Tony O asks why we believe in Xenu

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Your comparisons are invalid in that they are a logic FAIL of the apples/oranges variety. Scientology is not a religion. It is an on-going organised criminal conspiracy to defraud and has been since the day L Ron Hubbard said he used Dianetics to cure war injuries. Those who persist in making comparisons with religion are perpetuating L Ron Hubbard's original criminal intent to avoid taxes, labour laws, and merge mendaciously into society by leeching from the good name of established religions. The more valid comparison would be between Scientology and the Mafia.



I'm not drunk eough. Yet. Maybe later.

I don't agree with this because there are aspects of Scientology that qualify as religion and can be practiced completely INDEPENDENT of Hubbard and his original purposes and intentions. The church itself I think you've summed up nicely in the above paragraph, but people have the right to embrace any belief system they want in this country. I believe there needs to be a clearly defined line drawn between beliefs and actions, not just for Scn but for all religions in this country. Some of what qualifies as church doctrine should be illegal because it infringes upon the rights of other people. Whether our government will ever get its head out of its own ass and take this much needed step to protect its citizens, I can't say.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
The constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of association cuts both ways.


Mark A. Baker

Yes. But I generally find that the law will side with the practitioner in his or her constitutionally protected right to practice. Our government is completely backed off on making any determination that may "infringe" upon the right of the practitioner and this has played a factor in those Scn related cases that have gone to court so far.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I don't agree with this because there are aspects of Scientology that qualify as religion and can be practiced completely INDEPENDENT of Hubbard and his original purposes and intentions. The church itself I think you've summed up nicely in the above paragraph, but people have the right to embrace any belief system they want in this country. I believe there needs to be a clearly defined line drawn between beliefs and actions, not just for Scn but for all religions in this country. Some of what qualifies as church doctrine should be illegal because it infringes upon the rights of other people. Whether our government will ever get its head out of its own ass and take this much needed step to protect its citizens, I can't say.

Picking and choosing bits and pieces is fine, but it is NOT Scientology. L Ron Hubbard, the founder and sole source of Scientology makes this abundantly clear. What these people you mention are practising is something else.

Also, my neighbour tells me that her garden is her religion. She has daily rituals - weeding and insect control - regular ceremonies practised only at different times of the year - particular planting and compost preparation - the "being" which she worships through her labour is "that power which blends the weather with the Earth to produce nourishment - the comparisons go on, but you get the idea. Now, Mrs Dinallo's garden is certainly her religion, but does that make her garden "a religion"? No, of course not. Abeit clumsily, the point I'm trying to make, is that those who genuinely call Scientology their religion does not make Scientology a religion. It is yet another manifestation of that "what's true for you" mind fuck which confuses the subjective with the objective. Others who call Scientology a religion are themselves also trying to avoid paying taxes on their income and/or avoiding scrutiny from mental health authorities when they hold it out as a "therapy". Which it isn't, either.
 
Last edited:

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Picking and choosing bits and pieces is fine, but it is NOT Scientology. L Ron Hubbard, the founder and sole source of Scientology makes this abundantly clear. What these people you mention are practising is something else.

Also, my neighbour tells me that her garden is her religion. She has daily rituals - weeding and insect control - regular ceremonies practised only at different times of the year - particular planting and compost preparation - the "being" which she worships through her labour is "that power which blends the weather with the Earth to produce nourishment - the comparisons go on, but you get the idea. Now, Mrs Dinallo's garden is certainly her religion, but does that make her garden "a religion"? No, of course not. Abeit clumsily, the point I'm trying to make, is that those who genuinely call Scientology their religion does not make Scientology a religion. It is yet another manifestation of that "what's true for you" mind fuck which confuses the subjective with the objective. Others who call Scientology a religion are themselves also trying to avoid paying taxes on their income and/or avoiding scrutiny from mental health authorities when they hold it out as a "therapy". Which it isn't, either.

One man's religion is another man's bullshit.

Fortunately it is not up to you to decide for me what is spiritual or not. Nor me for you.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Picking and choosing bits and pieces is fine, but it is NOT Scientology. L Ron Hubbard, the founder and sole source of Scientology makes this abundantly clear. What these people you mention are practising is something else.

Also, my neighbour tells me that her garden is her religion. She has daily rituals - weeding and insect control - regular ceremonies practised only at different times of the year - particular planting and compost preparation - the "being" which she worships through her labour is "that power which blends the weather with the Earth to produce nourishment - the comparisons go on, but you get the idea. Now, Mrs Dinallo's garden is certainly her religion, but does that make her garden "a religion"? No, of course not. Abeit clumsily, the point I'm trying to make, is that those who genuinely call Scientology their religion does not make Scientology a religion. It is yet another manifestation of that "what's true for you" mind fuck which confuses the subjective with the objective. Others who call Scientology a religion are themselves also trying to avoid paying taxes on their income and/or avoiding scrutiny from mental health authorities when they hold it out as a "therapy". Which it isn't, either.

As an atheist, I am way out of my element arguing this point! :p I tend to not have a very high opinion of the subject of religion altogether.

I do get what you're saying and I frankly don't know why people choose to describe their beliefs with the name Scientology. Personally I'd ditch the label and get on with it. But they do have the right to classify their beliefs any way they choose. They do NOT have the right to engage in practices that infringe upon my rights, your rights or the rights of anyone else, including the rights of their own members.

