From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:40:27 GMT

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>In article <schafmei.724038030@sfu.ca> schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:

>>What kinds of laws or programs could be created
>>that would limit the damage done to society by these
>>cults?

>	As much as one might despite the Church of Spiritual Technology or
>the International Soceity for Krishna Conciousness or the Children of God
>or any other such group,  we need to remember that many of today's well-
>respected religious traditions aso have a dark history.  Jesus Christ
>was not well regarded by governmental authorities.  In fact,  we really
>don't know all that much about what happened around Jesus,  if we realize
>that the books of the Bible are not only contradictory but are also probably
>revisionist to some extent.  Similarly,  Mohammad ran into resistance from
>various authorities as well as Martin Luther and groups such as the Quakers.

>	Well-respected religions also have done some pretty bad things
>historically.  Think of the Christians burning the library of Alexandria,
>or all of the hate between different factions of muslims.

The contemporary versions of these religions are benign
that doesn't justify what they did.

>>My own ideas are the following:
>>
>>Cults need a constant influx of mostly young people.
>>Older people are probably wiser or too set in their ways
>>to be seduced by glitzy advertising.

>	Well,  young people are particularly vulnerable,  because people do
>tend to go through several life crisises as young adults,  but so are
>people at any crisis point in life.  After the death of a spouse,  or in
>mid-life crisis or very old age are points where people are vulnerable.
>For instance,  Lyndon LaRouche's political cult was famous for preying on
>old,  rich,  widows.  Of course,  he wouldn't try to make them join the
>movement,  only get them to give money because "The Reagan Revolution is
>in trouble..."

>>Also, most people who work within cults should eventually
>>learn that they aren't getting anything worthwile and
>>drop out or they become too poor to continue.

>	This is very true,  and it's why cults really aren't as dangerous as
>some people think -- Yes,  a few people do get seriously mentally injured
>and physically hurt (or die) as a result of cults,  but the majority of
>people who enter cults eventually do leave.  The main "brainwashing" technique
>used by cults is to surround members with other members all the time.  The
>Hare Krishna people do this in a crude way by having them all live together,
>whereas the Scientologists do this by filling people's heads with weird ideas
>and vocabulary so that pretty soon the only people that they can talk to
>are other Scientologists.  Sooner or later,  most people do "burn out" and
>end up leaving and hanging out with ordinary people again and they recover.


>>Maybe if a law were created that prevented religious
>>organizations from contacting ex-members,
>>ex-members might be more willing to speak up against
>>cults.
>>This might accelerate the dissolution of the cult.

>	This reminds me of how my mother still receives a book every year
>from the local Polish catholic church back home that lists how much everybody
>donated to the church.  She hasn't been to the church in years.  Similarly,
>the Catholic church considers my (late) father to be a Catholic,  even though
>he also has nothing to do with the church.

Yeah, there is no clear line that can be drawn here.
That particular suggestion was not a very good one.

>>[text deleted]

>	Cults actually are less harmful than alot of things.  Much of the
>explosion in cults in the early 1970's came from the collapse of the Haight-
>Ashbury culture.  Although psychedelic drugs are used by cultures all over
>the world as part of a coming-of-age process for adolescents,  much of the
>uncontrolled experimentation in conciousness (and the rest of the stuff
>going down) produced alot of people who were not really ready yet to
>function in the world.  So,  these people end up inside these alternate
>social groups (cults) that probably actually did do some people some good,
>since they might have starved to death otherwise.

Yes, there are alot more harmful things in the world,
but we are talking about scientology.
I would say that religious organizations that prey on
gullible people have been around for a lot longer than the 60's.

Starved to death?  How?

>	The only real answer to cults is to innoculate people with healthy
>skepticism.  

It is much easier to make laws than to educate people.

.Chris.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology