What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The velocity of light

Note that in the UK Times it was reported that the alledged faster than light neutrino's were down to a faulty optical cable.

Fortunately this dosn't work for fast women.

Thus mankind is blessed. :)
 
Re: Death Penalty

I think the concept has lots of merit FoTi. It never occurred to me that the bracelets and red dots would put a persons attention on death but I see how that might occur with quite a few people. What if that aspect was deleted?

You know, organ donors carry cards in their wallets or something of that nature to state that they would like to donate their organs to others upon death. That concept certainly carries the thought of death but it also carries the thought of assisting current life or extending the lives of others.

What if the death penalty law was implemented but people just carried a wallet card and did not advertise their choice with a bracelet or red dot. That would eliminate pulling people's attention onto the subject of death. FoTi, would you then still be against that law or would that handle it for you? If you would still be against it, what would be your grounds for feeling that way?
Lakey

That's fine if it's a personal issue, and kept personal, and does not impinge on another's space and if one isn't wearing it publicly like some sort of badge.

Being an organ donor is a totally different issue which is intended to help out others, and has nothing to do with murder.

It's an interesting concept to allow the victim of the murder to decide the fate of the murderer instead of it being decided by a judge or jury.

Personally I don't think I would want to make the decision to kill someone if they murdered me. I don't really like the idea of "an eye for an eye". On the other hand if the murderer isn't executed, then the alternative is that they become a burden and an expense to the taxpayers, which I don't think is good either. I don't know of any good solution for handling someone who has murdered another, other than dumping them on some island, way away from the rest of society where they could never escape back into society to harm another decent person....and they would have to fend for themself, with the idea that the rest of society wouldn't have to have contact with them or have the burden or expense of keeping them incarcerated.....and their only social contact would be other murderers.....a one way ticket to the island with no return. (How's that for a run on sentence?)

Does that answer your question?
 
Re: Death Penalty

Not unlike putting the "organ donor" designation on your drivers license.

How about a yellow dot for the extremely liberal minded? The yellow dot says, "If you hurt me in any way I will not persue charges. Have a nice day."

No dots. Keep 'em guessing. :coolwink:
 
Re: Death Penalty

Not unlike putting the "organ donor" designation on your drivers license.

How about a yellow dot for the extremely liberal minded? The yellow dot says, "If you hurt me in any way I will not persue charges. Have a nice day."

Something to consider from a spiritual perspective, Ted: how is any situation fundamentally improved by a resort to vengeance?

As you are an auditor I expect that more than once you've encountered circumstances in session which suggest that vengeance ultimately is never beneficial. How many times have you encountered a situation in session where vengeance as a theme ever accomplished anything beyond creating a relatively short term 'positive' sensation but at the expense of some sort of a long term 'negative' cost. Perhaps occasionally a very very long term cost. :coolwink:

Rehabilitation may serve a useful purpose. If nothing else it reinforces a communal regard for compassion as a primary virtue. That is no small thing in itself. :yes:

Punishment doesn't serve any valuable purpose. It is just a continuation of insanity through other means, the sort of thing hubbard used to call 'contagion of aberration' or some such.

Often societies lack the means to fully rehabilitate a member who is acting out dangerously, in such instances confinement may well be necessary. In extreme situations of a clear active & immediate threat force may be warranted, even deadly force. Such things may result from a lack of skill, knowledge, or ability in handling such threats intelligently and with a minimum of force. Here the idea of 'gradients' can be seen to apply. Humans aren't perfect, possessing neither perfect knowledge nor skill. Nonetheless they are aware of the dangers inherent to acting out in anger or when emotion otherwise clouds good judgement.

The deliberate infliction of pain, suffering, injury or death in absence of a clear active & immediate threat is never warranted. Embracing such alternatives out of a desire for vengeance or a wish to punish or similar is insanity.


