Is Mike Rinder A Scientologist?

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
It's not just people born in who have that issue.

I was only in for 15 years and I've struggled with this too.

I think it has something to do with it being unconscious - it is not aimed indoctrination, it is created by the culture around us and because we do not notice it we never question it and so it takes a long time for it to reach a level where we notice it.

Why do I always preface my remarks in conversation by pointing out that I may not be fair? Why do sometimes feel I should apologize for asking for help? My wife will still single out a "generality" as something bad. The list has been long, minor and annoying. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for those brought up in it. The unspoken, unknown assumptions must be like little rocks ready to fall on the head.

Maybe it would be fun to learn what others have run into in this regard because I think that THIS, much more than the overt BS like Problems of Work, is what holds us back.
 
Interesting thread!

I saw the first (obvious) glimmerings of Mike's impending apostasy back a few years ago when he and Marty did one of those folksy "gone fishing" videos where they were literally fishing and talking about the cult and COB. Some really interesting and entertaining anecdotes emerged even though much of the laid-back "we're just simple folk" was very "stagey" and contrived.

There was one very telling moment when Marty went off on a gleamy-eyed rant about how Miscavige was dramatizing a certain whole track implant. Mike was quietly letting him finish his "cognition" but that wasn't enough for Marty. He prodded Mike to get "agreement" on this fantastic discovery about COB's zillion year old implant--and all Mike could do was cringe and mutter "whatever".

"Whatever". Poignant moment.

That's when I realized that Mike was not on the same KSW train as Marty (was) or other Indies were. He had exposed his rare common sense and that little "whatever" was a bold highlighting of how uncomfortable and weird Hubbard's delusional sci-fi had become for him. At that moment, I saw Mike beginning to blossom into something quite a bit more "independent" than an Indie Scientologist. Not long after that Mike had his own website which is some really entertaining, insightful and bad-ass whistleblowing vs the cult and Scientology itself.

So, if I had to guess where Mike is on the scale of TOTAL SP to TOTAL KSW SCIENTOLOGIST, I'd say he is in transition. He ain't an outed Ex Scientologist and he ain't an Indie Scientologist either, really. Indies don't usually throw down entheta on L. Ron Hubbard and some of his unworkable or sociopathic "tech".

The best analogy I can give is someone's sexual identity. Sometimes someone is pure heterosexual, sometimes pure homosexual--and sometimes an exotic blend, such as when someone is hetero but still "curious" about experiencing sex with someone of the same sex (i.e. bi-sexual). Not having consummated the sexual fantasy, they would describe themselves as "Bi-Curious". In Mike's case, I'd call him "Sci-curious". He's almost a full tilt EX, but still a bit in the closet, teasing himself with a fantasy where Hubbard's tech might actually work.

DM is dramatizing a recent whole track implant. he's a catholic
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
Mike Laws writes…in response to “Is Mike Rinder a Scientologist”

1. Who cares?


4. Mike is a personal friend, we last met a few weeks ago in the middle of Texas at some road side restaurant in some small town for dinner…… The question just doesn't seem relevant to any discussion we have.

Cat Daddy writes:
No

He wasn't one before Marty came to his conclusion but was a very good friend and a guy who deserves my respect
______________________________________________________________

I am quoting the 2 of you because you both know him personally.

My basic answer to “Who cares?” is me. I care, simply for the sake of curiosity. Here I am on an ex scientologist message board talking about Scientology. Mike Rinder gets quoted often, so it makes me curious as to where he stands.

My reasons for wanting to know is not judgmental. I just want to know where he is on the spectrum.


What really got me started on this question was that a few days ago I posted a comment of his board, in response to Ronit And Yossi Charny Speak Out
http://www.mikerindersblog.org/ronit-and-yossi-charny-speak-out/#comment-53757


These people who had left Scientology are now becoming indies.

My comment was that since Flag is the pinnacle of Scientology loaded with the most advanced OTs in the universe and since they cower in fear and can not in any way spot and handle suppression in any way then THAT is the product of Scientology and therefore it clearly does not work.

In fact these latest escapees didn’t even leave on their own, they were kicked out, and they still followed Scientology protocols and rules long after that.

