APOSTATES unreliable witnesses ... huh ?

by alliwannadoislive 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  alliwannadoislive

  an interesting site i stumbled on which concludes that apostates are unreliable witnesses ...

  http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/Kliever/

  CONCLUSIONS

  The above analysis clearly shows that while there is a certain incidence of apostasy in new religious movements, the overwhelming majority of people who disengage themselves from these non-conforming religions harbor no lasting ill-will toward their past religious associations and activities. While they frankly acknowledge the ways their religious needs and hopes were disappointed, they were able to realize some positive meaning and value from their past experiences. By contrast, there is a much smaller number of apostates who are deeply invested in discrediting if not destroying the religious
  communities that once claimed their loyalties. In most cases, these apostates were either forcibly separated from their religious community through the intervention of family members and anti-cult groups, or soon came under the influence of anti-cult groups and literature after their own voluntary defection from a new religious group.

  There is no denying that these dedicated and diehard opponents of the new religions present a distorted view of the new religions to the public, the academy, and the courts by virtue of their ready
  availability and eagerness to testify against their former religious associations and activities. Such apostates always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the religious group. Indeed, the various brainwashing scenarios so often invoked against the new religious movements have been overwhelmingly repudiated by social scientists and religion scholars as nothing more than calculated efforts to discredit the beliefs and
  practices of unconventional religions in the eyes of governmental agencies and public opinion. Such apostates can hardly be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. Even the accounts of voluntary defectors with no grudges to bear must be used with caution since they interpret their past religious experience in the light of present efforts to re-establish their own self-identity and self-esteem.

  In short, on the face of things, apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses.

  Lonnie D. Kliever
  Dallas, Texas
  January 24, 1995
• 

  Pathofthorns

  I think generally this is true. It takes a conscious effort to be objective, and even then I think most of us fail. Speaking for myself, I find the more I try to distance myself from this religion, the less objective I am, the more I hate it and the less sympathy I have for anyone involved in it.

  Path
• 

  AlanF

  Kliever is purported to have said:

  : In short, on the face of things, apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses.

  In other words, if you leave a religion and are critical of it (the definition of "apostate" used by these morons), it is impossible for you to offer proper criticism.

  I've often seen this ridiculous view offered by various of these morons, including the famous Rodney Stark that the Watchtower Society uses for propaganda purposes. According to them, the only people who can offer a proper evaluation of a religion or cult are present members, non-critical past members, and people who never were part of the religion or cult, such as these moronic social scientists themselves. Of course, the fact that a lot of these social scientists who are blindly uncritical of cults often accept money from the cults they study affects their objectivity not a bit. Right?

  Applying Kliever's notions, a critical former Nazi's testimony against the Nazi Party must be rejected. This in itself should cause thinking persons to reject such idiotic notions.

  The fact is that present members of a religion are notoriously non-objective when it comes to their religion. One reason is that if the religion teaches untruths, the members are either unaware of it or do not care -- both proofs of non-objectivity.

  Non-critical past members of a religion can often give objective evaluations, but according to Kliever, Stark and other such morons, if these evaluations are critical, the evaluations must automatically be rejected simply because they are critical! In other words, past members of a religion can only be trusted when they give positive evaluations of the religion!

  Plenty of other social scientists, whom Kliever and his fellow morons ignore, reject the notion that critics by their nature cannot be objective or offer valid criticism. Social scientists like Kliever are themselves highly non-objective when it comes to evaluating other social scientists who criticize their theories that cults do not exist. Therefore, by their own criteria of judging objectivity, their criticisms of their fellows are invalid.

  A careful look at <i>all</i> of the available literature on the subject of cults, and especially the tripe put out by social scientists like Kliever, shows that the notion that cults do not exist is nonsense. According to this notion the fact that people belonging to the Solar Temple cult killed themselves a few years ago is irrelevant. The fact that the Jim Jones cult killed some 900 people means nothing. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses manage to kill a few hundred people every year via their blood transfusion ban, and break up thousands of families every year via their disgusting shunning policies, means nothing. Why? Because some cult members are still happy being in their little cult.

  Here is a good example of how Kliever and his fellows lie about the cults they study. He said:

  : Indeed, the various brainwashing scenarios so often invoked against the new religious movements have been overwhelmingly repudiated by social scientists and religion scholars as nothing more than calculated efforts to discredit the beliefs and practices of unconventional religions in the eyes of governmental agencies and public opinion.

