Topic: Human Rights
Scientology Kills Siberia USA 52 years ago, a coalition of citizen advocacy groups and members of the Church of Scientology, together with L. Ron Hubbard, brought the clear and present dangers of Bill to public attention that would have ended at piece of freedom in the US.by Louanne Lee
(centrist libertarian)
Monday, October 13, 2008
The untold story about the roots of the "Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act".
As early as 1949, two U.S. government psychiatrists, Winfred Overholser and Robert Felix, were involved in legislating new commitment procedures at state and federal levels.
This was pursuant to the plan for psychiatry that had been outlined as early as 1940. In his "Strategic Planning for Mental Health" address to the United Kingdom's National Council for Mental Hygiene, Dr. John Rees, a leading spokesman for psychiatry, laid out the following agenda:
"We must aim to make (psychiatry) permeate every educational activity in our national life. . . . Public life, politics and industry should all of them be within our sphere of influence . . .(W)e have done much to infiltrate the various social organizations throughout the country.
"Similarly we have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine." ("Mental Health", Vol. I, No. 4, October 1940, article: "Strategic Planning for Mental Health" by Colonel J. R. Rees)
Following Rees' lead, psychiatrists during the 1940s used the impetus of World War II to entrench themselves into government through the armed forces. Rees trained US officers of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in psychological warfare practices. (US Labor Party Publication, "The Tavistock Mother")
US psychiatrists followed suit, using the National Research Council's Committee on Neuropsychiatry to place psychiatrists in the armed forces.(National Research Council, Oct 9, 1944)
This committee was chaired by Dr. Winfred Overholser, director of St. Elizabeth's, a federal psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C.
They drafted state mental health laws that included the eradication of jury trials and defenses and would allow any peace officer, friend or medical doctor to institute commitment proceedings. Within the ensuing few years, several states began adopting these "model" commitment procedures.
Overholser proposed the Alaska Mental Health Act, supported by the APA and NAMH. It was introduced in the U.S. Congress in 1954. This act would have instituted the Overholser/Felix commitment procedures at federal level, allowing anyone in the US to be picked up and shipped to a mental hospital in Alaska. "Siberia USA." (H.R. 8009, 1954)
This Bill received scant public attention, and passed unanimously in the House of Representatives in January 1956. (The Daily Alaska Empire, Feb 20, 1956)
It now called for psychiatric facilities to be built in what was then the relatively unpopulated territory of Alaska. The measure included provisions for a national commitment procedure which would have empowered any peace officer to involuntarily commit any individual to psychiatric care - without recourse. The person would then be shipped off to Alaska for confinement and "treatment." (H.R. 6376, 1956)
A coalition of citizen advocacy groups and members of the Church of Scientology, lead by L. Ron Hubbard, brought the clear and present dangers of the Bill to public attention. ("On Psychiatric Subversion", article by L. Ron Hubbard)
In late 1956, the bill was defeated. ("Bats in the Belfry", Chapter 10 "Alaska Forever", p. 159, by Ellen McClay, 1964).
The views expressed in this
article are those of Louanne Lee only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Louanne Lee is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Everyone should watch the Nightline interview. It gives a good picture of the substance and value of Scientology. It is no wonder he hasn't given another televised interview since then.
"Jentzsch: Psychiatry is Russian and Nazi. Remember, it's an import. It's like bringing the bonic, the bubonic plague into America, as far as I'm concerned. They are not American, and we are. And they can go back to where they came from"
Not above playing on xenophobia, Mr Jentsch?. As if America is not a land of immigrants.
Oh, I nearly forgot. Here's more coverage from Nightline about Hubbard's crusade against psychiatry.
Sawyer: Hubbard also announced he had gone beyond psychiatry, by literally traveling in space to Venus and Mars, and to a distant radiation belt.
Hubbard: I was up in the Van Allen Belt. This is factual. And I don't know why they're scared of the Van Allen Belt, because it's simply hot. You'd be surprised how warm space is.
Sawyer: Hubbard said he had discovered secrets of the universe so powerful they could only be heard by Scientologists who had spent hundreds of hours studying his programs. Anyone else would be struck dead by the knowledge. He told stories of how, 75 million years ago, an evil tyrant collected beings on other planets to be stored in volcanoes on earth.
Hubbard: Boxed them up in boxes, threw them into space planes. DC-8 airplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day. No difference, except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it, and the space plane didn't.
Sawyer: As this film depicts, the spirits' bodies were destroyed by hydrogen bombs, and today their troubled spirits are attached to human bodies by the thousands. Called "body thetans," they cause endless problems. Only Scientology knows how to shake them loose.
Posted By: David Mudkips
Date: 2008-10-13 18:39:04
Another scientologist pissing into an ocean of piss. You got the first part of the headline right though: Scientology Kills - period.
Hey tell us what scientology did for Uwe Stuckenbrock. He had MS and died last week in your RPF gulag in Los Angeles. His brother Markus in Germany (who is not in the cult) is seeking information but can't seem to get anywhere - even from his own dad who is in the cult in Germany. Uwe's ex-wife (who was forced to divorce Uwe because his illness made him what they call a "downstat") is the "upstat" personal assistant to the cult's criminal boss David Miscavige. They are probably plotting their story and deciding which documents to burn. Afterall, Uwe's former position before he was sent to the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) was head of international security for the cult of scientology. That's why you kept him in the RPF feeding him with the lies that your faux self-help rituals would help his MS disease because you feared what he might tell.
Your science fiction batshit crazy mafia cult has no right to interfere with science.
You can't even provide any credible links to scientifically support your position. It's all blah blah blah.
LOL... unsubstanciated, irrelevant, non-sequitor "comments". You guys programmed a machine for this? Doesn't require thinking so a computer should be able to do it.
Posted By: Lt.Tharg of the Marcabian Empire
Date: 2008-10-13 19:20:58
Before you try and lie to us about how you think scientology is doing wonderful things for America and the world, how about you look at how you treat your own members.
Just uploaded on YouTube today, Gerry Armstrong (ex-scientologist who worked closely with L.Ron Hubbard) tells us about scientology's cruel treatment of the mentally ill.... [link edited for length]
See, Scientology, that's how to go about it. You've managed to succesfully infiltrate some of the most powerful institutions on the Earth, including the CIA. How about sharing some of your findings instead of squirelling it away in some org? Anonymous has been at cause via exposure. The question is, is Scn still capable of being at cause by exposing the corruption it has found in government, corporate, and so-called religious institutions? Does Scn have what it takes to puublish its findings on corruption beyond the Alaska Bill? Do you know where all the FEMA camps are located? Do you know the money trails of politicians? Do share.
Oh, and before any other anons jump on me for this, the article is factually accurate. Tinfoil hat? Well, I suggest you wear one the next time you attempt to expose the insane accusations you're hurling at Scientology. Get the it? You're all part of a conspiracy against Scientology, which in its own right is a conspiracy attacking various other conspiracies. Get the picture?
You're not part of some goddamned fuzzy-wuzzy "cause" against an "evil" cult. Scientology is not really a cult, nor is it a religion, or rather, it's a religion in the truest sense: a load of BS used to manipulate those who don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what they're doing. WE ARE NOT JUST FREE-HUGS PROTESTS. The hippies are often just an outter shell, the same as most Scis are just their outter shell, and they don't usually have the clue what the higher-ups are doing. Project Chanology was most likely concoted by a sociopath. LRH was certainly a sociopath, the same as DM. They are all engaged in using sheeple to fight other sociopathic power schemes, such as the CIA, Banksters, Bush Administration, Islamic theocracies, Russian invasions, etc. it's all the same shit.
You removed all mention of your leader's name from your "References". What's his name again?
Can you put those references back so people don't need to drag them out of a cache?
His eloquent discussion of the Siberia Bill on Nightline is much better than your own. That's all people need to watch. He did all his public defending of scientology in 1992, and hasn't needed to do anything more, since. You are really just detracting from his message.
In accordance with AS 38.05.801 and the implementing regulations governing Alaska Mental Health Trust land management (11 AAC 99), Trust land shall be managed consistently with the responsibilities accepted by the state under the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act (P.L. 84-830, 70 Stat. 709 [1956]). This means that management shall be conducted solely in the best interest of the Alaska Mental Health Trust and its beneficiaries.
The Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act apparently passed, and is alive and well in the Alaska Mental Health Trust organization.
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-13 21:43:33
As a Psychiatrist I am deeply offended at the bigotry displayed here by these Scientology people. There were some bad things done in the industry in the past but those have been rectified through research and patient protection laws. These Scientologists need to get up to speed on their information as they are using incorrect data. Modern 21st century Psychiatry is nothing like the Psychiatry of the 19th or early 20th century. These Scientologists just like to dredge up the past because they need to have someone to blame for their problems.
I do have some sympathy for psychiatry?? They have been working for 100yrs plus now setting up their scam and along comes L. Ron Hubbard and throws a spanner in the works. That will teach them for picking on us.
Although the forty-year assault against Scientology® assumed large proportions, the source must be remembered-that small but influential circle of psychiatrists and their government stooges. Nor did the means change over the years: false allegations selectively planted in the media, then seeded into even more federal files as background “fact.”
About 1965 (thereabouts), laws were in effect where a young relative could get their wealthy elder commited to a psychiatric institution, gaining access to their wealth. Because you can not be legally responsible when you are instutituionalized, drugged, and denied communication. Some states (Florida was one, I think) only required the signatures of a law enforcement officer, a psychiatrist and a clergyman to have someone commited against their will. When committed, they could be drugged and therefore, not be able to handle their own affairs. Once in a while the elder was able to legally challenge, but that only happened when a concerned friend, interceeded. Good riddence to bad rubbish, that we don't allow psychiatry's influcance. Who have they cured, anyway?
"These Scientologists need to get up to speed"... we actually are. We know that you started to invent a label for every human condition and to invent psychiatric drugs to "cure" them.
For example when a student is not understanding something he should find the words he does not understand, this would be the scientological answer. The psychiatric answer is to label him with ADD telling the parents that he has a "chemical imbalance" or something else and put him on a "miracle drug". Of course the kid will still not understand the subject but will become a source of income for the psychs.
The aims of psychiatry are basically good. They are towards a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights.
Scientology turns away people who are mentally ill. COS actively seeks the annihilation of the field of study that aims to help those Scientology cannot help. Didn't Juliette Lewis recently suggest schizophrenics could be cured if they could only get themselves to a petting zoo?
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-14 05:39:35
Terry I see you complaining when people dredge up dreadful things done in the past by Scientology. Yet you go all the way back to 1965 to find something bad?
Unlike Scientology, which despite being described as "tech" does not evolve, real medicine does evolve. I will not deny that some bad things have been done in the name of medicine and science in the past. I won't try to pretend it doesn't matter because it did to those it happened to. But that is why society has government, to reign in anyone who steps over bounds. Psychiatry has had a long road. Understanding the mind is not an easy thing and it takes years of real research. You do not have just one person who does the research and everyone else follows it like you do in Scientology. In real science you have someone who does research and others who build upon that research to come up with new ways. If Hubbard ran the world from 1950 onward we would still be using vaccuum tubes because anything else would be outside of his view and no one would be building upon research done by others. Only memorizing and regurgitating what Hubbard wrote. Medicine, including psychiatry is evolving and learning from new advances in medical imaging, neuroscience and the discovery of new ways to treat mental illness. Better tecniques and medications and treatments replace older ways of doing things, if necessary. Scientology is stuck on one idea and one set of rules that can not be changed. This is why Scientology will never be regarded as a replacement for real medical practice in society.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-14 05:46:25
Another psychiatrist here. The amount of bigotry present in this article is ludicrous. The Bill was passed, and there is no "Siberia USA", there are no more pre-frontal lobotomy, and ECT (Electrocutive Therapy) is a shadow of what elcectro-shock therapy.
As for whom psychiatry has cured; well a name everyone here will recognize: Brooke Shields. She made it through post-partum depression.
For the person who assumes that "reading a word and looking at it's defintion" is helping a child to learn, well yes it does. But if that were used to exclusion of other methods, you would skip the parts were children should also lean contexual reasoning, and other things as well.
ADD? Well, it's been rather well proven to be a genuine disorder, maybe a bit too over-diagnosed. Good test for ADD: Give the child coffee. If the child's behavior relaxes, then more than likely does suffer from it. No other child will relax when given caffeine.
To say there is no science in psychiatry is missing the point. Science never "proves" anything. Science hypthothesizes, examines data, and comes to a conlcusion. What the best course of treatment, diagnosis, etc changes over time to best match what scientific data there is.
Scientology, with it's bigoted attacks on scientist likening them to "Commies" and "Nazis" is the most bigoted, hate-filled rant; that attempts to degenerate America back to where we had segregation is "They can go back to where they came from".
Maybe, if Scientology has "the cure" for all of this, subject it to scientific scrutiny. OH WAIT! They did, and it was found to be patent non-sense by a scientist who worked with Lafayette Ronald Hubbard.
The generalization of psychiatrists being "evil" or "Nazi's" is no different than the bigotry that deems black people criminals. Please continue your attacks, it paints the easirest picture of what Scientology is.
Louanne writes about Scientology, just as others write about Democrats, Republicans, Constitutional Issue and what Ron Paul is up too. Louanne takes press releases and information from Scientology sources to paint Scientology in a good light, as any pundit or columnist would do for something they support.
She should be commended for allowing her thoughts and beliefs on certain issues involving Scientology. Due to the nature of this particular blog, readers such as myself are allowed to comment on it, either to complement the author or bring different ideas and different evidence to condem or condone the opinions in the above column.
I support Louanne for doing these columns, it allows critical thinking and open discussion on the media and public relations of the Church of Scientology.
Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about? The freedom to say what you want and for others to openly disagree without fear or reprisal?
Second, Scientology did not "lead the effort". In truth, opposition was led by the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, and Dan Smoot's newsletter. Hubbard actually arrived rather late to that party.
Third, despite the bill's passage, the dire predictions of the bill's opponents actually did not occur.
So, Scientology actually didn't lead the opposition, Scientology actually failed to defeat the bill, and the "facts" that Scientology presented about the results of the bill's passage were false -- other than all that, gee, what did Scientology actually do here?
Once again, Scientology's public utterances are filled with lies, half-truths and pure fiction. Does anyone actually believe anything these folks say anymore?
This is the "crazy Scientology side of events" If the only information you got was from Scientology's "Psyhciatry Industry of Death" exibit from their front group CCHR you would believe that they wanted to turn Alaska into a dungon for mental patients.
The truth is that Alaska didn't have a state run mental health service and they needed to send people to (if I remember right Wyoming) states in the central United States. L.Roh Hubbard was apposed to psychaitry in all forms after being refused help as a verteran in 1947. So he who felt he was going insane in 1947 created his own mental health system he called Dianetics in 1950. (see his book "Dianetics - the mondern science of Mental health")
Long story short L. Ron Hubbard created a mind control cult using techneques of stage hypnosis he previously used to entertain at parties.
With a few well placed reports Hubbard was able to "SPIN" the Alaskan mental health act in a few newspapers. and scare the Baaw-jesus out of half the country. The bill later passed with support from both sides of the political spectrm.
"As a Psychiatrist I am deeply offended at the bigotry displayed here by these Scientology people. There were some bad things done in the industry in the past but those have been rectified through research and patient protection laws."
One's wellbeing shouldn't be left to an "industry", as this "industry" doesn't purport to cure anything, only offer so-called treatments for a profit. Your industry sees a child with the terrible twos, slaps a label on him, and then gives him methamphetamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn
Also, to call it "bigotry" comparable to persecution of African-Americans is inapt, because you're born to a race/ethnicity but you CHOOSE a PROFESSION.
Lastly, lobotomies and various "mental health treatments" were used throughought the Col War as a smokescreen for eliminating polical adversaries and subserversives.
Bigotry (n) : Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. (adj Bigoted)
so Full Metal is correct in calling Scientologists bigoted against Psychiatrists. You can be bigoted against hunters, oil tycoons, walmart shoppers, gay people, religious people, french people or medical professionals.
Not that I am calling Scientologists bigoted, I'm just defending the english language from abuse.
Has anyone noticed how Scientology has taken control of Google News? Do a search right now on Google News for scientology and discover how much propaganda they have listed. Also take some time to read what Scientology has done to Google owned companies like; YouTube - by faking DCMA reports, like eBay - in the deletion of negative Scientology book reviews and Paypal accounts listing your personal information for Scientology to gather. We look for the pro's & con's of anything before we buy it - Why not discover the cons of Scientology (?) Especially when Scientologists promote like an info-mercial and attack any criticism ?
Scientologists make generalizations about Psychiatrist . This is to include all of them into one group that Scientology often refers to as "Nazis".
It's an idea equal to the racist opinion that all black people are criminals. To generalize in this way is bigotry. I don't know why that isn't clear to anyone ?
anonymous - "There were some bad things done in the industry in the past but those have been rectified through research and patient protection laws."
How do you "rectify" a frontal lobotomy?
Governments have begin to intervene because Psychiatry is unable to mind its own ethics. We have some "patient protection," laws to prevent Psychiatry's abuse. For example, it is now illegal to electroshock the elderly, the very young, or pregnant woman in some states But that comes about as a result of Psychiatry's refusal to correct its own treatments. Therefore the Public has forced Psychiatry not to harm these high-risk patients.
The author of this piece has on their profile that they do not tolerate bigotry.
To accuse the author, a Scientologist, of being a bigot, when they are clearly outspoken against bigorty would be calling them a hypocrite and would be a personal attack.
I would never condone such a violation of the terms of service nor commit one myself, and I emplore all those here to be careful about calling someone bigoted.
PS : Cheek, you can hold my tounge until friday, but I'll need it back for the weekend.
And now... a healthy dose of truth from yours truly.
First, yes... The Alaska Mental Health Act was brought before the US Congress.
Yes, Alaska did write and pass a bill that had provisions for court ordered psychiatric evaluations and involentary commisions of patients to psychiatric hospitals and aslyums.
So why did the State of Alaska pass a bill in 1956 to get Federal money to open a government hospital of US Government owned land?
BECAUSE ALASKA WASN'T A STATE IN 1956, IT WAS NOT A STATE UNTIL 1959.
Alaska needed to pass laws, set provisions and other such things to become a state, to guarantee the health and safety of the citizens and to get adequate medical and psychiatric care to those who needed it.
Contrary to the article, H.R 6376, was passed by the US House or Representatives on January 18, 1956. This was to use 250 million in federal money to build a mental hospital of federally owned land.
However yes, Psychiatric care in 1959 was not the same since 2008. There was a lot of things that were done then that are not done now.
But never was their any kind of "mental gulag" in the State of Alaska, just a US government run hospital that was turned into a state hospital after Alaska became a state.
Tom, Rex and Red Devo Hat I've got to say, you have done this so many, many times. I've began to expect it.
Alaska became a state in 1959 by the then-president's action of signing a law. Indeed.
The article doesn't speak of Alaska being a state. The references in the article don't speak of Alaska being a state. The references imply Alaska is not a state but is an undeveloped "wasteland" at the time of the psychiatric bill. Which was precisely 1/2 of the point, that access to a psychiatric institution in the Alaskan territory would not fall under state law. The other 1/2 of the point was the wonderful ease; to commit anyone into the Alaskan terrority's "hospital" would be wonderfully easy. And very difficult to get out of because it was remote, it didn't fall under State laws, or even the Federal laws that apply to states. Precisely the point! And well done on realizing a facet of this distateful situation!
I thought open debate and arguing were a sign of critical thinking and showing not only a exercise of the first amendment, but a lack of ignorance.
But I see your point Terryeo. You're trying to prove a conspiracy theroy. Much like someone trying to prove that 9/11 as an inside job.
Find me ONE doctor, nurse, or anyone really who was involved in trasporting patients from the lower 48 to Alaska for comitment to this "hospital."
Also could someone find me an actual copy of HR 8009? The one Louanne scanned for us is both sideways and completly illegible. I can't read it, plain and simple.
That and the only reference I found on all of Google for Overholser, Felix and HR 8009 in the same sentence, is this article.
That and all the other information on his topic are from commentary made in the 1940s
In short, there's not enough evidence to prove to me that this "Hospital" existed, was planned for, or even talked about on the floor of the House of Representatives. I regard the whole thing as a conspiracy theroy to demonize the good people in the field of psychaitry.
The bill was passed because Alaskans were travelling 2000 miles to Portland, Oregon for mental health treatment. As a territory, they needed funds to have their own. Some kooks (white supremecists, mcarthyites, etc.) implied that it was funded so that people in the lower 48 would go to Alaska. Not true, of course, but Co$ believes this sort of wild accusations.
Who psychiatry helped: Read "Many Masters, Many Lives" for a remarkable account of how hypnosis cured a woman's severe panic attacks--without drugs! Did Co$ help Lisa McPherson?
BTW, why does Co$ have no qualms with the 2 drugs that kill 500,000 Americans a year (alcohol and tobacco)?
It is an unfortunate fact that many people understand the value of documentation in the abstract, but when faced with the concrete challenge of providing solid documentation, they have no idea what it means. The anti-semites, for example, think that if they cite or reprint that hoary old forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it "documents" the threat of the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy. Do they care that this document has long ago been publicly exposed as a fraud and forgery? No! It says what they want to believe in, and it's in print, and a certain kind of naive or deluded mind believes that's the same thing as documentation.
Now, not all those who are opposed to psychiatry display this cargo-cult approach to documentation, where the outward form is all-important and functional aspects such as authenticity, credibility, etc. never appear on the radar. However, it's a hallmark of the Church of Scientology's crusade against the "psychs". With a straight face, they "document" their claims about the anti-social goals of psychiatry by citing Brain-Washing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics (a clumsy fraudulent document which is to psychiatry what The Protocols are to the Jewish people.) They cite L. Ron Hubbard, and Lyndon LaRouche, and other figures who are prone to make very exciting allegations about psychiatry but who unfortunately developed amazing shyness whenever the subject of providing proof for their allegations came up (the whole outward-form-vs.-core-function thing again.) It seems there is no source too dubious for a Scientologist to give it their full credulity, if it says what they want to hear! The supposed "summary of an address by J. R. Rees" provided by Louanne is more subtle than Brain-Washing (which also purports to be a "summary of an address") but still, anyone with common sense reading a document in which a purported member of group X exhorts purported fellow members of group X "let us members of group X continue to infiltrate social organizations, as we have already begun! Let us attack 'the teaching profession' and 'the Church'! Let us 'imitate the Totalitarians' and 'organize fifth column activity' and 'very secretly be fifth columnists'! Let us discuss the best way to put forth our 'propaganda'!" -- anyone with a lick of common sense, reading such a document, would cast a skeptical eye upon it and question whether it had even ever been seen by a member of group X, let alone originating with a member of group X. And it goes without saying that no one with a lick of common sense would use a document of this description as "documentation" for an attack on group X, unless the provenance of the document was impeccable.
What is the provenance of this supposed "summary of an address" that Louanne presents? We don't know. Louanne says not a word about the matter.
It would be tedious and pointless to go through all the flaws in Louanne's attempts at "documentation", just as it would be tedious and pointless to enumerate all the different reasons a tortoise cannot enter the dog show. I will simply point out two points that are especially interesting: firstly, Louanne cites Ellen McClay for her claim that the bill was defeated in late 1956. Reading the description of McClay's self-published second book, reading how McClay equates "progressive education" with "the painting of the United States as 'the Great Satan'", reading how the weightiest author blurbs she could obtain were from a retired LAPD Sergeant and an "American Missionary" and reading how her professional experience is primarily in the field of health food management -- I find myself unconvinced of McClay's credentials as a political analyst. And yet even if McClay's credentials were utterly impeccable, it would not matter, because in point of fact even McClay acknowledges that the bill was not defeated in late 1956, but passed. Louanne might offer credulity, or misplaced faith, as a justification for echoing the false claims David Miscavige made on Nightline that the bill had been defeated. What possible excuse could she offer for echoing the false claims made by David Miscavige and falsely attributing them to McClay?
The other interesting point is that Louanne absolutely fails to mention the matter of "the million acres" -- even though her sources discuss it. The fact is that many of the parties who opposed H.R. 6376 erroneously believed that the million acres which were to be transferred to the Alaska Mental Health Trust in support of the program must be the site of whatever new facilities were called for by the Bill. Many of the Bill's opponents thus showed that they had opposed the Bill without even having examined it very carefully, because the text of the Bill makes very clear that the million acres were to be a land grant -- a very common way for the Federal government to fund projects in the then-Territory of Alaska. Interesting, then, that Louanne makes no mention of this widespread error, and how it identified those activists whose furor exceeded their understanding. I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that David Miscavige was one of those who displayed their carelessness in this fashion?
Scientologists are welcome to the view that all knowledge of the mind that has not been approved by, or emanated from the maw of, L Ron Hubbard is pseudoscience.
Perhaps all those intelligent people who get top marks at school, go to university to perform scientific research, and study long, and hard, and freely from the well of human knowledge are just fools for not basing their opinions exclusively, certainly and inalterably on the fancies of this particular man. It is as if they don't realise that everything important about the mind has already been discovered by a man who didn't need no fancy scientific research in order to travel to other planets.
But, surely, surely, the irony of a Scientologist projecting the slur of 'pseudoscience' on anything can not escape anyone, can it?
I love your use of words. By the way, did you invent or adapt this particularly pleasing expression - "it would be tedious and pointless to enumerate all the different reasons a tortoise cannot enter the dog show."?
Scientology is leading a tortoise around, but I don't think they are going to get a ribbon.
"Interesting, then, that Louanne makes no mention of this widespread error, and how it identified those activists whose furor exceeded their understanding. I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that David Miscavige was one of those who displayed their carelessness in this fashion? " - AF
Perhaps Scientologists only accidentally brought him into this story, inviting scutiny of his seeming confusion. His name has been removed from the citation of references.
Scientologists, you can't tell us if Mr Miscavige was confused, can you? Have you ever known him to be wrong?
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-15 05:44:32
I think the response of the Scientologists proves my point here. They have no understanding of real science or progress. They can only dwell in Hubbard's world of the 50's and 60's. Visit any modern clinic and you will see that there are no lobotomies as they have been replaced with therapy and in severe cases even neurosurgery can be done. Hospitals today are not like they are shown in Hollywood where you have people climbing bars of cages and howling in the hallways. They haven't been that way in decades. The ham fisted ways of the past have been replaced by modern medicine. There are alternative treatments available for most problems if people would simply talk to their doctor about it. If they are uncomfortable being prescribed a drug or a certain treatment, they should discuss alternatives. If Scientology wants to be an alternative, that is fine, but they need to recognize that Scientolgy does not work for everyone and never will. They need to submit their methods for scientific scruitiny. They need to be properly licensed and trained to work with the mentally or physically ill. Right now they are not and thus they work outside of the very rules they say need to be placed on the medical community. There have been no peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. They will not let investigators in to make sure they are following proper procedures. They will not admit to mistakes of the past. We have. Now Scientology it is up to you to own up to your troubles like adults.
L Ron Hubbard was very clear when he said criminals always accuse others of the crimes they commit; they always start with the accusations. By LRH's own logic, the logic of the church of Scientology, those accusing the Psychaitrists and Anonymous of crimes must themselves be guilty. LRH also said the more voracious the attacks the guiltier the person doing the attacks. The article is full of accusations as are the follow up posts in support of it. Sad really.
RE : "Red Devo Hat, psychiatry is a pseudoscience that tries to pass of as a science. Just like Anonymous are troll's who pretend to support human rights."
--SUDBURY - A group of demonstrators yesterday angered passersby, prompting them to shout out car windows and make obscene gestures at the sign holders, who demanded a list of medications taken by young murder suspect John Odgren.
The group said its goal was to educate the community about the dangers of psychiatric drugs, but most said the demonstration five days after the death of Lincoln-Sudbury freshman James Alenson was ill-timed and inappropriate.--
Who protests the grieving? Placing the fault on the society as a whole for a murder, rather than the murderer?
I mean other than self-righteous religious zealots who see only one way of looking at the world and anyone else who questions them or disagrees with them or practices something counter to their religion is evil and criminal and inhuman and therefore must be accosted and challenged publicly while a community mourns the loss of a young man taken before his time?
And by that I mean... Fred Phelps and the WBC protesting the funeral of dead American Soldiers... but that's a whole other kettle of fish. It has nothing to do with Scientology or CCHR protesting a murdered highschool student.
terryeo: You qouted me as saying something I did not. You're a troll and a nitwit.
Red Devo Hat: Actually it's spelled inApt, as in inappropriate usage of the term. However, you are inEpt in your command of the English language.
