A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
What do I see that you dont?

That the beliefs, the ideals, are held by people not yet fully capable of living up to them. And that those people are solving their "problem", life, with what tools they have. Frequently imperfectly.

"Scientology" owes me nothing. Nor anyone else for that matter. It is there to be used or abused. Its what you make of it. Many have chosen to make a cluster fuck of it. A few seem to appreciate it being there and have made success with it.

And in the end, it will be the aggregate of all the individual actions and experiences that will say what it was.

That time is not here.

I can't help but notice that you did not answer the specific question I asked you - even after you asked me to be more specific.

The US government is WAY better at preserving the freedom of speech than any Scientologist.

In fact, these Scientologists who are "not yet fully capable" of upholding the freedom of speech are complete retards next to the US government.

So why do you want to be a complete retard?

This is what I had to ask myself.

And I answered that I did not want to be a complete retard.

You seem to have had a different answer.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Dude, the Creed is a list of "acceptable truths" told for PR area control reasons only. It is part of the "Scientology is a religion" angle, which allows Hubbard and the corporations using his marks to pay no taxes while they heap abuse upon private individuals and the courts who are trying to fix the ghosts in their machine.

I would agree that for some portion of the total scientology experience that is true.

But why is it not possible for some to take it as presented and run with it?

Even if scientology were a complete fabrication done for greed by a plagerist con man, it still could be taken in a context representing the notion of it and used as if it were "real".

That is not my take on it, but....I think renders the arguement moot.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I can't help but notice that you did not answer the specific question I asked you - even after you asked me to be more specific.

I believe "What do I see that you dont?" was the essence of your list of questions and my response to it did address all of them.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Is that question rational or a choice on your part.

Next to the US government, any Scientologist, including LRH, is a complete retard when judged in their ability to uphold the freedom of speech.

Yet you wish to remain a Scientologist - which is a complete retard in their capability of upholding the freedom of speech.

Why do you want to be a complete retard in upholding the freedom of speech - if you believe in the freedom of speech?

It is a completely rational question.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I'm really not trying to insult you personally, Alex.

My reasoning goes like this:

If you believe in the freedom of speech, and you now know that every single area that the Church of Scientology has ever controlled, and will ever control, has destroyed the freedom of speech in that area - not from accidental, individual screw ups, but from intentionally written and applied policies and technology that are designed to destroy the freedom of speech - then how can you remain a Scientologist if you really value the freedom of speech?

Unless you are a complete retard?
 

Mystic

Crusader
There are many levels of retardism. Some even believe becoming more of a retard is The Way. (They're usually rather difficult to get along with as they use their retardism in a quite trollistic manner to suck others into their ego-cluster. Rather a standard operating procedure in the lower psychic-vampire realms.)
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Next to the US government, any Scientologist, including LRH, is a complete retard when judged in their ability to uphold the freedom of speech.

Yet you wish to remain a Scientologist - which is a complete retard in their capability of upholding the freedom of speech.

Why do you want to be a complete retard in upholding the freedom of speech - if you believe in the freedom of speech?

It is a completely rational question.

Ok so you have "reasons" for asking. Your premise is what is the choice, and that is that someone is a retard.

Do I still beat my spouse. No. Never did.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are many levels of retardism. Some even believe becoming more of a retard is The Way. (They're usually rather difficult to get along with as they use their retardism in a quite trollistic manner to suck others into their ego-cluster. Rather a standard operating procedure in the lower psychic-vampire realms.)

OK so you talkin' bout me or alanzo....I's too slow to get it.
:)
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm really not trying to insult you personally, Alex.

My reasoning goes like this:

If you believe in the freedom of speech, and you now know that every single area that the Church of Scientology has ever controlled, and will ever control, has destroyed the freedom of speech in that area - not from accidental, individual screw ups, but from intentionally written and applied policies and technology that are designed to destroy the freedom of speech - then how can you remain a Scientologist if you really value the freedom of speech?

Unless you are a complete retard?

Freedom of speech and the choice to use it are two different things. I choose to be in a group that currently is struggling with the need for order and the ideal of free speech as diachotomies rather than as compliments.

That the ideal is not achieved is not a abdication of support.

I dont think the intent of Hubbard was as you describe, nor the policies of the church necessarily only applicable thus.

You describe the isness not the intent, the struggle not the goal.
 

justaguy

Patron Meritorious
Not to hijack my own thread, but....The best question I've heard asked about Palin is whether anyone would be paying this much attention to her if she looked like Margaret Thatcher. I suspect the answer might be no.

It is interesting to note that people paid attention to Margaret Thatcher despite the fact that she looked like, well, Margaret Thatcher.

Would people pay attention to BWG if she didn't look like BWG? Of course they would. Would certain males pay as much attention to BWG if she didn't look like she does? I would (breaking my arm patting myself on the back), but I can't speak for others. I'm not so sure.

Now you know why I have the Avatar that I do. :wink2:

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....

