recent news item in the uk.
this guy received a 8 month jail sentence which case was prosecuted under "hate crime" laws.
this is a very similar situation to the recent case that cedars, amelia, cantleave and others have pursued in hampshire with the police.
That never answered the actual question.
Is it acceptable to remove the fundamental freedoms of speech as embodied in the American 1st amendment, if that removal means that the Witnesses will be prevented from preaching or discussing ex-members?
Teary has gotten the impression from several here that they believe in the affirmative.
The intellectual and academic level of this forum is just a constant dissappointment to Teary. He has repeatedly and consistenty stated that he is using the SOCIOLOGICAL defintion of apostasy, not the RELIGIOUS definition.
The American sociologist Lewis A. Coser (following the German philosopher and sociologist Max Scheler [citation needed] ) defines an apostate to be not just a person who experienced a dramatic change in conviction but “a man who, even in his new state of belief, is spiritually living not primarily in the content of that faith, in the pursuit of goals appropriate to it, but only in the struggle against the old faith and for the sake of its negation." [ 3 ] [ 4 ]
The American sociologist David G. Bromley defined the apostate role as follows and distinguished it from the defector and whistleblower roles. [ 4 ]
Stuart A. Wright, an American sociologist and author, asserts that apostasy is a unique phenomenon and a distinct type of religious defection, in which the apostate is a defector "who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden the dispute, and embraces public claimsmaking activities to attack his or her former group." [ 5 ]
*yawn*
The reactions so far to Teary's one single reference are hilarious. The posters started trying to crucify the authors of the work almost immediately, and the information they used to attack those authors come almost exclusively from the anti-cult movement which those authors originally criticised!
David G. Bromley
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Sociology: Duke University, September, 1971
M.A. Sociology: Duke University, September, 1966
A.B. Sociology:Colby College, June, 1963
FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS
Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Virginia Commonwealth University: 1983-Affiliate Professor, Department of Religious Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University: 1994-Visiting Scholar, Department of Sociology, University of Virginia: 1992-Chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Virginia Commonwealth University: 1983-1986Head, Department of Sociology, University of Hartford: 1980-1983Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Hartford: 1980-1983Director, Institute for Social Research, University of Hartford: 1980-1983Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Arlington: 1974-1980Acting Chairman, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Arlington: 1976-1977Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,University of Virginia: 1968-1974
James Lewis is also a P.H.D, an award winning author and is very balanced and fair in his approach (unlike the anti-cult movement that literally foams at the mouth and breaks out the character assassination teams whenever somebody dares disagree with them).
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZexwH4DF8gEC&pg=PA238#v=onepage&q&f=false
All of the others that Teary has read and could site (but doesn't feel like citing because people should do their own work) are also quite well established in the academic community, and are anything but "fringe" (unlike many in the anti-cult movement).
Again, do your own research, read their actual works, and don't just use use a single source to character assassinate out of laziness, then never give the author another thought.
recent news item in the uk.
this guy received a 8 month jail sentence which case was prosecuted under "hate crime" laws.
this is a very similar situation to the recent case that cedars, amelia, cantleave and others have pursued in hampshire with the police.
Just two thoughts from Teary:
1. What is the effect of an arrest like this on Free Speech in general? What is there to stop the authorities there from using this case as a precedent to act on tamer and tamer speech over time, until they finally just get to the point where they can arrest you for doing something as simple as criticizing the government? Teary takes it that free speech is an acceptable sacrifice to users here, so long as they can manage to take down the Witnesses?
2. Wouldn't accepting a ruling like this also mean that sites like THIS ONE and others (such as the infinitely more hateful JW Topix forums) would have to be shut down for "targeting" a specific group and for spreading hatred and bigotry of that group? Aren't the users of this thread just cutting of their own noses to spite their faces?
"The degree of active opposition to a former group is more closely aligned to the nature of the group than the nature of the defector. A group which employs deceptive and damaging techniques which create serious ongoing difficulties for the defector is going to generate far more 'apostates' by your definition than deciding to leave the local knitting club."
