X-Message-Number: 1835
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 01:37:11 -0600
From:  (Steve Jackson)
Subject: Re: Cults, Ex-Members, and so on

Ms. Wells says, in an earnest and fuzzy post, that if Alcor drops members
because of anything they say or do, Alcor is no different from a cult,
and the First Amendment rights of its members are threatened. To my
surprise, Mike Darwin and Brian Wowk - whose comments usually seem well-
thought-out - immediately agree. 
 
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Emotionally loaded terms like "cults" and
"Constitutional rights" are being thrown around here, inaccurately and in
a way that creates heat rather than light. 
 
First: The Constitution, and in particular the First Amendment, guarantees
that the *government* cannot prevent you from speaking, or punish you
for speaking, or discriminate against you for what you say. It does
*not* say that an individual or corporation cannot discriminate based
on your opinions or statements. Most corporations *are* prohibited from
discriminating based on race, color, sex, religion and a couple of other
grounds. but that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. (This is a
common misconception, especially on the Net, whose users are constantly
exercising their freedom of speech and therefore take it seriously. But
in order to take it seriously you have to understand it. Some people say
"Well, freedom of speech OUGHT to apply to corporations," as though they
had just made an important moral point instead of revealing that they
didn't know what they were talking about *and didn't want to learn.* I
hope we don't have any of that here.)
 
Second: cults. My Webster's has four definitions of CULT: - (1) formal
religious veneration, see WORSHIP. (2) a system of religious beliefs and
ritual; also, its body of adherents. (3) a system for the cure of disease
based on dogma set forth by its promulgator. (4) great and esp. faddish
devotion; also, its object or adherents.
 
Now, one doesn't have to stretch (3) much to fit Alcor squarely in it, but
that's not the point. The point is that nowhere in this definition does
it say anything about exclusive membership. And if you say "Well, what
*I* mean by a cult is that the leaders can throw you out," then you're
simply arguing your conclusions. 
 
Well, what kind of group CAN drop a member for an offense against the
groups? Going to my battered old "Robert's Rules," I find that p. 449
says:
 
"If there is an article on discipline in the bylaws, it may specify a
number of offenses outside meetings for which penalties listed at the top
of page 539 can be imposed on a member of the organization. Frequently
such an article provides for their imposition on any member found guilty
of conduct described, for example, as "tending to injure the good name of
the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper its work." In any
society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to
disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not."
 
At the top of page 539 are listed punishments: " . . . reprimand,
fine (if authorized in the bylaws,) suspension, or expulsion."
 
So the English language's final authority on the organization of 
associations in general holds that it is not just allowable, but proper
and appropriate, for any association to eject members who interfere with
the purpose or good name of that association.
 
Now I'll leave off citing authority and offer my own opinion. If the
directors of Alcor ever fail to be wholly careful and circumspect in
their use of this power, the members will have every reason to replace
them, or to leave en masse and start another organization. And
irritating the directors, one by one or wholesale, is not an offense
against the association. Neither is intelligent criticism of policy. 
Come to think of it, neither is any other criticism of policy :-)
 
BUT . . .  the directors MUST have the authority to evict a loon or loose
cannon who somehow demonstrates that he is an actual danger to Alcor's
work, Alcor's patients, or Alcor's image. Arguing otherwise has to
proceed from either a lack of data or a special agenda, because it sure
doesn't proceed from the facts.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1835