Questions?
Thank you for coming here! Scientology is a hot topic these days but hardly any reliable information can be found on the internet. So here is a blog and a website which tries to achieve the seemingly impossible: answers to controversial questions about Scientology.
Please read the FAQ before you ask me personal questions. I am pretty busy in real life and if you grow impatient while waiting for an answer, please shoot me an email: scientologymyths@yahoo.com. I am happy that more people like me found their way to this blog and give their time to answer your questions. So you should not have to wait too long and I would really hate to miss your question. So, ask away!
- Louanne
229 Comments
With virtually any other belief system, one can get information from a variety of sources. Why does Scientology apparently believe itself to be “special”, in that it (seemingly) claims you can only get “accurate” information on Scientology from Scientologists?
I saw the discussion about religions elsewhere on this site and you asked for a specific passage. I finally managed to find it:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:27&version=9;
This states that man is to die “once.” This goes directly against reincarnation. How can Scientology be compatible with Christianity with that major conflict? I know you’ve said you aren’t a Christian Scientologist, but if anybody is I’d really love to know how that works?
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 24, 2008 5:57 pm
>With virtually any other belief system, one can get information from a variety of sources. Why does Scientology apparently believe itself to be “special”, in that it (seemingly) claims you can only get “accurate” information on Scientology from Scientologists?
Not from Scientologists. From the one who discovered the data and made it available to anyone. LRH. His works are the source of Scientology. If you want to learn about Scientology, go to source. That’s why we keep referring you to the references.
Scientologists have every reason in the world to want you to understand the source data, so what you get is pure and able to be applied to life as written. The only time we ever got in trouble as a Church is when others tried to become source. Not anymore.
Pat
Here are a few open questions I have:
Lou, three weeks ago you claimed that there were shots fired on a Church of Scientology building in LA. Do you have proof of this? Something like a police report, or a local news article? In fact, at this point, I’d like to see anyone besides you making this claim.
In the last thread, Pat claimed that it’s acceptable to treat kids as adults, since they have past lives. This allows them to sign the billion-year Sea Org contract when they are as young as 14 or 10, like a few of the stories on exscientologykids.com . Is this official policy? Does it apply generally in the CoS?
While looking into the CoS’s page of experts at scientologytoday.org/experts/index.htm , I found a few significant facts that I could not back up. For example, I could not find any evidence that Fumio Sawada exists. I also could not verify that Michael Sivertsev exists; if his first name is also spelled “Mikhail”, then I found one reference that does not verify the office or expertise attributed to him by the CoS. I searched online as well as in my university’s journal database metasearch. Also, for example, the CoS claims Sawada is the “Eighth Holder of the Secrets” of Yu-Itsu (or possibly Yuiitsu) Shinto. But when I search that phrase, I only find the text written by the CoS. Several other specific titles and organization names also fall through. Thus, it appears to me that these two authors are false experts. I am completely open to being proven wrong on this, if anyone can find a footnote on either of these men.
@me:
>This states that man is to die “once.” This goes directly against reincarnation. How can Scientology be compatible with Christianity with that major conflict?
A few more conflicts are explored in this video: archive.org/details/WoodlandScientology It’s a 45 minute lecture from a Southern Baptist preacher about Scientology. There’s a lot of “now circle this word” instruction and he pokes some fun at Xenu and LRH’s past, but he also makes a lot of comparisons between Scientology and Christianity. A few conflicts that I remember: Scientology’s clearing of the reactive mind vs Christianity’s forgiveness of sins, and Scientology’s journey towards becoming God vs Christianity’s journey towards being with God.
@Comment by me on March 24, 2008 9:03 pm
>I saw the discussion about religions elsewhere on this site and you asked for a specific passage. I finally managed to find it:
>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:27&version=9;
>This states that man is to die “once.” This goes directly against reincarnation. How can Scientology be compatible with Christianity with that major conflict? I know you’ve said you aren’t a Christian Scientologist, but if anybody is I’d really love to know how that works?
I am aware that each religion has it’s own doctrines. I am also aware that Christianity has been heavily influenced by Wundt, going back to around 1879 or so, where he decided that we have no spiritual aspect and made mental healing all about the body, usurping and invading into the religions with his theories. Up to that point, the fact we were spiritual beings was very much a part of Christianity. Ours just happens to be that you are a spiritual being who’s experiences span many lifetimes. These were discovered in the early religions of Dharma, the Tao, Buddhism, the Veda and Vedic Hymns. Beliefnet.com has some very good references on these . I’ve studied these to some degree as part of my ministerial training.
And a very fundamental teaching is what is true for you is true because you have personally observed it to be true for you.
If that isn’t true for you, that’s ok.
Based on “Personal Integrity” by LRH
http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm
Follow-up question:
Do you think it’s appropriate to claim that a source with an obvious agenda (in this case, the writings of Hubbard, his agenda being to promote his own ideas) is the only source one should go to for the “truth” about that source?
Allow me to clarify:
I believe the Bible is, of course, the -primary- source for people wanting to know about Christianity.