  Just who are these "social scientists and religion scholars" who have repudiated "the various brainwashing scenarios so often invoked against the new religious movements"? None other than Kliever and his fellow anti-anti-cultists! So all that Kliever and his fellows have really done is to tout their own opinions as fact, and the opinions of other social scientists and religion scholars who hold contrary opinions as not fact. They ignore the fact that in social science and religious matters, a great many ideas and notions are ineluctably matters of opinion by the very nature of the beast.

  For thinking ex-JWs, the fact that people like Kliever and Stark are often quoted by the Watchtower Society should make them very wary of accepting anything they say, any more than they would uncritically accept anything the Society itself says.

  AlanF

  AlanF

  Edited by - AlanF on 14 June 2002 17:14:26
• 

  Makena1

  AlanF - well written! I would also add this tongue-in-cheek rebuttal "Ex-JW's no longer utilize theocratic warfare strategy - and thus are proportionately more reliable than their JW counterparts".

  ; )

  Mak
• 

  Francois

  Alan, there is so much idiocy going on in our society these days, I swear I'm in a classic southern swoon about it. What I see and hear going on in the airline passenger security business is clearly the most brainless, mindless crap I've ever seen.

  As the head of airline security of El Al said, "you don't have a system for security, you have a system for bothering people. You're not looking for terrorists, you're looking for weapons." And we've got burger flippers running security.

  And a blow-job ain't sex.

  And "is" is a mystery word.

  And religion is great if it's Liberman who's into it; terrible if it's Bush.

  And if I name much more, I WILL swoon. Bring me my smelling salts.

  Francois
• 

  alliwannadoislive

  i was similarly offended, and like path, i find it hard to just walk away from an organisation that sought to strip me of my individuality, but it hasn't made me an unreasonable and vile tongued lout as kliever seems to suggest

  Edited by - alliwannadoislive on 14 June 2002 17:53:15
• 

  amac

  I would agree with that article to some degree. I disagree that "diehard opponents of the new religions present a distorted view" and "Such apostates always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves "

  I don't think being an opponent results in a distorted view...it can, but not necessarily. And I'm not sure how he came to the conclusion that apostates always act out of scenario that vindicates themselves.

  I do agree that there are certain emotional resentments in "apostates" that can easily distort views and prevent objectivity. I think this is evident in AlanF's response where he repeatedly nametag's this man/men as morons. This article obviously struck a cord with AlanF (no offense AlanF as I usually seek out your posts.)

  If I was expected to pass judgement on any religion, I would certainly hear out it's apostates, but also keep in mind the obvious emotional connection. I would definitely be wary about using an apostate as an expert witness. Not that I wouldn't, but I would be very cautious.

  Cheers,

  amac
• 

  HappyHeathen

  There is a grain of truth in Kliever's statements. I have done some reading on cults and anti-cult commandos like Ted Patrick, many of whom are fundamentalist Christian. Some of these Christian groups have ascribed some near-supernatural powers to cults like the Moonies or Children of God, claiming that they can "hypnotize" and control their members like zombies. When various members left these cults, some of their own accord and others forceably deprogrammed, many refused to take responsibility for their own choices, accusing the cult of "brainwashing" them. Of course, this is not the type of brainwashing we speak of when referring to J.W.'s, which is more subtle but just as incidious.

  I agree entirely with Alan F, but wanted to point out that it pays to research the subject of cults thoroughly so you're not talking "apples and oranges." Some of the anticult groups have made some ridiculous assertions and therefore played into the hands of these social scientists. Still it's a shame they can't acknowledge the harm these cults (J.W's included) do.

  HH
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Are we to conclude then that any member of the WTS who became so during adulthood, as opposed to being "born into it," would be an unreliable witness?

  These people were FORMER Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., and their beliefs as JWs would certainly qualify them as "apostate" to thier former religion.

  I think there are plenty of former JWs who have some damned good reasons to be angry about their experiences in the Borg.
• 

  amac

  Nathan -

  "I think there are plenty of former JWs who have some damned good reasons to be angry about their experiences in the Borg. "

  But that's the point, even if they have the right to be angry, it takes away their objectivity of being an expert witness. Not that what they have to say isn't important...