[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Do what thou wilt" is actually more difficult to follow than any other spiritual instruction. It's a very rare person who knows their will. Gardner's qualifier weakens the message and is redundant.

My problem with his qualifier "harm none", is that they also teach to accept and embrace all aspects of yourself, dark and light, masculine and feminine etc..

How can you both embrace your darker self and repress it at the same time?

Or am I missing something?

[xi_hyperon]

Well here's a fun way to harass them, if that's really your cup of tea.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Well here's a fun way to harass them, if that's really your cup of tea.

[Kerrigan]

Have any of you watched that BBC Panorama documentary on Scientology? It's up on YouTube if you haven't. It's very creepy how they harass, stalk, and provoke journalists. What is even more creepy is how they dig up every bad thing you've done and post it on fliers around town to degrade you if you investigate them.

Like the BBC reporter said, "somehow I have difficulty imagining the Church of England behaving this way."

[chris v]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Well here's a fun way to harass them, if that's really your cup of tea.

Crap, I was just coming here to psot that. Work gets in the way, again.

I think it's hilarious that they Rickrolled 'em. Looks like fun times.

[Peter]

I find it really shocking that people are publicly attacking a religion like this. The open harassing? The "is such and such a scientologist?"
Just doesn't seem right.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Why not?

greg

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

My problem with his qualifier "harm none", is that they also teach to accept and embrace all aspects of yourself, dark and light, masculine and feminine etc..

How can you both embrace your darker self and repress it at the same time?

Or am I missing something?

I'm fairly certain that Gardner felt it was too confusing and believed that spiritual "training wheels" were needed. He was wrong, of course, it just hampers growth. Well, let's break down what uncle Al said: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Most believe it's a free pass to do anything you like, but as you know, it's far more insidious. Once a person divines their will and actually learns how to listen to it, all other things fall into line. Good/evil, right/wrong, light/dark, none of those concepts matter. Find your will, repress nothing, and you'll live as you should be living.


Love is the Law, love under Will.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

How can you both embrace your darker self and repress it at the same time?

Or am I missing something?

They made a documentary about it.

[Shaddim]

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Peter 

I find it really shocking that people are publicly attacking a religion like this. The open harassing? The "is such and such a scientologist?"
Just doesn't seem right.

I find it shocking that you find it shocking!

Seriously, though, it's not a religion -- it's a scam. A big, fat scam, where rich people coerce huge amounts of money out of the gullible and emotionally vulnerable as part of a pyramid scheme. Normally, this sort of thing is illegal, but they've been successful in hiding behind the "religion" tag, though if you do any reading, you can see that the whole thing was built up/refined by a science-fiction writer who took what should have been a novel, and pimped it as, at first, a self-help scheme, and then a fantastic story about aliens, and outer space. Why anyone buys it is beyond me, but they don't deserve to have their lives ruined just because they're gullible.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Peter 

I find it really shocking that people are publicly attacking a religion like this. The open harassing? The "is such and such a scientologist?"
Just doesn't seem right.

And yet it's still nicer than the Scientologists are to people who disagree with them.

For example, the protests this weekend were entirely peaceful, but the CO$ appears to have flat-out made crap up complete with stolen pictures to try and convince the press that these kids were rioting and tried to suggest that anybody participating in the protest should be arrested on sight as a terrorist. False stories along those lines appeared on two Australian news sites, but were quickly taken down when Anonymous pointed out that the photos were obviously taken in Texas in 2005.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That is, theoretically speaking, quite hilarious.

Seen jokingly, then yes. Reading this, it's quite clearly not to be seen as one.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Have any of you watched that BBC Panorama documentary on Scientology?

Even better is a BBC documentary from the 60s which interviewed the crackpot Hubbard himself. It is very evident from that interview he was a lying thieving bastard.

[red rocket]

I have to say, I find the general standard of attacks on Scientology very poor.

People invariably refuse to inform themselves about the background and origins, do not bother to compare the methods to those of any other break‑and‑rebuild brainwashing organisation, and even supposed professionals fail to prepare themselves appropriately for encounters with CoS staff.

