New hybrid religion mixes christianity and scientology [Archive]

Apology

1st November 2007, 12:38 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/christian.scientology/index.html

Oh dear. Looks like this congregation has fallen for the old Scientology scam. :(

Scientology has always represented itself as compatible with other religions. From the very beginning of the COS, recruits were told that they didn't have to turn their back on Christianity in order to embrace Scientology. It makes it easier for Scientology to recruit new victims.

Of course, in practice, it's impossible to reconcile Christianity and Scientology. Scientology requires all of a person's belief and, in the places where Christianity contradicts Scientology, Scientology is considered the authority, not Christianity. Former Scientologists have reported that their Christianity was discouraged by the simple process of not giving the believers time to participate---scheduling them for Scientology events regularly every Sunday morning, for instance.

I believe that the COS is using this congregation in order to make Scientology seem more appealing, moral, and mainstream. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me that a bunch of Pentecostal Christians would be this gullible and let Scientology hijack their church.

Whack01

1st November 2007, 12:51 PM

This is sad. People reject intellectualism but in a desire to show their acceptance of science & seem reasonable, they fall for anything labeled science that doesn't tell them that they are wrong.

PastorJennifer

1st November 2007, 01:29 PM

I love it. Mix it up and the whole edifice will start to fall apart, just like the evangelicals did when they mixed politics into religion!

fredcarr

1st November 2007, 02:16 PM

Former Scientologists have reported that their Christianity was discouraged by the simple process of not giving the believers time to participate---scheduling them for Scientology events regularly every Sunday morning, for instance.

Those Sunday morning events are called Sunday Service. No one is required to go to Sunday service. It's simply a lie that their "Christianity was discourage" by scheduling Sunday service on a Sunday morning. I have to give that accusation credit for being original. I have never heard that one before.

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me that a bunch of Pentecostal Christians would be this gullible and let Scientology hijack their church.

Typical of someone from this board to characterize a group of people as gullible because of their religion.

fred

fredcarr

1st November 2007, 02:18 PM

People reject intellectualism but in a desire to show their acceptance of science & seem reasonable, they fall for anything labeled science that doesn't tell them that they are wrong.

I like this comment. Could just as easily be written "People reject 'religion' but in a desire to show their acceptance of science & seem reasonable, they fall for anything labeled science that doesn't tell them that they are wrong."

lol!

Fred

Apology

2nd November 2007, 12:22 AM

Those Sunday morning events are called Sunday Service. No one is required to go to Sunday service. It's simply a lie that their "Christianity was discourage" by scheduling Sunday service on a Sunday morning. I have to give that accusation credit for being original. I have never heard that one before.

I don't recall saying that they said they were required to attend Scientology's Sunday services rather than Christian services. What they specifically said is that they were called away on Scientology business routinely at times when it was well-known they would usually attend Christian services. They could be called away on any number of pretenses---an emergency auditing session for another member, for instance. The example I was thinking of specifically when I posted it involved claims of being forced to work overtime in the COS offices on Wednesday nights after it was learned the complainant attended Wednesday night services at a local church. The punishment for not complying would be being fired from their job and losing status within Scientology. There are many different people who said that, once they were entrenched in Scientology, their Christian faith was discouraged in spite of the promise that they would be allowed to keep it. The links to these stories are all on anti-Scientology websites. Lermanet.com has a number of them. Clambake.org also has similar stories.

I don't think any of the members of this Pentecostal church will ever become full-fledged Scientology members. It's a marketing campaign to make Scientology look more normal and mainstream.

Typical of someone from this board to characterize a group of people as gullible because of their religion

I reserve the right to call Scientologists gullible as well. I also reserve the right to call Scientology a dangerous cult rather than a religion. I get this idea from L. Ron Hubbard's statement that "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." When a group of people believes something that is clearly ludicrous I reserve the right to call the whole group gullible. Pentecostal Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. That's ludicrous.

Kopji

2nd November 2007, 12:35 AM

Scientology + Christianity = Scientology

Big Les

2nd November 2007, 04:26 AM

Hubbard's original incarnation of Scientology was pretty inclusive of people with existing religions - makes good business sense at that stage. This was when it was marketed more as a self-help system/lifestyle/philosophy/load of old balls than a "religion" as such. As it grew it made sense to couch everything in terms of an organised religion for reasons of tax relief, moral high ground, immunity from criticism etc. Unfortunately that means you have to sideline any existing beliefs and give yourself over to the cult more, hence conflicts like this. They're now just making inclusive noises for PR reasons, yet again.

Georg

2nd November 2007, 05:59 AM

Typical of someone from this board to characterize a group of people as gullible because of their religion.
fred

You were the one to fall for the lie that children were banned from public schools in Germany because their parents are scientologists. You never showed a shred of non-scientology-evidence despite repeatedly being asked to do so on this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85758)

Since this is a fact for scientologists, and you all rely on what your bosses say without having independant evidence, the word "gullible" does not seem to be too far-fetched. And I really would like you to comment on the money stuff that Apology wrote, but since you have proven to be a coward, I won´t hold my breath.

bokonon

2nd November 2007, 06:53 AM

Scienanity?

Beerina

2nd November 2007, 10:21 AM

Christian Science!

Oh, wait. That's taken.

Scientology + Christianity = Scientology

Santa + Easter Bunny = funny hopping fatass in a red suit

Darth Rotor

2nd November 2007, 11:09 AM

Since this is a fact for scientologists, and you all rely on what your bosses say without having independant evidence, the word "gullible" does not seem to be too far-fetched. And I really would like you to comment on the money stuff that Apology wrote, but since you have proven to be a coward, I won´t hold my breath.
Way to invite a reply, Georg. :p

DR

Achán hiNidráne

2nd November 2007, 11:30 AM

INRM

2nd November 2007, 12:01 PM

I was wondering how they were going to make Scientology work with the poor. They were setting up a place in poor parts of NYC.

You should read the true story of Scientology -- there's a site called "Operation Clam Bake" it illustrates the whole thing. These people want to infiltrate governments -- they tried before in the past. This is a serious problem.

In fact I think they should be classified in the same light the Communist Party was labled in the Cold War...

INRM

Big Les

2nd November 2007, 12:21 PM

Santa + Easter Bunny = funny hopping fatass in a red suit

That is genius.

Kochanski

2nd November 2007, 12:58 PM

Whack01

2nd November 2007, 01:19 PM

I like this comment. Could just as easily be written "People reject 'religion' but in a desire to show their acceptance of science & seem reasonable, they fall for anything labeled science that doesn't tell them that they are wrong."

lol!

Fred

This is correct*. However It doesn't invalidate the implication that both are bad and based on an appeal to perceived authority. Two wrongs when added don't make a right**.

*In cases where somebody has rejected religion for reasons ulterior to science (eg philosophy, love, social conflict, peer pressure).
**but when you multiply them...

Achán hiNidráne

2nd November 2007, 02:55 PM

For instance, why is Elli Perkins dead? Why did Jeremy Perkins not get the psychiatric help that he truly needed?

While you're fumbling for excuses, Fred, please try to justify CoS activities like Operations Freakout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout)and Snow White. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White)

Apology

2nd November 2007, 03:17 PM

Apology

2nd November 2007, 03:20 PM

I would also like to state that it was not popular opinion or sites like Lermanet or Clambake.org that caused me to form my negative opinions about Scientology. Rather, it was my personal experiences with Scientologists that caused me to seek out further information on them as an organization and led me to these strongly anti-Scientology sites.

Gord_in_Toronto

2nd November 2007, 07:13 PM

Reading the quotes about what LRH had to say about religion, Christianity and Christ at:
http://www.skeptictank.org/compat.htm
would indicate that Christians should be somewhat suspicious about any overtures to them made by the cult.

The whole Christian movement is based on the victim.... A Scientologist is not a victim.... We can win by converting victims. Christianity succeeded in making people into victims. We can succeed by making victims into people.(HCO Bulletin, 18 July 1959).

articulett

2nd November 2007, 07:29 PM

I tell people that all religion is "Scientology" to me-- that is, they are all made up and passed on via manipulation... I don't respect any of them. I ask woo, "why should I take your claims more seriously than the Scientologist who drops by here... but I didn't think we had a real Scientologist here... Now I'll have to use Moonies... I used to use Mormons, but we have those too... every woo thinks that their woo is the true woo even as they disbelieve other woo and call it crazy. And they all have the same type of "evidence" in their favor (anecdote, spin, inner knowingness, sacred texts, etc.).

But all woo is based on claims for which there is no evidence-- divine forces, afterlives, invisible forms of consciousness like souls or engrams or demons or gods--

Until there is evidence that any kind of consciousness can exist without a brain--I will assume that all woo is as human inspired as Greek myths, and use facts to determine what is useful and true. I think faith is a crappy way to know anything.

Kochanski

2nd November 2007, 07:30 PM

If Fred is truly a Scientologist, I wonder how he got on this forum. There are allegations that Scientology uses an internet filtering system, much like Websense, to block its members from sites that have negative views of Scientology, and that members are encouraged to use the program at home. The accusation further states that the Scientologists that you see on the web are, in fact, high-level members who are charged with disputing anti-Scientology statements wherever they can.

Ordinarily I'd say that such conspiracy-theory allegations are sheer bullflop, but having met other Scientologists like Fred on the net, I'm starting to think there might be some credence to this allegation.

If that is his aim, he is doing a very poor job of it here. His whole schtick is to tell people to go read LRH's works. He doesn't ever give any actual information, now I am sure they are unaccustomed to the type of questioning they will get on a skeptical site, but it seems to me Fred is falling down on his job if he truly has been sent on a mission for LRH.

Apology

2nd November 2007, 07:43 PM

If that is his aim, he is doing a very poor job of it here. His whole schtick is to tell people to go read LRH's works. He doesn't ever give any actual information, now I am sure they are unaccustomed to the type of questioning they will get on a skeptical site, but it seems to me Fred is falling down on his job if he truly has been sent on a mission for LRH.

None of them have been any good at it, and it lends credence to the concept that the allegation that Scientology is paying shills to post is false. You'd think they'd be able to find someone who was convincing if they wanted to do that.

However, Scientology is nearly impossible to defend in any rational way. Maybe we're expecting too much from a shill. They also try to pose as non-Scientologists, sort of "average guys" who feel everyone is being too harsh about it. They always try to draw a comparison between Scientology and more ordinary, mainstream religions. They are hoping that your average Baptist will see the attacks against Scientology as religious persecution and jump into the fight on Scientology's side. It also implants the notion that Scientology is a legitimate religion rather than a money-making cult. It's a pretty effective tactic.

I'm still unsure as to whether or not the allegation is true. Initially I thought it was a load of bull because conspiracy theories just sound so crazy and unlikely to be true. I wonder now, though. I really, really do.

Georg

3rd November 2007, 06:40 AM

Way to invite a reply, Georg. :p

DR

Too friendly?

fredcarr

3rd November 2007, 03:44 PM

What they specifically said is that they were called away on Scientology business routinely at times when it was well-known they would usually attend Christian services.

I certainly can't prove these allegations to be untrue.

Fred

fredcarr

3rd November 2007, 03:53 PM

I don't think any of the members of this Pentecostal church will ever become full-fledged Scientology members.There are lots of Scientologists from all different faiths. In my experience none of them have been discouraged from practicing their faith. Indeed they are encouraged to stay in their churchs and/or religions. (I know this because I have worked with many individuals to improve their relationships within their own faiths.) I could care or less if the joined my church or not. Not that I complain if they do:)

Fred

PS "You'all really should be more polite."

Oroborus

3rd November 2007, 03:54 PM

With our powers combined, we are, Captain Ignorance!

Sorry I couldnt resist.:o

hgc

3rd November 2007, 04:27 PM

PS "Lisa MacPherson really should be more alive."

Achán hiNidráne

3rd November 2007, 04:44 PM

PS "Lisa MacPherson really should be more alive."

Well said!:D

(WARNING, the following vidwo contains graphic images.)

WgDevF2bwA8

Kochanski

3rd November 2007, 06:06 PM

PS "Lisa MacPherson really should be more alive."

And so should Elli Perkins.

Anything Fred?

Apology

3rd November 2007, 06:43 PM

Achán hiNidráne

3rd November 2007, 07:07 PM

Fred, please tell us everything you know about those people being detained at Gold Camp in Hemet, California, and justify their unlawful detention there.