I think I did not write in an inflammatory way. I stated facts as above.
Full version in the link below:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/ronit-and-yossi-charny-speak-out/#comment-53757

The interesting thing was that the responses I got back from the best communicators on the planet were basically “Fuck You.”

One person accused me of attacking his religion. And said “I can’t believe Mike let you post this”
No facts, no thoughts, nothing but a hearty round of group mob emotional mentality. Again proving my point.

That got me to thinking where is Rinder on the scale of being a scientologist or not.
Also since he has such a big following I just wanted to know.

That is what got me to ask this question.
Just curious.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Mike Laws writes…in response to “Is Mike Rinder a Scientologist”

1. Who cares?


4. Mike is a personal friend, we last met a few weeks ago in the middle of Texas at some road side restaurant in some small town for dinner…… The question just doesn't seem relevant to any discussion we have.

Cat Daddy writes:
No

He wasn't one before Marty came to his conclusion but was a very good friend and a guy who deserves my respect
______________________________________________________________

I am quoting the 2 of you because you both know him personally.

My basic answer to “Who cares?” is me. I care, simply for the sake of curiosity. Here I am on an ex scientologist message board talking about Scientology. Mike Rinder gets quoted often, so it makes me curious as to where he stands.

My reasons for wanting to know is not judgmental. I just want to know where he is on the spectrum.


What really got me started on this question was that a few days ago I posted a comment of his board, in response to Ronit And Yossi Charny Speak Out
http://www.mikerindersblog.org/ronit-and-yossi-charny-speak-out/#comment-53757


These people who had left Scientology are now becoming indies.

My comment was that since Flag is the pinnacle of Scientology loaded with the most advanced OTs in the universe and since they cower in fear and can not in any way spot and handle suppression in any way then THAT is the product of Scientology and therefore it clearly does not work.

In fact these latest escapees didn’t even leave on their own, they were kicked out, and they still followed Scientology protocols and rules long after that.

I think I did not write in an inflammatory way. I stated facts as above.
Full version in the link below:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/ronit-and-yossi-charny-speak-out/#comment-53757

The interesting thing was that the responses I got back from the best communicators on the planet were basically “Fuck You.”

One person accused me of attacking his religion. And said “I can’t believe Mike let you post this”
No facts, no thoughts, nothing but a hearty round of group mob emotional mentality. Again proving my point.

That got me to thinking where is Rinder on the scale of being a scientologist or not.
Also since he has such a big following I just wanted to know.

That is what got me to ask this question.
Just curious.

I think the comment was inflammatory - not untrue at all - and certainly not rude - but definitely inflammatory. Look, you said what you honestly thought to a room full of Scientologists. I'm proud of you for being able to put up with reading their self-congratulatory drivel.

I do like what I've seen of Mike's posts, though, although I seldom visit the blog.

I don't personally care what anyone likes to do in their four walls, unless it comes to my attention that somebody is evangelising for any version of Scientology (Scientology 1.0 Classic Thug, Scientology 2.0 Squirrel Thug, Scientology 1.0.2 Alternative Squirrel - doesn't matter which) because I want it to spread unchecked and unchallenged about as much as a carcinoma.

So as long as Mike Rinder doesn't go all Div 6 recruit / Div 2 dissem on me, I don't personally care.

Well, you created an effect anyway! Lol!
 

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
Reasonable;

If you get stupid bored and want to entertain yourself, read my posts and threads on ESMB and the responses, and look at how and who roasted me. I still don't know why some of them went off the rails!

What did I learn from all of this?

1. I am not the brilliant perfect communicator I thought I was as trained in the Scilon Empire. Also communicating broadly over the internet is much different to communicating in real life.

2. Some people are just assholes and want to be assholes, sometimes there is nothing of value they are even trying to do. LULZ (sp?) and trolling is a real form of entertainment for some folks.

3. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...92404578030351784405148?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj

4. Sometimes/often many people going through their own decompression or recovery or reevaluating of the stuff they had dedicated their lives to is infinitely more consuming in their own mind/world than they/we realize. It is incredibly easy to push buttons or have buttons pushed unintentionally ... or to upset, create anger or irritation. I believe that anger, despite Scilon teachings, is a healthy and appropriate reaction for part of this discovery process. You know what you wrote. You may or may not understand how different people from different cultures will perceive those exact words. You can have no control over or idea of what is going on inside the heads of people across the world while they read things, and how their emotion and perspective may impact their interpretations. My only solution to this is to try and be polite and gentle, more so than normal.

