What's new

Starting on ESMB Professor Jim Beverley

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
prejudice?
If it's a reaction against bad experiences, or mistreatment or disregard for family ties or blatant manipulative behaviour, then a more precise term could be postjudice :coolwink:

It isn't. If someone is discussing something, then that's what they're doing. They aren't giving you a past bad experience with CofS or any of that.
 
Gordon Melton, unless he's changed his mind, would discount ALL of your testimony about the church because you are apostates. Dr. Beverley, do you agree that apostate testimony about NRM's is to be disbelieved because they are antagonistic towards their former religion?

Once in a while Gordon has said things in court that sound like he discredits all apostate testimony. However, he does not, in fact, believe the popular view against him that he completely discredits ex-member views. I have talked to him about this many times over the years, and just talked to him today about the topic to make sure my view was correct. His view is that both member and ex-member testimony has to be evaluated in a critical way.

By the way, common sense would suggest that no one can possibly think that all ex-member testimony is always untrustworthy. All, every time, every person? Not a chance.

My own view is the same as Gordon's in general. Ex-member testimony is sometimes true, sometimes false, always important to consider...the same with member testimony.

Also, sometimes the ex-member testimony is far, far, far closer to reality than the members. One factor that complicates this is that the same group can produce opposite impacts on people and so the testimony can differ in two people who were in the same group at the same time.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
When you use the term president, do you make the distintion that that is a title and not the man who uses it and they are separate and ditinct entities.

When you are being auduted by the IRS, are you being audited by it or some individual DBA IRS?
I'm sorry, Freethinker, but I don't understand your comment above.
 
... I have long thought that the simple solution is to categorize the cash register part of Scientology as a business and let the worship/religious part exist separately. ...

This is a sound idea in principle but one which will never happen. Nor is that because of the influence of the Co$ or some conspiracy on the behalf of agencies of the u.s. government, but by simple reason of the impact if such on religious institutions generally and the political power of the large 'mainstream' churches and institutional religious advocates.

The republican party at present is seeking to make political capital over a public policy question which, simply put, sought to require religious institutions engaged in commercial enterprises to operate on the same basis as non-religious institutions with regard to the provision of healthcare to their workers.

The republican counter-argument seeks the observation and extension of a religious privilege which would allow such institutions to selectively eliminate protections and safeguards implemented for all their commercial employees engaged in secular & public general commercial practice based on the moral theological views of the business owner.

The obvious solution to institutional religious objections to observing a uniform workplace rule would of course be that if a religious institution serving as an employer of secular commercial workers has a moral objection to conducting its commercial enterprise operations in consonance with the minimum standards of fair practice legally required by the larger secular society then perhaps they should divest themselves of the commercial enterprises in question. In short, either "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, or else ... get out of Rome". That of course has never been a particularly popular religious principle among western religious institutions despite it's original provenance. :biggrin:

It would mean actually voluntarily taking a principled stand on that which they claim as their moral conscience which would effectively cut them off from potentially lucrative sources of income and means to greater influence in the larger secular society. Hence their resistance. Clearly, it's not a proposal to keep the bishops happy. :whistling:

The fact is that religious institutions are always about power, whatever broader values and seemingly elevated religious doctrines which they may publicly proclaim as their Inspiring & Revelatory Truth.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
Once in a while Gordon has said things in court that sound like he discredits all apostate testimony. However, he does not, in fact, believe the popular view against him. I have talked to him about this many times over the years, and just talked to him today about the topic. His view is that both member and ex-member testimony has to be evaluated in a critical way.

By the way, common sense would suggest that no one can possibly think that all ex-member testimony is always untrustworthy. All, every time, every person?

My own view is the obviously correct one: ex-member testimony is sometimes true, sometimes false, always important to consider...the same with member testimony.
Further, sometimes the ex-member testimony is far, far, far closer to reality than th members.

You could also say if all apostate witnesses spoke complete truth then we on this board would all be in agreement except of course for very poor trolls.

