Black and White

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
Obtaining "financing and appropriations," from the government, was noted as an objective in Hubbard's confidential 'Intelligence actions, Covert Intelligence Data Collection' of 1969.

The objective, to some extent, has been attained.

459338133_irs2_xlarge.gif




Compare your explanation with that of Lawrence Wright, made during an interview from last year, regarding the IRS's sudden about face, changing the position it had held for decades:


In 1993, the "Church" owed a billion dollars in back taxes. They had decided not to pay taxes, and desperately needed a tax exemption or they would go out of business. We would not be talking about the "Church of Scientology" if they had not gotten an IRS tax exemption.

David Miscavige [had] launched 2,300 lawsuits against the IRS, and individual agents, hired private investigators to follow individual agents around, and part of the deal, whatever the merits of the case, was that the IRS would give the "Church" tax exemption, forgive the billion dollars, and the "Church" would call off the private investigators, and drop the lawsuits...

When the IRS made that determination, then the protections of the first amendment, freedom of religion clause, came into play, and those are vast protections, and it's because of those protections that the "Church" is able to operate today...



One of those followed around by private investigators was the IRS Commissioner, and the topic of the possible blackmailing of the IRS Commissioner, is another disturbing area.

I do not dispute Wright's account of events, nor do I think it at all obvious that COS deserves its tax exemption. I'm simply pointing out that there are rational considerations apart from harrassment that are likely to have influenced the government's decision. I do, however, think it's fairly obvious that Scientology is a religion, the motives of Hubbard himself or an elite within the group notwithstanding.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

I do, however, think it's fairly obvious that Scientology is a religion

-snip-

You're double talking.

And it's supposed to be "obvious" that Scientology is a "religion."

thumbRNS-SCIENTOLOGY-BRIEF100212.jpg



However, it's not "obvious" to everyone.

scientology-is-not-religion-survey.jpg



time-pg1.jpg



Speaking of obvious, yesterday you posted a link to a Scientology Inc. OSA site, seemingly, without realizing it. Excuse me if I don't wish to debate this issue with you any further.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
I do not dispute Wright's account of events, nor do I think it at all obvious that COS deserves its tax exemption. I'm simply pointing out that there are rational considerations apart from harrassment that are likely to have influenced the government's decision. I do, however, think it's fairly obvious that Scientology is a religion, the motives of Hubbard himself or an elite within the group notwithstanding.

If $cientology is a Religion so is the Mafia or actually quite properly, the NAZIs.

time.jpg


The IRS has essentially ruled by its granting of tax exemption to the $cientology FRAUD, that there are a certain number of people that I must hypnotize to follow Lermanology in order to become tax exempt... My question is how many people? 5? 50? 500? 5000???? - or do I just have to hypnotize a few IRS agents?

Now THAT certainly is a Black or White question...

PS: One more black and white question: Would my chances of gaining my tax exemption be greater if I hired a bunch of shills to post on the net?
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
I would have to say that MOST of the time it IS a con - all religion.

Just not intentionally so.

It is simply a matter of idiots perpetuating their idiocy upon their children and others under their influence.

With your example of the Bible Belt indoctrination, to me, it is STILL a CON. But, as I said, it is not intentionally a con.

With Scientology, Hubbard DESIGNED it to be a very slick con - and he succeeded.

"Religion is a disease, but a noble disease."

-Heraclitus
 

kate8024

-deleted-
And it's supposed to be "obvious" that Scientology is a "religion."
However, it's not "obvious" to everyone.

This is why I refer to it as a religion - to me its obvious that it is - but I do not ever ask anyone else to refer to it that way because it isn't obvious to everyone and to many it's obvious that it is not a religion. People here shouldn't have to prove their case either way in order to use the term they feel is the most appropriate.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Really? OMG what was *I* thinking...

In that case re 8-80 did you know that 88 was the secret way to sign "Heil Hitler' used by the Nazi's while they were banned in Germany, before rising to power?

