Some points in relation to some recent posts:
1. I don't know why the word dissemble was used in relation to me pointing out that the Christian tradition has a dark side. That is true and important to recognize in the comparative study of religions. That dark side was noted in the context of me saying that I was a Christian and that I think the original Gospel of Jesus does not warrant inquisitions, killings, torture, nastiness, etc. How is this dissembling?
2. I realize that inviting a group to my class can be used by a particular group. However, I think the benefit of my students meeting members of various groups is worth the price. No money is given to the various groups that come in and my students learn enough ahead of time to ask very tough questions. For example, on some occasions before guests from Sci come in, I get my students to watch the BBC documentaries on Sci or see the Anderson Cooper series. I am not timid of asking tough questions. However, I do insist that we ask tough questions in a decent way. I also get ex-members to come to my class. Chuck Beatty was my guest last year, for example, and I have video testimonies that I have gathered from other ex-members that I use in classes.
3. Yes, I realize that calling Sci a religion has some complications but that would happen if you say that it is a self-help therapy as well. The fact that I think Sci is a religion does not in the least prevent me from asking the tough questions about all alleged and/or real negatives.
4. I find it really disheartening to read that having Scientologists in my class means that I do not critique Scientology, as if I am basically a chicken. For the record, I have had Scientology leaders who are high up in the USA express their concerns about things I have written. I was threatened with legal action one time by a former major official. Scientology leaders in Canada were not happy with various things I said about the Church in my big Nelson's Illustrated Guide. I mentioned the key figure from OT3 in that book. As well, as Canadian Sci leaders know, I could not in good faith give a testimony about LRH for some event or publication. Here is one of the quotes from me in the article from the Christian Post already mentioned on this thread:
"“Scientology is often viewed as the most sinister of new religions because of its aggressive attacks on critics, its manipulation of members to buy Scientology products and its incredible demand on full-time workers,” said James Beverley, professor of Christian Thought and Ethics at Tyndale University, in an interview with The Christian Post. “There are regular reports of violence in the top circles of the movement, particularly at its base in Hemet, Calif., east of Los Angeles.” [this article comes up quickly if you type Christian Post and Scientology in a search engine]
5. Whatever caution I have on this board is not because I am interested in dissembling or scared of using the cult word. Rather, for now and in the near future, I am here mainly to learn from board members who have been around a long, long time or who know tons more than me. As well, since I hope to write more on Scientology (as I have said), I want to keep learning before I get into bottom line verdicts about the extent to which Scientology deserves critique. I also want to keep doors open with Scientologists, including those who might be on this board. Keeping the door open while one gathers info, etc, is, I think, the wise path. I have learned the hard way the price paid in going public before one is truly, truly ready.
I hope this helps people to understand more of where I am coming from.
) and I like functional definitons of things. People can define their own groups however they like IMO, but agreement with other groups, or society, with that definition, must be negotiated sometimes.