Please also justify the fact that Scientology killed Lisa McPherson by withholding medical care.

If I thought you didn't know anything about these things, I'd consider you a victim of Scientology rather than a shill for Scientology. However, I suspect that you do know a lot more than you would ever admit, especially on this forum.

I got a feeling that Fred doesn't respond to SPs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person)

However, don't be too surprised if you're being watched by private detectives, your getting harassing phone calls, you neighbors get letters claiming your a pedophile, or you're sued for libel in the U.K.

After all, it's all Fair Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29), right Fred?

articulett

3rd November 2007, 07:48 PM

PS "You'all really should be more polite."

All faiths say that; all woo thinks it should be respected. But, skeptics save respect for facts, truth, and evidence-- the kind that is the same for everyone. If you want politeness you need to offer something of value; otherwise you are at the wrong forum. We consider your opinions about our politeness about as valuable as you consider our opinions about your "message".

People should not need to be manipulated or threatened or bribed into believing something or made to fear dissent.

--You'all should be less manipulative, more honest, and more ready with evidence if you want your opinions to matter on a skeptics forum.

Apology

3rd November 2007, 07:49 PM

How much money do you owe the Church of Scientology right now, Fred? $2,000? $10,000? More even?

How many YEARS will you have to work for them in order to pay off your debts? Could it be----A BILLION?

Seriously, fred, you're not talking to a punk kid who heard about Xenu on South Park and decided to make fun of it. We are all critical thinkers here. I'm probably off the tone scale as a suppressive person because of it. I wouldn't believe something just because Arnie Lerma said it. The available evidence against Scientology is overwhelming, and there are plenty of court records and things like that to back up many of the allegations.

If you're a genuine, rank-and-file Scientologist, I encourage you to Google both "Lisa McPherson" and "Billion year contract" and see for yourself. I would also like you to consider this page:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

It is a list of things L. Ron Hubbard said and the source that they were taken from. Many of them are from L. Ron's own books. It's going to be kind of hard to say that it comes from an untrustworthy, anti-Scientology source, if it's from L. Ron Hubbard's own teachings.

I'm going to give you this one for free, no Googling required: ;)

"For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure (he) has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred.... You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting....

No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned is a brief period of time in which the arch-enemy of Christ, referred to as the anti-Christ, will reign and his opinions will have sway ... this anti-Christ represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the "light-bearer" or "light-bringer"), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment.... My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief anti-Christ period."

-- L. Ron Hubbard, Student Briefing, OT VIII Series I

And yet they still maintain that Scientology is perfectly compatible with Fundamentalist Christianity, and that the Christians will be allowed to keep their beliefs. :rolleyes:

I've said already that Scientology is a dangerous cult. If you are a Scientologist, then you are in danger, even if you're a high-level shill. I'm concerned about your health, Fred. I don't want you to die of something that a doctor could easily cure. I don't want anybody else to end up like Lisa McPherson. Please do consider sneaking off for a physical every few years, Fred. You don't have to do what the doctor tells you to if you don't want to. You have the right to refuse any treatment if you don't think it's right, or if you don't think it's worth the risks. At least you will know, and have the choice.

articulett

3rd November 2007, 08:16 PM

I just watched a great documentary on the Peoples' Temple with Jim Jones. The people involved were really good people... they wanted a world where there wasn't prejudice or racial tensions and where people took care of each other... but Jim Jones did what all leaders did... he made the group fear outsiders and get all their information from him and to snitch on those thinking of leaving (he told them he'd be testing members by having other members pretend to want to leave to see if they could be trusted to turn them in...) He isolated them and it just seems like so many historical tragedies.

Some one rises to power in a group, but they must always recruit new members... because, like a pyramid scheme, to rise in rank, you need to bring in those beneath you and you need to earn your way up by loyalty and squashing dissent... and it's the people at the bottom who lose and pay for the people at the top every time. They think they are gaining security or salvation or becoming part of something grand--but then they cannot leave and few experience the benefits while they are pressured ever more to fill up the ranks so that they may rise in power and those in power rise further. Religions, governments, gangs, Drug cartels, the Mafia... it's all the same isn't it... ? It's like the biggest meanest gorilla getting all the women and favors until someone gets big enough and mean enough to challenge him and become the new king. Meanwhile, the majority or just pawns in a game that they can't get out of... all favors and protection are distributed from the top down... and there is fear of leaving--the outside world--others-- hell-- reincarnating as a stone (a threat directed at me by a Scientologist once--actually 12 of them... "minutemen".... I was out a house of someone who was no longer a scientologist but who had access to an e-meter and was demonstrating it.)

It's so primitive and sick and sad and too easy for people raised with this inane notion that "faith is good" to fall prey too. Faith is a way for people to manipulate you. There is nothing that makes one faith or set of opinions or ideologies more likely to be truer than any other. There is no one who can tell the future or who has access to the divine or who can say what happens after anyone days. Reality and truth and facts are the same for everyone no matter what they believe. They are not afraid to be questioned or probed or honed. Learn to trust them for the truth--not inspired texts or gurus or dictators or idealogues. Humans have been fooling themselves and others for eons with this kind of crap.

To me, this is a reason to start young and tell the kids-- FAITH is not a good way to know any truth... and avoid those who make you feel bad for asking questions (they are likely lying to you and/or themselves).

Btodd

3rd November 2007, 09:10 PM

Btodd

3rd November 2007, 09:11 PM

Sorry, that was my 15th post, so I can now give you the link I had tried to:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2594270091066150939&q=l+ron+hubbard&total=551&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

articulett

3rd November 2007, 09:38 PM

Yeah... we get a lot of that kind of woo... they post but they don't really read anything anyone else types. They are sure they have something to teach and nothing to learn. Every woo thinks that their woo is the true woo.

I always think this is kind of weird... because if they actually read this forum... they'd see how much they sound like the other woos that even they know are woos. They all use the same techniques to convince themselves and others of their "truth". When I hear them, I know they are really telling us the things that were said to them that somehow swayed them into believing whatever it is they believe. And I find that very interesting to study.

They all avoid pointed questions, ask questions that they don't want answered (they're really meant to infer a position), and use poor analogies and the same sorts of smarmy rhetoric. And I always think, "wow, that worked on you?" And "why don't you try listening and responding to others the way you want to listen and be responded to." There's always the creepy dishonesty with the notion that they should be respected or that we should find them as moral and wise as they seem to find themselves.

Apology

3rd November 2007, 09:50 PM

For anyone who reads articles critical of Scientology, you should recognize Fred. He is known specifically for being a comments-section-apologist for the cult.

And I wonder how many Christians will find it compatible with Scientology, when L Ron Hubbard said himself, "There was no Christ", and that Jesus was a "lover of young boys".

Or that Yahweh 'lives in a trunk with a leopard skin', whatever that means.

Listen to the endless parade of gibberish from the man whom called himself 'The Friend of Mankind'.

I'm pretty sure I've talked to Fred before on other forums. :D I can't prove he's a paid shill of course, or I would present proof. It could have been a different Scientologist, too. They all sound the same anyway. "Gee, you folks sure are judgmental, don't you care about religious freedom? You can be a Christian and a Scientologist too!" :rolleyes:

articulett

3rd November 2007, 09:51 PM

One of L. Ron's kids, Quenten was a homosexual and committed suicide.

articulett

3rd November 2007, 09:52 PM

You can tell a lot about a religion by how it treats members that leave the fold.

fredcarr

3rd November 2007, 09:54 PM

Fred, please tell us everything you know about those people being detained at Gold Camp in Hemet, California, and justify their unlawful detention there.

I don't know anything about people being unlawfully detained at Hemet. Besides the fact that I'm not there, which would make it hard for me to comment on such an allegation, I wouldn't justify breaking the law. Per the Way to Happiness, a moral code Scientologists are expected to follow, it says "Don't do anything illegal." It has a rather interesting essay on why one shouldn't do so. (Check it out as it is available online for free.)

Apology - You sure make a lot of assumptions in your care for me. (Some of them not so polite.) I'm not a shill though how I could prove such a negative is beyond me. Seems pretty pointless to try as I doubt anyone would believe me here.

I don't owe any money to my church not that my financial concerns are anyone elses business. I sure wish I could give more than I currently do though.

I have read about Lisa. As she was a friend of mine I'm not really inclined to discuss the subject. (But then again I wasn't in Florida when this occurred to I wouldn't comment on it anyway.)

I know about the billion year contract. I signed one.

Please do consider sneaking off for a physical every few years, Fred. You don't have to do what the doctor tells you to if you don't want to. You have the right to refuse any treatment if you don't think it's right, or if you don't think it's worth the risks. At least you will know, and have the choice.

This comment has made me curious. Why would I have to sneak off for a physical? I have had physicals and medical treatment. I certainly didn't 'sneak' off to the doctor at any time. Thanks for your concern though - lol.

All faiths say that; all woo thinks it should be respected. But, skeptics save respect for facts, truth, and evidence-- the kind that is the same for everyone. If you want politeness you need to offer something of value; otherwise you are at the wrong forum. We consider your opinions about our politeness about as valuable as you consider our opinions about your "message".

People should not need to be manipulated or threatened or bribed into believing something or made to fear dissent.

--You'all should be less manipulative, more honest, and more ready with evidence if you want your opinions to matter on a skeptics forum.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean you needed to respect my beliefs. (I wouldn't share them on here in any case.) I was just referring to being able to have a civil conversation. I enjoy answering questions but not when I am attacked.

I'm not sure what you think my "message" is? About the only consistent thing I have said on this forum is to use a little manners. It stands to reason if you equate my opinions about politeness as equally valuable as my consideration about your opinions about my "message" (This was confusing. I really didn't understand what you said here - excuse me if I'm not tracking with it.) then...never mind as I don't get what your saying there.

I've never been threatened, bribed or manipulated into believing anything in Scientology. At least I don't think I have:) I guess if I am a brainwashed cultist then I have been and I wouldn't know it. No sense in having a civil discussion then as anything I would say wouldn't be listened to. Is that why so many are so hostile to my posts? You'all believe I'm a brainwashed cultist?

I try to be as honest as possible and respectful in all my communications with others. What's amusing to me is the first book I read on how to get on the internet and post messages, send emails, etc. stressed the need for good manners. Even more so than in face to face conversations as it is so much easier to misunderstand what someone else says. That was a rather optimistic book. *chuckle*

Fred

fredcarr

3rd November 2007, 09:57 PM

Btodd

3rd November 2007, 10:09 PM

Fred, I hope you followed my YouTube link to listen to 17 minutes of various audio clips of LRH. I have some questions. How do you feel about the following claims Ron made in that audio:

1. Not smoking enough causes lung cancer.

2. He exteriorized from his body and went to the Van Allen Belt, where he was looking down on the Earth. As he says, "This is factual".

3. He was almost run down by a freight locomotive while on Venus.

Also, could you tell me what he meant when he said that Yahweh 'lives in a trunk with a leopard skin'? I've never understood that quote at all. All of these quotes are in the audio I linked to, of L Ron himself. Do you believe the first 3 claims I listed?

Apology

3rd November 2007, 10:13 PM

You can be a Christian and a Scientologist. I know several.

I also know a larger number of Christians that use different tools and principles of Scientology in their everyday lives that don't consider themselves Scientologists. The article referenced in the beginning, I think this is it:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/christian.scientology/index.html

is not all that uncommon in my experience. I've met and worked with lots of people that use different aspects of Scientology to help themselves with problems they are having.

Makes me happy to see them doing better. There isn't any other motive to it than that.

Fred

If any of them ever make it to OT Level VIII, they won't be Christians any more.

If I were you, I'd take them the L. Ron Hubbard quote from the student tech manual that I quoted in italics in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3119199&postcount=39
and warn them that their faith in Jesus is in danger.

Any Christian that believes in Scientology is a victim. They would not believe if they knew that L. Ron Hubbard said this. Of course, they don't know. They haven't raised enough cash to take the OTVIII tech yet.

I bet Scientology is going to sell a boatload of those nifty e-meters to the Christians too. Those things are what, $6,000 a crack? Even if they don't get any new Scientologists out of the deal, they still sell a lot of books, courses, auditing, and e-meters to the Christians. It's a win/win for Scientology---a whole new market to exploit. L. Ron Hubbard loved money so much I think he'd approve.