The only things outside of that page that I can find relating 88 to Hitler refer to Neo-Nazis rather than the original ones so I'm pretty sure it's completely unrelated. He did have some weird obsession with the number 8 being 'infinity on its side' though which is totally bizarre to me. So I think to him the number 8 was more about infinity than anything else.
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
If $cientology is a Religion so is the Mafia or actually quite properly, the NAZIs.

time.jpg


The IRS has essentially ruled by its granting of tax exemption to the $cientology FRAUD, that there are a certain number of people that I must hypnotize to follow Lermanology in order to become tax exempt... My question is how many people? 5? 50? 500? 5000???? - or do I just have to hypnotize a few IRS agents?

Now THAT certainly is a Black or White question...

PS: One more black and white question: Would my chances of gaining my tax exemption be greater if I hired a bunch of shills to post on the net?

The answer to your question is 2.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Matthew 18:20
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
You're double talking.

And it's supposed to be "obvious" that Scientology is a "religion."

thumbRNS-SCIENTOLOGY-BRIEF100212.jpg



However, it's not "obvious" to everyone.

scientology-is-not-religion-survey.jpg



time-pg1.jpg



Speaking of obvious, yesterday you posted a link to a Scientology Inc. OSA site, seemingly, without realizing it. Excuse me if I don't wish to debate this issue with you any further.

I haven't once defended Scientology. Hubbard was a fucking sociopath, and Scientology is a scourge. You can believe what you like about me personally. The ad hominem is yours, not mine.
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
Not a good argument. Only an organizational spokesperson would use the word 'noble' when discussing scientology.

I hesitate to respond because I'm aware I'm contributing to a digression from this thread topic. For this I apologize. I'm also aware that paranoia with regard to disingenuous members is fully justified.

I meant only that the sentiments associated with the religious impulse, the longing for existential certainty, for community and identity, the desire to participate in a common struggle, are of themselves noble. I believe these sentiments are perniciously exploited in the case of Scientology.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
I hesitate to respond because I'm aware I'm contributing to a digression from this thread topic. For this I apologize. I'm also aware that paranoia with regard to disingenuous members is fully justified.

I meant only that the sentiments associated with the religious impulse, the longing for existential certainty, for community and identity, the desire to participate in a common struggle, are of themselves noble. I believe these sentiments are perniciously exploited in the case of Scientology.

Yeah. I'm not totally disagreeing with you with regards to definitions, I'm rejecting the OP proposition of whatever someone calims is religion actually is a religion. But I am interested in boundary conditions. In solving certain differential equations, an exact answer is only possible if you specify a stop and a start point for the function. Those are called boundary conditions. The religion that posits immortal souls, but does not look to a deity, is approaching - but does not arrive at - the boundary condition for defining Philosophy, and thus studying it give some insight, and clarity to our lay definitions.

Similarly, as you pointed out, some religions take on a literalist view and try to take the aura of natural philosophy mixed with theology. Eliat Mazar, one of the pre-eminent archaeologists in Israel, has seriously compromised her credibility by using Christian biblical literalists as field hands. If you dig a little you can find a discrepancy where the Church of God whackos say that they literally found the gutter than David is said to have used to take Jerusalem (at least in one of the accounts, the other one does not mention it, an inconvenient fact the literalists gloss over), while in other articles Mazar, when free of her erstwhile students in an all-Jewish forum, says that the "use the gutter" is figurative. and the conquering soldiers would have had to ritually purify themselves with its rainwater, and that is what "use the gutter" meant in the ancient Hebrew.

All that is a theological sideshow, though, which is why you can't say that their literalism is similar to the MEST mock-up literalism of $CN. Those literalists are accepted as Christian by other Christians not because they declare the bible to be literally, archeaologically true, but because they accept - on faith - the divinity of Jesus Christ.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
"Religion is a disease, but a noble disease."

