In article <SULYqq2Bbk7B07...@panix.com>,

Snip

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. 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.

As far as people who join cults, I know several people who had excellent
powers of critical thinking before they joined a cult, but after a few
weeks of meditation and other programming techniques, they became more
and more dependent on the group and gradually started to reject family
and friends who were outside the group. It was at this point they started
to believe the Guru was either God incarnate or had spiritual powers far
above those of anyone else on Earth. They started to believe in
reincarnation and that it was necessary to live a celibate life, and to
be a vegetarian. They were also convinced that the Guru was capable of
paranormal feats, even though outside experts could explain with
authority why some of these feats were probably not paranormal. See, for
example, the comments of Dr Terry Todd about the weightlifting claims of
Guru Sri Chinmoy, who says he is a fully realised spiritual Master:

http://outside.starwave.com/magazine/1096/9610febls.html

http://outside.starwave.com/magazine/1096/9610febl.html

So the "deficiency" or "noncritical thinking" of the cult members I know,
was probably induced by the programming techniques used by the Group, and
was almost certainly not due to deficiencies in the critical thinking
powers of these people before they joined the group. After a while, such
people can regain their self sufficiency and powers of critical thinking.
For an example of this, read the following work by Peter McWilliams:

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/lf2appa.htm

Peter says that he stopped doing TM in 1977 when the promise of Cosmic
Consciousness in eight years of regular meditation was not fulfilled.
Read also Peter’s account of cult programming at:

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/lf2toc.htm

We are all very fortunate to have access to such a vast library of
material available on internet. Before joining any group, spiritual or
otherwise, my advice is to do an internet search on it in some detail,
both of web sites and current and old Usenet postings through Deja News,
and then carefully balance out the pros and cons. This would at least
indicate a balanced approach and the exercise of critical thinking!

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <882091004.951713...@dejanews.com>,

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

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.

Then I would question how great their powers of critical thinking
actually were to start with.  It may also be the case that a
person is able to think critically in some areas but not in
others.  And the psychological need to be dependent on a group
may be so strong that it can override critical thinking *about*
the group.

I trust you're not suggesting, by the way, that meditation *per
se* is always a "programming technique."  And I'd ask you what
hard scientific evidence you have that meditation, even in a cult
context, diminishes the ability to think critically.

 It was at this point they started

Sounds a lot like what the followers of Jesus believed (and still
do, for that matter, but I'm thinking of those who followed him
while he was alive).  On what basis would you make a distinction
between cult beliefs in that regard and the beliefs on which many
established religions are founded?

 They started to believe in

Are you saying belief in reincarnation, celibacy, and
vegetarianism is always due to mind control?  If not, how do you
distinguish between sincere belief that is *not* due to mind
control and belief that *is*?

 They were also convinced that the Guru was capable of

"Probably not"?

I make no claims that any guru is capable of paranormal feats.  
But it's important to recognize a demonstration that a given feat
can be accomplished through non-paranormal means is not proof
that this *must* be how it was accomplished in a particular case.  
Again, the assumption to the contrary is an indication of
deficiency in critical thinking.

 See, for

Do you consider Sri Chinmoy's followers to be cultists?

<snip>

I don't think you have made a very definitive case.

 After a while, such

Here you appear to be *defining* critical thinking as the
rejection of the beliefs of the group, rather than examining the
reasons for rejecting those beliefs to see if those reasons were,
in fact, solidly grounded in critical thinking.

Incidentally, in another thread on alt.meditation.transcendental
we've been discussing the promise you cite in some detail; there
are circumstances concerning that promise that aren't reflected
in McWilliams's account, including the fact that when it became
apparent the promise itself was overly optimistic, it was no
longer made.

Here I'll just suggest that rejecting TM because that
*particular* promise was not fulfilled may not be all that
reasonable given the other benefits that result from practice of
TM--a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in
other words.

It's interesting to note that Peter involved himself with more
than one group.  As I recall, TM was the first group.  In any
case, when a person moves from group to group, it's not clear
that there is much justification for the claim that leaving any
of the groups other than the last was a matter of having regained
the ability to think critically.

Membership in several different groups in sequence, indeed,
suggests that the person had an innate need for the sort of
reassurance and security provided by group membership, rather
than that their ability to think critically was inhibited by mind
control.  It's also important to examine such a person's
attitudes once they have stopped joining such groups.  As I
suggested to begin with, it may turn out to be the case that they
have simply transferred their need to belong to a group from
groups considered cults by ...

read more »

ma...@clear.net.nz wrote in article <882091004.951713...@dejanews.com>
(alt.meditation):

        It isn't because cult leaders try and convince their members that
their opponents are unable to think critically that this automatically
rules out the possibility.