Mark A. Baker
 
from 10 Oct 1970 LA Times article

http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library-item.php?iid=604

Ex-Scientologist tells of 'fear' atmosphere // McMaster accuses Hubbard of fostering spiritual tyranny within organization
Home > Scientology library > Jul-Dec 1970
View cart
Add to cart

Title: Ex-Scientologist tells of 'fear' atmosphere // McMaster accuses Hubbard of fostering spiritual tyranny within organization
Date: Saturday, 10 October 1970
Publisher: Los Angeles Times (California)
Author: John Dart
Main source: link (129 KiB)
Alternate and/or complementary: pqasb.pqarchiver.com
Tags: American Saint Hill Organization (ASHO) • Food and Drug Administration (FDA) • John Dart • John McMaster • L. Ron Hubbard • Los Angeles Times (California) • Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) • Scientology's "Clear" state • Sea Organization (Sea Org, SO) • Security check ("sec check") • South Africa
Disclaimer: This archive is presented strictly in the public interest for research purposes. All the copyrights of materials reproduced here are the properties of their respective owners.

One year ago an articulate but soft-spoken man named John McMaster was extolling the virtues of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the worldwide, quasi-scientific "religion."

Appearing on television talk shows and giving lectures as Hubbard's personal representative, McMaster was eminently qualified. He was the first person to achieve Scientology's state of "clear," which purportedly gives a person full control a his mental processes.

Now McMaster describes the Church of Scientology and other organizations run by Hubbard as engaging in "spiritual tyranny."

"Ron was always busy getting everybody looking beyond the mulberry bush for a nonexistent enemy," said McMaster in a recent interview.

Discipline Group

The 43-year-old South African was in Los Angeles for the first time since he resigned last November from Scientology's Sea Organization.

Scientology was an out-growth of a book, "Dianetics," published in 1950 and written by Hubbard, a one time science-fiction writer and Hollywood screenwriter.

For more than a decade, working from a yacht in the Mediterranean, Hubbard has elaborated on psychoanalytic techniques with the "E-meter," similar to a lie detector, and the courses offering "the road to total freedom."

The Scientology organizations have had run-ins with the Food and Drug Administration and Internal revenue Service in this country and with some government agencies in other countries. However, Scientology officials claim that they have been falsely misrepresented by some disenchanted followers, government officials and the news media.

London Suburb

World headquarters is in a London suburb, but a large following exists in the United States, particularly in Los Angeles where the American Saint Hill Organization, 2723 W. Temple St., represents the only advance-course center for Scientology in this country.

McMaster said he resigned because of "unnecessary harshness" in the organization "that kept people in a kind of electronic jitter." He said he also opposed his reassignment from a public relations mission to the United Nations to service aboard one of the Sea Organization's several yachts.

McMaster, still convinced of the value of Scientology's teachings and analytic techniques, recently gave some lectures in Phoenix and the Los Angeles area on behalf of a Dianology Organization in Westwood run by Jack Horner, another ex-Scientologist.

Lecture sponsors in Phoenix, McMaster said, were told by Scientologists that "a different spirit was occupying the body of John McMaster." McMaster said he had heard that explanation used before in Scientology to explain the changed attitudes of some persons.

A spokesman from the Church of Scientology, 2005 W. 9th St., denied that the church has said that of McMaster.

Regarding the circumstances of McMaster's resignation, the spokesman said reports had been made by Scientologists last year that McMaster was "holding the founder in contempt in public," was becoming money-motivated and was accused of conduct unbecoming a minister of the church.

"We started making every attempt to get him to undergo spiritual rehabilitation, but these attempts were thwarted," said the spokesman. A telegram was sent recalling McMaster for rest and spiritual counseling, but no reply was made, said the official.

Later Expelled

"At that point he left and went into hiding and tendered his resignation, but not through proper authorities," said the spokesman. For McMaster's "betrayal of trust" and other acts, he was later expelled from the church, the spokesman said.

McMaster left New York by freighter to his home in Durban, South Africa, but only after expressing the hope for some rapprochement with Hubbard.

While in Durban McMaster said he was approached by Scientologists who offered to give him some "Class A auditing (interviewing)" free of charge. "I accepted it as a peace offering but I asked my mother to come with me," said McMaster.

"It wasn't auditing. It was a security check — they were trying to find some crime I'd committed," McMaster said.

'Closed Book'

"At this stage, they left me and I realized that Scientology was a closed book for me," he said.

McMaster said he has not denounced the techniques of Dianetics and Scientology "and never will." But the organization in charge has "built a structure and called it God," he said.

McMaster in February, 1966 became the first of thousands to achieve "clear" status.