-Heraclitus

I think one needs to examine what is what in such a statement, as far as specific religions are concerned.

In Christianity, there were/are ideas of love, forgiveness, kindness, and being non-judgmental. Those ARE "noble". They exist as a legitimate core of the actual subject. And then various people altered, misused, added to and generally perverted this basic message - for example, in the extreme, over many hundreds of years in the Dark Ages culminating in the Inquisitions.

In Scientology, there is not any sort of actual "noble" core. Having been a part of, having studied a very large part of the subject, and seen it from the inside and from the outside, I can say that the "noble" ideas are PR, BAIT, LIES and function as lures and glue for the larger scam.

Sure, it is a "noble" idea to "create a world without insanity, war or crime". It is a "noble" idea to support free speech. It is "noble" to set communication and understanding on a lofty pedestal above much else. The problem with Scientology is that NONE of these are actually sincere aims or goals. They are catch phrases and buttons used to stimulate and prod the followers into action. There is no possible application of any combination of Scientology principles that will "make a better world". It observably does NOT "make better people".

At least with Christianity, there are at least some people who take the ideas of love, forgiveness, kindness, and being non-judgmental seriously, and who PRACTICE them in earnest.

In Scientology "supporting free speech" is entirely a PR gimmick. It is an idea that Hubbard knew others admired, so he attached it to the idea of Scientology to make it appear "good". I doubt the writers of the Bible or Jesus sat and thought out how to PR everybody to give them lots of money and support. In fact, and any honest person simply cannot dispute this without being stupid, blind or a liar, free speech is entirely forbidden in Scientology ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY. In fact, Scientology ATTACKS and tries to DESTROY any person or idea that is negative about Hubbard or any aspect of Scientology. THAT behavior exists because of specific "ecclesiastical dogma" set in stone by the Grand Manipulator - Hubbard.

Ecclesiastical Dogma . . . . . :puke2:

Anything that you find in Scientology that appears "noble" is generally part of the BAIT. It is there to suck you in, to keep you in, and also functions as something that Scientology PR spokespersons can point to as admirable, good and decent. Except that these things have little to do with REAL Scientology behaviors and activities.

When I first got involved in Scientology back in 1976, there was NO mention of terms like "ecclesiastical". Such ideas were part of an immense PR CAPER to make Scientology APPEAR TO BE A RELIGION. The appearance of such words and ideas in Scientology materials was part of that PR Caper. It was the same when they suddenly started "Sunday Services" - I almost puked. It was so obviously contrived, and I NEVER went to one. In fact, most Scientologists never went either, BUT the signs were always up SHOWING that Scientology had weekly "Sunday Services". It was just another aspect of the RUSE - to make Scientology appear to be truly "religious".

Anyway, I can see that in some regards Scientology might be termed as a religion, as it does satisfy a few definitions, even without the fact of all the added-on appearances. But also, the KEY THING HERE is that Hubbard, the GO, OSA, RTC and Scientology Management consciously and intentionally USE that to their exaggerated benefit. Deciding to call Scientology a religion, from the start, was a PLOY of Hubbard's. And, that PLOY has been added to, and built upon over the years in various ways.

What few people fail to grasp is the degree to which Hubbard and his followers are very willing and happy to MANIPULATE views, ideas, beliefs, appearances and agreements, so that they can "win". There is no line of deception they will not cross to change attitudes and opinions to serve THEIR NEEDS and WANTS. To them, Scientology MUST survive (for the sake of Earth, Mankind and all future eternities), and everything else can suffer and DIE of it makes Scientology succeed and win. They are THAT FANATICALLY NUTS! Indoctrination into Scientology, as carefully set up by Hubbard, renders them fanatically deluded and viciously dedicated.

When any person actually thinks or believes that Scientology is a "legitimate religion", then he or she fails to understand how deep the deception and control ran for many many years previously to make that APPEARANCE come to exist in his or her mind in the first place.