Because Xenu is hot and it thus makes us pay more attention to you?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Freedom of speech and the choice to use it are two different things. I choose to be in a group that currently is struggling with the need for order and the ideal of free speech as diachotomies rather than as compliments.

That the ideal is not achieved is not a abdication of support.

I dont think the intent of Hubbard was as you describe, nor the policies of the church necessarily only applicable thus.

You describe the isness not the intent, the struggle not the goal.

I'm so glad you answered me, Alex.

Thanks.

The following standard ethics and tech points of Scientology have the intentions and activities, and the goals, of directly destroying the right to the freedom of speech.

From the Ethics Book, pages 279-307:

TESTIFYING OR GIVING DATA AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY FALSELY OR IN GENERALITIES OR WITHOUT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTERS TO WHICH ONE TESTIFIES

FALSELY ATTRIBUTING OR FALSELY REPRESENTING ONESELF OT OTHERS AS SOURCE OF SCIENTOLOGY OR DIANETICS TECHNOLOGY; OR USING ANY POSITION GAINED WITH STAFF/OR PUBLIC TO FALSELY ATTRIBUTE NONSOURCE MATERIAL TO SOURCE OR TO FALSELY REPRESENT NON-SOURCE MATERIAL AS AUTHORIZED SCIENTOLOGY OR DIANETICS TECHNOLOGY

KNOWINGLY GIVING TESTIMONY WHICH IS FALSE, A GENERALITY OR NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE TO IMPERIL A SCIENTOLOGIST.

PUBLIC DISAVOWAL OF SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS IN GOOD STANDING WITH SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS

PUBLIC STATEMENTS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS BUT NOT TO COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCES DULY CONVENED

PROPOSING ADVISING OR VOTING FOR LEGISLATION OR ORDINANCES, RULES OR LAWS DIRECTED TOWARD THE SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY

PRONOUNCING SCIENTOLOGISTS GUILTY OF THE PRACTICE OF STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY

TESTIFYING HOSTILELY BEFORE STATE OR PUBLIC INQUIRIES INTO SCIENTOLOGY TO SUPPRESS IT.

REPORTING OR THREATENING TO REPORT SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES IN AN EFFORT TO SUPPRESS SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS FROM PRACTICING OR RECEIVING STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY

WRITING ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS TO THE PRESS OR GIVING ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY OR ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST DATA TO THE PRESS

ENGAGING IN MALICIOUS RUMOR-MONGERING TO DESTROY THE AUTHORITY OR REPUTE OF HIGHER OFFICERS OR THE LEADING NAMES OF SCIENTOLOGY OR TO "SAFEGUARD" A POSITION

SPREADING FALSE TALES TO INVALIDATE CLEARS OR SPREADING LIBELOUS AND SLANDEROUS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR OF CLEARS

IT IS A HIGH CRIME TO PUBLICLY DEPART SCIENTOLOGY


Each of the above, which are most definitely part of the standard ethics and justice technology of Scientology, and which are used to suppress the freedom of speech of the individuals unlucky enough to be under an area which the Church controls, ALL ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY - AS THEIR GOALS - to destroy the right to the freedom of speech.

So if you are for the right to the freedom of speech, then how can you still call yourself a Scientologist - unless you are a complete retard?

(Note* Being a complete retard is not the only choice I am offering you, Alex. You can be anything other than a complete retard, as long as you can answer the question in a way that makes sense, and which shows you are not a complete retard.)
 
Alright, Mark A Baker, you've demonstrated the ability to define real analysis. I'm impressed. However, having recently spent a few days with a mathematician offspring of mine, how do you do defining COHOMOLOGY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohomology :D


No Fair! I haven't studied mathematics formally for 30 years. Your kid is a current student! Besides, according to a semi-reputable source, he's a mathematical genius. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm so glad you answered me, Alex.

Thanks.

The following standard ethics and tech points of Scientology have the intentions and activities, and the goals, of directly destroying the right to the freedom of speech.

From the Ethics Book, pages 279-307:

TESTIFYING OR GIVING DATA AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY FALSELY OR IN GENERALITIES OR WITHOUT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTERS TO WHICH ONE TESTIFIES

FALSELY ATTRIBUTING OR FALSELY REPRESENTING ONESELF OT OTHERS AS SOURCE OF SCIENTOLOGY OR DIANETICS TECHNOLOGY; OR USING ANY POSITION GAINED WITH STAFF/OR PUBLIC TO FALSELY ATTRIBUTE NONSOURCE MATERIAL TO SOURCE OR TO FALSELY REPRESENT NON-SOURCE MATERIAL AS AUTHORIZED SCIENTOLOGY OR DIANETICS TECHNOLOGY

KNOWINGLY GIVING TESTIMONY WHICH IS FALSE, A GENERALITY OR NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE TO IMPERIL A SCIENTOLOGIST.