5. You have every right to ask any question you want of anyone, as they have the right to answer or not. I probably did not phrase my response properly, or was too short. Who cares to me in this context is more "what relevance or pertinence does it have when "Scientologist" is a label not defined, can be good or evil, to evaluate someone that was in, the sum of their actions is the best way of judging character.".

6. You talk of people leaving Scientology becoming Indies. I don't know how accurate that is as a statement. The Indie 500 list has less than 500 names on it. Over 3,000 people that were in have spoken out under their own names. Used to be decompression ... Scilon to Indy was over years. No people are doing it in 6 months to a year, the quality of material on the net, things like Karen Delac and Chris Shelton, new comers in the content building game compared to the old guard and then the Mikes and Marty's are using different methods and techniques to get out ideas and messages that really seem to be helping people gain context faster. It is almost as though the cycle, which was pretty standard. Scilon, Indy, love LRH not DM, there is good in it, anger, feelings of betrayal, don't want anything to do with it, don't care ... is being short circuited. And people are leaving and coming back with no consequences in the indie field. I think the content, boards like this, friendlier people on the critic end, different forms of media are evolving the whole process.
 
Last edited:

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
I think the comment was inflammatory - not untrue at all - and certainly not rude - but definitely inflammatory. Look, you said what you honestly thought to a room full of Scientologists. I'm proud of you for being able to put up with reading their self-congratulatory drivel.

I do like what I've seen of Mike's posts, though, although I seldom visit the blog.

I don't personally care what anyone likes to do in their four walls, unless it comes to my attention that somebody is evangelising for any version of Scientology (Scientology 1.0 Classic Thug, Scientology 2.0 Squirrel Thug, Scientology 1.0.2 Alternative Squirrel - doesn't matter which) because I want it to spread unchecked and unchallenged about as much as a carcinoma.

So as long as Mike Rinder doesn't go all Div 6 recruit / Div 2 dissem on me, I don't personally care.

Well, you created an effect anyway! Lol!

LOL, I think Purple was right Reasonable ... you were picking a fight!

Kind of like going to a bar mitzvah and handing people pulled pork sandwiches and BLTs.
 
Last edited:

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
Some of you said:
“You are trying to define Mike Rinder's belief system as if it were a coat he puts on.”

“I think you'd first have to define "Scientologist" if you want to figure-out whether someone is one or not.”

“Instead of trying to figure out if he is or not, ask him.”

_________________________


First of all I did private message him and he didn’t answer.

I would like to know where he is on that spectrum of anti Scientologist to full blown Kool aid drinker
  • Does he believe the OT3 BT story as a real event?
  • Does he think that the tech works if applied correctly and that the only reason that is doesn’t work is that you didn’t apply it correctly, or it is somehow a fault of your own.
  • Does he think that the promised results of Dianetis are attainable through the tech.
  • Does he think that Hubbard went to target 2.
  • Does he think that Hubbard had pure good intentions and was not in it for the money at all, just to help makind?
  • Does he think that with auditing you can achieve immortality?


To me if you can say yes to any of the above questions you are a Scientologist or at least a full on believer.

Middle of the road:​
  • You think that the tech can be helpful if applied correctly, but there is a lot that is not known about the mind or the spirit that is cannot be explained by Scientology.
  • Scientolgy is a self help system that can be helpful to various degrees and has some value.
  • KSW is not true
  • .


To me this person is not a Scientologist just an open minded person.


Anti-
Scientolgist:
Scientology is harmful and should be stopped; it is a total scam in every way.

I am sure there are various degrees in between all of that, but I wonder where he is on the scale. The reason I am is that from what I see he doesn't say much, but I know he is anti miscavge, but I am just curious as to how he really feels about scientology.

I just looked over your questions, and for what it is worth, had you sent it to me, here is how I would have responded:

You are trying to box me in to concepts and a label I don't agree with. I don't think that way, it is not a part of my thought process and wasn't even when I was in. You want detailed personal information on my personal beliefs and you are anonymous, I don't know you ... what do you want to do with this data? I would assume you want to use it to ridicule me;

and ... drum roll

My personal, current, past or evolving spiritual beliefs are none of your business unless I choose to share them in a public forum.