Hubbard and Scientology will happily manipulate perceptions in ANY way, as THAT is what "pan-determined" means in practice.

Now sure, you can take out various isolated processes and ideas, but then, it is NOT "Scientology".

And, there would be no "religion" of Scientology if it had not been for the MILLIONS of hours of brutally hard work spent by Scientology members all across the world, conducting PR programs, lobbying for street names, lobbying for awards, and generally working a long range program on the minds of the modern world to view this SHAM as a "religion". Without the many millions of dollars spent, without the brutal DEMAND coming down command channels constantly, without the endless lawsuits, and without the unceasing persistence to "make it go right" by the Sea Org, Scientology wouldn't even exist as a blip on the radar screen of society. There is insufficient value or substance within the subject and practices of Scientology for it to exist WITHOUT the extreme activities of an overly-determined organization.

Hubbard was right. A group of (deluded) OTs cannot exist without a tough third dynamic. The third dynamic adds lots of force, pressure and demand to make up for what they lack so much of in terms of inherent VALUE!

Scientology existing as a "religion" is the result of incredible contriving, deceptions, planning and manipulation. Scientology would NEVER have come to be seen naturally as a religion without the tireless and dedicated 24/7 HARD SELL of the Sea Org, staff and the chronically-deluded public Scientologists. Scientology is recognized by some as religion because Hubbard's long term PR Caper WORKED!

Some Scientology Tech DOES "work" - but not in any way that the believers think that it does. The main things that work are the techniques of manipulation, control, overwhelm and deception. The fact that we actually argue about, and discuss whether Scientology is a religion or not, wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for Hubbard's and Scientology's long-range plans of deception to get Scientology to APPEAR to be a "religion". To the degree that any person thinks that it IS a religion is the degree to which that person FAILS to fully understand the incredible amount of PLANNING and SCAMMING that went into getting it viewed as such.

Addendum: The "minister mock-up" was another part of the ploy. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s all staff HAD to do the "Minister's Course". Staff were NEVER told the real reason why. They were PR'ed as much as anybody else. But they all had to do the course, and ALL auditors had to begin wearing black shirts with white collars (making them look like Catholic priests).

Hubbard had a bright idea that it would better help get Scientology accepted as a "religion" if it LOOKED more like what people generally associated with religions. So, for awhile there, all auditors HAD to wear the "minister mock-up". They didn't wear them because this actually aligned with any genuine CORE ideas of Scientology. It was a GIMMICK used to "create an effect". Hubbard made it up as he went along to "get the result" he wanted. Scientology is ALL about "means to the end". It was part of a PR program. The proof of THAT is that today, now, NOBODY wears the "minister mock-up". Doing so served the purpose of helping them get recognized as a religion. It was a PLOY. Scientology is an endless parade of ploys.
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Anything that you find in Scientology that appears "noble" is generally part of the BAIT. It is there to suck you in, to keep you in, and also functions as something that Scientology PR spokespersons can point to as admirable, good and decent. Except that these things have little to do with REAL Scientology behaviors and activities.

.

and he got them, members, to do it for free essentially as staff members. As public, you pay and pay. Can you believe it, I can as I was a member both on staff and as a public. LOL :duh:

Great post Gadfly. :thumbsup:.
 

Ho Tai

Patron Meritorious
Surely I am not the only one who has noticed this and found it rather odd.
Correct, you are in no way unique in having found a contradiction in the words of Hubbard. Anyone who has been in, especially those on staff, has had to struggle to resolve contradictory statements in his books and policy letters. And since Hubbard never contradicted himself, you would have to go through some interesting mental gymnastics to come out the other side "understanding" that the seeming contradictions were not contradictions at all. As always, it is YOUR problem if something in $cn doesn't make any sense.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Correct, you are in no way unique in having found a contradiction in the words of Hubbard. Anyone who has been in, especially those on staff, has had to struggle to resolve contradictory statements in his books and policy letters. And since Hubbard never contradicted himself, you would have to go through some interesting mental gymnastics to come out the other side "understanding" that the seeming contradictions were not contradictions at all. As always, it is YOUR problem if something in $cn doesn't make any sense.

