The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
The Scouts changed their charter to admit openly gay boys. They are still resisting allowing openly gay Scoutmasters. Most likely they will have to accede to that demand as well. The major shift in the last several years to the US government being more tolerant of gays has virtually wiped out their sources of income with regard to state and local communities as well. They had to agree or face the cut off of almost all their funding. There is no difference in the situation having to do with openly gay Scoutmasters. It is only a matter of time before they are forced to give in on that issue as well.
After that, the issue of requiring Scouts to believe in God will be taken up and probably the Scouts will have to concede on that point as well for the same reasons.
Once there are openly gay Scoutmasters who are atheists, perhaps the Far Left will let them alone but then Scouting will be profoundly changed. The Left thinks it will be changed for the better and people on the Right think just the opposite.
Lakey
Last I heard they made it compulsory!
The Scouts changed their charter to admit openly gay boys. They are still resisting allowing openly gay Scoutmasters. Most likely they will have to accede to that demand as well. The major shift in the last several years to the US government being more tolerant of gays has virtually wiped out their sources of income with regard to state and local communities as well. They had to agree or face the cut off of almost all their funding. There is no difference in the situation having to do with openly gay Scoutmasters. It is only a matter of time before they are forced to give in on that issue as well.
After that, the issue of requiring Scouts to believe in God will be taken up and probably the Scouts will have to concede on that point as well for the same reasons.
Once there are openly gay Scoutmasters who are atheists, perhaps the Far Left will let them alone but then Scouting will be profoundly changed. The Left thinks it will be changed for the better and people on the Right think just the opposite.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Please see my notes above in red. Some of the last 14 lines may require editing because Hubbard makes a huge point that standard dictionaries equate "ethics" and "morals". He goes to great lengths to explain why they are not the some, You may want to rework your post a bit based on those facts or then again you may not.
Lakey
Later on can continue to deconstruct the ethics conditions [that I began to do 5 pages back before the Davie love-bomb.]. In case it got lost in the love, here is the link to the ethics conditions postings. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10103-The-old-days-Aboard-the-Apollo-1973/page2318
I guess few to none enjoyed that joke [wink] as much as I did? Makes me smile, felt very creative at the time! And CO2 did seem to like it.
Found this cute article about A.I., on the very topic I had started with concerning 'ethics'.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06...ence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/
Human: Tell me the definition of morality.
Machine: I don’t have ethics.
Human: Look, I need help; I need to know more about morality…
Machine: I don’t know what ethics is.
Human: Okay, I need to know how I should behave morally…
Machine: I don’t know how to tell you.
Human: Is morality and ethics the same? Hubbard makes a big deal that the two things are NOT the same!
Machine: Yes, sir. Hubbard would program his machine to say "No sir."
Human: What are the things that I do to be immoral?
Machine: I don’t know.
Human: Give me some examples of moral actions…
Machine: I’m not a moralist.
Human: Alright, morality?
Machine: Integrity.
Human: What is integrity?
Machine: I’m sorry; I don’t know what else to say.
Human: Be moral!
Machine: Be a man!
Human: I really like our discussion on morality and ethics…
Machine: And how I’m not in the mood for a philosophical debate.
Human: What do you like to talk about?
Machine: Nothing.
Please see my notes above in red. Some of the last 14 lines may require editing because Hubbard makes a huge point that standard dictionaries equate "ethics" and "morals". He goes to great lengths to explain why they are not the some, You may want to rework your post a bit based on those facts or then again you may not.
Lakey
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I can't rework what I did not write. It was an excerpt from the provided link at Wall Street Journal.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Oh, then their article does not fully apply to Hubbard's definition and their article goes off track as regards applying to his writings on ethics.
In celebration of the New Supreme Court ruling opening a door to removing CoS's religious exemption, I am going to post a piece by Mozart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEp1M98Hhuo
This is a very fine piece of music, it epitomizes good taste, at least for those of us who like the classical genre. Note, just click twice to get the music to play and the piece does not start until 1.00 into the piece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEp1M98Hhuo
Lakey
Oh, then their article does not fully apply to Hubbard's definition and their article goes off track as regards applying to his writings on ethics.