PUBLIC DISAVOWAL OF SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS IN GOOD STANDING WITH SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS

PUBLIC STATEMENTS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS BUT NOT TO COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCES DULY CONVENED

PROPOSING ADVISING OR VOTING FOR LEGISLATION OR ORDINANCES, RULES OR LAWS DIRECTED TOWARD THE SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY

PRONOUNCING SCIENTOLOGISTS GUILTY OF THE PRACTICE OF STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY

TESTIFYING HOSTILELY BEFORE STATE OR PUBLIC INQUIRIES INTO SCIENTOLOGY TO SUPPRESS IT.

REPORTING OR THREATENING TO REPORT SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES IN AN EFFORT TO SUPPRESS SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS FROM PRACTICING OR RECEIVING STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY

WRITING ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS TO THE PRESS OR GIVING ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY OR ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST DATA TO THE PRESS

ENGAGING IN MALICIOUS RUMOR-MONGERING TO DESTROY THE AUTHORITY OR REPUTE OF HIGHER OFFICERS OR THE LEADING NAMES OF SCIENTOLOGY OR TO "SAFEGUARD" A POSITION

SPREADING FALSE TALES TO INVALIDATE CLEARS OR SPREADING LIBELOUS AND SLANDEROUS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR OF CLEARS

IT IS A HIGH CRIME TO PUBLICLY DEPART SCIENTOLOGY


Each of the above, which are most definitely part of the standard ethics and justice technology of Scientology, and which are used to suppress the freedom of speech of the individuals unlucky enough to be under an area which the Church controls, ALL ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY - AS THEIR GOALS - to destroy the right to the freedom of speech.

So if you are for the right to the freedom of speech, then how can you still call yourself a Scientologist - unless you are a complete retard?

(Note* Being a complete retard is not the only choice I am offering you, Alex. You can be anything other than a complete retard, as long as you can answer the question in a way that makes sense, and which shows you are not a complete retard.)


These policies seem aimed more at lying than denying freedom of speech.
 

bluewiggirl

Patron Meritorious
These policies seem aimed more at lying than denying freedom of speech.

I was actually about to pick out the ones in the list that looked more like they were aimed at lying than suppressing free speech, I'm glad i wasn't the only one who saw that.

It still leaves "leaving the church" and "smack talking a scientologist in good standing" along with a couple others.
 
Usually, huge logical and factual inconsistencies spell trouble for any philosophy.

But apparently this is no so with Scientology.

Good to know! :thumbsup:

I disagree. It is a huge problem for scientology as it was written up by LRH and has been accepted uncritically by members of the Co$. Fortunately it is possible (and to be recommended) for individuals to eliminate inconsistencies & illogic originating in the materials from their own comprehension when studying either the Hubbard material or the material of others.

This of course is more work and requires a measure of intellectual honesty on the part of the student. However, the discipline of intellectual honesty helps to counter the lure of 3rd dynamic out-ethics to which so many are prone. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

Div6

Crusader
These policies seem aimed more at lying than denying freedom of speech.

But what if it is the Church that is lying? What if you are reporting illegal activities by the leaders of the church to authorities?

This is not hypothetical. The criminality of church leadership is well documented, from LRH and the Guardians Office to DM and his complete fiscal un-accountability.

It most definitely squashes free speech in those cases.

A code like this assumes you are "pure as the driven snow".

Which the CoS is not.
 
All right. Let's get right down to it, then, and name some specific representations that Scientology makes and see how they are different for you, than they are for me. And this difference is why you are a Scientologist, and I am not - each with our own integrity intact.

How about "The Creed of the Church of Scientology"?

It begins with the words "WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE..", and it is prominently displayed and pointed to on the walls of every mission and org on Earth, and it is actively used to recruit new Scientologists, so it seems like it might be a good place to start.

Agreed?

No. The Co$ are liars. We know that. That however does not invalidate the subject of scientology, although it does justify scepticism when examining the statements of representatives of that church. The creed itself is not so terrible. The conflict between the subject of scientology & the truthfulness of the Co$ and it's representatives is quite similar to that lovely hypocrisy of which Mark Twain wrote in his immortal essay "To a Person Sitting in Darkness".


Mark A. Baker
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I was actually about to pick out the ones in the list that looked more like they were aimed at lying than suppressing free speech, I'm glad i wasn't the only one who saw that.

It still leaves "leaving the church" and "smack talking a scientologist in good standing" along with a couple others.

Which ones specifically address lying?

Remember, the Creed of the Church says this:

"We of the Church believe...'

"That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others"

Those policies I copied above all directly contradict what appears to be the recognition of the right to the freedom of speech by the Church of Scientology in its Creed.

The question is - if you believe in the freedom of speech, and you were shown the Creed, then it is entirely understandable why you became a Scientologist in the first place. But once you find out the existence and practical applications of the policies and the technology that I copied - how could you possibly remain a Scientologist if you really believe in the freedom of speech?

Unless you are a complete retard?
 
Top