Apology

3rd November 2007, 10:34 PM

I have read about Lisa. As she was a friend of mine I'm not really inclined to discuss the subject. (But then again I wasn't in Florida when this occurred to I wouldn't comment on it anyway.)

I really wish you would comment. I don't know how you can believe that her handling didn't lead to her death. If she was a friend of yours, I don't see how you could sleep nights knowing that she died because of Scientology. I suppose you just think it was a mistake. It was too deliberate to be a simple mistake. They had too many opportunities to admit they failed and take her to a hospital. If medical care is so freely attained in Scientology, Fred, then why didn't they take Lisa McPherson to the hospital? This question would haunt me forever if I'd been Lisa's friend.

This is why non-Scientologists care so much about Lisa McPherson. It's clear to us that Scientology killed her. You've worked it out somehow that it's not Scientology's fault that Lisa died. Please explain to us what your rationale is.

fredcarr

3rd November 2007, 10:37 PM

Do you believe the first 3 claims I listed?

Nope.

I bet Scientology is going to sell a boatload of those nifty e-meters to the Christians too. Those things are what, $6,000 a crack? Even if they don't get any new Scientologists out of the deal, they still sell a lot of books, courses, auditing, and e-meters to the Christians. It's a win/win for Scientology---a whole new market to exploit. L. Ron Hubbard loved money so much I think he'd approve.

I understand your opinion on the matter.

Fred

Apology

3rd November 2007, 10:52 PM

This next comment will annoy a bunch of ya. "Problems of Work: Scientology Applied to the Workaday World" is a good beginning text. Its recently been republished and is a fairly easy read.

Fred

LOL! I read it. That was my first exposure to Scientology. I noticed immediately that it was bogus and became suspicious of the whole lot. I just thought the people were a little kooky and harmless before that. After I read "Problems of Work" I wondered if there wasn't something a little scarier than just kookiness in Scientology. I came to find out that there was. I was probably as neutral and non-judgmental about Scientology as anyone. I really didn't see it as any worse than Christianity until I read that book. Then I knew it was a dogma rather than a "motivational" series, as it was represented. The employer did not bother to tell us who L. Ron Hubbard was or notify us of his connection with their religion. I really resented that later as well.

Btodd

3rd November 2007, 11:02 PM

Fred, if you don't believe those outlandish claims that came from Ron's own mouth, then why would you give any credence to anything else he said? These aren't just exaggerations in a religious context, like metaphor, he's really saying he left his body and went to the Van Allen Belt.

Doesn't that at least make you wince a little bit when you hear it? On top of that, his claims about the war, healing himself of blindness, that 12 members of the bank of England were out to get him, that there were secret psychiatric prison camps in the Pyrenees, that Earth was a dumping ground and prison for the undesirables of other galaxies......we could go on for pages like this.

Do you believe any of that? And if you do not, then why would you believe anything else such a deliberate con man had to say, and to make matters worse, PAY HIM FOR IT?

articulett

3rd November 2007, 11:03 PM

From my perspective, you are the one being impolite, Fred. You are on a skeptics forum criticizing skeptics for doing what skeptics do and giving advice and opinions disguised as facts while asserting that you are the one being civil.

You are not being civil-- you are being arrogant. You do not want a civil discussion... you want to assert your beliefs and opinions as facts while putting down those wanting to discuss actual facts. You believe that Scientology has truth and/or is good and beneficial, but you have provided no evidence of this and you ignore information and insult those who point to facts that say otherwise. You give us no more reasons to respect your views than any other woo who comes here with similar apologetics.

Read the Mormon thread. Tell us who is being impolite. Tell us why you don't read the book of Mormon and pray to know if it's true so you can get the burning in your bosom that proves it's true to you the way it's proven itself to Mormons. Tell us why you think you should be treated more civilly-- show us by example--we have lots of believers of all sorts on this forum-- show us how respectful and civil you are with them and their "civil conversations" where, they too, attack find non-believers of their woo as "impolite". None of you guys talk to each other-- you don't really believe that religion, in general, is good or true or useful-- only that yours is. And yet yours has no more evidence in it's favor than any other. And like many religions, it makes it very hard for those who want out.

You have not given us a reason to be more polite to you than have the Mormons or fundies or new age believers who come here. You give us no reason to accept your myth over Greek myths or Muslim myths or Sylvia Browne's claims. And tell me, how polite are you or would you be to such people if they came in claiming to want dialogue when it was quite obvious that their real intent was to prop up their own belief system to themselves and to try and draw you into the fold. Every hierarchy depends on new recruits for current members to maintain/gain power, favors, funds, and everlasting goodies.

How are you more polite that Osama telling us that the way to lasting peace on earth is to convert to Islam (in a nice moderated tone?).

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 12:09 AM

The employer did not bother to tell us who L. Ron Hubbard was or notify us of his connection with their religion.

Thats too bad. It's clearly covered in the book however.

Did you learn anything from the book? Did you try out any of the principles? Was there anything in it that you agreed with? What did you find was bogus from that book?

Fred

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 12:31 AM

Fred, if you don't believe those outlandish claims that came from Ron's own mouth, then why would you give any credence to anything else he said?...Do you believe any of that? And if you do not, then why would you believe anything else such a deliberate con man had to say, and to make matters worse, PAY HIM FOR IT?Its a fair question. One which I have answered at some length in earlier threads. The short answer is I don't believe anything Ron says. Nor do I expect anyone else to. I'm sure this is a strange thing to read as religion is usually all about faith and belief. At least to the members of this board.

Here is an early article by Ron that explains this.

http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/wis1-3/wis3_4.htm

Its brief if you wish to read it. I read it many years ago. Decades in fact. I was struck by the last chapter.

" Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all."

I have always kept this as my personal guideline in studying Ron's works. (And other subjects as well.) I can't say I have applied it perfectly in all facets of life but I have gotten better as time has gone on.

I know your being rhetorical when you say "pay him for it" as I have paid him very little in terms of money, if anything, even when he was alive. I however will forever be in his debt for many of the things he has given to me. (I'm not speaking of a monetary dept as alluded to in an earlier post.)

Ron has many things to say. There are over 3000 recorded lectures, 15/20 books or so and thousand of pages of various issues and technical bulletins. Some of it is far more wild than what you posted above. I don't believe in a single word of it. I have found that some of the basic tools and principles that I have learned have worked when applied as described. If I have ever pushed a "belief" on this board or anywhere it is to encourage people to read some of these works for themselves, apply a piece or two of it and decide for themselves. Or continue to think of it as a crazy cult, etc. Doesn't really matter to me one way or another...seriously.

(I must admit I've always been a bit of a crusader for good manners even though such sentiments are thought of as a bit old-fashioned at times. Junior High was no fun, seems like teenagers delighted in being barbaric to each other.)

Fred

I'm pretty sure I've talked to Fred before on other forums.

Really? Which forums?

articulett

4th November 2007, 01:37 AM

Well like the stuff that's "true for you"-- good manners are in the eye of the beholder.

In the world of the rational, facts trump manners, subjective truths, and opinions. Likening skeptics to Junior High students may elevate yourself in your eyes, but it doesn't make your beliefs any more true or useful and in my eyes, it's smarmy and manipulative--the opposite of "polite".

So, what are the amazing things that you are indebted to L. Ron for?

Apology

4th November 2007, 01:56 AM

Thats too bad. It's clearly covered in the book however.

Did you learn anything from the book? Did you try out any of the principles? Was there anything in it that you agreed with? What did you find was bogus from that book?

Fred

It was completely inappropriate regardless of the fact that it was printed in the book. I'd have been offended if it were a secular text written by Pat Robertson as well.

There was very little in the book that hadn't been covered by previous pop-psychology tomes that were available on the market. I learned nothing that I hadn't already known.

The bogus part was that it implanted the suggestion throughout the text that no matter how hard you tried or how well you succeeded, there was always room for improvement. While this little homily doesn't seem so bad at first glance, if you think about it, it's basically the same as saying that people can never be good enough no matter how hard they try. Every time they reach a goal, the bar is raised. I also saw it in action in their business practices. Nobody ever got a raise because no effort was ever free from the need for improvement. My coworker was brought to tears several times by her inability to please them until I explained the psychological game to her. It sets people up for the perfect treadmill of never-ending sacrifice that works for Scientology so well. Are you a Clear yet? Better keep trying. You're already clear? There are levels above that, try some more. Can't afford the classes? Agree to work for us for a billion years and we'll waive all your fees.

By the way, Fred, I know that when you signed the billion-year contract, all your debts to Scientology were waived, as you're expected to pay in trade by serving Scientology in this lifetime and the next. That's what the billion-year contract is all about. It's probably actually a pretty good deal; you get $20,000 or more in auditing and courses for free, and you only have to serve 20 - 40 years with Scientology, since there probably isn't an afterlife. It's a pretty sweet deal when you look at it that way.

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 01:18 AM

Well like the stuff that's "true for you"-- good manners are in the eye of the beholder.

Really? I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point:)

Fred

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 01:33 AM

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 01:38 AM

By the way, Fred, I know that when you signed the billion-year contract, all your debts to Scientology were waived, as you're expected to pay in trade by serving Scientology in this lifetime and the next. That's what the billion-year contract is all about. It's probably actually a pretty good deal; you get $20,000 or more in auditing and courses for free, and you only have to serve 20 - 40 years with Scientology, since there probably isn't an afterlife. It's a pretty sweet deal when you look at it that way.I'm still not sure what your refering to when it comes to my so-called debts. When I signed a contract I didn't have any depts to be waived. The billion year contract symbolized (for me) my desire to do whatever I could to help make this world a better place for all to live in, forever.

It's a rather sacred thing to me that I have no desire to further share with individuals who choose to continue to belittle and insult me.

Fred

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 01:44 AM

Nobody ever got a raise because no effort was ever free from the need for improvement.

Sounds like you had a bad experience there. I have had a similar experience or two like that. Didn't have much to do with Scientology as I wasn't working for Scientologists at the time. Probably more to do with my own ineptness or the lack of funds to give anyone a raise:)

Having run a business I know how tough it can be.

Fred

Btodd

4th November 2007, 08:13 AM

Its a fair question. One which I have answered at some length in earlier threads. The short answer is I don't believe anything Ron says. Nor do I expect anyone else to. I'm sure this is a strange thing to read as religion is usually all about faith and belief. At least to the members of this board.

Here is an early article by Ron that explains this.

http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/wis1-3/wis3_4.htm

Its brief if you wish to read it. I read it many years ago. Decades in fact. I was struck by the last chapter.

" Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all."

I have always kept this as my personal guideline in studying Ron's works. (And other subjects as well.) I can't say I have applied it perfectly in all facets of life but I have gotten better as time has gone on.

Thank you for answering. My point remains the same. How can you still cling to the idea that he discovered grand truths, yet they're all mixed in with this space opera nonsense, body exteriorization, pseudoscience (at best!), massive paranoia, and criminal activities? Why would we trust an obvious con man to have STILL discovered some ultimate truths about the universe and human behavior? Every credential he ever listed (being a nuclear physicist, for example) was an outright lie!

If I go to a psychic, and discover that the first 10 things that come out his mouth are blatant lies and have no basis in reality, why would I stay to see if he still has some nugget of truth buried among the mountain of falsehoods? Once I know he's a charlatan, I should leave.

I know your being rhetorical when you say "pay him for it" as I have paid him very little in terms of money, if anything, even when he was alive. I however will forever be in his debt for many of the things he has given to me. (I'm not speaking of a monetary dept as alluded to in an earlier post.)

Are you a freezoner, Fred? (For those reading this, the freezone is a collective of former Scientologists who do not follow the church, but instead practice Ron's teachings privately or with other freezoners. The Church considers them heretics and harasses many of them. They consider freezoners to be stealing Ron's 'tech', since you must pay for it).

If you're not a freezoner, then maybe the Billion-year contract is how you get around paying money, but it's no different. If you've done that, you've given up more than money, and Ron wanted it that way. Your money or your life.

Ron has many things to say. There are over 3000 recorded lectures, 15/20 books or so and thousand of pages of various issues and technical bulletins. Some of it is far more wild than what you posted above. I don't believe in a single word of it. I have found that some of the basic tools and principles that I have learned have worked when applied as described. If I have ever pushed a "belief" on this board or anywhere it is to encourage people to read some of these works for themselves, apply a piece or two of it and decide for themselves. Or continue to think of it as a crazy cult, etc. Doesn't really matter to me one way or another...seriously.