However, I also believe that someone truly interested in understanding the religion should seek out multiple sources, both positive and negative, and understand the greater historical and social context from which the religion emerged.
With Scientology, however, what you’re basically telling me is, “Read Hubbard, and ignore what everyone else says”. Is that accurate? Even if it is, while it might tell me about Hubbard’s own ideas, it does not necessarily address the state or practices of the organization today.
@Comment by anmn on March 25, 2008 1:18 am
>In the last thread, Pat claimed that it’s acceptable to treat kids as adults, since they have past lives. This allows them to sign the billion-year Sea Org contract when they are as young as 14 or 10.
This contract is obviously a spiritual agreement. Age has nothing to do with a person’s reality of their spiritual nature. We don’t treat people like they are bodies.
@me:
>This states that man is to die “once.” This goes directly against reincarnation. How can Scientology be compatible with Christianity with that major conflict?
See my earlier answer. What’s true for you is true for you. If you consider that you are a body and only live once, that is your truth. That doesn’t keep one from applying Scientology principles in one’s life. We still have God but what God is, is up to each individual. Scientology is not faith based. If you don’t have a reality on something, then it isn’t true. That is true of almost all eastern religions where the spiritual aspect is prominent in the practices.
Pat
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 25, 2008 2:36 am
>Follow-up question:
For me, Scientology works. For you it doesn’t.
We are not faith based and I don’t have to prove anything to anybody, because it doesn’t HAVE to be true for you. It’s true for me. You’re free to question anything you wish. Negative or positive. You just won’t find the negative here, because for true Scientologists the Church is the religion and that was created by LRH and we do it, not out of faith but because it works. It’s really that simple. Sorry that you are unwilling to let that be our belief.
Pat
Pat-
Look, I’m not unwilling to “let that be your belief”.
However, it’s just…I mean, I sometimes wonder if people who are in the church truly realize the image they project. I’m really not trying to pick on you here; I’m trying to figure out whether or not that’s the case. To be perfectly honest, your -beliefs- aren’t what trouble me. What troubles me is…
Okay. Let’s take your last answer. You didn’t -really- answer my question. I asked about the church’s assertion that LRH, or “source”, is the only -real- resource for understanding everything that Scientology is. You turned it into an issue of belief.
Again, I know what you believe, more or less. I’m not asking you to -alter- your religious beliefs to fit my own paradigm. I’m essentially trying to get at how the church -really- deals with information, particularly information that it doesn’t directly control.
Does that make any sense, or is my lack of sleep showing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LazcSwX2IPA
Is she telling the truth?
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 25, 2008 9:18 am
>Pat-
>Look, I’m not unwilling to “let that be your belief”.
Glad to hear that
>However, it’s just…I mean, I sometimes wonder if people who are in the church truly realize the image they project. I’m really not trying to pick on you here; I’m trying to figure out whether or not that’s the case. To be perfectly honest, your -beliefs- aren’t what trouble me. What troubles me is…
What image do we project?
Okay. Let’s take your last answer. You didn’t -really- answer my question. I asked about the church’s assertion that LRH, or “source”, is the only -real- resource for understanding everything that Scientology is. You turned it into an issue of belief.
It is about KNOWING. CERTAINTY. You have to understand that for us IT WORKS where nothing else has. That’s what is true for me. Up to this point, religions have been a matter of “Faith”. For some, that’s good enough and that’s ok with me. I tried several religions but I just couldn’t get past the fact that I felt I wasn’t getting anything out of it. From the day I finished reading Dianetics 38 years ago, I knew that was what I’d been looking for. I haven’t looked back since. I KNOW it works so I’ll do everything I can to protect that from ever being changed by those who are “know best” or think they can change it and it will still work. That’s certainty gained from experience.
Pat
Again, I know what you believe, more or less. I’m not asking you to -alter- your religious beliefs to fit my own paradigm. I’m essentially trying to get at how the church -really- deals with information, particularly information that it doesn’t directly control.
LRH is source for the scriptures of Scientology. I have total certainty on that. It’s only when it’s not used or altered that we get in trouble. That’s been proven time and time again. The scriptures were formulated heuristically. What we have today is what works. No question about that. Hands down.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. It is our job as Scientologists to keep those from being altered in any way shape or form. We agree to do that because they work, not through any “orders” or “rules” from management. Scientology is applied by all Scientologists, not just management. When you see people say they aren’t attacking us, just management, what these guys are really saying is that they want license to use the trademarks of Scientology for their own benefit, altering it and “improving” it.
I don’t know what other information you are referring to if you aren’t talking about our scriptures.
Would you describe Tory Christman as “Lacking in intelligence”?
What OT level was Tory Christman when she left the Church?
What OT level are you?
> Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. It is our job as Scientologists to keep those from being altered in any way shape or form.
I can understand your sentiments, but, what if protecting scientology in this way negatively affects me. Am I supposed to just shut up and accept it because scientologists know best?