Actually, you are quite backwards on that too, but it is ok because most people are (just like they are backwards in thinking that minimum wage laws actually help the poor). Here, I have some more extracts for you:
Extracts From: Melton, Gordon J., Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory, 1999
Then, spurred by Conway and Siegelman's rather blatant assertions James R. Lewis and David G. Bromley took the research one step further and tested the claim of harm done to members by cults in their study of ex-members, "The Cult Withdrawal Syndrome: A Case of Misattribution of Cause" (1987), (35) reprinted below. This study largely laid to rest the continuing issue of pathology among former members of new religions. Using a more representative sample of former members, Lewis and Bromley measured the presence of the various pathological symptoms that Conway and Siegelman had discovered in their sample of former members (an extension of the symptoms discussed elsewhere by Singer). While disconfirming many of Conway and Siegelman's assertions, such as that people who had been in groups longer would show more symptoms, Lewis and Bromley were able to pinpoint the major source of dysfunctional symptoms among ex-members, the process of leaving the group. Lewis and Bromley considered the presence of symptoms relative to the type of exit from the group. They divided the sample into those who left voluntarily and received no counseling by individuals associated with the anti-cult movement, those who left and then received some form of voluntary deprogramming (usually termed exit counseling), and those who were involuntarily deprogrammed. While the entire sample showed significantly lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms than the one reported upon by Conway and Siegelman, it did show a dramatic relationship between the method of leave-taking and the presence of symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample.The Lewis and Bromley study became a landmark study in shifting the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions from the religions to the coercive activity of the anti-cult movement. In the wake of this study (and other works that confirmed its findings), treating former members as people in need of psychological help has largely ceased. The lack of any widespread expressed need for psychological help by the tens of thousands of former members of new religions in the succeeding decade has itself become the strongest evidence refuting the early sweeping condemnation of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.”
*sigh* People really don't know how to do their own research on this forum do they? Teary doesn't like wasting a bunch of time digging up references for other people though (do your own work!), so he will just throw out a quick bone or two (the first of which Teary ALREADY gave in an earlier post!):
"In a technical sense, as used sometimes by sociologists without the pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to one's former religion." -- Yahya, Hasan. "A New Definition of Apostasy and Heretics: Sociological Analysis" "Most former members do not become apostates. They remain — in sociological terms suggested by David Bromley and others — "defectors" (members who somewhat regret having left an organization they still perceive in largely positive terms), or "ordinary leave takers" with mixed feeling about their former affiliation. However ordinary leave takers (and, to some extent, defectors) remain socially invisible, insofar as they do not like or care to discuss their genuine representatives of the former members. In fact, quantitative research shows that even in extremely controversial groups, apostates normally represent less than 15% of former members." Massimo Introvigne, Religious Liberty in Europe: Apostate
"Teary Oberon . . .Is there somebody else you are referring to as "Teary" . . . or are you referring to yourself in the third person? If it is the former, perhaps you could label them "Teary1" and "Teary2" If it is the latter . . . . well, Sizemik and I find that somewhat odd . . . could you explain it?"
Hmm...it is tough to explain. Perhaps Teary is similar to Thing 1 and Thing 2 in The Cat in the Hat?
"from the Oxford Online Dictionary: noun a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle NOT your definition:
An apostate is one who leaves a group and then takes an active and aggressive stand against his former affiliation.
Please base your argument on factual data, rather than shady statements like "there has been evidence that", and statistics that have no quoted source such as "Apostates normally make up between 15%-20% of leave takers from NRM's, even with regards what some consider to be 'high-control' groups."
It is not Teary's fault if you cannot research a subject farther than a single word google search. The numbers and statements that Teary quoted are all quite true, and can be easily verified when one does bother to look more than surface deep.
"In a technical sense, as used sometimes by sociologists without the pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to one's former religion." -- Yahya, Hasan. "A New Definition of Apostasy and Heretics: Sociological Analysis"
Wow...
So Teary really takes after the Hulk, Shaq and Elmo? That is so cool! :D
p.s., that girl is not bad looking either!
You are all seem to be rather confused on this issue.
Teary refers to apostates in sociological terms. Those who leave a group and then move on with their lives and believe nothing else afterwards would not qualify as "apostates." An apostate is one who leaves a group and then takes an active and aggressive stand against his former affiliation. Apostates normally make up between 15%-20% of leave takers from NRM's, even with regards what some consider to be 'high-control' groups.
There has also been evidence documented that many apostates of NRMs only develop the apostate traits (anger with their former group, obsession with "taking them down" or "proving them wrong," retelling of the classic atrocity narrative, ect.) AFTER coming into contact with the subversive anti-cult groups. And it is these anti-cult groups that Teary refers to when he says that apostates simply "switch" to another form of indoctrination (not necessarily religious indoctrination, but more group/social indoctrination).