If McMaster disagreed with the practices in Scientology, why ,didn't he quit sooner? "I felt that as long as I could get out and deliver the sane truth, this would show that all this ethics stuff (internal security) was perfectly unnecessary," he said. "It didn't work," he said.
 
Re: Death Penalty

Something to consider from a spiritual perspective, Ted: how is any situation fundamentally improved by a resort to vengeance?

As you are an auditor I expect that more than once you've encountered circumstances in session which suggest that vengeance ultimately is never beneficial. How many times have you encountered a situation in session where vengeance as a theme ever accomplished anything beyond creating a relatively short term 'positive' sensation but at the expense of some sort of a long term 'negative' cost. Perhaps occasionally a very very long term cost. :coolwink:

Rehabilitation may serve a useful purpose. If nothing else it reinforces a communal regard for compassion as a primary virtue. That is no small thing in itself. :yes:

Punishment doesn't serve any valuable purpose. It is just a continuation of insanity through other means, the sort of thing hubbard used to call 'contagion of aberration' or some such.

Often societies lack the means to fully rehabilitate a member who is acting out dangerously, in such instances confinement may well be necessary. In extreme situations of a clear active & immediate threat force may be warranted, even deadly force. Such things may result from a lack of skill, knowledge, or ability in handling such threats intelligently and with a minimum of force. Here the idea of 'gradients' can be seen to apply. Humans aren't perfect, possessing neither perfect knowledge nor skill. Nonetheless they are aware of the dangers inherent to acting out in anger or when emotion otherwise clouds good judgement.

The deliberate infliction of pain, suffering, injury or death in absence of a clear active & immediate threat is never warranted. Embracing such alternatives out of a desire for vengeance or a wish to punish or similar is insanity.


Mark A. Baker


No need for vengeance. No need for a passionate connection. That's where we get the phrase, in cold blood.
 
Re: Death Penalty

That's fine if it's a personal issue, and kept personal, and does not impinge on another's space and if one isn't wearing it publicly like some sort of badge.

Being an organ donor is a totally different issue which is intended to help out others, and has nothing to do with murder.

It's an interesting concept to allow the victim of the murder to decide the fate of the murderer instead of it being decided by a judge or jury.

Personally I don't think I would want to make the decision to kill someone if they murdered me. I don't really like the idea of "an eye for an eye". On the other hand if the murderer isn't executed, then the alternative is that they become a burden and an expense to the taxpayers, which I don't think is good either. I don't know of any good solution for handling someone who has murdered another, other than dumping them on some island, way away from the rest of society where they could never escape back into society to harm another decent person....and they would have to fend for themself, with the idea that the rest of society wouldn't have to have contact with them or have the burden or expense of keeping them incarcerated.....and their only social contact would be other murderers.....a one way ticket to the island with no return. (How's that for a run on sentence?)

Does that answer your question?

Yes, it answers my question. I believe your solution has been tried before, especially in Hollywood movies such as "Escape from Devi'ls Island", the "Dreyfus Affair", "Papilloon" and others. Usually the murderer is resourceful enough to get off the island alive but that is just Hollywood making a picture. In the "Dreyfus Affair", the killer was actually innocent and was ultimately released from custody.

Clearly, if someone has murdered another, some sort of justice must be applied by society. A heinous act has been performed. A person's life has been taken from him and usually there are loved ones who are left behind who who will suffer and sustain the loss for the remainder of their lives.

If society had the means to totally correct the offender such that he became a valuable citizen and there was no chance that he would murder again, that what be the best solution but even in that case, the damage that was done cannot be undone so the scales are not balanced. Is some form of punishment or deprivation reasonable or should the rehabilitated murderer be set free?

For most types of crimes, the criminal is able to show remorse and make restitution. In a murder case, it is impossible to make full restitution. What should happen? If a murderer was fully rehabilitated and decides to devote his remaining life to preventing future murders or rehabilitating other murderers, I could see the case for releasing him back into society. Short of that happening, what should be done?

I can see the point made that if society kills the murderer they are perpetuating the insanity. Even so, just letting a murderer serve a sentence and be released into society also seems aberant to me. Surely, at least genuine remorse must be a condition for release. If that is not achieved, the person will likely murder again so at the very least, life imprisonment would be the most sensible action.
Lakey
 
Re: Death Penalty

Comment on the original article. I will respond to that. This Q&A is going nowhere.