I think it is so dangerous and false, that to think that you can 'borrow parts from it' and discard the rest is playing with fire. Do you do TR's? These aren't harmless activities, and were designed to control people. Do you self-audit also?

(I must admit I've always been a bit of a crusader for good manners even though such sentiments are thought of as a bit old-fashioned at times. Junior High was no fun, seems like teenagers delighted in being barbaric to each other.)

Fred

I mean you no harm, Fred. I think what you are promoting is a dangerous cult that was specifically designed to control people and make enormous amounts of money for it's originator. I think that almost every thing he ever said was an outright lie or at least a severe mental delusion.

And when I consider the many people out there whose lives have been destroyed by the Church (the list is extremely large), the criminal activities the church has been involved in (Hubbard's own wife and several others went to prison for infiltrating the US government and stealing documents), the disconnect policy that has ruined families, the fair game policy which is pure harrassment of critics, on and on.......I resent the fact that you are here telling us that there are still some things Ron said that are so true and helpful, that he's still worth looking into.

You are paving the way for horrible, horrible acts to be committed by the Church, because that's what they do. While I appreciate you trying to answer some tough questions here, I do not appreciate the help you are giving to a criminal organization by promoting Ron's ideas, or even insinuating that Scientology is compatible with Christianity.

It's either Satan or Xenu. Sin or body thetans. They are not compatible, because as Ron told us, 'God, the devil......all this sort of thing, that is all part of R6". As you should also know, before Ron started Scientology, he was a practicing Satanist, with Jack Parsons. In the audio I linked you to, he even thanks 'Aleister Crowley, my very good friend'. Ironic, because Crowley thought he was a buffoon, and Hubbard ended up running off with Parsons' woman and more.

Btodd

Kilgore Trout

4th November 2007, 09:42 AM

[...]

It's either Satan or Xenu. Sin or body thetans. They are not compatible, because as Ron told us, 'God, the devil......all this sort of thing, that is all part of R6". As you should also know, before Ron started Scientology, he was a practicing Satanist, with Jack Parsons. In the audio I linked you to, he even thanks 'Aleister Crowley, my very good friend'. Ironic, because Crowley thought he was a buffoon, and Hubbard ended up running off with Parsons' woman and more.

Btodd

Bit of a nitpick here but I think 'occultist' would be more accurate or even 'Thelemite' rather than 'Satanist.' However, in fairness, Hubbard's real belief in magick may have just been a way for him to secure housing with Parsons and later to, along with Parsons' girlfriend (later to become Hubbard's wife), scam Parsons out of several thousands of dollars, like you said.

Which says more about Hubbard may be hard to say, though. A practicing sex-magician or just a con man? Maybe a bit of both?

Btodd

4th November 2007, 09:55 AM

Bit of a nitpick here but I think 'occultist' would be more accurate or even 'Thelemite' rather than 'Satanist.' However, in fairness, Hubbard's real belief in magick may have just been a way for him to secure housing with Parsons and later to, along with Parsons' girlfriend (later to become Hubbard's wife), scam Parsons out of several thousands of dollars, like you said.

Which says more about Hubbard may be hard to say, though. A practicing sex-magician or just a con man? Maybe a bit of both?

You may be correct, but I use Satanist partially because Ron DeWolf (L Ron Hubbard, Jr.) referred to it as Satanism, and said that it was 'the only religion in the house' when he was growing up.

In fact, he said that Scientology is merely black magic spread out over a long period of time. I really wouldn't know if that's an accurate portrayal or not.

But you are correct.....either way, it doesn't seem like there was a single honorable facet of Hubbard's personality.

As to your last statement, I think both. He most certainly believed some of his BS, but he also purposely set up a system that strongly discouraged or prevented critical examination by his followers.

articulett

4th November 2007, 10:16 AM

Darn, I was hoping he was going to tell us the great things he got from Scientology... now he won't discuss it because it's sacred and he's afraid people will belittle him or whatever. That's what I hate about faith. When would a scientist ever not discuss valuable and important information or have it probed and questioned because it's "sacred" and she doesn't want to be belittled? What sort of idea or notion can't stand up to scrutiny and must be apologized for... caged in fuzzy semantics... and the person promoting them has to tell you how polite they are being. I notice that when someone has to tell you they are being polite and you (as a group) are (wrong/bad/immature)--they aren't being polite anywhere except in their head. But what do facts matter when you have faith, eh? Who needs objective evidence if you really truly feel like you are being polite and honest?

Ugh... the woo that insult skeptics as a group and then elevate themselves and get all miffed because we don't respect THEM-- it's a never-ending font of hypocrisy that faith produces. Each of them so sure they have something to teach... each of them so sure of what skepticism is... each of them so sure that there's nothing they can learn here... all of them sounding like each other and none of them providing evidence or even making any useful claims... just using blustery language that somehow worked to convince them that they stumbled upon some magical truth.

I guess that in their heads they are so wise and wonderful, that they imagine we must see their awesomeness and be eager for their "wisdom". But I always see desperate people trying to prop up their beliefs by getting others to believe so they can rise in the "pyramid" and feel like it's more true. Like all faiths, their technique is to invent a problem for you, and then proffer the solution-- but they are never people I want to emulate... they are not people I'd seek wisdom from. They don't seem to have any worthwhile knowledge that I'd want. And if it's such fabulous knowledge, why would they care if we belittle it. If they really believed they had the magical secrets of the universe--why in the world would it matter if skeptics believed it or mocked it?

Plus, I wanted to ask him about Tom Cruise's claim that "there are no such thing as chemical imbalances"-- genes code for chemicals... diabetes is a "chemical imbalance"-- so is water toxicity... lithium stabilizes manic depressiveness-- it's just such a silly unsubstantiated statement. But all religions make vague hyberbolic claims and pretend they are deep platitudes.

Religions that are successful (like regimes that are successful) get people to think that everything good in their life comes from their beliefs or adherence to the program... and everything bad comes from those who "don't understand" or "those evil others" or "suppressive people" or "non believers".

If only they knew how identical they sound to each other. The Mormon and the Scientologist use very similar techniques and get similarly miffed when you probe their woo-- they all run to call the skeptics rude when the questioning gets tough and there is no good answer.

Apology

4th November 2007, 11:58 AM

Apology - Your making it clear that you have made up your mind that your right on this subject.

I'm still curious though...You say "There was very little in the book that hadn't been covered by previous pop-psychology tomes that were available on the market. I learned nothing that I hadn't already known." What specific principles are you referring to? Are we talking about the same book?

Although one can improve anything I don't know where "The bogus part was that it implanted the suggestion throughout the text that no matter how hard you tried or how well you succeeded, there was always room for improvement." is in this book. (Thats why I want to clarify we are both talking about "The Problems of Work: Scientology applied to the workaday world."

I have recently been re-reading this book so would enjoy discussing specific principles given in it. As it may have been a while since you read it here are some of the chapter titles:

1. On What Does Holding a Job Depend?
2. Handling the Confusions of the Work-a-day World
3. Is Work Necessary?
4. The Secret of Efficiency
5. Life as a Game
6. Affinity, Reality and Communication
7. Exhaustion
8. The Man Who Succeeds

What did you think of the Doctrine of the Stable datum?

Fred

PS "I posted this on another thread. THis lady has a lot of answers to questions that I find interesting;

http://www.allexperts.com/ep/1751-30534/Scientology/Laurie-Hamilton.htm "
It would be pretty hard for me to debate the book with you when you have a copy and I don't. All I have is my general impression of the book from reading it many years ago. My impression was that it was sheer tripe. If it makes you feel any better, the book "The Secret" is utter bull too, as is Tony Robbins. I object to them all.

It did not have any revelations that weren't available in such tomes as "I'm Ok/You're Ok" and other such motivational pap available at the time. I know you think it's a special book, but it's not. It's full of dumb platitudes and "try a little harder" bull.

All I wanted was a decent respectable job and I got treated like a "wog", lied to, and taken advantage of, and used like a puppet to disseminate the fiction further. These people were highly placed in the local org and operated a lot like that dentist who was convicted recently, except they didn't sexually harrass us. I've had bad secular jobs, but nothing compared to the amount of psychological manipulation I and my co-workers were subject to in order to make a living while working for Scientologists.

Which employee suggested that "Work Isn't Necessary" so that we should need to read a whole chapter full of tripe about it? We all felt work was necessary or we wouldn't have put up with that crap. I remember thinking that as I read that chapter. Furthermore, why did I need to read it at all? It didn't show me how to do my job; that was a separate course, one that was administered so poorly that I couldn't use my experience there with other employers and had to be retrained. Why was it assumed that I didn't want to work, was lazy, and needed to read this?

Why do I need to read a Scientology text in order to schedule appointments or balance a cash drawer? It didn't help at all with my job duties. So why did I need to read it? Explain how it was supposed to help me, Fred. Explain how the psychobabble about teamwork and hats was supposed to make me better at balancing the cash drawer.

Why anyone would believe that 1950's pop psychology is some sort of great revelation is beyond me. Enjoy your tripe, just don't ask me to read it again, because I'm not a big enough sucker to fall for it twice. Seriously, I'm not going to debate it with you line by line. I've already suffered enough. Scientology already had it's chance at my psyche and I'm not giving them another shot.

Of course I've made up my mind. Scientology is brainwashing, it's utter bunk. If you don't make up your mind against it, you get brainwashed. In short, if I weren't against it, I would be one. If I weren't so skeptical, I would have fallen for it back then.

articulett

4th November 2007, 12:11 PM

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 12:15 PM

Of course I've made up my mind. Scientology is brainwashing, it's utter bunk. If you don't make up your mind against it, you get brainwashed. In short, if I weren't against it, I would be one. If I weren't so skeptical, I would have fallen for it back then.

Well if you can't remember anything specific from that book then I we can't really discuss it. Since you have made up your mind that I am brainwashed I guess this conversation is over.

Sincerely,
Fred

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 12:17 PM

I think that almost every thing he ever said was an outright lie or at least a severe mental delusion.

How much of what he has said or wrote have you read or listened to?

Fred

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 12:20 PM

Every credential he ever listed (being a nuclear physicist, for example) was an outright lie!

The list of absolute statements on this board cracks me up.

If anyone has any sincere desire to educate themselves feel free to pm me.

Fred

Filippo Lippi

4th November 2007, 12:23 PM

Why can't you set the record straight here in the public forum?

Apology

4th November 2007, 12:29 PM

I think it's interesting hearing about your experiences, Apology. FWIW Fred sounds very much like the Mormon Rconk blathering at randfan about no longer being a Mormon. He says that your mind is made up-- but really it's his mind that is made up. He is sold on Scientology-- that it's "the truth" just as rconk had bought the Mormon spin hook, line, and sinker. In Mormonism you are supposed to read the book of Mormon and pray to know if it's true... which is clearly manipulative just as Scientology wants you to try their program, and your life working is proof that it's true... and this sect of Buddhism wanted me to chant for something and when I got it, I'd know Buddhism was true. But all religions do that... they invent a problem-- evil, eternal suffering, suppressive people, sin, a cryptic rubric that you need to follow-- and then they offer the solution. Then they train your brain to see everything good as coming from god or that religion or your faith and everything bad as being due to "not enough faith" or "not working the programming" or "not thinking positively" or "evil forces".

From an outside looking in, it just all seems the same. And then they all make you feel bad or guilty for leaving... they make it hard to leave... they make loyalty and faith the be-all and end all.

Think about actual facts and knowledge that have benefited people--vaccinations, laser surgery, the internet, nutritional understanding, genetics, math-- there is no punishment except ignorance if you don't know about it... you don't need to be manipulated into believing it... the facts about it are the same for everybody... you can stop believing it at any time or question it further. It works the same whether you believe in it or not-- the earth was a sphere even as people thought it was flat. That's the difference between real and useful truths-- and everything else (belief, spin, faith, myths, lies, innuendo, opinion, mottos, ideals, woo, feelings, etc.).