It's like people running around ridiculing Muslims for worshipping the Moon, refusing to check out the Q'ran or any of the other monotheist bibles, tearing the veils off of poor oppressed women, and calling everyone who dares to look at the thing without extreme prejudice an Islamist.

[OreoCookie]

You cannot even compare established religions (and their underlying philosophies) and Scientology.
Although the Churches representing established religions at one point may have acted similarly to Scientology, that was because the higher-ups in those Churches shared the same goals as Scientology does today: worldly power and money.

[PaperNotes]

I understand what red rocket means but he should know that criticising established cultural religions that have been around for centuries is like howling at the moon. Changing the attitude of old religions is the job of politicians who do it slowly and with utmost political correctness. Scientology shouldn't really be allowed to foster and grow in the modern world otherwise somewhere in the future we'll have politicians pandering and fawning to it. The only way to prevent that is with information information information to prevent people being brainwashed. YouTube and Tom Cruise's craziness has done a great job of that.

[red rocket]

But of course you can compare them.

On the one hand, you can compare the fairy tale elements (Xenu vs Satan, souls vs thetans, etc.).

On the other, you can compare the degree of how damaging the mindf*uck is to people (sinners, evil people, infidels, hell vs negative engrammes, thetan conflicts, enemies of the CoS, etc.).

You can also compare the rip‑off mechanisms (church taxes, televangelists, miracle cures vs auditing fees, etc.).

Either way, my point is that if you tried to criticise any mainstream religion using the pitiful standards most people use against Scientology, you'd be laughed out of town. There's a difference between informed criticism and just blurting out nonsense.

[Chuckit]

Of course you can compare apples and oranges. They're both more or less round, they both grow on trees, they both have some kind of skin, they both have colors. Geez, if you criticize one, you better be criticizing the other. Because if I can describe two things in similar terms, there must be no difference between them.

Also, a lot of people do criticize slimy televangelists. But at least the kooks on TV don't kill anybody.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Of course you can compare apples and oranges. They're both more or less round, they both grow on trees, they both have some kind of skin, they both have colors. Geez, if you criticize one, you better be criticizing the other. Because if I can describe two things in similar terms, there must be no difference between them.

Also, a lot of people do criticize slimy televangelists. But at least the kooks on TV don't kill anybody.

And I don't think any of the current major religions were started simply as a way for their founder to make money.

Originally Posted by L Ron Hubbard

I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!

[Kerrigan]

Red rocket, I think part of your hostility to mainline religion stems from the fact that you have seriously looked into Scientology as a means to explain your existence, as evidenced by your claim to thoroughgoing knowledge of Dianetics, and an apparent bit of residual defensiveness over the origins of Scientological traditions and symbolism.

If this were not the case, why not add Scientology's symbol to your collection of crossed out mainstream religions? After all, doesn't Scientology conform to the same standards of organization and behavior as, say, Islam?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Red rocket, I think part of your hostility to mainline religion stems from the fact that you have seriously looked into Scientology as a means to explain your existence, as evidenced by your claim to thoroughgoing knowledge of Dianetics, and an apparent bit of residual defensiveness over the origins of Scientological traditions and symbolism.

Actually, I think he's noticed the parallels between Scientology and the western esoteric tradition, since Hubbard blatantly ripped them off to create a new egregore as a means to make money and build a devoted following.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I have to say, I find the general standard of attacks on Scientology very poor.

People invariably refuse to inform themselves about the background and origins, do not bother to compare the methods to those of any other break‑and‑rebuild brainwashing organisation, and even supposed professionals fail to prepare themselves appropriately for encounters with CoS staff.

I find the general standard of your defense of the CoS very poor. I've done a lot of reading, studied up on the issue more than most people I know in fact, and what I've come away with, AFTER specifically educating myself as to the tenets and methods of Scientology is that it's an especially pernicious brand of brainwashing, on a level with the Moonies, the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, and the nutbags who went off to join the comet. The main difference between Scientology and those last three, is that they don't espouse a millennialist philosophy, so there's no end-times predictions that cause the cult to necessarily self-destruct the way some do.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Are you sure about that?

