Hi Hillary,
: A number of years ago I read some mail from Mr. Wilson who had been challenged along similar lines to yourself. It was not a response to an enquiry that I had sent but one sent by an XJW in the UK who took offense at some of his statements. The note he sent back was very conciliatory to say the least and he seemed to be under the impression that his stance was being misunderstood to the extreme!
Not having any of this information at hand, I can comment only very generally. My personal view is that people like Wilson have bent over backwards to be "objective" in a certain sense, but have failed to be objective in assessing the value of criticisms from so-called "apostates". I view Wilson and company as being like the various "sociologists" concerned with Western racism who focus so narrowly on their own concerns that they think (or at least, give the impression) that Swahili is the only African (black) language and Islam is the only African (black) religion. Such narrow viewpoints only prove how stupid these 'scholars' really are.
The fact is, as all of us ex-JWs know from personal experience, that high-control groups (aka cults) such as the JWs make it extremely difficult to leave their nasty cult with a semblance of dignity. At best, we might manage to sneak away with our tails between our legs. If we ever dare to speak out, we run the risk of losing our family, friends, businesses and virtually everything we ever held dear. People like Wilson, who obviously have never had to face such a huge and life-changing choice, can afford to be 'objective' and can afford to dismiss the personal trials of people like us, who know that his notions are essentially bullshit. They never have to face the realities that we have faced. They can pretend -- playing completely into the hands of amoral entities such as Watchtower lawyers -- that they are as objective as scientists investigating geology, when in reality their research is often paid for, or partially funded, by the very cults they're supposed to be investigating! That is why, I believe, that people like Wilson and Kliever sound exactly like Scientologist lawyers.
:: One wonders whether Wilson is a closet Scientologist himself.
: Given the background of your more researched information this does seem very strange.
Indeed it does. Go ahead and read everything on the website. It's as pro-Scientology as anyone pretending to be an objective observer can be without overtly posting advertisements in favor of comitting to be a Scientologist contributor.
: Whether his essay was misused or not by the JW psuedo-intellectual quoted above, clearly something not very healthy, in fact sinister does seem to be going on here.
That is precisely what I have felt about the various prominent sociologists who have taken the position during the last decade and a half that "cults" in the normal sense do not exist. There was one critical court case, settled in the early 1990s, where the views of the sociologist Margaret Singer and other sociologists with similar views were rejected by the court as being non-objective and poorly argued. I agree with the court. But this in no way detracts from the fact that cult-like groups such as the JWs do in fact coerce people to act as they demand via mechanisms ranging from simple social pressure to outright shunning or other sorts of social cutting-off. Wilson and company, so far as I can see, simply ignore the extreme social implications of such social pressure. I have yet to read a single comment by Wilson or his ideological buddies that addresses this issue. Since they claim to have researched these cults thoroughly, I can only conclude that their omission is deliberate. If deliberate, then their claim of objectivity is trashed.
Furthermore, the simple fact that JW lawyers have used the false claims of people like Wilson to bolster their views is strong evidence that Wilson is quite biased, contrary to his claims.
: I would be most interested to read more about Mr. Wilson if you have anything at hand.
I don't. The best evidence of his views is the material on the linked website. A careful reading shows his strong bias towards Scientology, couched in language that pretends to be obective towards all so-called "new religious movements". We who have read news reports and have had personal experience with high-control groups know very well that such groups not only exist, but exert strong influence on peoples' lives. Anyone who claims that such influence does not exist, or who minimizes its power, is automatically suspect as being on the side of cults. Because Wilson and some of his buddies do this, I feel that they have a much closer connection, ideologically, monetarily or whatever, than they have been willing to publicly acknowledge.
Several years ago, one of Wilson's buddies, an Italian religious scholar named Massimo Introvigne, convened a seminar where a variety of representatives from various "new religious movements" were invited to give presentations. Several well known Watchtower lawyers were listed on the program as speakers, such as Carolyn Wah, who is well known as a lawyer specializing in child custody cases. The program was given publicity in advance by one David Reed, a prominent ex-JW critic who had been publishing a written newsletter for years. The publicity reached the Internet, and as soon as it did, the Watchtower Society withdrew all of its speakers with excuses such as "having a prior comittment". Plenty more interesting and amazing things developed out of this situation, but as far as I'm concerned, the main thing is that Watchtower lawyers withdrew from a controversial seminar once their involvement became publicly known. This is identical to the way Watchtower officials acted when their relationship with the U.N. was exposed last year.
The point of my ramble here is that people like Wilson are either too biased or too ignorant to understand or properly deal with issues such as these. We ex-JWs know exactly what idiocy we were taught or exposed to, and what social pressures were brought to bear on us, especially those of us raised in the JW religion. When we see morons like Wilson minimizing our experiences, and essentially dismissing all of us as being mere "apostates" whose motives are entirely selfish, we tend to see red.
: His own attachment to Scientlogy is mentioned here, though of course only a scholarly interest is mentioned.
: http://www.theta.com/copyright/wilson.htm
Of course. What else would one expect from a closet apologist who may be funded by the very cults he is supposed to be studying?
: I would be most surprised that Oxford University would allow him even to use one of the University Bar's were he a Scientologist, but I acede that stranger things have happened.
Most likely Wilson is not a Scientologist overtly, but it's pretty clear where his sympathies lie. Scientology has long recruited prominent people and used them to present an appearance of respectability. And why wouldn't they? Every religion and cult does the same thing.
: I am in general agreement with his point however, that an 'apostate' is unlikely to present an unbiased view of the religion that they have left behind.
I agree with that as well. However, we have to keep in mind that a biased point of view might well be far more accurate and objective than a supposedly unbiased view. It all depends on the information that is available to the viewer. Cults like the JWs go out of their way to present a false, but appealing view of their beliefs and practices to outsiders. It is notoriously difficult for an outsider to get the true view of such a cultist, but we who were such cultists at one point cannot easily be fooled. We know from personal experience what the cult is all about. One who has direct, personal experience with anything can be said to be biased. But it is this very personal experience that makes such a "biased" observer far more competent to render opinions than someone who has only a dry, academic experience and who has never had to form an opinion of the religion's beliefs under the very real pressure of the possibility of losing one's family, friends and general social life if one forms the 'wrong' opinion.
: If he chooses to hide a more sinister agenda behind this viewpoint, then he needs to be 'smoked out' and exposed.
Exactly.
AlanF
Edited by - AlanF on 1 January 2003 4:58:35
