Scientology

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
Wasn't sure where to post - this seemed to be the most neutral place.

Anyway, Scientology - I don;t actually know very much at all about this group - it's background, it's principles, or current activities.

However, the issue has recently come up in my profession, and followed a link to Scientology Watch:
http://www.scientologywatch.org/postnuke/index.php

Anyone have any comments or opinions, or (non-affiliated!) resources on Scientology?
 
Yeah, I've only read Operation Clambake - apart from reading the more easily obtainable stuff the 'church' actually releases. As a kid I'd seen the Dianetics commercials. When I was 16 I finally picked up a copy from the library. It was worn, dirty, had notes in the margins. I read every word, from cover to cover and then re-read it, incredulous to that fact that I had read easily 600 pages of meaningless jargon.

I have to say - and I'm not demanding everyone or anyone agree, this is my opinion only - Scientology is the only church, philosophy, group, etc, that I genuinely dislike. I'm no fan of Islam, but there are redeeming factors and a rich heritage there. In Scientology, there is nothing, zilch. Its was the catch-all for all 50s/60s quasi-science UFO trends. Before I knew about Scientology I actually thought the UFO groups from the 60s were kitsch, but now I just see the bloated, incoherent face of L Ron Hubbard. The biggest indictment of religion in general, can be found in Scientology. A cynic could say, look how easy it is for intelligent people with good intentions to follow a malicious and violent man with mental illness and few rebuttals would surface.

If there was ever any substantial defense of Scientology it was ruined by the actions the organizations has classically taken against its critics. If you type 'Jew' into Google, you get anti-semitic results and an apology from Google itself stating that changing the order search results are returned would throw off the system. But when COS came up number one on Google with the search keyword 'cult' Google didn't hesitate to remedy the complaint. At the religious-tolerance.org site, Scientology is the only entry without a list of criticisms. This is the extent to which the COS has made itself feared, through lawsuit, harrassment, etc.

Early in my experience on the net, I posted in a newgroup some flip comment on COS, only to find days later my name, e-mail, phone number and my mother's address plastered on net, next to gay S&M personal advertisements. All in the name of a space alien who hides souls in a volcano on a planet far far away. Amen.

I'll hold my peace now in the name of civil dialogue.
 
No, I lied. One more thing. Check out the audio on the clambake website of Hubbard. It speaks volumes. This man, barely coherent, rambles off a loose observation, pauses at the conclusion, presumably to await appreciation. The applause begins, nervous at first and then fearing an appearance of disapproval or lack of understanding, one outdoes the other in clapping, laughing and shouting zeal over some nonsensical remark.

Example:

I suppose the guy who has trouble running another Thetan at that proximity probably not very horse-powered or something of the sort. Well all I ever did was a body Thetan was just think "go to the .. uh .. uh .. think Incident One zoooom! Go through it, get your stop off you know", "Rmmm", he says "Rmmmm. Zooooom! Hrrm. Hey that's mine!" he'd say. "I'm leaving!" I'd say "Good bye!" [laughter]"

http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html
 
But according to the ads at the top of this page, Scientology is just a "new religion about improving life and self discovery" that answers the age old question: "Who are you Really?"


What could possibly be wrong with that?
:)
 
Might ought to let the thread die before the little grinning men with e-meters come and take Brian's website away from him.

l_ron_hubbard_1973.jpg
 
It would be a genuine shame if there were so much fear surrounding this organisation that simple discussion of it could not be made.

There is no organised attempt to dismiss the organisation - that's never been the policy here regarding any belief group. This thread is merely individuals expressing opinions, as is the general practice of this community.

Besides, I doubt Scientology would seek to hound this place - I believe we sometimes do actually carry their ads via Google AdSense.
 
all i can say about that is this...

Fair Game.

that's their policy towards SP's... suppressive persons, like myself :)

here's how this is worded:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967,
Issue IV
Remimeo

PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS

(Applies both Orgs and Sea Org)


LIABILITY Suspension of pay and a dirty grey rag on left arm and day
and night confinement to org premises.

TREASON Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and insignia,
a black mark on left cheek and confinement on org premises or
dismissal from post and debarment from premises.

DOUBT Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of fine
amounting to any sum may have cost org. Not to be trained or
processed. Not to be communicated or argue with.

ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured
by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of
the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.


LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (c) 1967 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


now.. to be fair, in 1968 this standing order was cancelled... to wit:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968

CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME


The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.

FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.


LRH:ci:cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (c) 1968 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

however, you'll note the bolded bit... though the policy isn't allowed to appear on the Ethics Order, the policy on treatment of SP's remains in effect.

oh no... it's deeper than that....

In Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California (the "mother church" of the Churches of Scientology at the time the suit was filed), the California Appeal Court ruled, in a decision upheld by the US Supreme Court: "Wollersheim was compelled to abandon his wife and his family through the policy of disconnect. When his mental illness reached such a level he actively planned his suicide, he was forbidden to seek professional help. Finally, when Wollersheim was able to leave the Church, it subjected him to financial ruin through its policy of 'fair game'." (JCA-147, pp.A-7, 15 & 16). At appeal, Scientology asserted that "fair game" was a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression". This position was also made on behalf of Scientology in the case against Gerald Armstrong, in 1984, by religious expert Dr. Frank Flinn (JCA-45).



JCA-45. Frank K. Flinn testimony in Church of Scientology of California, 1984, vol.23, pp.4032-4160.

JCA-147. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Court of Appeal of the State of California, civ.no.B023193, 18 July 1989 (upheld by the U,S. Supreme Court, 7 March 1994).

http://www.xenu.com/fairgame-e.html
 
Paging Scientologists here...

I had some acquaintance with a Scientologist in another forum where Vajradhara also interacted with him.

I thought he was a sensible person, possessed more knowledge about Buddhism than I can lay claim to.

What I like about him is his view that everyone should adopt the religion that most appeals to him -- obviously Scientology is the religion that most appeals to him in his case.

No, I don't think he is without sound knowledge and good command of his rational faculty. And he gives me the impression of sincerity and candor.

And no again, I don't have any acquaintance with any other Scientologist, but I have read news accounts of this church's troubles with governments and private persons critical of its existence and operation. And even with ex-members.

I am very excited to read the opposing views from posters here anti or pro Scientology. Do we have Scientologists here in this forum?

It's going to be most enjoyable to me -- bad as I am to see a good fight, but only with words and minus of course invectives.

So, shall we get the war of words started? Paging Scientologists, please answer the charges against your church.

(If this post get deleted, it's o.k., with me. A moderator once told me that my kind of attitude is not acceptable to him. Didn't Brian say something about this forum being more tolerant now with my kind of delightful expectations...?)

Pachomius2000
 
Re: Paging Scientologists here...

Well, I've known a handful and had no positive experience. But though my prejudice is based on an educated examination its still prejudice. Unfortuately, there's no standard Scientology apologetics. Travolta is keen on comparing the European prejudice against Scientology to old Europe anti-semitism, but that doesn't really wash.

I'm always reminded of Sammy Davis Jr converting to Judaism, but then showing up at token trendy Satanic functions. LOL He clearly found a way to reconcile that, but how is beyond me. How would a Scientologist who believes that all suffering is a result of alien invasion of the body, reconcile the complexity of Buddhism?
 
After reading all your posts above I have to laugh at one common thought...


None of us appear to accept that we are God. Humanism (which scientology is a form of), seems bland at best, and abominable at worst.

v/r

Q
 
Non partisan examination

Co$ is the acronym Vajradhara uses to refer to the Church of Scientology.

If Vajrahara is disposed to humor my curiosity, I'd like to ask him whether that acronym is his very own invention, or is it also used by others.

Am I right that there is message in that acronym, namely, that the Church of Scientology is after money.

Did I get the message right?

Mus Zubii uses a more conventional way to formulate an acronym, he uses COS to stand for the Church of Scientology. I think his acronym serves the essential purpose of an acronym, which is to abbreviate several words into a few letters, without seeking to deliver a message.

Even though Mus Zubii admits to being prejudiced against the Church of Scientology, I think he deserves to be commended for being academically non-partisan in the formulation of an acronym to represent that church.

I am being judgmental, but tell me if I am wrong.

So, I will continue: even though I have nothing personal against Vajradhara, I think he is being un-academic in using the acronym, Co$, to refer to the Church of Scientology.

I believe that he should just use the most conventional abbreviation understandable for the Church of Scientology, namely, CoS, just as the USA stands for the United States of America; and we don't use any such acronyms like U$A to stand for that country.

The second point I would like to invite posters here who don't have any sympathy for the CoS, is for each of them to just pick out one exorbitant teaching or practice of Scientologists, and look carefully for something similar in that religion we all are most accustomed with, namely, Christianity.

No, I am not any kind of paid or unpaid apologist or polemicist of the CoS, but just some open-minded person claiming to see in every religion both agreeable and disagreeable doctrines and disciplines.