You make a good point. People have argued for eons about the death penalty for murderers and nothing ever resolves. We are not going to resolve the issue here in a few posts. Prager's original article was a different topic. We should limit our discussion to that. Thanks for making that point.
Lakey
 
Re: Death Penalty

You make a good point. People have argued for eons about the death penalty for murderers and nothing ever resolves. We are not going to resolve the issue here in a few posts. Prager's original article was a different topic. We should limit our discussion to that. Thanks for making that point.
Lakey

Suppose that a man who likes to fight is carrying a card that states that if someone kills him they are to be put to death. One day you meet up with this man and he picks a fight with you and during the fight and in self defense you deal him a blow and he happens to die from it. Since your blow killed him, you will now be put to death because his card says so....he has already made that decision in the place of a judge or jury.

I don't like this idea....no bracelet, no dot, no card. :no: I definitely would not vote for this idea.

In the old days in this country killers were shot or hung and there weren't jails to keep them in for the rest of their life. That handled the problem and took them out of society, at least temporarily..... Was it a better solution? I have no idea.

But I do think that those who are in prison for murder should not have TV, Internet service, and all the other perks they get.
 
Re: Death Penalty

Suppose that a man who likes to fight is carrying a card that states that if someone kills him they are to be put to death. One day you meet up with this man and he picks a fight with you and during the fight and in self defense you deal him a blow and he happens to die from it. Since your blow killed him, you will now be put to death because his card says so....he has already made that decision in the place of a judge or jury.

I don't like this idea....no bracelet, no dot, no card. :no: I definitely would not vote for this idea.

In the old days in this country killers were shot or hung and there weren't jails to keep them in for the rest of their life. That handled the problem and took them out of society, at least temporarily..... Was it a better solution? I have no idea.

But I do think that those who are in prison for murder should not have TV, Internet service, and all the other perks they get.


Suppose it is a matter of self-defense. The case never goes to trial, or if it does, you are acquitted. His estate is ordered to pay your legal bills.
 
Re: Death Penalty

Suppose it is a matter of self-defense. The case never goes to trial, or if it does, you are acquitted. His estate is ordered to pay your legal bills.

And what does this have to do with the person who is murdered making the decision about the outcome of his murderer?
 
Re: Death Penalty

Suppose that a man who likes to fight is carrying a card that states that if someone kills him they are to be put to death. One day you meet up with this man and he picks a fight with you and during the fight and in self defense you deal him a blow and he happens to die from it. Since your blow killed him, you will now be put to death because his card says so....he has already made that decision in the place of a judge or jury.

Please see my comments below.

I don't like this idea....no bracelet, no dot, no card. :no: I definitely would not vote for this idea.

In the old days in this country killers were shot or hung and there weren't jails to keep them in for the rest of their life. That handled the problem and took them out of society, at least temporarily..... Was it a better solution? I have no idea.

I don't know what things were like in history in various countries around the world. Please see comments below:

But I do think that those who are in prison for murder should not have TV, Internet service, and all the other perks they get.

Ted alread touched on this above but I want to put in my 2 cents. The only way I would be for Dennis Prager's idea would be that the perpetrator would have had to have had a full trial and be convicted of first degree murder and his conviction would have to go through the full appeals process.

In the case you cited, the person who killed the other guy was not engaging in premeditated murder. The two just happened to meet up and the other guy picks a fight and in the course of defending himself the other guy strikes a lethal blow which kills his adversary. No judge or jury is going to go for the death penalty in a case of this nature.

The charges would be either manslaughter or second degree murder and those offences do not carry the death penalty. This killing was not even premeditated. I would not even classify this as a murder, it is more like killing someone in self defense. The guy will serve a sentence and get out. If his record was clean and he had no prior history of violence, the sentence, allowing for the possiblity of parole, would probably not be very long.

On your comment about how killers were dealt with in the past, most of our knowledge comments from movies, books or tv series about past eras and mainly in the USA. It would be nice to hear about what conditions actually were in various countries in various past eras from someone who had studied such things.