I’m fine with the whole “whats true for you” thing, but Scientology teaches that we have past lives. That’s why there is that whole “billion year contract” right? Thus, if a person is a Christian, they cannot possibly work within Scientology. It conflicts on that major point. I understand that you are saying that you can still apply certain aspects of the ‘tech” or whatever, but a true Christian could not possibly believe everything that Scientology has to say because of the belief in past lives. From everything I’ve read, Scientologists are very against people picking and choosing from the tech, right? Isn’t that why you guys hate the Freezone?
@Comment by me on March 25, 2008 4:49 pm
I’m fine with the whole “whats true for you” thing, but Scientology teaches that we have past lives. That’s why there is that whole “billion year contract” right? Thus, if a person is a Christian, they cannot possibly work within Scientology. It conflicts on that major point. I understand that you are saying that you can still apply certain aspects of the ‘tech” or whatever, but a true Christian could not possibly believe everything that Scientology has to say because of the belief in past lives. From everything I’ve read, Scientologists are very against people picking and choosing from the tech, right? Isn’t that why you guys hate the Freezone?
To answer that, I would have to correct a misconception that you have.
The tech is the way it is because it was tested heuristically (through trial and error) and what exists today in the Church of Scientology is what works. LRH tech.
Freezone uses altered tech. Now, they criticize Scientology while trying to use it at the same time. Some of their members have gotten sick as a result of using the altered tech (David Mayo, Bill Robertson to name 2. Both dead now). I don’t “hate” anyone. That’s a reactive emotion that is non-survival.
As for Christianity and Scientology compatiblitity, I have to ask you something that I’d like you to
look into.
What is the source of Christianity? Where did it start? When did it start? What were the teachings then? Have they changed since then?
Christianity has it’s roots in the same eastern religions as Scientology. Dharma, Buddhism, Veda and Vedic Hymns. When did Christianity stop teaching that man is spiritual?
Hint - Wundt 1879.
Pat
That still didn’t really answer my question. Christianity is definitely a spiritual belief. But the human spirit only lives on earth once according to the bible. Scientology states that you live many times, right? The “thetan” (aka spirit) can live multiple lives, right? It can go from one life to another and through auditing you can actually acknowledge past lives that you have lived? Or am I wrong on that? That’s my question. How can the belief in past lives be compatible with the Christian belief of living on earth only once? Doesn’t the idea that the human spirit only experiences one lifetime on earth go against Scientology?
As for your questions, most people who seriously study religions know those answers already. Where it started, when it started, and what’s it’s teachings are are very common knowledge and available everywhere. However, have they changed? Some say yes, some say no. That question is far too big to answer on this blog and doesn’t really have anything to do with my question. We can get down into the nitty gritty of things like “thou shalt not wear clothing made of two fabrics” and how that doesn’t really work today, but, again, that has nothing to do with my question about reincarnation and Christianity.
I guess I should give you some brief background about who I am (not that you probably care, but it might help you understand where I’m coming from). My grandfather was a pastor, so I grew up studying Christianity. As I got older I started studying many other beliefs as well. If you haven’t noticed, Scientology has been in the news a lot lately so I’ve started looking into it. The idea that you state that Christianity and Scientology are compatible confuses me a lot, hence why I’m asking so many detailed questions. I’m not trying to attack your belief. I just want to understand why you say they are compatible when from my view they are clearly not.
Please feel free to keep asking us questions, I don’t think we should degrade back to one way communication. I know you may not always like the answers we give… well, fine, I guess you don’t really want to try and understand us do you?
Please don’t fall back on what management tells you about us, listen to us here and make your own decision. And I still state categorically that I am not being controlled by anyone.
Thank you for your time Pat, I know you’re taking a bit of a hammering, but I appreciate that you take the time to talk to us.
Regards,
John
@me
I will try to answer your question as I come from a Jewish perspective. We will disagree about major tenants but to shed light on what Scientology defines as Thetan to Soul vs Judeo/Christian beliefs.
One, we must agree that Christianity is based off of Jewish scripture, if not then there is nothing further to really discuss as Christianity would be as alien to Judaism as is Wicken.
If you agree then we can proceed to say that again we will disagree on major tenants and I do not want to get into a debate on who is right but with the agreement that Christianity is based off Jewish scripture that I can help rectify the Thetan issue with Christianity.
The problem with most Christian scripture in its incorporation of Jewish script is that much of it is mistranslated and lacking and so be it as the New Testament is the story of Christianity, but for it to exist must use the Old Testament. This is where the Thetan to soul issue comes up.