Others: I'm not a Scientologist. I've been involved in Chanology since shortly after it began. I was a frequent poster back when we had /xenu/, and was involved in February 10th, both recruiting online and protesting on the ground. Psychiatry is a pseudo-science and Scientology is a sham. Being anti-scn=!pro-psych, and I'm sure many anons feel the same. So-called mental health "sciences" have always been the dominion of a power structure. In earlier times the dominant paradigm was religion, so priests ruled over it with witchcraft and demonic possession accusations. Then it became the horrors of lobotomies and confinement under government, and today it is under the domain of corporations. This one school district sent a little boy's parents to court for taking their 7 year old child off methylphenidate, aka Ritalin: http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/09/25/medicate/
Look, I'm against Co$ but if you people try to bring the anti-psych thing in as a central issue I'd rather side with the vicious cult. Mental health has been used as a front for government control and corporate profits for far longer than Hubbard's scheme existed, and in terms of the psychopathic control, death toll, and horrors of the two combined Scn is the lesser of two evils. If Scn took control of the planet then Scn would be the greater of two evils. Like fish in water, none of you seem to comprehend the way psychobabble has shaped our culture. Just look at the "tinfoil hat" accusations being hurled around here. Psychiatry is a pseudo-science that wants to replace religion, whereas Scientology is a scam that wants to be religion.
To Scientologists: If you want to be legit in the eyes of Anonymous and the world, prove it. You've got an SP at the top of your command structure who's making all of you out-ethics and downstat. What have you uncovered other than the Alaska Bill? That was a LOT longer ago than Snow White. Look, I personally don't find it to be a bad thing that gov't offices were infiltrated because, lets face it, they were a bunch of criminals testing LSD on civilians during the days of MKULTRA. I know that Scn was heavily involved in the CIA's Project Stargate, the training of "psychic" spies via CRV and techniques. Show us what you've uncovered through your covert activities. What have you uncovered as Scientologists?
Lou, terryeo, others in-Scn: One last thing. If your doctrines are correct, have you ever considered that maybe after LRH kicked his MEST body he came back in a fresh GE back in '86? That maybe he was testing how you'd apply KSW while he was supposedly "gone" and how Scn could work without his further guidance? Ever consider that perhaps one of these pimply faced cyberterrorists would want you to tell DM that the Commodore wants his chair back?
Again, Scn belongs to mankind. Release the data on the SP/PTS activities you've uncovered in government, "religion", the private sector, etc.
Lou, terryeo, others in-Scn: One last thing. If your doctrines are correct, have you ever considered that maybe after LRH kicked his MEST body he came back in a fresh GE back in '86? That maybe he was testing how you'd apply KSW while he was supposedly "gone" and how Scn could work without his further guidance? Ever consider that perhaps one of these pimply faced cyberterrorists would want you to tell DM that the Commodore wants his chair back?
Again, Scn belongs to mankind. Release the data on the SP/PTS activities you've uncovered in government, "religion", the private sector, etc.
I'm sorry, I'll say I believe you in a few doctors trying to influence politics. Done. But the arguements against the treatment of the mentally ill is rediculous, and as some stated bigotted. Before these REAL Sciences of the mind, a person with true mental disorders was subject to religious scrutiny and to quote from wikipedia, "Religious leaders and others returned to using early versions of exorcisms to treat mental disorders which often utilized cruel, harsh, and other barbarous methods". Then in the middle ages places were built to basically house the victims with no cure at all. It wasn't until 1656 that the actually application of the scientific menthod has been used to study and treat mental disorders. As with all medicine, it started off rough. Nothing was understood. To draw a parrallel to other medicine examine the use of leaches to bleed. Or that doctors didn't even use anesthic until the 1900's. Or that penicillin has only been around about 80 years. However, I think we can all agree here that medicine (other than mental) is much better today than it was 10 years ago, which was better than 10 years before that, etc. Science and medicine are always evolving and getting better. Pysciatry, is part of this. The same methods are used to study and adapt practice as any other medicine. Unfortunately, Scientology claims to be the ONLY science of the mind, so all others, must be wrong. To be a true believer in Scientology, you have to believe this (without going into the whole CCHR Museum lie parade even.)
By the way, if it weren't for psychiatry we wouldn't have the knowledge we have now about brain waves, stimulus reactions, hormone control (like from the pituitary gland), stress, etc. Its funny that Scientology has "Free Stress Tests." But knowledge about stress can find its roots in psyciatry and psychology.
Sorry, rambling, my point is, all Medicine has crude, and yes cruel beginnings. The point is they move on and better themselves. Scientology is not doing this as is evidence by their 60 year old hate for mental health treatment, or things like the continued use of fair game.
I forget to mention--aspirin is banned by Co$. One of the safest, most effective analgesics ever discovered, a lot safer and healthy than nicotine. Why Does Co$ do this? They want you to pay $$ in auditing when you have a headache instead of taking a simple aspirin.
Good point on the history of religious treatment of mental illness, TG.
Scientology faithfully continues the religious tradition of casting out demons but, in a nod to 'science', uses new terms for it.
In the scientology theology, the renegade souls possessing a person's body are called "body thetans". Scientology helps people to cast these demons out. Still got problems? Must be more body thetans stuck to you. It's a lifelong project. You've got to pay for it with your life and/or money.
PS You are not supposed to find this out until you've travelled the proper gradient of scientology indoctrination to 'OT' , or you might not believe it. Oh, and you'll need to keep coming back to get rid of the as-yet-undiscovered body thetans. If only this were a joke. Practising scientologists are commanded not to acknowledge that this is the truth of scientology, never mind that all this crap is recorded in Mr Hubbard's own words. Ask a scientologist who has escaped, like Jason Beghe.
Good luck to anyone caught up in this insanity. No wonder Lisa McPherson was in such a desperate state, after these charlatans had got to her. No wonder Tom Cruise is off his nut.
PPS Dear Scientologists, once you realise that your body thetans were invented by L Ron Hubbard, you will realise that the only place they exist is in your imagination. They are "mocked up". Just like demons. There are no demons under your bed and no "body thetans" in your body. Deep down, you know this already, don't you? What do you think?
Lex - in response to your question: What do you think?
I think the situation can be understood. I think if you study the information through, and understand its parts, bit by bit, I think it can be understood.
A parallel situation that comes to mind -- is a legal document. An average person can work their way through a legal document and understand the thing, but (at least for me) it might require a dictionary, lots of dictionary.
Unwanted emotion, persistent but unwanted thought, a song repeating itself within the mind, all of these can be understood and handled. And this includes "demons" too, these things can be understood. An individual, be it you or me or anyone, through persistent effort and a little guidence, can overcome these things. That's what I think.
I make no reference to Scientlogy here, when I say that I think you are right that we can make worthwhile efforts to understand and 'handle' our thoughts.
A legal document is a fitting analogy to Scientology, I think. Legal documents are sometimes written in an obscure manner by incompetent and deluded people. They might look impressive, but they end up being worse than useless.
Confusing scientology with enlightenment is like confusing the Constitution with the nasty fine print on a cell phone contract, in my view.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-16 11:00:32
Wow, to hear a scientologist call Psyhiatry a "pseudo-science" is laughable indeed when you take into account scientologist calling Dianetics a "science". Very laughable.
And to the poster that asks,"How can one rectify a pre-frontal lobotomy?" The answer is easy:Science has found better methods to deal with behavioral issues. Our knowledge of medicine imrpoved. And the number has been grossly exagerated by the Church of Scientology. In close to a century (90 years plus/minus 5 years), in the US 40,000 were performed. Works out to 445 per year. And only done when all other treament courses failed.
If we expand globally, in it's 90 year life as a procedure, we are up to 786 per year(average).
Now let's compare this to Scientology. 20 deaths directed related to participation in Scientology. Most during the "ntrospection Rundown, which releases drugs and chemicals from "fat cells", now that's great science, huh? And it"runs" radiation out of the fat cells too. Funny, never saw it mentioned inany Biology lecture, or paper about radiation being able to be stored anywhere, seeing as Radiation is the energy associated with the movement of sub-atomic particles.
So, who's more dangerous? And why the bigotry against Psychiatry, which is scientifically testable, or scientology; which claims to be completely scientific, but doesn't allow anyone to see anything that's testable.
SHOW ME A CLEAR. SHOW ME AN OT. The JREF is willing to pay out millions if you do, and you'd be universally accepted by every scientific community.
Dr Cosgrow, what you failed to mention is that while Psychiatry has performed as you say 786 frontal labotomies throughout history, how many are performed today? Do Psychs still shove knives into people's eye holes? (The fact that they used to judge how far to cut by when the orbital broke is so disturbing btw.) I doubt it. Scientology still holds onto its beliefs from 60 years ago. Psychiatry does not. Terryeo will say "See! 786 a year and all you can say is 20!" But that number will rise as they hold onto their beliefs. Like Uwe, who just died in RPF because CoS didn't give him proper medical attention. As Psychiatry is one of the newest real sciences we can trace its cruel beginnings to not long ago. I doubt any Pysch will disagree that the methods were wrong. Still to discredit a complete science that HAS helped mankind understand our most complex organ, and continues to do so, is completely dumb.
This is kind of my beef about why CoS will fail. All other religious ideologies bank on information that cannot be proven right or wrong. No one can prove God, or Moses parting a Sea, or someone got golden tablets from god, or that they will get virgins when they die. Its all intangible. Hubbard created a shelf life on Scientology by trying to make it scientific, but hey, thats what sci-fi is all about. By holding beliefs that can easily (and have been) disproven by science CoS will continue to dwindle. If body thetans existed, then shouldn't some other device other than tin cans be able to pick them up?
Oh also because the Marcabians have more money because they have gold(the most valuable metal) from so many systems and their pharmacuetical fronts to keep funding Psychiatry, Nazis, Government, and Anonymous.
TG - Can we agree the scientific method is what we use to create reliable, demonstable knowledge? More specifically, we take some chunk or piece of physical universe and we put it through some kind of action and observe the same results again, and again, no matter where the experiment takes place and no matter who performs the experiment? This is scientific method, right?
If this is scientific method, could you please tell us all how to apply that method to a thought? Because a thought, when examined, becomes modified. Thoughts are fleeting, unreliable, and unlikely to reproduce themseleves for the experimentator's amusement.
Likewise with study technology. The barriers to study that one individual experiences are likely to be different than the barriers another person experiences. So yeah, that sums it up, although I've attempted to expand the reason for your conclusion.
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Terryeo, number 8 is the most important part. Comon, talk to CoS, get them to let the Scientific community test the results CoS has found. Do this, and if unbiased scientists support the claims, then maybe I need a few courses.
Scientologic Method:
1. Define the objective.
2. Write your own information and resources (Hubbard does have the most works according to Guiness)
3. Form money making scheme
4. Perform experiments and collect data
5. Analyze data.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve your own ends and goals.
7. Sell Results for $$$$
8. NEVER RETEST!!! TO RESTEST IS TO DOUBT HUBBARD AND YOU ARE AN SP IF YOU RETEST WHAT HUBBARD SAID!
Oh sorry TO, forgot to address your question about measuring thoughts and how we could possibly do this. You said, "Thoughts are fleeting, unreliable, and unlikely to reproduce themseleves for the experimentator\'s amusement."
Well, tell me if I\'m wrong here everyone, but I thought the study of thoughts is the realm of Psychology. I thought Psychiatry is the middle ground between Psychology and Neurology. So less, "I hate my mom because she abused me"(Pyschology) and more "I hate my mom because when I think about her it creates an electric reaction in my brain releasing adrenaline that increase my anxiety"(Psychiatry). Am I wrong here?
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-16 15:12:18
I have yet to see a reply to my last post. Scientologists, when are you going to own up to your own past mistakes? I understand that there have been a number of deaths over the years in Scientology. In fact I was just informed that there has been another just this week.
"Like Uwe, who just died in RPF because CoS didn't give him proper medical attention."
Unfortunatly before can call it murder, you first need a body, or a coroners report, or a grave site or something other than his brother posting on an internet forum.
I'm sure the researchers on Nolan can find the appropriate paperwork. But until that happens, you can't say the Church of Scientology denied someone medical attention which lead to their death, without it being called an "unconfirmed" report.
At least we have brough out actual proof sometimes even VIDEO proof several times in this thread. I've yet to see you Scientologists back up one of your claims with anything other than innuendo so far.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-17 07:20:48
TG, thanks for clarifying for me on the last point. There are sporadic lobotomies perform throught out the globe (Less than 10 per year) in very un-developed countries today. I forgot that point. But yes, lobotomies have been done away with, and now are not considered as a treatment course.
Applying the scientific method to a "thought" , well that's impossible. Nor is it desirable, lest we get a branch of the government known as "The Thought Police".
What we can apply the scientific method to is this::
1)Subject A has shown these personality characteristics, as determined by multiple tests.
2)Treatment Course 1 is currently being researched as a course for this set of personality disfuntions.
3)Try Treatment Course 1.
4) Determine if Treatment Course 1 successful in correcting disfunctions, does it mitigate, or non-effective.
5) If succesful, test on Subject B, else go back to research to try and find a better one.
Of course, approvals for new treatments is a complex topic, requiring years of study, proposing, changing, more research, more proposals, and finally, a government approval to TEST it on a single patient.
That's right. Years of research, study, and refutations by experts in and medical feild, before a single human test is even considered.
Scientology on the other hand:
1) Drink lots of Rum
2) Pop pink and grey pills
3) Call that research.
4) Try and sell it to everyone as science.
4a) Repeat 1-4 until sufficiently insane.
5) Take Vistaril and die.
6) Call that "Dropping your body to continue research".
I think I trust the science method a bit more than Scientology...
Dr. Cosgrow, Scientology does make up results that support itself. Look at Narconon (yep, Scientology). At the end of the course a person must write how they beat drug addiction thanks to Narconon. Whether they truly beat drugs or not does not matter, all that does is if the person writes that they are better. Once CoS has the written word, they take it as fact and promote that the person is cured. This is almost always not true and Narconon has a real rehab rate lower than other clinics that employ mental doctors and follow best practice procedures. To A Scientologist, they have tested The Purification Rundown over and over and always see results saying it works...because the person wrote down they are cured...because if they don't say they are cured they are forced to stay, or sent back to prison, or don't get that early parole, etc. Its like asking someone "You like Vanilla ice cream the most, right? If you don't say you do I will punch you." and then touting that everyone loves vanilla.
My point here, is CoS says what they have tested is verified, but the way they test is built by Hubbard to always make it look like it works, even if (most of the time) it doesnt. This is true with Narconon, Criminon, The E-meter, Audits, Courses....pretty much everything you pay for.
Again though, please Lou or any other Scientologist. Please present unbiased outside research evidence that the methods of Scientology work and I'll sign up for a course. Flag is right down the road and you know what, I'll drive the buses of Sea Org if you can back up the Scientific claims CoS makes.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2008-10-17 11:47:53
It worked. The professions have all been infiltrated (as has psychiatry itself) with marxist/socialist doctrines, regardless of the fact the bill "was defeated". They simply went around the legislation if they couldn't get state, federal or official approval.
Public education, which is now used to destroy the minds and souls of innnocent children and mould them into pliant mindless "sheeple", is the worst example of this infiltration, which has all our worst - and "their" best - interests at heart.
The goal is to a victimized, traumatized and dysfunctional population who can be ruled through their "insoluble" problems - "problems" created by the very people who claim to have the solution, which is not a solution at all. It is simply management of the problem.
The Anonies and psych supporters tell us all about Scientology "claims". But if you read carefully, the Church doesn't make the "claims" Aonies think it does. The Church will say something like a person can improve their intelligence. Anonies read this to mean something like: they claim to make you smarter. But that isn't what the statement actually says. The stated "claim" is only that the possiblility exists. That doesn't say, "we can make you smarter", it only presents a possibility.
And then there is the "Why do people do it" claim. People do it, people say outright and sometimes in public why they do it. Anonies digest that as yet another "claim". No, the person is telling you, they have gained this or that, overcome a learning disability or got a better job or improved their communication skills. Such a personal attestation is not a "claim" -- unless you have and present counter-evidence. Then you have a "claim" and a "counter-claim".
Terryeo, I fail to find any relevance to anything you just stated pertaining to previous posts. Since you brought it up, however, when a reporter went undercover in Germany this year with a hidden camera, he got CoS to admit they "claim" they can cure cancer. On camera, their words not his. Thats not improving some skill. CoS claims it can cure cancer. Where is the evidence to this claim? Also, your point is moot. Narconon claims over 70% success rate. Thats nothing to do with improving oneself, but a statement of "fact" about what they can do. Scientology CLAIMS it can measure stress.....or are you saying they can\'t measure stress TO?
AGAIN!! I ASK PLEASE GIVE ME OUTSIDE EVIDENCE SCIENTOLOGY WORKS!!!!!!!! We were talking about the Scientific Method and how "claims" can be quantified and proven or disproven, and how Scientology, from what I have read, has only been DIS-proven to work. SO PLEASE, enlighten me.
Another thing. Using the same logic CoS does as you explain it. Everyone reading this! Please send me 10 dollars, I claim that if you do you will be a better person. Other people who have given me 10 dollars have become very successful, so you should too.
Its too bad that all your arguments get boiled down to just trying to redefine words. Fail.
Also TO, as a consumer if I pay for courses in Scientology, I would expect to get the results that the CoS claims I should get by taking them. Otherwise thats just false advertising. How many OTs can cure cancer....or fly? By your def CoS can make the claim OTs can do this, but they are ok with that claim because even though no one has been able to move an ashtray yet, that doesn't mean the teachings don't make it maybe possible someday for it to happen maybe. Again, a claim with no backing. I hereby claim myself as ruler of the world.
TG - Fine, you're ruler of the world - for a microsecond, heh. I've no idea about your "cure cancer" data. I admit it is possible someone in the Church knew an individual who had cancer before auditing and didn't have cancer after auditing. And they might have gotten carried away with their talk. But the Church doesn't "claim" to cure medical conditions. Odd sorts of things happen during audting, things without scientific explanation. But the Church doesn't claim they will happen.
What the Church does, it says: Here is a workable system and here is the result you can expect to achieve if you stick with it and follow our rules and guidence. If things go astray, the Church has guidence for you, ways to get you back on track again, to get you progressing again. But there is no claim that any single person will do well or that OTs should rule the world. It is personal effort, personal persistance and the Church is an active partner with you. It is about personal understanding, about thoughts, and these things are always personal. I can not claim that you like chocolate, can I? Nor can the Church "claim" your life will improve, because that depends on you.
During the years Ron Hubbard was laying out the technology, it was easier to veer from the straight and narrow because he had not filled in all of the steps. Now days, it is less easy (my opinion) but still very possible. To my knowledge, the Church has never claimed that an OT can lift an ashtray with a thought, or cure a medical condition with a thought. But I don't know it all, either.
Regarding Scientific Method and Scientology. You've spelled that out real well, I believe. But none of those 8 steps say a word about good communication. That is critically important to achieving Scientology results, you get good results to the degree you communicate well in an audting session. But good communication has never been part of the Scientific Method because physical universe objects don't need or want any communication. If a physicist IS communicating to his experiement, talking to his experiment, you lock him up or something. Ha.
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-17 17:50:22
I see yet more misunderstanding of us "psychs" here, and yet more bigotry against those in my profession. The purpose of phychiatry is to help people through their problems, not to medicate them for money. Medications are given only when necessary, or that is what a good doctor should do. Unfortunately there are some unscrupulous doctors, but thankfully they are in the vast minority. The purpose of medication, when it is needed is not to fix the problem but to help the patient overcome it themselves. The patient is not cured until they come off the medication and they no longer need to see the therapist or doctor for that problem. So contrary to what is being claimed here, the goal isn't to see how much medication you can sell, but to help the patient. The medication is just a crutch to help them through their bad spot. But the goal is for them to come off that medication, if it is possible. There are some illnesses that unfortuantely are permanent in nature and require lifelong treatment. Again these are rare and the goal of medicine is to find a way to eventually treat and eliminate these diseases. This is done through careful research and thorough testing and there are thousands of people involved in the process. Not one man telling everyone how to think, but thousands collaborating all over the world to solve medical problems. No system is perfect and unfortunately, sometimes there are victims and unscrupulous practices. I would like to say there are no bad doctors out there, but the fact is that there are. But I won't lie or try to pretend nothing ever goes wrong in the medical world. Scientologists never seem to understand that they cannot be perfect either and that there have been atrocities and deaths in their group as a result of negligece or mistreatment. A little more honesty would do much to help public perception of Scientologists. So would less rhetoric and bigotry against doctors and other health professionals.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-17 17:54:45
Terryeo, your reputation proceeds you. I took the "stress test" at a Dianetics testing center. I was told:
1) Dianetics can rid me of stress.
2) Dianetics will help me improve my vision.
3) Dianetics will help "cure" me of my homosexual tendencies (Actually, wasn't told this, read that in Dianetics). As well as "cure" me of any sexual perversion such as being into kink (ie S&M, Homosexuality, bi-sexuality, etc).
4) Dianetics will cure cancer if I audit enough.
And through more research into Scientology, I find:
1) Not smoking enough will give me cancer.
2) Bad memories, such as "a helicopter crashing for three days, going round and round and round" cause disease (Which, honestly, tosses the whole "germ theory" of disease out the window).
3) I was dropped in a volcano while frozen in one of the volcanoes on earth *ahem cough* Teageack.
4) Colds are caused by an engram of "feeling cold and wet, from being in the rain, and that's why being in the rain causes colds."
This is great "research", I need to present this to my colleagues at the next conference.
And you say communication in science isn't covered? How do you explain being able to discuss your theories in front of a conference so other scientist can re-test your research? Through communication.
And about the "rules to help get you back on track". Did you ever think the "track" that they guide you back onto is broken? And it doesn't work? The one scientific study on it showed it to be patent nonsense.
I can see why you are banned from Wikipedia now. You don't know how to think critically, and take every word from L. Ron Hubbard as true fact. Well, the fact is LRH was a fraud, is dead and isn't coming back, the "tech" doesn't work any more than self-deception does , and psychiatry has workable methods that scientology doesn't.
Psychiatry has cured people. My previous example: Brooke Shields. Another example of a "could have been": Jeremy Perkins. The list goes on and on. How many people have been cured by Scientology? 0. None. Nada. Zilch. And you can prove me wrong, by presenting the ONE person who has been cured by scientology to the James Randi Educational Foundation. I'll start taking courses when that happens, and tell everyone of my fellow colleagues they are wrong.
Speaking of reputation, Dr. Cosgrow, you're well spoken but don't appear on the internet. Did you, perhaps, once graduate with a B.S. from Holy Cross University?
All of the things you said until you contradict my post, make sense to me and certainly, I understand how you would come by that information. I would say the "thrown in a volcano" must be from some source other than personal memory, or published Scientology writings.
And you say communication in science isn't covered? - I do say so within the context; a researcher communicating with the subject he studies, that which he performs experiments on and gathers data about,. Of course researchers communicate with each other about resluts. But don't communicate with the focus of their study. When one studies atoms, one does not talk to their atoms. When studying the effects of gravity on rolling balls, one does not talk with their rolling balls. But a study of Scientology 's auditing would have to include precise communication between auditor and his auditee. This preciseness can not be easily measured, and if it were, it would interfere with the speed of auditing. Auditing results are based on this preciseness. No, you misread my earlier post as something like, "there is no communication in the scientific method". But what I said was, "none of those 8 steps say a word about good communication" - in regard to performing experiments and gathering data.
You don't know how to think critically, and take every word from L. Ron Hubbard as true fact. I disagree with your evaluation, and observe you were unwilling to understand my written word within its context.
I won't wish you good luck with your psychiatry cures because you have already gone out-ethics by misrepresenting your Medical Doctor degree with the editing identity you chose, and psychiatry is well known for its lack of ethics. Actually, that's the only real argument anyone can have with psychiatry - a lack of ethics. Good ethics would self-correct a discipline, as the AMA attempts with its practitioners. Psychiatry would make note when patients, once medicated, became school or mall shooters and would modify psychiatry accordingly. But that isn't what happens at all, is it?
Actually TO the data IS the communication. It is all that is needed. "I did X, here are the results." Then everyone can go do X and see if they get the same results. CoS doesnt do this, and I'm sad you couldn't back up anything with any unbiased sources. Guess I won't be taking that course. Data is Comm. Just like Math is communication. We all know 2 + 2 = 4. Oh wait HUbbard has some diatribe about that too doesn't he. I'm also sad to see you continue to deny the ashtray drill as well as other OT skills. I got my info about cancer from a documentary in which a Scientologist made the claim directly, which every ex has also said. Full Metal is correct with what people are told about Scientology. A woman in Clearwater was told CoS could cure her son's Autism. I'm glad you continue to respond though as it makes my/our arguements stronger, and it makes CoS seem more WTF?
Full Metal Psychiatrist – allow me to tell you the first clue that leads me to misunderstand your “profession”. You do spell “psychiatrist” appropriately, but don’t seem able to spell your profession. Phychiatry you say, and expect us to understand you are speaking of your profession? Next you happily inform us; There are some illnesses that unfortuantely are permanent (your misspelling again). Clearly you are not actually a psychiatrist because a psychiatrist does not deal with illnesses. A psychiatrist deals with DISORDERS, mental DISORDERS. So says the diagnostics manual which carefully considered that word (by raised hand vote). It is chock full of mental disorders. Perhaps a few of the sillier ones should be listed here. In any event, the whole of your post spells out just how familiar you are with your profession.
TG - Auditing is a communication process between an auditor and an auditee, but surely you already know that. We can use 8 point scientific method to roll balls down ramps (as Newton did). Because anyone, anywhere on the planet can do the same, and find the same results. This is demonstrable science. Anyone, anywhere, anytime, can demonstrate the same result again. But, when it comes to a single individual's thought, can we demand the same?
If we aske Mr. John Smith; Can you recall a time you just finished constructing something, then can we expect him to respond in precisely the same way in 5 years, or in a different setting? We do not have repeatability with a single individual, you see. He examines the thought, but next time he is asked the same question, his thinking is a little different. Also, his response greatly depends on how good his communication is with his auditor at that moment. Feeling good, very relaxed, he might be able to tell you about his dirt construction when he was a child, in other circumstances, perhaps not.
The last study of "scientology auditing" I read about on the internet got around this difficulty by giving all participents an equal dosage of drugs, to provide a baseline. But that's not Scientology at all, no one goes into session in a dugged condition. That's some other practice entirely.
Why are you bringing up auditing to me? I never mentioned auditing in this thread. Ever. I mentioned things like stress test, purif rundown, and OT super powers. Never once did I talk about communication between auditor and sucker. So I don't get your point.
TG - Okay. You did talk about those things and not about auditing. I brought up auditing, you didn't mention it at all. But we are talking about scientific method. We are talking about applying scientific method to stress test, purif rundown and OT super powers. I misunderstood the direction you were going in, I guess. Well yeah, I believe the scientific method could be applied to the purif rundown. Indeed! You're talking about apply scientific method to things like we find here, is that right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Medical Great!
I saw an article about a Doctor who had tried to raise funding money to study the New York rescue worker's detox, but I can't find that link right now. And I think I see what you mean, OTpowers might be studied in a similar way to detox (purification rundown), where you do an evaluation before, have the Church do its thing with OT processes and then evaluate again.
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-18 07:07:14
Terry, you have heard of typing mistakes right? They happen and sometimes words get misspelled as a result. And you know only what Scientology tells you about my profession, and I can tell you it is mostly nonsense. Now let's start again with my questions. When is Scientology going to admit to it's mistakes? When are they going to revise the clearly wrong parts of Hubbard's work? When is Scientology going to learn to deal with criticism in an adult manner instead of throwing childish tantrums? When is Scientology going to start learning from it's mistakes? You have yet to answer any of these questions. You seem only to find reasons to attack me instead of answering openly and honestly.
Full Metal - I appreciate you're having taken the time to evaluate my knowledge with -- you know only what Scientology tells you about my profession. How did you learn what I know? Wouldn't it be more polite to simply ask my opinion?
I suspect that many, perhaps most, psychiatrists went through medical school with the idea in mind of helping people. That is no trivial task, that takes a good deal of work, and sometimes sacrifice. Then, in addition to medical school is the necessity of obtaining a psychology degree, again, no small task,. And I have personal knowledge that many, perhaps most, psychology students, begin their study with the idea of helping people in mind.