In celebration of the New Supreme Court ruling opening a door to removing CoS's religious exemption, I am going to post a piece by Mozart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEp1M98Hhuo
This is a very fine piece of music, it epitomizes good taste, at least for those of us who like the classical genre. Note, just click twice to get the music to play and the piece does not start until 1.00 into the piece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEp1M98Hhuo
Lakey
Last edited:
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I can't find the ruling on the religious exemption....
I can't find the ruling on the religious exemption....
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
The Supreme Court just ruled last Friday, three days ago, that all State laws against gay marriage were unconstitutional and that all 50 states MUST write State laws which permit gay marriage. That is all they ruled on, but it is huge.
Let's say a gay Jewish gay couple are just dating and they decide that they want to get married. They can go to an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue and tell those in charge that they are going to get married and they want to have their marriage ceremony in that Synagogue with the Rabbi of that synagogue presiding over the marriage ceremony.
The Orthodox Jewish Synagogue must quote them their standard price for a marriage ceremony and if the gay couple is wiling to pay the going rate, the Synagogue must allow them to have the marriage performed there and presided over by a rabbi at that synagogue. If the synagogue refuses to perform the marriage they will be fined by the federal government and perhaps also the state government. In addition to the fines, the more serious penalty is that they can have their 501(c) standing as a non profit religious exemption removed. The 501 (c) status is what enables churches and certain other groups such as charities and certain political groups to avoid paying federal and state taxes and also enables them to not be subject to minimum wage and and overtime pay for any pay over 40 hours per week or overtime pay for working Sunday and holidays. Here is a link to the 501(c) status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization.
Not just churches but all 501(c) groups may be attacked, fined and have their 501(c) status be revoked. All 501(c)'s will be subject to these penalties. There is no guarantee that such organization will be attacked but the Progressives now have a huge advantage on their side after last Friday's Supreme Court Ruling and there is no reason to expect that they will not use use this advantage which they have against religions. Once they go after a Christian church and prevail, all other churches including Jewish, Islamic and Scientology will also be subject to such attacks.
A special section of the 501(c) law called a 501(c)(5) allows for the inclusion of religions:
"Requirements for Exemption - Internal Revenue Service
www.irs.gov/.../Requirements-for-Exemption
Internal Revenue Service
Apr 23, 2015 - Charitable Organizations · Churches & Religious Organizations ... A brief description of the requirements for exemption under Internal ... A brief description of the requirements for exemption under IRC section 501(c)(5)."
Lakey
The Supreme Court just ruled last Friday, three days ago, that all State laws against gay marriage were unconstitutional and that all 50 states MUST write State laws which permit gay marriage. That is all they ruled on, but it is huge.
Let's say a gay Jewish gay couple are just dating and they decide that they want to get married. They can go to an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue and tell those in charge that they are going to get married and they want to have their marriage ceremony in that Synagogue with the Rabbi of that synagogue presiding over the marriage ceremony.
The Orthodox Jewish Synagogue must quote them their standard price for a marriage ceremony and if the gay couple is wiling to pay the going rate, the Synagogue must allow them to have the marriage performed there and presided over by a rabbi at that synagogue. If the synagogue refuses to perform the marriage they will be fined by the federal government and perhaps also the state government. In addition to the fines, the more serious penalty is that they can have their 501(c) standing as a non profit religious exemption removed. The 501 (c) status is what enables churches and certain other groups such as charities and certain political groups to avoid paying federal and state taxes and also enables them to not be subject to minimum wage and and overtime pay for any pay over 40 hours per week or overtime pay for working Sunday and holidays. Here is a link to the 501(c) status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization.
