Ex-Scio Tom DeVocht: SCIENTOLOGY STOP BULLYING MY FAMILY

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Why not both?

Freedom of the Press certainly extends to the NY Times to publish as well as to me, the individual, to read.

Freedom of (and from) Religion supports an individual's right to embrace or reject religion and a neutral stance on the part of Government to avoid religious persecution (not prosecution)
or do I misunderstand?

Because the rest of the Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not collective ones. The "Press" as conceived by the founders were little one to five man operations, with one person in the Editor's desk, not something like the AP.

The way the Constitution applies to corporations can be worked out in the Federal Code, the Constitution is about how government works and how it relates to the individual citizen. The Federal Code can be amended as new forms of organizations arise and the flaws in basic assumptions about old organizations become apparent (e.g. that religious organizations are automatically altruistic). The Constitution is subject to interpretation only by the 9 Supremes - and they simply don't have the life experience to decide that kind of stuff and set it in stone, which is why you keep that kind of issue out of the Constitution and in the changeable Federal Code.

Look how long it took to get the 18th amendment repealed - long after its deleterious effects were noted. The Founders made it very hard to amend the Constitution, which is good, but it means that you don't hit problems with the Constitutional A-bomb when a BB gun will do. Putting that kind of power in the hands of the Supremes is a bad idea, especially with this Court, but really with any Court.
 
Last edited:

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Because the rest of the Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not collective ones. The "Press" as conceived by the founders were little one to five man operations, with one person in the Editor's desk, not something like the AP.

The way the Constitution applies to corporations can be worked out in the Federal Code, the Constitution is about how government works and how it relates to the individual citizen. The Federal Code can be amended as new forms of organizations arise and the flaws in basic assumptions about old organizations become apparent (e.g. that religious organizations are automatically altruistic). The Constitution is subject to interpretation only by the 7 Supremes - and they simply don't have the life experience to decide that kind of stuff and set it in stone, which is why you keep that kind of issue out of the Constitution and in the changeable Federal Code.

Look how long it took to get the 18th amendment repealed - long after its deleterious effects were noted. The Founders made it very hard to amend the Constitution, which is good, but it means that you don't hit problems with the Constitutional A-bomb when a BB gun will do. Putting that kind of power in the hands of the Supremes is a bad idea, especially with this Court, but really with any Court.

But haven't the 9 members who sit on the Supreme Court interpreted these constitutional protections to also apply to organizations, as in the Skokie case, or when they upheld the right of the Westboro group to picket at the funerals of fallen military servicemen?

I mean, I get that you disagree with the Court, but coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn't trump what 5 or more Justices decide. You are stating your opinion, correct?

www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...ate-restrictions-on-religious-freedom/283331/
 
Last edited:

SPsince83

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are, and need to be limits.

Freedom of religion does not protect violent Islamic Jihad as religious expression any more than it should provide cover for Scientology's fraudulent & dishonest claims of a "science" of mental health, or the Jihad that Scientologists practice against critics and "apostates."

Absofuckinglutely!!!:duh::angry::duh:
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
But haven't the 9 members who sit on the Supreme Court interpreted these constitutional protections to also apply to organizations, as in the Skokie case, or when they upheld the right of the Westboro group to picket at the funerals of fallen military servicemen?

I mean, I get that you disagree with the Court, but coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn't trump what 5 or more Justices decide. You are stating your opinion, correct?

I'm saying that this interpretation of organizations as being on equal footing with individuals vis a vis the Constitution is a relatively novel phenomenon with the Court.

Such fads have come in waves over the history of the Court, and via the process of marginalization I described above, most of them have gone as well.

All I'm saying is that time will tell whether this too shall pass. It would be supremely (hah!) ironic if something the Co$ did got reviewed by the court to start that slow process of reversal.
 

SPsince83

Gold Meritorious Patron
But haven't the 9 members who sit on the Supreme Court interpreted these constitutional protections to also apply to organizations, as in the Skokie case, or when they upheld the right of the Westboro group to picket at the funerals of fallen military servicemen?

