Scientology Sharia law

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:

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Looks like Mike Rinder is making an honest statement about something which most of us already knew.

How do you feel about Scientologists signing away their right to sue or otherwise seek legal recourse ?

How do you feel about Scientologists signing away their right to resist being placed in isolation by Scientology for an indefinite period of time?

Especially when such signings of Sharia-like contracts may occur under duress, through trickery, or after "processing" when a person's judgement is impaired?

RazorFenceIntbase.jpg
:scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks:
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
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.
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.
 

Glenda

Crusader
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.
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.
 

Veda

Sponsor
@Glenda

-snip-

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 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.

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.

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

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


?
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I agree with those dissenting, but...

In Religious Arbitration, Scripture Is the Rule of Law - The New York Times

____________Begin quote_____________​

Religious arbitration clauses... have often proved impervious to legal challenges.

Scientology forbids its followers from associating with former members who have been declared 'suppressive persons', according to people who have left the church. But this year, a federal judge in Florida upheld a religious arbitration clause requiring Luis Garcia, a declared suppressive, to take his claim, that the church had defrauded him of tens of thousands of dollars, before a panel of Scientologists, instead of going to court.

...Judges have consistently upheld religious arbitration over secular objections...

______________End quote_______________​

In Religious Arbitration, Scripture Is the Rule of Law - The New York Times
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.
 

Glenda

Crusader
-snipped -



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.


?
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)
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
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)
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?
 

freethinker

Sponsor
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?
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.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
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.
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:
 

freethinker

Sponsor
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:
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.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
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.
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.
 

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.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader





"But but but this doesn't look like a bridge."
teamescape-bremen.jpg




Scientology is a closed system that seeks to use fraudulently obtained religious cloaking
to shield itself from civil and legal consequences.

Here are a couple of pages from some of its contracts:​



"6. .... a ...I am forever abandoning, surrendering, waiving, and relinquishing my right to sue or otherwise seek legal recourse with respect to any dispute, claim, or controversy against the Church..."


Trapped2.jpg


__________________​


"d... Introspection Rundown... I specifically consent to Church members being with me 24 hours a day... The Case Supervisor will determine the time period in which I will remain isolated... the duration of any such isolation is uncertain..."


Trapped5.jpg
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?
 

Glenda

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?
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).
 

La La Lou Lou

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).
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.
 

Glenda

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.
Another income stream? Anything is possible with this scam.
 
Top