Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Should religions be granted trademarks?

Expand Messages
  • jonathanjohns96
    If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 22, 2010
      If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.

      Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.

      Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
    • tomleafeater
      Bizarre, I agree. Eckankar acts like McDonalds on one hand with the trademarks, yet wants to be respected as a religion on the other. The trademarks are a dead
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 23, 2010
        Bizarre, I agree. Eckankar acts like McDonalds on one hand with the trademarks, yet wants to be respected as a religion on the other. The trademarks are a dead give away to eckankar's true nature: It wants to own god as if spirituality were a commodity. Well, of course, one would have to naive to think it isn't.

        Can God be trademarked?

        I.don't.think.so.



        --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
        >
        > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
        >
        > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
        >
      • Leanne Thompson
        GODOPOLY. Pick the wrong card and goto hell. Pick another and you get nancy pelosi. Eventually you will get to boardwalk. Or pick a green card for plagiarism.
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 23, 2010
          GODOPOLY. Pick the wrong card and goto hell. Pick another and you get nancy pelosi. Eventually you will get to boardwalk. Or pick a green card for plagiarism.
           
          Leanne

          --- On Fri, 7/23/10, tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:

          From: tomleafeater <tianyue@...>
          Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Should religions be granted trademarks?
          To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 12:37 AM

           


          Bizarre, I agree. Eckankar acts like McDonalds on one hand with the trademarks, yet wants to be respected as a religion on the other. The trademarks are a dead give away to eckankar's true nature: It wants to own god as if spirituality were a commodity. Well, of course, one would have to naive to think it isn't.

          Can God be trademarked?

          I.don't.think.so.

          --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
          >
          > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
          >
          > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
          >


        • tomleafeater
          Well, there s a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic. http://tiny.cc/d2zhn To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 23, 2010
            Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.

            http://tiny.cc/d2zhn

            To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.

            http://tiny.cc/t5s0b

            Quote:

            I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
            confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
            who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
            proper names of the same masters.

            HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
            those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
            Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
            who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
            original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
            join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
            that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
            prevent that confusion, imo.

            Jasmyn

            Endquote

            Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.

            Leaf




            --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
            >
            > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
            >
            > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
            >
          • Leanne Thompson
            its a godopoply.   l ... From: tomleafeater Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Should religions be granted trademarks? To:
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 25, 2010
              its a godopoply.
               
              l

              --- On Fri, 7/23/10, tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:

              From: tomleafeater <tianyue@...>
              Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Should religions be granted trademarks?
              To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 4:28 PM

               


              Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.

              http://tiny.cc/d2zhn

              To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.

              http://tiny.cc/t5s0b

              Quote:

              I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
              confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
              who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
              proper names of the same masters.

              HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
              those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
              Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
              who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
              original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
              join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
              that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
              prevent that confusion, imo.

              Jasmyn

              Endquote

              Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.

              Leaf

              --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
              >
              > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
              >
              > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
              >


            • tomleafeater
              Yes, it s God™ Inc. Imagine if, in some other Asian country, such as India, one could not use the English word God™, or Spirit™, or Holy Ghost™, or
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 25, 2010
                Yes, it's God™ Inc.

                Imagine if, in some other Asian country, such as India, one could not use the English word God™, or Spirit™, or Holy Ghost™, or Logos™, or Abbot™, because some religious rip-off of a Western religion registered those English words as official trademarks of their group for use in that country. The people in the West would be outraged.

                This is truly crazy stuff going on with Eckankar™'s trademarks. I figure no one has the capital to challenge the usage, and Eckankar™ is wise enough not to go after the very groups that Twitcehll ripped off to create Eckankar™.

                If Eckankar™'s claims of authenticity were valid, couldn't Eckankar™ sue Rahdasoami or other similar, older groups for trademark violations for use of the words that are common between them?

                I ask this because, ostensibly, Eckankar™'s legal threats against Lane could be used against Radhasoami and other groups as well. When you consider that there are almost identical written passages in both Rahdhasoami English texts by Johnson AND in Twitchell's books, it makes one wonder why Eckankar™ hadn't sued the publishers for copyright and trademark violations. Of course, the answer is clear as day: Eckankar™ would certainly lose the legal battle and would take a very bad publicity hit to its credibility, since those groups and associated books pre-date Eckankar™.

                I mean, really! Radhasoami's light and sound philosophy, replete with the need for "Living Masters" and initiations, secret words and other common elements, is practically identical to Eckankar™'s, and when this is coupled with the fact that Julian Johnson's books have many word-for-word instances of text that are the same as some of the text in Eckankar's writings, why hasn't Eckankar™ sued Rahdasoami for copyright or trademark issues?

                The answer is, they can't. Radhasoami predates Eckankar™, which is a provable fact. No court is going to accept a bunch of mumbo jumbo about the Rebazar Tarz and the Order of the Vairagi predating Radhasoami. These are fictions which would be laughed out of the courtroom. That Eckists buy into these obvious fictions after the truth has been revealed for so many years is astounding.

                For completely obvious reasons, when it comes to litigation of copyrights and trademarks, Eckankar™ only threatens groups that, historically, came after Eckankar™.






                --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Leanne Thompson ™

                <le_anne_thompson@...> wrote:
                >
                > its a godopoply.
                >  
                > l
                >
                > --- On Fri, 7/23/10, tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: tomleafeater <tianyue@...>
                > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Should religions be granted trademarks?
                > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 4:28 PM
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                >
                > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                >
                > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                >
                > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                >
                > Quote:
                >
                > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                > proper names of the same masters.
                >
                > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                > prevent that confusion, imo.
                >
                > Jasmyn
                >
                > Endquote
                >
                > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                >
                > Leaf
                >
                > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                > >
                > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                > >
                > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                > >
                > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                > >
                >
              • jonathanjohns96
                Leaf, I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 25, 2010
                  Leaf,

                  I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.

