Scientology is dangerous!

[GreavesCity]

I don't see how Scientology isn't a religion.

Like most religions they believe that the universe was created by god-like beings (Thetans). Like many eastern religions, they believe in reincarnation. Like some religions, such as Taoism, they spend their lives striving to achieve a heightened state of being due to their beliefs.

What exactly is the difference?

Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Hubbard's organisation which tried to make money through his pseudoscientific book Dianetics, only became known as the Church of Scientology as a means of gaining tax exemption as a 'religious organisation.

Here's a direct quote regarding the renaming of the organisation:

“Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors.” - L. Ron Hubbard

 

[Brian-M]

Well, it is a money making scam...more so than other "religions".
And the vast majority of scientologists NEVER hear about Xenu, who is an underpinning of the belief. It costs a lot of money to get to that level.

Keeping aspects of a religion as secrets for the elite isn't unique to Scientology, even if most modern religions don't do that. As for the "money making scam" part, I see that as a difference in virulence, not a difference in nature.

Yes that's a good book. If I recall correctly, isn't it described therein how if you added up all Hubbard's claims of years of education, excursions, adventure travels etc, he'd have to have been 60 years old at the time (and this was voiced during, a speech of Hubbard's, by someone in the audience, when Hubbard was half that age)?

Here's the actual passage from the book...

In the evenings he used to sit in Frank Gruber's room at the Forty-fourth Street Hotel, kicking ideas around with other young writers and holding forth, although his host eventually tired of Ron's apparently endless adventures. One evening Gruber sat through a long account of Ron's experiences in the Marine Corps, his exploration of the upper Amazon and his years as a white hunter in Africa. At the end of it he asked with obvious sarcasm: 'Ron, you're eighty-four years old aren't you?' 'What the hell are you talking about?' Ron snapped. Gruber waved a notebook in which he had been jotting figures 'Well,' he said, 'you were in the Marines seven years, you were a civil engineer for six years, you spent four years in Brazil, three in Africa, you barnstormed with your own flying circus for six years . . . I've just added up all the years you did this and that and it comes to eighty-four.' Ron was furious that his escapades should be openly doubted. 'He blew his tack,' said Gruber.

 

[dlorde]

Scientology can be dangerous to non-Scientologists - they've been known to go after outspoken critics in various nasty ways.

 

[decojuicer]

There have been cases of Scientologists going after protesters by having them followed and posting their names, addresses, and personal info online. I read an article about it not to long ago. A group of people all wearing Guy Fawkes masks were protesting...that's what sticks out most from the article.

 

[Calculon]

There have been cases of Scientologists going after protesters by having them followed and posting their names, addresses, and personal info online. I read an article about it not to long ago. A group of people all wearing Guy Fawkes masks were protesting...that's what sticks out most from the article.

I know people that were followed to their homes or cars by scientology "handlers". If a license plate is known, a PI hired by scientology (in California) can legally look up the info at the DMV. When their names or addresses were know, the neighborhood was fliered with "black PR" saying the person was a member of a terrorist organization, (anonymous), etc. Good thing most people don't like scientology and the neighbors were on the protester's side. For most of the current critics (like the Guy Fawkes mask wearing ones), this is the worst it got...although some were not happy about their parents, spouses, employers (and for one friend, her grandmother) getting warnings that their family member is hanging around with terrorists.

I have been followed but was able to lose them. They used to have many people hunting down protesters, but far less now. From the outside, it appears they are stretched for manpower.

To look up really bad treatment towards critics, google Paulette Cooper/Operation Freakout. They actually got a piece of paper that had her fingerprints on it, and wrote a bomb threat. The FBI was involved.

The current wave of monthly worldwide protests is still going on and Feb 10, 2010 will be the 2 year anniversary.

 

[Malerin]

If scientologists start beheading people and donning suicide vests, then we can start calling them dangerous. For now, they're just annoying.

 

[Calculon]

If scientologists start beheading people and donning suicide vests, then we can start calling them dangerous. For now, they're just annoying.

Well, there is a reason I protest them and not guys in suicide vests. But if I wanted to protest Mormons or Catholics or a mega church...I would never think to wear face covering...there is no need.


With scientologists...it is strongly suggested. At protests where many are unmasked, those are usually people who have been already named and identified. Plus, some protesters are ex-scientologists with family still "in". And if they were to be identified, their family would likely be made to disconnect from them.

 

[decojuicer]

Well, my neighbors hate me anyway, my family all thinks that I am a little nuts, and my boss thinks that I am a radical. I guess there isn't much that they could do to me.

 

[GreavesCity]

If you're saying Scientology is not dangerous, and just annoying, do yourself a favour and actually educate yourself on the issues, because I'm fairly sure that framing people for bomb threats, illegally imprisoning people, brutally and savagely beating their own staff and so on would be considered a danger to most everyone

Here's an article which I posted yesterday http://footbullet.net/2009/11/28/scientology-war-on-reality/

 

[decojuicer]

I get what you are saying Calculon. Christians and Muslims have a known track record of using violence to silence critics, and so far, Scientology doesn't. And I agree.