There are many ultra-orthodox Jews that believe in physical reincarnation and thus are buried facing Jerusalem for the end when they will resurrect. This is very mythical and not as technical as simple Torah. However, what is in Torah through Gemara (oral Torah) is that when the law was given all souls were present and future whether there was a physical body as we know it present for the soul or not. This is why conversion is frankly practiced in Judaism as one of the souls present at the giving of the law has now manifested in what we know to be physical form. The in very simple terms objective is to fulfill mitzvoth (commandments) and in many cases is not done in one physical form lifespan and so the soul goes to the next physical manifestation to finish. This is debated keep in mind, but the tenant that all souls were present to receive the law is not. Whether one agrees that souls move from one physical life to another to fulfill all mitzvoth, the principle of soul being the difference between raw physical form as in genesis oral Torah unknown to many Christians is that other human physical forms existed along side Adam and Eve but lacked the “breathing of a soul.” Maimonides (a great Jewish sage) spoke of this in “The Guide for the Perplexed” thus the soul being you and not the other way around is exact in definition to a Thetan. Moreover, past lives being that of the soul in fulfilling mitzvoth to a thetan’s experiences in its life track. Basically Scientology has its own lexicon that makes it a bit confusing for many. However while reincarnation is a taboo word in Christianity which I find perplexing as its primary tenant of faith is based on it is not the same as soul or thetan transgression.
Another reason for compatibility is that the 8th dynamic Scientology specifically states “does not intrude upon.” The 8th dynamic is G_d or one’s definition thereof. There is a strong argument to say it amounts to worship another before G_d, but that is bunk when that definition cannot be intruded upon. There then comes the question as from the Christian perspective of being saved or ones salvation through the works of Christian dogma. Here we will disagree as my faith in Judaism is a stark contrast.
I only state the following to help make understanding and mean no disrespect to the Christian faith. I first will argue that in following mitzvot I have to be careful not to practice and Scientology work that would violate a mitzvot, other Jews will argue back and forth as to the line in the sand but beyond that if it is not “kosher” I will not do it. I have yet to run into that wall.
Now for Christianity the works of salvation are muddled in my opinion as the Gospel of Matthew states salvation comes through following the law, that being “Jewish Law” but is changed in Luke to be bottlenecked at “only through me to the father” concept and finally with the book of Acts where it completely removes the book of Matthew’s scripture in doing away with most of the Jewish Laws in the letters to Antioch via Paul in the book of Acts.
Now any Christian can wade their way with their own opinion as to whether there will be conflict with Scientology. The other I find interesting in Christianity is original sin which does not exist in Judaism. Here the soul has had a past life because it is assigned the original sin. Logically it cannot be “new” in crude terms. Only in my opinion while not Jewish does it being Original Sin resemble a life track as in Scientology.
Another point, if information is not in the Bible it does not mean it is sin to practice. For example if one runs into a question of Scientology practice that cannot be found in the bible as to right or wrong does not make it a sin. One should have enough of a foundation in scripture to judge for oneself.
A specific example would be the quest to get understand one’s self better in the context of a soul. Trying to free engrams, images the soul contains or you contain I should say is not a conflict, it does not tell one to stop believing in Christ nor does it reverse Christian dogma. Engrams of the Soul is not mentioned in the bible, but does not make it a sin by its absence
It is still and respectfully up to the individual I only hope I helped clear up some issues of a thetan to soul relationship or maybe I made it worse
@me
“and as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” KJV
Does men = soul or the physical form in that passage?
I’m sure I’ll have some other questions, but I will reiterate what John said. To Pat (and the other CoS people who are here offering responses), some of us really do appreciate that, at the very least, the lines of communication are being kept open. It would be extremely easy for everyone involved (on either side) to adopt a siege mentality and become as adversarial as possible, so I do respect those people who, even if they don’t agree, are at least willing to respond and offer their own perspectives.
“It is still and respectfully up to the individual I only hope I helped clear up some issues of a thetan to soul relationship or maybe I made it worse”
No, that was a great answer actually. That’s the most complete answer I’ve ever received from a Scientologist on this topic, so thanks. I actually didn’t know that some Orthodoxed actually believed in reincarnation. My fiance is from a reformed Jewish family so most of my knowledge about that faith is based on what I’ve learned from them.
So thanks for your thorough answer.
“Does men = soul or the physical form in that passage?”
Most interpretations I’ve seen believes that is the soul. The awesome thing about Abrahamic faiths is that there is plenty of room for interpretation. I guess I can see how one would take that differently.
“I actually didn’t know that some Orthodoxed actually believed in reincarnation.”
Actually, that part of bradS’s post seems to have confused reincarnation and resurrection. Reincarnation = new body, resurrection = same body. While Judaism itself may not say anything about reincarnation, those branches that believe in physical resurrection pretty much have to rule it out. (To see why, let’s say you’ve lived two or more lives. Which one gets resurrected at the end of days, or will you somehow inhabit all of them simultaneously?)
Hello! This discussion has been so interesting. And everybody’s being so nice.
What interests me is the idea of remembering past lives. I just think it would be awesome to be able to remember one, like going back in time.
And that’s when I thought of my question I had to ask. Do you guys do any sort of anthropology work? Like collecting past life experiences and sorting them by date, and getting some sort of idea of what it was like way back when? Can you remember the language or just pictures? Like, would it be possible to hear what Latin actually sounds like when it’s spoken? It’s like each person is a kind of time capsule.
Hello! This discussion has been so interesting. And everybody’s being so nice!
What interests me is the idea of remembering past lives. I just think it would be awesome to be able to remember one, like going back in time.