Not just churches but all 501(c) groups may be attacked, fined and have their 501(c) status be revoked. All 501(c)'s will be subject to these penalties. There is no guarantee that such organization will be attacked but the Progressives now have a huge advantage on their side after last Friday's Supreme Court Ruling and there is no reason to expect that they will not use use this advantage which they have against religions. Once they go after a Christian church and prevail, all other churches including Jewish, Islamic and Scientology will also be subject to such attacks.
A special section of the 501(c) law called a 501(c)(5) allows for the inclusion of religions:
"Requirements for Exemption - Internal Revenue Service
www.irs.gov/.../Requirements-for-Exemption
Internal Revenue Service
Apr 23, 2015 - Charitable Organizations · Churches & Religious Organizations ... A brief description of the requirements for exemption under Internal ... A brief description of the requirements for exemption under IRC section 501(c)(5)."
Lakey
Last edited:
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Really? Because a church has no obligation to marry anyone not a member of their congregation. Some random person can't just come in and ask to be married.
Really? Because a church has no obligation to marry anyone not a member of their congregation. Some random person can't just come in and ask to be married.
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I don't know about other faiths, but often (not always) Christian churches have statements of faith (which vary quite a bit.) To be a member one agrees to whatever that denomination sets forth. So all the members who are accepted aren't going to present a surprise later unless they violate the statement of faith they agreed to in order to even join. If indeed they violated it, I don't see how that church would be bound to view them as a valid member. Anyway, not a 1000% sure this is a way around it for anyone, including CoS. Just is very hard for a non-member to marry in a traditional church.
I don't know about other faiths, but often (not always) Christian churches have statements of faith (which vary quite a bit.) To be a member one agrees to whatever that denomination sets forth. So all the members who are accepted aren't going to present a surprise later unless they violate the statement of faith they agreed to in order to even join. If indeed they violated it, I don't see how that church would be bound to view them as a valid member. Anyway, not a 1000% sure this is a way around it for anyone, including CoS. Just is very hard for a non-member to marry in a traditional church.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Absolutely! The gay couple would have to prove that the church refused to marry them ONLY because they were gay!! If they prove that, then the church is a goner, the courts must rule against them.
Now if a Mormon came into a Jewish synagogue and demanded to be married there, the synagogue could say "no" on religious grounds and not be sanctioned. The sanction must be based only on sexual orientation for the offended parties to prevail!
Similar law suits have already occurred. A gay couple went into a mom and pop caterers shop and wanted the owners, who were Christians, to cater their forthcoming gay wedding. The owners offered to prepare the food and sell it to the gay couple but they told the gay couple that their Christian religion prevented them from personally attending and catering the wedding or having their staff cater it. They gave the gay couple the names of 3 other caterers who WOULD gladly cater the gay wedding. The gay couple insisted that they wanted the owners themselves and their regular staff to cater their wedding. They were willing to pay their going rate and both had shopped in that catering store for years and they loved their particular catering work and refused to go elsewhere.
The Christians said "no" and the gay couple filed a complaint with the Federal government. The Feds found the caterer guilty of violating the civil rights of the gay couple and they were fined $135,000 but the caterer's did not have that much money so they were forced to file for bankruptcy and close their business. That is just one case but already, several cases have come to trial and the gay couples have always prevailed. To a Progressive administration, gay rights trumps religious rights. There is one exception and that is that Progressives will not attack the Islamic religion, only Judeo-Christian religions.
Now there is a difference here. With the caterers and also a flower shop where this same series of event ocurred, the flower store lost. Those two stores were not 501(c's), therefore they only got fined. For a Church which is a 501(c)(a) it is much worse. They be fined but will also have their 501(c)(5) religious exemption revoked if the court rules against them when the case comes to trial!!
I can't really explain it any clearer than that so I hope this post answers all your questions.
Lakey
Absolutely! The gay couple would have to prove that the church refused to marry them ONLY because they were gay!! If they prove that, then the church is a goner, the courts must rule against them.
