Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Scientology and me
Topic Started: May 13 2007, 05:40 AM (667 Views)
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
pianojerome
May 13 2007, 05:38 PM
Frank_W
May 13 2007, 08:29 PM
If Scientology is such a religion, why were/are they repeatedly investigated by the FBI, Scotland Yard, etc. etc. Why are they altogether BANNED in Germany? Why have they killed so many people? Why were they forced to flee from one of the ports they pulled into, (Spain, I think it was), because the citizenry was hurling rocks at them? I wonder if Lisa McPherson's family feels that it's a legitimate religion? (Oh, that's right: You didn't look, so  you don't know, Kenny.)  :shrug:  :dead:

I don't know enough about scientology to pass judgment (my previous post was just a sort of clarification of what I thought the article was about)...

But your post pretty well describes Jews throughout the ages... investigated by the police... banned in Germany... accused of conspiracy and murder... forced to flee Spain because people were attacking them... not accepted as a legitimate religion...

True, today in many parts of the world, Jews are relatively well off. It hasn't always been that way.

Thanks PJ , excellent point.

Frank the words don't matter, cult or not cult.

All religions are religions and it makes no difference to me what they teach or do, until I'm shopping for which one to join.

Also I'm not going to jump on a bandwagon of hate.

Again crimes are crimes, and religion is no excuse.

I see all this anti-Scientology, anti-Semitism anti-Islam as ugly and seductive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Kenny, that's a very nice (uneducated) opinion. Do the research, as myself and others have done, and then we can actually have an intelligent conversation, without you accusing me of hatred and bigotry.

This is the best place to begin: Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets Of Scientology

And again: Scientology Associated Deaths

It's not hatred or bigotry to give the facts, Kenny. Of course, in these times, where the surface is everything and things of actual substance, responsibility and hard work are shunned, telling the truth may well be an act of rebellion. :shrug:

My friend at least be informed. Then form your opinion.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
So Frank.
What if I go google up some "educational" things about Islam, or maybe the Jews, for everyone here to read.

Then we can all jump up and down and agree how yucky they are too.

What fun.

Knock yourself out, but count me out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Some people really are yucky. Some groups are pretty yucky, too. Don't let PC fool you.

The trouble is, sometimes delicious groups/people get labeled as yucky, and that's disgusting.

Frank might be right. I don't know -- but the question is, what do we do about scientology if it is so bad?
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
There are groups that we recognize as a threat to society -- for instance, Al Qada, Hamas, the mafia, street gangs... and just because they are organized groups doesn't mean we won't prosecute them. If scientology is truly a threat to society, and if it's members are doing what we consider to be unpardonable acts, then why should we make an exception, just because they call themselves a religion?

I definately agree we should look into our concerns -- and that's where I disagree with Kenny. I won't say they are definately good and we can't touch them, but at the same time I can't possibly say they are definately bad just on heresay and a few articles -- even if I'm hearing about it from Frank, who seems to be very knowledgable (and that's where I do agree with Kenny).
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Nothing this side of creation is perfect. But neither is everything this side of creation equal, and we've been given the gift of intellect specifically to be able to discern the difference between pure good, pure evil, and all the gradations between. To not use our intelligence to do so is wrong, a dereliction of the trust given us along with being granted the ability to reason. As far as I can see, the official Church of Scientology is systemically a lot closer to the evil end of the spectrum than the other - and far closer to that end of the spectrum than any other self-described religion I can think of.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
kenny
May 13 2007, 10:02 PM
So Frank.
What if I go google up some "educational" things about Islam, or maybe the Jews, for everyone here to read.

Then we can all jump up and down and agree how yucky they are too.

What fun.

Knock yourself out, but count me out.

Would you have said the same thing about Jim Jones and The People's Temple? Is drinking the Kool-Aid really just the same as taking a once in a lifetime Holy Communion?

We shouldn't be so keen to avoid being bigoted that we don't shout 'Knobhead!' when we see one.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Forcing people at gunpoint to drink poison is a crime.

Flying jets into buildings is a crime.

Molesting children is a crime, as is covering it up.

Separate the crime from the religion folks.

Individuals committing crimes should be punished.
Religions should not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
May 13 2007, 10:54 PM
Forcing people at gunpoint to drink poison is a crime.

Flying jets into buildings is a crime.

Molesting children is a crime.

Separate the crime from the religion folks.

Individuals committing crimes should be punished.
Religions should not.

But what if the religion promotes the crime, or the crime is an integral part of the religion?

As an extreme example, imagine a religion that encouraged child sacrifice as a fundamental aspect of spirituality. It would not fly in today's societies. We couldn't say that it's just individuals sacrificing, so respect the religion -- because the sacrifice is an integral part of the religion.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
kenny
May 13 2007, 10:54 PM
Forcing people at gunpoint to drink poison is a crime.

Flying jets into buildings is a crime.

Molesting children is a crime, as is covering it up.

Separate the crime from the religion folks.

Individuals committing crimes should be punished.
Religions should not.

When a religion is set-up with a clear intention to extort, or to break up families, or to take advantage of those who need help the most, then it is the religion itself that is at fault, not just some individuals within it.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xenon
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Realistically, you can't ban a religion like Scientology. You can only crack down on them if and when they commit a crime. Its sort of akin to the KKK, the majority of the country would probably want the institution abolished, but thats not reason enough to shut it down. We don't let society regulate what we think, only what what we do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
You are right, Xenon -- prosecute them for actual crimes, not for belief or lifestyle.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
We agree: Prosecute them for their actual crimes. The trouble with this, is that they have more money than God, and will sue anyone at the drop of a hat. You should read Hubbard's words on sueing and utterly destroying people. Makes for very interesting (and scary) reading. And it's no mistake that there are many celebrities that are part of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard planned it that way and TOLD the membership to go after celebrities, specifically.