And that’s when I thought of my question I had to ask. Do you guys do any sort of anthropology work? Like collecting past life experiences and sorting them by date, and getting some sort of idea of what it was like way back when? Can you remember the language or just pictures? Like, would it be possible to hear what Latin actually sounds like when it’s spoken? It’s like each person is a kind of time capsule.
@Comment by Joddi on March 26, 2008 2:42 am
Hello! This discussion has been so interesting. And everybody’s being so nice!
What interests me is the idea of remembering past lives. I just think it would be awesome to be able to remember one, like going back in time.
And that’s when I thought of my question I had to ask. Do you guys do any sort of anthropology work? Like collecting past life experiences and sorting them by date, and getting some sort of idea of what it was like way back when? Can you remember the language or just pictures? Like, would it be possible to hear what Latin actually sounds like when it’s spoken? It’s like each person is a kind of time capsule.
Hello, Joddi
There is a case study of 40 cases documenting past lives written by L Ron Hubbard and it’s available on line. It’s called “Have You Lived Before This Life?” Check on eBay for it or at http://www.bridgepub.com.
I don’t know of others but I have heard success stories where abilities from past lives were regained, such as playing the piano without ever having had a single lesson this lifetime.
We tend to not talk about it because it’s been abused. It’s pretty much kept to sharing abilities regained. It’s also opened us up to ridicule for those who find it unbelievable. That’s why I stress here the tenet that “what’s true is what we have personally observed to be true”
We’re all different and have different experiences.
Pat
Hi guys,
I think I mentioned that I’m getting less time here as have some volunteer work going as well as being on course. I see that BradS has kindly stepped in and answered on the past lives questions. Thanks!!
I’m still here and can’t tell you how much I appreciate the theta that’s coming down right now.
Do you know how you feel when you see something really really happy or beautiful? That’s aesthetics which is considered the closet approximation to what free theta feels like. The more we share that with others the better we all are. It helps keep us out of the “soup”. LOL
And keeps us here willing to talk to you about emotional issues.
Pat
Is it true that Mary Panton just blew?
@Comment by John on March 25, 2008 7:32 pm
>Please feel free to keep asking us questions, I don’t think we should degrade back to one way communication. I know you may not always like the answers we give… well, fine, I guess you don’t really want to try and understand us do you?
>Please don’t fall back on what management tells you about us, listen to us here and make your own decision. And I still state categorically that I am not being controlled by anyone.
Management isn’t telling us anything about you. The Scientologists that come here do so on their own determinism. We see what is being said about our religion and want to handle that.
>Thank you for your time Pat, I know you’re taking a bit of a hammering, but I appreciate that you take the time to talk to us.
You’re welcome.
Pat
-Do you think that Anonymous are reglious bigoted cyber/domestic commie terrorists who read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto for inspiration?
(http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/scientology_radar_feb_12a.pdf - section 12)
-If not completely then which parts?
-Where did this information come from if not management?
-What then is Karin Pouw’s position within the Church of Scientology?
@Comment by John on March 26, 2008 6:04 am
>-Do you think that Anonymous are reglious bigoted cyber/domestic commie terrorists who >read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto for inspiration?
(http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/scientology_radar_feb_12a.pdf - section 12)
>-If not completely then which parts?
>-Where did this information come from if not management?
>-What then is Karin Pouw’s position within the Church of Scientology?
Is this in response to my saying that management doesn’t tell us what to think?
These communications aren’t to us. They’re to anon or radar.
Pat
@Comment by me on March 25, 2008 5:52 pm
>That still didn’t really answer my question. Christianity is definitely a spiritual belief. But the human spirit only lives on earth once according to the bible. Scientology states that you live many times, right? The “thetan” (aka spirit) can live multiple lives, right? It can go from one life to another and through auditing you can actually acknowledge past lives that you have lived? Or am I wrong on that? That’s my question. How can the belief in past lives be compatible with the Christian belief of living on earth only once? Doesn’t the idea that the human spirit only experiences one lifetime on earth go against Scientology?
Technically, we only live once. Just that we have more than 1 body.
Auditing can bring up past lives. Yes.
>As for your questions, most people who seriously study religions know those answers already. Where it started, when it started, and what’s it’s teachings are are very common knowledge and available everywhere. However, have they changed? Some say yes, some say no. That question is far too big to answer on this blog and doesn’t really have anything to do with my question. We can get down into the nitty gritty of things like “thou shalt not wear clothing made of two fabrics” and how that doesn’t really work today, but, again, that has nothing to do with my question about reincarnation and Christianity.
Answered now?
Pat
“Is this in response to my saying that management doesn’t tell us what to think?
These communications aren’t to us. They’re to anon or radar. ”
Weak. Do you or do you not believe that Mein Kamph and the Communist Manifesto inspire the acts of Anonymous?
“I actually didn’t know that some Orthodoxed actually believed in reincarnation.”
Actually, that part of bradS’s post seems to have confused reincarnation and resurrection. Reincarnation = new body, resurrection = same body.”