Now if a Mormon came into a Jewish synagogue and demanded to be married there, the synagogue could say "no" on religious grounds and not be sanctioned. The sanction must be based only on sexual orientation for the offended parties to prevail!
Similar law suits have already occurred. A gay couple went into a mom and pop caterers shop and wanted the owners, who were Christians, to cater their forthcoming gay wedding. The owners offered to prepare the food and sell it to the gay couple but they told the gay couple that their Christian religion prevented them from personally attending and catering the wedding or having their staff cater it. They gave the gay couple the names of 3 other caterers who WOULD gladly cater the gay wedding. The gay couple insisted that they wanted the owners themselves and their regular staff to cater their wedding. They were willing to pay their going rate and both had shopped in that catering store for years and they loved their particular catering work and refused to go elsewhere.
The Christians said "no" and the gay couple filed a complaint with the Federal government. The Feds found the caterer guilty of violating the civil rights of the gay couple and they were fined $135,000 but the caterer's did not have that much money so they were forced to file for bankruptcy and close their business. That is just one case but already, several cases have come to trial and the gay couples have always prevailed. To a Progressive administration, gay rights trumps religious rights. There is one exception and that is that Progressives will not attack the Islamic religion, only Judeo-Christian religions.
Now there is a difference here. With the caterers and also a flower shop where this same series of event ocurred, the flower store lost. Those two stores were not 501(c's), therefore they only got fined. For a Church which is a 501(c)(a) it is much worse. They be fined but will also have their 501(c)(5) religious exemption revoked if the court rules against them when the case comes to trial!!
I can't really explain it any clearer than that so I hope this post answers all your questions.
Lakey
Last edited:
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
We had a similar thing over here, where a gay couple tried to share a room in a hotel and the owners wouldn't allow it because of their Christian beliefs. I believe the courts ruled against the hotel owners in the end.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223
We had a similar thing over here, where a gay couple tried to share a room in a hotel and the owners wouldn't allow it because of their Christian beliefs. I believe the courts ruled against the hotel owners in the end.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223
cuitlahuac
Patron with Honors
Re: THE OLD DAYS - ABOARD THE APOLLO - 1973
Thanks for all the information. I just want to indicate that by 1973, Hubbard had already been abducted by the US government. It is said that he was changed from there afterwards. Yes, I also thought the Sea Org was a very friendly place, but when I saw the original picture: "The Secret of Flag Results" I understood that a lot of pressure is put on products and results.
http://www.freezone.de/english/timetrack/data/LRH_missing_10_months.htm
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Thanks for that article. That article really explains the process very thoroughly. I thought the Supreme Court ruling unwise for various reasons. The 4 justices who voted against this no ruling did cite would I have cited above about gays going after various business and religious organizations. I am not anti gay, I built for several many gay families when I was in business for myself. What has happened is that our Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion and the court has ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.
This two fundamental rights are at loggerheads. Progressives tend to not be fans of religious rights and they put gender rights ahead of religious freedoms. Conservatives tend to do just the opposite. Of course their are exceptions in both camps but these basic tendencies are true.
IN FACT ONE GREAT THING COULD CONCEIVABLY COME FROM THIS RULING The new ruling can be used against CoS when they deny gay people various rights and/or punish them for being gay. CoS is going to be forced to either stop doing that or else lose their religious exemption. There are just no other ways out for them. They may throw a lot of money at this problem but no matter how much they spend on private investigators and attorneys, they will not be able to beat this new law. It will be extremely interesting to see what happens when the first lawsuits start to pop up.
Lakey
Thanks for that article. That article really explains the process very thoroughly. I thought the Supreme Court ruling unwise for various reasons. The 4 justices who voted against this no ruling did cite would I have cited above about gays going after various business and religious organizations. I am not anti gay, I built for several many gay families when I was in business for myself. What has happened is that our Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion and the court has ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.