                  Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?

                  Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)

                  Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.

                  1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                  2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                  3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                  4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.

                  So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.

                  Jonathan


                  --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                  >
                  > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                  >
                  > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                  >
                  > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                  >
                  > Quote:
                  >
                  > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                  > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                  > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                  > proper names of the same masters.
                  >
                  > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                  > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                  > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                  > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                  > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                  > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                  > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                  > prevent that confusion, imo.
                  >
                  > Jasmyn
                  >
                  > Endquote
                  >
                  > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                  >
                  > Leaf
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                  > >
                  > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                  > >
                  > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                  > >
                  >
                • jonathanjohns96
                  All, ... Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the sense that he
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 25, 2010
                    All,

                    In my previous post I stated:

                    > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                    > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
                    > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                    > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                    > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.

                    Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally never felt obligated to worship Paul.

                    But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships it.

                    So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the members of the church which were called "his congregation." This service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and commonly used term in Christianity for this event.

                    In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something. The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to bring a Bible from home.

                    Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest" or "family day."

                    Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.

                    Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day, usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar shamelessly copied Christianity.

                    There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like Christianity's worship service.

                    The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from a Christian background."

                    So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of Christianity.

                    I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a country that was not predominantly Christian.

                    Jonathan



                    --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Leaf,
                    >
                    > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
                    >
                    > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                    >
                    > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
                    >
                    > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                    >
                    > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                    > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                    > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                    > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                    >
                    > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                    >
                    > Jonathan
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                    > >
                    > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                    > >
                    > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                    > >
                    > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                    > >
                    > > Quote:
                    > >
                    > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                    > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                    > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                    > > proper names of the same masters.
                    > >
                    > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                    > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                    > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                    > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                    > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                    > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                    > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                    > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                    > >
                    > > Jasmyn
                    > >
                    > > Endquote
                    > >
                    > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                    > >
                    > > Leaf
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                    > > >
                    > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                    > > >
                    > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • tomleafeater
                    ... ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don t recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar s
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 26, 2010
                      See my responses marked with asterisks below:



                      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Leaf,
                      >
                      > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
                      >

                      ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.

                      By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.



                      > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                      >


                      ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.



                      > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
                      >



                      ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.

                      *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]

                      The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.



                      > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                      >
                      > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                      > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                      > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                      > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                      >



                      ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.

                      Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.

                      But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.

                      But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.

                      Speaking for me only,

                      Leaf



                      > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                      >
                      > Jonathan
                      >

                      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                      > >
                      > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                      > >
                      > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                      > >
                      > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                      > >
                      > > Quote:
                      > >
                      > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                      > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                      > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                      > > proper names of the same masters.
                      > >
                      > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                      > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                      > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                      > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                      > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                      > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                      > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                      > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                      > >
                      > > Jasmyn
                      > >
                      > > Endquote
                      > >
                      > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                      > >
                      > > Leaf
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                      > > >
                      > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                      > > >
                      > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • jonathanjohns96
                      Leaf, Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar,
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jul 26, 2010
                        Leaf,

                        Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar, but I missed this:

                        Leaf "The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification."

                        By the way, my posts are often not showing up on Yahoo message boards; I don't know why. And sometimes they show up three days late. I have a detailed commentary on what a Christian worship service is (from my childhood memories). I posted it to Eckankar Truth twice already, but it hasn't shown up. It is probably nothing new to you, but I thought some Hindus in India might be interested to learn what happens at a Christian church Sunday morning, and how Eckankar's worship service compares with that.

                        Of course, I am assuming that this post you are reading now will show up.

                        Jonathan

                        P.S. And thanks for the comments about a.r.e.; I'm going to remember them. It might help me to figure out what is really going on over there. In some ways I don't mind Jasmyn because I pretty much know what to expect. And she actual writes in an understandable fashion. I have been trying to just overlook her comments because my purpose over there is not to get into arguments and/or cause trouble. Sometimes I can't help myself though.

                        ----------------------------------------------------

                        --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > See my responses marked with asterisks below:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Leaf,
                        > >
                        > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
                        > >
                        >
                        > ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.
                        >
                        > By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.
                        >
                        > *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]
                        >
                        > The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                        > >
                        > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                        > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                        > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                        > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.
                        >
                        > Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.
                        >
                        > But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.
                        >
                        > But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.
                        >
                        > Speaking for me only,
                        >
                        > Leaf
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                        > >
                        > > Jonathan
                        > >
                        >
                        > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                        > > >
                        > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                        > > >
                        > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                        > > >
                        > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                        > > >
                        > > > Quote:
                        > > >
                        > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                        > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                        > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                        > > > proper names of the same masters.
                        > > >
                        > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                        > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                        > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                        > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                        > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                        > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                        > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                        > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                        > > >
                        > > > Jasmyn
                        > > >
                        > > > Endquote
                        > > >
                        > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                        > > >
                        > > > Leaf
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • RR
                        They have them: what today is a crest, was back then in hand to hand combat a shield.  Catholic Christian Orders maintain their own trademark. Many families
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jul 26, 2010
                          They have them: what today is a crest, was back then in hand to hand combat a shield.  Catholic Christian Orders maintain their own "trademark."
                          Many families create their own.


