I've been looking round the articles relating to [[A Course In Miracles]] (ACIM). One article details a court case pertaining to authorship, under the rather bizarre premise that since authorship was claimed to be Jesus, "channeled" through Helen Schucman, copyright did not apply. I've asked for some citations from sources outside the ACIM movement for this and other articles in this collection, and received this reply:
"But it is quite a challenge to find comments from people outside of the ACIM "world" when most outside of that insular world have never even heard of ACIM. Most non-ACIM students couldn't be concerned with whether Jesus is the literal or symbolic source, because most non-ACIM students think the whole thing looks insane, cultish, weird, etc."
Now to my mind if there are no sources outside the movement we ought to be very wary about covering the subject at all. This same editor added a section to [[forgiveness]] detailing ACIM's view of the concept which was larger than the section devoted to Bhuddism and about the same size as the one for Islam. My view is that unless we have some reputable secondary sources external to the movement to draw on, we should not include it there at all (else we'll have to have a paragraph for Methylated Wesletarians and Jagism).
Back to the article on the court case: I'd say it's a footnote to the book unless it's been covered extensively in the mainstream media, discussed in the Harvard Law Review as a ground-breaking case, cited as precedent in other cases or whatever. The only cited source we have in that section is from the Foundation for A Course In Miracles, which was one of the parties to the dispute. I am minded to merge.
I don't want to let my natural scepticism run away with me here, how do others view this kind of apparent walled garden?
Guy (JzG)