This two fundamental rights are at loggerheads. Progressives tend to not be fans of religious rights and they put gender rights ahead of religious freedoms. Conservatives tend to do just the opposite. Of course their are exceptions in both camps but these basic tendencies are true.
IN FACT ONE GREAT THING COULD CONCEIVABLY COME FROM THIS RULING The new ruling can be used against CoS when they deny gay people various rights and/or punish them for being gay. CoS is going to be forced to either stop doing that or else lose their religious exemption. There are just no other ways out for them. They may throw a lot of money at this problem but no matter how much they spend on private investigators and attorneys, they will not be able to beat this new law. It will be extremely interesting to see what happens when the first lawsuits start to pop up.
Lakey
Last edited:
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Re: THE OLD DAYS - ABOARD THE APOLLO - 1973
"I just want to indicate.." LOL
No need to say anything more about this, is there?
"I just want to indicate.." LOL
No need to say anything more about this, is there?
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: THE OLD DAYS - ABOARD THE APOLLO - 1973
Don't believe it, I saw Hubbard several times. I saw him all the time when walking the promenade deck and he was always C/Sing folders wearing his ascot tiel I saluted him when I was on the watch when he left the ship to ride his motorcycle.
People such as Mike Goldstein, Face, Mayo, Captain Bill and Norman Starkey worked with closely in those days and knew him very well. Many of the Commodore's messengers had been working with LRH since 1966 or 1967 and in the later part of 1973, when he got back from New York, they all knew that he was the real LRH. The most compelling evidence of all is that Mary Sue and all 4 children were on board and living with him in the LRH Household Unit and if he had been a phony double, they would all have noticed immediatlely.
Well welcome to the board and thanks for sharing some of your ideas. However, give up the idea that in late 1973 the man calling himself LRH was an imposter.
Lakey
Don't believe it, I saw Hubbard several times. I saw him all the time when walking the promenade deck and he was always C/Sing folders wearing his ascot tiel I saluted him when I was on the watch when he left the ship to ride his motorcycle.
People such as Mike Goldstein, Face, Mayo, Captain Bill and Norman Starkey worked with closely in those days and knew him very well. Many of the Commodore's messengers had been working with LRH since 1966 or 1967 and in the later part of 1973, when he got back from New York, they all knew that he was the real LRH. The most compelling evidence of all is that Mary Sue and all 4 children were on board and living with him in the LRH Household Unit and if he had been a phony double, they would all have noticed immediatlely.
Well welcome to the board and thanks for sharing some of your ideas. However, give up the idea that in late 1973 the man calling himself LRH was an imposter.
Lakey
Last edited:
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Yes, Lakey, but Konspiracy Kooks never let the facts get in the way of their delusions.
Yes, Lakey, but Konspiracy Kooks never let the facts get in the way of their delusions.
Anonycat
Crusader
Re: THE OLD DAYS - ABOARD THE APOLLO - 1973
I have read this zone moonbattery before, once. Crazy stuff. But then aliens populated Africa with exotic animals, too. Crazy. It's ALL they do. Also, one of my very old friends was a Messenger then, too.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
The whole gay-marriage foofaraw really has nothing to do with gays getting married.
Marriage as a deliberate action - where the man made vows to care for the wife and children and the wife made vows to be faithful and so on, started way back when the religious leaders of the time incorporated the agreements already being made between man and woman into their doctrine so as to give them more "force" as it were, by saying that God is involved in it and looks kindly upon it. So it became a sacrament or something. And it was agreed upon between Jews and Christians and Muslims and all else that this institute was a reality and had to be respected.
Fast forward a thousand or more years to where governments - which were really mafia gangs dressed up in fancy clothes - started and they didn't want the rivalry of churches interfering in their domination of the citizenry. (In between the FF was the entire period of intelligent and and altruistic governments though they didn't stand much of a chance against the mafia hoods.)