One of the things I like here is that we don't agree all the time. We have different views, we are different people and have different experiences. Even if we had been working next to each other on the RPF our experiences would be different. Taking in to account different experiences before the cult and in it it's hardly surprising that we have points of disagreement. On top of that we live in different countries, continents and speak different languages or forms of the same.

However overall our experiences are not that different, we were in the mother 'church' and it hurt and we got out. Now some will say it hurt because it wasn't Hubbard stuff, it was DM stuff. Others will say it's all the same, it's all crap, and always was. Some people flit between and some hold their far corner.

Some come, join, post leave, some come and stay.

We are, in the words of Brian, all individuals.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
OMG!


I don't know who you are, and I've never even heard a similar story, much less yours.

I don't think newspaper is as effective as it used to be, with the change of ink some decades back.


Oh! LOL. I thought you had remembered that newspaper/window story I mentioned a couple times in various threads.

Anyways, I am pretty sure the reason Scientology has not yet Cleared the planet is because of rag that i used to clean a window. No wonder the Commanding Officer of the AO lashed out at me with the horrific invective so deserved by a squirrel.
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Once in a while Gordon has said things in court that sound like he discredits all apostate testimony. However, he does not, in fact, believe the popular view against him that he completely discredits ex-member views. I have talked to him about this many times over the years, and just talked to him today about the topic to make sure my view was correct. His view is that both member and ex-member testimony has to be evaluated in a critical way.

By the way, common sense would suggest that no one can possibly think that all ex-member testimony is always untrustworthy. All, every time, every person? Not a chance.

My own view is the same as Gordon's in general. Ex-member testimony is sometimes true, sometimes false, always important to consider...the same with member testimony.

Also, sometimes the ex-member testimony is far, far, far closer to reality than the members. One factor that complicates this is that the same group can produce opposite impacts on people and so the testimony can differ in two people who were in the same group at the same time.


Jim,

Having known El Ron personally, been a Sea Org Senior “Management” Exec and part of the "Inner Circle", known most of the Scn “old timers” that have testified, both for and against the “Church”, and read a fair amount of their testimony it is my very strong opinion, and first hand knowledge re: some specifics, that the ex-members are by far most often far, far, far closer to reality.

The factor that truly complicates this is that nearly all of the “Inner Circle” Sea Org Members will do almost anything imaginable to “protect” Scn, El Ron and the wearer of the Magik Boots. At the upper echelons of the Sea Org, artful and deft lying is respected, valued and rewarded and is actually taught as a formal discipline contained within the “Scriptures” and planned, rehearsed and “role played” until “perfected”.


Face :)
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Once in a while Gordon has said things in court that sound like he discredits all apostate testimony. However, he does not, in fact, believe the popular view against him that he completely discredits ex-member views. I have talked to him about this many times over the years, and just talked to him today about the topic to make sure my view was correct. His view is that both member and ex-member testimony has to be evaluated in a critical way.

-snip-

So, he says one thing to you, and something quite different in court.

Melton has a well earned reputation as a paid shill - posing as an "objective scholar" and an "impartial expert" - working for Destructive Cults.

From what you've written here, it seems that he's not entirely sincere in his scholarly and expert public evaluations.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
That's true. It can cause one to be alleged to be forwarding the cause of Scn. Or of being in favor of the RPF. Or all kinds of things.

It's an either/or mentality. Not everyone has it, fortunately.

People who do have it should take a leaf from Starshadow's book. Starshadow being a long time Old Guard critic...when she heard about something decent that the cult did- I think it was a toys for tots drive-- she called the org and told them that although she's very much against the cult, still, that was a decent thing to do and she wanted to let them know.

A person not in favour of RPF cannot, by Scientology's own definition, be a Scientologist.

" . . . The enturbulence of the society around us is fantastic. There is no just civil law left, really. It is that lawless and disorderly condition in the society about us which makes it hard for us to work. Shortly we will be even more powerful. That power must not be lawless or we will have anarchy and dismay, enough to stop our growth.