Yes and no, this is debated as my Rabbinic teachings stated it would be impossible to have the same physical form so into what I ask in debate then does one resurrect or reincarnate either way because of the physical domain of the body I assume physical form but again which? I am still studying it. My other statement as to Christian tenant is original sin of the soul. Not the resurrection of Christ, I am sorry if I confused that part.
I apologize for that confusion.
I will clarify further, I do not see reincarnation in either Scientology or Christianity. I want to say soul transgression, because you are you if that make sense.
But my faithful Aish.com has something to say to this
http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Reincarnation_and_Jewish_Tradition.asp
Hope this helps
I want to correct again, I mean I do not see physical reincarnation in the faiths. It is better to understand oneself as the soul or thetan as that is you. Does that make sense to any?? I feel like I am mucking it up again.
Thanks for the great comments and dialog everyone.
Okay, what sources of information are you personally using in regards to both Anonymous as a group (though this is somewhat of a misnomer) and the actions of Anonymous?
I know you have repeatedly stated your opinion on Anonymous, I am not questioning that. I would like to know on what information you formed this opinion.
Don’t worry what other people think, don’t let them make you feel ashamed of your experiences! People could learn a lot about history from this. Althuogh maybe it’s a bit too personal but still.. it would be so cool. What kind of lives have you lived? Do they get harder to remember the further you go back? What kind of abilities did you get? What about speaking another language, not Latin, may be too far back, but german or old english?
Bridgepub didn’t have the book and wikipedia says it’s out of print (but it IS wikipedia so..). I don’t really trust ebay, so I’ll keep my eye out for a copy in second hand bookstore.
http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/questions/#comment-1635
Please don’t ignore this. Is it the Church of Scientology’s policy to request that certain individuals “end cycle” aka “drop dead” (in anonymous terms “become an hero”
if they feel they are beyond hope for this life?
@Comment by John on March 26, 2008 8:48 am
>Okay, what sources of information are you personally using in regards to both Anonymous as a group (though this is somewhat of a misnomer) and the actions of Anonymous?
>I know you have repeatedly stated your opinion on Anonymous, I am not questioning that. I would like to know on what information you formed this opinion.
I’m assuming that this is directed to me. If not, I bow out gracefully.
My views of Anonymous’ actions are based on the Anon videos to Scientology (I’ve lost count now) and the signs you use at the protests. Not what anyone says about Anon but physical evidence.
Pat
@Comment by Anonanonanon on March 26, 2008 7:58 am
>“Is this in response to my saying that management doesn’t tell us what to think?
>These communications aren’t to us. They’re to anon or radar. ”
>Weak. Do you or do you not believe that Mein Kamph and the Communist Manifesto inspire the acts of Anonymous?
I have no idea. I never read them.
Pat
@ Comment by Anothernonymous on March 26, 2008 2:13 pm
>http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/questions/#comment-1635
>Please don’t ignore this. Is it the Church of Scientology’s policy to request that certain individuals “end cycle” aka “drop dead” (in anonymous terms “become an hero”) if they feel they are beyond hope for this life?
And the Church said this where? Didn’t she say that was her Dad’s decision?
I’ll just betcha that you don’t understand what she means by illegal pc.
What gets me here is that she appears to be saying that her Dad really believed in Scientology. He never made the Church responsible for his condition. So why are you?
Pat
Pat -
First of all, I hope the charity work and the courses go well. Right now, I think the main thing I’m struggling with is the mindset of many Scientologists (and this goes beyond what reading Dianetics or other Hubbard writings would help me with).
Right now, the feeling I get is that most people in the church are genuinely nice people who honestly want to help others and make the world a better place. However, they are sometimes driven to do some…kind of awful things in (what they perceive to be) service of that goal.
With those views in mind, I’ll go with a relatively mild and well-established practice: What’s your take on the bull-baiting of critics and third parties (”What are your crimes?”, “How many crimes have you covered up today?” “You should really stop molesting children.”, etc.)
For one example, you can refer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REr7XfoiKrs , and the really good stuff starts at about 2 minutes in.
Or, alternately, you can go to xenutv.com/pickets/ots.htm (beginning of URL trimmed to avoid board filter) and watch Mary DeMoss, bull-baiter par excellence.
I would like to hear your own take on this particular practice.
Understandable Pat. I think you are of course welcome to your opinion.
My next questions, following along these lines would be;
Do you think that every video on youtube attributed to Anonymous was produced by the same people that are conducting peaceful protests? Reworded, do you think that some of these videos are ‘fakes’ that are unfairly attributed to those people conducting peaceful protests in an attempt to discredit their actions?
My other question would be be, and I understand your beliefs in regard to entheta, so I can understand why you would not choose to do this, but have you taken the time to read the literature be handed out at these peaceful protests? I would of course not expect you to accept it at face value, but have you taken the time to check what the sources are and determine for yourself whether or not these sources are acceptable?