So I'll take exception to your evaluation, partly because I have at least a smattering of knowledge about psychiatry and partly because of the mischacterization our internet encourages. Neither of us is a programmed robo-mechanism, responding to inputs by yielding hateful outputs. Media and critics play up point of conflict. But people are people, few of us enrich themselves by harming others. Most of us, most of the time, would rather help others, than hurt others. And I suspect psychiatrists, doctors, plumbers and tree-fellers have these motivations.
You ask four "when" questions about Church management. But I don't have a line to Church management, what you might do is email the Church, probably any Church website offers that opportunity to anyone. I simply don't know. those answers but I would say your phrasing precludes a responsive answer. because those questions assume certain things that I don't think actually exist. What I'm willing to do is discuss (probably) any issue you raise to the extent of my knowledge.
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-18 10:17:12
Then what is with the "Anonies and their psych" supporters. If you agree that most people are in psychiatry to help others, then what is the beef with psychiatry? From what I can tell the only reason Scientologists hate psychiatry is because L. Ron Hubbard says to in his books. If Scientology wants to be taken seriously by the public and the medical community, then it will have to grow beyond L. Ron Hubbards rambling and often questionable logic.
Full Metal - Well, specifically, the beef is, as Ron Hubbard said, with psychiatry's ethics. The discipline doesn't keep ethics in on themselves. They don't correct themselves when they aren't right about treatment. There is low accountability. The discipline often works for government, institutionalizing political dissidents, for example. While a medical doctor would treat a patient to cure the patient, psychiatry is known to run institutions that include more nefarious purposes.
Recently people who have been under psychiatric care go on shooting sprees, and what does psychiatry do about that? Well, it seems to have no method of correcting its actions, the drugs the shooters were on or coming off of, are not widely known about. The whole thing falls under a cloak of patient rights, even though the patient is dead.
Hubbard said something like Psychiatry doesn't keep their own ethics in. I would say it like; "don't responsibly correct themselves." Or, "too willing to engage in borderline solutions to problems with no a proven cure". For example, the public is encouraged to the term "mental illness" while psychiatry hides behind the term, "mental disorder" and a thick, voted on, diagnostic manual that describe symptoms of almost normal behaviour.
I don't mean to say that an individual psychiatrist is not well-meaning, I believe many (but not all) are well-meaning. But the discipline itself doesn't make as much effort as the AMA makes, toward good doctor behaviour. Even though its treatments are less substantial and therefore, more easily abused. And frankly, Full Metal, neither you nor I expect the situation to change, do we? Scientology does not seek the approval of Psychiatry, or even recognition from Psychiatry. Therefore it is not going to present its information in terms that you can deal with. Understand it or leave it alone, that's up to you. Same as anyone else, really.
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-18 22:19:09
Wow, lot of anger there Terry. You seem to be projection your problems onto psychiatry here instead of dealing with them. "L Ron Hubbard said" isn't proof. You have yet to prove your case. In fact I would suggest that Scientology has little room to argue about ethics or treatment of people. A lot of Scientologists have died and a lot of those deaths have been either suicides or involved suspicious circumstances. Scientology does not allow changes to it's "tech" or documents when problems like this occur. It would seem that the popular phase "pot, kettle, black" would apply here.
Psychiatry is real medicine and there is progress and change. New methods and medications and other treatment options are underdevelopment all the time. MRI for example is making remarkable changes in the study of the brain and disorders of the mind. And disorders are illnesses. When you are not well, that is the definition of being ill. Illness can strike body or mind. Mental disorder has become a popular term due to policical correctness but it really describes the same thing. Sometimes you can get over an illness on your own, sometimes you need help. New methods are being developed with the help of new technology such as MRI and PET scans that allow for better treatment and better medications that do not have so many bad side effects and that help a person reach a better state more quickly so the time they are exposed to the drugs is minmized. So there is change in Psychiatry as well as the rest of the medical world. This is driven by real science and research.
Scientology hasn't put out anything new since L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986. There is no science in Scientology.
1- Radiation or its effects are stored in the body. I got badly sunburned when I was 5 years old and after that I didn't go to a beach for years. When I did the Scientology purification rundown I remember that I saw, the parts of the body that where hit by the sun, become really red and hot while other parts of the body didn't change the color.
2. If psychiatry did advance why has not yet found that man is a spirit?
3- Why, if psychiatry uses the scientific method, annual meetings are hold to decide by vote if a new menatal disorder does exist?
4- Last year in my region there were three omicides where a family member killed another member of the family. By digging into these incidents I found that all of these killers were receiving psychiatric care...
LOL Frank. Classic mistake there. You are reading something into a pattern that can have another rational explanation. It takes someone who is pretty messed up to commit that kind of murder.So it's not surprising that a good percentage of them might have received some kind of care in the past. Psychiatry doesn't claim to be 100% man. People can still go off their meds and do bad things. I've seen it happen. They don't claim they can cure anything forever like you guys do unless they know for a fact they can cure it. Full metal is right. You guys have had a lot of suicides and even some murders as well. Hell. If I often have diahrea every time I happen to see a Scientologist, should I come to the conclusion that Scientologists cause diahrea? Or should I look for another explanation in my environment... maybe it is a resturant I eat at that is near an org, which is why I often see Scientologists before I get diahrea.
So is it psychiatry that is causing the problem? Or is it the fact that the people who are sent to see them have major problems to begin with. These people were already deranged. It is sad that the treatment didn't help them to the point where the murder didn't happen. I'd say Scientology would have no better luck. Hell, Charles Manson was once a Scientologist and look how he turned out. He wasn't at the time he started the killings though. He had already left because they were "too weird" for him.
Full Mental Psychiatrist - I didn't feel angry when I posted, but again, you went to the trouble of evaluating feeling, similar to your earlier posting. Which doesn't, you see, carry the thread of the discussion, but introduces another subject. Oh hum. Sure, we can talk about feelings if you want to. But you seem to prefer to talk about reactionary sorts of issues, such as:
And disorders are illnesses.
Nope. Disorder is a lack of order. If you lose a job, your life has become somewhat disordered, any kind of unexpected, unforseen and especially major event, produces some kind of disorder. The current economic markets are in disorder - just to underline the meaning of the word. Psychiatry diagnoses Disorders. Your lack of understanding shouts out clearly that you are not as familar with psychiatry as you present yourself to be. I could take other examples from your post, but we are no longer talking about the information of the Scientology philosophy, nor the sense of community, the wellness, the Scientologists will happily tell you about. Instead we are talking about issues to cause reaction in each other. (yawn) Later.
Posted By: Full Metal Psychiatrist
Date: 2008-10-19 09:54:17
Once again you see the doctrine of attack never defend here. You are losing the argument, so you instead try to deflect by personally attacking me. This is why you lose. This is why people respect the medical community and not Scientology.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-19 12:58:50
Terryeo, when did I ever state I was a Psychiatrist or even a Psychologist. My credentials state Medical Doctor, and PhD.
And why would you presume to find my identity on the internet. And to assume I have my degrees from a Degree Mill (Like L. Ron Hubbard's degree) is laughable. I have a private practice consisting of a couple hundred patients. I don't advertise, because I don't need to. I've not written any papers that have been published (Short of my two thesis), because I have no need to. I am not a research doctor. And without paid subscriptions to a specific library, you will not find my two theses, since I have never presented them to my conference.
When I referred to the bigotry against my collegeauges, I was referring to the bigotry held toward MD's, of which all Psychiatrists are. All Doctors have the same medical training and then specialize.
And no, people in the psychiatry field do not "vote" on diseases. They reach consensus. Consensus of which is built upon refutation, research, and experimentation.
And the data about the volcanoes, I got that from a representative of the Church of Scientology volunteering that information in a court case, of which is public record (Church of Scientology vs. Larry Wollersheim).
And Frank, no. Radiation is not "stored" in your body. Your body may continue to emit radiation for a perdiod of time after being exposed to a radioactive source. But, that time is very short, due to if you were irradiated to the point of emmiting some after the fact, you would soon be dead. The "radation flush" you are referring to is a result of high niacin doses. This causes a capillary dilation in the skin of the face, and certain scar tissues (which are formed after being suffering a sun burn). Don't believe me? Have a UV analysis done of your face. You'll be suprised that the same blotches shown on the UV scan will also become flush when given a high niacin dose.
And again to Terryeo, disorders are a set of symptoms that occur due to a common cause. Like cardiovascular disorders (a set of symptoms caused by a faulty systemin the heart, such as a valve, muscular atrophy, etc), or skin disorders, etc. These can not be fixed with Dianetics, scientology, or anything else conjured up in a drug induced haze(such as L. Ron Hubbard's consistent, proven abuse of alcohol, tranquilizers, and sedatives).
And as for the ethics, how would you know what my ethics are? You don't know me, but rather attack me personally, why? Because I have proven science behind me? Rather than blindly following what a con man said is "science"? Show me the research L. Ron Hubbard did. Show me the research that has shown anything in Scientology works? JREF would love to hear about it, as well as every scientific conference there is. If you show it, or if the Church of Scientology does, I'll present it personally.
Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD - Thanks for some explanation of your screen name, and I have some clue of the effort, persistence and difficulty to obtain those credentials. But I fail to follow why a medical doctor would defend Psychiatry. Certainly it is your choice but as I understand the situation, you're not entirely accurate.
people in the psychiatry field do not "vote" on diseases - They reach consensus.
Yes that's right, they do not vote on diseases. They raise a hand during a meeting called for the purpose - about disorders. Last they met, as I understand the situation, the question was raised, are these disorders or diseases or can we call them something else entirely?Disorders is Psychiatry's agreed upon description.
You say aloud, "juggernaut" and watch a man's left eye twitch when he hears the word. And if you say it a dozen times and his left eye twitches 10 times, he might be said to have a disorder. But to call that situation an illness isn't accurate. An illness is a situation where some bodily organ is not doing what it should normally do, with care and treatment, the organ might be made whole and operational again. So I have to think you don't quite understand what Psychiatry means when using disorder.
The only idea I have of your ethics is what I see on this web page. The reasearch Ron Hubbard did (that has been published) is contained in 16 blue volumes, registered with the Library of Congress and available from Bridge Publications. Few public libraries carry them, in my experience.
But let me explain why your ideas of reasearch are not likely to be satisfied by Hubbard's methods of research. His goal was healthier, happier people - in their own estimation. When he developed a process and ran it with 50 different people and got happier, more able people, he had done "research". He only had himself to satisfy, he didn't have the academic community to satisfy. So let me suggest, any person who wants to understand if Scientology works, simply risk a few dollars (or pounds or rubles) and take the first course of study a Church offers you.
My experience has been to find perhaps 20 people taking a course and perhaps 17 of them liking the result and moving on to the next course. As the courses get larger and more expensive, as the costs of auditing increase, people might spend a couple of years working, to get enough money together for their next course, or their next block of auditing. But many more people find positive change, than don't. And that is what Hubbard researched, positive change. Which is not easily characterized for examination by an academic community.
You ask the guy - do you feel better or worse, and he says - better, lots better, I like this stuff! And you say - Prove it! (shurg) What's the guy going to do? I'll tell you this, as bad as my writing is (and hey, some mispelling) it used to be much worse. I like it.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-19 14:59:57
As for why I defend psychiatry, because it is a field backed by science. That's why. Not "ramblings of a madman" (Atack, John "Peice of Blue Sky"), or a "sort of hasty pudding made up of ideas taken bald-faced from Freudian psychology, Cybernetics, engineering in general, and flavored liberally with a Chutney sauce of pseudo-scientific verbiage, analogy, metaphor, and the cliches of science fiction fantasy itself." (Beecher, 1951)
And no, no, no. Mr. Terryeo. You have it wrong. L. Ron Hubbard does not publish his research. He published ramblings. With no supportive research. Can I 100 percent of the time re-create the effects he says happens? How can one re-perform the same experimention and reach the same conclusion as Hubbard? You can't. It's not duplicable.
Let's take the engram. L. Ron Hubbard say engrams have weight, charge, and mass. Prove it.
L. Ron Hubbard says Dianetics can cure homosexuality:
...It is a scientific fact that no psychosomatic ill exists without an abberation. And it is true that no abberation exists without a potential or actual psychosomatic ill. One of the psychosomatic illnesses one would least expect to find as a psychosomatic affair is the illness of sexual perversion. The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in dynamic two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically... ...A bit off the subject here, but it can be remarked about perversion that the best previous explanation for it was something about girls becoming envious of Papa's penis or boys becoming upset about that terrible thing, the vulva, which Mama was incautious enough to show one day. It takes a great deal more than this utter tripe to make a pervert. It is, rather, something on the order of kicking a baby's head in, running him over with a steamroller, cutting him in half with a rusty knife, boiling him in Lysol, and all the while with crazy people screaming the most horrifying and unprintable things at him...LRH_"DIANETICS, pg 141"
Prove it.
This is one example of his "research". By the time of this being written, the psychiatric industry was already writing off the idea that homosexuality is not a disease.
As for anectodal "evidence", that evidence does not count, unless done under controlled substance, and there needs to be some measurable result. IQ tests, spelling accuracy, emotional state profiling, etc. Just saying,"Hey it works!" can not pass scientific scrutiny, especially when extreme claims are made such as:
" there would be no more complexes, anxieties, or fears. Anxiety being virtually universal today, it was to be expected that such a proposition would have universal appeal." (L. Ron Hubbard, "Dianetcs")
"Dianetics is an exact science" (L. Ron Hubbard, "Dianetics").
In order for it to be science, it's needs to be 100 percent demonstrable, and repeatable. I can repeatedly show if I prescribe treatment course A, it will cause symptoms B & C to cease. Every time. No chance, I don't blame the patient if it doesn't work, contrary to Scientology, where if it doesn't work then "the tech was not applied correctly" (L. Ron Hubbard, "Keep Scientology Working").
See, the more I dig into Scientology to refute these claims of "science", the deeper I find the rabbit hole goes in regards to how insane and how much of a con L. Ron Hubbard was. I think right now you are doing these "Psychs" and "Anons" jobs for them. I'm almost ready to step out and start protesting. Again, thanks Terryeo, I would never have found out about these protests if it weren't for the research I've been doing to respond to your comments here. Cheers!
I don't agree with your evaluation of Ron Hubbard. I do agree that if the tech is not applied correctly, it isn't going to produce reliable results. And here is your entry point on Science.
To apply the tech correctly requires the excellent communication only an education in the tech can give you. Hence, to run any kind of results oriented science, you're going to have to have your subjects educated in the very tech you attempt to prove wrong. Oh hum, scratch your own wall, form your own opinion.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-19 16:04:30
So, in effect what you're saying Terryeo, is that "the tech" can only be supported by "the tech", and any chances of it not working the result of "the tech" not being applied correctly? So, let's take the case of Torri Bezazian. She had been stamped good to go all the way up to OTIII (A level in Scientology). She said it didn't work. So it wasn't applied correctly? But by every previous case of hers (at every level) it was marked as being done correctly?
Let me introduce a concept that you may or may not be aware of. It's called "Occam's Razor". All things being equal, the simpler of two possibilities is the cause of the effect.
In Torri's case we have two possibilities, that she carried out an elaborate hoax to pass all previous case levels, only to get to the highest one, then let the proverbial "cat out of the bag". The other being, is that the techniques (If one could call them that) don't work, and are full of false promises.
The simplest answer is that it doesn't work.
Another example, the book "Dianetics" is an all-time best seller, selling over a million copies in the US alone. But there are only 55,000 scientologist in the US(United States Census, 2001). The "tech" apparently didn't work for the rest of those people. All those people were doing it wrong, or it just doens't work? Occam's Razor again.
To paraphrase you again, To know the tech, you have to know the tech. Circular use of logic, and completely un-founded in any science. How can one learn the tech if you need to know the tech in order to learn it?
If you go for that kind of logic Terryeo, I have a bridge I can sell you. It's in Alaska...
It's a religion - but it doesn't need faith because L Ron told us it's proven scientific fact. He's been to other planets, so he would know.
It's a science - but if you think it as a fraud you are a religious bigot. Or a Nazi. Or, at the very least, not American.
And if you don't think it makes your floor as sparkling as we promised, you haven't used it correctly. Everyone else here says it's all sparkly. Tom Cruise for example. So, what's wrong with you?
Did I mention it's a business and its the only path to world peace and harmony, and the exorcism of body thetan demons?
You can't answer Scientology's cogent criticisms, can you, men and women of science? You haven't even discovered body thetans, yet. Ron proved them. Just read his rambling daydreams. Now give up, Bigots.
Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD - you say: To paraphrase you again, To know the tech, you have to know the tech.
I've said and tried to communicate:
To use the tech, you have to understand the tech.
Tech includes communication and study, and that must be learned before learning auditing, to audit at a professional level. A person could read and apply Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health. That would be auditing and application of tech,. Many have done that. But you get results to the degree you understand, and you get better results when you understand communication tech. And you understand what you read better, if you have understood study tech.
To use the tech, you have to understand the tech. I've tried to say that knowing is a first step, then understanding is a second step. A surgeon practices his knots, he understands how to tie a knot in a slippery situation where he doesn't have a full range of motion,. This is understandning, which is a step better than knowledge. Obviously some people will understand more quickly than others.
55,000 claimed Scientology as their religion on the 2000 census, but you don't find this disparity amusing? On one hand the Church is spending millions for buildings and renovations, for modern print technology and there are only 55,000, according to the census? Heh, disparity indeed. I ought to point out that no one is ever obligated to write in "Scientologist" in a census form, I ought to point out that a Catholic might also study and donate to Scientology.
Torri Bezazian - First time I've met that name, but the situation sounds sounds similar to Jon Atack, who wrote a critical book. It takes persistence and effort and anyone might walk away at any time.
Posted By: From an escapee
Date: 2008-10-20 04:46:17
I don't even know where to begin, so please, bear with me.
I was a Scientologist until very recently. It's very hard for me to type this out, and it's taken me a few weeks to decide wether or not to write you. I have no idea who you are, or what you do. I just saw the email link on your site and decided I had to write you.
I'm in my 50s. I cannot tell you where I lived or give you names, for reasons you know better than most people in Scientology do. I wanted to share my story with you, and how thankful I am. I'm going to try to speak in terms the general public can understand, based on you asking me if you could share this email.
I was a public Scientologist for over twenty years. I got into Scientology as a single mother, because members at the Org would babysit my daughter. I ended up eventually going up the Bridge until the level of OT2 before after spending alot of time, money, and more auditing sessions than I can begin to remember over the course of 15 years.
My daughter started attending courses and doing auditing as well and when she was in her later teens, Flag sent some Sea Org executives to our org and she was hooked. She signed on at the Sea Org when she was eighteen years old, in the late nineties.
I was very proud of her. My daughter was doing her part to help clear the planet and I was doing my part at the stress test tables to bring people into the Orgs and then selling them the Basics.
In 2002, I was called in to the office with the president of our Org. He sat me down and told me that my daughter was requesting to "route out" from the Sea Org and Scientology altogether and as her only close relative and one in Scientology, I was being asked to handle her to convince her to stay in.
We fought for several weeks. She had told me what was happening to her in the Sea Org and at the time I didn't believe her. She was telling us of working 18 hours a day 7 days a week, of being touched and groped by senior Sea Org officials, about not eating properly, and other horrors, very similar to what you've all read and what I've read over the last few weeks. I didn't want to believe her, and I was told that if I couldn't handle her I would be declared PTS for being connected to her. I remember calling her that night, and begged her to stop tearing our family apart, that she had to stay in, didn't she see? She was very upset, and said that was one of the reasons she had to leave, that she just believed there was something better out there, there had to be, there had to be something better than what she was in that would make her mother believe what she was being told over what she was hearing from her own daughter.
After that conversation, she blew a few days later and never finished routing out properly. She just up and left. She had called me several times to try and get me to listen to her, to hear why she had to do it and I felt like I had been betrayed. All the good Scientology had done her, had done me, had done us, why was she doing this, why was she turning her back on Hubbard and the Tech and her own mother? I was legitimately angry at her and hurt, and I couldn't realize it at the time. My heart told me something was wrong, but my head and my way of thinking told me otherwise, that I was doing the right thing.
I ended up disconnecting from my daughter around Christmas of 2002. It never did sit right with me, but I knew we were right, I knew we were clearing the planet. I wasn't PTS but I was given several auditing sessions and security checks to make sure I wasn't harboring any "crimes" against Scientology.
I continued on staff the next six years. My daughter would write me once every few months - I didn't even open the letters she sent and threw them away in the trash. It countinued this way until 2008.
Then in March, an amazing thing happened that changed my life. I was told on March 15th to not come to the Org that saturday, because there were "renovations" that were happenning to the interior or something similar. Most staff and workers got the same notice. I had left something at the Org that I needed, so I went there early in the morning.
An hour later, a group of people wearing masks, listening to music, and waving signs all approached from across the street and by our front doors, coming out of nowhere, about thirty to fifty people, I couldn't see through the windows too well. There were about a dozen staff members in the building and three in the lobby when this happened. I remember thinking it was the strangest thing I had ever seen, with all the masks. The signs said negative things about Scientology - that it was a cult, that it was a scam, and other things that would have normally made me brush it off, but the strangeness of it all kept all three of us locked on what was happening.
Immediately, one of the higher execs came from upstairs and told us we had to go to the meeting now, that we had to go upstairs to the conference room we used for auditing. It was in the middle of the building with no windows. All 12 of us went there, and there was where we stayed. Half of them didn't know what was happening outside and when we went to discuss it, the exec who rounded all of us up told us that it was a dangerous group outside and that they would try to kill us or hurt us if we went out - that they had been making death threats, had made bomb threats, had even killed - KILLED - people. We were being held inside for our own safety, and we were not to discuss what was happening outside, or to listen to anything we may have heard or seen from outside. One staffer went to call the police and called several times over the few hours that the "terrorists" were there.
They kept us in that room for six hours, only allowing short trips to the bathroom and we had to be accompanied by the two top execs who were there both to and from, taking a way through the building that made sure we wouldn't pass any windows.
They finally told us to forget about it and go home, at around six pm, and to forget what we saw as it was a group of SPs who we didn't want to talk with, didn't want to listen to.
I went home that night and I remembered a big sign I had seen with a website on it. It was [link edited for length]. I went to the site, and I panicked immediately when I saw what it was, but something just clicked on me, remembering my daughter, and I read for hours on that site and all the other ones linked through it. I read through the night, and had a large headache and didn't come in the next day because of it.
When I did get back to the Org the day after, there had been no renovations done at all. It was strange.
The exec I had mentioned earlier was an OTV. I made the first mistake I shouldn't have. I pulled him aside and asked him, since I was OTII, and had already paid for most of the preparation courses for OTIII, if the Xenu story was true, since I had seen it on so many websites. I was asked how I found out, and why I was asking, and when I said I had just looked at a few sites and was confused, I ended up getting sec-checked for three days, and was told that unless I confessed my crimes I would be kicked off the Bridge.
Over the next few months, I made the decision to leave Scientology, after doing research on it. It was a very, very hard step for me to do and it still is. I've had to move twice, change phone numbers twice, and take other steps to keep them from bothering me. I told them I wanted out completely. My friends inside were told to handle me, and I broke down and cried every night for two weeks when I realized what they were doing to me was what I had been told to do to my daughter six years ago. They disconnected from me when I told them to leave me alone and I really felt I had nobody.
I ended up looking up my daughter, who had moved in the six years. I was so scared when I picked up the phone, it took me five tries to dial the number. She picked up the phone on the third ring and said "Hello?" My voice cracked as I said her name. It was the first time we talked in six years. She just said "Mom?" in the same type of voice, and we both cried. We spoke for six hours that night.
I had missed so much of her life. Since she blew Scientology, she had moved, found a career, and was back in school. She had met a wonderful man and they had married in 2006. They had their first child around Thanksgiving last year, a beautiful daughter.
After I hung up the phone, I was so hurt and angry. I missed everything in my daughter's life because I insisted on not listening to her when she told me why she was leaving, or when she would send me letters. All her life was in those to tell me how she was, and I missed them all. I missed the letter telling me that she got accepted into school. I missed the letter about her telling me about her new job. I missed the letter that she wrote telling me about her new boyfriend and year later, her fiance. I had even thrown away my own daughters wedding invitation. I never got to see my little girl walk down the aisle, I never read or opened the letter that told me she was pregnant with her first child, or the letter that said it was a girl.
It has been a long road the last few months, but my daughter has forgiven me. I had lost twenty years of my life to Scientology, and so many meomories, and I thank god every night that I didn't lose my family too.
Scientology robbed me of all those things and I was too blind to see it, but I created a new memory that I cry everytime I remember because it was a miracle to me. Four weeks ago, I held my grandaughter for the very first time.
I'm taking it slow, one day at a time, and seeking the help I need, seeing the same doctors and specialists that helped my daughter when she left years ago.
It has taken me a long time to type this up because of the tears in my eyes, I've had to stop, it's taken me six hours to write this email.
Thank you, whoever you are. While I may never be able to stand with you, or meet you face to face, you will always have my tearful thanks for doing what you are. Get the word out to more people, and don't give up doing what you are doing, because it's working in ways nobody could have ever imagined.
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-20 05:58:55
See, therein lies the problem. Let's look at proper medical science (Or any science for that matter). To understand and know to perform a medical procedure, surgery in this case, you need to understand various biological systems, knot tying, drug interactions, etc. All things that have been researched and can be proven time and time again. A knot will always be a knot and always serve the purpose designed for, two drugs will always either interact or not, and a heart valve will either work or not. All of those things are testable, and 100 percent repeatable.
Now, let's take Dianetics. Dianetics is built upon principles in dianetics. And that's it. It has no foundation in anything, is not repeatable 100 percent, is not testable.
As for the "disparity" you claim, no, it's not amusing. Should we just assume everyone who bought "Dianetics" is a scientologist? No. And for the renovations, etc. The church closest to me is supposed to be the largest of the region, yet is near empty at any time of the day. At most, 2-3 cars parked outside. And if you take a recent Gallup Poll that showed Scientology as the lowest poularity in the US. Lower than Atheism!
So, again, you claim to understand "the tech" you must know "the tech". Funny, anything in the field of psychiatry is based on external frames of reference, such as biochemistry, neurology, and general medicine. And you also stated Hubbard had no one to satisfy other than himself. You err there. As soon as the label of "science" was put in there (ie "Dianetics:The Science of Mental Health") it became the entire scientific community that needs to be satisfied. Not just himself. Or did Hubbard redefine the word "science?" Just as apparently he redfined "tech" because in the book Dianetics, I can't seem to find any technology in there at all.
And no, to evaluate whether or not Dianetics, or anything else in Scientology is effective can not require the use of Dianetics or any other process in Scientology. Otherwise, it results in un-testable circular logic, and therefore not science.
If Scientology mearly claimed to be a religion, and never claims to be a science, then I suppose I'd take no issue with it. But it claims to be both, and a religion can not be a science by definition, and science can not be a religion. The two cover two separate spheres, and should never overlap.
"Then in March, an amazing thing happened that changed my life. I was told on March 15th to not come to the Org that saturday, because there were "renovations" that were happenning to the interior or something similar. Most staff and workers got the same notice. I had left something at the Org that I needed, so I went there early in the morning."
THAT makes this "write-up" as very questionable. I have been on staff in the past and there is no such thing as "not come to the Org" and "notices" to "staff and workers" (there are not even "workers"). And then you go to the org anyway and there is a meeting happening for everyone to attend?
From an escapee - Your fiction's most obvious first falsehood,
She was telling us of . . . being touched and groped by senior Sea Org officials.
I'm convinced that has never happened. BUT if that were to happen then there are numerous complaint lines she could use, immediate complaint lines. Including a complaint line clear out of the Org and over the Org's head, available to every Sea Org member 24/7.
Several situations might prompt your fair tale, but none of them include reality within an Org. Tsk, Tsk.
Jeez, you two will deny anything won't you! If anyone out there wants the abuse stories which TO denies could ever happen, please go to ExScientologyKids.com and look at the My Story section. Or the Voices in Unison section. Very moving, very serious stories (multiple) like the one posted here that both Louanne and Terry flat out deny, and say must be lies. In fact, when some of the young ladies who WERE abused sexually did make a complain, they were told it was their own fault, that they brought it on themselves by their bosses and authorities. Go read ExKids guys, then get back here and say how you don't believe any of it. Btw, the site is hosted by your leader's niece, and the daughter of Bruce Wiseman, the head of the CoS front group CCHR. I'd say they are a good source.
Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD - I consider it somewhat unfortunate that so many critics have created so much mis-information that, you, a person with obvious ability to understand the written word, would accept misinformation. You say:
If Scientology mearly claimed to be a religion, and never claims to be a science, then I suppose I'd take no issue with it. But it claims to be both.