Since I work in a school, yes, pretty damn sure. When you get 100+ concerned teachers to vote during a Union meeting, there is no way in hell a pedophile would just get reassigned. Plus, it's illegal. You're not allowed to have any criminal background to be even eligible to work in a school.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Even better is a BBC documentary from the 60s which interviewed the crackpot Hubbard himself. It is very evident from that interview he was a lying thieving bastard.

READ his war record! Come on! It's freakin' hilarious. Everyone needs to read it.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by chris v 

I find the general standard of your defense of the CoS very poor. I've done a lot of reading, studied up on the issue more than most people I know in fact, and what I've come away with, AFTER specifically educating myself as to the tenets and methods of Scientology is that it's an especially pernicious brand of brainwashing, on a level with the Moonies, the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, and the nutbags who went off to join the comet. The main difference between Scientology and those last three, is that they don't espouse a millennialist philosophy, so there's no end-times predictions that cause the cult to necessarily self-destruct the way some do.

I'm not defending it, I'm merely saying people should make sure their criticisms are properly targeted and based on actual research.

I have no problem with people bringing up actual cases where people have been ruined or killed.

What I do have a problem with is with people basing all their objections on Scientology on ad hominem attacks on its dead founder and ridiculing the whole thing because they think the completely irrelevant Xenu tale is somehow more idiotic than their own crazy creation myth.

Since there are no made‑up deities or worship thereof involved, Scientology clearly isn't a religion. It's a business centred around a bit of self‑help literature.

If you want to criticise the literature (Dianetics), the honest way of doing it is by testing how well it works. (No need to bring E‑meters into it, even official CoS documents state quite clearly that the device by itself does nothing.) Like other forms of New Age self‑therapy, the perceived effectiveness depends as much on the self‑therapist as on anything else. Anyone can buy or steal a Dianetics book, as far as I can tell, there are no strings attached.

If you want to criticise the business model, fair enough. Bear in mind that just because you find the organisation's tactics in dealing with its presumed enemies and traitors repulsive, they doesn't necessarily say the slightest bit about the core literature. If you want to join the organisation and spend hundreds of thousands on top of the few quid you may have paid for the book, it's not because anyone is forcing you, you're not threatened with eternal hellfire if you don't.

‘Especially pernicious’, how? You've done some studying, I've done some studying. Convince me that it's inherently destructive. I don't think it is. The ball's in your court.

[chris v]

A man hears what he wants to hear, and he disregards the rest.

-- Paul Simon.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

I find it funny Scientology calls Anonymous 'cyber-terrorists' when their FBI documents on file is over 2500, when Anonymous is 0.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

‘Especially pernicious’, how? You've done some studying, I've done some studying. Convince me that it's inherently destructive. I don't think it is. The ball's in your court.

I'm not Chris, but I guess you didn't see this the first time it was posted? YTMND - The Un-Funny Truth About Scientology

[Chongo]

ZipperFish.com:: Toons:: YAAFM
YouTube - YAAFM - Scientologists are fucking morons

[chris v]

I don't know why I persist in the face of willful ignorance (or is it Church-sanctioned disinformation? We're still waiting for you to add the Scientology symbol to your sig, Red Rocket) but here you go, again:

'Anonymous' Takes on Scientology | Newsweek Technology | Newsweek.com

Leads to:

FAMILY FEUD IN TOM'S CHURCH - New York Post
Jenna Miscavige Hill on Scientology’s lies at Bene Diction Blogs On
Scientology Leader Gave ABC First-Ever Interview
XENU TV - Exposing Scientology Through Streaming Video

There's also: (probably brought up earlier in thread)
Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets Of Scientology
Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

[chris v]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

I find it funny Scientology calls Anonymous 'cyber-terrorists' when their FBI documents on file is over 2500, when Anonymous is 0.