Perhaps some of our more scholarly posters such as Mark Baker, Roger or Leon could enlighten us about how murderers were dealt with in the past.
Lakey
 
Re: Death Penalty

And what does this have to do with the person who is murdered making the decision about the outcome of his murderer?


Your recent post held an assumption that made no sense in the context of the Prager article.
 
Legal System in the USA

We have a legal system of courts. We have law. But do we have a system of justice?

Did OJ do it?

Is the CoS justified in the way it abuses the legal system?

It appears that the entity with the most money wins the case. Money rules! Plaintiffs and defendants exist to feed the system. God help anyone who gets caught in that trap.

So level the playing field. I propose a third party like an escrow company to hold all funds spent on lawyers and legal prosecution or defense. These funds would be divided equally between plaintiff and defendant. Joe Blow vs GM, CoS, IRS, whomever. Joe Blow obviously can't match the funds of the big entity so where's the equity in that?

Any amount of money spent by one party goes to escrow where it is divided equally for trial expenses. The legal system could take a percentage off the top for its expenses. If CoS spends a $gillion, SP gets half for defense.

Would that not be a more just system?
 
Re: Legal System in the USA

We have a legal system of courts. We have law. But do we have a system of justice?

Did OJ do it?

Is the CoS justified in the way it abuses the legal system?

It appears that the entity with the most money wins the case. Money rules! Plaintiffs and defendants exist to feed the system. God help anyone who gets caught in that trap.

So level the playing field. I propose a third party like an escrow company to hold all funds spent on lawyers and legal prosecution or defense. These funds would be divided equally between plaintiff and defendant. Joe Blow vs GM, CoS, IRS, whomever. Joe Blow obviously can't match the funds of the big entity so where's the equity in that?

Any amount of money spent by one party goes to escrow where it is divided equally for trial expenses. The legal system could take a percentage off the top for its expenses. If CoS spends a $gillion, SP gets half for defense.

Would that not be a more just system?

It would! Your system would go a long way towards leveling the playing field where a monied company or individual goes to court against a person of average means.

What about loser pays all legal fees. I believe that system is in place in England, or perhaps Australia. It is simple also goes a long way towards leveling the playing field plus it would be easy to implement if it was voted into law in the USA.

FRIVOULOUS LAWSUITS: Perhaps its greatest feature would be the knocking out of frivolous law suits. In the current system, an innocent party will usually SETTLE a frivolous law suit just to get rid of it instead of LITIGATING it; of course the reason is that the attorney and court fees would be larger than the settlement figure plus the defendant is spared all the hours and stress of going to trial. Not only clients of average means settle but also wealthy corporations. "Loser Pays All" would end this.

Why don't these systems get enacted into law? The American Trial Lawyers Union opposes them. It's that simple!!
Lakey
 
Re: Legal System in the USA

... Why don't these systems get enacted into law? The American Trial Lawyers Union opposes them. It's that simple!!
Lakey

The first proposal would be seen as 'income redistribution' where wealthy interests are seen as forced to subsidize attempts to reduce their wealth.

The second proposal effectively bars access to the courts to anyone without sufficient funds. Trials are NOT sure things. Juries in particular are known for determining outcomes on factors other than the evidence submitted in proceedings. For a person of limited means the financial risks entailed with attempting to take to court anything beyond a 'sure thing' are too high. Contrarily, wealthy interests would be tactically well-positioned to take advantage of others knowing that the burden of proof is on the other guy and the other guy can't afford to lose.

As to 'frivolous lawsuits', courts are already empowered to make that determination and dismiss accordingly. However, 'frivolous' is in the eye of the beholder. One thing every citizen has a constitutional right to is access to the courts for adjudication of grievances. In modern political life 'frivolous law suits' is rhetoric for eliminating access to the courts to those without the ability to influence the making of the nation's laws. In other words, it's one more way that wealthy interests seek to rig the game to favor propertied interests over the general citizenry.

As with most things in life, access to substantial resources gives a person a clear advantage under law and in the courts as well as in life in general. The ability to marshal resources a potential 'opponent' does not have constitutes a major tactical advantage in any game. In the present extremist political environment any attempts to 'equalize' access to the legal system is apt to be denounced by hysterical demagogues as 'socialism run amok' and accordingly face substantial political popular opposition.