Unfortunately, and correct me if I’m wrong, the feeling I have gotten from speaking to scientologists is that the only acceptable source of information on scientologists are scientologists themselves as anyone outside of scientology is a criminal or has an agenda or is a bigot and for whatever reason are not an acceptable source of information. I admit that, if I am wrong on that point, I have just setup a strawman argument, so if I am wrong I withdraw the following statement.
If what I said is true then what you are saying is that I should only listen to scientologists and the Church of Scientology in regards to scientology.
Who watches the watchmen?
@John
This is my own opinion.
My opinion of anon comes from my history with them as a programmer. You must understand that anon existed as a hacker group long before the use of anon to protest scientology. Anon’s ideology stems from OS theory of open or free source and by default has no respect for intellectual property. I cite that the protests to COS did not start from the normal detracting arguments used by xenu.net or xenutv but only when copyright infringement was declared by COS.
Even though COS has every legal right to do so, this goes against Anon philosophy and thus the war began. It was recognized by the Xenu.net, FACT, Xenutv and what not and thus exploited by them and so be it as the cause was the same but for different reasons. Thus then did caring people start to affiliate with Anon. Many of these caring people have no idea what anon is except to what it means by word definition and the cool mask to boot but for the most part are not the original anon but have the wrong information on COS purported by long time anti-COS groups, but that is a part of life and why this site exists to work that part out.
Anon’s history is not pretty, they have posted IDs of their enemies hacked sites, place porn on sites and so on. They exist among the caring but only for lulz. In my opinion if I really cared about my cause against COS, I would not affiliate with anon as its primary reason to exist is lulz but for my reason of perceived injustice and if anonymity must be preserved at least call myself something else. While the protests were peaceful and more power to you guys who make it that way, you still inherit the lulz and bad rep plus you still have the hacker groups among you who do make threats and have caused havoc even tough many will deny. From COS perspective at least with Anon should take steps to protect itself as YES the last two have been peaceful protests, the threats continue and being anon anyone of anon can be the source. I have seen a few vids where anon talk to each other and have disagreements especially where one anon talks about operations in terms of harassment via lulz and the other anon back off. Now, I am a critic of COS tactics as with times where xenutv and others protested some of those times were embarrassing for me to see and I do not agree with; others as with Bob he was a special case and many do not know how he also in turn treated COS. I think the way BBC was handled was not appropriate even though I completely see Sweeny as a bias anti-cos individual well before his investigation or “report” on COS. IMO two wrongs do not make a right and COS should have just rolled with the punches in many aspects of that snafu rather than come on so strong.
@Pat
Don’t worry what other people think, don’t let them make you feel ashamed of your experiences! People could learn a lot about history from this. Althuogh maybe it’s a bit too personal but still.. it would be so cool. What kind of lives have you lived? Do they get harder to remember the further you go back? What kind of abilities did you get? What about speaking another language, not Latin, may be too far back, but german or old english?
Bridgepub didn’t have the book and wikipedia says it’s out of print (but it IS wikipedia so..). I don’t really trust ebay, so I’ll keep my eye out for a copy in second hand bookstore.
As a member of Anonymous, and it’s forebearer the chan sites, for many years now. I can honestly tell you that Anonymous, as it now exists, is related to the ‘internate hate machine’ in nothing but name. As the Church of Scientology changed following the arrests in regards to Operation: Snow White, Anonymous has changed following the video to Anonymous by Mark Bunker. Mark Bunker was initially against Anonymous, he discouraged Anonymous from using illegal tactics. The consensus was that he was right and so Anonymous changed.
It may interest you to hear that for a while mention of anything relating to Chanology or scientology resulted in a ban on some of the chan sites as they sought to force out the new Anonymous.
Yes, I can agree that to some degree the Church of Scientology should take precautions in regards to what I would call ‘rouge’ Anons. I guess, in an abstract way, Anonymous and scientology are similar in that we find that there are always a small number of individuals who work against the common cause.
One example of this I saw recently was an Anon that asked why we hadn’t scoped out the home address of a prominant scientologist. He was immediately chastised by a number of Anons who said that we are not concerned with the personal lives of scientologists, we do not encourage that cause of action and if he does continue to pursue that course of action we will inform authorities. This is how we deal with our ‘Suppressive Persons’.
“I want to say soul transgression, because you are you if that make sense.”
BTW, the word you’re looking for here is “transmigration.” “Transgression” means a crime or sin. LRH isn’t the only one who gets antsy about proper word usage.
@ Okay I’m Anonymous Now
thanks lol word has been cleared
It said I’ve already posted this comment but I haven’t! I don’t know what’s wrong!
Don’t worry what other people think, don’t let them make you feel ashamed of your experiences! People could learn a lot about history from this. Althuogh maybe it’s a bit too personal but still.. it would be so cool. What kind of lives have you lived? Do they get harder to remember the further you go back? What kind of abilities did you get? What about speaking another language, not Latin, may be too far back, but german or old english?
Bridgepub didn’t have the book and wikipedia says it’s out of print (but it IS wikipedia so..). I don’t really trust ebay, so I’ll keep my eye out for a copy in second hand bookstore.
what OT level are you Pat and Lu? also what are the OT levels of all the other Scientologists that are asked to participate in this discussion?