The legacy of 9/11/2001 -- what was once vandalism is now "terrorism," when convinient. What was once protest is now "terrorism," when convenient. What was once dissent is now "terrorism," when convenient. Everything changed. When convenient. Also see: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Usenet post of what a E-meter does to you after you go up the OT levels: Link.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by chris v 

I don't know why I persist in the face of willful ignorance (or is it Church-sanctioned disinformation? We're still waiting for you to add the Scientology symbol to your sig, Red Rocket) but here you go, again:

'Anonymous' Takes on Scientology | Newsweek Technology | Newsweek.com

Leads to:

FAMILY FEUD IN TOM'S CHURCH - New York Post
Jenna Miscavige Hill on Scientology’s lies at Bene Diction Blogs On
Scientology Leader Gave ABC First-Ever Interview
XENU TV - Exposing Scientology Through Streaming Video

There's also: (probably brought up earlier in thread)
Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets Of Scientology
Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

There is also
Scientology | Tom Cruise's "friendlier" Cult called the Church of ScienTOMogy.com

[sek929]

http://www.scientomogy.com/scientology_info_xenu.gif

Fairly hilarious.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by chris v 

I don't know why I persist in the face of willful ignorance (or is it Church-sanctioned disinformation? We're still waiting for you to add the Scientology symbol to your sig, Red Rocket) but here you go, again:

'Anonymous' Takes on Scientology | Newsweek Technology | Newsweek.com

Leads to:

FAMILY FEUD IN TOM'S CHURCH - New York Post
Jenna Miscavige Hill on Scientology’s lies at Bene Diction Blogs On
Scientology Leader Gave ABC First-Ever Interview
XENU TV - Exposing Scientology Through Streaming Video

There's also: (probably brought up earlier in thread)
Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets Of Scientology
Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

You've got some nerve accusing me of disinformation.

1. Xenu.net (‘operation Clambake’) hasn't got a lot of credibility in my eyes. Not with guys like that ‘J. Swift’ character being such prominent contributors. I've never read so much bullshit in one article. Not that he's the only one who has his facts wrong there. Even somewhat more neutral articles as the one by Jeff Jacobson here misrepresent the nature of Hubbard's occult connections, i.e. his involvement with Ordo Templi Orientis, and there's no shortage of anti‑CoS sites repeating the same ill‑informed garbage about Hubbard's supposed level of attainment in the OTO, his ‘friendship’ with Aleister Crowley, the ‘sinister Satanist’, always the same psychotic drivel from idiots who repeat what other idiots wrote elsewhere, none of them evidently bothering to verify any of it.

(For the record, Crowley recorded in his notes that he considered Hubbard a "stupid lout" who made off with Parsons' money and girlfriend in an "ordinary confidence trick." (link))

Granted, there's some relative accurate information on xenu.net (link), but since nobody there seems to be interested in weeding out the nonsense, from the perspective of someone familiar with both the source materials Hubbard barbarised his theories and techniques from, as well as the actual historical events, seeing the same nonsense repeated ad nauseam rather throws the whole site into disrepute.

2. The 1991 Time magazine piece makes a lot of valid points, and establishes a good case against the CoS's practices. As I have stated quite clearly before, I have no problem whatsoever with people making criticisms based on facts.

3. You need to treat the ‘organisation’ (CoS) as separate from the ‘literature’ (Scientology/Dianetics). Criticisms of one (even if valid, even if entirely typical) do not say anything about the other. Both the guy who runs ‘Operation Clambake’, Andreas Heldal‑Lund, as well as Jeff Jacobson both concede that Scientology might work for Scientologists link 1, link 2, but they both disregard that because ‘Scientologists don't live in the Real World’.

Arguably, Christians, Jews and Muslims don't live in the real word, either. They live in a world created in six days by an imaginary god, a world of miracles and prayers, souls, heaven and hell. I really don't see how ‘not living in the real world’ is a compelling argument for knocking Scientologists, considering how all these other nuts get away with it.

Also, neither of these two alleged authorities on the subject have, by their own admission, made a study of Dianetics, Heldal‑Lund specifically claiming that it's the same as with drugs. He hasn't tried those, either, but he ‘knows’ they're bad.

Right.

