ABC News: Scientology shatters families and enforces Disconnection!

ABC NEWS FLASH:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/woman-claims-scientology-tear-family-22937770

TAMPA BAY TIMES - FRONT PAGE:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scient...ce-a-mother-to-choose-son-or-daughter/2170325

Scientology's spokesperson Karin Pouw states "the Church did not force this disconnection" but the letter from Mike Ellis states otherwise. See - when you prove they lie - what do they do - they lie some more! Bat shit crazy cult!

Stick a fork in it - SCIENTOLOGY IS SO DONE!

why would anyone think this makes scientology "so done"?

the first amendment gives the right to freedom of association and thus the freedom of disassociation.

there is no crime if a person A disassociates with person B
 

Intentionally Blank

Scientology Widow
why would anyone think this makes scientology "so done"?

the first amendment gives the right to freedom of association and thus the freedom of disassociation.

there is no crime if a person A disassociates with person B

No, it's not a crime. And, often, if someone finds an associate or family member is toxic or harmful to be around disconnection may be a healthy way to establish good boundaries and self care. In those cases - whether it's ill advised or in the best interest of the person disconnnecting - it is that person's choice. He or she is not forced or coerced to disconnect from another person on threat of loss of eternal salvation. In an ideal situation family, friends, church etc would offer compassion and support for someone make a difficult choice about how to protect and care for self.

The done-ness I think will be decided in a court of public opinion as much or more than in a court of law. I was thinking about this earlier today - for my loved one who is in awakening will not come based on facts or data or dry information. Awakening will happen when something triggers an emotional response powerful enough to override the fear of facing what I believe s/he senses but has never examined.

Blanky
 
No, it's not a crime. And, often, if someone finds an associate or family member is toxic or harmful to be around disconnection may be a healthy way to establish good boundaries and self care. In those cases - whether it's ill advised or in the best interest of the person disconnnecting - it is that person's choice. He or she is not forced or coerced to disconnect from another person on threat of loss of eternal salvation. In an ideal situation family, friends, church etc would offer compassion and support for someone make a difficult choice about how to protect and care for self.

The done-ness I think will be decided in a court of public opinion as much or more than in a court of law. I was thinking about this earlier today - for my loved one who is in awakening will not come based on facts or data or dry information. Awakening will happen when something triggers an emotional response powerful enough to override the fear of facing what I believe s/he senses but has never examined.

Blanky

yes, this an important point, that people who would not disconnect on their own are ordered to do so. which is horrible but still not unlawful...
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
why would anyone think this makes scientology "so done"?

the first amendment gives the right to freedom of association and thus the freedom of disassociation.

there is no crime if a person A disassociates with person B

It is a crime if they conspire to replace the jurisdictions (local, state federal) we have in any of our countries, with Scientology jurisdiction. Ron and Dave both have said: "We are going to take the planet!"; or "We are going to take Australia!; or "We are going to take Clearwater!". Scientologist pledge allegiance to an international jurisdictional body whose written policies demand infinite expansion until HCO is the law. This is subversive to my country and other countries. Being a Scientologist is more about being a member of the Party (IAS) than being a member of a religious organization or faith. Does your right of freedom of association extend to treason mongers?...to terrorists?
 
It is a crime if they conspire to replace the jurisdictions (local, state federal) we have in any of our countries, with Scientology jurisdiction. Ron and Dave both have said: "We are going to take the planet!"; or "We are going to take Australia!; or "We are going to take Clearwater!". Scientologist pledge allegiance to an international jurisdictional body whose written policies demand infinite expansion until HCO is the law. This is subversive to my country and other countries. Being a Scientologist is more about being a member of the Party (IAS) than being a member of a religious organization or faith. Does your right of freedom of association extend to treason mongers?...to terrorists?

True:

SCIENTOLOGY IS SUBVERSIVE>

Everyday subversion includes telling scientologists NOT to go to the police when crimes have been committed, when scientologists are involved. Also encouraging illegal acts. Committing illegal acts. Covering up illegal acts, and the notorious ops such as Snow White, etc. There are also routine OPs to sway opinion leaders, with, as you say, the end goal being to put "HCO" in charge, -with OSA above it, in societies.
 
It is a crime if they conspire to replace the jurisdictions (local, state federal) we have in any of our countries, with Scientology jurisdiction. Ron and Dave both have said: "We are going to take the planet!"; or "We are going to take Australia!; or "We are going to take Clearwater!". Scientologist pledge allegiance to an international jurisdictional body whose written policies demand infinite expansion until HCO is the law. This is subversive to my country and other countries. Being a Scientologist is more about being a member of the Party (IAS) than being a member of a religious organization or faith. Does your right of freedom of association extend to treason mongers?...to terrorists?

our constitution gives groups the right to their own bylaws. sovereign jurisdiction may intercede by due process of law. as far as there being any danger of subversion goes...

wake me up when the killin' starts...
 
Mmmmm........:)

but they aren't good enough for me to tolerate CoS abuses

not with ron dead. i could tolerate much that i would not condone from el primo maximo. he had produced something of profound substance and it was still experimental and developmental and he was playing in a no autopsy - no foul league as far as i was concerned...
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
our constitution gives groups the right to their own bylaws. sovereign jurisdiction may intercede by due process of law. as far as there being any danger of subversion goes...

wake me up when the killin' starts...

