates".
> > Participated in the filing of an amicus brief in the Molko case "for"
> > the APA/ASA (American Psychological Association / American Sociological
> > Association). Both the APA and the ASA later withdrew their names.
> > David Bromley is on the referral list of the scientology-run Cult
> > Awareness Network
> > http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/referral/
> > and of "The Family"
> > http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/referrals/experts.htm
> > He supports scientology misrepresenting its beliefs in this "Expertise
> > on Confidential Religious Writings":
> > http://www.theta.com/copyright/bromley.htm
> > The following is a book excerpt quoted by scientology, from his book
> > "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the
> > Transformation of Religious Movements":
> > "...One critical result of external intervention is
> > that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted
> > into the former as external opponents actively recruit
> > exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide
> > social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret
> > personal troubles as organizational problems, and control
> > role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a
> > price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to
> > disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of
> > subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the
> > organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there
> > may be little opportunity to do so."
> > Here an article excerpt from "Linking social structure and the exit
> > process in religious organizations: Defectors, whistle-blowers, and
> > apostates", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, March 1998:
> > "Protracted conflict between the organization and oppositional
> > coalition creates possibilities for extended apostate careers.
> > Apostates may pursue a variety of strategies to solidify their
> > careers: acquiring various credentials that support a more
> > permanent social niche; inflating prior organizational status to
> > enhance the value of their testimony to control agencies;
> > modifying the narrative content to appeal to specific interests
> > within the oppositional coalition; and embellishing the
> > narrative so as to heighten audience interest."
> > Here is one of his theories why mind control does not exist:
> > http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dbromley/paper-satanismandanticultism.htm
> > "There is no plausible explanation for how such a diverse array
> > of groups from different parts of the world and with no
> > connection to one another -- the Hare Krishnas from India, the
> > Unificationists from Korea, The Family in the United States --
> > all discovered and implemented this psycho-technology at
> > precisely the same moment."
> > The "technology" for mind control is well explained (Lifton, see
> > http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b07.html). It is Prof. Bromley's problem
> > that he hasn't found out why all these different groups use the same
> > methods. I guess Prof. Bromley also doubts that e.g. children manipulate
> > their parents at the cash register waiting line; after all, millions of
> > children cannot all have discovered and implemented this "technology".
> > David Bromley admiring the moonies:
> > "Some new religions seek to nurture strong autonomous
> > individuals. The Unification Church, however, takes the
> > approach of creating a better family, or church, in the
> > expectation the group will shape and improve the character of
> > individual members. The idea is that a stronger family, or
> > group, will expand outward in concentric circles to influence
> > people, churches and organizations outside the Unification
> > Church."
> > (Insight, 6.7.1998)
> > --
> > Tilman Hausherr ** Inventor of the "Driving Principle" **
> > til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/faq-you/moonies.txt
> > "I do not know about outside world"
> > (wife of Washington Times president to a reporter)
> Nice bit of pseudo-facts. Shows you know there's a great body of
> academia and researchers out there with credentials that go far beyond
> your "hobby" credentials, and you know it. But what does your
> pseudo-facts really reveal? Content-wise? That Bromley is "guilty" of
> being affiliated with Scientology and The Family because someone listed
> him on their website? Come on, you know the issue runs deeper than that.
> Here are the facts. The anti-cult movement, (which you're "guilty by
> association" by having such groups listed on your homepage -- hey,
> what's good for the goose is good for the gander), does not have any
> credibility other than the support it gets from the public and media by
> means of inciting prejudices and ignorance through misinformation. The
> anti-cult movements' pseudo-science hasn't gotten accepted in the courts
> for over a decade, once everybody wised up to your scam. The Christian
> churches dropped you people long ago after the ACMs began to go after
> them with the same "brainwashing" allegations. You people haven't got a
> leg to stand and you know it. The only reason you're still here trying
> to spread your disinformatin on ARU is the public hasn't been allowed to
> know the facts yet because of the complicity of the anti-religious media
> and journalists -- and you've convinced a few nutcase apostates with
> your pseudo-scientific "evidence."
> Tilman, you're tireless in your putting the ACM spin on things. Even if
> the Pope were to come out and tell you you're wrong and are possessed by
> Satan, you'd still keep up the "cause." But that's the nature of
> possession. (Ephesian 6:12)
> Here, let me leave you with a quote from other experts who have
> credentials that you'll discredit with your usual ad hominem:
> There appear to be major disciplinary differences on the issue of cult
> brainwashing. Most sociologists and psychologists of religion reject
> brainwashing theories, whereas many clinical psychologists and
> psychiatrists apparently give them some credence (Richardson, 1997). The
> views of the latter are also much more widely accepted among the general
> public and among journalists and organs of mass media, as well, a
> circumstance with important implications for admissibility (Gatowski et
> al., 1997).
> Thus, journals in the field of psychiatry may publish brainwashing based
> articles with no suggestion of the problematic nature of the evidence
> for such theories. Also, more popular "anti-cult" publications and the
> popular media disseminate brainwashing theories quite readily. Many
> fewer people are aware of the vast literature from sociology and
> psychology of religion, the results of which refute brainwashing
> theories, and which depend on much more mundane theories to explain
> participation in such groups and movements.
> A CRITIQUE OF "BRAINWASHING" EVIDENCE IN LIGHT OF DAUBERT:
> SCIENCE AND UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS
> By James T. Richardson and Gerald Ginsburg (University of Nevada, Reno);
> from: Helen Reece (ed.) (1998), Law and Science: Current Legal Issues,
> Vol. 1. Oxford University Press,
> pp. 265-288.
> Yes, "many fewer people are aware of the vast literature from sociology
> and psychology of religion, the results of which refute brainwashing
> theories." That's the real issue here! But you'd rather not talk about
> such evidence, would you? Easier just to pretend you're the expert. And,
> hey, you've managed to convince Bill Taylor and Craig Maxim, so you must
> be right? Right? NOT!!
How about something a little more subtle...like undue influence and
Manipulation of facts and information?
Withholding of critical information so that a person can make a sound
decision regarding their choices...
Brainwashing is something that the NRM likes to wave around as something
that is "current"...when the NRMs have learned their lesson...
Blame the victim is another tactic that is popular with the "scholar's" of
NRMs too....why would that be?