4. If we all agree that Scientology isn't a religion, why would I add their logo to my sig? Edit: Oh wait, you don't mean crossed out, do you? You're still trying to claim I'm a Scientologist. Well, screw you, mate, if you're incapable of educating yourself, that's your problem. I have no time for this bullshit.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

3. You need to treat the ‘organisation’ (CoS) as separate from the ‘literature’ (Scientology/Dianetics).

That's like saying "you need to treat the organization (USSR/PRC) as separate from the the "literature" (Das Kapital/Communist Manifesto)

[chris v]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Y
4. If we all agree that Scientology isn't a religion, why would I add their logo to my sig? Edit: Oh wait, you don't mean crossed out, do you? You're still trying to claim I'm a Scientologist. Well, screw you, mate, if you're incapable of educating yourself, that's your problem. I have no time for this bullshit.

No, I meant crossed out. As in if you hate all religion, why not hate on the Church of Scientology as well?

You know, I might actually get and read a (used) copy of Dianetics. I try to come at these things from a "know they enemy" position, at least. I don't know one way or the other if a credible self-help regimen is being mis-used by a cult of lunatics, or if the creed and the organization both are utterly insane. Does Dianetics go into the alien ****, or does that come later, once they've sucked you in?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by chris v 

No, I meant crossed out. As in if you hate all religion, why not hate on the Church of Scientology as well?

You know, I might actually get and read a (used) copy of Dianetics. I try to come at these things from a "know they enemy" position, at least. I don't know one way or the other if a credible self-help regimen is being mis-used by a cult of lunatics, or if the creed and the organization both are utterly insane. Does Dianetics go into the alien ****, or does that come later, once they've sucked you in?

As far as I know Dianetics does not deal with Xenu or any of that stuff. You don't learn that in Scientology until you've been fully indoctrinated.

[sek929]

Hubbard was a pill popper and a drunk at the time he came up with OT III.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That's like saying "you need to treat the organization (USSR/PRC) as separate from the the "literature" (Das Kapital/Communist Manifesto)

Should we then consider any criticism of the actions of the Catholic Church as an indictment of The Bible itself then?

I mean, how can we separate the two?



I know, I'm sure you or someone else will try to say the "it's not same thing" but it is.

You can criticise the actions of the CoS all you want because THAT is where the problem is IMO. Unless you find something in Dianetics that outlines the types of illegal and unethical practices of the org itself, you should keep the book out of it.

[Kerrigan]

So Red Rocket, you do a lot of drugs?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Should we then consider any criticism of the actions of the Catholic Church as an indictment of The Bible itself then?

I mean, how can we separate the two?



I know, I'm sure you or someone else will try to say the "it's not same thing" but it is.

Not really. As far as I can tell, the CoS's policies were pretty much all instituted by Hubbard himself at the same time he was creating the books. The CoS and Hubbard's teachings are inextricably linked. It's not like the Catholic Church where generations of leaders with no direct connection to any of the Bible authors directed the Church for their own worldly purposes with little regard for the book.

[- - e r i k - -]

Sounds like RR would fit well in with these guys:

Free Zone (Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[vmarks]

Guys, I need to remind you:

It isn't a thread about Red Rocket.

It's a thread about Scientology. Keep it in perspective.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Guys, I need to remind you:

It isn't a thread about Red Rocket.

It's a thread about Scientology. Keep it in perspective.

I think the problem here is one of irony. If I had an "oil, nectar of satan" auto-sig, then attempted to justify my use of a Hummer in a thread, I suspect I'd be met with as much critique. Based on my auto-sig, I'd pretty much know this going in. This is kind of the way of the PWL no? A place for the audacious and opinionated to beat up on one another? Let me explain. With posts such as;

On the other, you can compare the degree of how damaging the mindf*uck is to people (sinners, evil people, infidels, hell vs negative engrammes, thetan conflicts, enemies of the CoS, etc.).

He started off by discussing what little people know of the religion they damn. He brings up the noteworthy few just as those critiquing CoS have done, yet he seems in mild defense of one while in staunch opposition to the others. It makes no sense and IMO elicits the degree of focus that he seemingly wants.

Maybe this is just my own problem with auto-sigs. They suggest a rigid and immovable view going in.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

I just wanted to let you guys know that one of Scientology's critics has been killed under suspicious circumstances in Clearwater. It looks like suicide, but the investigators are unsure.

[Source]

On a lighter note, check this out: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...57482&s=143441 Look at all of the bad ratings.

Amazing what they go through to discredit their critics.