If we have a superior law code and legal system which gives real justice to people, we will simply flow easily over the society and everybody will win.

Where we fail to apply our own administration, technology and justice procedures
to the society around us (let alone Scientology), we will fail . . . "
cf: HCOPL 27 March 1965, The Justice of Scientology, Its Use And Purpose, Being A Scientologist
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
When you use the term president, do you make the distintion that that is a title and not the man who uses it and they are separate and ditinct entities.

When you are being auduted by the IRS, are you being audited by it or some individual DBA IRS?


If I pray in my home, am I doing it as a member of the Holy Roman whatever thingety church or am I just praying to "god"?

So every situation would require different verbiage and phrasing. They aren't all identical.

In the past few months, I've noticed a wee bit of asperity in your communications to me. Still courteous and all that, but still, hasn't gone unnoticed. However, I'm still the same chica you met in Boston two years ago. And I'm not doing anything wrong.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
A person not in favour of RPF cannot, by Scientology's own definition, be a Scientologist.


cf: HCOPL 27 March 1965, The Justice of Scientology, Its Use And Purpose, Being A Scientologist

There's also all kinds of stuff that the bible out and out requires that Jews and Christians no longer do. They don't stop calling themselves Jews and Christians. However, they do define what sort of Christians and Jews they are. Protestant, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Catholic, whatever.

I think that's probably the missing link. Don't just say ...ian or ...ologist. Say what sort one is. Because, you're right. There's a world of difference between a churchie and ANYONE who isn't one.

But, you know, (since I'm feeling mischievous) I...umm...could point out that even the most die hard churchie is hard pressed to follow every single stricture in Scn and which is demanded of him by current management since there's a lot of conflicts there...just sayin'... :whistling::coolwink:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
There's also all kinds of stuff that the bible out and out requires that Jews and Christians no longer do. They don't stop calling themselves Jews and Christians. However, they do define what sort of Christians and Jews they are. Protestant, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Catholic, whatever.

I think that's probably the missing link. Don't just say ...ian or ...ologist. Say what sort one is. Because, you're right. There's a world of difference between a churchie and ANYONE who isn't one.

But, you know, (since I'm feeling mischievous) I...umm...could point out that even the most die hard churchie is hard pressed to follow every single stricture in Scn and which is demanded of him by current management since there's a lot of conflicts there...just sayin'... :whistling::coolwink:

Non-sequitur response in that compliance is separate from (dis)agreement.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
My response was chock full o' sequiturs. Like, totally.

I'm up to it . . .

zCe59.gif
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Arnie, I love you, man...may I please remind you that Jim is a newbie and that we are to be nice to newbies? :console: I understand your frustration and agree with you on the Melton character. Unfortunately, they are to be found in all areas of Academia, and elsewhere. (Think paid shills rather than real investigative scholars or researchers. :no:) I see them a lot in the area of environmental reports and biological or botanical surveys done for developers.

Jim, please understand the perspective that many of us (myself included- I first learned about Scientology in the 60's when it was mostly all about Dianetics and book one auditing) have about this issue. Many members here were in "Scientology" long ago enough to have personally witnessed the overnight transformation ordered by LRH, who always treated Scientology as his own personal cash cow, from "modern mental science" and "knowing how to know" into a "church", when he got into money and tax trouble. Scientology became a religion for tax evasion purposes and to give it an "acceptable truth" pro-social religious/spiritual cloaking to help grease the skids with locals, including local governments and law enforcement, who might otherwise investigate and oppose the organization's activities and treatment of it's members.

There are many old-timer Exes, including members here, who were told it was NOT a religion and believed it. They never would have joined if they thought it was a religion, either because they were happy with their own religion, and didn't want to leave it, or they had NO desire to become involved with any religion.