                          --- On Mon, 7/26/10, tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:

                          From: tomleafeater <tianyue@...>
                          Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Should religions be granted trademarks?
                          To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 3:05 PM

                           



                          See my responses marked with asterisks below:

                          --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Leaf,
                          >
                          > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
                          >

                          ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.

                          By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.

                          > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                          >

                          ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.

                          > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
                          >

                          ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.

                          *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]

                          The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.

                          > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                          >
                          > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                          > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                          > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                          > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                          >

                          ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.

                          Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.

                          But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.

                          But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.

                          Speaking for me only,

                          Leaf

                          > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                          >
                          > Jonathan
                          >

                          > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                          > >
                          > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                          > >
                          > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                          > >
                          > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                          > >
                          > > Quote:
                          > >
                          > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                          > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                          > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                          > > proper names of the same masters.
                          > >
                          > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                          > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                          > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                          > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                          > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                          > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                          > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                          > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                          > >
                          > > Jasmyn
                          > >
                          > > Endquote
                          > >
                          > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                          > >
                          > > Leaf
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                          > > >
                          > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                          > > >
                          > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >

                        • tomleafeater
                          My posts haven t been showing up sometimes as well, Jonathan. I ve been posting them twice, then deleting the extra one if both show up. Looks like Yahoo is
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jul 27, 2010
                            My posts haven't been showing up sometimes as well, Jonathan. I've been posting them twice, then deleting the extra one if both show up. Looks like Yahoo is acting funny lately. I notice you're posting a lot of stuff at a.r.e. -- that's courageous of you. A.r.e. can get pretty hateful... ;)

                            Leaf

                            --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Leaf,
                            >
                            > Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar, but I missed this:
                            >
                            > Leaf "The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification."
                            >
                            > By the way, my posts are often not showing up on Yahoo message boards; I don't know why. And sometimes they show up three days late. I have a detailed commentary on what a Christian worship service is (from my childhood memories). I posted it to Eckankar Truth twice already, but it hasn't shown up. It is probably nothing new to you, but I thought some Hindus in India might be interested to learn what happens at a Christian church Sunday morning, and how Eckankar's worship service compares with that.
                            >
                            > Of course, I am assuming that this post you are reading now will show up.
                            >
                            > Jonathan
                            >
                            > P.S. And thanks for the comments about a.r.e.; I'm going to remember them. It might help me to figure out what is really going on over there. In some ways I don't mind Jasmyn because I pretty much know what to expect. And she actual writes in an understandable fashion. I have been trying to just overlook her comments because my purpose over there is not to get into arguments and/or cause trouble. Sometimes I can't help myself though.
                            >
                            > ----------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > See my responses marked with asterisks below:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Leaf,
                            > > >
                            > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.
                            > >
                            > > By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.
                            > >
                            > > *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]
                            > >
                            > > The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                            > > >
                            > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                            > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                            > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                            > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.
                            > >
                            > > Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.
                            > >
                            > > But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.
                            > >
                            > > But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.
                            > >
                            > > Speaking for me only,
                            > >
                            > > Leaf
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                            > > >
                            > > > Jonathan
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                            > > > >
                            > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Quote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                            > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                            > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                            > > > > proper names of the same masters.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                            > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                            > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                            > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                            > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                            > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                            > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                            > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Jasmyn
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Endquote
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Leaf
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • jonathanjohns96
                            Leaf, Thanks for telling me that. I m feeling a lot better now. I was getting paranoid and wondering whether someone from Eckankar was working for Yahoo and
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jul 27, 2010
                              Leaf,

                              Thanks for telling me that. I'm feeling a lot better now. I was getting paranoid and wondering whether someone from Eckankar was working for Yahoo and messing up my posts. I knew it was probably just Yahoo's servers or something messing up.

                              Over on a.r.e., I got a little bit overzealous with a post with Rich; many would probably say I was mean, and I wouldn't necessarily deny that. Then he got really mean with me (my perception). Then I got really angry and started cross-posting every one of my worthwhile posts from ET and ESA over to a.r.e. So right now it is one big soap opera. I have no intentions in getting into long, drawn-out conversations over there. I can deal with Etznab, JR, and even Jasmyn to some degree. But right now, I can't think of anyone else who even communicates like a normal human being. I'm wondering whether all of the weird people over there were hired by Eckankar to just keep a.r.e off kilter since Ecknakar has no control over what is said on the board.

                              But I discovered one thing. I have a really hard time dealing with people who are codependent and then refuse to express an opinion (aka members of Eckankar), but instead just give you a quote form Ecknakar or somewhere else. That's probably because that is how I was in my nuclear family, then for almost 29 years in Eckankar. I actually never gave quotes of any kind to people, but I was hesitant or even afraid to express my opinion for almost my entire life.

                              So I'm trying to think of something positive to say. I guess I will say to those of you who were in Ecknakar, and had a codependent personality, and were afraid to give your opinion, try to find some way to transform your personality to something better. For me, the many different methods in EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) have been useful for me.

                              Jonathan



                              --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > My posts haven't been showing up sometimes as well, Jonathan. I've been posting them twice, then deleting the extra one if both show up. Looks like Yahoo is acting funny lately. I notice you're posting a lot of stuff at a.r.e. -- that's courageous of you. A.r.e. can get pretty hateful... ;)
                              >
                              > Leaf
                              >
                              > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Leaf,
                              > >
                              > > Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar, but I missed this:
                              > >
                              > > Leaf "The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification."
                              > >
                              > > By the way, my posts are often not showing up on Yahoo message boards; I don't know why. And sometimes they show up three days late. I have a detailed commentary on what a Christian worship service is (from my childhood memories). I posted it to Eckankar Truth twice already, but it hasn't shown up. It is probably nothing new to you, but I thought some Hindus in India might be interested to learn what happens at a Christian church Sunday morning, and how Eckankar's worship service compares with that.
                              > >
                              > > Of course, I am assuming that this post you are reading now will show up.
                              > >
                              > > Jonathan
                              > >
                              > > P.S. And thanks for the comments about a.r.e.; I'm going to remember them. It might help me to figure out what is really going on over there. In some ways I don't mind Jasmyn because I pretty much know what to expect. And she actual writes in an understandable fashion. I have been trying to just overlook her comments because my purpose over there is not to get into arguments and/or cause trouble. Sometimes I can't help myself though.
                              > >
                              > > ----------------------------------------------------
                              > >
                              > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > See my responses marked with asterisks below:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Leaf,
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.
                              > > >
                              > > > By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.
                              > > >
                              > > > *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]
                              > > >
                              > > > The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                              > > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                              > > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                              > > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.
                              > > >
                              > > > Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.
                              > > >
                              > > > But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.
                              > > >
                              > > > But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.
                              > > >
                              > > > Speaking for me only,
                              > > >
                              > > > Leaf
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Jonathan
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Quote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                              > > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                              > > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                              > > > > > proper names of the same masters.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                              > > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                              > > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                              > > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                              > > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                              > > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                              > > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                              > > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Jasmyn
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Endquote
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Leaf
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • etznab@aol.com
                              I think the Sunday service used to be a round table discussion where the chairs were in a circle and not theater style. A HU Chant on Sunday, too. Does anybody
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jul 27, 2010
                                I think the Sunday service used to be a
                                round table discussion where the chairs
                                were in a circle and not theater style. A
                                HU Chant on Sunday, too.

                                Does anybody remember it like that?

                                Etznab

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                                Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service in
                                Christianity

                                 
                                All,

                                In my previous post I stated:

                                > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                                > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
                                > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                                > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                                > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.

                                Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did
                                encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the
                                sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will
                                automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally
                                never felt obligated to worship Paul.

                                But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant
                                as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is
                                concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was
                                supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And
                                assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in
                                Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who
                                would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in
                                Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships
                                it.

                                So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to
                                explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                                familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority
                                of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day
                                (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant
                                (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday
                                school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be
                                taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came
                                what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the
                                main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the
                                members of the church which were called "his congregation." This
                                service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or
                                "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and
                                commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                                In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at
                                the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the
                                sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about
                                life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual
                                singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the
                                singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by
                                the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something.
                                The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to
                                bring a Bible from home.

                                Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday
                                morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning
                                Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very
                                little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big
                                deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States
                                had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest"
                                or "family day."

                                Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no
                                reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at
                                the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.

                                Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning
                                Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day,
                                usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu
                                chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of
                                time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves
                                some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual
                                Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian
                                minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar
                                shamelessly copied Christianity.

                                There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although
                                I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering
                                whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like
                                Christianity's worship service.

                                The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for
                                one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members
                                who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like
                                Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from
                                a Christian background."

                                So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's
                                implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                                Christianity.

                                I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted
                                to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a
                                country that was not predominantly Christian.

                                Jonathan

                                --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Leaf,
                                >
                                > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so
                                I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person
                                who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things.
                                Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only
                                one that I know of.
                                >
                                > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is
                                stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example,
                                confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar
                                may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed
                                to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in
                                Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole
                                it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                                >
                                > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated.
                                From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late
                                2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to
                                preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the
                                teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has
                                nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying
                                that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow
                                undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                                suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with
                                them either.)
                                >
                                > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done
                                more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the
                                facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                                >
                                > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never
                                intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                                > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning
                                "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state
                                that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service
                                was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                                Christianity.
                                > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is
                                too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                                > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to
                                say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again,
                                seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new
                                members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                                >
                                > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                                teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing
                                more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have
                                wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more
                                likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let
                                Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether
                                Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                                >
                                > Jonathan
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                                <tianyue@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this
                                very topic.
                                > >
                                > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                                > >
                                > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan,
                                between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by
                                an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the
                                trademarks.
                                > >
                                > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                                > >
                                > > Quote:
                                > >
                                > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not
                                to have
                                > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are
                                several
                                > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even
                                using the
                                > > proper names of the same masters.
                                > >
                                > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to
                                officially use
                                > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                                ECK
                                > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the
                                general public
                                > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated
                                from the
                                > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people
                                who might
                                > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously
                                and think
                                > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to
                                try to
                                > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                                > >
                                > > Jasmyn
                                > >
                                > > Endquote
                                > >
                                > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word
                                "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson,
                                the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon
                                which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were
                                found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I
                                have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's
                                ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that
                                ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common
                                words from another culture's language.
                                > >
                                > > Leaf
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                <no_reply@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to
                                Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to
                                Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me
                                that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics
                                could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for
                                violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus
                                Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the
                                trademark.
                                > > >
                                > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it
                                issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take
                                place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office
                                needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to
                                stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with
                                trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just
                                businesses, not religions.
                                > > >
                                > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that
                                trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                              • jonathanjohns96
                                Etznab, Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two different situations in two different Eck centers in two different parts of the United
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jul 28, 2010
                                  Etznab,

                                  Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two different situations in two different Eck centers in two different parts of the United States:

                                  (1) An Eck Center in a large metropolitan area used the theater seating. And the format was very much like a sermon in church, but WITH audience participation. But definitely not a roundtable discussion, although some people did rant, and it sometimes it seemed somewhat like a roundtable discussion.

                                  (2) An Eck Center in a moderately sized metropolitan area where the chairs were arranged in a circle. They had the standard "sermon" by the Eckist in charge for that day. However, it was much more like a roundtable discussion. As the director of the Eck center said "WE found that people like to let it turn into a BS session." In other words, the director of the Eck center was looking out for the needs of the local Eckists. By the way, I can confirm that this director is exactly right in what he said about what the local Eckists want.

                                  Of course, Eckankar's official policy is #1, probably because they want it to appear like "church" to newcomers. But the actual needs of the Eckists are #2. Of course, Klemp, being totally out of touch with the needs of the local Eckists tries to enforce #1 on the local centers.

                                  Thanks for your comment though. You are so right about the seating. I do think it was probably in a circle originally, but then I believe that the demagogues at Eckankar headquarters enforced #2 on the local centers. I just thought I would let you know that there are still a few renegades in Eckankar who go against the "enforcers" in Chanhassan.

                                  Jonathan


                                  --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I think the Sunday service used to be a
                                  > round table discussion where the chairs
                                  > were in a circle and not theater style. A
                                  > HU Chant on Sunday, too.
                                  >
                                  > Does anybody remember it like that?
                                  >
                                  > Etznab
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                                  > Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service in
                                  > Christianity
                                  >
                                  >  
                                  > All,
                                  >
                                  > In my previous post I stated:
                                  >
                                  > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                                  > > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
                                  > > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                                  > > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                                  > > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                                  >
                                  > Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did
                                  > encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the
                                  > sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will
                                  > automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally
                                  > never felt obligated to worship Paul.
                                  >
                                  > But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant
                                  > as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is
                                  > concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was
                                  > supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And
                                  > assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in
                                  > Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who
                                  > would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in
                                  > Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships
                                  > it.
                                  >
                                  > So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to
                                  > explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                                  > familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority
                                  > of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day
                                  > (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant
                                  > (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday
                                  > school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be
                                  > taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came
                                  > what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the
                                  > main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the
                                  > members of the church which were called "his congregation." This
                                  > service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or
                                  > "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and
                                  > commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                                  > In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at
                                  > the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the
                                  > sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about
                                  > life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual
                                  > singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the
                                  > singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by
                                  > the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something.
                                  > The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to
                                  > bring a Bible from home.
                                  >
                                  > Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday
                                  > morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning
                                  > Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very
                                  > little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big
                                  > deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States
                                  > had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest"
                                  > or "family day."
                                  >
                                  > Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no
                                  > reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at
                                  > the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.
                                  >
                                  > Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning
                                  > Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day,
                                  > usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu
                                  > chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of
                                  > time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves
                                  > some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual
                                  > Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian
                                  > minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar
                                  > shamelessly copied Christianity.
                                  >
                                  > There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although
                                  > I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering
                                  > whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like
                                  > Christianity's worship service.
                                  >
                                  > The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for
                                  > one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members
                                  > who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like
                                  > Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from
                                  > a Christian background."
                                  >
                                  > So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's
                                  > implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                                  > Christianity.
                                  >
                                  > I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted
                                  > to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a
                                  > country that was not predominantly Christian.
                                  >
                                  > Jonathan
                                  >
                                  > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                  > no_reply@ wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Leaf,
                                  > >
                                  > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so
                                  > I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person
                                  > who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things.
                                  > Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only
                                  > one that I know of.
                                  > >
                                  > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is
                                  > stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example,
                                  > confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar
                                  > may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed
                                  > to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in
                                  > Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole
                                  > it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                                  > >
                                  > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated.
                                  > From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late
                                  > 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to
                                  > preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the
                                  > teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has
                                  > nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying
                                  > that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow
                                  > undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                                  > suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with
                                  > them either.)
                                  > >
                                  > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done
                                  > more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the
                                  > facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                                  > >
                                  > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never
                                  > intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                                  > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning
                                  > "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state
                                  > that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service
                                  > was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                                  > Christianity.
                                  > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is
                                  > too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                                  > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to
                                  > say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again,
                                  > seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new
                                  > members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                                  > >
                                  > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                                  > teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing
                                  > more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have
                                  > wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more
                                  > likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let
                                  > Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether
                                  > Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                                  > >
                                  > > Jonathan
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                                  > <tianyue@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this
                                  > very topic.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                                  > > >
                                  > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan,
                                  > between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by
                                  > an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the
                                  > trademarks.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Quote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not
                                  > to have
                                  > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are
                                  > several
                                  > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even
                                  > using the
                                  > > > proper names of the same masters.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to
                                  > officially use
                                  > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                                  > ECK
                                  > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the
                                  > general public
                                  > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated
                                  > from the
                                  > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people
                                  > who might
                                  > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously
                                  > and think
                                  > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to
                                  > try to
                                  > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Jasmyn
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Endquote
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word
                                  > "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson,
                                  > the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon
                                  > which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were
                                  > found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I
                                  > have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's
                                  > ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that
                                  > ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common
                                  > words from another culture's language.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Leaf
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                  > <no_reply@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to
                                  > Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to
                                  > Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me
                                  > that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics
                                  > could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for
                                  > violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus
                                  > Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the
                                  > trademark.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it
                                  > issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take
                                  > place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office
                                  > needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to
                                  > stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with
                                  > trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just
                                  > businesses, not religions.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that
                                  > trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • jonathanjohns96
                                  Etznab, You mentioned the HU. Yes, My memory is that every worship service I attended started with a HU, but it was a very short one, perhaps 2 to 3 minutes. I
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jul 28, 2010
                                    Etznab,

                                    You mentioned the HU. Yes, My memory is that every worship service I attended started with a HU, but it was a very short one, perhaps 2 to 3 minutes.

                                    I never saw a situation where there was a worship service in the morning at say 11 AM, and then a full HU chant of 20-30 minutes at say 8 PM.

                                    Jonathan

                                    --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Etznab,
                                    >
                                    > Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two different situations in two different Eck centers in two different parts of the United States:
                                    >
                                    > (1) An Eck Center in a large metropolitan area used the theater seating. And the format was very much like a sermon in church, but WITH audience participation. But definitely not a roundtable discussion, although some people did rant, and it sometimes it seemed somewhat like a roundtable discussion.
                                    >
                                    > (2) An Eck Center in a moderately sized metropolitan area where the chairs were arranged in a circle. They had the standard "sermon" by the Eckist in charge for that day. However, it was much more like a roundtable discussion. As the director of the Eck center said "WE found that people like to let it turn into a BS session." In other words, the director of the Eck center was looking out for the needs of the local Eckists. By the way, I can confirm that this director is exactly right in what he said about what the local Eckists want.
                                    >
                                    > Of course, Eckankar's official policy is #1, probably because they want it to appear like "church" to newcomers. But the actual needs of the Eckists are #2. Of course, Klemp, being totally out of touch with the needs of the local Eckists tries to enforce #1 on the local centers.
                                    >
                                    > Thanks for your comment though. You are so right about the seating. I do think it was probably in a circle originally, but then I believe that the demagogues at Eckankar headquarters enforced #2 on the local centers. I just thought I would let you know that there are still a few renegades in Eckankar who go against the "enforcers" in Chanhassan.
                                    >
                                    > Jonathan
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > I think the Sunday service used to be a
                                    > > round table discussion where the chairs
                                    > > were in a circle and not theater style. A
                                    > > HU Chant on Sunday, too.
                                    > >
                                    > > Does anybody remember it like that?
                                    > >
                                    > > Etznab
                                    > >
                                    > > -----Original Message-----
                                    > > From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                                    > > Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service in
                                    > > Christianity
                                    > >
                                    > >  
                                    > > All,
                                    > >
                                    > > In my previous post I stated:
                                    > >
                                    > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                                    > > > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
                                    > > > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                                    > > > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                                    > > > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                                    > >
                                    > > Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did
                                    > > encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the
                                    > > sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will
                                    > > automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally
                                    > > never felt obligated to worship Paul.
                                    > >
                                    > > But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant
                                    > > as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is
                                    > > concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was
                                    > > supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And
                                    > > assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in
                                    > > Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who
                                    > > would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in
                                    > > Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships
                                    > > it.
                                    > >
                                    > > So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to
                                    > > explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                                    > > familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority
                                    > > of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day
                                    > > (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant
                                    > > (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday
                                    > > school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be
                                    > > taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came
                                    > > what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the
                                    > > main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the
                                    > > members of the church which were called "his congregation." This
                                    > > service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or
                                    > > "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and
                                    > > commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                                    > > In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at
                                    > > the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the
                                    > > sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about
                                    > > life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual
                                    > > singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the
                                    > > singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by
                                    > > the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something.
                                    > > The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to
                                    > > bring a Bible from home.
                                    > >
                                    > > Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday
                                    > > morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning
                                    > > Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very
                                    > > little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big
                                    > > deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States
                                    > > had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest"
                                    > > or "family day."
                                    > >
                                    > > Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no
                                    > > reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at
                                    > > the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.
                                    > >
                                    > > Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning
                                    > > Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day,
                                    > > usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu
                                    > > chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of
                                    > > time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves
                                    > > some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual
                                    > > Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian
                                    > > minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar
                                    > > shamelessly copied Christianity.
                                    > >
                                    > > There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although
                                    > > I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering
                                    > > whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like
                                    > > Christianity's worship service.
                                    > >
                                    > > The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for
                                    > > one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members
                                    > > who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like
                                    > > Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from
                                    > > a Christian background."
                                    > >
                                    > > So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's
                                    > > implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                                    > > Christianity.
                                    > >
                                    > > I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted
                                    > > to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a
                                    > > country that was not predominantly Christian.
                                    > >
                                    > > Jonathan
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                    > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Leaf,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so
                                    > > I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person
                                    > > who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things.
                                    > > Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only
                                    > > one that I know of.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is
                                    > > stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example,
                                    > > confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar
                                    > > may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed
                                    > > to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in
                                    > > Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole
                                    > > it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated.
                                    > > From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late
                                    > > 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to
                                    > > preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the
                                    > > teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has
                                    > > nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying
                                    > > that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow
                                    > > undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                                    > > suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with
                                    > > them either.)
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done
                                    > > more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the
                                    > > facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never
                                    > > intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                                    > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning
                                    > > "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state
                                    > > that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service
                                    > > was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                                    > > Christianity.
                                    > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is
                                    > > too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                                    > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to
                                    > > say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again,
                                    > > seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new
                                    > > members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                                    > > teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing
                                    > > more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have
                                    > > wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more
                                    > > likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let
                                    > > Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether
                                    > > Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Jonathan
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                                    > > <tianyue@> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this
                                    > > very topic.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan,
                                    > > between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by
                                    > > an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the
                                    > > trademarks.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Quote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not
                                    > > to have
                                    > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are
                                    > > several
                                    > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even
                                    > > using the
                                    > > > > proper names of the same masters.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to
                                    > > officially use
                                    > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                                    > > ECK
                                    > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the
                                    > > general public
                                    > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated
                                    > > from the
                                    > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people
                                    > > who might
                                    > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously
                                    > > and think
                                    > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to
                                    > > try to
                                    > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Jasmyn
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Endquote
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word
                                    > > "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson,
                                    > > the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon
                                    > > which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were
                                    > > found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I
                                    > > have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's
                                    > > ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that
                                    > > ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common
                                    > > words from another culture's language.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Leaf
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                    > > <no_reply@> wrote:
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to
                                    > > Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to
                                    > > Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me
                                    > > that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics
                                    > > could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for
                                    > > violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus
                                    > > Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the
                                    > > trademark.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it
                                    > > issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take
                                    > > place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office
                                    > > needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to
                                    > > stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with
                                    > > trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just
                                    > > businesses, not religions.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that
                                    > > trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • etznab@aol.com
                                    I just remember going, sitting in a large circle, singing a short HU and then having round table discussion. Of course, this was way long time ago now. Much
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jul 28, 2010
                                      I just remember going, sitting in a large circle,
                                      singing a short HU and then having round table
                                      discussion. Of course, this was way long time
                                      ago now. Much earlier than 2008. I'm not sure
                                      what they even called it then. I don't think it
                                      was called Worship Service.

                                      Etznab

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                      To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Wed, Jul 28, 2010 11:17 am
                                      Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: The Sunday morning Worship service in
                                      Christianity

                                       
                                      Etznab,

                                      You mentioned the HU. Yes, My memory is that every worship service I
                                      attended started with a HU, but it was a very short one, perhaps 2 to 3
                                      minutes.

                                      I never saw a situation where there was a worship service in the
                                      morning at say 11 AM, and then a full HU chant of 20-30 minutes at say
                                      8 PM.

                                      Jonathan

                                      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                      <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Etznab,
                                      >
                                      > Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two
                                      different situations in two different Eck centers in two different
                                      parts of the United States:
                                      >
                                      > (1) An Eck Center in a large metropolitan area used the theater
                                      seating. And the format was very much like a sermon in church, but WITH
                                      audience participation. But definitely not a roundtable discussion,
                                      although some people did rant, and it sometimes it seemed somewhat like
                                      a roundtable discussion.
                                      >
                                      > (2) An Eck Center in a moderately sized metropolitan area where
                                      the chairs were arranged in a circle. They had the standard "sermon" by
                                      the Eckist in charge for that day. However, it was much more like a
                                      roundtable discussion. As the director of the Eck center said "WE found
                                      that people like to let it turn into a BS session." In other words, the
                                      director of the Eck center was looking out for the needs of the local
                                      Eckists. By the way, I can confirm that this director is exactly right
                                      in what he said about what the local Eckists want.
                                      >
                                      > Of course, Eckankar's official policy is #1, probably because they
                                      want it to appear like "church" to newcomers. But the actual needs of
                                      the Eckists are #2. Of course, Klemp, being totally out of touch with
                                      the needs of the local Eckists tries to enforce #1 on the local centers.
                                      >
                                      > Thanks for your comment though. You are so right about the
                                      seating. I do think it was probably in a circle originally, but then I
                                      believe that the demagogues at Eckankar headquarters enforced #2 on the
                                      local centers. I just thought I would let you know that there are still
                                      a few renegades in Eckankar who go against the "enforcers" in
                                      Chanhassan.
                                      >
                                      > Jonathan
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > I think the Sunday service used to be a
                                      > > round table discussion where the chairs
                                      > > were in a circle and not theater style. A
                                      > > HU Chant on Sunday, too.
                                      > >
                                      > > Does anybody remember it like that?
                                      > >
                                      > > Etznab
                                      > >
                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                      > > From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                      > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                                      > > Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service
                                      in
                                      > > Christianity
                                      > >
                                      > >  
                                      > > All,
                                      > >
                                      > > In my previous post I stated:
                                      > >
                                      > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                                      > > > morning "worship service" even though the original
                                      teachings
                                      > > > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                                      > > > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                                      > > > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                                      > >
                                      > > Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul
                                      Twitchell did
                                      > > encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that
                                      in the
                                      > > sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers
                                      will
                                      > > automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I
                                      personally
                                      > > never felt obligated to worship Paul.
                                      > >
                                      > > But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly
                                      insignificant
                                      > > as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service
                                      is
                                      > > concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship
                                      service was
                                      > > supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the
                                      time. And
                                      > > assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped
                                      in
                                      > > Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an
                                      Eckist who
                                      > > would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced
                                      in
                                      > > Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether
                                      anyone worships
                                      > > it.
                                      > >
                                      > > So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I
                                      am going to
                                      > > explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                                      > > familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast
                                      majority
                                      > > of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be
                                      their holy day
                                      > > (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my
                                      Protestant
                                      > > (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for
                                      Sunday
                                      > > school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for
                                      children to be
                                      > > taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over,
                                      then came
                                      > > what my family called "church" which was a service conducted
                                      in the
                                      > > main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked
                                      to the
                                      > > members of the church which were called "his congregation."
                                      This
                                      > > service was also commonly referred to as the church's
                                      "service" or
                                      > > "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known
                                      and
                                      > > commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                                      > > In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would
                                      stand up at
                                      > > the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but
                                      the
                                      > > sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or
                                      "lesson about
                                      > > life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as
                                      individual
                                      > > singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying
                                      the
                                      > > singing. There were also times when the congregation was
                                      instructed by
                                      > > the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read
                                      something.
                                      > > The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you
                                      didn't have to
                                      > > bring a Bible from home.
                                      > >
                                      > > Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no
                                      Sunday
                                      > > morning worship service. My memory was that there was a
                                      Sunday morning
                                      > > Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I
                                      saw very
                                      > > little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same
                                      day, big
                                      > > deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the
                                      United States
                                      > > had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day
                                      of rest"
                                      > > or "family day."
                                      > >
                                      > > Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture,
                                      no
                                      > > reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief
                                      reading at
                                      > > the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.
                                      > >
                                      > > Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday
                                      morning
                                      > > Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to
                                      another day,
                                      > > usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday
                                      morning Hu
                                      > > chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture"
                                      ahead of
                                      > > time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk"
                                      usually involves
                                      > > some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an
                                      actual
                                      > > Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a
                                      Christian
                                      > > minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how
                                      Eckankar
                                      > > shamelessly copied Christianity.
                                      > >
                                      > > There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services,
                                      although
                                      > > I actually supported starting that. But now I am really
                                      wondering
                                      > > whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too
                                      much like
                                      > > Christianity's worship service.
                                      > >
                                      > > The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was
                                      done for
                                      > > one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar.
                                      Specifically, members
                                      > > who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar
                                      look like
                                      > > Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are
                                      coming from
                                      > > a Christian background."
                                      > >
                                      > > So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that
                                      Eckankar's
                                      > > implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                                      > > Christianity.
                                      > >
                                      > > I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but
                                      I wanted
                                      > > to reach a broader audience including people who were raised
                                      outside a
                                      > > country that was not predominantly Christian.
                                      > >
                                      > > Jonathan
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                                      > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Leaf,
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments
                                      recently so
                                      > > I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is
                                      the person
                                      > > who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of
                                      things.
                                      > > Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is
                                      the only
                                      > > one that I know of.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line
                                      She is
                                      > > stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for
                                      example,
                                      > > confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view
                                      she/Eckankar
                                      > > may have a point. I still don't think that religions should
                                      be allowed
                                      > > to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God)
                                      was in
                                      > > Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul
                                      Twitchell stole
                                      > > it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to
                                      trademark it?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn
                                      stated.
                                      > > From what I heard from higher initiates before I left
                                      Eckankar in late
                                      > > 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in
                                      order to
                                      > > preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that
                                      whether the
                                      > > teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them.
                                      It has
                                      > > nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like
                                      saying
                                      > > that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that
                                      somehow
                                      > > undercut the purity of the teachings of
                                      Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                                      > > suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't
                                      agree with
                                      > > them either.)
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold
                                      Klemp has done
                                      > > more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look
                                      at the
                                      > > facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell
                                      never
                                      > > intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                                      > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                                      morning
                                      > > "worship service" even though the original teachings of
                                      Eckankar state
                                      > > that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship
                                      service
                                      > > was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                                      > > Christianity.
                                      > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the
                                      former is
                                      > > too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                                      > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the
                                      HU sing to
                                      > > say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer.
                                      Again,
                                      > > seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any
                                      potential new
                                      > > members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like
                                      Christianity.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                                      > > teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since
                                      he is doing
                                      > > more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I
                                      have
                                      > > wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar.
                                      It is more
                                      > > likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am
                                      eager to let
                                      > > Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been
                                      wondering whether
                                      > > Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Jonathan
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                                      > > <tianyue@> wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is
                                      dicussing this
                                      > > very topic.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to,
                                      Jonathan,
                                      > > between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from
                                      a.r.e. by
                                      > > an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending
                                      the
                                      > > trademarks.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Quote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words
                                      might be not
                                      > > to have
                                      > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups.
                                      There are
                                      > > several
                                      > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar
                                      teachings, even
                                      > > using the
                                      > > > > proper names of the same masters.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was
                                      allowed to
                                      > > officially use
                                      > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as
                                      ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                                      > > ECK
                                      > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even
                                      the
                                      > > general public
                                      > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group
                                      separated
                                      > > from the
                                      > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some
                                      people
                                      > > who might
                                      > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR
                                      previously
                                      > > and think
                                      > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes
                                      sense to
                                      > > try to
                                      > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Jasmyn
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Endquote
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the
                                      word
                                      > > "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian
                                      Johnson,
                                      > > the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized
                                      and upon
                                      > > which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other
                                      words were
                                      > > found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as
                                      well? I
                                      > > have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my
                                      move. It's
                                      > > ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark
                                      laws that
                                      > > ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of
                                      common
                                      > > words from another culture's language.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Leaf
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com,
                                      jonathanjohns96
                                      > > <no_reply@> wrote:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue
                                      trademarks to
                                      > > Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt
                                      status to
                                      > > Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also
                                      seems to me
                                      > > that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the
                                      Catholics
                                      > > could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the
                                      Protestants for
                                      > > violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the
                                      name Jesus
                                      > > Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate
                                      claim to the
                                      > > trademark.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then
                                      why was it
                                      > > issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs
                                      to take
                                      > > place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark
                                      office
                                      > > needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS
                                      needs to
                                      > > stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities
                                      with
                                      > > trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really
                                      just
                                      > > businesses, not religions.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two
                                      "religions" that
                                      > > trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to
                                      think about.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.