Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer1.nac.net!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: "Shattered" minds Date: 28 Nov 1998 08:53:56 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 176 Message-ID: <3664298d.4811206@news.concentric.net> References: <7348qn$356@enews3.newsguy.com> <36591f16.3389495@news.concentric.net> <3656d391.2564760@enews.newsguy.com> <365a3833.6264140@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <365b8a82.3217272@enews.newsguy.com> <365e1bb9.14240023@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <73m5e5$2nm@enews2.newsguy.com> <365ed996.62851992@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <73mved$10n@enews1.newsguy.com> <365f7587.102779578@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <73oobp$mgg@enews2.newsguy.com> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts041d27.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:148413 "Rebecca Hartong" : >People make unwise choices. I've made unwise choices. Unwise choices were a way of life for me. Scienotology is not simply an unwise choice. It is a predatory con which preys on the naive, idealistic and vulnerable of society, harms or destroys the families, finances, critical thinking and eventually the sanity of those who follow its processing program. >It's >unfortunate when they are hurt by these choices, but I much prefer living in >a society where the right to make these choices is preserved. It's more than "unfortunate," I fear. It's a dangerous, unlicensed, bait-and-switch fraud, posing as an alternative therapy posing as a religion. Predation is written into its dogma. >Uh huh. I don't think it's all that extraordinary to claim that cult >members have a harder time tolerating ambiguity than other people do, but... >if I were really concerned about whether you accept my ideas I suppose I'd >be able to come up with some additional proof. Considering the fluid nature >of social psychology, though, there would always remain other worthwhile >theories. I know you don't care what Connor thinks, and you believe you have answered my questions (which you certainly haven't), but don't you think you should, for the sake of the exhausted and faithful Reader, back up your words with some examples? If not, I understand. I don't wanna be pushy. 3 >> IOW, you have to explain it, again and again, to those of >> use rooted in a different mindset. but i hope when you do, >> you are able to respond to the specific objections that >> people might have concerning this philosophy. rebecca >You may want me to explain it again and again, but I don't feel under any >particular obligation to do so. You were not under any obligation to voice your opinions, either. But it would be nice if you backed them up with something more than your "I don't care what you think anyway" dismissive rhetoric. >A.r.s. is not academia and you're not the >review board of some hot-shot journal and I'm not a young social >psychologist yearning for her first big break. Civilized discourse does not demand such conditions. >None of this is all that >important. Please feel free to reject my ideas. I, for one, don't fully understand them. >>>The "personal responsibility angle" is sort of an off-shoot of this >>>discussion and isn't, by any means, a complete representation of my >thoughts >>>on this subject. >> >> if you say. however, it does seem to come up whenever we're >> talking about how people get manipulated into doing harmful things. > >Yes, it has certainly come up before. It seems to me that the personal >responsibility angle is underrepresented on a.r.s. You are certainly falling down on the job as its spokesperson. >People do often choose >to get into harmful and/or unwise relationships. Cult membership isn't all >that different from some of the other, more common, relationships of that >type in my opinion. I don't believe people are necessarily manipulated in >any very unusual way into getting into these relationships. I think that >most of the time they *choose* to become and to remain involved because they >believe the relationship is a good thing. You don't think that they have been lured in, mindfucked and at some point discover that things have not been as represented, all along, and leave? >Later, when it no longers seems >like such a good thing, they choose to end their involvement. Sometimes >making that choice is very difficult. Becoming a victim of predatory fraud is not just another lifestyle choice. >>> What is "cultic behavior"? >> >> well now, that is a good question. i was trying to encompass a >> broad sweep of issues related to cults in the question. but >> specifically, for starters, cutlic behavior includes: >> 1. whatever causes people to get deeply involved in manipulative, >> fraudulent, or abusive behavior systems and situations; > >Would this include the abusive situation some people find themselves in with >their spouses or significant others? Some aspects would be similar, others different. >Would it include the military? Any kind of indoctrination would have similarities. The licensing or governmental sanctioning of such indoctrination would be a big difference. >That's certainly a manipulative group. So is K-12. >How about people who start running with a >wild crowd where heavy drinking and drug use are involved? There are >elements of manipulation and certainly abusive behavior in those situations. Some. All groups have traits in common. >> 2. whatever keeps people committed to those manipulative, >> etc. behavior systems for extended periods of time; > >What if they actually feel they're getting something out of the >relationship? Does that count? Like the members of a street gang distributing meth or coke? >What if they don't *feel* like they're >being manipulated? Isn't it true that for the most part the feeling of >having been manipulated comes *after* one has ended the relationship? If they live through it. >How >can we be sure how much of that feeling is based on reality and how much of >it is just sour grapes? Isn't it, to a large extent, subjective? To those who have had no objective contact with the cult, perhaps it is. But it's our job to objectify the manipulation and fraud. And there is certainly nothing subjective about Lisa McPherson's cockroach-eaten body being transported to a scieno doktor in the next county. >> 3. whatever causes, and what it takes to repair the harms resulting >> from such involvements, including financial losses, loss of >> development of social interaction capabilities, psychological >> traumas, etc. > >So, anyone who's hurt by anything is involved in cultic behavior? Be careful of landing wrong when you make such a leap. You could sprain someone's brain. >I'm sure >that's not what you mean, but this seems awfully broad. If I invest in a >MLM scheme and lose a bunch of money, a bunch of friends, and generally come >away from the experience feeling like a complete chump, have I been involved >in cultic behavior? You have been victimized by an illegal fraud. >How does cultic behavior differ from just feeling angry >and disappointed after having taken an unwise course of action? >You see? Lots and lots of ambiguity! ;-) To you, there is ambiguity. That is only because you are trying to be "objective" without making any contact with the object of your opinions. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *