Talk:Nathan Braun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


Contents

vfd debate: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christian Humanists and Rationalists 04:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

For accusations of the sexual assault, which the anon continues to assert do not exist, see http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=21145. RickK 08:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • But that source is just a reference to Sexual Assault Watch which doesn't seem to attempt to do anything but repeat accusations. I think we need a press or court source for this; otherwise it's just an anonymous accusation with no corroboration. The Sexual Assault Watch page does have a contact email and phone number if someone really feels like checking into it. Demi T/C 08:33, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
    • Another note: that website only exists for the purpose of making these accusations against Nathan Braun. Demi T/C 08:37, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

greetings, this is the "anon" - please forgive my unfamiliarity with due process here at WiKi, i am the worst sort of newbie. we in a small corner of the AR/Veg world are aghast at these acusations. i do not condone any such actions. it is becomeing apparent however that this Braun fellow is the target of a highly-orchestrated smear campaign, which is sourced at the spurious Sex Watch page seen elsewhere. i for one heartily welcome any actual factual information regarding this unfortunate case; if the man is guilty let him stand for it, but what i have seen so far in BBS after BBS across the web is nothing short of a witch-hunt. the "contact" listed, Dr Greger, responded to my emailed queries twice, and had nothing of substance to add, which is odd given that he is presented as such contact. He is well known in the AR/Veg community, and the appearance of his name on these posts has led many to take the ensuing accusatory text as gospel. one of the local BBS lurkers was quite proud of adding the original "wiki" edit regarding the alleged assault. but www.grassrootsar.org/ has nothing regarding this on their site, nor does CVA as seen at www.christianveg.com/default.htm.

thanks for tolerating an old goat, cheers, da imp (This comment added by 4.185.207.7 Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))

This comment is flat-out incorrect. The Grassroots Animal Rights Conference does indeed have a statement on the assault on its website. {http://www.grassrootsar.org/sexualassault.html]


Thanks for editing Wikipedia--I'd like to encourage you to register an account, which makes it easier to discuss things. Given enough time, articles generally work out well, if not immediately. I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia and invite you to review some of our information and policies on page editing--anyone who wants to improve Wikipedia is welcome. Thanks! Demi T/C 10:21, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Whether Braun is guilty or not, the fact is he has been accused of sexual assault. Rosemary Amey

I accuse you of murder. Thus it should be added to any page you're listed on that you've been accused of murder. See how absurd this is? There have been no legal complaints filed against this person and there is no evidence that he's been arrested or charged with any crime. It would be libelous to post otherwise. --FCYTravis 17:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

da imp again - mai i add this note to the fray: as seen at http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/05/nathan_braun_ar.html , the divisive statement by Ms Swift's site that CVA had "distanced itself" is patently unfounded in fact, Mr Braun has indeed "stepped down" from his position but he is by no means "condemned" as implied in these posts... additionaly it is seen how this pogrom has taken on a life of it's own, rendering any further "investigation" almost moot. btw, i would enjoy becoming a part of the WiKi majik, as soon as this Braun mess is resolved and i get some sleep i shall return forthwith to register properly.... cheers, da imp (This comment added by 4.185.123.205 Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))

[edit] Unsourced material

Much of this article seems as if it were written by the subject. Only a few of the assertions about Braun are supported by the two "sources". Are there other sources or is all of this "orignial rsearch" by the subject or someone close to him? It doesn't appear to be verifiable. -Willmcw 21:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

How's this for unsourced material? It comes from deep searching the web...NAthan Braun, it seems, is a real character though seldom "available for verification":

Statement of Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D., Regarding Nathan Braun

The following statement is my own. It should in no way be construed to reflect an official or unofficial response of the Christian Vegetarian Association.

"Organizers of the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference have issued a statement regarding an alleged sexual assault by Nathan Braun at the recent GARC conference. As the statement notes, Nathan was the founder and former International Director of the Christian Vegetarian Association. Having worked closely with him for several years, I was surprised by the allegation, and I have sought to determine what really happened. When the allegation first came out, it was clear that Nathan could not serve on the CVA board and could not be a CVA spokesperson until the matter was resolved. Nathan agreed, and he immediately resigned from the CVA board."

I will make three claims:

1) The evidence against Nathan Braun is not compelling.

2) The GARC statement is heavily biased.

3) The public campaign against Nathan Braun has been reprehensible.


1) The evidence against Nathan Braun is not compelling.

In my effort to discern what happened, I initially talked to and later had multiple e-mail correspondences with Dr. Michael Greger. Michael has been helpful, and I am appreciative. I have also talked to Nathan Braun, which has helped clarify certain issues.

From the outset, this has been a classic he said/she said case, without any witnesses or physical evidence. Consequently, as I see it, it is only reasonable to believe Nathan guilty if his story is not credible.

Let’s look at the evidence regarding what Nathan said and did. According to Nathan, he was asleep when the young woman awakened him and asked him several times to sleep next to her to keep her warm. This did not entitle Nathan to touch her genital area, of course, but it is noteworthy that she asked him to sleep at her side. It should raise doubt about the image of Nathan as sexual predator, as discussed below. There was no communication between Nathan and the woman or any actions taken by her during the night to suggest that he was doing anything inappropriate. The next morning, he was told by Michael Greger and Aryenish Birdie that the woman had accused him of inappropriately touching her during the night. (Nathan does not recall the exact words, but he does not remember being informed of the specific accusation, e.g., about touching her “vagina,” until the GARC statement was released.)

I don’t know what Nathan was thinking about at that moment, but his answer was not strategically wise. Evidently, he tried to understand what could have prompted the allegation, and it did not immediately occur to him that the allegation might be an outright fabrication. According to Nathan, he never acknowledged touching her genital area. He said he “would not be surprised at all” that he touched her during the night, since he was sleeping next to her (at her request). Consider the situation: a married (currently separated) man was sleeping in bed next to a woman. It would not be surprising if he touched her private places during the night, as he presumably had done with his wife. If he had been more clever (as sexual offenders generally are), he would have immediately denied the charges. Indeed, that’s what I’d expect most people (innocent or guilty) to do. He may be criticized for failing to think on his feet, but I don’t think his response is evidence for his guilt.

Nathan hypothesizing “sexsomnia,” a condition he had read about. He is very well read on a wide range of topics, and such a response is typical Nathan as I know him – always coming up with theories (sometimes rather far-fetched theories) to try to understand situations. His philosophical bent did not serve him well at this moment, and Michael Greger interpreted his unusual response as not credible. However, a moment’s reflection leads me to a rather obvious consideration: Would a sex offender start talking about “sexsomnia” as an attempt to explain an accusation in which there was no physical evidence? I don’t think so. One would expect a flat denial.

Nathan later made a remark about his being one of the few young, handsome, Christian, alpha males in attendance. Context is important here. This comment was related to how he had been met with quite a bit of hostility, which he attributed to his being openly Christian, heterosexual, and athletic-looking in an environment in which many people seemed to hold the view that human and nonhuman exploitation in our culture is primarily due to "patriarchy," which they attribute to our culture's purported male-domination and Christian influence. Nathan believes that there was prejudice against him, and, further diminishing his popularity, he openly debated certain positions that he considers (descriptively, not pejoratively) radical feminism. Furthermore, he is openly affectionate (but never inappropriately so, in my limited direct contact with him and in the experience of other people I know who have known him). Nathan related to me that, from the outset of the conference, he felt some hostility, which he had rarely experienced previously and which he attributed to his being Christian, masculine, and outgoing.

Michael Greger has addressed most of my questions, but there is an important question he has not answered: Why didn’t the young woman do anything to stop the alleged assault? She was in a room with other people, and she was not physically restrained nor threatened with harm. It would have been easy to stop the alleged assault by asking him to stop or, if necessary, loudly saying, “STOP!” Alternatively, she could have taken his arm or hand, moved it, and told him to leave. However, having done nothing, she proceeded to continue to lie next to him for hours, and it was not until after they had awakened and gone separate ways that she approached GARC organizers with her allegation. (Since, as discussed below, the GARC statement is as prejudicial as possible, I think it’s safe to conclude that there was no force or threat of violence, because this would certainly have been included in the GARC statement.) I find this very strange, and, without an adequate explanation, I have doubts about her story’s credibility. I am very concerned that efforts to avoid traumatizing the alleged victim (or perhaps preconceived notions about Nathan) may have stood in the way of questioning her story. We know that men are sometimes falsely accused of sexual assault, and (if GARC were to take a stand on Nathan’s guilty, as it has) it was incumbent upon GARC organizers to be skeptical.

The GARC statement holds that Nathan changed his story. To the best of my knowledge, he never rejected his theory that he may have accidentally touched her genital area while he slept. However, subsequent to the initial accusation, he came to believe that he probably never touched her genital area or other private parts at all. Recalling aspects of the accuser’s character (discussed below), as well as hostility against him by other feminists at the conference, he now believes that the accusation is false.

On the surface, it appears that the most damning evidence against his credibility is that “at least three other women that he had met at animal rights conferences have come forward and reported unwanted aggressive physical advances by Nathan Braun.” It is strange to say “at least three,” since the GARC people can count. I presume that there are three other women, and the added “at least” was designed to be prejudicial. This collection of “at least” three women is the fruit of a broad effort in which GARC organizers contacted animal rights leaders who know Nathan and asked them if they knew of any allegations of sexual misconduct. Nathan has claimed that his ethical convictions require respectful relations with women at all times. In fact, he has edited The History & Philosophy of Marriage and The Perfect Matrimony, which articulate respectful relations between men and women. Let’s look at the evidence.

Based on the sketchy details Michael Greger has provided me, Nathan believes he knows who the other three women are. Two are almost certainly two women who are partners and who both embrace radical feminism. They talked with Nathan extensively at the GARC conference. They discussed ethical issues related to a broad range of personal and sexual relationships, including heterosexuality, homosexuality, polygamy, polyamory, and promiscuity. They were offended by some of his views, but the conversation on balance was reasonably friendly. As a theoretical question, related to their discussion, he asked the two women what they thought about doing a threesome. This was not a proposition, and he finds it incredible that they might later report that it was. They evidently reported that Nathan put his arm around their shoulders, which was unwanted. Most people would not regard such gregarious, non-sexual activity as putting an arm around one’s shoulder as sexually inappropriate, and Nathan denies any recollection that they seemed to regard his friendly gestures as inappropriate.

Michael also related that a woman reported that Nathan once immobilized her and kissed her. Nathan responded to me that he is not sure what this is about. He thinks it might be a woman in Toronto, with whom he has been friendly but with whom he’s had a somewhat uneven, non-sexual relationship. He wonders if she may be referring to a good-bye kiss, which was quick, not sexual, and not resisted. He was not ultimately interested in a romantic relationship with her, and he wonders whether she has been bitter about this. So here, as best as I can tell, is the rap sheet on Nathan Braun, who the GARC statement attempts to paint as a serial sexual offender.

I know very little about the accuser, so I don’t know much about her credibility. To the best of my knowledge, GARC leaders have not done a thorough investigation of her story and her background. I am not claiming that GARC should have performed such an investigation – this would be the proper activity of police, if the police believed that were reasonable grounds to investigate the matter. However, GARC has worked strenuously (see below) to ruin Nathan’s reputation. It seems to me that, before doing so, it was incumbent upon whoever drafted and disseminated the GARC statement to be skeptical of the accuser’s story, particularly since it’s a “he said/she said” situation.


2) The GARC statement is heavily biased

With no compelling direct evidence against Nathan, it appears that the only way to make Nathan look guilty has been to discredit his character. I already mentioned the “at least three” accusers comment, which suggests more than three without actually saying it. The GARC statement calls him a “self-described ‘polygamist’”. This strikes me as irrelevant to whether or not he is a sexual predator, though evidently the GARC statement hopes that “polygamist” label stigmatizes Nathan and implies out-of-control sexuality. In fact, Nathan states that he is sexually monogamous.

I agree with the GARC statement that sexual assaulters should be held accountable for their actions. However, the GARC statement says, “We urge Nathan and any one else in the movement who may have sexually victimized others to choose a more just response: First, to stop sexually harassing and sexually assaulting women, second, acknowledge what they have done, and third, provide restitution to the assault survivor(s) and meet their demands and that of the community.” Indeed, Nathan should do these things, if indeed he were guilty. But, he maintains his innocence, and the evidence against him is weak at best. They implicitly denounce Nathan for denying his guilt, blaming the “victim,” and threatening “those who hold him accountable,” because this is what sexual offenders evidently do. However, if the presumption of innocence is to mean anything at all, he shouldn't be criticized if he denies guilt, questions the victim’s veracity, and nonviolently threatens (e.g., with a lawsuit) those who, he asserts, have falsely accused him.

3) The public campaign against Nathan Braun has been reprehensible.

The GARC statement refers readers to www.sexualassaultwatch.org, which has ONLY ONE person on it – Nathan Braun. The web site even includes a printable PDF poster entitled “Unwanted: Nathan Braun” with a picture of a grinning Nathan Braun and a description of the alleged assault. Meanwhile, the GARC statement has been sent to scores of AR and veg. discussion groups. Someone who goes by “scrodbottom” has, like a spammer, joined scores of animal advocacy discussion lists for the purpose of posting the GARC statement. Is this a smear campaign, or what?

It would have been reasonable for GARC to alert animal protection movement leaders and inform them that the accusation has been made, and leave it at that. We really don’t know what happened, and I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that Nathan poses significantly more or less danger to woman than any other man. Let the necessary people be informed, and then move on. However, I think it is clear that some people really hate Nathan Braun, as the tone and vigor of their campaign far outweighs the evidence against him.

Psychologists have shown that, if you include true statements in an otherwise dubious piece of literature, people will be more inclined to believe the dubious parts. GARC’s final paragraph is filled with obviously true statements about how sexual assault is wrong. The issue is not, as GARC would like to frame it, whether or not sexual assault is tolerable. Of course it is not. It’s really about whether or not Nathan Braun is guilty of sexual assault, and the GARC people stand on much less firm ground there.

General Observations

The GARC press release at http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/39941.php mentions a criminal complaint. Anybody can make a criminal complaint against anybody for anything. This does not mean that there are criminal charges or a warrant for his arrest. In fact, even though his location has not been a secret, the NY Police Dept. has not bothered to contact him. Why not? I strongly suspect it's because the case doesn’t even start to approach the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof, even without Nathan's side of the story.

So, Nathan Braun has been all but tried and convicted by GARC leaders who have not, evidently, skeptically evaluated the accuser’s story. Then, they have ruined his reputation with an intense Internet campaign. This is particularly outrageous since it’s a “he said/she said” case without any physical evidence, and I find her story (lacking any effort to stop the alleged assault, despite ample opportunity to do so) bizarre and not credible. I have not interviewed the accuser, and therefore I don’t claim to have all possible evidence. This, as I said earlier, is the proper activity of the police. My opinion at this time, based on my analysis of the evidence I have obtained (primarily but not entirely from Michael Greger and Nathan Braun) is that Nathan is very likely innocent. In the unlikely event that Nathan were arrested and tried, this would probably not resolve the issue. If found not guilty, the high burden of proof required for a guilty verdict is such that many people might continue to be convinced of his guilt, particularly after the GARC campaign to ruin his name.

It has been frustrating for me to see Nathan vilified on many Internet discussion lists, though several people have seen through the smoke and recognized that the “hard” evidence provided by the GARC statement is weak, at best. At Nathan’s request, I initially refrained from speaking out, because (given his assertion that the current charges are spurious) he feared that my statement might embarrass GARC leaders, prompting new, false, more serious allegation(s). If there had been one or more other people with legitimate charges, these people have now had ample opportunity to come forward. Prior to the GARC statement’s publication, GARC representatives contacted animal rights people who knew Nathan, seeking to find evidence of past sexual misconduct, and the GARC statement has been out since late May and circulated to just about everyone intimately or remotely involved in the animal advocacy movement. So, at this point, there would be good reason for skepticism if someone made a new accusation.

I think it should be noted that Nathan has been a dedicated and creative animal advocate. He convinces a large proportion of those he meets to go veg, and he is perhaps the most persuasive veg advocate I know. This neither proves Nathan’s innocence nor does it counterbalance the seriousness of the charge against him. However, we should be aware that an (evidently) decent person is being vilified and humiliated and an effective animal advocate is being run out of the movement. This should not be done without compelling evidence for his guilt.

Er, thanks, but this doesn't seem to be a verifiable reference for the material currently in the article. By whome is it alleged that Braun is the reincarnation of Schweitzer? How do we know that "Braun primarily refers to the work of Georg Feuerstein"? I am going to remove the recent edits until we can get reliable, verifiable sources for them. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

"As is so often the case with genius, Pythagoras by his outspokenness incurred both political and personal enmity. Among those who came for initiation was one who, because Pythagoras refused to admit him, determined to destroy both the man and his philosophy. By means of false propoganda, this disgruntled one turned the minds of the common people against the philosopher. Without warning, a band of murderers descended upon the little group of buildings where the great teacher and his disciples dwelt, burned the structures and killed Pythagoras." = Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (ch. 13, p. 193)

(Much like Osho, who also advocated both vegetaranism and polyamory, Mr. Braun seems to be subject to a certain degree of religious persecution. And so he naturally might wish to keep his "head below water" at times... no wonder he keeps floating about, and self-publishes, etc! The US does not tolerate much dissent or true spiritual leadership.)--65.101.49.214 06:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mystery books

  • Foundations of Christian Utilitarianism,
  • Memethics: Morals as Memeplexes
  • The Vegan Monologues.
  • The Samael Aun Weor Experience,
  • Samael Aun Weor's Gnosis: Twentieth Century Latin American Religious Synthesis

The only mention on the Internet of these five books is this page. Can we please have the publisher, copyright date, ISBN, etc?

  • The History & Philosophy of Marriage, E. N. Jencks, ed. [1]
  • The Samael Aun Weor Anthology, by Samael Aun Weor [2]

These books are mentioned on the Internet as being self-published, but there is no mention of Braun. Can we have some verifiable sources for this bibliography? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Will, if you want to delete this one too, I'll support it. Getting accused of rape is not enough of an accomplishment to warrant a wikipage, and this person doesn't seem to have done much else. KSchutte 02:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for my deletions

I've deleted a lot of material, which looked as though it needed a source or was in some way inappropriate. Here's the diff. [3]

I removed categories that seemed inappropriate (e.g. in what sense is he a theologian, a skeptic, or a utilitarian?). I removed books that he was claiming to have edited, as opposed to written, because we don't include editors unless they're named as (ed). Peter Deunov and PETA in see also: in what way is he connected to them? And the quotes need citations. As for the bed and breakfast in Bulgaria, I'll be sure to pay it a visit when I'm next in the neighborhood.

The main text was unsourced and strange-looking: the foundation of memethics etc.

The deletions have decimated the article, but perhaps it can be rebuilt using sourced material so that it doesn't look like a vanity page. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts here. I'd be happy to see this article grow into a comprehensive portrait as verifiable sources are found. This is a clear foundation upon which to build. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Why has this article been added to category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal? The allegations about Braun have nothing to do with that scandal, and I'm not aware of any that are. -Will Beback 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no explanation, I'll remove it. -Will Beback 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polygamy

Looks like this guy is into so-called "Christian" Polygamy. I think that should be mentioned.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1411626249/sr=1-1/qid=1146600227/ref=sr_1_1/104-8698352-9335139?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

We already mention the book. There's not much more we can say. -Will Beback 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, is he the guy behind all the truthbearer.org sites?
Hard to say. I don't see his name on it, but they do have the "review" from Amazon posted so as to imply that Braun is the founder. -Will Beback 22:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)