What's new

My confession

sallydannce

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'd like to share something with you guys.

I sometimes feel that I'm supposed to be apologetic about liking some of the Scn concepts/tech/whatever. Sometimes it seems that some folks think I'm still in CofS, maybe, or at the very least, am excusing what they do and what Hubbard did. However, I've written a lot of posts saying the opposite, trufax.

If I say one teeny little thing like, auditing helped me when my folks died (it did) or I like the tone scale though I don't believe it's perfect or anything (I do) - I sometimes get some rather odd and acerbic responses. I am not referring to anything said in this thread, like, say, by Mick the Merciless, either. That struck me as a perfectly sensible and forthright response by someone with a different viewpoint than mine. No prob.

But I sometimes do get the third degree and things like that. And you know what? I'm not going to say I'm this stupid brainwashed whatever person.

I like some of Hubbard's ideas. That's how it is. I question everything I was ever told in Scn and I will continue to do it but the net result is that I still like some things and they are part of me.

I also like stuff Hubbard didn't approve of. I think psychotherapy is awesome. I even think sometimes people should take psychiatric medicines. I like meditation. I think it sometimes is ok to "mix methods" but whether it is or isn't, that's the person's call to make.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize to anyone for being candid about the ideas in Scn that I do like or that I think sometimes Hubbard did great, though, mostly he was incredibly irresponsible, mean and hurt many people. I'm tired of people telling me my thought processes are wrong , or that I defend Scn knowing what they do, or that I'm coming along nicely but still have a ways to go (so condescending.) or that I'm really still a Scn'ist or that I'm somehow responsible for the suffering of people I never met. And all the above have been said recently.

So, no. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm a recovering cultie same as anyone else, I'm making my way, I'm exercising my freedom of speech and while I would hope and expect people who don't agree with me to express that they don't agree with me, I'm not up for being made to feel like I'm somehow doing something bad by feeling the way I feel. I am extremely fond of many people here and have a deep abiding respect for the activisim and work people are putting in. But there're limits.

Claire, this post is terrific! Good for you! :)

It's one thing to express a differing opinion (robust exchange of ideas is healthy!) but quite another to try to make another person feel bad, mad or diminished for those views. To be blunt, it verges on being manipulative to try to inflict emotional crap on another with comments like "you must be stupid not to see..." and similar.

I grew up in a house that was full of the later type b/s. It ain't healthy and it induces (particularly in a child) a sense of shame for having one's own thoughts about issues.

From one recovering cultie to another here - I like your style Claire. :flowers:
 

Johnd

Patron with Honors
Yeah, I guess that lightly accusing people of being on slippery slopes is a form of non sequitur. I like Dawkins on evolution — I found Climbing Mount Improbable very clear — but I've never read him on atheism, because I'm not very interested. I've never felt much urge to change atheists' beliefs, though I'm a theist myself. I figure that if God can look after every atom in the universe, God doesn't need any PR from me.

I'm more willing to defend theism as being at least a reasonable position, but I don't really see much to defend. I share some beliefs with a lot of people whose other beliefs I find silly, and I have no interest in defending their silly beliefs when people like Dawkins punch them around. Frankly I suspect guys like Dawkins and Hitchens of having spent too much time punching around lightweight religious foolishness. I bet if they sat down for a while with a really smart Jesuit they'd come away with a little more respect for the opposition. Of all the logical fallacies, the straw man is one of the most common and dangerous.

Not to go too far off topic, but The God Delusion is worth reading even if the title might seem insulting to believers. I don't think Dawkins falls much into straw man fallacy, though you might find instances of that. Remember that he's mostly debated 'creationists' and sado religionists who believe in punishing women for being women and non-believers for being evil.

I don't agree with a 'slippery slope' idea of religion, that is, religious belief is a steep chute into intolerance, bigotry, inquisition, ignorance and rampant sadism. (I understand the Habitat for Humanity people are christians and I donate to them. Martin Luther King was christian.) You might find a bit of slippery slope falllacy in Dawkins, but mostly not. And one can point to a lot of evil done in the name of religion or various gods or ideologies.

I think of scientology not as a religion but as a know-it-all ideology, similar to authoritarian religion in that in one you're umbilicalled to an omniscient diety; in the other to an all-questions-are-answered-here 'tech.' (Just my current thinking)

The designation 'SP' is really a lot like being labeled a witch or a 'christ killer' or a blasphemer or a jew by the nazis or a counter revolutionary by stalinists. I guess we can be thankful scn doesn't have the power that religious or ideological hierarchies had and in some places still have. We'd be lucky to be living in concentration camps.

john
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Claire, this post is terrific! Good for you! :)

It's one thing to express a differing opinion (robust exchange of ideas is healthy!) but quite another to try to make another person feel bad, mad or diminished for those views. To be blunt, it verges on being manipulative to try to inflict emotional crap on another with comments like "you must be stupid not to see..." and similar.

I grew up in a house that was full of the later type b/s. It ain't healthy and it induces (particularly in a child) a sense of shame for having one's own thoughts about issues.

From one recovering cultie to another here - I like your style Claire. :flowers:

I like yours, too.

Isn't it interesting how everyone's journey varies? It's really cool, though.

Not much else to say except "hi!"
 
Top