And if I were Mike Rinder, I would not have answered because it quite possibly because I thought you were being an asshole.

ps. I say all of this with affection, with your direct bluntness (if you are not trolling) are you German?
pps: or maybe Russian?
 
Last edited:

Purple Rain

Crusader
I just looked over your questions, and for what it is worth, had you sent it to me, here is how I would have responded:

You are trying to box me in to concepts and a label I don't agree with. I don't think that way, it is not a part of my thought process and wasn't even when I was in. You want detailed personal information on my personal beliefs and you are anonymous, I don't know you ... what do you want to do with this data? I would assume you want to use it to ridicule me;

and ... drum roll

My personal, current, past or evolving spiritual beliefs are none of your business unless I choose to share them in a public forum.

And if I were Mike Rinder, I would not have answered because it quite possibly because I thought you were being an asshole.

I agree that somebody's personal beliefs are nobody else's business, unless there is a potential conflict of interest situation that needs to be disclosed. There are all sorts of reasons why employers and so forth are not allowed to ask about people's personal beliefs.
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
. . .
There's always either an ongoing mild discussion or raging debate on message boards about how much privacy or freedom from public discussion/inspection people like Marty, Mike, Debbie, and others should be accorded. That is, once they leave they should be able to live their lives and believe what they want to believe and it's no one's business. They should be left alone to heal and find their own way in a post-Scientology world.

And so they should, I guess. :confused2:

However, they all chose to have high executive positions for decades in a mental therapy delivery corporation with billions of dollars in play.

OK, a mental therapy delivery corporation . . . with a religious or spiritual twist. Thus granted special protections because of the religious thing. But still top executives overseeing the collection and spending billions of dollars of hard working people's money.

When most large corporations fail or implode, or investment schemes fail, and in the process thousands of people lose their jobs, careers, life savings, and perhaps their hopes and dreams for the future, there's hell to pay for the people at the top. The ones that held the key positions in the corporation and took the money in and managed things.

A few on the list off the top of my head:

  • Enron
  • Arthur Andersen
  • Bernie Madoff
  • Jim Baker / PTL Club
  • MF Global
  • Washington Mutual
  • Lehman Brothers
  • List goes on and on . . .
The top guys screw up or are knowingly or unknowingly doing fraudulent things while executives, they sorta lose some of their right to privacy and are generally hounded for years by the former employees who lost jobs or the clients who lost money.

This is human nature and rightfully so, I guess.

People want their money back and if the money is gone, they want their "pound of flesh."

All I'm saying is the number #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc. guys at the top have to expect to be under inspection, discussion, and be prepared to take a lot of heat and answer up about many recriminations, perhaps for the rest of their lives, after the collapse or failure of a corporation that many people are invested in (either financially or spiritually or both).

That's just sorta the way it goes down in this world. Human nature and all. Am I wrong?

The defense from the two top people I've cornered with direct questions about their involvement in the COS fraud and coverups: "I didn't know about that until I got out and started reading the blogs." And the other just skirted my most penetrating questions with oblique comments.

I've pretty much put all this behind me years ago, but I guarantee there's a lot of people that will be coming to these message board in the future . . . and they will be freshly pissed and looking for their own "pounds of flesh."

We could say, "looking for their why's and who's," per their Data Series studies. :wink2:

Maybe I'm all wrong and there's something in the Scientology mindset best described as "instant forgiveness."

Maybe. :confused2:

I can tell you, it doesn't exist in the Bernie Madoff world.

Hope this was not a thread derail! :eyeroll:
 
Last edited:
I think it has something to do with it being unconscious - it is not aimed indoctrination, it is created by the culture around us and because we do not notice it we never question it and so it takes a long time for it to reach a level where we notice it.

Why do I always preface my remarks in conversation by pointing out that I may not be fair? Why do sometimes feel I should apologize for asking for help? My wife will still single out a "generality" as something bad. The list has been long, minor and annoying. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for those brought up in it. The unspoken, unknown assumptions must be like little rocks ready to fall on the head.

Maybe it would be fun to learn what others have run into in this regard because I think that THIS, much more than the overt BS like Problems of Work, is what holds us back.