However, there is more than one type of force. Threatened litigation and bullying tactics is a form of force.

I will even go so far as to say that, perhaps, some members of Anonymous had it coming. In the beginning of their campaign, they did use illegal actions against the Church of Scientology. CoS responded like a third grader would, instead of by just giving the information to the proper authorities. One would expect more from a religious organization.

 

[Malerin]

If you're saying Scientology is not dangerous, and just annoying, do yourself a favour and actually educate yourself on the issues, because I'm fairly sure that framing people for bomb threats, illegally imprisoning people, brutally and savagely beating their own staff and so on would be considered a danger to most everyone

Here's an article which I posted yesterday http://footbullet.net/2009/11/28/scientology-war-on-reality/

Calling that an article is a bit of an overstatement. The "article's" author introduces his website... "Andrew ‘Bef’ Milne is a 19 year old biology major at the University of Western Australia who firmly believes that writing in the third person makes his statements sound more credible and authoritative."

Anyway, when scientology starts issuing fatwahs, killing people over cartoons, and stoning their own relatives to death, they'll have crossed over into "dangerous" territory.

 

[Jono]

Anyway, when scientology starts issuing fatwahs, killing people over cartoons, and stoning their own relatives to death, they'll have crossed over into "dangerous" territory.

While some islamic fundamentalists would kill you for your criticism, Scientology has had a tendency to be a lot more mild of course, taking you to court instead and ruining your financial life. Both of the two are repugnant and not necessarily comparable to each other, even so I'd qualify the twain methods as at least dangerous.

 

[Calculon]

I will even go so far as to say that, perhaps, some members of Anonymous had it coming. In the beginning of their campaign, they did use illegal actions against the Church of Scientology. CoS responded like a third grader would, instead of by just giving the information to the proper authorities. One would expect more from a religious organization.

There are no members of anonymous, just to set that straight. If you use a false name online, YOU are anonymous. Some people may have pranked CoS after they took down the Tom Cruise video, but that was them. But I was never involved with DDOS attacks or sending black faxes, etc. Those are what I am calling pranks. ( Not the supposed threatening phone calls.) Which are childish, but considering the age of the channers who did this before the protests started, it is not surprising. I personally don't know anyone who did these actions, so I cannot really add to it.

But not all protesters are "anonymous". Some are exes, some are are long time protesters who participate, some are people that heard about the protests later and joined in. Funny thing is, if scientology wasn't so heavy handed when the protests started in Feb 08...they would have petered out due to boredom long ago. Some are still protesting JUST because scientology went after them just for holding a sign or passing out fliers.

 

[Moochie]

Calling that an article is a bit of an overstatement. The "article's" author introduces his website... "Andrew ‘Bef’ Milne is a 19 year old biology major at the University of Western Australia who firmly believes that writing in the third person makes his statements sound more credible and authoritative."

Anyway, when scientology starts issuing fatwahs, killing people over cartoons, and stoning their own relatives to death, they'll have crossed over into "dangerous" territory.

If you believe that then I'd invite you to do some more research. There are a trail of bodies leading straight to $cientology. "Auditing," such as it is, can send an already borderline personality over the edge. It appears that this has happened, and more than once.


M.

 

[decojuicer]

There are no members of anonymous, just to set that straight. If you use a false name online, YOU are anonymous. Some people may have pranked CoS after they took down the Tom Cruise video, but that was them. But I was never involved with DDOS attacks or sending black faxes, etc. Those are what I am calling pranks. ( Not the supposed threatening phone calls.) Which are childish, but considering the age of the channers who did this before the protests started, it is not surprising. I personally don't know anyone who did these actions, so I cannot really add to it.

I'm going to have to call B.S. on that one. That's like A.L.F. saying that no member has ever been involved in violence against animal abusers. Or Christians saying that no REAL Christian would commit violence(e.g. shooting a doctor who performs abortions) because that is not a Christian thing to do.

If a person BELIEVES that they are a member of a larger group, and they are acting in what they believe is the way the group acts, then they are considered part of that group.

I'm not saying that CoS is right, or guiltless. I am saying that there is plenty of blame to go around in this situation. At least in the beginning. Now that Anonymous has begun telling its "members" not to use illegal tactics, they definitely have the higher ground.

They did, in fact, use illegal harassment tactics against the CoS. However, the CoS, responded in kind, which was just as wrong.

I don't know much about how they treat their members, so I can't really speak to that.