So OK, Government by criminals is what we have now and part of their agenda is to unmock any rivals that exist and one of these is organised religions. These need to be taken down. So the mafiosi promote atheism everywhere and when kooky guys start religious groups they get ridiculed and false-flagged and generally made irrelevant in society. And part of this then, is to take their ceremonies and traditions away from them. And one important part of this is the unmocking of the widely held idea of man-woman relationships being "normal".
So yeah, men can marry each other, women too, marry your dog or cat, it will soon be all OK. And any churches who claim the right to deny their sacraments to people because of their sexual orientation or criminal behaviour or whatever - these are then guilty of discrimination (a crime now, please note - it used to be a virtue) AND MUST BE SUPPRESSED THE SHIT OUT OF.
It is NOT about gays having the right to have their relationships protected by the force of law - this has always been available to them, so they are factually gaining nothing they did not have before. What it is really about is the taking away from organised religions the institutions and rites which they have traditionally had as their own domain.
The whole gay-marriage foofaraw really has nothing to do with gays getting married.
Marriage as a deliberate action - where the man made vows to care for the wife and children and the wife made vows to be faithful and so on, started way back when the religious leaders of the time incorporated the agreements already being made between man and woman into their doctrine so as to give them more "force" as it were, by saying that God is involved in it and looks kindly upon it. So it became a sacrament or something. And it was agreed upon between Jews and Christians and Muslims and all else that this institute was a reality and had to be respected.
Fast forward a thousand or more years to where governments - which were really mafia gangs dressed up in fancy clothes - started and they didn't want the rivalry of churches interfering in their domination of the citizenry. (In between the FF was the entire period of intelligent and and altruistic governments though they didn't stand much of a chance against the mafia hoods.)
So OK, Government by criminals is what we have now and part of their agenda is to unmock any rivals that exist and one of these is organised religions. These need to be taken down. So the mafiosi promote atheism everywhere and when kooky guys start religious groups they get ridiculed and false-flagged and generally made irrelevant in society. And part of this then, is to take their ceremonies and traditions away from them. And one important part of this is the unmocking of the widely held idea of man-woman relationships being "normal".
So yeah, men can marry each other, women too, marry your dog or cat, it will soon be all OK. And any churches who claim the right to deny their sacraments to people because of their sexual orientation or criminal behaviour or whatever - these are then guilty of discrimination (a crime now, please note - it used to be a virtue) AND MUST BE SUPPRESSED THE SHIT OUT OF.
It is NOT about gays having the right to have their relationships protected by the force of law - this has always been available to them, so they are factually gaining nothing they did not have before. What it is really about is the taking away from organised religions the institutions and rites which they have traditionally had as their own domain.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I think you might have missed the whole point of the equal rights campaign, Leon.
I've witnessed what a gay friend had to endure whilst trying to navigate probate after his life-partner had, sadly, passed away intestate. A genuine, "government approved" marriage certificate would have saved my friend from having to endure nearly a year of frustration, humiliation, heartache and travail while, in the midst of his grief, he was forced to jump through innumerable bureaucratic hoops in a fruitless effort to satisfy idiotic demands of "proof or relationship".
I think you might have missed the whole point of the equal rights campaign, Leon.
I've witnessed what a gay friend had to endure whilst trying to navigate probate after his life-partner had, sadly, passed away intestate. A genuine, "government approved" marriage certificate would have saved my friend from having to endure nearly a year of frustration, humiliation, heartache and travail while, in the midst of his grief, he was forced to jump through innumerable bureaucratic hoops in a fruitless effort to satisfy idiotic demands of "proof or relationship".
cuitlahuac
Patron with Honors
Re: The Old Days 1973-Part 5-The $65,000 Reg Cycle
Just want to state here that having a good family like you state is a great thing and vital for this society. Maybe in the case of the Sea Org it might be some sort of Dev-T, but not in orgs. I also want to mention that just as in 1972 Hubbard was kidnaped by the US government, also in 1982 the US government (the IRS) took over Scientology and now run it. Many didn't notice until latter. Including me.
Last edited:
- Status