ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Scientology Sharia law

Discussion in 'Leaks - Emails, Promo, Insider Info' started by Veda, Sep 6, 2019.

  1. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    In Scientology and SO, All means justify end
    When a damaging PR flap may occurs, specifically as a bad outcome of false emprisonnement in either the RPF or in the Introspection rundown, the end ( protecting COS from suit and bad pr) justify all the harms done physically, emotionnaly, psychologically as well as giving up all human rights and jeopardize people's health and safety.

    This is it!

    We've been there , seen it happening, for several decades , as daily business, no matter what rhetorical discours some may use using the "religious" fallacy cloack.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
  2. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Lurker5 likes this.
  3. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    It was NOT like this back in the day...
  4. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Despite what Rinder & Tony Ortega keep saying, "the religious cloak" does not stop criminal indictments.

    Read this wikipedia page on the most powerful church in the world. Criminal prosecution is what ALL religions fear:

    Catholic Sex Abuse Cases in the United States

    Everyone has been distracted off of criminal prosecution and onto civil litigation for a reason.

    Don't let them do that to you any more.
  5. Glenda

    Glenda Crusader

    Will read your link in a minute. Thanks for that. I've been interested in the catholic church abuses and subsequent legal challenges.

    I think one of the issues being faced is the separation of church and state. This is a big subject. It came up a bit during the Australian scientology stuff (c. 2009/10). It was also highly likely a bit of a theme during the NZ Govt. Inquiry (1968/69). Behind the scenes agencies get nervous and fear being over-loaded and over-whelmed by the long-upheld separation of state and church thing.

    The recognition of church (religious status) does not exempt criminal prosecutions but it does make the preceding requisite evidence gathering for the high level of proof required for conviction in criminal cases really damn difficult. Scientology uses Priest-Penitent Privilege (ancient thing) confidentiality to protect itself. This issue is, as far as I can tell, being challenged by some legal beavers because of the shifting laws regarding private individual information. I'm not entirely sure if criminal prosecutions is what all religions fear the most. Yes, in part, but I also think it is only part of its fear of losing the absolute power and control it can hold under canon law.

    These are complicated legal issues imo. They are issues which have the potential to change ancient embedded aspects of how society has been traditionally structured.
  6. Veda

    Veda Sponsor


    The courts also become anxious regarding the subject of "brainwashing." They fear they'll be swamped by cases if "brainwashing" is recognized. So we have travesties such as what was done to Patty Hearst.

    This is why maintaining religious cloaking for Scientology is so important to Miscavige.

    Mmmm... it's also important to Alanzo.

  7. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Then Judges are violating the First Amendment. The First amendment prohibits Congress from establishing or prohibiting religion but the courts cannot compel a man to go to a religious institution and then say they can't make a decision for or against what their methods are because the First Amendment prohibits compelled association. The judge who orders someone to a religious retreat for any reason is establishing religion as law.

    That is not the free exercise of religion because it was compelled. The courts are using religion to wash their hands of any responsibility for the outcome. If they can't be responsible for the outcome then they can't order the man to go there.

    This is using religion as an excuse instead of holding them to what they are supposed to be which is a betterment to society, not a determiner of what is right or wrong when they have a conflict of interest to preserve themselves over who they injure.
  8. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Birdie! Hello! I was worried you hadn't posted for a while. Good to hear you again
    Enthetan, Lurker5, lotus and 2 others like this.
  9. Glenda

    Glenda Crusader

    You are probably right that there is fear that recognition of brainwashing would swamp courts. However there is a growing recognition of the (mental) factors surrounding domestic abuse. Defining domestic abuse tended to always lean towards physical abuse however these days it includes psychological and emotional abuse. Perhaps it is a stepping stone towards a legal definition for "undue influence". I haven't read up much on the legal scene on "undue influence" but I recognise signs of it in the domestic abuse legal stuff I have encountered.

    Maintaining the religious cloaking is imperative for scientology's survival. Yes it provides protection from criminal prosecutions (to a large extent though not entirely) but it also wraps everyone up in a very perverted way. "You can't touch us because we are a religion and we'll do whatever the hell we like and there is not much you can do about it. We can violate your rights, under protection, but just you try and challenge us and then you'll really see who is boss."

    Hubbard really knew he was doing when he did the religious cloaking thing. It opted the group members out of civil & human rights protection as individuals and also provided strong protection for the inner sanctum, and their dirty dealings, from external agencies.