At first Scientology was touted as a science, attracted lots of geeky engineering or science loving types who liked the thought of the complexities of our minds being reduced to the workings of a mechanical recording device and liked the way our complex social network systems of interaction could be standardized and boiled down into grade charts, confined to eight "dynamics" and routines on which one could train and drill for "success" in greater social ability.

Those of us who are involved in exposing and ending the abuses and crimes of Corporate Scientology are involved in an information war, contending for the hearts and minds of the greater public at large, because it seems that overwhelming public opinion is the only thing which will compel our elected leaders, local government workers and law enforcement agencies to act, to actually investigate COS crimes and abuses and uphold and enforce the laws of the land. (Including, Mark, people's constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedom. :thumbsup: )

I understand that many younger and uninformed (as to it's true history) people believe it to be a "religion". Just calling it a "church" rather than the Corporation that it is, gives people who don't know anything else about it the false impression that it is a religion like any other. Some young people have grown up in a family which called it their religion. Some older, deluded people who have not progressed very far up the bridge, and do not understand Scientology's true attitude toward all "religion" consider it to be their religion (practicing Scientology for long tends to make people deluded.)

Only a few people out of the world-wide population consider it to be their religion. Most of those who love what their consideration of Scientology is and continue to practice it outside of the Cult (like some members here) would rather call it a philosophy or a system of mental self-help training rather than call it a religion.

You are aware that in the upper level training of Scientology, ALL of earth's human religions are discovered to be false, as they are considered to be ancient alien "implants" in our minds, a form of mind control conditioning that was carried out upon us millions of years ago, in order to control us. This is in direct contradiction to the lower level teaching that you can retain your own religion and it's practices and still be a Scientologist, which is a lie. If you continue "up the bridge" you will eventually be taught that all human religions are false and are harmful implants, created by an evil alien overlord named XENU to control you, and which must be erased from your mind.

From my personal perspective (space opera aside), how can it be a religion if there is NO concept of God or gods, or a higher power or powers of any kind, however you would define them? The only spirituality to be found is in the "space opera" (Ron's own words for it) story or "doctrine" if you will call it that.

The "aim" of Scientology processing is to recover your "Operating Thetan" abilities, to realize that you yourself are God or the god-like being who "mocked up" (created by making thought pictures) your entire life experience and your whole universe (including everyone and everything in it), because you are actually not human, but are the spirit of an ancient space alien being who has lived many lifetimes and had many experiences, mostly bad, and you "need" Scientology processing to recover and repair your self, and realize who you really are. Ron taught that he was the only one who had discovered this about our collective history and Scientologists think that they are the only ones who understand the true nature of reality.

You are not actually human, you are a Thetan, you are only using a human body that you happened to "pick up". This is a "spiritual" as Scientology gets...the "space opera". The teaching is that you can "drop a body" at will and go "pick up" another one, which helps to explain in part the frequency of Scientology suicides, whether from overt fast means, or the slower suicide of an early death by neglect due to overwork, poor food, little sleep, physical abuse, and no medicines and little medical treatment for Scientology Cult members, because "bodies don't matter, you can always pick up a new one".

This also explains the acceptance of coerced abortions for Sea Org women, that it is not really causing the death of their child, but that it's "just a body" which a Thetan has not picked up yet, and therefore no real harm is done by aborting it.

Oh, to get yourself right as a Thetan, you must also spend a lot of time, money and energy "auditing" the clusters of the millions of ghosts of other dead space aliens which were weaker or more introverted than you by XENU's maltreatment of them, and are clinging to you, are inside your body and in your "space", causing you problems. The purpose of self-auditing at these very expensive and very secret levels which the "church" persistently lies about (for our own good , of course, because learning about this too soon on the bridge will "mess up our cases") is to wake them up, counsel them that they are free to leave and go find another body to "pick up" and "run" for themselves, and to shoo them away from you and get them to "blow" (leave). This is as "spiritual" as Scientology gets.