I do know that the way that they have attempted to silence their critics and ex-members through lawsuits and bullying is deplorable. I think that if they are selling materials to their members for the soul(get it, soul not sole...sorry, bad joke) purpose of advancing in the organization, then they should not be allowed to have a tax exempt status. Of course, I think that most churches shouldn't have a tax exempt status. But that is a topic for another thread.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It has been known for hundreds, and even thousands, of years that belief is bad and can lead to the commission of crimes.

"Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities."
-Voltaire (1694-1778)

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
"So potent was religion in persuading to evil deeds."
- Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC- ca. 55 BC)

The sillier the belief, the worse the crimes.

Scientology is no more exempt from this truth than any other religion.

 

[Calculon]

I'm going to have to call B.S. on that one. That's like A.L.F. saying that no member has ever been involved in violence against animal abusers. Or Christians saying that no REAL Christian would commit violence(e.g. shooting a doctor who performs abortions) because that is not a Christian thing to do.

Well, from your perspective, you may think that and it is reasonable. But most protesters I have met joined AFTER the brouhaha at the beginning, have no knowledge of illegal activity and would not condone or participate in illegal activity. Again, you can't control the actions of people who join in an activity if no one knows them.

If a person BELIEVES that they are a member of a larger group, and they are acting in what they believe is the way the group acts, then they are considered part of that group.

There are a few protesters I have come across who are too aggressive and offensive. I cannot stop them from going to a protest just like I cannot stop you. Free speech. But other protesters stay away from them...just so what you mentioned would not occur. With this sort of phenomenon...it is harder than a real group. Anyone who says they are a leader would then be ignored LOL. So it is really hard to control anyone's actions.

I'm not saying that CoS is right, or guiltless. I am saying that there is plenty of blame to go around in this situation. At least in the beginning. Now that Anonymous has begun telling its "members" not to use illegal tactics, they definitely have the higher ground.

Well, there was no long term idea when this all started. Some kids on the internet were mad a funny video was taken off the internet, a few that know how to do so set up programs to cause excess traffic to CoS websites, others saw the code and did as well. I was not aware this was happening as I am not a channer...but I heard about some of it when it occurred. To be honest, I have to admit..I thought it was funny. I was not happy about the scary calls to CoS buildings (if they occurred. I don't know if those prank calls occurred or were just made up by CoS, but it seems entirely possible that some people did that) Anyone who proposes anything illegal anyplace where critics hang out is considered either a troll, someone from scientology trying to entrap, or a nutbar. Eitherway, they get banned fairly quickly. But before the early protests, Mark Bunker saw the activity around the Tom Cruise video take down and made a video asking people to stay legal. That is about the time people online got together to think about actual protesting. Ideas were posted and people actually showed up.

They did, in fact, use illegal harassment tactics against the CoS. However, the CoS, responded in kind, which was just as wrong.

I don't know much about how they treat their members, so I can't really speak to that.

I do know that the way that they have attempted to silence their critics and ex-members through lawsuits and bullying is deplorable. I think that if they are selling materials to their members for the soul(get it, soul not sole...sorry, bad joke) purpose of advancing in the organization, then they should not be allowed to have a tax exempt status. Of course, I think that most churches shouldn't have a tax exempt status. But that is a topic for another thread.

Agreed. I have never been in, but have spoken to enough exes and heard what happened to them, and it keeps me involved. CoS gets even MORE tax breaks than other "churches" (even going away from any churches being tax exempt at all) The tax exemptions for CoS allow them to hold on to large empty buildings without having to worry about property taxes, and members can pay the extraordinary fees for "church" services knowing they can take much of it off at tax time.

 

[decojuicer]

I think that we agree on the main points here, but we are getting stuck on a minor difference.

I contend that perhaps the CoS responded with unfair tactics to what they perceived as unfair tactics. Like guerrilla warfare.

I think that the CoS is using deplorable tactics in dealing with Anonymous. I also think that Anonymous has taken the higher road and that they are doing a great job of getting the message out.

The CoS, however, has not changed tactics and are definitely taking a beating for it though. Unfortunately, when you have have major star power endorsing you, many people in our media obsessed society can't see past the spokesman.

But that's also a topic for another thread.

 

[Malerin]

If you believe that then I'd invite you to do some more research. There are a trail of bodies leading straight to $cientology. "Auditing," such as it is, can send an already borderline personality over the edge. It appears that this has happened, and more than once.


M.

I'm not condoning scientology. I think they're a nutty cult that has ruined a lot of lives, but to compare them to radical islamists is laughable. Would you rather be sued or have acid thrown in your face? Or be tortured to death with power drills? Or gang raped? The list goes on and on.

 

[funk de fino]

I'm not condoning scientology. I think they're a nutty cult that has ruined a lot of lives, but to compare them to radical islamists is laughable. Would you rather be sued or have acid thrown in your face? Or be tortured to death with power drills? Or gang raped? The list goes on and on.

Whats your problem with the Mafia?