"...Why do I always preface my remarks in conversation by pointing out that I may not be fair?.."

Do you think that is a scientology hang-over Mick? I do the same thing, more offline than online (something to do with spoken vs written discussion). I am very aware that I am doing it and that nobody else is doing this Fairness Intro thing. I have a vague idea that it comes from a catholic upbringing. Being Fair is not something coming directly from religious teachings AFAIK, but a significant part of my schooling was in catholic schools. However fairness was pushed also in the state schools, it was part of the ethos at the time in NZ and I presume elsewhere. All the jolly sporting things, rugby, cricket, etc was hooked into it. I think NZers and Ozzies had a thing about 'giving a bloke a fair go' too. Being Fair.
So now I also preface my opinions about people in situations with my 'Fairness Intro'.
 
Last edited:

JustSheila

Crusader
I think it has something to do with it being unconscious - it is not aimed indoctrination, it is created by the culture around us and because we do not notice it we never question it and so it takes a long time for it to reach a level where we notice it.

Why do I always preface my remarks in conversation by pointing out that I may not be fair? Why do sometimes feel I should apologize for asking for help? My wife will still single out a "generality" as something bad. The list has been long, minor and annoying. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for those brought up in it. The unspoken, unknown assumptions must be like little rocks ready to fall on the head.

Maybe it would be fun to learn what others have run into in this regard because I think that THIS, much more than the overt BS like Problems of Work, is what holds us back.

Last week I came up with a permeating attitude I'd been brainwashed into in the SO - risk addiction.

The Thurs stats, always in fear of doing something not perfectly on-policy and being caught, and sealed with the RPF "must run at all times, you loser, work harder and faster" ... became a way of life afterward.

I've only just noticed that I take unnecessary risks and the inclination to do so and the actual risk-taking is while in a semi-hypnotic state that Scn created in me while I was in the SO.

It's a big thought and a lot to accept, but this has truly been the worst after-effect of SO life and Scn in my personal life. How messed up have I been? How hard has this made life for those around me?

Realising this has been incredibly empowering. To know I was sometimes carrying on in a semi-dazed state with a certain self-loathing and see the source of it is to regain my centeredness and sense of self again and become free of it.

To learn the hard way that there are many things in life we simply cannot do alone, when it is not only necessary to get help, but to not do so keeps the brainwashed, self-destroying state going and keeps a wall in place between us and those we love, denying the joy of living and sharing to ourselves and family.

I've learned I must get rid of all walls between me and others, take it easy, and stay focused. I can't begin to say how much the book Lotus recommended helped me to see this and to accept myself, with all my stupidities, and actually start truly loving myself, God and others again. Halfway between shame/humility and pride, I have now stopped all harmful risk-taking behaviours and haven't felt happier or calmer since before Scn.

Hugs to you all. :grouphug: I only mention this because it took decades for me to realise this horrible brainwashing effect and get on top of it. Maybe someone reading this can save him/her self a few years of pain reading this.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
In the forum rules, Emma makes the observation that "In this group of ex Scientologists we are bound to run into people who we knew in our former 'lives' as Scientologists. Given the extreme violations of privacy already rampant in the church it is quite likely that you may know of some personally embarrassing information about another poster. For example: you may have known poster "John" in the church and know that he had gotten into trouble for gambling or theft or promiscuity etc."

Then she goes on to say:

"To bring up these personally embarrassing things (whether true or not) as some sort of oneupmanship or as a form of retaliation in an argument is really bad form and will not be tolerated on this message board."

For instance, this:

[video=youtube;GhCsOmVAUkI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhCsOmVAUkI[/video]

Well, the "Scientologist bosses" she talks about were also my Scientologist bosses - one in particular. We worked at the same org. It was awful. Everyone was in fear - we were in a chronic state of hypervigilance. It was the singularly most abusive environment I have ever experienced, and I have been in a few abusive situations in my life.

Anyway, I have literally had nightmares about this person. Years later I see that they are friends with other ex-Scientologists I know on Facebook.

How should I react? Do they deserve to rebuild their life? Do they deserve our forgiveness?

This was one low-level executive of a tin-pot org. So I don't think it is as simple as people like to paint it - or that you can quantify what level of suffering one individual should be accountable for.