In the case of the Indies, I don't think they're trying to claim tax exemption under this umbrella (are they?) but are trying to break the monopoly the church holds on the works and texts they still claim as religious doctrine. The reasons for that are probably fodder for another discussion entirely. The potential benefit would be the removal of tax exemption from the church - I believe it was Tikk who wrote a good piece about that recently.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I thought it was sequitur.

It would be if Scientology is a religion or that picking and choosing to practise bits and pieces of L Ron Hubbard's vomit is Scientology or if I was deciding for others what was spiritual. None of those apply, thus, non sequitur.
 
Last edited:

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Your comparisons are invalid in that they are a logic FAIL of the apples/oranges variety. Scientology is not a religion. It is an on-going organised criminal conspiracy to defraud and has been since the day L Ron Hubbard said he used Dianetics to cure war injuries. Those who persist in making comparisons with religion are perpetuating L Ron Hubbard's original criminal intent to avoid taxes, labour laws, and merge mendaciously into society by leeching from the good name of established religions. The more valid comparison would be between Scientology and the Mafia.



I'm not drunk eough. Yet. Maybe later.

I think you need to look at the text- which you quoted- again.

The comparison was not favorable.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . I do get what you're saying and I frankly don't know why people choose to describe their beliefs with the name Scientology. Personally I'd ditch the label and get on with it. But they do have the right to classify their beliefs any way they choose. They do NOT have the right to engage in practices that infringe upon my rights, your rights or the rights of anyone else, including the rights of their own members . . .

Of course. People outside the cult can call their religion Scientology, if they wish, but it is a blatant misnomer.

Yes!!! I too cannot understand why on Earth anyone outside the cult would want to call themselves a Scientologist. There's that the whole association thing. Why would someone wanting to share their knowledge about what they believe to be a valid path to the spiritual describe it as something no sane person wants anything to do with? I've been watching the progress of Geir Isene as he decompresses using his intellect to come to terms with what happened to him. It was heartening to see him realise so soon just how restrictive the label "Scientologist" is. I can't remember the exact details of why he decided to no longer be defined as a Scientologist but I think part of his moving away from it was helped along, ironically, by what L Ron Hubbard himself said about labels.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Neither of the two countries where I have homes, recognise Scientology as a religion. I'm quite happy about that. It means they have to pay their taxes, just like any other run-for-profit business. That's fair and reasonable, because it is run-for-profit.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
It would be if Scientology is a religion or that picking and choosing to practise bits and pieces of L Ron Hubbard's vomit is Scientology or if I was deciding for others what was spiritual. None of those apply, thus, non sequitor.

That is your opinion Infinite. Others might have a different opinion.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Fair enough, as I said not looking for an argument, but what I was highlighting is that imo he main point of your post was to make a direct comparison between the way some forum members behave here and the behaviour of "cock sucking" "culties"
To me this seems a bit harsh. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Well, Mythbluster, some ex members do leave the cult and behave as they did in the cult. It was meant to be harsh.

Someone wrote a blog about me. Guess what. It wasn't about how kewl I am. Someone else said I went after their family and also that I stopped someone from reuniting with their child and that although google is your friend re my stuff, you can't find my stuff because I "deleted thousands of posts". I've had PMs telling me the jig is up (on me), that the sender wanted to sue me and so on. I've been told I'm stupid, insane, etc, that someone should contact my employer, that my husband is pussywhipped, etc.

When Terril tried to actually take the time to discuss why he felt what he felt, actually providing an explanation, he was ridiculed and accused of spinning. Mark Baker has been accused of a number of things, too.

I've seen stuff written about Patricia Greenway - a critic who's done far more than most of her accusers ever would or could against CofS-that would curl even my (resolutely straight) hair.

My personal explanation for these acts- and others- is that you can take some people out of the cult but not always the other way around and that they behave similarly after leaving as they did when in and that this is not something to emulate.

FreeBeing dug my post out, said I was calling people cocksuckers and offered that as proof of hypocrisy, when, in fact, I've pointed out that CofS members are "sucking DM's cock" (which, by the way, is a phrase I learned from critics of Scientology on critical fora. I did not pull this phrase out of my ass.) and that it might be best not to emulate. I completed the post with expressions of my puzzlement as to whether FreeBeing might be in CofS as I see no other explanation for his comment other than ...let's just be charitable and say "misunderstanding".

I trust that sets the matter straight now that you've participated therein.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I don't agree with this because there are aspects of Scientology that qualify as religion and can be practiced completely INDEPENDENT of Hubbard and his original purposes and intentions. The church itself I think you've summed up nicely in the above paragraph, but people have the right to embrace any belief system they want in this country. I believe there needs to be a clearly defined line drawn between beliefs and actions, not just for Scn but for all religions in this country. Some of what qualifies as church doctrine should be illegal because it infringes upon the rights of other people. Whether our government will ever get its head out of its own ass and take this much needed step to protect its citizens, I can't say.

Well, it's probably just a matter of projection. I clearly stated that my comparisons were made solely to show that Hubbard, while claiming to not replicate the mistakes elder churches have made and their hideous abuses, went ahead and did just that. That's a very negative and scathing thing to say about CofS, Scn and Hubbard. Yet it was misrepresented.

But I think Infinite would rather take it as my cherry picking/pro tech inclinations, regardless of what I'd actually written and which he'd quoted.

This happens sometimes. It does not exactly enable helpful exchange of communication.
 
Top