| Author |
Topic:
~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
3/4 11:28am
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
malkieD2 posted:
LV - I point out that you are unable to form a counter arguement, to which you reply doing exactly the same thing again. Childish gifs make you look like a fool with no substance or belief in their stance.
It's hard to make a counter-argument against someone who trolls and lies.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
malkieD2
Title: EuroMod™-JCC - FFUK-RSA Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
3/4 11:35am
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
Isn't calling someone a troll and a liar regarding as flaming in these parts? Particularly when its completely untrue.
If your debating tactics have reduced to this, then you clearly have no response to the point I'm making. I'm happy to move on now.
-----signature-----
HBOF  There are only 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary jokes, and those who don't. If you don't already know, you'll never understand. If you already know, no explanation is needed - KW
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
3/4 1:28pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
I think one element to the discussion that has been left behind is the issue of whether you can reasonably hold a religion or a religious organisation accountable for the misdeeds of its followers.
Take the Catholic Church for example - there have been countless allegations of paedophilia and sexual abuse against clergy within the Catholic Church over the decades which have subsequently turned into scandal because the Catholic Church in some countries has protected these priests or simply relocated them to another parish where they have re-offended. This information is in the public domain and you don't have to go too far to find it.
I would argue that the sexual abuse of a child is probably the most despicable and inhuman act - does this make the Catholic Church and its teachings despicable and inhuman?
The answer is "no" because these priests have offended in their capacity as human beings and not in the name of the Catholic Church or in accordance with the Church's doctrines and teachings. I know this because the Catholic Church's doctrines and teachings are not particularly secret and the Bible is pretty much available anywhere (go the Gideons).
The same can be said for Judaism and what has happened in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Many atrocities have been carried out by Muslims and Jews and Christians (see Sabra and Chatila for example)but are these misdeeds instigated by religious imperatives? The answer is "no".
My concern with this ongoing crusade against the Church of Scientology is that the opponents of Scientology in this thread appear to be taking the mideeds of a number of Scientologists and using that as evidence or proof that these people were necessarily acting in accordance with Church doctrine and teaching and that such behaviour represents the Church. In this thread, there has been a lot of posturing and the posting of documents and videos full of innuendo and dramatic music but no hard evidence concerning what Scientology actually teaches and what behaviour it sanctions positively or negatively. I know this is probably difficult because the Church of Scientology is very secretive about this information for commercial reasons.
Nevertheless, posting quotes from Hubbard which may or may not be taken out of context or posting links to disgruntled ex Scientologists means very little. It proves nothing and is not objective evidence. The bible is objective evidence because I can take it away and read it and then form the conclusion that the Bible does not in fact teach men to sexually abuse little boys.
The only misconduct I am satisfied actually took place is the Operation Freakout affair which again on the face of it was carried out by some naughty Scientologists. There are plenty of naughty Christians, Jews and Muslims too - the courts and prisons of the world are packed full of them but I do not judge Christinity, Judaism or Islam by the acts of its followers. Nor should you.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
3/4 1:50pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
- Date Edited:
3/4 2:17pm (6 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Geist
|
Here's a question, then: How many testimonies, or pieces of evidence from the CoS, are enough?
Did you see the clip on the last page, the court testimony with the tape? Did you see the memos authored by Hubbard himself? What kind of hard evidence are you looking for? These memos can be viewed in their entirety, not "out of context," and the Fishman deposition was given back when he was perfectly happy to have gone to prison for his Scientology-related crimes; he wasn't "disgruntled" at all. No "dramatic music" there, either; it's a court deposition.
The information is there in spades, if you take the time to look through it.
Malkie posted:
All I'm saying is that there is nothing you can say about Scientology which doesn't apply to other religions,
And I'm saying there is, and I've listed those things many times, and your responses have ranged from vague to nonexistent. "Some other religion, somewhere, might or might not have done something like this, at some time" is not much of a point to make. And I see you at least entertaining the idea that not "all religions are equally bad."
LostOnHoth posted:
The only misconduct I am satisfied actually took place is the Operation Freakout affair which again on the face of it was carried out by some naughty Scientologists.
Those naughty Scientologists included Jane Kember, the CoS' third highest-ranking official. She ran the Guardian's Office (now called the Office of Special Affairs), which is and was the CoS' combination PR department, legal department, and covert ops agency. (Yes, the CoS has its own personal covert ops agency.) Here's a source from the court case.
Incidentally, the Guardian's Office orchestrated not only Operation Freakout, but also Operation Snow White, the CoS' plan to use as many as 5,000 agents to infiltrate, wiretap, and steal from the U.S. government in order to purge unfavorable records and obtain materials for blackmail. 136 government agencies were infiltrated and stolen from, and it remains to this day the largest government infiltration in U.S. history.