Scientology has never claimed to be Science. Ron Hubbard claimed he developed Dianetcs on scientific principles, but when he expanded Dianetics into Scientology in 1952, he went foreward as a religion. You will find some hints that science plays a part, but no where will you find Scientology claiming to be a science of the mind, spirit, or any kind of science.
The basic word means know, and this is where science and Scientology have common ground. Both claim you know better by their method. While science is about reproduceable knowledge, Scientology is about understanding what you already know. I agree you could say "Dianetics was presented as a science". But it would be untrue to say the same about Scientology. It lacks reproducability, do you follow? An individual has a stuck thought, examines it, understands it fully and *poof*, its significance for him is forever changed. So you can not reproduce the situation for further examinatinon because the object under study, an individuals particular thought, is no longer extant. This, combined with Dianetics practitioners recalling events far removed from present time, let him to realize his work was of a religious nature, and so he begin Scientology.
TG - I don't deny that such things could happen, all things under the sun are possible. But if it did happen, she would have many complaint lines open to her. A person in the situation of being groped (or other distateful situation) has many complaint lines available. I simply can not believe she wouldn't complain. You or I would complain and so would this fictional character. My assertion of it being a fairy tale is founded on 2 factors.
1. I really really doubt it happened.
2. If it did happen, I can not believe the gropee wouldn't complain about it, except to her dear, sweet mother. And the reason I can not is because the Sea Org operates on self-correction. one of its seven organizational divisions is dedicated exclusively to self-correction. Heads would roll at the least hint of groping.
Terry, no way you read ExScientologyKids.com in that amount of time. Are you familiar with it and have read it before, or do you refuse to read their stories. Are Kendra Wiseman, Jenna Miscaviage-Hill, and Astra Woodcraft bad sources of information too, and is their site lies? I mean, they were all Sea Org just like Louanne. What are your comments to the claims of the members of their site that also claim mental/physical/emotional abuses? Lies?
Also, as for your assertation. 1. You doubt it happened. So you have a preconcieved notion that it didn't making your objective reactive mind at a loss as you have a pre-made influence that it didn't. And sorry. Your second point is that if sexual misconduct or abuse did indeed happen then the Sea Org would take care of itself. See I have a problem with this. If ANY American citizen is sexually abused by a superior (school, parent, work), then its my opinion that it should be brought up not internally, but externally so they can get justice. Why we have courts here, for this kind of thing. So if something happened to her, then she should not only bring it up internally, but also file a police report against the individual so it can be taken care of by the law of the land, not the law of the CoS. Of course, she probably did neither of these, I am just pointing out the rediculousness of your claim that CoS will handle itself.
You know I hate to draw comparisons between CoS and other religions, but the Catholic Church tried to handle sexual abuses internally too. We all know how well that ended for them with massive scandal and hiding of truths from the law. Sounds like CoS practices the same thing. Hide the abuse so authorities don't find out and your organization doesn't loose face as it is the most ethical thing on the planet. That self correction you mention too, does that include the RPF? It does right?
And anyone other than Terry and Louanne, you can see these girls and the other kids on youtube I bet. They have been on We's "Secret Lives of Women", a recently edition of "Nightline", as well as other foreign media I believe. Just youtube search "Scientology Nightline" or "Scientology Secret Lives of Women". Those are probably media outlets that did their homework, and made sure what they were saying was 100% fact. Its in their own words, and Scientology gave no arguement to what they said. They are very good to see if you wish to discuss this topic.
I don't believe it TG. Louanne and I disbelieve it for different reasons, but we both disbelieve it. Further, when you take a specific example (I was groped, I only told my mother), and you evaluate that as accurate, that is one thing. But when you generalize that specific event as happening to everyone, then you are losing your audience. I simply don't believe it.
HI SCIENTOLOGY DO THE TACTICS YOU ACCUSE ANONYMOUS OF SOUND FAMILIAR?
Operation Freakout, also known as Operation PC Freakout, was a Church of Scientology covert plan intended to have the US author and journalist Paulette Cooper imprisoned or committed to a mental institution. The plan, undertaken in 1976 following years of Church-initiated lawsuits and covert harassment, was meant to eliminate the perceived threat that Cooper posed to the Church and obtain revenge for her publication in 1971 of a highly critical book, The Scandal of Scientology. The Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered documentary evidence of the plot and the preceding campaign of harassment during an investigation into the Church of Scientology in 1977, eventually leading to the Church compensating Cooper in an out-of-court settlement.
The Church stepped up the harassment, for instance painting her name and phone number on street walls so that she would receive obscene phone calls, and subscribing her to pornographic mailing lists. She also received anonymous death threats and her neighbors received letters claiming that she had a venereal disease.
In December 1972, a woman ostensibly soliciting funds for United Farm Workers stole a quantity of stationery from Cooper's apartment. A few days later, the New York Church of Scientology "received" two anonymous bomb threats. The following May, Cooper was indicted for making the bomb threats and arraigned for a Federal grand jury. The threats had been written on her stationery, which was marked with her fingerprints.
The charges were eventually dropped in 1975 with the filing of a Nolle prosequi order by the local US Attorney's office, but it was not until the fall of 1977 that the FBI discovered that the bomb threats had been staged by the Guardian's Office. A contemporary memorandum sent between two Guardian's Office staff noted on a list of jobs successfully accomplished: "Conspired to entrap Mrs. Lovely into being arrested for a felony which she did not commit. She was arraigned for the crime."
The Church sued Cooper again in 1975 in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia in 1976.According to one source, the Church itself imported Cooper's books into foreign countries for the express purpose of suing her in jurisdictions where the libel laws were stricter than in the United States.
I have never generalized. I do not say all Scientologists...or all Sea Orgies. The site I directed you to which you have yet to address is a number of specific stories all shared by ex-Scientologists, many raised from birth in the organization. I won't say all. But it has happened if you can believe their first hand accounts. I think it has happened but is not the norm. You on the other hand will generalize and say it has never happened. Ever. Who's generalizing here Terryeo. I hope I lose my audience because they are all reading the stories on ExScientologyKids.com.
I notice how you refuse to even mention that site, those girls, or those stories though. Cause unfortunately, you have no arguement for it.
Posted By: I am watching
Date: 2008-10-20 19:07:55
This story is true, it is the story of one Tommy Gorman. If you want, you can come to the protest next month in San Fransisco and talk to the man himself and hear the confirmation from his own mouth. You can also look up Gabriel Williams on the CA sex offender list as well as the court documents which are on public record.
Data Transfer Begins
I finally woke up when my good girl friend Jennifer was raped by the number one top supervisor Golden Age of Tech, 11 year staff member, Gabriel Williams, at a Class V org from Mountain View California. I was on staff in HCO at the class V org in Mountain View California.
In July 2000 I joined staff , and about 4 months later in November 2000 I resigned from my post (job) but was not at all out of Scientology.
At that point I left staff. I was happy because I was not stuck going to the org on a train at 7am and coming home on a train at 7pm. I talked to staff at the Mountain View org who were there for a long time, like 20 years or more and the newer ones and any other ones. I wanted to see how happy they were, how they lived, how they acted, if they had any family, if they had a life other than working for Scientology, and if they had any money.
Oh look, here is another one. This time there are pictures.
http://partiallife.blogspot.com/
I could spend all night finding and posting these stories that are out there and I wouldn't have the half it it up here. I think psychs are the least of our worries if the scilons are getting away with this kind of crap.
I had another one but I decided not to post it here. I threw up after reading it. Yes the story was that horrible. These stories are showing up everywhere and you can tell from the details and such that they are real events. So I'm not going to sit here and debate you Terry because it's obvious you aren't listening. Everytime you open your mouth, I post another link to a horror story that someone had inside. Let the readers decide for themselves.
Some years ago various sources attempted to discedit Ron Hubbard, the opportunity was that he was spending time on a ship at sea. The popular method at that time was to imply, by innuendo, that Hubbard and his "children", which were officially known and trained as the Commodore Messenger Org, somehow, engaged in nudity and worse, shipboard. None of that had the least element of truth to it. Until you have seen a 12 year old walk into an org an begin to cause his orders to be obeyed, immediately and fully obeyed, you would have no idea how throughly trained those young, capable people are. The attempts to discredit failed, they were simply spawned rumors. :)
No Hax0r, I don't believe you, I don't believe the rumor on the website. I've seen Sea Org work, close up. Again I would caution, it is not a good idea to consort with criminals - meaning Anonies.
Btw casual reader. Terry here just said 12 year olds work in the sea org. Thats right WORK. As in child labor. If you read http://partiallife.blogspot.com/ then you will see they are made to work extremely long hours a day. So thats 12 year old working long hours Terry? Isn't that against child labor laws. And this isn't even getting into how much they are paid a week to help the church (Less than $60 a week).
Posted By: Tom Soctrates
Date: 2008-10-21 10:59:46
Terryeo-
Of course you don't believe it (or any of the literally hundreds of similar stories from ex-members). Because if you did, that would imply that there's something terribly wrong with your Church, and to even consider such a thing would put you out-ethics.
So, instead, you attempt to deny, discredit, and distract.
I dare you to do the data series on LRH, including the entheta. After all, if your religion is all true, and the entheta is all lies, it must be able to stand up to scrutiny, right?
Right??
And in what sense are Anons criminals? Where are the criminal records? Where are the police reports? Where is the documentation that a single one of us has been convicted of anything?
"Until you have seen a 12 year old walk into an org an begin to cause his orders to be obeyed, immediately and fully obeyed, you would have no idea how throughly trained those young, capable people are." - Terryeo
"I'd rather have you dead than incapable." - L. Ron Hubbard
"Scientology has never claimed to be Science. Ron Hubbard claimed he developed Dianetcs on scientific principles, but when he expanded Dianetics into Scientology in 1952, he went foreward as a religion. You will find some hints that science plays a part, but no where will you find Scientology claiming to be a science of the mind, spirit, or any kind of science."
This is totally false. Though you can't fault terryeo if he truly believes it because L. Ron's oldest books were edited in later printings to remove things like this:
"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion." --L. Ron Hubbard, Creation of Human Ability, p. 251 (1954)
The whole "church" angle started as soon as Hubbard started to come under FDA scrutiny because of his pseudoscientific claims regarding the effectiveness of the e-meters. Fun fact: A federal court order requires every e-meter to have a plaque on it stating that it is not a medical device and is for "religious" use only. Of course, the scientologists made their later e-meters with this plaque very small, on the underside of the meter, and often cover it up with a sticker. Also they are only allowed to use the e-meter in a religious setting, yet they roll out their stress test carts to street corners and subway stations.
No scientologist can come up with a clear answer as to whether scientology is a religion or a science. Despite what they have been brainwashed into believing, it cannot be both. How can a religion be founded on scientific principles? There is no litmus test to determine the presence of gods or space alien ghosts or whatever. But try using scientific reasoning to disprove L. Ron's claims and you will be called a religious bigot, a Commie, a Nazi, a psych, or maybe all of the above if you're really lucky. Scientology doesn't help anyone. It just kills people, bank accounts, and acting careers.
Thank you anons and Dr. Richard Cosgrow for helping to repudiate the absurd claims made by scientologist mouthpieces.
Up front, David Miscavige is dramatically - and somewhat bizarrely - attacking psychiatrists, his words backed by clips from a Scientology-produced DVD are broadcast on four giant high- definition TV screens and sensationally called: Psychiatry - an industry of death."
"A woman is safer in a park at midnight than on a psychiatrist's couch," booms Miscavige, backed by savage graphics of psychiatrists - or "psychs" as he calls them - being machine-gunned out of existence. Tom Cruise once publicly criticised a postnatally-depressed Brooke Shields for taking antidepressants, for which he later apologised, but I am now witnessing the raw dogma that lies behind his outburst. As Miscavige begins to crescendo "our next step is eradicating psychiatry from this planet, we will triumph!" the audience rise as one, wildly clapping and cheering.
I look around, half expecting people to be rolling their eyes at this ridiculous, over-the-top message, but instead they're staring at the screens with a rapturous gaze, almost as if they are hypnotised. A few minutes later, Miscavige crescendos again, and, on cue, the audience rise to hail the chief.
***
Just wait, there's more!
David Miscavige talking about the "global obliteration of psychiatry" using violent imagery and loaded words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfu7Sr50N7U
So.. do you agree with Miscavige when he says these things?
To say nothing of his "pinks and greys," or alcohol., or cigarettes. All mood-altering drugs are bad, except alcohol and nicotine. Why? Because L. Ron said so, that's why.
From Ex-sci kids. Poor child made to write every bad thing he did, including anything sexual. Isn't that a screwed up thing to ask a kid?
As a teenager I used to smoke alot of pot, and try out other drugs just out of curiousity. I was never an addict, but like alot of teens I just liked to have fun & party. My parents were freaked out about knowing I was a pot smoker. So my mom sent me to a "Dianetics Counselor" Basically a fancy name for someone who knows absolutely nothing about drugs except for LRH's outdated drug info. from the 1950's.... So the way my drug use was handled goes like this:
I had to write up every overt & withhold I had committed in my whole entire life. Every O/W pertaining to each dynamic of my life. It took me about 2 days of thinking of everything. I had to even write up every time I had masturbated, because technically this is a withhold. Afterwards, I had to let my parents read all of my O/W's. As a teenager this was pretty damn embarrasing! It's funny how documenting your secrets & bad deeds are a constant part of being a scientologist. So this was scientology's solution to my drug problem... Great counseling huh?
Scientology, poor deluded scientology, thinks childhood is no different from adulthood. "We're all thetans, some just have smaller bodies". These are the deluded morons who lock an infant in a chain locker.
Look at Hubbard's disastrous famly life of abortion, estrangement, suicide and divorce. He's your example?
And now, you say with a straight face that we shouldn't believe that these sci-fi morons would molest a child sexually.
And what is your reason for that assertion - BECAUSE CHILDREN IN THE CULT ARE TREATED AS IF THEY ARE ADULTS.
I thought you were just a jolly joker, but you are less than that.
You and your sci-fi friends have created a sick world where a 12 year old, you believe, is making fully informed decisions bout the cult indignities to which they are subjected. Let me tell you this, Terry, no 12 year old has made a fully informed decision in this regard.
Truly, this makes me sick. What has happened to you, that you are not horrified? That you dismiss these children with cult dogma makes you are less than worthless to these children.
Stacy Moxon - "Scientology has never claimed to be Science - Yet another hilarious terryeo claim. Yep, it never claimed to be a science and nothing you posted claims it to be science. It is a philosophy, it is knowledge in an area, and that area is about the individual's spirit. But don't accept that, question that, hold that question foremost in mind as you study. And good luck.
Why does a philosophy require its adherents to undergo security checks? Why does a philosophy have its own intelligence division and its own pretend navy? Why does a philosophy make medical claims? Why does a philosophy demand the conversion or destruction of everyone who doesn't buy into it? Scientology is not a philosophy or a religion or a science, it's a criminal organization.
I evaluate my data as an intelligent thinker, not as a cult member with a party line to push. I think that's the major difference between us.
You are currently obliged to defend the indefensible. I'm not.
However, "you misevaluate your data" is a pretty weak defense. Is your heart really in this? If you have a conscience, it must be strained.
We are talking about children being abused in a cult, here, where a loyal cult member like will go to any lengths not to believe it is possible.
Some Catholics were deluded enough to think that "a man of the cloth" wouldn't molest a child.
It was hard for such children to tell their story. If they did, they wouldn't be believed, because priests are 'ethical'. Jjust like your 'ethical' cult priesthood of the Sea Org. Catch 22.
Other morons in the Catholic church thought that the greatest good would be served by covering up for the abuse. Just like the sea org, they believed that the greatest good - avoiding bad pr - overrode the truth of these matters.
The problem with the Catholic church was attitudes like yours, and your fellow cultists', Terry. Or do you think it is is different in your case because sea org stooges truly are the master race, and the survival of CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY really is the greatest good?
Appart from the Catholic priesthood, can you think of a more repressive, coercive environment than the Sea Org? Fanatical zealots. Restriction on normal family relationships. Punishment. Conditions. Orders. Obedience. SP declares. All with the gloss of their own supremacy.
Your man Hubbard described a method that adults could use to easily convince a child not to tell about being molested. He sounded like he spoke with authority about that. Tell us about that, Terry.
Are your 'down-ethics' sea org fellows in the SP hall too dim to carry out the molestation actions described by Hubbard,if they wanted to. Too 'ethical'?
If you knew a scientiologist such as Mr David Miscavige was a liar, you would be told you'd misevaluated your data, too. And be punished.
Scientology dares talk about 'ethics' and 'accountability'. Wake up out of your fantasy.
There is no spiritual prize for being a willing stooge for these sick inadeuqates. You can be a better man than that.
Well Lex, I know better and you don't. I see the Church helping millions of people in numerous ways, improving society. You see a darker picture.
But you mis-characterize my effort here. I see you and a handful of other people refusing to understand what Scientology is doing. While, at the same time, swollowing the most obvious fabrications. You're welcome to your opinion, if you realize that everyone has a right to hold and write their opinion.
I fequently see people, such as yourself, baiting, attempting to get a reaction, attempting to get people to emotionally defend the Church of Scientology, or attempting to get parishioners to try to "sell" their religion in the same manner a Christian might insist that unless you are saved, you're going to hell.
That isn't my position. I simply know your data is wrong. And to return your last line to you, why do you insist on remaining uninformed, when the information would be cheaply obtained, yet you dare not walk through the doors and take a small risk, but instead stand off and tell others they are a "stooge" if they do? And it is offensive to talk about Church members as "sick inadequates", even if you were able to spell what you preach. You've bought a load of horse manure, now you treat it as if were made of gold. Yeech.
I don't know how you spell inadequate in your world. 'fequently'?.
Yours was a champion effort at missing the point. Your non-answer is that I should visit one of your shop fronts to get proper ‘information’ that you can’t give. You must be very keen to get people in there, yes?
Can’t you actually address the point, yourself?
I would be glad to hear if you can detail what was wrong about what I stated, and how that makes my conclusion wrong, rather than just that my 'data is wrong'.
You say - "My Church has helped millions, therefore I wouldn't believe children who tell of molestation."
Maybe the church, as you say, has helped 'millions of people'. You're welcome to believe it. People believe that about the catholic church, too. And that church actually does have millions of members.
What are you going to say to a Catholic who says - "Children aren't abused by priests. And if they said they were I won't believe it because priests are the most moral people on the planet. Kids can complain. Surely kids would feel confident to complain in this environment."'
'Wake up' would be a good starting point. 'Your delusion is a free ticket to child molesters.' would be a good conclusion.
What if, when you said that to them, they replied "You should come and read the bible. We'll let you do that for free."? Would you think that a moronic response? I would.
I'm not calling scientologists sick inadequates or stooges. The people I'm calling sick inadequates are child molesters, scientologist or otherwise. The people I call stooges are those who say you should dismiss the complaints of children because their little fantasy club is so important and infallible that it's right to pretend there are not child molester co-religionists. But, you seem to believe that scientologists can't be child molesters.
Are you against 'selling' scientology or just finding it too unpleasant or difficult ?
Are you aware that scientology is actually very keen on marketing and getting members? Money orientated? Pushy even?
Not that you're selling the cult, but you promise if I walk into one of your recruiting shop fronts I would get the 'correct data' that you can't communicate.
"If you leave this room after seeing this film, and walk out, and never mention Scientology again, you are perfectly free to do so. It would be stupid, but you could do it. You can also dive off a bridge and blow your brains out, that is your choice." - from your scientology introduction video shown to people who stray into the doors of your cult.
How do you characterize that data, Terry? Golden? Not manipulative? Not insane? Hubbard promised a much sorrier future than hell, for non-scientoligists, as you know.
I see you've gone into 'standard handling' due perhaps to lack of inspiration. You could take a holiday. Or you could tell me how each of my assertions is wrong, and we'll both be smarter.
You know better, you say. You know better what's going on inside the box called Scientology then the people on the outside.
There are people coming out of the box. Lots of them. Your 'church' has more ex-members then it has members. Your org's are running on empty.
Problem is you are only allowed to view a very small part of the inside of the box. While testimony of ex-members describes every corner. But still, you claim to know more then the outer world, brushing aside every single story from ex-members as ludicrous nonsense. There are no faults, no errors in your cult.
With all these outsiders testifying to the rotten core of the CofS, you still invite people inside 'to see for themselves'. See what, exactly? How to be abused by your sub-par system of justice? How to become a slave to the Sea-Org, with a goal that is so out of reach you will never get there? How to learn to get rid of your reactive mind, which is the part that criticizes and asks and evaluates?
We can all talk until we are blue in the face, you are never going to acknowledge the errors we see. But there is a solution.
Every single crime by the church will be reported to the authorities. The ones who make the laws in real life, in the wog world. They don't care if Scientology works or not. They don't subscribe to your worldview, where children are exploited, members are mistreated and ex-members harassed and attacked. They don't give a flying f*ck if you clear the planet, or have your dynamics through the ceiling. They will judge you on what you do wrong. And there's plenty.
You have very clearly proven you do not *want* to change your mind. You do not address direct questions, call all data that doesn't suit you untrue, start attacking on random things like spelling errors. If you were man (or woman) enough you would have the balls to really question what is going on and act accordingly.
Scientology can't even make up it's own mind about what it is. It is not science, it is not philosophy, it is not a religion, it's not a job. You only want what you like, and try to shake off negative consequences of your choices.
Are you ready to send in the stats? Tomorrow's that day again! If it raises your paycheck, please, by all means book this as a win. Good luck.
Here is part of a tale from an ex-sci kid. Here is what happens to 12 year olds who can't walk into a room, bark orders and make everyone do a Heil Hubbard. This is an old Nazi tactic known as "Nacht and Nebel" meaning night and fog. You vanish into both when you go to get re-educated at some remote camp. You can read more stories about the hell at the MK ranch at the ex-scientology kids website (http://www.exscientologykids.com/eskforums/viewtopic.php?t=334).
This one's a tough one to tell. Not because it's hard to think about - not anymore, with such an awesome surrogate family listening - but because the subject of my story is still connected to the CoS, and she isn't participating in this because of family concerns. But I have to tell the story. We'll call her Kris.
Kris was my best friend through most of elementary school, all of middle school and highschool at Delphi LA. We were close. That kind of close that makes an impervious, two-person wall of psycho-deflection. A little bubble of sanity in an insane world. When we both started to veer away from Scientology, my parents blamed her for my disinterest, and her parents blamed me for hers. Go figure.
As we moved further and further from Scientology ideology, and as our similar-minded friends began to leave Delphi, we became each other's life support. She was the only person I could entrust with my secrets, and *know* that she'd keep them, without turning around and reporting on me, and vice versa.
One day they took her. We were supposed to go out on Sunday, and I called and called and called. Her mom told me she was grounded and couldn't come to the phone. Her dad told me she wasn't available. My parents told me nothing at all.
When I finally got through to her kinda-sorta boyfriend, I asked her if he'd seen her that weekend, and he dropped the bomb. "She's not in L.A. anymore. She's at the MK Ranch school. They took her on Saturday."
I think I died in that second. My heart stopped, my vision filmed over, my throat constricted. The MK Ranch was hell for Scientology kids, talked about with disdain and disgust and loathing. Only addicts and juvie kids went there, we thought. And Kris hadn't done anything like that. It was in the middle of New Mexico, totally isolated. Kid's phone calls to their parents were only allowed 10 mintues a week, and they were monitored by staff. Friends couldn't call - and she and I hadn't been separated for more than a week in about 5 or 6 years at that point. There was hard labor, social isolation and intensive auditing. I knew they'd try to brainwash her there.
They had taken her. My parents had known. My teachers had known. Her parents had known. And no one let me say goodbye.
I went completely and utterly off the rails. I cursed my mother. I screamed at my dad. I tried to run out of the house, but mom stopped me. I tore my hair. I cried for days. The kids at Delphi, the ones who knew, laughed at me.
When I showed up back at school on Monday, her things were just as she'd left them Friday at the desk across from mine. Just as I started tearing up, one of the guys in my class spoke up behind me: "I heard they sent her away."
I nodded.
"Yeah," he said, "She deserved it." And he shrugged.
I have never, ever, to this day forgiven him for that. When my heart is big enough to forgive him for that, I'll let you know, but don't hold your breath. If it turns out that guy becomes a Buddhist monk, and brings the next great era of peace to planet earth, I'll still be hard-pressed to forgive him for that.
I should also point out that above is on topic because what was done to these kids was the same thing that Scientology claims was going to happen to people sent to Alaska. Sent off to some far place with the "psychs". Well in Scientology you got set to a hell hole in New Mexico.
It's funny, but the RPF and other ethics camps Scientology runs are in many ways a lot like the sanitariums of old that they moan about on a daily basis.
Wow, Lou, you've managed to give the real stories about Scientology another venue! Now exkids stories are here too! I bet a lot of sea org members are gonna get chewed out by their 12 year old bosses for this! And SHS brings up a great point. Scientology sends kids away to camps when they are bad or not following the party line. You DO have your RPF that people are sent to with no contact to family. How is this not worse than an asylum? I only see worse as no Scientologist is actually trained in the mind.
Oh, sorry Terryeo, I have one request actually. I kind of want to see what you are saying about these capable young people giving orders. I live in Clearwater. Does Clearwater have good examples of these capable people? Which building are they at, the Ft Harrison, or down that spooky alleyway? Could you let me know please where in Clearwater I could see your example for myself. Then I won't argue you about it again and say you won the entire discussion. Thanks Terryeo.
TG: Any 12-year-old Scientologist is capable. They're tiny adults after all. Where did L. Ron Hubbard draw the line? Surely there must be some capable 6-year-olds out there making ashtrays float and destroying SPs. That would explain why Hubbard had that little boy stuffed in a locker for two days--he was capable of being a scientologist but he was out ethics so he deserved what he got!
The student repeatedly commands an ashtray to stand up and sit down, acknowledging each action. Although the student holds the ashtray throughout the exercise, the goal is to cause the ashtray to move purely by tone 40 intention.
Are you saying that Scientologists don't command ashtrays to move? That Tone 40, part of perfect LRH tech, doesn't work?
ClearClearwater - Where in your TR-8 bulletin does it say what you say it says; the goal is to cause the ashtray to move purely by tone 40 intention. Which line of your bulletin says that? HCOB 7May68R is titled: Tone 40 on an Object. It calls out position, purpose, and Training Stress. At no point does it say Goal. Under purpose it says: To make a student clearly achieve Tone 40 commands. Which line of yours says Goal? Which line says to cause the ashtray to move purely by tone 40 intention? I think you have mis-evaluated and overgeneralized the written word.
TG - The Commodore Messenger's Org was never above the Sea Org, but always part of the Sea Org. In some cases, 12 year olds were part of the Messenger's Org, but I don't know how common that is now a days. Within the Sea Org, a job is a job, on occassion a 12 year old did give orders to 30 year olds.
Lex - you request: you could tell me how each of my assertions is wrong.
You are currently obliged to defend the indefensible - Nope, I post as a citizen with some experience in Scientology and am not obligated to post, reply, attack or defend.
Scientology is poor - Doesn't seem like, what with the organization buying million dollar buildings several times a year.
Scientology is deluded - Doesn't seem like, the Church wins most, though not all, of its court cases.
We're all thetans, some just have smaller bodies. -- Yes. But your conclusion: Scientology thinks childhood is no different from adulthood is not accurate. No one could possibly expect a baby's body with an undeveloped nervous system to act like an adult's body whose nervous system is fully developed. And no one could possibly expect a 6 year old body to bear the responsibility of an adult. I'm afraid your conclusion ignores the most obvious element of being a child, that a child is learning how to use his body, while learning how the world around him works. Clearly, a body has limitations built into it, you can't expect a one legged man to run a race and you can't expect a baby's body to write prose.
But the main point you draw me into discussion about is whether children are molested. I don't think so, but you refuse to recognize the reasoning I present. If you refuse to recognize the data my reasoning rests on, you can not understand why I deny abuse. You refuse to recognize the Church has 1/7th of its organization dedicated to self-correction, refuse to recognize that complaint lines are readily available all of the time, and those include complaint lines out of the org, over everyone within an org. You refuse all of that and you say:
And now, you say with a straight face that we shouldn't believe that these sci-fi morons would molest a child sexually. We are talking about children being abused in a cult.
You've taken the datum that Ron Hubbard wrote sci-fi (which he did, along with other fiction and screen plays), and labeled scientologists who read his non-fiction work as morons. I think my saying "you mis-evaluate your data" is accurate, but more polite. Taking a rumor, espousing its emotionally invective element, spreading it widely, overgeneralizing it, and attempting to cause an effect with your weak data, is a sign of a deluded mind, don't you think? :)
Annnnd I'm back. Wow Terry, is it just me or does that mean that the child labor stories I've read are true? The only job a 12 year old should have is his homework and maybe a paper route. Someone that young should't be put in a position of authority or under that kind of pressure.