        I personally would agree 100% with the statement of Judy. I have
personally observed an amazing lack of critical thinking on the part
of most anti-cultist. This is especially visible when they get
attacked by people who are *not* cultists, or who even might never
have been in a cult. Their ability to accept criticism against their
own "group" is amazingly low - they usually dismiss their critics as
somehow deluded, or still in need of "recovery" from their former
group, and they dismiss scholars who have successfully debunked the
fallacious theory of mind-control as "cult apologists".

        Does it mean that they are not susceptible themselves to fear,
ignorance and paranoia? You don't need to be an ex-cult member to be
subjected to the negative effects of mass hysteria movement. It is a
very common phenomenon, alas.

        What makes you think that the motives they attribute to cults and
cult leaders are the correct ones? What makes you think that these are
not simply their subjective and biased interpretation?

        Define mind-control. Explain how meditation acts as a
mind-control technique.

        This has been unproven since the notion has been around, which
could be roughly estimated to be in the last 30 years. On the
contrary, studies conducted by scholars have indicated that the claims
of anti-cultists could not be substantiated. OTOH, studies conducted
by Margaret Singer, one of the leading figure in the movement, have
been rejected by the APA (American Psychiatric Association), and the
APA has urged its member *not* to treat cult members as if under the
"mind-control".

        They are subjected to the influence of fear, disinformation,
emotional and irrational reaction just like anyone. I would say that
it's precisely their lack of ability to think critically that makes
them subject to superstitious beliefs such as "mind-control".

        How can you know that they had "excellent powers of critical
thinking before they joined a cult"? Can you give examples on what you
are basing yourself to make this statement?

        Would you say that the valid criteria to recognize "mind-control"
is when you start to believe in reincarnation, the necessity to live a
celibate life, and to be a vegetarian?

        Has the matter been definitively proven one way or the other or
are they still controversial?

        Do you think that a zombie state can be attributed to everyone
who believes that Moses opened the Red Sea with a flicker of his arm
or that a virgin gave birth to the son of God who then went about
curing lepers and making bread and fish out of thin air?

        What does your "almost certainly" means? How do you go about
determining their power of critical thinking before they joined and
after they joined?

        How do you determine that? Because they left the cult?

        So, is any disenchanted religionist a victim of mind-control? On
what mind-control definition are you basing yourself to start with?

        What is referred to as "cyberhate" is an increased worry. An
article about this phenomenon can be found at

http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/24/cyberhate.web.site.ap/

        A huge amount of disinformation is gathered about different
groups and repeated around to make it look like if they have any
validity. There may be a basis of truth in them, but there is also a
tremendous amount of distortions, exaggeration and demonization at
play. Someone searching the internet, currently, will only be
confronted with the pro and the anti propaganda, both most often then
not considerably biased. Currently, there is only one source I know
who attempts to be objective and neutral in these matters, and this is
the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance, at

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ocrt_hp.htm

        Usenet posting is a very good mean to see bigotry at work. You
would have to become familiar with the newsgroup, though, which may
take a while. A reasonable person reading enough of it can only come
out with the conclusion that anti-cultists are certainly as biased and
hysterical as cultists. At the end of the day, it gives little real
indication as to the nature of the group one may consider joining.

        This is akin to try to know about the real nature of a group
through newspaper articles, or, for that matter, akin for aliens to
try and figure out what earth societies are really about through
reading  newspapers. I doubt that, at the end of the day, it is very
useful. It only highlights the darkest aspect, whether true or blown
out of proportion.

        "Cults" are hardly distinguishable from religions, except that
they usually mean a much higher involvement. But then, that's
precisely the reason people join them in the first place, because the
traditional churches have become, in their eyes, so aseptic and so
totally unable to inspire them.

Bernie

jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in article
<1ozaqq2BbkfT07...@panix.com> (alt.meditation):

        Not every person who have the dispositions to be involved in a
cult are necessarily in one. Not being or having been in a cult is not
a warranty that one can think critically.

        Critical thinking is not common at all. Quite on the contrary, it
is a rare commodity.

        Persons getting involved in anticult thinking or anticult
activities aren't usually doing it for reason of a superior ability to
think critically, but quite on the contrary by a lack in this
aptitude. It has little to with whether or not the person is an
ex-member or not, even though the psychological mechanisms are
respectively different.

        The anticult line of thought has a definite and recognizable
pattern. It is, by itself a doctrine: the victim is being deceived by
the group and the leader who use techniques of mind-control to suspend
the recruit's freedom of choice. The group only uses religion as a
cover for what is basically a physical, emotional, intellectual and
spiritual exploitation of the member to further the group and its
leaders own greed for money,  power, and sometimes sex. The "thought
process" of the "victim" is supposed to be damaged by means of this
mind-control and the physical exhaustion. The victim becomes a slave
for the group leaders, at the sacrifice of a "successful" career and a
"fulfilling" social life.

        That's, basically the line. The implied fear, guilt, and urgency
in such a doctrine is enough to "enrol" anticult members in their
crusade, whether they are ex-members or not, and especially if they
are parents of cult members. These are then out to "save" the member
from a life in the cult by means of "enlightening" them about their
brainwashed conditions. They usually also believe that they are saving
the world from the threat of the evil cults.