That operation involved not only Kember, but Hubbard's own wife Mary Sue. This is the first page of her indictment, on charges including: Conspiracy, Theft of Government Property, Aiding and Abetting, Obstruction of Justice, False Testimony Before a Grand Jury, and Burglary. She was convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself was named, or code-named, in several of the documents seized by the FBI, but he managed to avoid indictment. He spent the last several years of his life as a fugitive from justice, and died in hiding at a ranch in San Luis Obispo.
The aftermath led to another court case against the CoS in Canada. Here's an excerpt from one of the court's documents:
Crown vs. Church of Scientology of Toronto, Section I, Subsection A posted:
The charges arose from activities conducted by the Intelligence Bureau within the Guardian's Office, a management arm of the appellant, Church of Scientology of Toronto. Between 1974 and 1976, Scientologists secured employment with government agencies perceived to be enemies of the Church, and signed oaths of secrecy as public officials. In breach of their oaths of office, they then took copies of confidential documents from the agencies that employed them and provided them to the Church of Scientology of Toronto. The appellant, Jacqueline Matz, was a "Case Officer" and "Director of Operations", and was responsible for supervising the agents who had been planted in the various government agencies and other organizations.
If you'd like more information, please ask.
-----signature-----
Joe Biden posted:
What do you talk about when you have nothing to say?
What do you talk about when you cannot explain the last
eight years of failure? You talk about the other guy!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
malkieD2
Title: EuroMod™-JCC - FFUK-RSA Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
3/4 2:29pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
Darth Geist posted:
and your responses have ranged from vague to nonexistent. "Some other religion, somewhere, might or might not have done something like this, at some time" is not much of a point to make.
sorry but no, I've provided example, after example supported with evidence.
-----signature-----
HBOF There are only 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary jokes, and those who don't. If you don't already know, you'll never understand. If you already know, no explanation is needed - KW
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
3/4 2:40pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
- Date Edited:
3/4 2:43pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
LostOnHoth
|
I'm not really interested in these testimonies as they prove nothing. They are just sworn statements to be used as evidence in court. A deposition is simply a sworn testimony and nothing more. They can be completely fabricated. There is no cross examination and they may or may not be used. This deposition was taken presumably in the course of court proceedings ( the nature of the proceedings is not discussed) and was taken after the witness left the Church of Scientology.
This is not "hard evidence".
What you offer up are little pieces in a puzzle which mean very little. The tape that was played was very funny but you have to respect that an organisation may have opinions that you disagree with. In that tape, the booming and dramatic voice basically just says that the public education system is a disaster, full of violence and security guards, and is not the same as it was for an older genetation. It goes on to say that Scientology offers an alternative.
I have taken the time to look through your material and what you are offering up are little peices which you are trying to turn into a whole puzzle.
I think Scientology is controversial and there is obviously a huge oppositional movement spearheaded by ex Scientologists. In that context, you have to be very careful about evaluating material offered up as "evidence".
I accept that certain Scientologists were guilty of the charges brought against them in the operations referred to above but please clarify your position on whether the misdeeds of certain Scientologists can necessarily be attributed back to the Church of Scientology and if so on what basis having regard to the fact that I don;t believe you can do so for all of the wrongs committed by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
3/4 2:43pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
malkieD2 posted:
Darth Geist posted:
and your responses have ranged from vague to nonexistent. "Some other religion, somewhere, might or might not have done something like this, at some time" is not much of a point to make.
sorry but no, I've provided example, after example supported with evidence.
No you haven't.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
malkieD2
Title: EuroMod™-JCC - FFUK-RSA Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
3/4 3:01pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
Lord_Vivec posted:
malkieD2 posted:
Darth Geist posted:
and your responses have ranged from vague to nonexistent. "Some other religion, somewhere, might or might not have done something like this, at some time" is not much of a point to make.
sorry but no, I've provided example, after example supported with evidence.
No you haven't.
"He's behind you!"
-----signature-----
HBOF There are only 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary jokes, and those who don't. If you don't already know, you'll never understand. If you already know, no explanation is needed - KW
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
3/4 3:30pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
- Date Edited:
3/4 3:56pm (7 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Geist
|
LostOnHoth posted:
I'm not really interested in these testimonies as they prove nothing. They are just sworn statements to be used as evidence in court. A deposition is simply a sworn testimony and nothing more. They can be completely fabricated. There is no cross examination and they may or may not be used. This deposition was taken presumably in the course of court proceedings ( the nature of the proceedings is not discussed) and was taken after the witness left the Church of Scientology.