I feel a deep-seated guilt for steering people in the wrong direction while I worked there. I feel horrible that I discouraged people from getting the REAL medical care that they needed. I'm convinced that they used their Confusion tactic on us so that we would not question some of their practices. My only excuse, and the only reason I can live with myself, is my utter ignorance. To a certain degree, I did fall for it, or I would not have stayed there a single day. My efforts against Scientology are too little, too late for those patients I fooled then.

My reasons for fighting Scientology came from dealing with Scientologists themselves. L. Ron Hubbard was on the TV every ten minutes plugging Dianetics back then, and I didn't have any reason to think it was dangerous. This was back in the phase where they were saying it wasn't a religion, it was a motivational self-help course. I was as open-minded as anybody when I walked in their door, and a permanent enemy of Scientology by the time I walked out.

I worked there for about six months. After about two, I started looking for another job. That's when I found out that the other Non-Scientologist practitioners did not accept training from my employer. They explained that they had to retrain everyone because my employer gave bad instructions on patient handling and room assistance duties. I decided to leave the pseudo-medical field permanently and just get a job as a secretary. Nobody tries to brainwash secretaries.

Apology

4th November 2007, 12:31 PM

Seriously, what I did was so wrong, I can never really make it good. :(

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 12:42 PM

Why can't you set the record straight here in the public forum?Set what record straight? With who/whom? Okay I'll bite...which one of these credentials is an outright lie?

http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/professional-dozens-fields/index.html

Every credential he ever listed (being a nuclear physicist, for example) was an outright lie!Seems like it's a little risky to make such a statement. First you would have to know all the credentials he claimed/listed. Then you would have to prove he didn't have or do any of those.

As far as claiming to be a nuclear physicist, he mentions the class he took in atomic phenomena in public lectures that I have listened to. Guess what? He said several times that he flunked that class.

But thats not really my point. The poster said "Every credential he ever listed...was an outright lie!" Why should I set the record straight on this? Shouldn't the poster prove his allegation first? Why doesn't he start with something simple like proving Ron wasn't licensed to captain vessels of any size, on any ocean.

It makes it difficult at best to have a discourse when someone bandies about such broad sweeping statements. (Which are so blatantly untrue.) If anyone would like to be civil and ask some questions I'd be more than happy to answer to the best of my ability. Otherwise I'll go and deal with my wife's Sunday school class of 4 and 5 year olds. They seem to have better manners.

Fred

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 12:47 PM

I should mention that I have a number of you on ignore now. I don't know if there is a way for you to tell if I have you on ignore or not. The insults do get tiring after a while.

If I don't respond I either have you on ignore or your just being rude. Feel free to PM me if you would like to be taken off of ignore.

Sincerely,

Fred

Apology

4th November 2007, 12:55 PM

Apology

4th November 2007, 12:58 PM

What are my crimes? My crimes are crimes against humanity: I attempted to convince people that they could be healthy using vitamins and mind power alone.

Mea culpa, I was a fool. I hope none of them died. :(

AgeGap

4th November 2007, 01:07 PM

The Church of Scientology would not grant CNN an interview, nor would its representatives answer questions about the Hubbard-based programs.
Xtians believe their souls go to heaven/hell/purgatory.
Co$ians get reincarnated.
How is that compatable.
It is like an elephant-goldfish hybrid.

Btodd

4th November 2007, 01:10 PM

How much of what he has said or wrote have you read or listened to?

Fred

I would say a fair amount. How many lies do I have to get through about his background and credentials before the truth arises, and why would I bother, after being lied to repeatedly?

What type of man who is interested in truth, and helping others, starts out by lying repeatedly about his background, credentials and world history? Do you care to correct me about his claim of being a nuclear physicist? How about healing himself of blindness and a leg injury in the war (he was never blinded or wounded)? His claim of being the first casualty in WWII (again, he was never wounded)? How about his claims of going to Venus? The Van Allen Belt? Psychiatry being behind Nazi Germany? Homosexuals being societal deviants? The Bank of England financing all mental health groups in the world? 12 members of the Bank of England getting world governments 'under their thumb' through various monetary scams? Scientology critics and psychiatrists being the worst 2% of the human population? The Siberia Bill? Cigarette smoking as helpful in preventing lung cancer? DC-8's being exact replicas of 75,000,000 year-old spaceships? Implants? Body thetans?

Please point out if I ran across some truth in there somewhere, because I can't seem to find it among all of the lies.

If you are able to separate all of this from some perceived good in Scientology, then good for you, Fred. But since many former and current Scientologists believe these things, and disconnect from their families, or harrass critics, or infiltrate governments and powerful organizations by dishonest means, or stop taking vital medicines, or chain-smoke (as many have done to mimic Ron), or file frivolous lawsuits, etc.......then I think it's in incredibly bad taste to introduce people to such ideas that are most often harmful, just because you think there's some truth buried in there somewhere.

How much good did it do for Lisa McPherson (died in their care)? Or Jeremy Perkins (stabbed his mother to death after quitting his psychiatric medication)? Tori Christman? Gerry Armstrong (had to leave the country due to death threats and harrassment)? Paulette Cooper (framed for a false bomb threat and harrassed beyond belief)? Stacy Brooks? Robert Vaughan Young (harrassed even during his final days of battling cancer)? Jesse Prince? Scott Mayer? Ron DeWolf? How about Quentin Hubbard (committed suicide)? Mary Sue Hubbard (went to prison)?

How's Mike Rinder doing right now because of Scientology? ;)

*For anyone who doesn't know, Mike Rinder has been the 2nd in command behind David Miscavige (current leader of Scientology worldwide) for years, and has been on numerous programs defending the cult. He has now left, and is hiding from them in fear.

Apology

4th November 2007, 01:17 PM

*For anyone who doesn't know, Mike Rinder has been the 2nd in command behind David Miscavige (current leader of Scientology worldwide) for years, and has been on numerous programs defending the cult. He has now left, and is hiding from them in fear.

I'd be very interested in hearing what Mike Rinder has to say. I wouldn't blame him if he didn't feel up to speaking out though.

Gord_in_Toronto

4th November 2007, 01:22 PM

Set what record straight? With who/whom? Okay I'll bite...which one of these credentials is an outright lie?

http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/professional-dozens-fields/index.html

<< SNIP >>

Fred

Funniest thing I have read in a long time!!

Thanks Fred.

Btodd

4th November 2007, 01:22 PM

I'd be very interested in hearing what Mike Rinder has to say. I wouldn't blame him if he didn't feel up to speaking out though.

More than anyone on this planet, Mike Rinder knows the severity of the situation he's in. With the knowledge of past events he has, he has the potential to destroy the cult and especially David Miscavige. I only hope he can come forward and tell the authorities what he knows, but he knows as well as anyone that his life is in serious danger. I seriously hope the guy has a conscience, because he's helped ruin the lives of many, many people.

Apology

4th November 2007, 01:26 PM

More than anyone on this planet, Mike Rinder knows the severity of the situation he's in. With the knowledge of past events he has, he has the potential to destroy the cult and especially David Miscavige. I only hope he can come forward and tell the authorities what he knows, but he knows as well as anyone that his life is in serious danger. I seriously hope the guy has a conscience, because he's helped ruin the lives of many, many people.

Indeed, if my guilt for my participation as a Non-Scientologist is this great, I can't imagine the severity of his guilt considering how deep his involvement was. I fervently hope that he comes forward some day soon.

articulett

4th November 2007, 01:43 PM

All the woo put people on ignore who make them think. T'ai Chi has been on this forum for years with over 10,000 posts-- always preaching... never learning... and he has most people on ignore. The brainwashed have been brainwashed to spew out their information but to be impervious to any facts that hurt their "faith".

You can learn a lot about how people become brainwashed by listening, because he will repeat the catch phrases and techniques that molded him into the automaton he's become...

But that is what is dangerous about faith, eh?-- no logic can penetrate-- and not all faiths are harmless-- if "faith is good"; "extreme faith" is better... and loyalty cults are the result. This is true of gangs, cults, religions, and all groupthink. They allow a dogma or leader do the thinking for them... they feel part of a powerful whole, but they are really just propping up their leaders and pulling in new recruits so they can rise up and get some of the power too.

What if Fred was your kid or your friend? It's like one of the Hijackers... it's just so, so impervious to reason.

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 01:57 PM

Also if you don't wish to pm me you can always email me at fredrncarr@yahoo.com

Fred

articulett

4th November 2007, 01:58 PM

Seriously, what I did was so wrong, I can never really make it good. :(

You are making it good by sharing it here, and maybe someone will learn form your mistakes. Most religions and cults are like that-- they think they are doing good... the people are trusting and good--they believe in what they do-- Some of my favorite skeptics were former fundamentalists of some sort or another-- Michael Shermer was an evangelical Christian. I think it's valuable to know that people can get out... and that religions can't hide behind secrecy and threats any more. I bet the internet helps a lot of people get out before they become lost causes like Fred. I think probing and prodding and exposing lies taught as "higher truths" is really important. It's the notion that faith is a good way to know something that is the big lie... the faithful are victims from my experience... but the most virulent religions make it very hard to leave and people come to feel like they are nothing without the group.

There's nothing quite like "faith" to get good people to do terrible things and feel like they are morally superior in the process.

And I think it's good that people like Fred come here... it's good to see the way cults work... the ways they manipulate... the ways they write the story of what they are doing... the ways they insinuate their superior morality, maturity, wisdom or whatever... when it's just the same woo talk as others, but with different word games.

The internet allows us to shine the light on the cockroaches. And we can unite in our skepticism--

Notice... Fred doesn't want to talk to people who think he's brainwashed. Now why would that be. If someone though I was brainwashed, I'd like to hear their evidence for thinking so, so then I could examine it. If I was brainwashed, how would I come to know it unless I examined the claim. Why wouldn't Fred be eager to show evidence that he was not brainwashed... that his claims were less woo like than the Mormons or other Woo who preach here?

articulett

4th November 2007, 02:00 PM

How much of what he has said or wrote have you read or listened to?

Fred

How much of what others here have said have you read or listened to?

articulett

4th November 2007, 02:12 PM

I have no one on ignore. I'm not afraid to have people disagree with me. I'm not even intimidated by their rudeness.

I have nothing to hide. If I'm wrong, I will admit it.

What is the point of posting here if you're not going to read anyone else's posts?

(I assume that I'm on ignore now. People don't get much more SP than me.)

The "you're all on ignore" tactic is a classic sign of when someone has lost the argument and knows it. We've seen it from Bigfooters, UFO enthusiasts, psychics, and dowsers about a million times around here.

Like all woo, the faithful are taught to think of themselves as above others (those "wogs" and such)-- Notice how he has to assert himself by saying we "crack him up" and claiming we are like children. In his head, he is writing the story where he is a leader here to politely teach and we are rude children... but he has to say it out loud-- because he knows that it isn't the truth. Anyone else can look at this thread and come to their own opinions... and most skeptics would look at this thread and think he's being a typical arrogant woo--ignoring questions that make him uncomfortable, pretending to want dialogue while asking loaded questions he doesn't want the answer to-- pretending that he's just trying to have a civil conversation-- when it's clear that he believes he has a magical secret and his mission is to preach it here. The woo seem so transparent to me.

But the thing I think is so weird is this-- if they actually read this forum... read the other woos and tried to talk to them-- they might get a glimpse of how they actually come across... and even be embarrassed for pulling the same (and I mean SAME) shenanigans. (You "crack me up"... you guys are "rude"... you guys are childish...)

And we never get a woo with an actual sense of humor. Lots of our regular forum members are witty and eloquent and brilliant, and clever. But the woos who come here, never are. They seem to be the proverbial incompetents in my sig--overestimating their assets on every count while being the least competent on all.

Every time you read an insult from a woo--ask yourself if the evidence indicates that the insult applies more to them then to whomever they're insulting. It's amazing...it almost always does. He will accuse people of not listening to him when it's he who doesn't listen to others. He'll accuse people of being childish and rude while spouting childish platitudes and pouting like a baby when the discussion turns adult.

Apology

4th November 2007, 02:22 PM

You are making it good by sharing it here, and maybe someone will learn form your mistakes.
This is my theory, and I am doing my best to mitigate what I did. I've probably told a 100 times more people that both Scientology and chiropractic care is bunk than the number I tried to convince that it was real. Unfortunately I'll never be able to get back to the people I actually convinced.