There is no God or higher power in Scientology, only one's own self. (I see the influence of Crowley on Ron here.) Of course, this whole thing contradicts Ron's efforts with trying to float the Messiah project within the Sea Org or attempting to frame himself as Mettaya, the Buddha that is yet to come. But Ron's work is full of these sorts of contradictions because he made it up as he went along, using whatever would work of other people's work to excite and impress a gullible public for the purpose of selling books, lectures, courses and training. His goal was to "make money, make more money, make other people produce so as to make more money". Ron was a sociopathic con man. He sold people on the con he created and marketed until it didn't work as well, and then he changed it to get new people "in" or to keep people going up the "bridge" that he was selling them.

Scientology is constantly changing its pitch to appeal to the public. When psychology and psychiatry were big public interests, it was a modern science of mental health. When there were great fears about atomic bombs destroying us and a nuclear holocaust, it was all about radiation. When learning peace and creating a more functional and pro-social community was at the forefront of public thought, it was the way to happiness. Learn about COS true history and this is evident. Including the abrupt about face in naming and framing his group from a "modern science" to a "religion" when it served his purposes. The man had no shame (plenty of evidence of his having an anti-social personality disorder of one kind or another).

That the "religious cloaking" does seem to give the Cult of Scientology's crimes and abuses a bit of a pass over any other similar openly for-profit organization, is what fuels our frustration.

Corporate Scientology is a nasty Cult, qualifies for cult status by every definition I have ever seen written. It does spend millions on slick PR to appear to be a religion, to appear to be pro-social and benign or even benevolent, rather than the demonstrably criminal, brutal, for-profit organization that it is, and to scrub Ron's true dishonorable human history into the "shore story" of an admirable life of a kindly religious leader, whose prime motivation in creating the con called Scientology was to "help" people. :eyeroll: The Cult's PR about this has been thoroughly de-bunked, and people are entitled to know the truth about him and the group he created, as a means of protecting the public from Corporate Scientology's abuses.

I understand why you, Jim, consider Scientology to be a "new religion". I understand your perspective on it. However, from the perspective of one doing systems change advocacy and working for pro-social justice, organized Corporate Scientology is now, and always has been, a dangerous and harmful Cult.

Just catching up with this thread but I wanted to say this is one of the best posts I have ever read. :thankyou:
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
You could also say if all apostate witnesses spoke complete truth then we on this board would all be in agreement except of course for very poor trolls.

One of the things I like here is that we don't agree all the time. We have different views, we are different people and have different experiences. Even if we had been working next to each other on the RPF our experiences would be different. Taking in to account different experiences before the cult and in it it's hardly surprising that we have points of disagreement. On top of that we live in different countries, continents and speak different languages or forms of the same.

However overall our experiences are not that different, we were in the mother 'church' and it hurt and we got out. Now some will say it hurt because it wasn't Hubbard stuff, it was DM stuff. Others will say it's all the same, it's all crap, and always was. Some people flit between and some hold their far corner.

Some come, join, post leave, some come and stay.

We are, in the words of Brian, all individuals.

The thing that is really chilling is the similarity of experiences, despite different countries, decades and cultures etc. This points to the underlying and never changing 'policy' of scientology and should be of concern to those who study the subject.
 
Kent on scientology

"......Moreover, Scientology denies its reputedly religious nature if it is attempting to enter a country that might react adversely to religious proselytization (such as Japan or Greece [Kent, 1997a: 18-19]).


http://www.bible.ca/scientology-not-religion-kent.htm

".....Scientology -- Is This a Religion?
Is Scientology a Religion?
Scientology as a Multi-Faceted Transnational
Politics
Business
Cultural
Pseudo-Medicine
Pseudo-Psychiatry
Scientology as an Alternative Family Structure
The Rehabilitation Project Force -- Forced Labour and Reindoctrination
The RPF's RPF
Brainwashing
Scientology and Probable Human Rights Abuses
Bibliography....." Kent

http://www.bible.ca/scientology-not-religion-kent.htm

Scientology status by country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country
 
Last edited:
Top