|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
The Jonathan Dolhenty Archive |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heaven's Gate Tragedy by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
The facts surrounding the suicide of thirty-nine members of a religious group in Rancho Santa Fe, California, on March 26, 1997, are now fairly well established. Anyone who was not completely out of touch with what's going on in the world had been informed (dare I say, inundated or deluged?) about the event and it's not my purpose here to repeat what has already been provided by the press reports. My task here is simply to comment on some of the reports in the press itself and to do so from the viewpoint of one who is an advocate of Philosophical Realism, also known as the philosophy of Common Sense, critically examined and expanded. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Philosophical Realism, and I dare say there are many today, I refer you to the essay What is Philosophical Realism? contained in The Radical Academy. As all "media events" do in this age of instantaneous communication, the Heaven's Gate tragedy had become somewhat of a pathetic circus, as networks and newspapers scrambled to provide the latest bizarre details about the group and its leader. It seems all of the reporters and television anchors have had to recall the most grotesque adjectives and adverbs available in their memory-banks. With the Simpson fiasco in retreat and the JonBenet Ramsey situation in limbo, this mass suicide of members of an obscure little group was almost made to order. But the media's job is to report the news and that was for the most part well done. I am more concerned about the social pundits and politicians who suddenly took to the airwaves and their word processors to analyze the tragic event for us and, in the process, politicized what was essentially a non-political incident. One such example is the appearance on CNN of a representative of one of our political parties (unsuccessful in the last election) who attempted to explain the mass suicide as the result of contemporary social problems. This person has obviously not read much history and needs to read my discussion of cults which follows. Another example is the member of Congress who took to the airwaves to suggest a congressional investigation into "cultic" activity. (Never say a politician can't get something out of any tragic event!) Even the FBI got into the act, suggesting it may have to enter the case. I have not yet heard why the incident should be considered a federal matter, but I'm sure the Justice Department will think of one. Also distressing were the constant roundtable discussions held on MSNBC by its "contributors." If there is an award for televised drivel, MSNBC has earned it hands down. Generally, I have found their contributors to be among the worst on network television, being more or less sophomoric and intellectually-impaired (that's the politically correct term for stupid, I think). Their discussions about the Heaven's Gate incident exhibited shallow thinking and a lack of historical perspective. As concerned as I am about the pundits and politicians, I am still more concerned about the arrival of the usual "instant experts" who arrived on the scene giving us the benefit of their "expert" opinion about cults, UFOs, and so forth. I found their "analysis" and personal commentary to be shallow, highly speculative, and often misleading. It never fails to amaze me how many "cult experts" we appear to have running around the country keeping tabs on those with whom they disagree. I am sure some of them at least are in fact knowledgeable about small, unknown and, for the most part, irrelevant religious groups, but most of those presented to us, particularly on television, appeared amateurish and singularly ignorant. Now, it is to the pundits and the "experts" that I primarily address my remarks below.
The Heaven's Gate group was constantly referred to as a "cult" by everyone appearing in the media. Furthermore, this word was used as a derogatory term. It was like saying that to be a cult is a bad thing and not being a cult is okay. A cult is disapproved of in some way or other. The term "cult" is always thrown around when the "thrower" doesn't like the "throwee." But what exactly is a cult? I consulted a number of references I have and could find little common ground. The best definition I came up with was one that stated, with tongue in cheek, that a cult was "a religion with little or no political power." And that may not be too far from the truth. Many forget that traditional Christianity was, for almost three hundred years, considered a "cult" in the Roman empire until it was "legitimatized" by Constantine in the year 313. The last official persecution of the Christians in Rome occurred between 303 and 311. Even in the early stages of Christian development, there were many "Jesus Cults" in Palestine and surrounding areas, each claiming to possess the true doctrine. Early Christians were hardly a homogeneous group. As if not totally satisfied with the term "cult," eventually those appearing in the media began to add modifiers to it and we started to hear about the "suicide cult" or the "UFO cult" or the "Hale-Bopp comet cult." The use of these terms may satisfy the need for sensationalism, but they are misleading. First of all, based on the facts known at this time, the Heaven's Gate group was not a "suicide" cult. The practice of suicide, at least as we normally understand it, was not a doctrine or a teaching of the group. The members did, of course, take their own lives and this is suicide. But it appears in this case that the suicide was merely a method or a way of traveling from what they perceived to be a lesser level of existence to a higher one. This explains, I think, why the "suicides" in this case did not have the traumatic aspects usually associated with such behavior. To refer to this group as a suicide cult is, in my opinion, misleading and unfair to the members of Heaven's Gate. Furthermore, to call the group a "UFO cult" is totally misleading and unfair to those who belong to various groups who are interested in and do research in the UFO phenomenon. I'll have more to say about this later. And finally, to refer to the group as the "Hale-Bopp comet cult" is demeaning to the discoverers of that comet and diminishes the real significance of this celestial milestone. For the purposes of this discussion I'll use the term "cult" to refer to any group, comparatively small in number, generally out of the mainstream of established thought, and having some beliefs or set of beliefs which are considered by the majority to be "bizarre" or "peculiar." This definition would most certainly cover the Heaven's Gate group. But it would also cover many other groups in our history as well as many contemporary groups. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the rise and fall of many groups which we today would consider cults. Most of these considered themselves to be "Christian." One has only to think of the Quakers and the Shakers, groups which were numerically small and held beliefs out of the mainstream. Quakers, early victims of religious persecution in this country, are still around; we would have to look far, however, to uncover a member of the Shakers. There was an offshoot of the German Baptists calling itself the Ephrata Society which was founded by Johann Conrad Beissel in 1732. This Protestant group stressed, among other things, a life of monasticism and chastity. Another early American group, called the Rappists after its founder George Rapp, was born in 1805. An offshoot of Christian pietism, the Rappists were a celibate and authoritarian sect. The Heaven's Gate group also followed a monastic regimen and were reportedly celibate. In 1801 there was a "revival" in Cane Ridge, Kentucky, involving over 25,000 Christians. The revival included such "bizarre" activities as "jerking" exercises, "dancing" exercises, "falling down" exercises, and people barking like dogs as they jerked, danced, and fell down. Many participants would, with a piercing scream, fall like a log on the floor, earth, or mud, and appear as dead. Lest one think such "peculiar" behavior is now in the past, I must tell you I saw similar activities not so long ago on one of the satellite Christian networks. In this case, however, the participants jerked, screamed, and fell on wall-to-wall carpeting. As far as we know at this point, the Heaven's Gate group did not perform such activities. The Heaven's Gate group apparently was concerned with the end of the world, at least as we know it. Much was made of this in the news reports. The reports also emphasized such things as the special "uniforms" the members were wearing and the fact they had packed suitcases or bags. Is this new? Certainly not. In 1843, William Miller, a Christian preacher of some note, prophesied the Second Coming of Jesus, declaring it would occur in that year. It didn't, of course, so he had to set another date, which was October 22, 1844. His followers, estimated at 40,000, were persuaded to sell all their goods and clothe themselves in suitable garments for the coming of Christ and the end of the world as we know it. They awaited the Second Coming on roofs, hilltops, and haystacks. But, alas, again nothing happened. This, however, did not prevent his followers from founding the Adventist Church which is still with us today. For those who seriously want to learn about the development of religious "cults" in America, I suggest reading Harold Bloom's The American Religion. He may well convince any objective observer that much of American Christianity, particularly the Protestant variety, despite all claims to the contrary, is far removed from what is considered to be the traditional Church. America seemed to have spawned its own brand of Christianity, much of it satisfying "cultic" criteria. Bloom's book is far better reading than any other current book I've seen about cults, especially those by the self-styled "cult experts." Christians themselves don't agree on what group is a cult or what group is not, even among groups which profess Christianity. Are the Bible-reading, fundamentalist Christians who fondle rattlesnakes as a religious rite to be considered a cult or not? Most evangelical Christians seem to exclude Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons from "real" Christianity and consider them a cult. They feel the same about Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, and the Church of Religious Science. Hank Hanegraaff, associated with the California-based Christian Research Institute and a well-known Christian writer and broadcaster, goes even farther than most of his fellow evangelicals. In his book, Crisis in Christianity, Hanegraaff says the so-called "faith" movement in Christianity is "undeniably cultic" and "particular groups within the movement are clearly cults." Popular televangelists like Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey, and Paul Crouch are leaders in the "faith" movement and presumably considered to be cultists. In fact, since Crouch is president of the largest Christian television network, Trinity Broadcasting, and Roberts, Copeland, Hinn, and Hickey regularly appear on TBN, Hanegraaff must conclude that TBN is a den of cultic pseudo-Christians. Even the "mainstream" Christians fight amongst themselves over the cult label. There were a number of things mentioned by "cult experts" appearing on the networks that they used to indicate the cultic nature of the Heaven's Gate group. Among these were such things as the fact that members wore "uniforms" or were dressed "similarly," that they practiced "poverty," having given up their own worldly possessions, that they practiced celibacy, and lived a life of "obedience." If these are the "signs" of a cult, several mainline churches are indeed in trouble. Roman Catholic religious who live in monasteries and convents take vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience. Furthermore, they usually all wear the same "uniforms." What