Pachomius2000
 
b'shalom Susma,


thank you for the post.

i use the Co$ for two reasons... it's the standard acronym of the group, devised by ex-members and the other is, as you've deduced, a reference to the method that one progresses through their hierarchy.
 
it also avoids confusion with anton lavey's "church of satan", i expect. those are the guys sammy davis junior was involved with - they loved making big statements in the 60s. i rather like lavey myself, he just doesn't realise how jewish he actually is.

as for the co$ - pheeeeuuuuuwwwwrrrrgh.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Religion and dollars

Once there was this Evangelical pastor who was somewhat of a down to earth realistic chap. I happened to be one Sunday in his congregation, and after the loud fervent singing, this is what he said to the faithful:

"That was some very devout hearty singing; now let's see if you people are as good in giving as you are in singing!"

I was sure he looked at me with a wink in his eyes.

About the CoS being acronymed as the Co$, would you guys here agree with me that all successful religions make good money?

They make so good money, that just like us ordinary folks they get in trouble from having too much money, when not getting in troble with sex; or they get in trouble both from sex and money -- just like us ordinary people without the status of religion.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000
 
Re: Religion and dollars

Susma Rio Sep said:
Once there was this Evangelical pastor who was somewhat of a down to earth realistic chap. I happened to be one Sunday in his congregation, and after the loud fervent singing, this is what he said to the faithful:

"That was some very devout hearty singing; now let's see if you people are as good in giving as you are in singing!"

I was sure he looked at me with a wink in his eyes.

About the CoS being acronymed as the Co$, would you guys here agree with me that all successful religions make good money?

They make so good money, that just like us ordinary folks they get in trouble from having too much money, when not getting in troble with sex; or they get in trouble both from sex and money -- just like us ordinary people without the status of religion.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000
Sus, I don't know about others, but the fastest way to get me to walk out of a church, is for the pastor to demand money. The catholic church used to pass a basket around twice during services, once for the obligatory maintenance of the church and priests, and a second time for some obscure cause or another (the obscure cause always seemed more appropriate for giving money than to the church who's priest rode around in the latest Caddilac).

People (parishners) are naturally givers, but they are not stupid. They usually can discern between a ligitimate cause and bovine excrement. That may have alot to do with the declining numbers of church goers during the late 80s and 90s.

And when the church 'demands' a certain percentage of your pay check each week...well, I got two halves of a full moon I'll show. And I'll deliberately back against the church doors before I leave for the last time.

Now I've had the absolute pleasure of meeting a righteous priest with common sence. He would never push the money issue (make it a sermon all its own). He would simply state that the school's basket ball team needed upgrades for the equipment, or the convent needed repairs to the roof, or there was a plumbing problem in the girls locker room...

He never said give more money, he just stated the facts, and then got on with his sermon for the week. The church didn't always get boat loads of cash; sometimes they got 5 or six volunteers who repaired the problems and ate the cost (not really, since it is a tax write off). The point is that the local church and school were taken care of by the local people, without passing dollars over to the preacher. Besides, he got to drive a nice Ford every four or five years.

When a preacher implies that I should show him the money, I show him my backside instead. But when the preacher says that there are problems that he can't take care of, then I am more inclined to help (I have resourses and contacts that he doesn't). It's more efficient, and the kids do not suffer.

A preacher's income should not be lower than the poorest parishner, nor exceed the richest. It should be dab smack in the middle of the local income bracket for the area. House and car should be modest as well (unless he/she is a genius at investing...then more power to him/her). Of course on the sabbath, the preacher better give us our "money's" worth.

v/r

Q
 
Prosperity Gospel

A preacher's income should not be lower than the poorest parishner, nor exceed the richest. It should be dab smack in the middle of the local income bracket for the area. House and car should be modest as well (unless he/she is a genius at investing...then more power to him/her). Of course on the sabbath, the preacher better give us our "money's" worth. -- Quahom1

I am completely with you there, Quahom1.

But you know, there are such religions that are into what is known as the prosperity gospel, the more you make of money the more you are closer to religious perfection.

Now, Banabrain will be reacting with his data base of Judaism, from what I am going to say, namely, that Old Testament Jews -- I observe maybe wrongly, do have that kind of a religion: the more money you make or of earthly worth the more you are favored by Jahweh.

In effect Christ says someting similarly, rewards in the Kingdom and also on earth -- what is that text about that assurance? (I am sure it's somewhere in the gospels).

If you ask me, I think religion is all about being detached from material worth, but in practice it is all about material acquisition, if you look at if from the visible eyepiece. As I said, do you know of any successful religion that is not also financially loaded?

Who know about the financial compensation and lifestyle of fulltime Red Cross workers or the Medicins sans Frontiers people. United Nations workers sad to say are no different from senators and congressmen and cabinet secretaries we know about: they either are already wealthy or get more wealthy from public service or get wealthy thereby.