"Taking a rumor, espousing its emotionally invective element, spreading it widely, overgeneralizing it, and attempting to cause an effect with your weak data, is a sign of a deluded mind, don't you think? "
Indeed. Like "Scientology Kills Siberia USA".
But, of course, I don't think questioning the dogmatic dismisal of the complaints of children abused in a cult environment is the sign of a deluded mind.
I don't think self-correction and dogmatic intransigence go hand in hand.
KSW means you cannot depart from Hubbard's commands, even if you worked out that it was counter-productive, or productive of an enviroment that could not acknowledge child abuse.
(PS Consider the word "poor" in context. 'Worthy of pathos' was the meaning I intended to convey, not 'unable to buy buildings'. Reading Mr Hubbard's books does not make one deluded, in my view. Thinking that because he called some fantasy "non-fiction" or 'research' means it is fact is another matter.)
"On Oct. 22, Judge Thomas C. Horgan imposed a one-year CWOF (Continuance Without a Finding) against Gregg Housh, who had been charged with disturbing an assembly of worship and disturbing the peace. As part of the plea, Housh was ordered to stay away from the Back Bay headquarters of the Church of Scientology and its new headquarters in Boston’s South End."
Gregg Housh plead to stay away from the Church? I guess that this was most welcomed. Any other details available?
Yea, Gregg is cool with the outcome and so is CoS lawyers Lou. Charges were all dropped against him. And he has to stay 100 yards away from 2 buildings for a year. So no legal findings innocent or guilty. Just an agreement between the two sides. Legally, for now, this is done. Everyone at the table on both sides said this was acceptable....so no arguement needed yes?
lex - I understand you were saying "deserving of pathos", rather than "without worldly wealth". This story is indeed about how Scientology intervened in a bill that would have increased psychiatry's effect in society. You might not remember those days. You might question the documentation presented. But to suggest the whole is concocted, that's just being silly. I remember those days. Any peace officer (supposedly would know the person by reputation) + any Priest, Preacher, or other professional religious person (supposedly would know the person intimately) + any psychiatrist; could have just anyone at all commited to a psychiatric insititution. Even today, once committed to such an institution, you can be drugged senseless under the guise of "medical necessity". At that point you are not capable of saying a word in your own defence. And that actually happened. In both California and Florida, wealthy older relatives were at risk from their wanting children. Psychiatry's power was nearly unquestioned. No, it isn't delusion that prompts this article, however much you doubt its validity.
Keeping Scientology Working -KSW- tells you what to do. If you want to keep Scientology working. It doesn't command you, it doesn't attempt to tell you how to understand, it doesn't attempt to tell you to not form your own opinion, It is about keeping Scientology working, but of course that is its title. It does spell out things you should be aware of and do, should you meet information that is presented as Scientology, that might not be Scientology.
I've told you why I'm sure children aren't abused, much less assulted. I understand you think otherwise. Now what?
Indeed, it was not the absence of psychiatric drugs per se that caused Lisa’s death, because she was actually drugged with chloral hydrate and valium by her cult ‘carers’. That’s in your cult’s own, as yet undestroyed, records.
The first autopsy report concluded that the cause of death was an embolism caused by "bed rest and severe dehydration". Numerous specialists agreed.
It was not the presence or absence of psychiatric drugs that caused Lisa to be locked up and isolated for several weeks.
It was not the presence or absence of psychiatric drugs that caused Lisa to be chronically and gravely dehydrated, bruised and covered with insect bites.
It was not the presence or absence of psychiatric drugs that caused Lisa to be delivered to a hospital dead on arrival.
The dehydration, immobility and torture she was subjected to, after her minor car accident, were all thanks to the pseudoscience 'care' she receive from deluded cultists.
A subsequent, and appallingly obtuse and justly ridiculed, report overturned that first autopsy report. Anyone visiting http://www.lisamcpherson.org/ or [link edited for length] can determine for themselves what travesty of justice occurred.
At the cost of millions, and public disgust the cult got away with it, so far. Scientologists, don't compound your shame, complicity and degradation by crowing about it. [link edited for length]
Decent care would have helped Lisa McPherson. She died in scientology's obscene pseudoscience ‘care' - 'care' that the cult never dare call 'abuse'. They are sure that abuse could not happen. No acknowledgment of abuse. No correction. What now?
Um....continuance without finding. As in no finding. The continuance was on the order to not go near CoS. That is all. He\'s not on probation, and naturally, if he breaks a court order could go to jail. This does not say anything about the charges against him, which were dropped. Probation would require a gulty verdict, which wasn\'t given. JESUS! CoS lawyer agreed on this, Gregg agreed on this! Why are we arguing. You don\'t work for CoS (you say), I cannot speak FOR Gregg. If they are ok with the judges orders then why argue it?
TG, I am not arguing against the court order. You said that all charges were dropped but that is not true. Here's the DA's statement, straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.mass.gov/dasuffolk/docs/10.22.08C.html
"If Housh stays away from the Back Bay headquarters of the Church of Scientology and its expected new headquarters in Boston’s South End, and if he does not re-offend in any other manner, those charges will be dismissed. If he does not abide by those terms, Housh’s case could be put back on track for trial."
Ok, it's not called "probation" I guess, but there is hardly a difference there.
Yes there is a difference Lou. HE WASN'T CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. Probation = guilty verdict. There was no trial, there was no guilty plea, there was nothing. He just has to stay a block away from the CoS for a year.
Why are you trying to slander/libel someone by claiming they were convicted of crimes and sentenced to probation when that's not the case?
Well, Lou did actually backtrack a little. And ok, I see charges will be dropped if he stays away. *Handshake.
Of course, this doesn't talk about CoS and its hatred for mental health. And if mental health is so bad why is Greta Van Sustrens husband (an OT8) being put in charge of the University of Maryland Medical Center which oversees psychiatry!? If you think its evil, how can you run it without being well, a jerk?
Posted By: Dr. Richard Cosgrow, MD, PhD
Date: 2008-10-23 05:44:43
Louanne,
I read over the autopsy report for Ms. McPherson. She did in fact died from thrombosis.
However, thrombosis is caused either by immunodeficiency or lack of movement (Which is why many elderly die from this complication).
A young woman at that age should not have had any immunodeficiency, nor should have had any issues with restricted movement.
However, the thrombosis could also have been caused by:De-hydration (As was observed in the coroner's report), and extreme weight loss (Also noted in coroner's report).
Also noted in the coroner's report was the numerous insect bites that were from cockroaches. Coroner's report also noted several egg deposits, as well as pre-mortem contusions (aka Bruising that occured before death).
So, if I were the medical examiner, yes, thrombosis would have been the primary cause of death, but due to being restrained and restricted from required medical care. I would also have listed the death as a homicide. And that is my expert medical opine, based on solely the report, as I did not perform the post-mortem exam. Take it as you will.
> TG, he got one year probation and faces jail if he messes it up. No charges were dropped, not a single one. That's why it is called CWOF.
> Ok, it's not called "probation" I guess, but there is hardly a difference there.
Actually, there is a HUGE difference. In the first quote you imply that he is on probation, which generally follows a guilty or no contest plea in a court of law. In this case, guilt is assigned. What was actually occured was that there is "no finding" which means Housh is in the court's eyes INNOCENT. Remember, innocent until found guilty.
So, here you are, posting on a comments board because you're upset people are telling lies about your church. But then, and this part is classic, you lie, or at the very least misrepresent the situation with Housh. Kettle calling Pot. Kettle here.
That being said, I'd like to touch upon a concept that hasn't be talked about on this thread. Hopefully it's picked up because I believe this is the core of the problem.
Faith.
The belief in something that generally cannot be proven. The deep personal decision that you align your actions in life with the ideals of a specific religon.
Christians have faith. Muslims have faith. Scientologists have faith.
So, when you attack their church or it's actions, you are in part attcking them. It's a totally natural reaction. And I think people overlook this aspect when they talk to scientologists. So, keep this in mind when you start to talk about scientology. It's deeply personal and pushing too hard will cause both sides to shut down and the arguement to degenerate into insults and anger. That's not good for anyone. That's my message to Anonymous members arguing on this board (some bring their point up very well, just a general observation over many different posts).
To the Scientologists, I have a question. Do you know what TRUE faith is? True faith is the belief in a system or ideal DESPITE evidence contrary to the facts. I'm Roman Catholic. I believe in Christ. I believe in his rising. I believe in his ideals.
The point is, I do this DESPITE the scientific evidence that it's not possible to be dead for three days and then rise. That you can heal someone with leprosy by rubbing mud on them and that you can turn water into wine.
Scientologists, in my observation, don't have true faith. They turn a blind eye to facts that contradict what Hubbard wrote. It simply doesn't enter their minds. Their faith is more... for lack of a better word. Fanatical.
So, when you say to me "Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead." I say "You know, that's a matter of faith. I understand it's not possible scientifically, but I still believe."
When you say to a Scientologist "Hubbard died with psychological drugs in his system." They don't say "That may be true, but I still believe in his work and ideals." They say "That's a lie."
That's the core difference. You have to remember who you're talking to here.
Any scientologist can refute my standpoint by saying something like "I understand Narconon gives niacin in levels that can damage your liver, but I still feel it helps." Or "I know drugs are not stored in fat in the body, but I feel the purif rundown works."
"Woburn, Mass. Man Given One Year Probation For Attacking The Church Of Scientology In The Name Of ‘Anonymous' 2008-10-23 07:04:33 -
A Woburn, Massachusetts man was put on probation for one year for disrupting a religious service at the Church of Scientology of Boston. In the Boston Municipal Court, Gregg Housh, 32, admitted to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt on charges of disturbing the peace and disturbing religious services for leading a February 10, 2008 disturbance at the Boston Church of Scientology. Housh was given one year of probation, the terms of which include a court order to stay away from the Church of Scientology of Boston's locations in the Back Bay and the South End.
Housh is the self-proclaimed leader of the Boston cell of an underground cyber-terrorist group called 'Anonymous.' He is the second member of Anonymous to face criminal charges in the past week for harassment against a Scientology Church. On Friday October 17th, The U.S. Department of Justice announced the filing of federal criminal charges against New Jersey Anonymous member Dmitriy Guzner related to the January, 2008 attempted destruction of websites owned by the Church of Scientology. Guzner has agreed to plead guilty to felony charges that could send him to prison for ten years.
At today's hearing, Boston Municipal Court Judge Thomas C. Horgan warned Housh that if he violates any of the terms of his probation he could face one year in the House of Correction.
For further information:
Marc La Casse, Esq. The McCOrmack Firm, LLC One International Place Boston, MA 02110 617-951-2929
Gerard Renna Church of Scientology of Boston 448 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02115 617-266-9500
Haha bear, I was about to post that too. Lou, you've already agreed he isnt on probation and wasn't found guilty. So where did the COS Boston branch get THIS information from? Are they misinformed? Shouldn't they offer some sort of retraction to this as its clearly not true? Or is whoever wrote this not a church memeber, and probably anonymous to make CoS look dumb? We already agreed on the facts of the case so the author of that piece, which tells people to go to the law firm for CoS and the CoS itself, is clearly wrong.
> I've told you why I'm sure children aren't abused, much less assulted. I understand you think otherwise. Now what?
Terryeo, here is your reasoning from your post.
> But the main point you draw me into discussion about is whether children are molested. I don't think so, but you refuse to recognize the reasoning I present. If you refuse to recognize the data my reasoning rests on, you can not understand why I deny abuse. You refuse to recognize the Church has 1/7th of its organization dedicated to self-correction, refuse to recognize that complaint lines are readily available all of the time, and those include complaint lines out of the org, over everyone within an org. You refuse all of that and you say:
Let me explain to you why this arguement is wrong.
A) Just because there are channels or venues for recourse against does not mean the person will report a crime. Children can feel ashamed, fearful and/or guilty when this sort of thing goes on. ANY of these could be a reason for someone not reporting abuse. You're suggesting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Which is so absolutely ridiculous I don't know why you even bothered to post it.
B) He's not rejecting your data. He's discounting it. From the viewpoint of A), I don't blame him.
C) You can say "I don't think this is occuring." Which is fair. But then again, I didn't think that priests were molesting young boys. I was wrong. You could be too. The only way you can say with certainty that it's not occuring is to have a camera in every spot of every building watching 24/7. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.
D) Gorman's story and the legal case that ensued refutes your entire arguement. His now wife was raped by a scientologist on site and she didn't report it. Again, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
E) Despite the fact that children shouldn't be at orgs. They should be at home with friends and family. But scientology is in the business of employing children. Something everyone in the organization should be 100% ashamed of.
Someone said "If you're a fanatic, you can rationalize anything". Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to brick walls here. No acknowledgement, no conversation. Just piles and piles of BS to cut through.
TG, I can't speak for the Boston Church but I congratulate them for what they got in court, i.e. Gregg Housh agrees to leave the Church alone or be jailed.
It's fascinating to watch "Ghost Bear". He must have been a politician in an earlier life. I mean, zero substance on half a page of text, that takes some doing.
I'm not asking you to speak for them. I'm asking you to interpret their message for yourself just like you do with all the other CoS stuff you DO talk about so much, but can't speak for either. You make a life speaking FOR Scientology, your site is proof of this. So if you can't speak for the CoS, why do you do it so much? Or do you mean your site is only your personal beliefs, not the CoS standpoint at all, and thus not valid outside of what Louanne thinks?
Why do you think they are releasing lies abou the case? Not what do you know, but why do you think Lou. I expect no direct response to this question. We agreed on the facts, Boston CoS is lying, or has very bad data and someone of your calibur could help them re-evaluate the data. I mean we already agreed on it! Yes you congratulate CoS, Anons are congratulating Gregg. YAY! Everyone wins! It really is a good thing too that there are so many other ways to protest Scientology than being within 100 yards of a few buildinging. But the CoS defaming an innocent (yep still is until a guilty verdict) person, well thats just libel in my opinion.
TG - Are you okay buddy? Courts declare what is libel and what is lawful. They aren't releasing lies about the case. The Judge could have acted, and he did. He kept what is currently in force, in force for another year. His interest, do you see, is keeping the situation calm and preventing upset. Gregg hasn't broken his "stay away from the Church" order; that has worked, no one has been harmed, no crimes committed, it is a working arrangement. Life goes on. So, the Judge held that in place for another year. What is difficult to understand?
Louanne doesn't officially speak for the Church - parden me for stating the obvious, Louanne. If you want the Church's official word; http://www.scientology.org - news. In general I find the Church doesn't make comment on real time news, but acts more like the Catholic Church about news releases. Conservative and carefully worded, if you know what I mean?
Ghost Bear - All right, I'll explain to you how a 12 year old could have a better grasp on something than a 30 year old. Today, in some schools, 12 year olds sit at keyboards and operate computers, some of the time. With a little bit of searching, I could find you a dozen 30 year olds who have no idea about operating a computer. And before you exclude this single example of modern high tech, consider the 12 year olds who play video games, who cause their game's character to survive through the most awful trauma. Whereas many 30 year olds wouldn't know which of the controller's joysticks they should wiggle. And if this additional example doesn't make the point clear, I'll spell the point out for you. Twelve year olds can learn information. Ten year olds learn information. Eight year olds learn information. It is said that Scientology consists of 35 million published words, some of that is administrative technology. A thirty year old could (conceivably) work at an org for 20 years and not be familar with the administrative technology that a Messenger Org's member was charged with delivering.
Terry, your correct! Thats why I said its libel in my opinion. As in the opinion of one person with the knowledge of law that I have (being very little). We are entitled to our opinions after all. Never did I say the court said so, or even Gregg said so. Just my opinion.
"The Judge could have acted, and he did. He kept what is currently in force, in force for another year. His interest, do you see, is keeping the situation calm and preventing upset. Gregg hasn't broken his "stay away from the Church" order; that has worked, no one has been harmed, no crimes committed, it is a working arrangement. Life goes on. So, the Judge held that in place for another year. What is difficult to understand?"
Nothing at all Terry. We are in complete agreement on this matter. Why question my understanding?
Actually, we did get the church's official word. Word from Boston. It was pasted here by Ghost Bear. There is a lot of subtle play with words, yes they were very careful. But a few things stand out as bold faced lies or not understanding what really happened.
1. "admitted to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt"...didnt happen. He admitted there was enough to take it to trial. That is all, he did not admit guilt.
2. "Housh is the self-proclaimed leader of the Boston cell of an underground cyber-terrorist group called 'Anonymous.'" Hes never said hes a leader, and saying ONLY CoS has called Anonymous terrorists.
So see, CoS did comment on real time news. And their comment was incorrect and either lies, or being uninformed by their lawyers as to what really happened. That doesn't sound conservative to me.
Oh, and to answer your first question, yes I feel great. The weather outside is gorgeous, I had a great big lunch, took a nice walk. Thanks for making sure I'm okay!
Oh and your justification for child labor....um, I don't care how smart a kid is, or how fast they pick something up. The laws of the land state that they cannot work. Period. It doesnt matter how much a kid knows, at 8, 10, 12 years old its illegal for them to work. I know CoS believes they aren't really kids but to the government, they are.
Much like Shaq at the free throw line, you've missed the point.
The issue at hand isn't whether Gregg was innocent, whether justice was served, or whether the courts are lying. The issue is this:
The Church of Scientology's official position (as released on its web site) is that Gregg was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to probation. The position taken by the Church is demonstrably false. Lou's assessment is in direct conflict with that of the Church.
The question is this: What do you believe is the justification for the Church of Scientology to lie about the case?
Anonymous - 21:20:21 Why does a philosophy require its adherents to undergo security checks? - There is a piece of tech called "security check" and it is used once in a while. t would be used where production was below normal, where someone probably has their attention stuck on something. I'm not certain any adherent is actually required to undergo a security check, ever. My impression is, that's always voluntary. I could go read the tech but this is one of these issues where critics insist it happens hourly, and adherents insist it happens rarely.
Why does a philosophy make medical claims? - Doesn't, you're probably confusing people's individual success stories with the Church's official position. The Church insists that Medical problems are to be handled by medical doctors before study or auditing can happen. In the case of a broken bone, you go get that handled, then you can proceed.
Why does a philosophy demand the conversion or destruction of everyone who doesn't buy into it? - I'm guessing you are thinking of the Suppressive Persons (SP) data because surely, you understand, Church membership is realatively small, compared to the population of the planet. Your statement suggests the Church is out to destroy the population of Earth - if they are not Scientologists. HAH! funny! But, when people attack the Church, then the Church is likely, through legal means, to react. A case in point would be the New Jersey man who is pleading guilty to DDoS attacks against Church websites.
Unless there was a massive baby boom between October 23 and December 31, 1977 most 30 year olds were born in 1978.
Upon first entering school (1983), digital technology had already begun to permeate American culture. Atari emerged and became very popular around this time.
Upon entering high school (1992), digital technology was commonplace, most households had a Nintendo, and computer literacy courses were emerging as standard high school curriculum.
Upon graduation from high school and possibly entering college (1996), digital technology was standard, computer literacy was expected, and gamers waited with bated breath for the release of the Nintendo 64.
Today, computers are essential to most industries, and computer illiteracy is a major handicap. A very large portion of the gaming community is composed of people who grew up with Atari, ColecoVision, NES, etc.
Terryeo, Lou and any other Scietntologist reading this.
One should not struggle in quicksand, as he will ony sink faster.
You're all fighting so hard, lashing out so much at Anonymous and their 'lies' and spreading lies and misinformation yourselves, that you don't see how deeply you've sunk and should you continue in this way, you'll end up drowning.
Lex says: Are you against 'selling' scientology? and then says Not that you're selling the cult, but you promise if I walk into one of your recruiting shop fronts I would get the 'correct data' that you can't communicate.
I don't think I promised you would actually get the correct data - because you might not 'get' it. And I'm sure I didn't say I could never communicate with you.
The data is available. But data on the page does you as much good as data in recall. It is of some value, but of no use. Data is only as useful as its application is understood, do you follow? For example, Galileo understood our planets orbit our star, but that data was of no use to anyone until people understood the situation. So too with study tech and communication tech and suppressive person tech. Critics see problem with these things, refuse to understand the application of these things, and make issue. Critics are stuck with data in recall and never reach the situtation where knowledge becomes useable, understood, information. So I reply to situations of knowledge in recall. I would like to generate an example, but we all think a little bit differently. So I have to say it like this: Understood knowledge is a different situation than knowledge in recall. Scientology is a study of knowledge to bridge that gap. And particularly address that gap in areas that bring human betterment.
Tom Socrates - I'm happy to know that you understand I have presented an argument. However, I could still find you a dozen 30 year olds who can't operate a computer., whether you view this as an argument or a fallacy. Hey, U asked.
A_Watcher - I don't see your characterization of my postings to be accurate, but if you have specific examples instead of bubblemouthed doublebabble, I'll be happy to read them.
So in other words, as the topic is trying to be changed, Terry or Lou, while you can be happy with the outcome of the whole Boston ordeal, you do have to admit that the response of the church is not 100% correct and has at least errors in it. It was an error to say "warrant a finding of guilt" because we know this didnt happen. Lou even said so before the press release from CoS Boston. Don't give me the line about I can't speak for the church either. Don't you agree now, that some of what the official PR release is incorrect? That the CoS released something that has errors in its data. Do you have the freedom to say, when its so obvious, that the CoS has released a statement that is not completely accurate to some major facts of the case, namely that the result warranted a finding of guilt. When we, including Lou, have stated its not the case.
And on the other point now being discussed here concerning the young persons working in the Sea Org. The video game stuff is just a distraction to the debate. I mean, we are talking about 12 year olds WORKING which is illegal. Doesn't matter how much they know, still illegal. You see, the whole child labor laws didn't come about because children weren't good at what they did, it was because the government determined it to be morally wrong so much that it was outlawed. 12 year olds used to work long hours at factories. They had smaller bodies and could really get into the machinery better than the larger adults bodies. These little workers really added great value to the workforce. But it was still outlawed because it was wrong.
It doesn't matter hjow capable a child is giving/taking orders to a 30 year old.
All that matters is their age makes it illegal because the government (oh, and I bet the pyschs had a part in it) determined it was hurting children's well-being. 12 year olds, no matter how capable have no place in a work force. They have a place enjoying childhood, playing those video games, sports, going to school, etc. If they are working in an Org, they are not being able to do this stuff. Again, to sum um......it's just illegal.
Tom Socrates - Regarding Gregg Housh - somewhat convoluted but here is the government's announcment: http://www.mass.gov/dasuffolk/docs/10.22.08C.html - says:
If Housh stays away from the Back Bay headquarters of the Church of Scientology and its expected new headquarters in Boston’s South End for an additional year, the government's charges that begin this, will be dropped.
Do you call this "probation"? The situation fulfills the common, general meaning of "probation"; A process or period in which a person's fitness, is tested. But does not fulfill the criminal definition of "probation" LawThe act of suspending the sentence of a person convicted of a criminal offense and granting that person provisional freedom on the promise of good behavior. Because no trial took place.
There are claims he is on video entering the Church and there are claims he is on video NOT entering the Church. Here' are two links about these and other aspects.
http://universalhub.com/node/17958 and http://www.universalhub.com/node/14260
The case was brought by the government against a private citizen. I guess you suggest the Church's Boston website isn't telling the story as you understand it. Myself, I think it comes down to which, specific definition of "probation" you use but don't see what is presented here as Church's statements, as falsehoods. Because it was he who applied for a permit to protest (leader) and because what the judge ordered has elements of testing his fitness to be a good citizen.
1st, the 30-year olds. Your argument is that 12-year-olds are qualified to boss around 30-year olds is that there are probably 12 (out of how many in the US alone?) out there who are less qualified with digital technology than most 12-year-olds.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it. You're using a biased sample. If you take a dozen 30-year-olds at random and compared their professional and personal qualifications and experiences with those of a dozen random 12-year-olds, the 30-year-olds will always have more.
Second, regarding "probation". You're equivocating. You're using the word "probation" in its colloquial sense (A process or period in which a person's fitness, is tested) when you know it will be interpreted in the legal sense (The act of suspending the sentence of a person convicted of a criminal offense and granting that person provisional freedom on the promise of good behavior). Furthermore, you're taking advantage of the circumsances of the deal between Gregg and the Church to further illustrate how his "punishment" is more in line with the legal meaning of the word.
Long story short, your arguments hold no water and fail completely.
Watching Anonymous Staturday, amazing.... so many posts during daytime at a week day. Wow.
On Housh, I am amazed what an avalanche this little note caused! I guess it's true that Anon gratulates Gregg that he got away without jail sentence and also that the Church is happy that the guy continues not to harass Church members. Kinda win/win situation, isn't it? So can we close this subject now? I am sure there is more news soon. The US State Attorney would, IMHO, not issue a press release if there wouldn't be more cases at the same stage already. Those guys usually don't interfere in their own prosecution proceedings so I guess they reached a point of "ready for trial". So, who's next?
Lou, we agree that both sides agreed. But the press release is factually wrong. Admit it. CoS issued a PR with false information. Its ok, we all make mistakes, just admit they released information that has parts like that no one said it warranted a finding of guilt. And Terry, what about you man? You address the definition of probation, which Anon did like 6 hours ago today and saw that loop hole. Come up to the present. But what about the fact that the PR piece says GUILT? There was no guilt, and in a court case, I'd say Guilt v Innocence is the biggest issue at stake. And CoS got the biggest issue wrong in the PR. Please just acknowldge this.
TG, you want me to admit that the Church of Scientology issued a press release (PR?) with false information? I haven't seen a press release with false information. Do you have a link? What website? ScientologyToday.org has a piece on "fighting drugs" right now which I hadn't seen before but otherwise there is nothing about Anonymous.
I think the court information will be public soon (or is already), so we will have a chance to see what the facts are. Sorry, but I don't trust anonymous postings on forum websites when it comes to such crucial issues.
is now a dead link. Seems the author has pulled it. Considering PR-Inside is the website most used for advertising the efforts of the VMs and other CoS groups I'd say its a reputable source. As I said the link is now dead. So author pulled it. I guess thats a retraction of the statement? Guess we'll have to see how it unfolds.
ATTENTION DAVID MISCAIVAGE. ATTENTION DAVID MISCAIVAGE. TERRYEO IS OUT SECURITY. TERRYEO IS MAKING UNAUTHORIZED STATEMENTS FOR AND ABOUT THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. YOU MUST HANDLE THIS CONDITION.
TG - PR insider isn't the offical voice of Scientology, but is published by authors like you and me. Its authors might report what an institution does, but would not be the offical word of any institution. I've seen both critics and supporters post on that website. If you were to believe a report at PR-insider to be the official word of the Church, you would be misevaluating your data because you have misunderstood the source of that information.
NomNom - you have the ability, like anyone on the internet, to create a report to RTC (Religious Technology Center) at that website. To remove all doubt, my statements are not offical Church statements, but spring from my own opinion, knowledge and experience. Nolanchart has not invited (to my knowledge) official word from any oranization. Instead, this website is designed to encourage normal people to post and discuss issues.
Tom Socrates - you say: Sorry, that doesn't cut it. You're using a biased sample. If you take a dozen 30-year-olds at random and compared their professional and personal qualifications and experiences with those of a dozen random 12-year-olds, the 30-year-olds will always have more. Hey, I agree with that, but the subject we were discussing wasn't the average 30 year old and the average 12 year old. Such situation as we discussed is exceptional, I was responding to your request for an example.
Second, regarding "probation". You're equivocating. I am saying that PR-insider.com is not and will probably never be the offical voice of the Church of Scientology, although individual authors there might report such things. When I point out how a word -probation- could (at least conceivably) be used to mean one thing, but be understood to mean another thing, I don't mean to equivocate. I mean to clarify, so you or anyone can more easily understand the actual situation. My "argument" is not whether "probation" is used appropriately, but whether PR-Insider should be understood to be the official voice of the Church of Scientology. The Church does have an official news site. It is: http://www.scientologytoday.org/
Terry you must be right! That its just a person who likes to write a bunch of articles about CoS but it not be the CoS. They really should look into this as that person writing those articles is probably in violation of copyright infringement for using so much trademarked stuff! And whoever wrote that article gave contact information to the lawyers and to the office location of the Boston branch. I bet they didn't like that at all in Boston! I wonder how many unwanted calls they got because some person decided they could sound like they were the organization itself. Maybe its time for CoS to litigate that author!