How do you measure pain and ruined life? Is there some scale by which some abuse is acceptable, but then there's this magic 5.4x threshold that we cross over when we get put on a certain post?

If so, is it only the top five executives in charge that are responsible? Why?

And what about Claire Headley? She was theoretically number 2 in charge of all Scientology. But did she have any real power in practice to stand up to Miscavige? Well, did she? You walk a mile in those shoes.

Or what about my lovely friend Denise Brennan? Should she be held to account for the "crimes" of her organisation - just because she was a member of the Watchdog Committee?

I don't think so. And I don't think you can have one standard for one person and another for somebody else.

And who is going to lock these people up anyway? Where is the evidence? Where are the victims lining up to file charges?

I would never facebook friend this person or otherwise do so in real life, although other exes have made different choices. I am glad for them that they got out of Scientology and seem to be rebuilding their life.

And who signed them up for staff?

I was one of the people, you see. And he and his family also suffered because of that. Where does it begin and where does it end?

Anyone who can figure that out should be able to solve any ethical dilemma presented in any philosophy class. I don't claim to be able to draw those lines.

I keep coming back to "treat others as you would want to be treated." Do you want forgiveness yourself? If not, do you think you EVER might need it? Then give it to others. If not, sit back and judge with impunity. You are without sin! Cast your stones to your hearts content.

[video=vimeo;52078503]http://vimeo.com/52078503[/video]

[video=youtube;QbZpnmQpOyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZpnmQpOyI[/video]
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I think as long as a person is still glibly promoting the delusional brainwashing, I don't want their friendship. Once that's over and the person is working at resolving his/her own issues, they become just normal, flawed humans again.

I've finally completely forgiven myself, which makes it easy for me to forgive the others. Not those still promoting the brainwashing, because they're still in a trance. When they come home to themselves and admit and work on their issues, they all have my forgiveness. Except Hubbard. He's dead and never got real about anything to any one, least of all himself, so died a tulpa. as Mystic would say.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
I think as long as a person is still glibly promoting the delusional brainwashing, I don't want their friendship. Once that's over and the person is working at resolving his/her own issues, they become just normal, flawed humans again.

I've finally completely forgiven myself, which makes it easy for me to forgive the others. Not those still promoting the brainwashing, because they're still in a trance. When they come home to themselves and admit and work on their issues, they all have my forgiveness. Except Hubbard. He's dead and never got real about anything to any one, least of all himself, so died a tulpa. as Mystic would say.

I would never want the friendship of this person, though, even though they are no longer a Scientologist. Some things just cut too deep. There's live and let live forgiveness and there's bring you close to my bosom forgiveness, you know?
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I completely agree. My FB is a small circle of people with which I share my life. Its MY choice who I want in my private life, just as it is yours.
 
In the forum rules, Emma makes the observation that "In this group of ex Scientologists we are bound to run into people who we knew in our former 'lives' as Scientologists. Given the extreme violations of privacy already rampant in the church it is quite likely that you may know of some personally embarrassing information about another poster. For example: you may have known poster "John" in the church and know that he had gotten into trouble for gambling or theft or promiscuity etc."

Then she goes on to say:

"To bring up these personally embarrassing things (whether true or not) as some sort of oneupmanship or as a form of retaliation in an argument is really bad form and will not be tolerated on this message board."

For instance, this:

[video=youtube;GhCsOmVAUkI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhCsOmVAUkI[/video]

Well, the "Scientologist bosses" she talks about were also my Scientologist bosses - one in particular. We worked at the same org. It was awful. Everyone was in fear - we were in a chronic state of hypervigilance. It was the singularly most abusive environment I have ever experienced, and I have been in a few abusive situations in my life.

Anyway, I have literally had nightmares about this person. Years later I see that they are friends with other ex-Scientologists I know on Facebook.

How should I react? Do they deserve to rebuild their life? Do they deserve our forgiveness?

This was one low-level executive of a tin-pot org. So I don't think it is as simple as people like to paint it - or that you can quantify what level of suffering one individual should be accountable for.

How do you measure pain and ruined life? Is there some scale by which some abuse is acceptable, but then there's this magic 5.4x threshold that we cross over when we get put on a certain post?

If so, is it only the top five executives in charge that are responsible? Why?