are we to make of priests or ministers who wear roman collars or other clerical robes? I think it stretches things a bit to use uniforms, poverty, celibacy, and obedience as "markers" of a cult. It really comes down to this, it seems. Any group who is substantially "different" from the majority or the mainstream is considered to be "cultish" if the observer doesn't approve of its lifestyle. So, if the Heaven's Gate group is to be considered a cult by the media and the "cult experts," let's hope they do so without adding the unnecessary and misleading adjectives in front of the term "cult," and let's hope they don't go overboard on identifying marks of a cult which are also legitimately applied to other non-cultic groups. Heavenly bodies have always fascinated human beings. We are now experiencing the travels of one of the most exciting to occur in our lifetime, the Hale-Bopp comet. This comet has now become part of the Heaven's Gate story. According to the Heaven's Gate website, the arrival of Hale-Bopp portends the end of the world as we know it and the "window" of opportunity to leave this strictly human level of existence to journey to a higher and better place. This is not historically an unusual belief. Many people have always thought the heavenly bodies were involved intimately with mankind. This story, however, developed an unusual twist. It was widely reported, particularly on talk radio, that the comet Hale-Bopp had a "companion" traveling with it. There was much speculation as to the nature of this object. There were those who thought it might be a spaceship from another cosmic world and the Heaven's Gate group may have thought so too. At least we know they thought a spaceship would be involved in their ascension to the higher level of existence. This, unfortunately, brought the UFO phenomenon into the picture. Some commentators, as I have pointed out, began to refer, unfairly I think, to the Heaven's Gate group as a "UFO cult." There are many, including myself, who are intrigued by the UFO issue. I try to keep abreast of what is going on, although I don't belong to any UFO interest groups. Not so long ago, I wrote an article which chastised Harvard University for considering reprimands against psychiatrist Dr. John Mack for investigating the matter of UFO abductions and publishing a best-selling book about his findings. The study was evidently thought to be "unscholarly" by some of the Harvard "purists." This is plain nonsense, of course, because any phenomenon so widely reported should be scrutinized by scientific research. Anyway, I have no solid position on the UFO question but I remain open to all possibilities. From the viewpoint of a classical philosophical realist, I can say, however, that UFOs definitely exist. There is no question of that and it is a fact. There have been things perceived in the sky by thousands of people and some of these objects cannot be currently explained. They are, therefore, by definition, "unidentified flying objects." It is decidedly not a fact that these UFOs are of extra-terrestrial origin. They may be but that is not factually established. Those who claim that UFOs are of extra-terrestrial origin simply believe them to be; they do not know that they are. Beliefs are fundamentally private, while knowledge is necessarily public or, if you prefer, knowledge is true and beliefs are only possibilities. The danger, now that the Heaven's Gate group has been identified as a "UFO cult," is that innocent UFO buffs are going to be tarnished with the same brush. Indeed, some commentators on the TV referred to the "weird" beliefs that UFO "fanatics" held. I even heard one suggestion that this is what happens as a result of "Star Trek," "Dark Skies," "X-Files," and science fiction in general. Do I hear a muted cry for censorship? For protecting the innocent public from such "demonic" influences? Another reference made by some commentators was to the airing of the Art Bell talk radio show. Art Bell has a largely "open" talk show which I understand is the fastest growing night/morning show in the country. He allows talk about some pretty "peculiar" topics, including remote viewing, psychic phenomena, Native American prophecies and, yes, UFOs and UFO abductions. Much time on the Bell show was devoted to an alleged "companion" to the Hale-Bopp comet. (I know because I listened.) There was a picture of the comet on Art Bell's web site which supposedly showed this "companion." Eventually the picture was established to be a fraud and Art Bell immediately pointed this out on his program and held a lengthly discussion about how the fraud may have been perpetrated. My concern here is this. I have heard some rumblings that shows such as the Art Bell show may be "dangerous" because they deal with "arcane" topics and "promote" beliefs that could lead to behavior such as that exhibited by the Heaven's Gate cult. This, of course, is patent nonsense. Art Bell promotes no such beliefs that I know of; he simply allows callers and guests to speak their mind and some of what they say will stand or fall on its own merits. Why Mr. Bell and his talk show should even be mentioned in the same breath with the incident at Rancho Santa Fe is beyond my understanding. We are approaching the end of a millennium and this, for reasons I can understand but not accept, makes a lot of people anxious. This anxiety may have influenced the members of Heaven's Gate to take the action they did. I'm not sure we really know that or will ever know it. Regardless, the approaching millennium does disturb some perfectly ordinary people too. It did at the time of the last millennium. Many people just before the year 1000 rolled around acted somewhat "bizarre" or "peculiar." I think it ridiculous to make too much out of the beliefs the Heaven's Gate people may have had regarding the millennium, assuming they had any firm beliefs about it at all. It is interesting to see what has been said about computers and the Internet as a result of the Heaven's Gate incident. Much has been made out of the fact that this group