On a side note, its still down, so I assume the author who isn't a member of Scientology, realized it was wrong and pulled it. I wonder how they figured it out that it should be pulled......and I wonder if they read nolanchart. Just musing here.
Well his response might have been a bit childish, but Om Nom Nom, through the response of Terry, brings up a very interesting subject here... Scientology Knowledge Reports. Scientologists are expected to keep "Knowledge reports" about other members they work with or interact with or even people they suspect of being "Supressive Persons" or SPs. Compare this to how things were run in the Soviet Union and today in places such as Burma or North Korea. In those places, if someone spoke out and their neighbors did not report it, the entire block could be pulled up and sent to "re-education" camps to learn how to be proper citizens. These places often involve physical torture, sexual abuse and psychological pressure tactics. Scientology follows this line of thinking with their Knowledge Reports. You are expected to rat on anyone who you even suspect has what Scientology calls "overts" or "withholds", or who might be a "Potential Trouble Source". You are expected to rat them out and they can then be given what is called a "sec check" or security check. Using the e-meter, which they claim can tell if you are being truthful or not among many other things, they grill the person and subject them to extreme psychological pressure to admit to "crimes". Sometimes these are called "gang bang sec checks" where a person is confronted by a large number of accusers at once. Often the person will finally make something up just to end the "sec check". The statements are video taped and written down into files which are sent away to be stored permanently. There is supposed to be a way to get these back if you leave, but so far no one has managed to get theirs back, and there are surely copies kept on file. If a member does try to leave, these crimes that they "confessed" to are brought up and sometimes used to threaten a person via blackmail. If you leave, we will tell everything you admitted to... to every one. It is another lever that the cult uses to control their members. You have to write those KR's and you have to admit to crimes when you are sec checked. This kind of psychological brutality is what would face the world if Scientology was in charge. Iraq. Iran. North Korea. The Soviet Union. Burma. You can see this same kind of methodology in their brutal dictatorships. I shudder to think what a "cleared" planet looks like given the track record of Scientology and their human rights. Pictures of L. Ron Hubbard everywhere like with Kim Jong Il in North Korea. Statues of him in every city like with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. People making pilgramiges to shines of him so they will look like good citizens like in the Soviet Union where people would visit the tomb of Lenin and even pray to him.
Is this the kind of world that we want? Take a closer look at how Scientology operates and you will see the kind of chilling world that would exist should they ever seize the crown of government.
> Ghost Bear - All right, I'll explain to you how a 12 year old could have a better grasp on something than a 30 year old. Today, in some schools, 12 year olds sit at keyboards and operate computers, some of the time. With a little bit of searching, I could find you a dozen 30 year olds who have no idea about operating a computer. And before you exclude this single example of modern high tech, consider the 12 year olds who play video games, who cause their game's character to survive through the most awful trauma. Whereas many 30 year olds wouldn't know which of the controller's joysticks they should wiggle.
Actually, you're wrong, and let me tell you why you're wrong.
A) The majority of of 30 year olds are employed. Using US employment numbers, we can estimate this to be 92% of people (at 8% employment rate).
B) An estimated 90 percent of jobs require comptuer skills. www.science-engineering.net. This means an estimated 88% of 30 year olds have computer skills.
C) Children at the age of 12 have not yet fully developed their mental capacity. If you read studies on child psychology, you'd see that most children do not reach their maximum IQ until they are 16. This means they lack analytical skills neccessary to make sound decisions, let alone be "better" at a video game.
So, not only do the majority of 30 year olds have computer skills as required by their chosen profession, but they also have far superior mental capability to make sound decisions. This comes from life experience and their signifigantly greater IQ.
> Why does a philosophy make medical claims? - Doesn't, you're probably confusing people's individual success stories with the Church's official position. The Church insists that Medical problems are to be handled by medical doctors before study or auditing can happen. In the case of a broken bone, you go get that handled, then you can proceed.
Again, Terryeo is lying. If you go and get a copy of "A History of Man", Hubbard makes several medical claims in his discussion of auditing the "whole track". He specifically claims in the book that if a particular method is followed eyesight will improve. Not maybe, not sometimes. He says it WILL. That is a MEDICAL CLAIM.
Furthermore, Hubbard goes on to claim that if you describe an incident called "The Clam", which involves touching and removing your index finger while telling a story about the clam, a person without scientology training may "have to have his wisdom teeth removed, or at the very least, have an aching jaw."
Terryeo, if you are not intentionally lying, why is it that I know Scientology books better then you hmmm?
And if this additional example doesn't make the point clear, I'll spell the point out for you. Twelve year olds can learn information. Ten year olds learn information. Eight year olds learn information. It is said that Scientology consists of 35 million published words, some of that is administrative technology. A thirty year old could (conceivably) work at an org for 20 years and not be familar with the administrative technology that a Messenger Org's member was charged with delivering.
I'm sorry everyone, missed this last part in my original post in response to Terryeo. I was so blown away by the ridiculousness of his arguement I didn't read the second part.
Terryeo, the problem with your arguement is that medical science has already proven you wrong. Of course, a child can say "E=MC2" if he/she is told to. And that can be told to others to instruct them on what to do.
But the understanding behind the concept isn't there. Children cannot grasp complex situations and look at the "whole picture". This has been demonstrated time and again when children are asked to draw mechanical pictures of things like bicycles. They draw from memory and don't actually figure out how it works. Because the brain power simply is not there.
And when there is no understanding, that person cannot apply the knowledge to anything else. So you have children leading who know the rules but don't know the context.
And since this is what your church wants (as it's currently employing children from your description), the church obviously only wants people who can spout off rules without understanding. Why not just get a computer and have it run the place. Probably would work out better for you guys.
Second, regarding "probation". You're equivocating. I am saying that PR-insider.com is not and will probably never be the offical voice of the Church of Scientology, although individual authors there might report such things. When I point out how a word -probation- could (at least conceivably) be used to mean one thing, but be understood to mean another thing, I don't mean to equivocate. I mean to clarify, so you or anyone can more easily understand the actual situation. My "argument" is not whether "probation" is used appropriately, but whether PR-Insider should be understood to be the official voice of the Church of Scientology. The Church does have an official news site. It is: [link edited for length]
Here we are, talking about computers and you either don't understand the concept of hosting. PR-indsider.com DOES NOT HAVE to be the official voice of the CoS. It simply doesn't. It can host articles from ANYWHERE. What makes this a response from your church is the authors digital signature below...
Gerard Renna Church of Scientology of Boston 448 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02115 617-266-9500
Nice try at twisting the facts. Maybe you guys should start sticking to the truth, that way we have less ammunition to hit you back with.
PS: Why do you even have to lie? If Scientology is so perfect and works for everyone 100% why do you have to lie about ANYTHING. If the fate of the world is at stake, why don't the OT's simply make people believe? Why don't the remove the critics? Why don't they demonstrate their powers so the whole world turns Scientologist?
The most important question is why aren't you asking yourself these questions.
> You've taken the datum that Ron Hubbard wrote sci-fi (which he did, along with other fiction and screen plays), and labeled scientologists who read his non-fiction work as morons. I think my saying "you mis-evaluate your data" is accurate, but more polite. Taking a rumor, espousing its emotionally invective element, spreading it widely, overgeneralizing it, and attempting to cause an effect with your weak data, is a sign of a deluded mind, don't you think? :)
A sign of a deluded mind? That sounds awfully like psychoanalysis there Terryeo.
Funny, I would use basically the same words you used to describe scientologist's arguements. The only thing I'd add is that they ignore arguements they cannot win and actually try to be intellectually dishonest. I can't see the possible reason for this, but whatever.
Terryeo, Louanne and whomever else might be writing here, let me explain to you my beef. Maybe this will help you understand my point.
Deception.
It's an ugly little word but deception is alive in well in most of the things we do every day. We tell white lies to save people's feelings. We call in sick to work when we're feeling ok and we make up stories about being busy to friends when what we really want is to stay home and relax.
My beef is with scientology's deceptions. And they are visible and easily proven to anyone who wishes to look for them. It's not the fact that there are minor deceptions, but there are so many deceptions, they build upon one another.
Hubbards Life: No, he wasn't breaking broncos at age 3. He wasn't a blood brother. He was not the first wounded soldier in WW2. He did not lose his eyesight as a result of that fictious wound. He was not a Nuclear Physicst. He did not cure other wounded patients with Dianetics.
"Non-Fiction" Books: Hubbard wrote "All about Radiation" by himself. On the cover, it claims to be authored by "A Nuclear Physicist and a Medical Doctor". Right. In the book he claims that radiation can be washed off with a garden hose. A concept that is so ridiculous that no one trained in high school science would suggest that. In other books, Hubbard claims that you get sick from standing in the rain and that all homosexual people are covertly hostile.
Oxford Capability Test: This test was writteen by Hubbard with all the correct answers being his. The test is so flawed, they can claim to give you an accurate evaluation of your mind when you answer "Maybe" to all 100 questions. Yeah, right. They call it the Oxford Capability Test instead of the Hubbard Capability Test to lend it legitimacy. An outright deception.
Psychiatry: Hubbard claims that his biggest beef with this profession was that they didn't have any ethics. Which is complete and utter nonsense. It is Psychiatry and NOT scientology that reports it's findings and actions to third party medical boards for review. It's psychiatry that exposes it's ideals for the world to accept or discredit.
Medical Claims: Scientology, which is directly based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard claims that OT's do not get cancer, don't get sick. Are less likely to have any sort of accident (fall, car, etc), have perfect memory and can leave their body at will. Of course, no medical or scientific journal exists proving this outrageous claims.
So, what's my point? The point is that when you stack deception on top of deception, the person's frame of reality shifts. If 1 person tells them something it's easily discounted, when 100 tell him the same thing, not so much.
> and labeled scientologists who read his non-fiction work as morons.
You know, this struck me. I don't think scientologists are morons, just not intelligent. With all of four paragraphs I've shown how Scientology decieves people. It's taken directly from what they present of themselves. And that's what makes me sick about this whole thing. Smart people see through the BS. People who are slow are taken in and used for their money and work.
Ghost Bear, that is a long list of allegations, none of which I haven't heard before. Actually I got so tired of reading this that me and another scientologists put up a website at scientologymyths.info that takes up a lot of them.
The problem though is that I doubt that you would listen to me or anybody else with personal experience contrary to what you picked up somewhere on the net. As someone who classifies people wholesale as "just not intelligent" and himself bluntly as smarter than anyone else I fear that you might not be able to take on a second viewpoint than your own. One-track mindedness is dangerous and usually a keynote of fanatism. I'll try anyway. Here we go:
"Hubbards Life: No, he wasn't breaking broncos at age 3."
I don't know that, just as you don't know it for sure. There is a photo of him riding one at the age of 3 or 4 though. It's part of the biography video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dziK04-9qqQ
I might add that this information and most of what he did as a kid and teen is utmost insignificant for what L. Ron Hubbard is respected for which all happened 40 years later.
"He wasn't a blood brother."
The Blackfeet Tribe says otherwise in a letter of 1985, posted here: http://scientologyandme.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/document-of-the-day-l-ron-hubbard-recognized-as-blackfoot-blood-brother/
"He was not the first wounded soldier in WW2."
I never heard anyone saying that. And I am sure that he was not the first wounded soldier in WW2. That would be ridiculous to say. He was wounded in WW2 just as many other soldiers were. There is no controversy about the fact that he was a lieutenant commanding two different war ships during that time. But there is also no controversy about the fact that his strongest ability was write books, screenplays and radio shows.
"He did not lose his eyesight as a result of that fictious wound."
His medical records saying exactly that are available even on anti-scientology pages. He was partially blinded due to an explosion. For that reason and some other ailments he was transferred to the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital. I leave it up to you to do proper research. One of his medical records (and more documents on that) here: http://misou.awardspace.us/navyhospital.html
"He was not a Nuclear Physicst."
No, he was a participant of one of the first classes ever at the George Washington University that taught nuclear phenomena.
"He did not cure other wounded patients with Dianetics."
True, because Dianetics did not exist before 1948 and he left that hospital in 1947. Here is his own claim on what he did during that time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B6Yi8YeEN0
"Non-Fiction" Books: Hubbard wrote "All about Radiation" by himself. On the cover, it claims to be authored by "A Nuclear Physicist and a Medical Doctor". Right. In the book he claims that radiation can be washed off with a garden hose."
That's called decontamination, I believe. And the other two authors are named in the book. Why don't you read it? It's not a part of Scientology philosophy or training but makes an interesting anti-nuclear war reading, which was its purpose at the time of writing.
"A concept that is so ridiculous that no one trained in high school science would suggest that. In other books, Hubbard claims that you get sick from standing in the rain and that all homosexual people are covertly hostile."
Come on, taking quotes out of context is the most used propaganda technique against scientology and a clear sign for lack of arguments. Name the source and context and we can talk. Otherwise, sure if you stand in fallout you might get sick. As for homosexuals, it's a sure bet that there are covertly hostile people who are homosexual and vice versa. If you understand the concept of "covertly hostile" as a trained scientologist does you could even say that everybody is covertly hostile, one time or another in his or her life. It's an temporary emotion.
"Oxford Capability Test: This test was writteen by Hubbard with all the correct answers being his. The test is so flawed, they can claim to give you an accurate evaluation of your mind when you answer "Maybe" to all 100 questions. Yeah, right. They call it the Oxford Capability Test instead of the Hubbard Capability Test to lend it legitimacy."
There are no correct or wrong answers to this test. It's purpose is to take a snapshot of a person's current condition in life at the time he/she fills it out. It has 200 questions (not 100) and you might look at one, or even do one, to find out what this is about. For example here: http://www.scientology.org/oca/eng/perstest.pdf
"Psychiatry: Hubbard claims that his biggest beef with this profession was that they didn't have any ethics. Which is complete and utter nonsense. It is Psychiatry and NOT scientology that reports it's findings and actions to third party medical boards for review. It's psychiatry that exposes it's ideals for the world to accept or discredit."
Yeah right, and it's psychiatry who kills people by slicing their brains and giving them electroshocks still in 2008. The bad and ineffective results of psychiatry are widely known but that does not stop them from continuing and deceiving the public about it. Scientology and psychiatry are not comparable at all. But if you want to make somebody better it is easier if that person was not in the hands of psychiatry before. That finding alone triggered off the first criticism. Read up on it, there are tons of literature about it at cchr.org. Viewpoints of Scientology specifically on psychiatry are for example here: http://faq.scientology.org/psychtry.htm http://freedom.lronhubbard.org/page080.htm http://www.scientology.org/religion/heritage/pg011.html
"Medical Claims: Scientology, which is directly based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard claims that OT's do not get cancer, don't get sick."
Nonsense. These "claims" have been invented by the anti-scientology crowd to then point at them as "deception". Nice propaganda act, but a lie from beginning to end. Cancer or sickness are body conditions that can occur anytime to anyone. They might be less likely for strong or happy people but they can occur nevertheless. Scientology has nothing to do with physical conditions, aside from the fact that it can assist medical healing.
"Are less likely to have any sort of accident (fall, car, etc)"
True, that claim exists. I don't know of official statistics but it matches my personal observation. The non-scientologists are more often hurt or sick than the scientologists I know. That does not mean that it never happens. All these absolutes are nonsense and contrary to what scientology says. There are no absolutes.
"have perfect memory and can leave their body at will"
Another one of those critics claims made to ridicule it later.
"Of course, no medical or scientific journal exists proving this outrageous claims."
Posted By: Charlotte Pollard
Date: 2008-10-24 10:20:00
While I am not especially familiar about either Scientology or Anonymous, I have read these comments with great interest and have been very impressed with the responses of Dr. Cosgrove, TG and Ghost Bear. They have stated their cases in well-thought-out manner, and with references. I have visited the links, have beecome extremely concerned, and intend to do more research along these lines.
Terryeo and Louanne, you have made several claims about Scientology, but I\\\\\\\'m still confused about the kinds of things you\\\\\\\'re discussing. The official website (which I have visited) makes Scientology sound more like a philosophy or self-help program rather than an actual religion. Could you tell me more about who or what you worship? What do you believe separates you from just another philosophic path?
thanks for taking a stand. The debate about Scientology on the internet (and pretty much only here) has many facets and extremes. I understand that it is confusing to understand all of this without weeks of reading. Let's stick to what Scientology is.
I am not a religious scholar but there have been quite a number of them who compared Scientology to other religions. Their findings are here: http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/index.html
And a good reference work explaining the nature of Scientology and the actions of the Church of Scientology is here:
http://www.bonafidescientology.org
I can help you with specifics but bear in mind that I am "just" and interested and active member of the Church who has been swamped with anti-scientology claims about two years ago and since then researched answers to most claims. I might not be the best person to answer theological questions. Scientology works for me and does what it says it does.
Ghost Bear - I see you are convinced your view is correct. And, I appreciate that you clearly spell out how commonly you see deception being used in the everyday, real world. Sometimes in small, social ways and sometimes deliberately to save ourselves a little bit of work, and sometimes with harmful intent. I'll take an example that you say is just plain wrong, that you say is a deception.
He did not cure other wounded patients with Dianetics.
There are some videos on YouTube that talk about that. I'm guessing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dziK04-9qqQ is the one you reference because it says: Where he rode barely broken range broncs at the age of three and a half. That video goes on to say:
What he then discovered were mental factors inhibiting recovery and preventing medicines from taking effect. And when, in fact, those mental blocks were addressed, the medicine begin to work. And patients swiftly returned to health.
The Church created that video and doesn't intend you be mislead or disceived. It does not say he cured, but talks about mental blocks and their relationship with curing. It says when mental blocks were removed by Dianetic procedure, medicine begin to have effect and patients quickly recovered health. Mental blocks are what Dianetics is all about - but there are other ways to say this same thing.
An expansion of the Youtube video reference can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B6Yi8YeEN0 wherein Ron Hubbard's voice narrates; and he spells out some details about his Oak Knoll Navel Hospital experience with details about the experiment he involved himself in.
About Psychiatry - let me confirm, that is indeed Hubbard's beef about psychiatry, they don't keep their own ethics in. It would be difficult to respond to every point you raise, so I responded to one of them.
Charlotte good for you doing your research. Check out those site Louanne gave you. Check out ExScientologyKids.com, xenutv.com, whyaretheydead.net, xenu.net, narconon-exposed.net also. Read all the info. None of us are against the beliefs of Scientologists. I know it gets rough and scrappy, but everyone is free to believe what they will. Also watch the secret lives of women episode about Amy, or the Nightline interview with Jenna Miscaviage Hill. All great info. In fact! If you see something critical about CoS, or something that has happened go ahead and look at Lou's site scientologymyths.info. She refutes all critic claims better than most Scientologists have. Me personally, I've read the repudiations (hehe, big word, wonder if I used it right), and I still don't buy the explanations she gives.
The text book example of critics vs CoS is Xenu. Lou and Terry you gotta agree. Critics say Xenu is involved with the basis of Scientology beliefs and it includes alients and space ships that look like airplanes and alien spirits. Scientologists say its all false and not part of their beliefs. Critics say Scientologists don't get to hear about Xenu until they reach a level called OT3, and to get there you have to have given CoS hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of your time. Scientologists don't deny OT3 or the cost or time to get there....they just deny content of it being OT3. Recently Gawker actually released Hubbard himself discussing the Xenu stuff. They even have a recording of it, take a listen from the horses mouth:
Like I said, critics don't care if Scientologists believe this. If you agree with the critics, that this is part of Scientology doctrine, then the problem is that you have to pay time and money to learn this when any other faith you can walk into the church and be told any of their beliefs for free. They will tell you about Muhammad, or Jesus right away. CoS will deny Xenu if you ask. The reason why its used is because as the critics say, it emphasises the deception that they believe runs throughout the business model of CoS. Its not the belief in Xenu that illustrates what critics find wrong with CoS, its the cover up that its even there until you pay. Like I said, Scientologists deny this, and Lou's site gives a good explanation of their site.
Everyone posting, I don't think I misrepresented how it is. I tried to say critics say, "X", Scientologists say, "Y" so that this one post is not biased or argumentative, just how it stands for anyone reading that doesn't know why this is such a heated discussion. Peace everyone
Charlotte Pollard - I helped author an article at http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Scientology attempting to communicate how this study of knowledge, when applied, is a religion. Briefly, you study knowledge (much of which you already know), to better understand. As you understand thought and emotion better and better, you begin to see there are spiritual aspects to these things. Although this next datum is much removed from beginning study, in the long run a parishioner might realize he (or she) is an eternal spiritual being and this necessitates the knowledge that brought him to this realization, be religious. Besides which, the assumption, Man is basically good and trying to survive runs all through Scientology.
TG - If you and I both read a book saying certain events happened 75 million years ago, could that information be a belief in either your head or mine? I don't think so, not without pretty good evidence. It can't possibly be accurate to say "Scientologists believe in the Xenu myth that supposedly happened 75 million years ago". I mean really, no matter when or why you read a myth, are you going to accept it as fact or even as a belief? Isnt' this a bit over the top? Hah!
I'm not arguing the Xenu issue. Just saying what critics believe and that Scientologists deny it.....like you just did. I even plugged Lou's site. I'm all for Charlotte or any other curious persons get the whole story, not just one side. Aren't you?
Wow, an actual point by point breakdown of my note. Unbelievable. Louanne, I actually feel that you and I are actually communicating. I suppose in your lingo, you'd be raising my ARC triangle right now. Although, we're not sharing the same reality as of yet, so I'm not sure how the triangle actually moves. But that's beside the point. Oooooo, I'm giddy!
GB: "Hubbards Life: No, he wasn't breaking broncos at age 3."
Lou: "I don't know that, just as you don't know it for sure. There is a photo of him riding one at the age of 3 or 4 though."
Actually, I do know this for sure, as I grew up on a farm and actually did find out what it's like to ride on an unbroken horse. There is NO way a child could possibly have the strength to hold onto the horse as it bucked. It simply cannot happen. Children do not develop muscles that strong until after they've gone through puberty.
GB: "He wasn't a blood brother."
Lou: The Blackfeet Tribe says otherwise in a letter of 1985, posted.. {url to document}
There's actually quite a bit of debate over this. Contrary to the article I provide the statements of Hugh Dempsey who said the blackfeet never took part in this sort of ritual and former vice president of the tribes exectuive committee John Yellow Kidney says "You shouldn't give the document any credibility. I don't". Source: Wikipedia. Understandably you can see why I'd be skeptical.
GB: "He was not the first wounded soldier in WW2."
Lou: "I never heard anyone saying that. And I am sure that he was not the first wounded soldier in WW2."
There are many claims made by many different sites. While I seem to recall seeing this in Scientology literature, I may be mistaken. Regardless of that fact, Hubbard was never wounded in WW2. In truth, he was promoted one time and had four decorations for his service. He was relieved of command three times, once for claiming to have found a sub where there was none, once for firing upon Mexico and once for insubordination / refusal to follow orders. He was given an honourable discharge in 1950.
The link you provided shows no injury after 1945, well before the end of his military service. And I have yet to find any document that shows that he was partially blinded. If this occured during normal service, it was the practice at the time to send him off to a "desk job". This did not occur according to his military records.
GB: "He was not a Nuclear Physicst."
Lou: "No, he was a participant of one of the first classes ever at the George Washington University that taught nuclear phenomena."
No, he actually did claim to be a Nuclear Physicist. HCO Bulliten 23 June 1959. I quote "Doctor Hubbard, American nuclear physicist and leading world authority on the subject of life sources and mental energies and structures." Funny what you find when you clean up your grandparents things eh?
GB: Radiation being washed off with a garden hose "All about Radiation"
Lou: That's called decontamination, I believe.
Perhaps, I don't have the specific quote. Here's a better one. LRH claiming that babies/children are a cause cancer! Apparently he's a medical doctor now too? So much for not dispensing medical advice...
"It always requires a second-dynamic or sexual upset, such as the loss of children or some other mechanism to bring about a condition known as cancer. This is cancer at the outset. I have examined too many cases not to have recognized this, because it is present in every single case that had cancer that I've ever examined - real wild curve on the second dynamic. And where we have helped a case with cancer we have processed such things as wasting babies and accepting babies, and mocking up babies and throwing them away, and doing suchlike and so on, and we have had a considerable change in the condition of the case. However, a person can get so far gone that he can hardly be processed or not processed at all, and when this is the case, why, the cancer gets him."
To quote a favourite movie of mine: "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
GB: "Oxford Capability Test. Not valid."
Lou: "There are no correct or wrong answers to this test. It's purpose is to take a snapshot of a person's current condition in life at the time he/she fills it out."
Explain to me how the test properly evaluates and weighs the subjective term "maybe". Tell me how a test knows what a person means when they say maybe. For example. "Do you often sit with old people just for fun?" Maybe. Maybe could mean "Sure, if they have some cash they'll give me." or "Sure, if they're lonely I will." or maybe "Sure, if I can date them!" Maybe can mean anything. How does the test know what maybe a person is thinking of. It can't. Therefore it cannot provide a representation of the persons mind. Done and done.
GB: Psychiatry
Lou: Yeah right, and it's psychiatry who kills people by slicing their brains and giving them electroshocks still in 2008.
Actually this doesn't happen except in very poor countries where they simply don't know better. Provide me with a single study performed by any first world doctor that includes electroshock or lobotomies in the last 20 years.
BUT, the point here is that they did not hide this practice. They said "we're going to electroshock people.' That's ethics. They told the world what they were going to do. They let the world see and make it's own judgement. Can Scientology make the same claim? Why is it that members have to tell everything while Scientology Management is an area of withholds? That is ethics Louanne. Allowing others who are not part of your organization to make judgements on what you did.
GB: Medical Claims: Scientology, which is directly based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard claims that OT's do not get cancer, don't get sick.
Lou: Nonsense. These "claims" have been invented by the anti-scientology crowd to then point at them as "deception".
Here's quotes from the Scientology books I own. THE OLD ONES. You know, the ones that have been revised to exclude all these little things....
Today, Eleanor has arthritis. She is audited... tonight she doesn't have arthritis (HoM p.7)
"Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis." (HoM 1961 p.20)
"A child had died, was dead, had been pronounced dead by a doctor, and the auditor, by calling the thetan back and ordering him to take over the body again brought the child to life." Checksheet 1968, "Dissemination of Material" p.75
Yeah, no outrageous claims here. Sorry I said as such.
If you're still with me great. I look forward to your responses.
"I suppose in your lingo, you'd be raising my ARC triangle right now."
Pfff... not exactly.
Well, on the Bronco thing: I don't insist on that and it might be that "riding broncos in the age of 3" because "breaking broncos in the age of 3" by some enthusiastic member. Happens.
Blood Brother: "Understandably you can see why I'd be skeptical." Yes, I do. What I know for sure is that everyone quoted in the Wikipedia article was a) not there and b) has no authority to say anything like that. What's undeniable though is that Hubbard was the first western author who wrote a book about the Blackfeet that did not classify them as a savages and showed some insight in their lives. It's called Buckskin Brigades, published 1937.
Hubbard/Military: "He was given an honourable discharge in 1950." Which ends that part of his life. Personally, I like the insubordinance part though.
"The link you provided shows no injury after 1945, well before the end of his military service."
No, he was a lieutenant in reserve after leaving he hospital. And the war was over too in 1945, remember? He officially quit in 1950, just before publishing Dianetics. If I remember right Hubbard talks about that at length in the first Melbourne Congress tape but this would go too far here anyway.
"And I have yet to find any document that shows that he was partially blinded."
Eyesight failing, it says.
"If this occured during normal service, it was the practice at the time to send him off to a "desk job". This did not occur according to his military records."
No, he went in hospital care and after that left active service to move to Los Angeles.
"No, he actually did claim to be a Nuclear Physicist. HCO Bulliten 23 June 1959. I quote "Doctor Hubbard, American nuclear physicist and leading world authority on the subject of life sources and mental energies and structures.""
You are right, he said that. The Bulletin is titled "What is Scientology?" (I have all of them in chronological sequence). He participated in a George Washington University class for nuclear phenomena, in the 1930s, decades before this became common in physics classes and 15 years before the atom bomb. In his class were the guys who later created that bomb. I can see your point that this would not make one a Nuclear Physisist.
"LRH claiming that babies/children are a cause cancer!"
Bullshit. He says that a messed up family/sex life would support cancer. Messed up is the keynote here, not children. So? It's part of Dianetics that psychosomatic illnesses support actual physical illnesses, including cancer, to persist and grow. That's common sense and since a couple of years even recognized in sanctioned psychotherapy.
