Counter to Proplog2 on Cults

by Amazing 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing

  Proplog2 has engaged in a serious debate on those who support the identification of cults ... and much of the material he cites has been aimed at discrediting Margaret Singer, a known expert on cults.

  I checked the following as suggested by Proplog2:

  ”Anyone who speaks against Singer is labeled a "cult-apologist". If you don't know about Margaret Singer do a search on GOOGLE.COM using the following words MARGARET SINGER & APA “

  I conducted this search and checked the first page of sites. Most of them are supported by Scientology, or on Scientology web site. The Church of Scientology has been in a war with Singer and the Cult Awareness Network for years. Likewise Cesnur is cited, which was founded by Roman Catholics in Italy ... and Cesnur this year is being hosted by Brigham Young University (BYU aka - Mormons) ... wonder of wonders.

  Proplog2 says, “APA is the main professional association of Psychologists.”

  True, but this is not exactly clear to the reader. The Acronym “APA” also represents the “American Philosophical Association” which is quoted in one of the Scientology links ... Also the term “APA” can stand for the American Psychiatric Association.

  The American Psychiatric Association is far more advanced on mental health, and thus qualified to deal with cults and mind-control. The different between “Psychologists and Psychiatrists” is similar to the difference between Optometrists and Ophthalmologists. One is a lesser level of professional practice and expertise, while the other is greater.

  If we get away from the Scientology sites and go right to the American Psychological site at http://www.apa.org/ and conduct a search on Margaret Singer, you will find NOTHING ... no statements of discrediting Singer or her studies on cults.

  If we go to the American Philosophical Association site at http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/index.html and conduct a search on Margaret Singer, we again find NOTHING ... no statements discrediting her studies on cults.

  If we go to the American Psychiatric Association http://www.psych.org we again find nothing on Margaret Singer ... But wait ... Lord have Mercy on my poor wretched soul ... what do we FIND?

  The following is what one professional Psychiatrist says about cults in the American Psychiatric Association News:

  “Psychiatric News has been providing excellent coverage of how the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) has been thrown into bankruptcy by litigious Scientologists as well as the longstanding propaganda campaign that Scientology has waged against psychiatry. However, the focus of the coverage may have led some readers to believe that CAN was little more than an anti-Scientology group.

  In fact, the CAN office in Chicago served as a clearinghouse for extensive data on destructive cult groups of all sorts, and it was a respected source of information on such groups to media all over the world.”

  You can read the rest of the article by clicking on http://www.psych.org/pnews/97-01-17/hochman.html There you will see that a Ph.D. in Psychiatry supports CAN and understands how Scientologists have labored hard to discredit the anti-cult knowledge that has emerged in the last 20 years. There you have it.

  If you want more information, I suggest emailing the American Psychiatric Association President Philip G. Zimbardo, PhD. Go to the APA site at http://www.psych.org and click on Office of the President, and then click on his email (contact) line ... ask about Margaret Singer and CAN or the current scientific understand on cults.

  Proplog2, you will have to do better then quoting or citing material from the Church of Scientology or Cesnur - get your facts straight directly from all three APA organizations ... citing Scientologists as an authority is like You Know citing Lyndon LaRoache on political and financial information.
• 

  TheStar

  Amazing doesn't Steven Hassen's book "Releasing the Bonds" say that CAN after going bankrupt was actually bought out by Scientologist, so CAN is no longer a reliable source?
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Star: I have not read his book, "Releasing the Bonds." I have never heard whether CAN was bought out by Scientologists - but I would not be surprised. Scientology hates the term 'cult' and is at a greater war with it then other groups are, even the JWs.

  I spent time emailing with a Scientologist who responded to a legal question I had on an Attorney site. She did not disclose until our second round of email that she was not attorney. We discussed the JWs at length ... and she supports the Watchtower Society in its Church Government, right to Disfellowship and shun former members ... and she feels that former members are just disgruntled trouble-makers ... wonder of wonders ...

  Let me know if you can get the source to quote that CAN was bought by Scientologists ... because that would prove most interesting. Thanks. It would be liuke discovering that Lyndon LaRouche bought the CIA.
• 

  detective

  TheStar,
  Yes, Hassan says that. Also, I believe it is on his website.

  www.freedomofmind.com
• 

  TheStar

  Hi Amazing,

  I just started reading the book. I'll quote what it says on page 23-24.