        Of course, this all is a caricature and a bit of a simplified
picture. The reality is somewhat more nuanced and, like in any other
radical movement, they are more moderate members, and others who are
dangerous extremists.

        They claim that they are only addressing the "actions" of the
cults and not its beliefs, but when you have a closer look at it, you
see that this isn't the case.

        This is the reason why anticult proponents and doctrine are a
greater threat to civil liberties than cults. Anticult proponents
claim that their actions of "informing" the public about cults does
not compare to the actions of the cults, but this isn't the purpose of
the anticult movement either. Their purpose is to create such an
atmosphere of intolerance against the groups they target that cult
members become dehumanized droids against which discriminative actions
are justified. Such a campaign aim (unconsciously) to bring about an
hysterical reaction from the public and authorities, not so much from
anticultists themselves (although they did their fair share of
kidnapping people from cult before, until the legal and academic
community turned against them). This is what helped the precipitation
of tragedies like Jonestown and Waco.

        And that's their biggest mistake. There certainly are objective
criticism to be brought about cults, but the zeal of anticultists
doesn't make it worthwhile for reasonable opponents to pursue it in
that context. Just like there is a part of truth in "cults", but which
is overall being discredited by the darkest aspect of the group, the
truth carried by the anticult movement is being overridden by their
own extremism. I have yet to see an anticult movement whose members
would have themselves the self-reflective qualities they requires from
cult members.

        Exactly.

        That's basically what it amounts to when you critically examine
the anticult arguments themselves. The belonging in the cult is what
mainly defines mind-control, as well as loads of other accusations.

        Well, in the case of TM, they actually have some members who can
think, argue and present the other side of the story. It isn't the
case in other specific newsgroups, where those objecting to the abuses
of anticult members are outsider who may not have the interest, time
or patience to do a thorough work. The wave of the majority then just
makes the task impossible, and the newsgroup end up being populated
with anticultists who constantly reinforce each others' beliefs and
delusions.

Bernie

: ma...@clear.net.nz wrote in article <882091004.951713...@dejanews.com>
: (alt.meditation):
:
: >In article <SULYqq2Bbk7B07...@panix.com>, jst...@ziplink.net wrote:
:
: >> 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.
:
: >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.
:
:       I personally would agree 100% with the statement of Judy. I have
: personally observed an amazing lack of critical thinking on the part
: of most anti-cultist. This is especially visible when they get
: attacked by people who are *not* cultists, or who even might never
: have been in a cult. Their ability to accept criticism against their
: own "group" is amazingly low - they usually dismiss their critics as
: somehow deluded, or still in need of "recovery" from their former
: group, and they dismiss scholars who have successfully debunked the
: fallacious theory of mind-control as "cult apologists".

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.

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, albeit
sometimes in a rather forceful or unorthodox manner.  Unless of course
they piss me off, in which case, f--k 'em, they're skum.

Happy holidays everyone,
Kurt

In article <1ozaqq2BbkfT07...@panix.com>,

snip

There will always be some people in any group who are a bit naive or who
do not think as critically as others. I maintain, however, that most
people whose children or former friends have suddenly deserted them under
the influence of some cult or other, can often see through the cult’s
motives and operations more clearly than the person who has been sucked
in. Why is this? Simply because the outsider is prepared to discuss and
research all aspects of the particular cult, whereas many of the victims
are trained to close their minds to anything that is the least bit
critical of the group. 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. 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. 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.

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! 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. 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. 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:

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/

This site focuses on Shabd Yoga, Eckankar, MSIA, Da Free John, Cults,
Consciousness studies, Ken Wilber, Deepak Chopra, Sathya Sai Baba, the
development of new religious movements in North America, Indian and
American Gurus, Eastern and Western Philosophy, Neuroscience, Quantum
Mechanics, Parapsychology, Ethics, Theosophy, Radhasoami, and the
original works of Paul O’Brien. If you have not previously studied this
material, I suggest that it will add to your knowledge of this subject
considerably.

snip

Sri Chinmoy claims that he has lifted with one arm, a weight of some
7,000 pounds. Well, experts have gone on record saying that no human
could possibly lift even a small fraction of such a weight. For example,
Dr. Terry Todd has stated that a one-armed lift of just 200 pounds would
tax an Olympic Champion. I rest my case, this example says it all.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

I don't really have time, but I couldn't resist changing the order
of some of the statements from this person that loves deductive
reasoning.

:
: If sects and cults encouraged
: all members to openly debate the group0x92s philosophy with outsiders, then
: some of the friction that exists today between cult members and outsiders
: might be avoided.

but a little later on we read:

: 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!

and then there are these two interesting points :-)

: 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.

and

: I suggest that readers who are following this debate should
: spend some time visiting Professor David Lane's excellent "Neural Surfer"
: website. 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.

Ain't newsgroups the greatest?

Kurt