"To quote a favourite movie of mine"
Sandler, eh? Did you see "Don't mess with the Zohan?" I almost laughed my head off. Normally Sandler is a bit too weird but that one was great.
"Explain to me how the test properly evaluates and weighs the subjective term "maybe".Tell me how a test knows what a person means when they say maybe."
I have not written the evaluation manual for this test but to me "maybe" means "cannot decide".
"For example. "Do you often sit with old people just for fun?" Maybe."
That's not even a possible answer. But that's why this question is not in the test, I guess.
GB: Psychiatry Lou: Yeah right, and it's psychiatry who kills people by slicing their brains and giving them electroshocks still in 2008. "Actually this doesn't happen except in very poor countries where they simply don't know better."
Provide me with a single study performed by any first world doctor that includes electroshock or lobotomies in the last 20 years.
A "study"? Why, we are talking about treatment of people with ECT or lobotomy. Millions of people every year get their brains cooked, burned or sliced in pieces under the cloak of a "treatment". It would be great if they did studies on it, to actually find out if it works, or why it does not work.
"BUT, the point here is that they did not hide this practice. They said "we're going to electroshock people.' That's ethics. They told the world what they were going to do. They let the world see and make it's own judgement."
Yeah, they are undoubtedly the best organized deception organization in the world. "Mercy killing" was a harmless term compared to "mental treatment"...
"Can Scientology make the same claim?
Not comparable. But Scientology does what it says it does. And the Church of Scientology (an important distinction) as well.
"Why is it that members have to tell everything while Scientology Management is an area of withholds?"
Yawn, general claims, no substance. Trying to be revolutionary or something?
Medical claims: "Here's quotes from the Scientology books I own."
"Today, Eleanor has arthritis. She is audited... tonight she doesn't have arthritis (HoM p.7)"
Good for her. No medical claim.
"Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis." (HoM 1961 p.20)
Context? Auditing can and does certainly support healing but is does not start it. That is done by medical treatment (HCO PL on physical healing, on display in every Church of Scientology, as a rule).
""A child had died, was dead, had been pronounced dead by a doctor, and the auditor, by calling the thetan back and ordering him to take over the body again brought the child to life." Checksheet 1968, "Dissemination of Material" p.75"
Sounds cool. Medical claim? No. Individual case? Yes. Context: Mind over matter, or: the individual is a spirit that controls his body and not vice versa. Maybe there are people "coming back from a deathlike state", I don't know. Medicine reports that such cases exist, near death experiences etc. But no trained Scientologist or Scientology auditor would count on it or claim that they could reanimate a dead person. It's not part of Scientology belief.
You see, the trouble is that if you use quotes without context or search through materials with the single purpose to "locate something to make fun of" you always will find something. No matter if you take today's NY Times, the Bible or Al Gore's biography. It does not further the understanding of the subject either.
Louanne: "He participated in a George Washington University class for nuclear phenomena, in the 1930s, decades before this became common in physics classes and 15 years before the atom bomb. In his class were the guys who later created that bomb. I can see your point that this would not make one a Nuclear Physisist."
Let's not mince words, Lou, he did just "participate" in the class, he earned a grade of F. Yes, that's right, he failed the course. I'd be willing to bet those guys who went on to later create the atomic bomb at least got Cs.
Posted By: William Johnson
Date: 2008-10-24 19:45:48
"Doctor Hubbard, American nuclear physicist and leading world authority on the subject of life sources and mental energies and structures."
In his own words. Hmmm. At no time was Lron EVER worthy of the title Doctor. He never earned it, never degreed by any recognized organization. Hence, he lied.
"He wasn't a blood brother." Every single member of the Blackfoot council states that. They also state that the Blackfoot has NEVER taken part in any 'blood brother' type cerimonies. Hell, just ask them. Also, "They weren't there" is not a viable argument. I wasn't at Lincoln's assasination, but I know it happened.
"No, he was a participant of one of the first classes ever at the George Washington University that taught nuclear phenomena."
Again, taking a class does not a doctor make, another lie.
"Millions of people every year get their brains cooked, burned or sliced in pieces under the cloak of a "treatment". Care to quote any sources with that? Otherwise it is also a lie.
http://www.cchr.org/media/pdfs/CCHR_Pamphlet_ECT_Brutal_Reality.pdf Quoting $cilon front company propaganda wins no points.
Why are there no Scientology food pantries, soup kitchens, any kind of help for those who are in need? Is this not the fundamental basis for any religion?
With LRon's hatred of all things psychiatric, why was vistaril found in him when he was autopsied?
Why do all the spikes on the light/telephone poles at Gold base point in, rather than out? They are meant to keep people in, not as a security measure to keep people out. Why?
Posted By: Charlotte Pollard
Date: 2008-10-24 21:08:19
Wow, what a day I have had. Thank you all for providing so much information; I have taken a brief overview of all the sites and intend to look into them further as I go along. This is much more interesting than following the election! However, though I was extremely troubled by the testimonies at ExScientologyKids, and I found Louanne's list of articles to be quite extensive, but I couldn't find much about the doctrines of Scientology.
Terryeo: I read your article at WikiInfo and found it very informative, but it did not answer the question I originally postulated. When I was in school, my old philosophy professors introduced what they called the First Rule of Religion: "There is a God, and it is not you." Granted, "God" can refer to a single deity as in Christianity, or several as in Hinduism, or even a sublime state of being outside the consciousness, like the Buddhist Nirvana. But the point is that religion, by its very nature, addresses the spiritual relationship between mankind and that Divine Other, "God." If it only addresses the nature of man himself, then it not a religion, but a philosophy. In discussing the True Forms, Plato did theorize on man's spiritual nature, but no one suggests that Plato started a religion.
So I suppose I'll have to ask again. Who or what do Scientologists worship? Is it a God, or many Gods? A Prime Mover, or some other Divine Enitity? You say that man is basically good, so do you have a concept of sin, a violation of intrinsic goodness? If so, how is one redeemed from sin? If not, does your faith believe in free will, or in fate and predestination?
Louanne: It sounds as though you are exactly the kind of person I was looking for! These above questions that I have posed to Terryeo I also pose to you. I always think that practictioners of any faith should be able to articulate the key doctrines of their faith. Ghost Bear mentioned that he was a Roman Catholic; I bet that if I asked him about the concept of transubstantiation, he'd be able to answer me, or he would not be a practicing Catholic. (Quiz time, Mr. Bear! Transubstantiation in two paragraphs or less! ^_^) A faith that cannot be communicated is a faith that is followed blindly, and that is harmful to any faithful person.
Also, could you tell me a little more about Xenu? I listened to Mr. Hubbard's lecture in the link TG provided, and I'm a little confused about his role in your faith. Is he a deity? A devil figure? Is the Xenu story the creation myth of Scientology? Is it meant to be factual, or is it an allegory for the human condition?
TG, Ghost Bear, et al: Thank you for providing me with the other end of the spectrum, and in such a polite manner. I don't claim to understand everything you've been discussing with Terryeo and Louanne, but I promise to do further research.
You say that you don't protest the beliefs of Scientology, so it would seem that you have a problem with the structure of the Church itself. What I would like to know is: if the Church of Scientology were to reconfigure its structure, but retained its doctrines, would you continue to protest? Doctrine, for me, is what makes a religion moreso than its structure. A Christian can practice without a church, and a Buddhist without a temple. Can a Scientologist be a Scientologist without an org?
I look forward to reading your answers. Thank you very much for taking the time to help me along. I will continue to do further research.
Charlotte Pollard – Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on (mostly my) article at wikinfo.org. I misunderstood your question. Scientology philosophy and the Church disseminating it state, as part of the philosophy, that a supreme being exists. Known by many names, such as God, the idea in Scientology is called “The Eighth Dynamic”. An individual’s life encompasses themselves and others, life, the physical universe, and so on. Scientology’s view spells these increasingly larger areas out as dynamics The idea of dynamics, where the first dynamic is in regard to one’s own survival, the second in regard to one’s immediate family, and so on, is available here: http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part02/Chp04/pg0153.html
Briefly stated, an individual Scientologist has an individual relationship with the supreme being that is his (or hers) alone. If worship is part of that relationship, fine. But no specific worship methods or specific relationship is espoused or recommended. Personally, my idea of God has changed significantly as I have become more spiritually aware.
Charlotte Pollard – Briefly: Sin – an individual’s idea of sin is theirs alone and only through their own understanding of past sin can they free themselves of its effects. But you ask penetrating questions, at this link are professional scholar opinions that, perhaps, respond in a manner you are more familiar with. http://www.scientologytoday.org/experts/
> You say that you don't protest the beliefs of Scientology, so it would seem that you have a problem with the structure of the Church itself. What I would like to know is: if the Church of Scientology were to reconfigure its structure, but retained its doctrines, would you continue to protest? Doctrine, for me, is what makes a religion moreso than its structure. A Christian can practice without a church, and a Buddhist without a temple. Can a Scientologist be a Scientologist without an org?
Charlotte, the problem I have with Scientology is that at a fundamental level, they are deceptive. They mislead you about what their "Stress Test" is actually for, they mislead you in saying "We don't believe in space aliens" they mislead you in saying that Hubbard didn't make medical claims or that OT's can have fantastic powers.
Here's the deal. Scientologists are allowed to believe whatever they want. However, in my opinion their system is designed to misrepresent themselves to achiveve a specific result from an individual. There are lots of words that describe this action. My favourite one is FRAUD.
For example. I walk into a Roman Catholic Church. I say "Can I talk to you about Jesus Christ?" to the priest. He talks to me. He doesn't hold anything back and we have a frank and open conversation. You go into a Scientology Org and ask about Xenu, they tell you it doesn't exist. In case you were wondering how we know about Xenu, the documents were presented in a court of law. I can't recall the case, but I'm sure one of the other helpful members on this board will send you a link.
The point here is that they don't tell you about Xenu because they KNOW it will drive people away. They know that if they get 100 potential members in a month, that more will join up if they don't talk about Xenu then if they do. Pretty much common sense eh Charlotte?
So, they DON'T mention it. They hide it and refuse to acknowledge it. They do this so you're more likely to join the church. That's why I say the chruch is committing fraud.
You can believe in God, a goat or a peglegged pirate named Stabby McKeelhaul. I don't care. I DO care when people, espicially those who aren't that bright have information dilberately held from them so that they're more likely to make a decision that favours a specific party.
That's what I have a problem with. That's what's wrong. That's the deception.
Don't worry Louanne, I'm getting to your message. Just requires some time. :)
Hubbard & Broncos: I don't insist on that and it might be that "riding broncos in the age of 3" because "breaking broncos in the age of 3" by some enthusiastic member. Happens. The CoS video claims he was "riding barely broken broncos".
I don't believe that statement. The reason I don't is beacuse I know what "barely broken" broncos can do. They can kill you. Let alone a 3 year old child. No parent would dare do this.
Hubbard Blood Brother: Yes, I do. What I know for sure is that everyone quoted in the Wikipedia article was a) not there and b) has no authority to say anything like that. What's undeniable though is that Hubbard was the first western author who wrote a book about the Blackfeet that did not classify them as a savages and showed some insight in their lives. It's called Buckskin Brigades, published 1937.
Well, I don't see how him writing a book with insights into the blackfoot tribe proves he was a blood brother. That's akin to saying I'm an Alumni of a university because I wrote about their faculty. It just doesn't hold water. If that's the evidence, I'm going to go with the historian.
Hubbard Injury: No, he was a lieutenant in reserve after leaving he hospital. And the war was over too in 1945, remember? He officially quit in 1950, just before publishing Dianetics. If I remember right Hubbard talks about that at length in the first Melbourne Congress tape but this would go too far here anyway.
Hubbard's quotations on his own personal life should be viewed with EXTREME skepticism. Simply because he has a strong bias and motive to lie or tweak the truth.
I thought you said partially blinded. That's COMPLETELY different then eyesight failing. One describes an instantaneous injury, one can describe any number of degenerative conditions. Being partially blinded can be proven by seeing damage to the structures of the eye. Progressive loss of eyesight cannot.
Hubbard Military Hospital Time: No, he went in hospital care and after that left active service to move to Los Angeles.
You have documentation of this? And the reports while he was there? I'd be very interested to see the doctor's comments. It's easy to find this documentation from a critic's side, but not from a scientologists side.
Hubbard Nuclear Physics: You are right, he said that. The Bulletin is titled "What is Scientology?" (I have all of them in chronological sequence).
So, in this instance, you acknowledge he lied about his credentials. I'm not trying to beat you up about it, as I've been off on things too, but I'd like to try and make a point. Why do you think he said that? For his own ego? Or do you think it was to lend credibility to his movement? (I am correct to say it was a movement at this date in time right?)
Hubabrd Second Dynamic and Cancer: Bullshit. He says that a messed up family/sex life would support cancer. Messed up is the keynote here, not children. So? It's part of Dianetics that psychosomatic illnesses support actual physical illnesses, including cancer, to persist and grow. That's common sense and since a couple of years even recognized in sanctioned psychotherapy.
You'll have to excuse me. I'm trying to re-read the quote in it's entirety. You have to admit, Hubbard was not the most articulate guy in the world. I'll post another topic on this after as I think it's important to address your comments.
Adam Sandler: Sandler, eh? Did you see "Don't mess with the Zohan?" I almost laughed my head off. Normally Sandler is a bit too weird but that one was great.
For me, he peaked at Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. That's when he was in the zone. He provided teenage humor and he got the hot chick in the end. What more could a boy want? :P
Stress Tests: I have not written the evaluation manual for this test but to me "maybe" means "cannot decide". "For example. "Do you often sit with old people just for fun?" Maybe." That's not even a possible answer. But that's why this question is not in the test, I guess.
Actually, one of the questions is "Do you read bus schedules for fun?" and is answerable on the test with "maybe". I copied this format for the Elderly question. Maybe can mean unsure, it can mean I don't know. You and I are in agreement here. It can mean any number of things. Which is why I say that a test cannot assign a numerical value to a non-constant value. It simply cannot be done logically.
Lou, you're absolutely 100% correct here. I'm wrong. This does occur. I do consider myself a bit of a science buff, so I really do appreciate the correction. However, comparing the effects of the 1950's ECT with today's ECT is not fair nor accurate. An act I did see on the CCHR website that you linked. Studies performed by medical doctors (not just Psychologists) have proven that ECT actually does improve the short term and long term quality of life for a person with severe depression. These studies also show that there is little to no brain damage. So, as far as ECT, I'll have to side with the doctors on this one. They're the experts, not you, nor I, nor Scientology. I would side with Scientology however if they commissioned a third party independent study that countered the above. But we both know that’s not going to happen.
ECT Studies: A "study"? Why, we are talking about treatment of people with ECT or lobotomy. Millions of people every year get their brains cooked, burned or sliced in pieces under the cloak of a "treatment". It would be great if they did studies on it, to actually find out if it works, or why it does not work.
Lou, there is no licensed medical practice in existence today that has not gone through clinical trials, verification and re-verification. This means studies are done, their work investigated, retested and retested again. In these situations, independent doctors from various universities, governments and sometimes private individuals. The point here is that ECT is validated by these studies. IF scientology knows these are wrong, perhaps they should submit their own evidence to the government and or private doctors for rebuttal. Can you show me where "millions of people get their brains "cooked". I believe you're comparing the 1950's with today. Read the study associated with the first link you gave me.
Psychology Ethics: Yeah, they are undoubtedly the best organized deception organization in the world. "Mercy killing" was a harmless term compared to "mental treatment"...
See, here's the thing. You're saying there is a MASSIVE cover up perpetuated by literally all the psychologists AND all the general practice doctors in the world? And the purpose? To conspire so they can cook people's brains? That's awfully far fetched. I've looked at the CCHR's site. I know their side and what they think. I don't agree with them because they don't provide any evidence that follows the scientific method. That is to say, studies performed that can be re-tested by unbiased individuals.
Scientology Ethics: Not comparable. But Scientology does what it says it does. And the Church of Scientology (an important distinction) as well.
It is comparable. You said that Hubbard's biggest beef with psychiatry was the lack of ethics. I've shown one aspect where psychiatric ethics exceed scientology ethics. My point here is that despite claims of a massive conspiracy, they provide all relevant data for everyone and anyone to see. Individuals can investigate, they can test and they can learn. For a conspiracy to exist with free and open information would mean that EVERYONE who reads and or tests the results would have to be in on it.
Scientology Curing Arthritis: Good for her. No medical claim.
This would be only true if SHE wrote the book History of Man, which she did not. Hubbard included this in an effort to provide supporting evidence for his claims. If it is offered as proof, it's a claim.
Scientology Curing Cancer: Context? Auditing can and does certainly support healing but is does not start it. That is done by medical treatment (HCO PL on physical healing, on display in every Church of Scientology, as a rule).
What HCO is that? Context is simple. He was claiming that cancer can be eradicated (ie, stopped, removed, 0 chance for recurrance) by auditing specific things. He wasn't saying it in jest, or saying "Listen to this silly claim". He was being genuine. This too is a legitimate medical claim.
Scientology and Zombies: Sounds cool. Medical claim? No. Individual case? Yes. Context: Mind over matter, or: the individual is a spirit that controls his body and not vice versa. Maybe there are people "coming back from a deathlike state", I don't know. Medicine reports that such cases exist, near death experiences etc. But no trained Scientologist or Scientology auditor would count on it or claim that they could reanimate a dead person. It's not part of Scientology belief.
You’ll have to excuse my title of this part. I’m not suggesting Scientologists believe in zombies. I’m just trying to add a bit of humor to the discussion.
See, I think my point may have been lost in the wall of text. Something I'm largely to blame for. My point here was that these are all individual deceptions focused on keeping the concept of Scientology as "unbelievably potent" (for lack of a better description). When one person is subjected to non stop fantastic claims, it tends to become his or her reality.
Personal Opinon: You see, the trouble is that if you use quotes without context or search through materials with the single purpose to "locate something to make fun of" you always will find something. No matter if you take today's NY Times, the Bible or Al Gore's biography. It does not further the understanding of the subject either.
This is definitely something that you and I could debate for a while and probably with no clear winner. I’ll say this though. I believe subconsciously you need to somehow “quantify” my motives for posting here. By doing this, you can more easily rationalize the negative points I present.
Whereas I take you at your statements and your statements only. You could be a scientologist, you could be a very, very successful troll (cudos if you are), or you could just be someone who supports scientology. I directly refute or accept the points you present without application of motive. Either they’re true or false. If you’re a murderer or a saint, doesn’t matter a lick of difference to me.
Ghosty - You're a difficult person to talk with because every time you mention a topic, you slightly mischaracterize the topic. If John Smith wanted to talk about his grandmother's difficulty with seeing, he might say:
My grandmother is partially blinded. Or, he might say: My grandmother's eyesight is failing. Both of these statements, might be 100% valid AT THE SAME TIME, and bring nearly the same understanding to the reader -- but only when the reader is trying to understand what John Smith is saying. When read with a jaundiced and critical eye, as you seem to do, the statements have no similarity.
Hubbard Eyesight: Eyesight failing, it says.
I thought you said partially blinded. That's COMPLETELY different then eyesight failing. One describes an instantaneous injury, one can describe any number of degenerative conditions. Being partially blinded can be proven by seeing damage to the structures of the eye. Progressive loss of eyesight cannot.
You appear to read and reply in choppy, short paragraphs. If a line's language doesn't immediately bring you to full enlightenment, you seem to view it with distrust and criticism. This characteristic makes it difficult to talk with you because who (but you) knows how you will understand what is said? This might be the "glass half empty" or "glass half full" kind of difference. I'm not sure what it is, exactly, but it makes difficulty, at least for me, to reply.. Hubbard's Scientology, you see, presents that there is hope for man, that an individual can improve. When I say the Church runs 110% honestly but a mistake is always possible, you think, the Church runs 40% honestly because it was intended as a con from the get-go. I say its ethics are the highest on the planet and you say its ethics are the lowest on the planet.I would like to find some middle ground that we were both sure, was real. How about Help, can we agree that the Church's primary reason for existence is to help ?
I can't agree with that, I haven't seen it help. I have heard stories that it helps, just like I've heard stories that it hurts. I have witnessed Clearwater and the non-help they bring to the community. I have read how they lied about helping on 9/11. I have read Hubbards statement about making money form a religion. I have heard Ex's who were in top meetings say that all they discussed was money. So no, I cannot agree that it is CoS's goal to help. I do believe it is MOST Scientologist's goal to help. That they either are turning a blind eye, or just don't realize whats going on in their organization. Thus, why there are protests. To enlighten your members to outside information. That should they choose to not be in the Sea Org, their lives wont be ruined once they are out.
Posted By: William Johnson
Date: 2008-10-25 13:05:47
Come on now, dismissing me a a troll and not answering any of my questions is disingenuous on your part. Give it another try. I have removed the 'offending' quote.
"Doctor Hubbard, American nuclear physicist and leading world authority on the subject of life sources and mental energies and structures."
In his own words. Hmmm. At no time was Lron EVER worthy of the title Doctor. He never earned it, never degreed by any recognized organization. Hence, he lied.
"He wasn't a blood brother." Every single member of the Blackfoot council states that. They also state that the Blackfoot has NEVER taken part in any 'blood brother' type ceremonies. Hell, just ask them. Also, "They weren't there" is not a viable argument. I wasn't at Lincoln's assasination, but I know it happened.
"No, he was a participant of one of the first classes ever at the George Washington University that taught nuclear phenomena."
Again, taking a class does not a doctor make, another lie.
"Millions of people every year get their brains cooked, burned or sliced in pieces under the cloak of a "treatment". Care to quote any sources with that? Otherwise it is also a lie.
Why are there no Scientology food pantries, soup kitchens, any kind of help for those who are in need? Is this not the fundamental basis for any religion? You state that Scientology is here to 'help', where is the help? Is it not logical to help those with physical needs which are far more pressing (food, shelter) and THEN help them mentally?
With LRon's hatred of all things psychiatric, why was vistaril found in him when he was autopsied?
Why do all the spikes on the light/telephone poles at Gold base point in, rather than out? They are meant to keep people in, not as a security measure to keep people out. Why?
Terryeo said: "The popular method at that time was to imply, by innuendo, that Hubbard and his "children", which were officially known and trained as the Commodore Messenger Org, somehow, engaged in nudity and worse, shipboard. None of that had the least element of truth to it."
If only those critics had the cognition that we're all immortal thetans. Nothing wrong with 2D shennanigans between consenting thetans, right?
Silly wogs are silly for treating children differently to adults. Let's get this planet cleared and end this nonsense once and for all!
As for psychiatry - silly wogs are silly for believing that, for example, the Dopamine Hypothesis of Schizophrenia is more plausible than body thetans. Occam's Razor is overrated, IMO. I'd rather take my chances with the Introspection Rundown than face the horrors of CBT and Seroquel.
Well, especially with TG's statement that he doesn't see the Church trying to help, the situation here has become, at least to me, more transparent. I know very well how Scientology has been helpful to me personally. I know very well how I have used its technology to help other people, many times. I have observed other people learning and applying it and know by many examples it is very helpful for those people. The Church disseminating it is helpful in society. I know numerous examples. But TG is certain this is untrue, William Johnson apparently agrees, Red Pill on Topix, likewise and Ghost Bear, etc.
Without recognition of this foundation - that Scientology intends to be helpful - I more easily understand your carping and refusal to understand. Because that is the cornerstone it all comes back to, ways to be helpful. What is there to talk about? I'll present 500 examples of its helpfulness and you'll present 1000 examples to deny its helpfulness, to belittle its reputation, to water down its helpfulness, and so on. Although we might talk about specific things, there is little point in our talking because we are never going to be talking about the same subject. You'll always see my replies as deceptive, misleading and they will only act as fodder to fuel your anti-help campaign.
Ghost Bear, just dropping a note here that I saw your HUGE response... I am sometimes bored at work too but I don't make any money if I spent all my time online. So please be patient if this takes a bit.
Posted By: Red Pill on Topix
Date: 2008-10-25 19:34:38
You didn't answer my question Terryeo. What are you going to do if Miscavige squirrel's Xenu out of the Bridge to Total Freedom(tm)?You can listen to L Ron Hubbard talk about Xenu here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BfQVzQzo5I
Read about him on Wikileaks here Bonus material: Also features threatening message from cult layer Ava Paquette. Does she ever get tired of sending those useless things?
Red Pill on Topix - In light of earlier Question and Answer, let me be sure I understand what you are asking, ok? Then, when I'm sure I really do understand what you ask, I'll be able to answer clearly.
You are asking me about a pontential action of David Miscavige, who is generally recognized as the leader of the Church of Scientology. Right so far? You suggest it is within his authority to "squirrel" and that he might "squirrel" and you are asking me for my reaction if he "squirrels" in a certain way, about a certain subject. Is that what you are asking?
The reason I ask you to be clear is because your use of "squirrel" is unusual. Your question to me, like a few other critic's, is seeped in special vocabularly, special knowledge, and references special information. Your great interest in developing intimate knowledge has caused you to couch your question in rare, specialized vocabularly without letting you understand what you are asking. And I can not understand what you mean, if you don't understand what you ask. So, what, precisely do you mean by squirrel? What does the rest of what you say mean, in plain English, please.
TG - I want to personally thank you. I have speant a fair bit of time, here and there, replying to questions online, some writing online and your posting here helped me understand where the confusion I see separates. I asked; Can we agree that the Church's primary reason for existence is to help? And you replied: I can't agree with that, I haven't seen it help. I have heard stories that it helps, just like I've heard stories that it hurts
Ron Hubbard found it necessary to develop a "traffic cop" as part of his 50 year labor developing a helpful-to-mankind philosophy and an organization to disseminate same. The traffic cop is ethics. That job says; over here is your Bridge to Total Freedom, over there is something else. The traffic cop directs traffic. The quotes you are so fond of, the same quotes that other critics are so fond of, all come from a single source. Those people to whom the traffic cop has said; "you're off the route!" have stolen a handful of confidential Church information, have created alarming tales, have been extensively quoted as if they knew what they were talking about. They do not know what they are talking about. The traffic cop has told them, you are no longer on the route! You are off the route! Here, take this corrective action home with you! Do it, come back and we'll get your feet on the path, again!
And you listen to those with homework, who don't understand how they failed, and don't understand why they failed and don't understand that Scientology is about HELP and you draw your own conclusion. Whereas the 80% who walk the pathway tell you it is helpful. Whereas the 80% are buying buildings, building new buildings, rennovating buildings, winning court cases, winning recognition in countries around the world, and establishing new centers in South Africa and Germany and Russia. Whereas the 80% include, here and there, really successful people, millionaires by any measure, and they will tell you that Scientology is helpful to them. But those are the very instances you choose to ignore. Instead you and other critics listen to the 20%. The traffic cop told those, you are not on the path, do your homework and come back. Note: These figures are very, very approximate and are not meant to be accurate.
Terryeo said: "The reason I ask you to be clear is because your use of "squirrel" is unusual. Your question to me, like a few other critic's, is seeped in special vocabularly, special knowledge, and references special information."
I can appreciate your frustration - wogs have a tendency to rely as much on context as precise definitions when speaking to one another, which can sometimes make communcation difficult between them and us.
However in this instance I think I can help: Red Pill appears to be asking how you would respond if Miscavige had all references to Xenu removed from the church's publications and training materials.
Your previous post highlights a good example of this type of misunderstanding - when we talk about "ethics" in relation to our faith we are usually talking about The Rules of Scientology (the "traffic cop"), however when wogs talk about "ethics" they seem to be talking about a more nebulous and abstract concept.
During my first tentative steps on The Bridge this redefinition of common words was a tricky thing to assimilate - it makes the question of whether Scientology Ethics is unethical a difficult one to address from with Scientology.
Terry, seems like I gave you an answer you liked, and I think you are correct, that there is a line where we will never agree. See, this is not my point. I know I cannot make you agree.
And as I said, I do believe Scientologists try to help. And yes are very incredible and good people for the most part.
However, the institution, the RTC and all its offspring, IMO are a mafia like totalitarian organization that has made a history of abusing the laws of the land, its members (those people trying to do good), and outside people who get in its way (Paullette Cooper).
Charlotte asked if I'd protest if they changed the structure. My asnwer is no I wouldn't protest people believing in Thetans and Xenu and 8th dynamics. But that structural change would require removing David Miscaviage from his seat of power. CoS recognizing and truly abolishing its personal police force (OSA), its prison camps (RPF), its child labor (admitted by Terry as being real), its abuse of syphoning money from its members, its deception (just admit CCHR and Narconon and Criminon, and Way to Happiness).