    Is there a way through this labyrinth to the core of the beast? (thinking out loud here)
    Free to shine, Lurker5 and Type4_PTS like this.
  10. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    When the hurricane turned away from the west coast of Florida I knew he was still around. :cool:
  11. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    While what you say about Scientology being protected to a large degree by its religious cloaking is true, I can't for the life of me understand it.

    Why should any society allow any organization to abuse people and engage in criminal activities regardless of whether they have religious status or not?

    If a person commits arson or murder, it doesn't matter whether he does it for non-religious reasons or for religious reasons ( God or LRH told him to do it). Religious belief shouldn't give someone any special right to harm another human being. That's insane IMO.

    And while our justice system does recognize that when it comes to serious felonies like arson or murder, when it comes to fraud or working 13 year old girls 110+ hours/per week, human trafficking, and other offenses, our justice system (at least here in the U.S.) is dysfunctional.

    Getting back to what you wrote about earlier concerning the contracts, my understanding is that that CoS shouldn't be able to get away with stripping members of all rights like they do here with the adhesion contracts. If these are challenged properly in court it seems that the courts should void many of the provisions if they really respect and follow contract law over here. But IANAL, or even close to it.
    @freethinker is much closer than I. :cool: What's your thoughts about the CoS contracts?
    tesseract and Lurker5 like this.
  12. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    An adhesion contract is a one way contract. It protects the seller but leaves the buyer with the terms and conditions. They are unconscionable contracts. No one on the selling side signs it which means they guarantee nothing.

    It's a big subject, these contracts, and they get into many nuances. The church will tell you it is necessary because of SP's. What they don't tell you is you are the SP they are protecting themselves from when you find out their services are worthless and produce none of the results they claim.

    You really have to understand what an adhesion contract is, and that isn't easily understood, but if you don't understand them then you are a sitting duck, but you don't have to remain a sitting duck.

    The best defense against them, where Scientology is concerned, is that Scientology gets no results that they claim.
  13. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Don't courts sometimes void some provisions of these types of contracts, or at least have the ability to void them under existing contract law?

    Or do I need to go see the word-clearer? :eek:
  14. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Yeah, but they don't void them all the time and it is a crap shoot. My point of contention is they are commercial contracts. there are no adhesion contracts for religion.

    Is the CoS a commercial enterprise or is it a church? They can't be both but they IRS says they can. Where does the IRS get the authority to establish religion?

    The Church of Scientology is a trademark. OT is a trademark. The E-meter is a trademark. Their works are copyrighted yet L. Ron Hubbard said the work was free, keep it so.

    How can you be a commercial business and a religion? I say you can't be.

    If you were to go to court with Scientology and they claim First Amendment that would be a point of attack because they operate as a business, They sell religion. First Amendment doesn't protect selling religion.
    Voodoo, Lurker5 and Type4_PTS like this.
  15. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Good questions! :yes:

    During the Monique Rathbun lawsuit vs the CoS wasn't her legal team working towards establishing that they were a business? It seemed that the judge in the case was seeing that as well.
  16. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    I thought it was not legal to contract people to give up their future right regarding a hypothetic disability state, mentally or physically.

    I don't think it is even legal to have someone give up human rights as the right to health service and security.( that said security might be an hospital, your home, your family) that can't be denied to you IMO.
    Enthetan likes this.
  17. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    That means that once you signed that you can't sue any organisations that follows the scientoLogy religion, that would include squirrel groups. Does that mean that indi scn is no longer fair game?
  18. Glenda

    Glenda Crusader

    No it does not include squirrel groups. Everything in scientology is trademarked. The words "scientology", "dianetics", "L. Ron Hubbard" and hundreds of other names and symbols are internationally protected under trademark laws. To use these trademarked words/symbols a license agreement has to be signed and agreed upon by the Religious Technology Centre. RTC own most of the TMs.

    If anyone sets up shop using trademarked protected names/symbols without obtaining a license agreement from the legal owner, legal action can be activated by the owner (in this instance RTC).
  19. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    Oh well, thought it might be proof that indi scn was set up by COB in case the mother ship is killed off by the authorities. I know it's a completely bonkers idea, so is recording all of Hubbard's words onto titanium CDs, I wouldn't put anything passed the obnoxious little shrimpling.
    Enthetan, Type4_PTS and Glenda like this.
  20. Glenda

    Glenda Crusader

    Another income stream? Anything is possible with this scam.
    Type4_PTS and La La Lou Lou like this.