And what about Claire Headley? She was theoretically number 2 in charge of all Scientology. But did she have any real power in practice to stand up to Miscavige? Well, did she? You walk a mile in those shoes.

Or what about my lovely friend Denise Brennan? Should she be held to account for the "crimes" of her organisation - just because she was a member of the Watchdog Committee?

I don't think so. And I don't think you can have one standard for one person and another for somebody else.

And who is going to lock these people up anyway? Where is the evidence? Where are the victims lining up to file charges?

I would never facebook friend this person or otherwise do so in real life, although other exes have made different choices. I am glad for them that they got out of Scientology and seem to be rebuilding their life.

And who signed them up for staff?

I was one of the people, you see. And he and his family also suffered because of that. Where does it begin and where does it end?

Anyone who can figure that out should be able to solve any ethical dilemma presented in any philosophy class. I don't claim to be able to draw those lines.

I keep coming back to "treat others as you would want to be treated." Do you want forgiveness yourself? If not, do you think you EVER might need it? Then give it to others. If not, sit back and judge with impunity. You are without sin! Cast your stones to your hearts content.

[video=vimeo;52078503]http://vimeo.com/52078503[/video]

[video=youtube;QbZpnmQpOyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZpnmQpOyI[/video]

OK, but, in regard to the law, is scientology outside of the law? If they are breaking laws,
should their friends and fellow culties or ex-culties decide the rights and wrongs?
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
OK, but, in regard to the law, is scientology outside of the law? If they are breaking laws,
should their friends and fellow culties or ex-culties decide the rights and wrongs?

You talked about fairness. But even the justice system isn't always fair. It seems to me that people make their own justice. I do truly believe in karma - whatever name you use for it. Look at Hubbard - the whole legal system and resources of the most powerful nation on earth couldn't bring him to justice. But as Denise would say about our beautiful dark sister, Karma - people get what they bring. Oh, I wish I could remember the exact way she puts it - but Karma embraced Hubbard as she embraces us all. And look at how the kiss of Karma touched him.... Who would want to live and die like he did? Who would exchange his bitter end for all of his riches?

I'm not sure if that's what you were asking me, though?
 

JustSheila

Crusader
^^ I think it's a whole lot simpler than that, Purple.

IF there were a karmic reason for Hubbard & Scn to survive as they had, the only good that came of it was the latent awareness and knowledge of the evil, and exposure of the con and brainwashing so that we all are better prepared to face future attempts.

Karma and/or conscience is a bit like a rubber band and time stretches that band harder and tighter until it breaks or kicks back with serious force. The sooner someone comes clean, the better - or the kickback from society or the person's own sanity will be terrible and intense.
 
You talked about fairness. But even the justice system isn't always fair. It seems to me that people make their own justice. I do truly believe in karma - whatever name you use for it. Look at Hubbard - the whole legal system and resources of the most powerful nation on earth couldn't bring him to justice. But as Denise would say about our beautiful dark sister, Karma - people get what they bring. Oh, I wish I could remember the exact way she puts it - but Karma embraced Hubbard as she embraces us all. And look at how the kiss of Karma touched him.... Who would want to live and die like he did? Who would exchange his bitter end for all of his riches?

I'm not sure if that's what you were asking me, though?

Karma is woo woo. Some people are born into a life of shit and then die - sometimes horribly, while others get to enjoy life and have the means to do so for decades, some even get to have a beautiful death.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Karma is woo woo. Some people are born into a life of shit and then die - sometimes horribly, while others get to enjoy life and have the means to do so for decades, some even get to have a beautiful death.

Perhaps you are right. Maybe there just isn't any justice.

For instance, I have been told of one girl who was repeatedly coerced into sex while on staff. At the minimum it was sexual harassment. At the worst, it was rape. Both are illegal. Anyway, what can I do about it? My source I would consider reliable. However, the victim chose not to press charges, not surprisingly given the sorts of suffering inflicted on victims during sexual assault trials. Also, even if I would be willing to advise her to go to the police, I no longer know how to contact her or even remember her last name. And then there is the statute of limitations. But the victim doesn't even want anyone to know.

So yes, I know about this crime that happened. So what? What can I do about it?

Will the perpetrator be punished? Only by his own conscience, or by what goes around comes around.
 
Top