This is not "hard evidence".
The tape itself is hard evidence, in that it documents the CoS' irrational hatred of (and paranoid fear of) psychologists. You heard the part where the tape screams about how psychologists run all public schools and universities. That's a consistent claim of theirs. Something bad happened in history? Psychologists did it! They even claim that the Anonymous protestors are on the "psychs'" payroll. (Why? Because Hubbard had a vendetta against psychology after they told him he was crazy.)
And the court cases, including the verdicts for many serious crimes, are extremely well-documented, as you can see.
LostOnHoth posted:
please clarify your position on whether the misdeeds of certain Scientologists can necessarily be attributed back to the Church of Scientology and if so on what basis having regard to the fact that I don;t believe you can do so for all of the wrongs committed by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
The difference is that, unlike Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the CoS has a very centralized, very strict, and very organized leadership, with the founder (and now the founder's successor) at the very top. The founder himself, in his own words, advocated the relentless pursuit of wealth and the utter destruction of the CoS' enemies. Then the founder's #3, and his own wife, as well as most likely the founder himself, plotted a huge, unprecedented covert op against the government; yes, that goes straight back to the CoS.
Please note the difference between Scientology, rank-and-file Scientologists, and the massively corrupt organization that rules it all with an iron fist. Your friend most likely genuinely benefitted from his time there -- because they put their most beneficial courses first, and cheapest, in order to hook new recruits (or, as the CoS calls them, "fresh meat") and get them to keep paying when they suddenly ratchet up the price by a factor of 20. Hey, small price to pay for such great treatment, right? You've benefitted so much so far -- now imagine 20 times that! Can't pay it? Get your parents involved; you can help them just like we helped you! Max out your credit card! We'll even show you how to apply for more credit cards! Hey, we're talking about saving the world, here! Small price to pay, right?
Here is an excellent, detailed story of a man's 16-year journey from curious drifter to happy Scientology initiate to devoted follower to corrupted, bankrupt jerk to the man he became after he left. Here's how it ends:
Alanzo posted:
I now know that Hubbard was a diabolical genius when it came to thought control. I am seeing more and more that this guy made conscious and intentional decisions to trap people - NOT free them.
Any flow he offered towards freedom came always along the lines of gaining you as a group member, away from your older life, or to get you to pay money for your next service. And then, as you progressed in the group, always misdirecting your attention, keeping your eyes on the prize of "total freedom", it became more about trapping you and keeping you trapped than it ever did about freeing you - ever again. Hubbard discovered that you would give up more and more of your freedom as you traveled on your route to total freedom.
If you did everything asked of you as a "responsible Scientologist" - bought all the courses, all the memberships, and the "special properties", and did everything asked of you as an increasingly responsible group member, you would end up bankrupt and a slave, with no possessions or time or anything of your own. I am afraid there is ample evidence as to the truth of this statement. Walk into any Sea Org berthing unit and just look around.
These are the most responsible, OT, "upstat" Scientologists there are, right? This is what, if you are "sane", you should become as you progress upward in the group. This is the ultimate creation of the Scientology self.
And these people own nothing, they have no time of their own, nothing any longer that is theirs. They live a miserable, unhealthy, poverty-stricken existence and they are powerless to change it. They don't even have any of their other "selves" any more, as long as they cling to their Scientology self.
I realized that my quest for knowledge and freedom that I began so long ago had led me into a trap.
It's okay, actually. The wider purpose was always to seek the truth. Scientology was just a set of tools along that much wider path. Well, I've found a lot of truth. I had to, in order to free myself from Scientology.
I don’t regret having been a Scientologist. I just regret having been one for so long!
Malkie posted:
sorry but no, I've provided example, after example supported with evidence.
Except for when you haven't. And most of your examples have been weak and tenuous. Need we bring up "Biggest government infiltration in history" vs. "Editing Wikipedia" again? Or "Child slavery" vs... you never did provide any details on that. Or demanding all your money and then some vs. asking for a 10% donation? Or the CoS's four lawsuits a month against one guy vs. some random Christian guy suing a guy once?
Just about any comparison you can make there is frail enough that it's effectively meaningless.
-----signature-----
Joe Biden posted:
What do you talk about when you have nothing to say?
What do you talk about when you cannot explain the last
eight years of failure? You talk about the other guy!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
3/4 4:10pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
Yeah I agree that the tape evidences opinions that are irrational. But that is just our opinion. Many people also consider the concepts of an after life and transubstantiation irrational ( I know I do) and they are central to Catholic doctrine. There's nothing wrong with holding certain beliefs about psychologists - I am personally extremely skeptical about psychology and psychiatry in relation to the treatment of children and disorders such as ADD, ADHD, ODD and Bipolar.