Thanks :) I didn't think I was unique in having found any contradiction or even unique in that particular one so that was bad wording I guess on my part (I think I worded it that way because I have never seen that particular contradiction brought up before). Luckily I was never on staff or even audited inside the church so I was never forced through such mental gymnastics, I can imagine it sucked big donkey balls having to do that.
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
I think one needs to examine what is what in such a statement, as far as specific religions are concerned.

In Christianity, there were/are ideas of love, forgiveness, kindness, and being non-judgmental. Those ARE "noble". They exist as a legitimate core of the actual subject. And then various people altered, misused, added to and generally perverted this basic message - for example, in the extreme, over many hundreds of years in the Dark Ages culminating in the Inquisitions.

In Scientology, there is not any sort of actual "noble" core. Having been a part of, having studied a very large part of the subject, and seen it from the inside and from the outside, I can say that the "noble" ideas are PR, BAIT, LIES and function as lures and glue for the larger scam.

Sure, it is a "noble" idea to "create a world without insanity, war or crime". It is a "noble" idea to support free speech. It is "noble" to set communication and understanding on a lofty pedestal above much else. The problem with Scientology is that NONE of these are actually sincere aims or goals. They are catch phrases and buttons used to stimulate and prod the followers into action. There is no possible application of any combination of Scientology principles that will "make a better world". It observably does NOT "make better people".

At least with Christianity, there are at least some people who take the ideas of love, forgiveness, kindness, and being non-judgmental seriously, and who PRACTICE them in earnest.

In Scientology "supporting free speech" is entirely a PR gimmick. It is an idea that Hubbard knew others admired, so he attached it to the idea of Scientology to make it appear "good". I doubt the writers of the Bible or Jesus sat and thought out how to PR everybody to give them lots of money and support. In fact, and any honest person simply cannot dispute this without being stupid, blind or a liar, free speech is entirely forbidden in Scientology ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY. In fact, Scientology ATTACKS and tries to DESTROY any person or idea that is negative about Hubbard or any aspect of Scientology. THAT behavior exists because of specific "ecclesiastical dogma" set in stone by the Grand Manipulator - Hubbard.

Ecclesiastical Dogma . . . . . :puke2:

Anything that you find in Scientology that appears "noble" is generally part of the BAIT. It is there to suck you in, to keep you in, and also functions as something that Scientology PR spokespersons can point to as admirable, good and decent. Except that these things have little to do with REAL Scientology behaviors and activities.

When I first got involved in Scientology back in 1976, there was NO mention of terms like "ecclesiastical". Such ideas were part of an immense PR CAPER to make Scientology APPEAR TO BE A RELIGION. The appearance of such words and ideas in Scientology materials was part of that PR Caper. It was the same when they suddenly started "Sunday Services" - I almost puked. It was so obviously contrived, and I NEVER went to one. In fact, most Scientologists never went either, BUT the signs were always up SHOWING that Scientology had weekly "Sunday Services". It was just another aspect of the RUSE - to make Scientology appear to be truly "religious".

Anyway, I can see that in some regards Scientology might be termed as a religion, as it does satisfy a few definitions, even without the fact of all the added-on appearances. But also, the KEY THING HERE is that Hubbard, the GO, OSA, RTC and Scientology Management consciously and intentionally USE that to their exaggerated benefit. Deciding to call Scientology a religion, from the start, was a PLOY of Hubbard's. And, that PLOY has been added to, and built upon over the years in various ways.