I mean, I get that you disagree with the Court, but coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn't trump what 5 or more Justices decide. You are stating your opinion, correct?

www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/the-us-puts-moderate-restrictions-on-religious-freedom/283331/

Various places where the law changed to favor corporations over real people include: Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific which was responsible for the beginnings of corporate personhood. Also Buckley v Vallejo, which declared money as speech. Then the absolutely disastrous Citizen's United. And the nail in the coffin re religious fuckery, the Hobby Lobby case.
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Various places where the law changed to favor corporations over real people include: Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific which was responsible for the beginnings of corporate personhood. Also Buckley v Vallejo, which declared money as speech. Then the absolutely disastrous Citizen's United. And the nail in the coffin re religious fuckery, the Hobby Lobby case.
Scientology, through it's ongoing reprehensible and creepy criminal conduct needs to experience the full weight and measure of the law.
It hides behind religion, and sometimes is successful.
But I tell you that the legal day of reckoning is fast approaching, and the fanatical thuggery and criminal behavior will be on display in...oh, um, roughly 150 hours.
That's when millions of people will learn the truth.TICK-FUCKING-TOCK, OSA.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
For the record, I decided a few days ago to open a twitter account under my actual name, which is Len Zinberg, in order to follow Tom DeVocht,
and within 24 hours I received two creepy "wrong number" phone calls. ​This is how a religion behaves?
By slashing someone's tires? And to think that it counted as someone's statistic, and got reported uplines. Wow.


Thank you for speaking up in real name in support of Tom and his post. That took courage. :yes:

I hope the cult will cool their heels on further harassment. It could really backfire on them. May already have with your name getting out there and you posting here and elsewhere.

BTW, you made it to the Big List pretty quickly!
http://whyweprotest.wikia.com/wiki/Former_Church_of_Scientology_members_who_have_spoken_out

((HUGGS))

Mary
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
One of the truly ridiculous things about this...

It is quite obvious that 100% of Tom's attention these days is on working and taking care of his child. He doesn't appear to be spending any energy whatsoever doing anything on the subject of Scientology.

But they can't help themselves. They just have to poke the bear. So they piss him off and get his attention back onto speaking out about Scientology.

Idiots.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Re: Tom DeVocht - Stop your bullying Scientology and leave my family and my friends a

Churchill, I think it's time we really got serious about taking on the legal aspects of this. Meaning -- it's time for us to use some hard-hitting US constitutional attorneys.

The First Amendment guarantees INDIVIDUAL rights. It does not guarantee church rights, corporate rights, non-profit rights or any other group rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

That's not true Sheila. The first amendment says what the government is restricted from doing.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The idea that a church can limit someone's speech regarding their former religion and their experiences there by the signing of documents is ludicrous. IMHO, to speak out against a church's religious beliefs or practices is the legitimate exercising of First Amendment rights.

The government may make no law restricting what you say or don't say about your former religion. But that does not trump any legal agreements you may have signed.

The Garcia case - that a judge can formally insist that a former member of a cult must use arbitration procedures written within that cult's belief system, which the Garcias have long since left, and its facade framework is shocking. This violates the Garcias First Amendment rights - not just to practice their beliefs, but to fully renounce their beliefs.

it is contract law - it has nothing to do with the first amendment. If the Garcia's signed a contract wherein they agree to arbitration - leaving the cofs does not negate the contract (IMHO of course)

Tom DeVocht and other Scientologists have repeatedly and systematically had their First Amendment and other rights stomped. A CHURCH does not have the right to enforce its beliefs on anyone. The use of physical coercion, punishment, threats, internal jails (RPF), etc., are all a violation of constitutional rights. Individuals are punished for exercising free speech or their rights to life, liberty and happiness are taken from them in the form or disconnection, harassment, intimidation and outright abuse. A CHURCH or CULT does not have individual rights, IMHO, and this is a perversion of the words of the Constitution.

It makes me sick to see laws twisted and abused this way. :puke2:

Cornell University sees this conflict of individual and group (church or cult) rights written within the First Amendment and describes it as follows:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
[/INDENT]


You are, I fear, barking up the wrong tree here.
 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
Last edited:

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
https://twitter.com/TomDeVo/status/578666868279476224

attachment.php

Well...criminals and thugs like baseball too Tom....:whistling:

Just sayin....
 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
One of the truly ridiculous things about this...

It is quite obvious that 100% of Tom's attention these days is on working and taking care of his child. He doesn't appear to be spending any energy whatsoever doing anything on the subject of Scientology.

But they can't help themselves. They just have to poke the bear. So they piss him off and get his attention back onto speaking out about Scientology.

Idiots.

Shhhhhhh....

This helps destroy the cult faster....Tom is doing a lot of good. Not that we want him to be harassed or abused...but when he is ....he is DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT and that drives Slappy bazz~erck!
 
Top