I am glad that you made the point about drawing a distinction between what you call the 'rank and file' and the organized leadership. Perhaps this really what I am getting at. In Australia it appears that we have the benefit of distance and so the Church of Scientology organisation appears to be composed of 'rank and file' as there are no major scandals or court cases.
I'm more interested in the teachings and doctrine of the Church of Scientology in terms of assessing whether those teachings are socially or emotionally deleterious rather than the activities of the leadership of the organisation who may or may not be acting in accordance with the dictates of their faith.
I can point to Bishops and Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church who have acted in an unconscionable manner in relation to claims and evidence of sexual abuse yet I do not hold the Roman Catholic Church as a whole or Catholics or other clergy responsible for those actions - this appears to me to be where you are going with your objection to Scientology.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
3/4 4:13pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
LostOnHoth posted:
I can point to Bishops and Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church who have acted in an unconscionable manner in relation to claims and evidence of sexual abuse yet I do not hold the Roman Catholic Church as a whole or Catholics or other clergy responsible for those actions - this appears to me to be where you are going with your objection to Scientology.
No one here holds anything against the people who believe in Scientology.
Example:
darth_nemisis posted:
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
This right here is why I have tried to be clear that I do not have a problem with Scientology's beliefs or doctrines. I believe that everyone is entitled to believe as they wish.
My problems with Scientology are entirely based on the illegal and unethical actions that have been committed by the Church.
Indeed, that is why I hold no grudges against a group like Free Zone.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
3/4 4:29pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
- Date Edited:
3/4 4:31pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
LostOnHoth
|
I understand that but when you use language like "illegal and unethical actions that have been committed by the Church" I have to wonder if that is actually the case. The "Church" is a pretty wide spectrum and it goes back to my intial question of whether it is fair to attribute the actions of a few to "the Church" as a whole.
It doesn't seem to be the case in Australia.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
3/4 4:50pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
- Date Edited:
3/4 4:54pm (3 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Geist
|
I understand what you're saying, but when the plot involves the Church's top brass and thousands of its followers, acting on the principles -- if not the direct order -- of the founder, I think it's fair to say the Church did it. 
This isn't some loose, amorphous entity where no one's accountable for the whole. The CoS is run like a military, where superior officers have absolute authority over their subordinates and where changing even one word of "source" -- Hubbard's text -- is the second-worst crime you can commit. (The worst of all, they say, is speaking out against the church; do that, and you're Fair Game. Granted, they don't call it Fair Game anymore, but their practices of harassment and intimidation haven't changed.)
And as for opinions about psychology: Saying, "I think psychologists are way too quick to diagnose kids with ADHD" is an opinion. Saying "German psychologists founded every public school in the world for the purposes of cramming pills down everyone's throat" is not an opinion; it's a factually incorrect statement. (You can find more Church views on psychology in the CoS' museum exhibit, "Psychology: Industry of Death.")
-----signature-----
Joe Biden posted:
What do you talk about when you have nothing to say?
What do you talk about when you cannot explain the last
eight years of failure? You talk about the other guy!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
3/4 5:48pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
LostOnHoth posted:
I understand that but when you use language like "illegal and unethical actions that have been committed by the Church" I have to wonder if that is actually the case. The "Church" is a pretty wide spectrum and it goes back to my intial question of whether it is fair to attribute the actions of a few to "the Church" as a whole.
It doesn't seem to be the case in Australia.
I know what you're saying, and I agree. But this is just like when someone says: "Iraq invaded Kuwait." Obviously not every single person participated in the invasion; just the government and the military. I think that the same thing can be applied to using the word "Church" in this context. It only means the higher echelons.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
3/4 6:16pm
Subject:
RE: ~The Internet-vs-Scientology~ The War on Scientology
|
LostOnHoth posted:
I understand that but when you use language like "illegal and unethical actions that have been committed by the Church" I have to wonder if that is actually the case. The "Church" is a pretty wide spectrum and it goes back to my intial question of whether it is fair to attribute the actions of a few to "the Church" as a whole.
Considering that you are quoting me there, I should probably jump in to explain where I draw the line.
I consider an action performed by an organization when it is made by an official representative of the organization in accordance with the policy and recognized actions of that organization.
For example, I don't consider a priest who molests a child to be an action performed by the Church unless the Church itself has a policy of molesting children. The priest may be an official representative, but that doesn't mean that his actions are sanctioned by the Church.
At the same time, if something is done by a member of the Church who is not an official representative, then there is no official connection to the Church itself, regardless of whether it is in accordance with the Church's official policy.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