  **********************************************
  "Releasing the Bonds" By Steven Hassan Pg. 23-24

  "NOTE: BE CAREFUL! For many years the nonprofit Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was a grass roots organization which provided information and support to those in need. In 1996, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) name, logo, and phone number was purchased by a member of the Church of Scientology in federal bakruptcy court. CAN is now operating by cult members or their defenders who do not believe that mind control cults even exist. When an unsuspecting family member or friend calls CAN, they will not get the help they need. Unfortunately, CAN's confidential files were turned over to Scientology. The good news is that a new organization, the Leo J. Ryan Foundation, was established in February 1999, with it's headquarters in Connecticut. The Foundation intends to fill the void left by the purchase of CAN. Meanwhile, the American Family Foundation continues its mission of helping to raise cult awareness through its own programs and publications."
• 

  proplog2

  Answers to Amazings rebuttal given in my original thread.
• 

  Amazing

  I opened this thread for contrast ... and I will post my rebuttals here to Proplog2, and he evidently will post his rebuttals on his thread ... this way, we can see the contrast.

  Proplog2 said,

  "First Amazing throws a couple of straw-man fallacies into the mix. If my use of APA was confusing he should have made a good faith effort to ask me to clarify the confusion. Of course I did not mean American Psychiatric Association - I don't believe Singer is a psychiatrist. (correct me if I'm wrong) And I didn't mean the American Philosophical Association. I don't believe Singer is a working philosopher. (Againg correct me if I'm wrong) And I didn't mean the American Poodle Association, American Pun Association, or any other APA."

  First, this is not a strawman issue. It was proplog2's use of Scientology material that prompted the discovery that they quote somehting titled APA when it turned out to be the American Philospohical Association ... and anyone not watching carefully, would draw the conclusion that it was not the American Psychological Association ... it was Scientologists who did this switch out.

  Secondly, the field of expertise is the American Psychiatric Association as to cult mentality, and it is that Association which speaks about it ... and not the other two APA organizations. I check all three to see if Singer is mentioned, and she is not ... so for Proplog2 to go and mention American Poodle Associaiton is to detract from a narrow scope effort, and make this a circus.

  "I was referring to the APA of which she was a member.
  So much for the Straw-men. The torch of logic shows Amazings intentions here."

  I undersdtand that Singer was a member. There is no straw man as I noted above ... except your reference to the American Poodle Association.

  "Let's get on with his next rebuttal. He uses the guilt by association fallacy. This fallacy consists in attempting to "mind-control" others into accepting his view by pointing out that the opposing view is held by those with negative esteem, instead of presenting evidence for his position."

  Okay, then why not ask the Watchtower Society or the Mormons to expound on cults in their legitimate expert opinions. I did not use guilt by association. The fact that Scientologists have purchased C.A.N. and fought them in the courts ... and the fact that the American Psychiatric Association recognizes that the Scientoilogists have been in a war on this issue ... then, it stands to reason that the Church of Scientology is BIASED ... and this make quoting them as practically a sole source questionable.

  "In fact I warned that a lot of the information against Singer is on Scientologist web-sites. But does the fact that the Scientologist point out that the APA (I'm NOT going to explain APA everytime I use it.) severely criticized Singer's research as being lousy science mean that this didn't happen? Is the fact that Scientologist (or whatever Devil you choose) claimed Singer took the APA to court and the judge ruled against her mean that this didn't happen?"

  The judge ruled on a legal issue, not a medical or mental health issue. Also, the fact, as I noted above, that Scientologists are pushing to discredit Singer means that there is something wrong. The fact that the American Psychiatirc Association supports what used to be C.A.N. and other works on "Cults" means that we must look at more than one side of this claim that Scientologists make.

  L. Ron Hubbard was an engineer who got into mental health issues ... he was never a competant qualified trained mental health expert. The fact that he would call his organization which promotes his book on Dyenetics ... a CHURCH ... should tell you something right there ... like vitamen salesmen who call their products nutritional supplements ... because they cannot by law call them medicine ... same type of thing.

  I am not likely to be a victim of any organization because I work hard to look for the fallacies in peoples (including my own) reasoning.

  Okay. But you did not address the substance of my material ... but instead looked for falacies, for which your rebuttal is found wanting ...
• 

  proplog2

  See response in original post
• 

  Smudgee

  ON BIAS & RESEARCH:

  AMAZING: It's true. Always be wary of any research that is funded and supported by an organization with vested interests. The research is going to be biased 99.9% of the time. It's one of the first things they teach psychology majors! Studies funded by orgs other than the government are to be scrutinized carefully and usually reveal bias in favor of the supporting org. And as far as government-sponsored research goes, I'm one bean that says, "Scrutinize theirs, too!"

  Smudgee