What few people fail to grasp is the degree to which Hubbard and his followers are very willing and happy to MANIPULATE views, ideas, beliefs, appearances and agreements, so that they can "win". There is no line of deception they will not cross to change attitudes and opinions to serve THEIR NEEDS and WANTS. To them, Scientology MUST survive (for the sake of Earth, Mankind and all future eternities), and everything else can suffer and DIE of it makes Scientology succeed and win. They are THAT FANATICALLY NUTS! Indoctrination into Scientology, as carefully set up by Hubbard, renders them fanatically deluded and viciously dedicated.

When any person actually thinks or believes that Scientology is a "legitimate religion", then he or she fails to understand how deep the deception and control ran for many many years previously to make that APPEARANCE come to exist in his or her mind in the first place.

Hubbard and Scientology will happily manipulate perceptions in ANY way, as THAT is what "pan-determined" means in practice.

Now sure, you can take out various isolated processes and ideas, but then, it is NOT "Scientology".

And, there would be no "religion" of Scientology if it had not been for the MILLIONS of hours of brutally hard work spent by Scientology members all across the world, conducting PR programs, lobbying for street names, lobbying for awards, and generally working a long range program on the minds of the modern world to view this SHAM as a "religion". Without the many millions of dollars spent, without the brutal DEMAND coming down command channels constantly, without the endless lawsuits, and without the unceasing persistence to "make it go right" by the Sea Org, Scientology wouldn't even exist as a blip on the radar screen of society. There is insufficient value or substance within the subject and practices of Scientology for it to exist WITHOUT the extreme activities of an overly-determined organization.

Hubbard was right. A group of (deluded) OTs cannot exist without a tough third dynamic. The third dynamic adds lots of force, pressure and demand to make up for what they lack so much of in terms of inherent VALUE!

Scientology existing as a "religion" is the result of incredible contriving, deceptions, planning and manipulation. Scientology would NEVER have come to be seen naturally as a religion without the tireless and dedicated 24/7 HARD SELL of the Sea Org, staff and the chronically-deluded public Scientologists. Scientology is recognized by some as religion because Hubbard's long term PR Caper WORKED!

Some Scientology Tech DOES "work" - but not in any way that the believers think that it does. The main things that work are the techniques of manipulation, control, overwhelm and deception. The fact that we actually argue about, and discuss whether Scientology is a religion or not, wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for Hubbard's and Scientology's long-range plans of deception to get Scientology to APPEAR to be a "religion". To the degree that any person thinks that it IS a religion is the degree to which that person FAILS to fully understand the incredible amount of PLANNING and SCAMMING that went into getting it viewed as such.

Addendum: The "minister mock-up" was another part of the ploy. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s all staff HAD to do the "Minister's Course". Staff were NEVER told the real reason why. They were PR'ed as much as anybody else. But they all had to do the course, and ALL auditors had to begin wearing black shirts with white collars (making them look like Catholic priests).

Hubbard had a bright idea that it would better help get Scientology accepted as a "religion" if it LOOKED more like what people generally associated with religions. So, for awhile there, all auditors HAD to wear the "minister mock-up". They didn't wear them because this actually aligned with any actually CORE ideas of Scientology. It was a GIMMICK used to "create an effect". Hubbard made it up as he went along to "get the result" he wanted. Scientology is ALL about "means to the end". It was part of a PR program. The proof of THAT is that today, now, NOBODY wears the "minister mock-up". Doing so served the purpose of helping them get recognized as a religion. It was a PLOY. Scientology is an endless parade of ploys.

I appreciate what you're saying, but it seems to me that, viewed as a purely psychological and social phenomenon, the individual cult member's role has always been essentially that of a religious zeolot. Of course, there is such a thing as good and bad religion. Jim Jones's church was no less religious for being a very dangerous, ultimately murderous cult. To say that Scientology is either a fraud on the one hand or a religion on the the other presupposes a false dichotomy. It appears to me to be both. I don't doubt Hubbard's efforts to ape religious trappings as a cynical means of achieving political and financial advantage, but the organization itself appears to have already begun to function as a an essentially religious community long beforehand, notwithstanding his efforts.
 
Top