Scientology got too greedy. They became a religion because they didn't want to have to pay taxes on their properties and income. They were much more effective when they were pretending to be a new-age motivational movement rather than a religion. I was well equipped to deal with religious propaganda but I was not equipped for this at all.

Kopji

4th November 2007, 03:24 PM

Therefore this policy letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends. So long as a wife or husband, father or mother or other family connection, who is attempting to suppress the Scientology spouse or child, or hostile group remains continually acknowledged or in communication with the Scientology spouse or child or member, then that Scientologist or preclear comes under the family or adherent clause and may not be processed or further trained until he or she has taken appropriate action to cease to be a Potential Trouble Source.

The validity of this policy is bourne out by the fact that the US government raids and other troubles were instigated by wives, husbands or parents who were actively suppressing a Scientologist, or Scientology.
L. RON HUBBARD
"Introduction to Scientology Ethics" pg 62, 63 1971 IBSN 0-88-404-01501

Some of us are not polite because we come from fairly authoritative religious backgrounds, if not outright cultic. The words of Hubbard quoted above speak for themselves, and it takes little reading between the lines to see that if someone really wants to continue in Scientology they have a choice to make that sometimes involves severing all ties with friends or family. HOW IS THIS NOT LIKE A CULT?

CNN has repeated several times an hour today an unsupported claim by one of the ministers that the Scientology anti-drug program is achieving 80% positive results. Please provide any evidence that the Scientology Narconon or any other Scientology program has shown any such results.

fredcarr

4th November 2007, 04:17 PM

Some of us are not polite because we come from fairly authoritative religious backgrounds, if not outright cultic.

This is your justification for not being polite? Well at least your able to see that some of the members of this board are not polite.

The link I posted earlier has several good essays that address this subject of disconnection.

Here is another one:

http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg060.html

I don't have any evidence to provide.

Fred

articulett

4th November 2007, 04:37 PM

So what is your reason for being impolite, Fred-- for asserting that we are like children and you are like an adult and that our inquiries make you chuckle. Go talk to Kurious Kathy and DOC, some fundamentalist Christian types on line right now, and tell us how you are more polite than them-- more adult-- more humorous-- more worth listening too. Tell us why we should be eager to hear your apologetics over theirs. And read T'ai Chi and tell us what differentiates you from him as far as approach and your intentions on this forum...

Because I cannot tell the difference. Why is your information more valid than apology's. How can faith and feelings be a path to knowledge when there are so many faiths that contradict one another and all based on notions for which there is no evidence but lots of fear-- evil forces and afterlives and so forth and promises-- nirvana, levitation, heaven, reincarnation, self actualization, etc.?

Where is the evidence for any of it? Saying there are such things as engrams is like saying there are such things as demons or succubi or evil sprites... it doesn't make it so... it scares people, and it puts Scientology in the position of offering a solution to a problem it made up. And it's cruel-- because humans evolved to have faith and trust in authority figures and these authority figures encourage this infantile behavior. Scientology, like all religions and gangs and wars just seems like a silly teen boys game of Star Wars-- good guys and bad guys and all that silly crap about life being a test-- what a load of childish manipulative crap.

How dare you refer to us as children and us as impolite-- you're the one playing a fantasy game and trying to indoctrinate others into the delusion. Your epic drama like your delusions of drama-- don't exist except for in your head. But reality is the same no matter what people believe or want to be true or have an inner knowingness about.

Maybe when you grow up you can do real good in this world and spread real and useful information like Apology and others who aren't ashamed to admit that even they can be fooled. Just like you Fred. Even you can be fooled. I understand why you want to run from examining that notion-- but the nice thing about reality and truth-- is that it just keeps on being factual whether people believe in it or not. You can probe the hell out it, and it doesn't crumble like faith.

articulett

4th November 2007, 04:51 PM

Some Jonestown clips...

These were good people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3cx3U0gYE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSRKWb4LO3w

The final hours on tape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uzEAYv6RT8

They got in a situation where they couldn't leave...

As the second clip shows-- there was a lot that was good...

But like Scientology, gangs, drug addiction, abusive relationships... people get in seeking something--protection...emotional help... security...but they never know when the door shuts behind them.

Faith is dangerous. I think it's important to tell everyone that it's a bad, bad way to know the truth. Dissent, doubt, an evolution of thought--changing your mind-- admitting when you've fooled yourself-- those are much nobler qualities. That is the information JREF is about. That is what critical thinking is about. Spreading that message might not empower gurus, but it empowers humanity as a whole.

Fred may not be able to turn back. But exposing Scientology can keep others from the point of no return. Listen to the way Fred talks about L. Ron Hubbard... it's the same as the peoples' temple followers... it's the same way Mormon's talk of Joseph Smith and the hijackers spoke of Osama... Humans are not divine... there is no divine knowledge...

No single human is as smart as humanity as a whole.

Big Les

4th November 2007, 05:55 PM

I don't have any evidence to provide.

QFT.

hgc

4th November 2007, 06:09 PM

Apology

4th November 2007, 06:12 PM

Linking back to the thread title (as apart from the actual topic of the OP), I wonder if there is any significant movement of people who practice Scientology outside the auspices of the Co$. This would be something along the lines of all the Mormons outside the LDS, for instance. I have heard of individuals like this, but don't know of there are any groupings of any consequence.

If this were the case, wherein for instance, the break-aways didn't adhere to the anti-Christian controlling aspects of the cult might actually form truely integrated hybrid belief systems.

There are the Free-Zoners, who use Scientology practices but have split from the COS. The COS has tried to sue them into non-existence because they object to the fact that Free-Zoners don't believe in making money off their beliefs and offer free auditing to the poor.

articulett

4th November 2007, 06:33 PM

There are the Free-Zoners, who use Scientology practices but have split from the COS. The COS has tried to sue them into non-existence because they object to the fact that Free-Zoners don't believe in making money off their beliefs and offer free auditing to the poor.

That's interesting. One time many years ago I was at a little get together where the owner of the home had an e-meter and she was showing it to me. And later 12 somber looking people walked in and started shouting threatening things. I had no idea what was going on. They were demanding our names and such... they just seemed psycho. And then later I learned they were "minute men"... and that their presence had something to do with the e-meter.

I remember when Dianetics was everywhere to... along with EST and other self help kind of stuff. I was kind of into that stuff at the time, but Dianetics was just creepy. I just got an uncomfortable feeling reading it, but I can't remember why or what it was-- this was over 20 years ago... and then I lived near that big Scientology building in Los Angeles when I went to USC and they were always offering their "personality tests"-- I was eager to explore new agey things and human potential... but never Scientology... it always has creeped me out. I didn't believe in demons or gods-- and I don't believe in souls anymore even and have outgrown all that stuff. But I'm glad for whatever it was I did sense that made me veer along other paths. I think I found my first Skeptic magazine (or Skeptical Inquirer) at a spiritual bookstore in Los Angeles.

Apology

4th November 2007, 06:46 PM

That's interesting. One time many years ago I was at a little get together where the owner of the home had an e-meter and she was showing it to me. And later 12 somber looking people walked in and started shouting threatening things. I had no idea what was going on. They were demanding our names and such... they just seemed psycho. And then later I learned they were "minute men"... and that their presence had something to do with the e-meter.

I remember when Dianetics was everywhere to... along with EST and other self help kind of stuff. I was kind of into that stuff at the time, but Dianetics was just creepy. I just got an uncomfortable feeling reading it, but I can't remember why or what it was-- this was over 20 years ago... and then I lived near that big Scientology building in Los Angeles when I went to USC and they were always offering their "personality tests"-- I was eager to explore new agey things and human potential... but never Scientology... it always has creeped me out. I didn't believe in demons or gods-- and I don't believe in souls anymore even and have outgrown all that stuff. But I'm glad for whatever it was I did sense that made me veer along other paths. I think I found my first Skeptic magazine (or Skeptical Inquirer) at a spiritual bookstore in Los Angeles.
OH YES, one of the Free-Zoner's biggest "crimes" is building and distributing their own e-meters. The COS has a patent on it, I believe. However, it's a simple lie detector, so they really don't have a patent after all ;)

hgc

4th November 2007, 07:13 PM

OH YES, one of the Free-Zoner's biggest "crimes" is building and distributing their own e-meters. The COS has a patent on it, I believe. However, it's a simple lie detector, so they really don't have a patent after all ;)

Simple lie detector? That's an oxymoron. An "e-meter" registers electrical resistance. Not even a fancy-pants polygraph machine, which, as the name implies, measures lots of things, is a reliable lie detector, though it's commonly mistaken to be such.

Perhaps Fred can deign to tell us wogs not only what it's supposed to do, but how it works.

articulett

4th November 2007, 07:27 PM

I think it just detects galvanic skin responses as I recall...

articulett

4th November 2007, 08:57 PM

I got a feeling that Fred doesn't respond to SPs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person)

However, don't be too surprised if you're being watched by private detectives, your getting harassing phone calls, you neighbors get letters claiming your a pedophile, or you're sued for libel in the U.K.

After all, it's all Fair Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29), right Fred?

Wow... Jim Jones used this term "fair game"

http://www.deborahlayton.com/affidavit.html

Kopji

4th November 2007, 11:54 PM

This is your justification for not being polite? Well at least your able to see that some of the members of this board are not polite.

The link I posted earlier has several good essays that address this subject of disconnection.

Here is another one:

http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg060.html

I don't have any evidence to provide.

Fred
Politeness itself can be something of a communication barrier. We'd mostly agree in its value though. I probably value a quality called 'transparency' more.

As a matter of politeness if not curiosity, I usually do follow links.
From yours:

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Amish practice “shunning”—a form of disconnection—and their right to do so has been upheld by courts across the country. Certain Orthodox Jewish congregations practice an extreme form of disconnection in which a mock funeral is held for apostate members. Disconnection in Scientology is neither new nor strange in the annals of religion.

I presume this is the answer to my earlier quote and question?
Answer: Scientology is no worse than other religious-cult extremists?

Well I guess I stand chastised.

Humanity benefits from more of this aberrant behavior precisely why?

Pity on the drug rehab question. I was hoping for some evidence. I actually did a search through the Internet under 'Narconon', based on Hubbard's ideas. I'm making a little jump here in presuming that these are at least similar to the materials being offered to Churches, since they originate with Mr Hubbard.

I'm not a statistician, I think I do see where the abnormally high success statistics come from. It seems that to exit the program clients must write a positive statement before they are deemed cured.

Apology

5th November 2007, 12:04 AM

You guys are both right. From a court case by the US Food and Drug Administration:

"The E-meter is essentially a simple galvanometer using two tin
cans as electrodes. It is crude, battery-powered, and designed to
measure electrical skin resistance. It is completely harmless and
ineffective in itself. A person using the meter for treatment
holds the tin cans in his hands during an interview with the
operator who is known as an auditor and who purports to read
indicators from the galvanometer needle as it notes reactions to
questions. Scientology is a so-called exact science which
promotes auditing. When practiced by trained or untrained
persons, Scientology auditing is claimed to improve the health,
intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of the
individual treated."

So it's a galvanometer that measures skin response. It's not even as good as a "lie detector" or a polygraph machine. They use it to measure skin response to see if you start to sweat, but a polygraph is much better at measuring stress than a galvanometer.

fredcarr

5th November 2007, 01:29 AM

Kopji - Here is the whole quote you selected your quotation from:

If an individual attempting to improve his life through Scientology is encountering persistent opposition from a close associate, his spiritual advancement is impeded.

In the vast majority of cases, the antagonism is rooted in false information about Scientology and providing the true data ends the matter. As a last resort, when all attempts to sort out such situations have failed, the Scientologist may decide to disconnect from the person until the antagonism ceases.

A person who disconnects is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person. This is one of the most fundamental rights of man. Members of other religions have exercised it down the ages when confronted by those who persistently opposed the practice of their faiths. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Amish practice “shunning”—a form of disconnection—and their right to do so has been upheld by courts across the country. Certain Orthodox Jewish congregations practice an extreme form of disconnection in which a mock funeral is held for apostate members. Disconnection in Scientology is neither new nor strange in the annals of religion.

I think this makes the issue a least a little clearer as to when and why it is used. If I had a family member continue to berate me and my beliefs at every hand (I don't have a family member that does that btw) and I wasn't able to get them to a least respect my rights to have the beliefs that I do then I may very well be inclined to stop communicating with them.