Pachomius2000
 
Re: Religion and dollars

Susma Rio Sep said:
About the CoS being acronymed as the Co$, would you guys here agree with me that all successful religions make good money?

They make so good money, that just like us ordinary folks they get in trouble from having too much money, when not getting in troble with sex; or they get in trouble both from sex and money -- just like us ordinary people without the status of religion.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000
Well, and again, this is my opnion (not to reflect Comparative Religion forum or website) the COS is all about money. Money to get in, money to get lessons, money to advance lessons, money to get OUT in many cases, etc. All churches take donations, only COS asks for an admission fee. You'd think if all souls were corrupted with alien spirits Hubbard would've offered his services free of charge, and made an effort to prove such contentions publically. But then you venture into the 'CIA, FBI, KGB role in the intergalatic conspiracy to silence the COS, and libel the brave war-hero, scientist, nuclear-physicist and (purely coincidentally) sci-fi author, L Ron Hubbard (PBUH) therefore making it necessary for Hubard to go into hiding, ingest massive amounts of antipsychotic drugs, and collect millions upon millions of tax exempt dollars, a portion of which to be used to harrass dissidents and critics' thing.
 
Re: Prosperity Gospel

Susma Rio Sep said:
A preacher's income should not be lower than the poorest parishner, nor exceed the richest. It should be dab smack in the middle of the local income bracket for the area. House and car should be modest as well (unless he/she is a genius at investing...then more power to him/her). Of course on the sabbath, the preacher better give us our "money's" worth. -- Quahom1

I am completely with you there, Quahom1.

But you know, there are such religions that are into what is known as the prosperity gospel, the more you make of money the more you are closer to religious perfection.

Now, Banabrain will be reacting with his data base of Judaism, from what I am going to say, namely, that Old Testament Jews -- I observe maybe wrongly, do have that kind of a religion: the more money you make or of earthly worth the more you are favored by Jahweh.

In effect Christ says someting similarly, rewards in the Kingdom and also on earth -- what is that text about that assurance? (I am sure it's somewhere in the gospels).

If you ask me, I think religion is all about being detached from material worth, but in practice it is all about material acquisition, if you look at if from the visible eyepiece. As I said, do you know of any successful religion that is not also financially loaded?

Who know about the financial compensation and lifestyle of fulltime Red Cross workers or the Medicins sans Frontiers people. United Nations workers sad to say are no different from senators and congressmen and cabinet secretaries we know about: they either are already wealthy or get more wealthy from public service or get wealthy thereby.

Pachomius2000
Evening Sus and Mus Z,

I really don't know about the inner workings of the COS except to observe similarities to the group known as Rosicrusions. (This is not a negative reference). As for your comment Sus, on rewards on the kingdom and also on earth, there is a phrase that states in part..."as it is in Heaven so it shall be on earth..." It goes on to say that what is forgiven (or loosed) on earth is forgiven (loosed) in Heaven, and what is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven.

Christian scripture, tells the story of the rich man who asked Jesus how he could become a disciple. Jesus told him to sell all his worth and come follow him. The rich man turned and walked away dejected. Then Jesus specifically stated to the crowd later, that it is far harder for a rich man to enter Heaven than it is for a poor man. (like trying to pass through the eye of a needle). Now the needle is the name of a door to the city walls, that loaded camels had difficulty passing through, unless the camel was relieved of all the goods it carried, wherein a man with nothing just breezed through. Scripture also exalted the poor woman who came up after all the town's richest folks gave to the churches and patted themselves on the back for their generocity, she gave two pennies (all she had in life). Jesus said she gave far more than the rich because she gave all she had...and her treasures in Heaven would be far more than the others.

The amount of charity we give is not important, but what our thoughts and intentions behind the giving are.

Now as for your comments about building riches on earth, yes there is scripture on that as well. Remember the three servants who's master left for a time and made them stewards of three talents, two talents and one talent respectively? The allusion is that the Master gave them his property for them to keep safe while he was away. The first two however, invested the talents and doubled the amount they had, thus pleasing the Master, but the third buried his keep and this angered his boss, because he wasted opportunity to enrich the Master.

I don't want to lecture two intelligent people here, I just wish to point out that what may be practiced today by some people is not what was taught in scripture. Thats why "religion" (man's invention) should be taken with a grain of salt.

I also bet B-Brain will point out that the Jews had three or four sects which did not believe the same way (collecting riches on earth).

v/r

Q

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day...teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
 
Back
Top