Whatever.... I can see I'm wasting my time. For those who have done the research, they've come to a similar conclusion as mine. For those that haven't, they will continue defending an organization more insidious and evil than the mafia.

Let me leave you with this question: Would you want your child to be recruited by, and join, Scientology? Would you be comfortable with that?
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
May 14 2007, 01:04 AM
....prosecute them for actual crimes, not for belief or lifestyle.

Naw, go after them for those too.

Persecution is the answer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Just one example of why Scientology is untouchable:

Article On Scientology, "The Fishman Declaration."

"Ever wonder where the famous Scientology ``purpose of a lawsuit is to harass'' quote comes from? It's in the red volumes. Or used to be...

I have a set of red volumes published in 1991. Volume III covers the years 1955-56. On pp. 40-66 is reprinted a lengthy article called "The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material." This article first appeared in "Ability, the Magazine of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY from Phoenix, Arizona", Major Issue 1, published "circa mid-March 1955". The version of the article that appears in the 1991 red volumes contains this famous quote:

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that then you will lose every battle you are ever in engaged in...

However, the 1991 version does not contain this even more famous quote from the same article:

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.

The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.


What Hubbard was discussing in this passage was the measures that can be taken to prevent people from using Scientology materials outside the church, e.g., to deliver unapproved auditing services. Hubbard claims the public needs to be protected from incompetent practitioners, but his real concern was loss of income, and loss of control over the Dianetics and Scientology movement, as had previously occurred in New Jersey.

Why was the ``purpose of a lawsuit'' quote deleted? The passage has caused much bad publicity for Scientology in the past. The unexpurgated version of that section of the article was filed as Exhibit G in the Fishman Declaration (reproduced below). The nastiest bits were bracketed in the filed version, so the court could see the evidence that Scientology's aggressively litigious nature was part of its official doctrine.

Altering Hubbard's writing is one of the highest crimes in Scientology. But the cult routinely edits his work by discovering that an offending passage was actually written by some nameless "suppressive person" and inserted somehow into Hubbard's text prior to publication, usually as part of a "plot to destroy Scientology." There must have been an awful of lot of these suppressive persons working in the Hubbard Communications Office, because there have been a lot of changes over the years, but it seems these persons only get discovered when there is inconvenient text that needs to be disposed of.

This article, still odious despite the minor deletion, has been cited in various legal filings over the years, including the Fishman Declaration, as "Magazine articles on level 0 checksheet." Here's an explanation of where this mis-identification comes from. Each Scientology course begins with a checksheet that lists the materials to be read and the exercises to be done on that course, in the order in which they are to be undertaken. "Level 0" is the first level of the academy course, i.e., the first level of auditor training. In 1968, the Hubbard College of Scientology, a branch of the Church of Scientology of California, published a 100 page booklet called "Magazine Articles on Level 0 Checksheet" that contained eight articles from Ability magazine and the Journal of Scientology. This booklet was apparently part of the auditor curriculum at one time, but it does not appear at all in more recent (circa 1990) versions of the academy levels, at least in the checksheets I've examined. According to Professor Steven Kent of the University of Alberta, who has studied the Scientology cult since 1986, "This item is required reading in the 1991 'Department of Special Affairs, Investigations Officer, Full Hat' course.

Elsewhere in this same magazine article, Hubbard discusses what to do if a Scientologist encounters legal troubles. Again, an aggressive, even vicious response is urged. Is he crazy to be concerned about ``arrest for the practice of Scientology''? I think his concerns about legal trouble were well-founded, but he's distorting the situation in which an arrest would be likely. The practice of the Scientology religion is not illegal. But practicing medicine without a license is. And so is making unjustifiable medical claims in advertising material -- which is precisely what Scientology got into trouble for a decade later, when the FDA seized hundreds of E-meters. Even in this article, despite his worries about legal trouble, Hubbard boldly states that physicians and psychologists cannot cure mental or psychosomatic ills; only Scientologists can do that. He wants to practice medicine and psychotherapy, but he knows it's dangerous to do so openly.

Hubbard's prohibition here against prescribing vitamins is curious, because one of the fundamentals of his Purification Rundown is dangerously high doses of Niacin. Obviously he did not take his own advice. Yet he's so concerned about being charged with illegally practicing medicine that he warns against even recommending diets. Inconsistency is one of his hallmarks, and the alternation within this one document between sweeping claims and paranoid defensiveness is definitely in character.
This same magazine article is incorrectly cited as just "Level 0 Checklist" in the Emmons Report, an extensive multi-volume report on Scientology produced by Lt. Ray Emmons of the Clearwater Police Department in the mid 1980s. Below is an excerpt from that report:

The SCIENTOLOGY organization exploits every opportunity to hide behind their so called religious status. This posture is epitomized by a SCIENTOLOGY document entitled, Level O Checklist. In the Level O Checklist, instructions are given to SCIENTOLOGY members who are approached by medical doctors while these members are attempting to employ SCIENTOLOGY methods and practices to patients in hospitals and nursing homes. The Instructional Guide states the SCIENTOLOGY member is to claim religious status when approached by a medical doctor if the doctor is disturbed or displeased with the SCIENTOLOGISTS administering medical treatment to the patient. If the SCIENTOLOGY Member is arrested, a lawyer will be provided immediately and a suit is to be instituted in excess of $100,000 against the doctor and anyone else that it might be advantageous to sue for violating the SCIENTOLOGIST'S first amendment rights in practicing religion on the patient."
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Scientology is a corporate scam. It is not a religion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Bingo, AC. Nailed it in one: :basketball:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Therefore the way to deal with them is to take away their tax-exempt status and for the IRS to audit them very, very carefully.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2