I did have a good friend who ended up saying some rather vile things about me and my religion. I found it rather odd as he was doing illegal drugs at the time and thought that I was the one with a problem. The fact that he ended up stealing some precious items from me pretty much sealed the deal. He is no longer my friend.

Whats probably most amusing is though I get attacked for being a Scientologist and supporting my church and having the beliefs that I do. No one has ever stated what those beliefs are. I really don't think that anyone that has belittled me and my beliefs even know what they are. Its certainly made clear by some that they know what I'm all about but no has ever stated what I stand for, what I do nor what I believe. This is all the more surprising in that it wouldn't be all that hard to honestly inform oneself what the answers to these questions might be. I wouldn't even call this bigotry, just ignorance.

The one person on this thread that says he read "Problems of Work" can't even discuss a single principle covered in that book.

Well the "Way to Happiness" is available online if one cares to read it.

Here is a link:

http://twth.org/about/resources-and-downloads/e-books/?id=19219w

It has a several very interesting ideas in it. Give it a read and then we can discuss it. Maybe will will be better able to understand why various religions (and other groups) would adopt the teachings presented in this pamphlet. (Kind of what this thread is all about.)

Sincerely,

Fred

Apology

5th November 2007, 02:18 AM

-sound and fury, signifying nothing-

Kopji---Fred's just trying to trick you into reading Scientology works just like I was tricked into reading "Problems." There's really nothing to discuss about "Problems". It's a bunch of very old new-age philosophy with a few less-than-savory uses of the Confusion Technique, particularly in the chapter "Why is Work Necessary". They use it to try and show that there's nothing dangerous or controversial about Scientology. I refuse to read it again and give it a second chance to work.

There's no need to make a personal attack on Fred to prove he's wrong. It kind of surprises me that he would suggest that there's some flaw in our arguments because we aren't on the personal attack.

I'm not asking you about your beliefs, Fred, because the tenets of Scientology are widely available for anyone to read. Even if you disagree with L. Ron Hubbard, you still support his teachings (even the ones you disagree with) by supporting Scientology.

If you want to discuss a tenet of Scientology that's completely wrong, in specific, Fred, explain why the mentally ill shouldn't take psychiatric medicines. Tom Cruise was adamant that Brooke Shields should not have taken anti-depressants for post-partum depression. Tell us how and why Tom Cruise was right and Brooke Shields was wrong.

hgc

5th November 2007, 04:20 AM

Whats probably most amusing is though I get attacked for being a Scientologist and supporting my church and having the beliefs that I do. No one has ever stated what those beliefs are. I really don't think that anyone that has belittled me and my beliefs even know what they are. Its certainly made clear by some that they know what I'm all about but no has ever stated what I stand for, what I do nor what I believe. This is all the more surprising in that it wouldn't be all that hard to honestly inform oneself what the answers to these questions might be. I wouldn't even call this bigotry, just ignorance.

Hi-friggin-larious. How many dozens of direct, specific questions about your "beliefs" have gone unanswered in these forums? Doesn't matter though. As Apology points out, a) you actively support the "church," b) you have ready access to information about its criminal and unethical activity, ergo c) you get belittled. If you can live comfortably with supporting such an enterprise while claiming that you only "believe" from it what you have directly experienced, then you can certainly withstand the slings and arrows of this peanut gallery. Suck it up, RonBot.

AgeGap

5th November 2007, 08:02 AM

Hi-friggin-larious. How many dozens of direct, specific questions about your "beliefs" have gone unanswered in these forums? Doesn't matter though. As Apology points out, a) you actively support the "church," b) you have ready access to information about its criminal and unethical activity, ergo c) you get belittled. If you can live comfortably with supporting such an enterprise while claiming that you only "believe" from it what you have directly experienced, then you can certainly withstand the slings and arrows of this peanut gallery. Suck it up, RonBot.
Poor fredcarr, he would be able to see that Scientology puts blinkers on people rather than opening their minds up to new things if he took a few people off ignore.

circuit_bent

5th November 2007, 09:50 AM

I would like to put fred carr on a futuristic gameshow called 'Justify Your Beliefs', where skeptics bombard him with questions and illogical, vague, contradictory answers result in electric shocks.

It could be big in Japan.

But even, sans electric shocks, has fred actually answered any questions about the litany of lies that Hubbard advanced? I would pay good money to hear them. Wouldn't a person want to look at things critically, because they might be wrong? It's really irritating to see how fred dodges any queries which could possibly put his beliefs to the test.

Pitiable, but enviable in a way. I've come to think that more and more. From an individuals perspective, even if it is a lie it can be supremely comforting. I don't understand the frame of mind that could allow that kind of absolute credulousness though. It seems to be quite common though.

Apology

5th November 2007, 12:06 PM

I can't really blame fred for trying; it's a classic tactic used by a lot of different religions.

"My child, why so angry at my faith? Why, in your ignorance, you have not even read every single word written about it (hands you a 30-pound tome) Please read this all, these other four books here, attend 1/10/100/1,000 of our services, and if you're still not a believer after that we'll talk."

Kopji

5th November 2007, 01:26 PM

Fredcarr
Thanks. I'm sorry, the more complete explanation of 'disassociation' does not seem any less noxious or toxic to me than the portion I quoted. I was merely try to stay within the 'fair use' copyright limitations of JREF.

According to Mr Hubbard, 'Suppressive Acts' as might be encountered by family or friends are well defined.

Suppressive Acts (L. Ron Hubbard... Ibid: pg 57, 58, 59)

...Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings.

(boldface mine)

Mr Hubbard's paragraph does not sound like a strategy for reconciliation with family and friends who might show concern for involvement in Scientology. I see a blatant danger in defining all opponents as evil minded or deranged.

The Scientology website explanation offers me less than the whole truth, compared to Mr Hubbard's actual words in public print.

I've already read the 'Way to Happiness' list. It would be an interesting topic to discuss here, maybe on another thread. Some of the 'common sense' formulations seem to be rather curiously worded. From the passages I quoted earlier for example, 'Honor and help your parents' is clearly seen as provisional. Many of the other "precepts" are the same way. They are offered as axioms for happiness, but I'm honestly not sure what value provisional axioms have. None?

The 21 precepts are:

Take care of yourself.
Be temperate.
Don't be promiscuous.
Love and help children.
Honor and help your parents.
Set a good example.
Seek to live with the truth.
Do not murder.
Don't do anything illegal.
Support the government designed and run for all the people.
Do not harm a person of good will.
Safeguard and improve your environment.
Do not steal.
Be worthy of trust.
Fulfill your obligations.
Be industrious.
Be competent.
Respect the religious beliefs of others.
Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you.
Try to treat others as you would want to be treated.
Flourish and prosper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_to_Happiness

While I would not label myself as an 'anti-social' personality (somehow, I think Scientology would), many good laws come about by resisting and overcoming bad laws. 'don't do anything illegal' seems plain wrong.

Btodd

5th November 2007, 06:31 PM

'don't do anything illegal' seems plain wrong.

Not to mention jaw-droppingly ironic, considering the source.:jaw-dropp

Kochanski

5th November 2007, 07:16 PM

My question to Fred is how are those 21 precepts unique in any way? Why would anyone NEED to follow the Co$ to make use of them? Why do they even suggest that there might be some great Truth or great Value in the Co$?

I don't even see anything there that would lead me to say, gee I should read more of the volumes of drivel that LRH has put out. He was a mediocre sci fi writer and no more compelling in his pop religion.

Any answer to Apology's question on drugs? I am betting that Elli & Jeremy Perkins family would like an answer on it. Fred? Anything?

Gord_in_Toronto

5th November 2007, 08:10 PM

<< SNIP >>

I don't even see anything there that would lead me to say, gee I should read more of the volumes of drivel that LRH has put out. He was a mediocre sci fi writer and no more compelling in his pop religion.

<< SNIP >>

Actually, I rather liked, Typewriter in the Sky. :o

articulett

5th November 2007, 08:30 PM

Why would Fred think we care about what he believes? We're skeptics. We care about what is true! We don't care about what Fred believes or his opinions any more than he cares about any of us believer or our opinions (unless it supports his faith, of course.) How impolite for him to imagine we should.

Apology

5th November 2007, 09:03 PM

Actually, I rather liked, Typewriter in the Sky. :o

I had read Battlefield Earth and it was not bad. That's why when I was handed "Problems" I didn't immediately object to it. :o I was ignorant enough, I thought L. Ron Hubbard was harmless. I did kind of wonder what science fiction and Dianetics had to to with being a front-desk assistant though.

"Problems" itself is mostly harmless, in the same sense that "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne is harmless--it's not mind control, just a bunch of useless motivational suggestions. They save the really weird stuff for after they've recruited you. "Problems" is written for wogs, not Scientologists.

PBTree

5th November 2007, 09:49 PM

Otherwise I'll go and deal with my wife's Sunday school class of 4 and 5 year olds. They seem to have better manners.

Fred

Why did I read this thread. I was having a great day up until now.

Whilst I have read the lot, I keep going back to this one sentence.

Those poor poor children and their fragile minds. Lives over before they even get started.

:(

Kopji

6th November 2007, 12:04 PM

Don't let it ruin your day.

Have a cookie.

circuit_bent

6th November 2007, 03:32 PM

Why did I read this thread. I was having a great day up until now.

Whilst I have read the lot, I keep going back to this one sentence.

Those poor poor children and their fragile minds. Lives over before they even get started.

:(

Let's hope the US declares Scientology to be a criminal cult soon. If Mike Rinder speaks out, who knows?

fredcarr

10th December 2007, 11:16 PM

'don't do anything illegal' seems plain wrong.

The chapter on this goes into more detail as to the reasoning behind the rule. Did you read it?

Kilgore Trout

11th December 2007, 09:10 AM

Did you? Perhaps you could paraphrase so you can make your point.

fredcarr

11th December 2007, 07:30 PM

Did you? Perhaps you could paraphrase so you can make your point.Yep.

Here is the chapter that explains this precept:

Illegal acts are those which are prohibited by official rules or law.

They are the product of rulers, legislative bodies and judges. They are usually written down in law codes. In a well-ordered society, these are published and made known generally. In a cloudy—and often crime-ridden—society one has to consult an attorney or be specially trained to know them all; such a society will tell one that
“ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.”

Any member of society, however, has a responsibility, whether young or old, for knowing what that society considers to be an “illegal act.” People can be asked, libraries exist where they can be looked up.

An “illegal act” is not disobedience to some casual order like “go to bed.” It is an action which, if done, can result in punishment by the courts and state: being pilloried by the state propaganda machine, being fined and even by being imprisoned.

When one does something illegal, small or large, one is laid open to an attack by the state. It does not matter whether one is caught or not, when one does an illegal act, one has weakened one’s defenses.

Almost any worthwhile thing one is trying to accomplish often can be done in perfectly legal ways. The “illegal” route is a dangerous and time-wasting shortcut. Imagined “advantages” in committing illegal acts usually turn out not to be worth it.

The state and government tend to be a rather unthinking machine. It exists and works on laws and codes of laws. It is geared to strike down through its channels at illegality. As such it can be an implacable enemy; adamant on the subject of
“illegal acts.” The rightness and wrongness of things do not count in the face of laws and codes of laws. Only the laws count.

When you realize or discover that those about you are committing “illegal acts,” you should do what you can to discourage it. You yourself, not even a party to it, can yet suffer because of it. The firm’s accountant falsifies the books: in any resulting commotion, the firm could fail and you could lose your job. Such instances can grossly
affect one’s own survival.

As a member of any group subject to laws, encourage the clear-cut publication of those laws so they can be known. Support any legal, political effort to reduce, clarify and codify the laws that apply to that group. Adhere to the principle that all men are equal under law: a principle which, in its own time and place—the tyrannical days of
aristocracy—was one of the greatest social advances in human history and should not be lost sight of.

See that children and people become informed of what is “legal” and what is “illegal” and make it known, if by as little as a frown, that you do not approve of “illegal acts.”

Those who commit them, even when they “get away with them,” are yet weakened before the might of the state.

The way to happiness does not include the fear of being found out.

This booklet was published in the early eighties. I was struck by the point of how someone else's illegal acts can cause you harm. He mentions falsifying books in the above chapter which brings to mind the Enron situation. I wondered when that first became news how many people were aware of illegal acts being committed but did and said nothing.