And whose side are you on then? Or are you running out the group 4th dynamic engram?
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
When I was declared an SP, one of the reasons written on the Declare was : "Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts."

The person I refused to disconnect from (let's call "person A") was someone whose only "suppressive act" was failing to disconnect from another person (let's call "person B") for which they were declared an SP.

The other person, "person B", was declared an SP out of pure spite by one of the top people in the UK who is supposed to be "putting ethics in on the planet". That particular Declare was years later found to be illegal and was cancelled but by then a huge amount of damage had been done.

Person B was declared for no valid reason, person A was declared for refusing to disconnect from person B and I was declared for refusing to disconnect from person A.

I must admit, there were other points on my Declare Order, one of which was: "Engaging in malicious rumourmongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology." Hmmm. That must have been when I was telling anyone who would listen that the Church of Scientology was being run by a bunch of morons.:eyeroll:
 
Last edited:

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
When I was declared an SP, one of the reasons written on the Declare was : "Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts."

The person I refused to disconnect from (let's call "person A") was someone whose only "suppressive act" was failing to disconnect from another person (let's call "person B") for which they were declared an SP.

The other person, "person B", was declared an SP out of pure spite by one of the top people in the UK who is supposed to be "putting ethics in on the planet". That particular Declare was years later found to be illegal and was cancelled but by then a huge amount of damage had been done.

Person A was declared for no valid reason, person B was declared for refusing to disconnect from person A and I was declared for refusing to disconnect from person B.

I must admit, there were other points on my Declare Order, one of which was: "Engaging in malicious rumourmongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology." Hmmm. That must have been when I was telling anyone who would listen that the Church of Scientology was being run by a bunch of morons.:eyeroll:

This is so ridiculous!!!

Its doesnt have to make sense! It's Scientology!!!

Thank you for sharing.
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
but they aren't good enough for me to tolerate CoS abuses

not with ron dead. i could tolerate much that i would not condone from el primo maximo. he had produced something of profound substance and it was still experimental and developmental and he was playing in a no autopsy - no foul league as far as i was concerned...

Those abuses are woven into the fabric of Scientology: Ethics so Tech can go in; Tech so Admin can go in. Tech so Admin can go in: an Organizing Board can handle 200,000 people. A clear planet is a political goal masking as a religious one - a straw dog.
 
And whose side are you on then? Or are you running out the group 4th dynamic engram?

i'm a red sox partisan...

and as anyone who follows my writings should know i go very long on our constitution most especially the bill of rights and i made that quite clear to my seniors while on staff. as i have accounted on the fcdc thread

hmm...

let me dredge up that story...
 

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
i'm a red sox partisan...

and as anyone who follows my writings should know i go very long on our constitution most especially the bill of rights and i made that quite clear to my seniors while on staff. as i have accounted on the fcdc thread

hmm...

let me dredge up that story...

Commander, you have me chasing down your posts. The Constitution also used to have two very important things other than the Bill of Rights. One was the 10th Amendment which reserved to the states all the power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Feds. That one is HUGE because it has been violated millions of times by Washington. Can you say EPA? or even Obamabot Care?

And a little less known thing is that US Senators USED to be appointed by State houses. The representatives of the people of the various states. That is huge also, because the states could exert pressure on Senators when they went rogue. As things are now, Senators have set themselves up as mini dictators, mini Presidents. Would never have happened if the 17th Amendment had never been passed.
 
Commander, you have me chasing down your posts. The Constitution also used to have two very important things other than the Bill of Rights. One was the 10th Amendment which reserved to the states all the power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Feds. That one is HUGE because it has been violated millions of times by Washington. Can you say EPA? or even Obamabot Care?

And a little less known thing is that US Senators USED to be appointed by State houses. The representatives of the people of the various states. That is huge also, because the states could exert pressure on Senators when they went rogue. As things are now, Senators have set themselves up as mini dictators, mini Presidents. Would never have happened if the 17th Amendment had never been passed.

well the tenth amendment is part of the bill of rights and yes, we have become somewhat overly federalized; largely by reason of the 20th century wars

the true key to our freedom is in having the rights written in the hearts and minds of the citizens...
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
well the tenth amendment is part of the bill of rights and yes, we have become somewhat overly federalized; largely by reason of the 20th century wars

the true key to our freedom is in having the rights written in the hearts and minds of the citizens...

But Scientology as written in countless HCOBs and HCOPLs erases those rights. It alters minds and hearts so that a child's bond to Source is senior to bonds to even family let alone country. How more subversive and pugnacious does an organization have to be to be an enemy of the state? Its not like say rock and roll making rebellious youth. It is a world-wide organization with an admin scale, command and compliance channels. Its published ethics, tech, and admin, are prim-a-fascia evidence that it is at cross-purposes with the Bill of Rights.

[video=youtube;-XJ0xRkcskU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XJ0xRkcskU&list=PL01D89D99078F3F45[/video]

If I want to engage a boy with a broken arm in 2-way-comm, for his benefit, that is one thing. But if I report this pastoral counseling to a local organization, then it becomes action in cooperation with an entity which, for all of its clever shore-stories to the contrary, is the enemy of personal liberty and freedom.
 

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
well the tenth amendment is part of the bill of rights and yes, we have become somewhat overly federalized; largely by reason of the 20th century wars

the true key to our freedom is in having the rights written in the hearts and minds of the citizens...

it seems the hearts and minds have been bought by the Imperial Senate and the Subordinate House.
 
Top