However, these things that the critics have problems with are what keep Scientology working and let David live in a life of luxury with his Hollywood pals. Why did Scientology throw Tom Cruise such an expensive birthday party, all with members tax exempt money? Miscaviage, and through these month of protest, CoS shows no sign of wanting to change. Which goes back to the initial call to arms and why we protest.
Of course, this is the impasse we have in that die hard Scientologists Lou and Terry will deny any of these things going on. I completely agree there is no middle ground. My intent was never to try to change Lou's or Terry's mind on the matter. It is however, to get people to look at the whole picture (like Charlotte has) and let them make up their own minds on the matter. Lou wrote an article praising CoS and the good its done. We in the comments have made it into a questionable topic and have people examining the whole story, not just a one sided story. People should investigate the whole story for themselves than be told what to think.
Posted By: Red Pill on Topix
Date: 2008-10-26 11:27:51
You understood my question Terryeo. Yes, I am asking how you would react if David Miscavige, the head of Scientology, were to take it upon himself to alter the content of OT III and purge Xenu. As we both know, to "squirrel" means to alter to the tech, which brings up another issue.
Was L Ron Hubbard stupid Terryeo? I may speak with a special vocabulary, but its one we both understand.
TG, a key point you are failing to address is the fact that no-one is forced to become a Scientologist. You talk about the organization "abusing" it members - but the reality is that we scientologists are prepered to sacrifice our personal happiness and freedoms for the greater good of mankind.
Posted By: Red Pill on Topix
Date: 2008-10-26 11:48:11
Grumble wrote: "TG, a key point you are failing to address is the fact that no-one is forced to become a Scientologist. You talk about the organization "abusing" it members - but the reality is that we scientologists are prepered to sacrifice our personal happiness and freedoms for the greater good of mankind."
What about people tricked by front groups into becoming Scientologists? What about the people afraid to leave Scientology because of the blackmail material in their PC folders? The greater good of mankind? Thats just trash PR for noobies. Where are the Scientology soup kitchens? Homeless shelters? Food drives? Scientology doesn't have any and never will. Why? Because only SPs reward "downstats," and it would be"out-exchange."
I've sacrificed the "freedom" of open communication with my non-scientologist family and ex-friends. Also I've sacrificed the "happiness" some of my disposable income could have provided me.
But conversely I'm happy to be free of such trifling MEST considerations - to think otherwise would be fundamentally out-8D.
Red Pill on Topix - Really, I would like to communicate with you. Really. But this is difficult when you talk as you do. Tell me, in real life, do you stand on the toes of those whom you talk to, while you talk to them? IF you did, you could be sure they would have your attention, no? YOU get my attention when you tell me your opinion of Ron Hubbard. My opinion is different that yours, your opinion is different than mine. Frankly, you don't deserve a respectful answer because you are unable to politely phrase your question. You ask the equivalent of "do you still beat you wife", "Do you belong to a brain - washing cult" and similar. Do you understand?
TG - The simplicity is, there is this large and growing, successful organization. You say it is not helpful. I say It is meant to be nothing but helpful. Its parishioners say it has helped them. These are two, very different realities, don't you see? Very, very different realities. Were I in your position I would ask myself, Well, what is the unhelpful percentage, compared to the helpful percentage. I say about 80 % of the people who begin Scientology, find it helpful, you be your own judge.
Saying 80% of the people who begin studying Scientology would have more bearing if 87.2% of all statistics were not made up on the spot. Terryeo, what TG isn't just that is isn't helpful, its that it's detrimental to those who practice it. Now I have no problem with people who believe in it from a religious perspective. Freedom to believe what you choose is a fundamental right and a foundation of liberty. The beliefs of organized Scientology shouldn't be put under a scientific gauge, unless they are claiming things to be scientific.
My issue is with the practices of organized Scientology. The "Stress Tests" are doubly deceptive because they do not state at any point that they are related to scientology. Secondly they use a test called the "Oxford Capacity Test", which has absolutely nothing to do with Oxford University. It uses these terms in order to give it an air of legitimacy.
Organized Scientology also uses a multitude of companies that claim they have nothing to do with Scientology, yet are run by, managed by, and answer to top ranking members in the RTC. Citizen Commission on Human Rights, who's sole purpose is to smear and harass psychiatrists. Narconon, a highly questionable drug treatment program who has not allow it's services to be independantly tested for its sucess rate. It also puts former and current drug users in charge of counselling current patients. Studies have shown putting individuals with a history of substance abuse in such positions drastically increase relaspe rates for both counselor and counsel-e. It also exposes patients to toxic levels of niacin, and other vitamins at 2 to 3 times the maximum recommended dosage. This can leave to liver or kidney damage.
I can think of no other organization that so systematically attacks its critics or former members. If you leave almost any faith, your involvement with that faith ends there. But if you suffered some abuses in your time there, you're almost never attacked in such a way. People have been sued into bankruptcy, harassed at home and at work, has the media call them everything from bigot to terrorist for just simply telling the truth about their experiences while in Scientology. Pets have been killed, cars have had their brake lines cut, people have been sent to jail for things they did not even write. Why defend such actions? Why counter things that have been proven true in courts of law with lies? Honestly Terryeo, Louanne. You've heard enough similar stories from people who have left Scientology. Which makes more sense?
That people who have had no association or affliation prior to their leaving woudl suddently come together and form a concensus on what they will tell the world about their experiences? 100% of the time? Even if there's no possible way these people would have been able to know each other? And their stories are seperated by decades?
Or is it more likely that what they say about their experiences are true, and these problems DO occur?
Posted By: Red Pill on Topix
Date: 2008-10-27 10:37:44
Terryeo wrote: "Red Pill on Topix - Really, I would like to communicate with you. Really. But this is difficult when you talk as you do. Tell me, in real life, do you stand on the toes of those whom you talk to, while you talk to them? IF you did, you could be sure they would have your attention, no? YOU get my attention when you tell me your opinion of Ron Hubbard. My opinion is different that yours, your opinion is different than mine. Frankly, you don\'t deserve a respectful answer because you are unable to politely phrase your question. You ask the equivalent of "do you still beat you wife", "Do you belong to a brain - washing cult" and similar. Do you understand?"
I understand just fine. You're using typical OSA tactics to avoid a very clear and direct question. Nitpicking about terminology and insulting me personally isn't going to get you off the hook. I've been nothing but polite and straightforward, you just don't want to answer the question.
What are you going to do if David Miscavige removes Xenu from OT III?
The percentages of people helped isn't really that important to me. You asked if I thought the purpose of the CoS was to help people. I said no. I'd say a more inline statement, without being too anti-CoS would be the point of the CoS is to clear the planet. What I really believe and is more anti is that the point of the CoS is to make a buck anyway they can.
Also, lets say 20% of the people it doesn't work for. Shouldn't they get their money back? If they are told they can do something by taking a course, and it doesn't help shouldn't there be some kind of refund? I mean these courses can cost thousands of dollars! Thousands of dollars with no result for 20% of the people that take them! Thats a terrible satisfactory rating for a product in the business world. This just emphasizes to me its not about help its about money.
If the CoS wanted to help, and truly believed on the management level that the tech was rock solid and helped wouldn't a church do it for free? How many church's charge for their food drives? or their soup kitchens? or their orphanages? CoS is a nonprofit organization that charges for everything! How is that non-profit?
Why is Narconon so expensive? They don't even employ doctors at many sites! Why not tell people, oh yes Narconon is part of the Scientology web.......answer, because people won't go there! Which means less money.
Why are the full basics (which Scientologists didn't even buy this year) so expensive? $5,000 for a set of books and audio tapes I believe, could be a little high or a little low.
I can go to church my entire life. They may ask, or even pressure me to donate to them, but at no point will they tell me I cannot come to service since I haven't paid for that gospel yet.
Also, more on track with the article topic. Why does CoS attack psychiatry so much? Because they are the competition. A person could go to CoS for being depressed or have an addiction and pay money for auditing. Or they can go to a licensed, monitored doctor with a degree in mentail health and pay them for treatment/counceling. Most people pick the doctor, so CoS to make more money must discredit the doctors as their product needs to sell.
This is a huge underlying factor as to why I believe CoS is a business, and is about making money, not about helping people.
> Ghosty - You're a difficult person to talk with because every time you mention a topic, you slightly mischaracterize the topic.
Provide me examples where I "mischaracterize the topic". I'm geuninely unaware of when I do this so if you could provide examples that would be awesome. I'm always open to suggestions on how I can debate better. I would genuinely appreciate the help.
> My grandmother is partially blinded. Or, he might say: My grandmother's eyesight is failing. Both of these statements, might be 100% valid AT THE SAME TIME, and bring nearly the same understanding to the reader -- but only when the reader is trying to understand what John Smith is saying. When read with a jaundiced and critical eye, as you seem to do, the statements have no similarity.
Let's assume that in fact it is my personal bias that is preventing me from looking at the arguement logically. You've provided a very good example and we'll move forward with the discussion using it.
1. My grandmother is partially blinded.
2. My grandmother's eyesight is failing.
Your arguement has one key problem. The problem is that statement 1 gives qualitative evaluation while statement 2 does not. Furthermore, if these statements are the same as you suggest, there should never be an instance where they occur without each other.
1. A man can be partially blinded and his eyesight not degrading.
2. A man can be in the process of having his eyesight degrade and not be partially blind.
So, I've proven to you that these two statements are not one and the same. Each describes a completely different situation and gives the listener completely different information.
If you're still in doubt, let me ask you this. "The hard drive is partially erased." Can you tell me if the disk is currently being erased now? Or was it started three weeks ago and stopped?
Now, in this specific example, the medical report provided as proof for L. Ron's eyesight claims says "Eyesight failing." I hope you can see my point now. If the report says "eyesight failing", this does not discuss the level of eyesight L Ron had at the time. If the report had said "Partially blinded" as Louanne stated incorrectly, then we would have some sort of proof that at the time the medical report was done he had issues with eyesight.
In conclusion, my response to this different terminology in the discussion was in fact logcial and on topic and not based on bias as you suggest.
And Terryeo, before you claim someone is "biased", take a moment to read and think about what the person is saying. I feel if you did this, you wouldn't have made this blunder.
Posted By: Red Pill on Topix
Date: 2008-10-27 11:01:41
Terryeo wrote:" The simplicity is, there is this large and growing, successful organization. You say it is not helpful. I say It is meant to be nothing but helpful. Its parishioners say it has helped them. These are two, very different realities, don\'t you see? Very, very different realities. Were I in your position I would ask myself, Well, what is the unhelpful percentage, compared to the helpful percentage. I say about 80 % of the people who begin Scientology, find it helpful, you be your own judge."
Scientology is not large and its certainly not growing. You\'re lucky if you still have 100,000 members world wide, but I sincerely doubt you do.
Scientology was never about about helping people. It was created to make a million dollars for L Ron Hubbard. It worked. An excerpt from Time Magazine:
"During the early 1970s, the IRS conducted its own auditing sessions and proved that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering the money through dummy corporations in Panama and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, church members stole IRS documents, filed false tax returns and harassed the agency\'s employees. By late 1985, with high-level defectors accusing Hubbard of having stolen as much as S200 million from the church, the IRS was seeking an indictment of Hubbard for tax fraud."
Scientology doesn\'t deal in percentages, only testimoonials. Scientology only "works" for a tiny percentage of people who try it, certainly no where near %80.
TG wrote: "CoS is a business, and is about making money"
Many of you critics fixate on the financial aspects of the church's activities without really looking at the bigger picture.
Are you familiar with the saying "the love of money is the root of all evil"? there is a lot of truth in that. Whilst money grants us freedoms in the MEST world, these freedoms typically come at the cost of our greater spiritual freedom.
By burdening himself with our wealth, David Miscavige is actually helping us on the path to spiritual freedom, don't you see? So in that respect he is regarded as a kind of "Christ" figure, or saviour, by most of us. He is suffering the perils of wealth so we don't have to.
> I say its ethics are the highest on the planet and you say its ethics are the lowest on the planet.I would like to find some middle ground that we were both sure, was real. How about Help, can we agree that the Church's primary reason for existence is to help ?
I don't say CoS' ethics are the lowest on the planet. But they are definitely not the highest on the planet.
The difference I think you're not seeing is that I oppose the CoS. Not individual scientologists. Most religous people cannot see the difference, but I emplore you to think about it.
Let me be perfectly blunt. Whether you believe in creationism, taoism, Scientology, Christianity, it doesn't matter to me. To be blunt, I couldn't possibly care less.
But when any Church manipulates people I have a problem. I have a problem with the Vatican because they hid child molesting priests. I have a problem with radical muslim clerics that tell their followers to kill other muslims. I have a problem with creationism when their leaders misrepresent science to get people to follow their beliefs. I have a problem with CoS when they lie about situations to lend credibility to their organization.
I do not blame the Muslims, Catholics, Creationists, Scientologists for these actions. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. I blame the organization's leadership, not the members.
So, do I believe that you're trying to do good? Yes, I genuinely do. And I'm telling you that I'm trying to help as well. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.
Do I believe the church's main goal is to help? No, I do not. Because every church throughout history has had only one goal, expansion. Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, etc. CoS is no different, you have stats to see "how many people joined" or "how many books did you sell?". Do you have a stat that says "How many people I gave good advice to?" or how about "how many volunteer hours did I spend in a hospital?" And if you do, which is the more important from CoS management's eyes?
> Grumble is a troll. No Scientologist sacrifices "personal happiness and freedoms", to the contrary.
To prove this statement true, you'd have to prove that every single scientologist felt that he/she did not make a sacrifice when joining the Sea Org or Scientology. Which is damn near impossible.
> I can appreciate your frustration - wogs have a tendency to rely as much on context as precise definitions when speaking to one another, which can sometimes make communcation difficult between them and us.
Ooo, are we debating generalizations? This is dangerous territory there Terryeo.
Let me try one. "If you examine WOGS and Scientologists, you will note the WOGS have a higher percentage of people in jobs that require exceptional IQ."
That is to say, WOGS have more doctors, physicists, lawyers, biochemists, (pretty much anyone with a PHD) by percentage then Scientologists. Can you explain that?
And before you ask me for proof, you can go ahead and prove your statement first.
Ghost Bear wrote: "But when any Church manipulates people I have a problem."
You're using loaded terms here. Consider this: if you physically restrain a child so it doesn't run into traffic, would you call that "manipulation"? Or are you "helping" the child?
It's manipulation in the sense that you are denying the child it's freedom to run into trafiic. But it's helping in the sense that you are preventing the child from being harmed by the traffic.
What you regard as the church's "manipulation" of it's followers (essentially preventing them from thinking spiritually harmful thoughts) is what we scientologists consider helpful.
When you understand this, then you will understand that our endeavours to quash all criticism of Scientology is ultimately helping mankind.
Critical thinking in general is self-evidentally detrimental to mankind's happiness - it's fundamental to the rationalization that slavery, war and drug abuse is somehow "acceptable" in certain situations.
When you free yourself from the shackles of critical thinking you will understand this basic truth: a world without crime is a world without reason.
As long as you hold on to your "reasoning" you can never be truly free. This is what Scientology is all about.
Ghost Bear wrote: "That is to say, WOGS have more doctors, physicists, lawyers, biochemists, (pretty much anyone with a PHD) by percentage then Scientologists. Can you explain that?"
It's simple statistics: there are currently more wogs than scientologists.
But you have mistakenly attributed my comments to Terry, read the posts carefully. However in a way it's a compliment: we scientologists aspire to think and behave in exactly the same way as a natural consequence of clearing our "reactive mind" (what you would call our "personality") and only applying our "analytical mind" (which is identical in every individual human being).
It is one of the goals of Scientology for every human being to think, feel and react in exactly the same way - without the emotion inherent in the reactive bank.
The fact that you have mistakenly attributed the thoughts of one scientologist to another is testament to our efforts to eradicate our reactive bank, or "individual personalities".
But srsly dude, it's kind of futile trying to engage scilons in rational debate, because one of the key aspects of organized scientology is to sytematically undermine critical thinking. Another key aspect is to filter out those people who maintain the capacity for critical thought.
tl;dr: the "scientologists" you can reason with have already left.
The Church has methods that help. Volunteer Minsters administer basic methods at diasters because they are easily learned and widely useable. Auditing uses similar, but more sophisticated methods that require a bit more education to administer. Help, the magic word, is the most basic human right of all Hubbard's Scientology is all about help.
You don't think so? The proof is in the pudding. If you study Scientology you soon understand it is all about help. OR, you don't study Scientology very long. Your choice, there's the door, have a nice day.
Haha, theres the door have a nice day! Love it! Why do people who have left call it "escaping"? Disconnection sure isn't have a nice day! Terry, your organizations lies keep goin. How about the pudding that no one thanks the Vulture Ministers ever. In fact, real rescue efforts hate them being around and think they get in the way.
Its kind of like giving a 10 year old a toy, and training them how to use the toy to get rid of cancer. The 10 year old truly believes the toy will heal the cancer, because that is what he was told would happen, so he does it diligently, and defends the toy....when in reality, its total BS, the toy doesn't help at all, and if nothing else gives false hopes and promises.
Scientology is helpful in ways that aren't unique to Scientology. But it is harmful in ways that are.
Does Miscavige's Scientology differ significantly from Hubbard's Scientology?
"If you study Scientology you soon understand it is all about help. OR, you don't study Scientology very long."
OR, you continue to study Scientology based on your initial understanding that it is all about help and come to realize that it is also about control through fear, intimidation and isolation. There's the door.
Posted By: Red Pill on Topix
Date: 2008-10-27 21:52:12
Terryeo wrote:
" The Church has methods that help. Volunteer Minsters administer basic methods at diasters because they are easily learned and widely useable. Auditing uses similar, but more sophisticated methods that require a bit more education to administer. Help, the magic word, is the most basic human right of all Hubbard's Scientology is all about help."
The Vulture Ministers prey on diasaster victims and pose for the news cameras. Handing out copies of The Way to Happiness, interfering with mental health professionals, trying to recruit people, and handing out supplies that real charities paid for is not "helping."
Terryeo wrote:
"You don't think so? The proof is in the pudding. If you study Scientology you soon understand it is all about help. OR, you don't study Scientology very long. Your choice, there's the door, have a nice day"
No one needs to read any of L Ron Hubbard's books to understand that Scientology is an abusive corporation pretending to be a religion. Former top insider Larry Brennan can explain.
http://www.lotsofscam.nl/Larry%20Brennan.pdf
"7. Based on years of work in the senior most legal bodies of organized scientology as covered above I have dealt with directly or supervised the handling of hundreds of legal matters involving the organizations of scientology which directly or indirectly had to do with using religious cloaking to help handle a real or potential legal or PR problem involving said organizations. This included a wide range of legal matters involving taxes, immigration, licensing, corporate, potential draft issues, practice of medicine and/or psychology, sales of services, employment laws and much more."
I'm not sure what that means. Presumably it's a compliment or a cry for help, but I'm not sure which.
By the way, do you really buy into scn's anti-psych agenda wholeheartedly? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of big pharma (quite the opposite, in fact), but there's tons of good tech in psychiatry as well. For example check out Cognitve Therapy (which along with Dianetics and NLP is one of the off-shoots of General Semantics), it's pretty interesting.
> You don't think so? The proof is in the pudding. If you study Scientology you soon understand it is all about help. OR, you don't study Scientology very long. Your choice, there's the door, have a nice day.
The proof would actually have to be in the pudding, because it sure as hell isn't based on scientific studies, medical observations or common sense. I love it how every single time a Scientologist is debated anything negative is "a matter of faith" but anything positive is "a matter of fact."
For example, a specific discussion I had with a Scientologist...
Scient: "Narconon does in fact help people get off drugs and is 100% safe."
Me: "It may help people get off drugs, I haven't seen any third party studies on the subject to confirm or deny your statement. I do know however the amount of vitamins administered during the course is dangerous and potentially toxic. I also know from L Ron Hubbard's writings that his understanding of how drugs exist in the body is absolutely incorrect according to medical science."
Scient: "There is some degree of faith required in these proceedings too."
On a totally seperate note, going to steal the floor for something else I've come across.
There is a great series of videos on youtube by the user named Thunderf00t. They are called "Why do people laugh at creationists." There is about 26 of his videos. He reviews the works of Creationists and exposes the bunk science for everyone to see. I would even encourage Scientologists to watch it. I promise it has nothing to do with Scientology at all.
I'm not against the creationist beliefs, but their use of junk science to manipulate people and political events is absolutely unacceptable.
I appreciate you attempting to belittle, criticize, water down and scorn my "Scientology is meant to help" statment. Such truely proves how thick the pudding is. Indeed. Scientology's ethics division prevents those who don't get it, from proceeding. While it was unusual 20 years ago for a person in the OT Band to quit Scientology (they didn't understand something, or someone applied to wrong tech), it is even more rare today.
It is about help people, it is about helping you, about your learning it and helping others with what you have learned. Seems impossible to you? No problem, most likely, you were incapable of learning it anyway. Heh.
Wow Terry, what a great arguement! It's about making money. And you've lost a lot of OTs lately! A certain celebrity named Jason comes to mind as one shining example.
Terry, consider my following system for helping people:
1. Buy a building. 2. Renovate the building. 3. Give me the builing. 4. Pay me rent in order to stay in the building which you have bought and renovated. 5. Help people.
Is this an ideal system, or is there maybe a better alternative? (For the sake of argument, let's assume that I spend the rent money on attacking people who critcize me for not participating in step 5).
Posted By: William Johnson
Date: 2008-10-28 12:07:52
Ragarding the VM's presence at the scenes of disasters:
Ever heard of the Incident Command System? This is the system used by the Federal Government down to the Volunteer fire department, it is used to identify who is in charge, what facilities/services/manpower/etc are available at any given disaster.
With that in mind, 'paper exercises' are conducted, so that any governmental entity can know what resources, problems, solutions are available for any given disaster in their area. Training is ongoing, I daresay that there is at least one exercise going on as you are reading this.
When the VM's show up at a disaster, several things happen. Since they were not asked to be there, the Incident Commander has no idea what they can/do provide, what resources they need, etc. They set up as close as they can to a disaster site, requiring additional security personnel to keep track of them, assign them a place to set up, house themselves etc. This is a burden on the system. So instead of helping ANYONE they are actually hindering operations. Someone has to keep track of them, support them, keep them from harm as well. This is also a burden on the ICS system.
Compound that with the fact that all they are really offering is a massage, and are openly soliciting for money and recruiting scientologists, and it is no wonder THAT THEY ARE NOT WELCOME AT ANY DISASTER SITE IN THE US. Period. Ask your friends who are VM\'s about their experiences with hurricanes Gustav and Ike, for example.
For an organization that is supposedly set up to HELP, it is obvious that the VM,s do NOT help, they actually hinder operations, endangering themselves and sometimes others near them.
I have taken part in dozens of exercises, both on paper and real, and I can emphatically state that they are NOT wanted at any disaster site in the Midwest, at least.
> I appreciate you attempting to belittle, criticize, water down and scorn my "Scientology is meant to help" statment. Such truely proves how thick the pudding is. Indeed. Scientology's ethics division prevents those who don't get it, from proceeding. While it was unusual 20 years ago for a person in the OT Band to quit Scientology (they didn't understand something, or someone applied to wrong tech), it is even more rare today.
It's hard to water down a point that has no subjective facts, reasonable points or even a well thought out hypothesis. Although, I will admit, it's very easy to criticize and belittle your comments though for those same reasons.
I'd like to know how my "attack" on your statement prove how "thick the pudding is". Are you actually suggesting that because I point out that your arguement is without any sort of academic or scientific proof that this proves your arguement is valid? I sincerely hope not. You'd look quite the fool if you were to suggest something like that.
> It is about help people, it is about helping you, about your learning it and helping others with what you have learned. Seems impossible to you? No problem, most likely, you were incapable of learning it anyway. Heh.
Another personal attack instead of supporting evidence and common sense. Well played Terryeo. I can now see why everyone holds your debating skills in such high regard.
You know what the irony here is? You're suggesting that I'm not intelligent enough to understand the concepts of Scientology and learn about it. When in reality I'm far too intelligent to believe the utter nonsense Hubbard wrote. When you read his material, you see the absolute ridiculousness of it. You see the issues with the tone scale, you see the ignornace of biology in his description of the eight dynamics. You see his lack of understanding of medicine and nuclear physics.
It's because I am educated (BSc Biochemistry) and intelligent that I see through these lies.
Terryeo and Louanne, the only reason I keep posting here is because you two serve a purpose for me. That is to say, you are the perfect posterchilds for Scientology idiocy. By debating you here and destroying your arguements, I show the people who sit on the fence which side is the rational and intelligent one.
Every time someone reads your statements and sees mine below destorying it, that person is lost to you. Each time you cannot logically attack concepts that I present, another person is lost. I could not think of better opponents that I could face.
Thank you. Your words speak louder then mine ever could.
Ghost Bear wrote: "you see the ignornace of biology in his description of the eight dynamics."
Ignorance? His pragmatic approach to the question of what is "good" by integrating the fundamental survival "instinct" of life into his answer is actually quite an interesting philosophical endeavour.
Admitedly a lot of Hubbard's claims are absurd, and as he got more paranoid his tech became increasingly sinister, but not all of his ideas are without merit.
It's a pity Scientologists aren't free to discuss the metaphysical aspects of their faith, because it's a fascinating subject.
It's a pity Scientologists aren't free to discuss the metaphysical aspects of their faith, because it's a fascinating subject.
I don't see anyone restricting their right to speak? Or shouldn't we question the validity of what they say?
Speak to Arnie Lerma about 'the tech'. Or read Lermanet. He has more background on this material then i can ever hope to have. The gist of it? Hypnosis.
Hubbard stole ideas left and right, put them together and said it was his. Later on he went totally freaking paranoid, claiming nothing from the tech could be altered or questioned. He was terrified of people finding the real sources.
So yes, there are interesting aspects in Scientology. They are not theirs though.
The only thing Scientology (Lafayette) invented is the science fiction part and the laughable e-meter. And everything surrounding the tech to KSW.
The beliefs of Scientology are not a problem. They are discussed in the freezone, they are discussed on ESMB. The problem is the criminal doctrine around it.
Oh, CoS just lost another member in Australia! Per them, seems like CoS sent a bunch of books to all the libraries and claimed every library in Aussieland had all of Hubbards works. He, uh oh, used the internet, and found out that 98% of the books sent to the libraries weren't in the libraries and wonders what happened to all these books? Where did the money go? Why did his Church lie to him? If you want the actual post made by this new Ex let me know, I can post it. Just another Escapee who was in for decades.
There is this subject. Critics sense something about it and feel strongly moved to criticize the subject.
I've pointed out, the subject is understood knowledge, or at least, a fuller perception of that knowlege which you already have. This is a perfectly obvious statement -- if you have studied Scientology. Hello? That's almost exactly what Ron Hubbard said when he defined the word Scientology in March, 1953 - in a one hour lecture.
Hubbard (my opinion here) said, the prime motivation that critics have .. is they are threatened by the idea of help. They don't want a real source of help available. Now, why don't you people all chant in chorus how you are completely certain that Hubbard could never have said that. :)
Red already has, by asking me again and again what I would do if the Church's leader abandoned all he had worked for and went into treason. You probably don't realize how large the Church is. With 7000+ individual Churches, located all over the planet, I've never met or talked with Miscaviage. I don't expect to. Nor do I expect to talk with those who produce the books and lectures fromHubbard's original tapes and writings Such organizational effort is beyond what I'm doing. You guys are going snark, snark, snark, and I'm going oh hum, oh hum.
EastAnon wrote "I don't see anyone restricting their right to speak? Or shouldn't we question the validity of what they say?"
I was alluding to the penalties of using "verbal tech", but now that I've looked at the relevant HCO Bulletin (15 February 1979) it seems that it applies to Hubbard's bulletins and policy letters and not the subject in general - can any scientogists clarify this for me?
But discussions about body thetans and the space opera aspects of scientology seem to be off limits - I was trying to find an explanation for why Terry won't answer the question of how he would react if Little Davey removed any mention of Xenu from Scientology's literature.
I know I can read about the beliefs from various people who aren't members of the church - but I think it's important to learn about them first-hand, ie. straight from the source (like how scientologists are encouraged to learn about psychiatry and Anonymous by communicating directly with psychiatrists and anons).
EastAnon wrote "The only thing Scientology (Lafayette) invented is the science fiction part and the laughable e-meter."
Laughable? Biofeedback is being used increasingly in many therepeutic and self-help ccontexts.
Hubbard didn't invent the "E-meter", just the brand name. He most likeIy got the idea from General Semantics (the use of a psychogalvanometer is described in