In this context I don't think "don't do anything illegal' is just plain wrong. While I don't advocate absolutes, for the most part this seems like common sense. (Which is the sub title of the book - 'A Common Sense Guide To Better Living.'

fredcarr

11th December 2007, 07:43 PM

n another thread. Some of the 'common sense' formulations seem to be rather curiously worded. From the passages I quoted earlier for example, 'Honor and help your parents' is clearly seen as provisional.
Could you explain this a bit further. I don't think I'm getting your point.

Is this the definition of provisional you are using - "provided for a temporary need : suitable or acceptable in the existing situation but subject to change or nullification"?

The booklet isn't very long as is available as a free download.

http://twth.org/about/resources-and-downloads/e-books/?id=28052j

I think there are many things we could agree on written in it. Or at least discuss.

Kochanski

11th December 2007, 10:29 PM

Fred, when are you going to stop trying to get people here to read the CO$ nonsense and actually use your own words to refute what is said?

When are you going to explain to us why Elli Perkins is dead? Or Lisa McPherson?

Or does scientology just let you rationalize all this away by blaming it all on Thetans?

If so, how is this healthy?

How does it benefit people to dodge all responsibility for their actions by blaming beings that you have no proof exist?

How does it benefit anyone but the CO$ who charge buckets full of cash to help people rid themselves of these non-existent entities?

Fred, unless you can honestly answer these questions IN YOUR OWN WORDS you are not worth our attention and you are no better than any other apologist for any other wacky religion or cult.

fredcarr

12th December 2007, 10:46 AM

Fred, when are you going to stop trying to get people here to read the CO$ nonsense and actually use your own words to refute what is said? Ummm...never. It's pretty hard to disprove anything in a post. Best I can do is invite people to read what Ron wrote for themselves.

When are you going to explain to us why Elli Perkins is dead? Or Lisa McPherson?
I'm not.

How does it benefit people to dodge all responsibility for their actions by blaming beings that you have no proof exist?
I wouldn't know as I don't blame anyone else for things I am responsible for.

Fred, unless you can honestly answer these questions IN YOUR OWN WORDS you are not worth our attention and you are no better than any other apologist for any other wacky religion or cult.Then don't pay attention. I'm not here to argue or defend some position. (Apologist - A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.)

I will answer questions I deem sincere and polite with reference to the correct source to the best of my ability. As a Scientologist that is who I am and what I do. I like to use the Way to Happiness booklet as I find it provides a common ground to discuss things. This helps to promote communication and understanding. Why not read it and if you have maybe we can discuss it. If you don't want to I'm certainly not going to force you! It might help you to understand me and by extension other Scientologists. Maybe you will be less inclined to think of us as wacky cult members.

Kilgore Trout

12th December 2007, 10:48 AM

Here is the chapter that explains this precept:

Quoting and paraphrasing are not the same thing. I hoped to know what point you are trying to make, not parrot Hubbard.

This booklet was published in the early eighties. I was struck by the point of how someone else's illegal acts can cause you harm. He mentions falsifying books in the above chapter which brings to mind the Enron situation. I wondered when that first became news how many people were aware of illegal acts being committed but did and said nothing.

In this context I don't think "don't do anything illegal' is just plain wrong. While I don't advocate absolutes, for the most part this seems like common sense. (Which is the sub title of the book - 'A Common Sense Guide To Better Living.'

Someone else's illegals acts can cause you harm? That seems true almost by definition. Now, I'm not the one presenting the validity of "don't do anything illegal" but you don't seem to be making much sense. But then, I've not read the book you referenced or quoted.

fredcarr

12th December 2007, 10:51 AM

I hoped to know what point you are trying to make, not parrot Hubbard.Simply that I didn't view following the precept 'don't do anything illegal' as just plain wrong. Which is what an earlier poster said. If there is something that doesn't make sense let me know. As far as I can tell saying that it is just plain wrong to not do illegal acts is nonsensical.

I keep bringing this book up as it is one of the booklets being used by other faiths. (See op) If your goal is simply to prove me wrong then it will be difficult to understand what I am all about if not impossible. It will be hard to comprehend as well why other groups would use this book to help people.

blobru

12th December 2007, 05:30 PM

Don't do anything illegal.

I guess Rosa Parks wouldn't have been much of a Scientologist then.
Henry David Thoreau.
Nelson Mandela.
Ghandi.
Spartacus.
Sun Yat-sen.
Oskar Schindler.
George Washington...
Heck, the whole Continental Congress. They were all doing some pretty illegal things, weren't they?

If only they'd had access to the "Way to Happiness". :(

(Oops -- almost forgot: Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg!)

fredcarr

12th December 2007, 05:36 PM

blobru - I certainly understand your point. I don't see how that makes the precept just plain wrong however. Seems like I could come up with a lot of situations where it would apply as well.

Edited to add note:

I think the next precept in the book is more applicable in covering what these individuals were doing.

Support a Government Designed and Run for All the People

Unscrupulous and evil men and groups can usurp the power of government and use it to their own ends.

Government organized and conducted solely for self-interested individuals and groups gives the society a short life span. This imperils the survival of everyone in the land; it even imperils those who attempt it. History is full of such governmental deaths.

Opposition to such governments usually just brings on more violence.
But one can raise his voice in caution when such abuses are abroad. And one need not actively support such a government; doing nothing illegal,it is yet possible, by simply withdrawing one’s cooperation, to bring about an eventual reform.
Even as this is being written there are several governments in the world that are failing only because their people express their silent disagreement by simply not cooperating. These governments are at risk: any untimely wind of mischance could blow them over.

On the other hand, where a government is obviously working hard for all its people, rather than for some special interest group or insane dictator, one should support it to the limit.

There is a subject called “government.” In schools they mainly teach “civics” which is merely how the current organization is put together. The
real subject, “government,” goes under various headings: political economy, political philosophy, political power, etc. The whole subject of
“government” and how to govern can be quite precise, almost a technical science.
If one is interested in having a better government, one that does not cause trouble, one should suggest it be taught at earlier ages in schools; one can also read up on it: it is not a very difficult subject if you look up the big words.
It is, after all, the people and their own opinion leaders who sweat and fight and bleed for their country—a government cannot bleed, it cannot even smile: it is just an idea men have. It is the individual person who is alive—you.

The way to happiness is hard to travel when shadowed with the oppression
of tyranny. A benign government, designed and run for all the people, has been known to smooth the way: when such occurs, it deserves support.

I'm sure a number of those individuals you quoted would have been in agreement with some if not all of the tenets in this booklet. They might have even passed it on to others as their survival was certainly threatened by the acts of others.

Happiness

True joy and happiness are valuable.

If one does not survive, no joy and no
happiness are obtainable.

Trying to survive in a chaotic, dishonest and
generally immoral society is difficult.

Any individual or group seeks to obtain from
life what pleasure and freedom from pain that he
or they can.

Your own survival can be threatened by the
bad actions of others around you.

Your own happiness can be turned to tragedy
and sorrow by the dishonesty and misconduct of
others.

I am sure you can think of instances of this
actually happening. Such wrongs reduce one’s
survival and impair one’s happiness.

You are important to other people. You are
listened to. You can influence others.

The happiness or unhappiness of others you
could name is important to you.
Without too much trouble, using this book,
you can help them survive and lead happier lives.

While no one can guarantee that anyone else
can be happy, their chances of survival and
happiness can be improved. And with theirs, yours
will be.

It is in your power to point the way
to a less dangerous and happier life.

I don't like cut and pasting this thing. Here is the link to the site that will let you download the booklet for free.

Kochanski

12th December 2007, 06:16 PM

Ummm...never. It's pretty hard to disprove anything in a post. Best I can do is invite people to read what Ron wrote for themselves.
I'm not.

I wouldn't know as I don't blame anyone else for things I am responsible for.

Then don't pay attention. I'm not here to argue or defend some position. (Apologist - A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.)

I will answer questions I deem sincere and polite with reference to the correct source to the best of my ability. As a Scientologist that is who I am and what I do. I like to use the Way to Happiness booklet as I find it provides a common ground to discuss things. This helps to promote communication and understanding. Why not read it and if you have maybe we can discuss it. If you don't want to I'm certainly not going to force you! It might help you to understand me and by extension other Scientologists. Maybe you will be less inclined to think of us as wacky cult members.

Yes, you are pulling the usual Co$ bait and switch, just like the "Free Stress Tests" given in NYC subway stations. Pull the punters in with a little literature and the notion of self-help, but then tell them if they want more, they have to fork over big bucks for books, classes and the hours of emeter nonsense. It all sounds all so very plausible, genuine and pleasant. It takes quite some time of bleeding people for bucks, or if they don't have bucks, quite some time of working to pull in more punters before you get to the aliens souls cause all your woes schtick. All the same it is a con and an evil one at that.

Sorry Fred, I understand Co$ers quite well. I don't need to read piles of LRH pablum to understand.

In the end it is all about the $$$$$ and as much of it as the CO$ can get.

fredcarr

12th December 2007, 06:44 PM

Had to look up 'pablum' which I found amusing as I have a newborn.

Your certainly entitled to your opinion Kochanski. I won't begrudge you that.

We certainly shouldn't discuss something you aren't willing to read and have made up your mind about. It would be a waste of time for both of us.

ail

12th December 2007, 07:13 PM

I guess Rosa Parks wouldn't have been much of a Scientologist then.
Henry David Thoreau.
Nelson Mandela.
Ghandi.
Spartacus.
Sun Yat-sen.
Oskar Schindler.
George Washington...
Heck, the whole Continental Congress. They were all doing some pretty illegal things, weren't they?

If only they'd had access to the "Way to Happiness". :(

(Oops -- almost forgot: Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg!)
:big:

Kochanski

12th December 2007, 09:00 PM

Fred, you are still ignoring the important questions.

Why is Elli Perkins dead?

Why is Lisa McPherson dead?

Come on Fred, don't tell me you can just hide your head in the sand over these things? The Co$ has culpability in both these cases and many more.

How do you justify the Co$'s dangerous views toward mental illness? They attempted to treat a schizophrenic with vitamins and because of that his mother is dead.

How do you justify them pulling Lisa McPherson out of a hospital and putting her in isolation in a one of their buildings allowing her to be dehydrated and when they finally realized that they needed to get her back to a hospital why did they go past so many close ones just so they could get to one with a Co$er MD on staff?

You can go on about what you get out of Co$ and attempt to get us to read all sorts of Co$ lit, but how do you justify their dangerous practices and disregard of the health, safety and lives of their own members?

Come on Fred, be honest.

fishkr

12th December 2007, 10:02 PM

Typical of someone from this board to characterize a group of people as gullible because of their religion.

fred

Believing in silly, un-provable nonsense in the face of many other more solid descriptions of reality seems like a concise definition of "gullable".

Paying for the honor of being the happy recipient of pure ******** seems to be another.

blobru

13th December 2007, 03:21 AM

blobru - I certainly understand your point. I don't see how that makes the precept just plain wrong however. Seems like I could come up with a lot of situations where it would apply as well.

Jeez, I hope so.
The negation of L Ron's "don't do anything illegal" isn't "always do illegal things", just "sometimes". However, if it is moral to break the law sometimes, then Hubbard's precept is wrong.
"Don't break any just laws" would be a more responsible precept, speaking to an individual's sense of fairness, not his fear of authority.

I think the next precept in the book is more applicable in covering what these individuals were doing.

Support a Government Designed and Run for All the People

Opposition to such governments usually just brings on more violence.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, Ron...

Way to Happiness[/I]"]But one can raise his voice in caution when such abuses are abroad. And one need not actively support such a government; doing nothing illegal, it is yet possible, by simply withdrawing one’s cooperation, to bring about an eventual reform.

I'm sure a number of those individuals you quoted would have been in agreement with some if not all of the tenets in this booklet. They might have even passed it on to others as their survival was certainly threatened by the acts of others. [my bold]

The acts that defined their lives were illegal acts.
Heroic acts of rebellion against insane, terrible laws.
Therefore, I'm sure none of the individuals I listed would've given two sh*ts for any booklet that made obedience a virtue.
"Happiness" sometimes means disobeying, confronting authority and shattering its law.
Maybe not to L Ron Hubbard; but to those like Mandela and von Stauffenberg, certainly.