used computers, designed web pages as a way of raising money, and presented some of their beliefs on their own web site. I'm not exactly sure why. Some things have been said about using the Internet for recruiting members into Heaven's Gate. I did hear two or three commentators raise questions about this as a potentially "dangerous" practice, suggesting that maybe this practice should be looked into. I think I know what "recruiting" means and I don't think it means "coercing," "forcing," or "compelling." Recruiting seems to me to be more like "inviting," or "proselytizing," something most organizations, especially churches, do. The members of Heaven's Gate, as far as I know, were not forced or compelled to join that organization. They appeared to me on the videotapes I saw as relatively rational and willing people. I heard a lot from the "cult experts" about mind control and so forth, but nothing that couldn't just as well be applied to many other organizations, some of them "mainstream." There were a few commentators who seemed to advocate some sort of investigation into possible censorship of the Internet. This is a hot topic now, anyway. There are a lot of things on the Internet I would abolish if I were "King of the World" but, then, there are lots of books I would destroy, especially those that disagree with me, and television shows I would keep off the air, especially those revolting situation comedies, and so on and on. Seriously though, I am really opposed to censorship simply because it might be my ideas that are censored. I belong to the group of classical realist philosophers and, God knows, most people don't like reality. Calls for censorship or government regulation of the Internet is not only silly and just plain nonsense, it is virtually impossible. And to use the Heaven's Gate event to bolster any movement toward censorship makes as much sense as banning computers or black Nike tennis shoes because they are somehow "related" to the suicide incident. Will we never learn? Human beings are always at the mercy of the technology they invent. It is all too tempting to blame the technology for any defect or disaster rather than blame the human perpetrator, the one who misuses the technology. Nuclear energy is a great technological breakthrough. So what did human beings first do with it? Did they use it to benefit mankind? Was human life immediately enhanced? As you know, such was not the case. The first thing they did was build a weapon for mass destruction. And we think the Heaven's Gate cult is crazy?
The suicide of the members of the Heaven's Group was truly a tragedy. They seemed to be so bright, so talented. All those who directly observed them have said so. The belief that they must have had, that life elsewhere is so much better than in this present world, may help to explain why they felt it necessary to take the action they did. We must not, however, while reflecting on this tragic incident, take it all out of proportion, blow it up into something it really isn't, and use it to justify irrational policies such as censorship or crackdowns on the Internet, on other small groups who may have "peculiar" beliefs, or denying to others the right they have to decide for themselves with whom they will associate and what religious actions they may practice. I will state for the record that I am totally opposed, as any realistic philosopher has to be, to the beliefs espoused by the Heaven's Gate group. This group, call it a cult or whatever, was solidly in the stream of traditional metaphysical idealism, a subjectivist philosophy which denies the reality of the material world and recognizes only the spiritual or non-material realm as having reality. In this, however, they are the descendants of good old American Transcendentalism, nineteenth century Philosophical Idealism, early twentieth century religious spiritism, and are first cousins of such belief systems as Christian Science, the Unity Church, and the Oriental "mystical" religions. They all represent one extreme of the philosophical spectrum. These are patently false doctrines as any appeal to the philosophy of Common Sense, critically examined, will clearly show us. The only way to prevent people from adopting these nonrealistic beliefs is to provide them with the truths of Philosophical Realism, which are based on the radical empiricism of common sense observation, buttressed with objective evidence as the criterion of truth, using logical analysis as the appropriate method. Even with this, as history has shown time and again, there will be people who refuse to accept the tenets of any sort of Realism and will go off on their own to find their own "truth," their own "reality," and their own "destiny," no matter how insane it may appear to the rest of us. In a culture and society, such as ours, which generally no longer believes in "objective" truth or in objectively determined, universally valid moral principles, it is somewhat ironic, to say the least, for contemporary social commentators, most of them followers of the "there is no such thing as absolute truth" crowd, to throw rocks at one little group who chose to express their own "truth" as they saw fit and take whatever action they felt necessary to actualize their beliefs. What really happened is that the Heaven's Gate "subjective truth" did not coincide with the establishment's "subjective truth." We need to recall that old adage, "Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it." In this specific situation regarding the suicide of the members of Heaven's Gate, the old adage needs to be updated, however, for the benefit of the pundits, politicians, and "cult experts" who have commented, endlessly it seems, on this tragic event. The new adage should read: "Those who don't know history are bound to speak nonsense..." And, surely, they did and will continue to do so until the next "hot" media event comes along. Let's pray it's not so tragic. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
|
|
Main Page & Index |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.