Mark A. Baker
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

One should also bear in mind that execution is a far far milder punishment than lifelong imprisonment. I would like to see anyone who murders me or my dear loves to be locked into a tiny space and kept there for as long as he can be kept alive for.

But that's just because I have a nasty streak in me sometimes.
 
Re: Legal System in the USA

The first proposal would be seen as 'income redistribution' where wealthy interests are seen as forced to subsidize attempts to reduce their wealth.

The second proposal effectively bars access to the courts to anyone without sufficient funds. Trials are NOT sure things. Juries in particular are known for determining outcomes on factors other than the evidence submitted in proceedings. For a person of limited means the financial risks entailed with attempting to take to court anything beyond a 'sure thing' are too high. Contrarily, wealthy interests would be tactically well-positioned to take advantage of others knowing that the burden of proof is on the other guy and the other guy can't afford to lose.

As to 'frivolous lawsuits', courts are already empowered to make that determination and dismiss accordingly. However, 'frivolous' is in the eye of the beholder. One thing every citizen has a constitutional right to is access to the courts for adjudication of grievances. In modern political life 'frivolous law suits' is rhetoric for eliminating access to the courts to those without the ability to influence the making of the nation's laws. In other words, it's one more way that wealthy interests seek to rig the game to favor propertied interests over the general citizenry.

As with most things in life, access to substantial resources gives a person a clear advantage under law and in the courts as well as in life in general. The ability to marshal resources a potential 'opponent' does not have constitutes a major tactical advantage in any game. In the present extremist political environment any attempts to 'equalize' access to the legal system is apt to be denounced by hysterical demagogues as 'socialism run amok' and accordingly face substantial political popular opposition.


Mark A. Baker

Excellent responses MAB! Just a comment on the frivolous law suit response. It is true that the courts already have the right to determine if a law suit is frivolous and if so throw it out. To me this does not go far enough because the hapless defendant still had to hire an attorney and probably had to appear for depositions, etc., costing him both time and money.

I feel that if the loser paid all fees only if their case was determined by the court to be frivolous, that would be a big improvement over the current system. This would mitagate your very valid objection that the court system is something of a "crap shoot" and unless a person's suit was nearly 100% bullet proof, they would probably not sue in a loser pays all scenario.

I don't know what the stats are as to how many cases are declared frivolous but let's say it is 5% or 10%. If the figure is in that range, the case would be extremely weak and the loser should pay a penalty for bringing a person to trial for a case that weak.

THE "JOHN DOE'S" WHICH ARE OFTEN ADDED WITHOUT BLINKING AN EYE TO THE LIST OF DEFENDANTS OF A GIVEN CASE

Spending 37 years in the construction business, I ran into this scenario several times on construction projects. On one job a good friend of mine was an architectural draftsman who drew the plans for a job which added a new freezer room to an existing market. The plans also included some remodeling of the store including a new sidewalk and handrail in from of the store.

After the job was completed and all remodeling was done, a lady slipped on the concrete in the front of the store and broke her leg. She got an attorney and sued the Market. When filing their law suit, the plaintif's attorney sued the owner of the market plus 100 John Does to be name later. The attorney knew the store had been recently remodeled and found out the name of the general contractor who did the job and also all employees and subcontractors who worked on the job and sued every single one of them, perhaps 35 to 40 workmen, all as John Does.

My friend Ed only drew the plans but never went back to the site after construction started. Everything in the drawings and plans was up to code and got through the City Building Dept. The City Building Inspector signed off every step of construction. The lady tripped in the front of the bldg. one day and they sued everybody. My friend Ed had to pay a fee of $5,000 for his lawyer to defend him. Ed was dismissed from all charges before the trial even started but the $5,000 that he paid out in attorney fees was more than he was paid for drawing the plans!

I would favor the law being changed so that John Does cannot be sued so easily with no penalty. The Plaintiff's attorney should have some legitimate tangible reason to name each John Doe they choose to name because all of those Does who could afford it had to pay out the same $5,000 to their attorneys. The really little guys, perhaps some of the clean up crew or window cleaning crew don't bother to respond to such law suits. They figure that they have no assets anyway so if somebody wins a judgement against them they will never be able to collect.
Lakey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top