Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
"There's no liability in talking to anybody. We make a mistake when we suppose that there is." - L Ron Hubbard
The thing that messed up Hubbard's mind the most was when Don G Purcell bought the rights to it out of bankruptcy from Hubbard then refused to give it back to him when Hubbard asked nicely.
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.
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.
Mark A. Baker
Alanzo, I am a person mildly autistic, but was taunted as being retarded as a child. It has no effect on me now, except for just a sense that maybe in the spirit of Eunice Schriver, it is not a word to jokingly label with.
Freedom of speach is not freedom from consequence.
You mean don't trow the babie out with the bath water? Yea.
Leaving the church is only penalized inside the context of the church for the most part.
I understand.
It's the work, not the man. It's the quest, not the cult.
Am I right?
That would be true if the penalty was no more Scientology auditing or training, but it's not limited to that. The actual penalty is "get every Scientologist to disconnect from person, including friends, family, employers, and landlords, compelling compliance on the part of those associates via threat of having the same thing happen to them.
And this from a church who unceasingly attempts to get a person to utterly immerse themselves within it, so that the "context of the church" encompasses every aspect of the person's life. In that context, such disconnection is an effort to "destroy the person utterly" if they speak.
Leaving the church is only penalized inside the context of the church for the most part.
Freedom of speach is not freedom from consequence.
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....