@Comment by OT9 Declared SP on March 27, 2008 2:48 am
I thought Anon wasn’t interested in the personal lives of Scientologists?
@Comment by OT9 Declared SP on March 27, 2008 2:48 am
I’ve actually never been asked to come to this site to participate. It’s considered sufficiently entheta dealing with the stuff that crops up here on occasion. There’s not many that WILL come here and I’m here because I hope to make a difference. Strictly volunteer. We are all individuals that have different “things”. This is one of my “things”. Why are you here, SP?
Pat
I concur with Pat I do not know any of the Scientologists here and found this site via the exkids site. I thought I could gave a few cents.
I concur with Pat I do not know any of the Scientologists here and found this site via the exkids site. I thought I could gave a few cents.
>I thought Anon wasn’t interested in the personal lives of Scientologists?
If this is in response to my earlier statements I should clarify and say ‘private’ as opposed to ‘personal’. I think many Anons are genuinely interested in hearing about the personal lives of scientology to help foster understanding.
But I feel that it is not fair to dig into scientologists private lives under these circumstances. My guess is that most Anons are not interested in the past crimes of individual scientologists.
bradS- This is more of a side-comment than a question, but I’d pose the same question to you about bull-baiting.
However, you already answered it in part, and I have to say, I sincerely respect you for your recognition of the church’s overly-aggressive treatment of some of its critics and some of the press. To me, those reactions are symptomatic of deeper, more systemic problems, but I’ll be honest…-any- recognition of that kind of behavior as inappropriate is far more than most Scientologists I’ve spoken to are willing to admit.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 26, 2008 6:56 pm
>Pat -
>First of all, I hope the charity work and the courses go well.
Thanks! - Doing great
>Right now, I think the main thing I’m struggling with is the mindset of many Scientologists (and this goes beyond what reading Dianetics or other Hubbard writings would help me with).
>Right now, the feeling I get is that most people in the church are genuinely nice people who honestly want to help others and make the world a better place. However, they are sometimes driven to do some…kind of awful things in (what they perceive to be) service of that goal.
>With those views in mind, I’ll go with a relatively mild and well-established practice: What’s your take on the bull-baiting of critics and third parties (”What are your crimes?”, “How many crimes have you covered up today?” “You should really stop molesting children.”, etc.)
>For one example, you can refer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REr7XfoiKrs , and the really good stuff starts at about 2 minutes in.
>Or, alternately, you can go to xenutv.com/pickets/ots.htm (beginning of URL trimmed to avoid board filter) and watch Mary DeMoss, bull-baiter par excellence.
>I would like to hear your own take on this particular practice.
I can answer that with some Scientology basics, ok? (Bringing it over from the earlier thread)
1. SELF-DETERMINISM (Advanced Procedures & Axioms)
“SELF-DETERMINISM is that state of being wherein the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice. In that state, the individual has self-confidence in his control of the material universe and the organisms within it along every dynamic. He is confident about any and all abilities or talents he may possess. He reasons, but does not need to react. (pg 119)
“THE GOAL OF THE AUDITOR WITH THE PRECLEAR IS THE REHABILITATION OF THE PRECLEAR’S SELF-DETERMINISM.” (pg 119)
2. RESPONSIBILITY (Advanced Procedures & Axioms)
“DEFINITION: RESPONSIBILITY IS THE ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO ASSUME THE STATUS OF FULL SOURCE AND CAUSE FOR ALL EFFORTS AND COUNTER-EFFORTS ON ALL DYNAMICS. “(page 127)
3. FULL RESPONSIBILITY - CAUSE AND EFFECT (Introduction to Scientology Ethics)
“Full responsibility is not “fault”, it is recognition of being cause”
(Advanced Procedures & Axioms)
Ordinarily people call the assignment of cause “blame”.
If one assigns cause to something, he delivers to that entity power. This is not mystical. It is a new discovery.” (page 135)
From the Definitions page at ScientologyMyths.info
“overt act:
1. an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or
commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics.
2 . an intentionally committed harmful act committed in an effort to resolve a problem.
3. that thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you.
motivator:
1. an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. It is called a motivator because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it “motivates” a new overt.
2 . something which the person feels has been done to him, which he is not willing to have happen.
3 . an act received by the person or individual causing injury, reduction or degradation of his beingness, person, associations or dynamics. (HCOB 1 Nov 68 II) 4. an overt act against oneself by another. In other words, a motivator is a harmful action performed by somebody else against oneself.
overt-motivator sequence:
1. if a fellow does an overt, he will then believe he’s got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator.
2. the sequence wherein someone who has committed an overt has to claim the existence of motivators. The motivators are then likely to be used to justify committing further overt acts. ”
Therefore, to restore a person to Full Self Determinism one would have to address his cause.
This is why we ask what the “critics” have done.
Pat
@ErroneousAssumptions
thanks for the comments and your participation. Let me give you some background on the BB at least the story of Bob. I have some sympathy like for what Bunker dubbs the Mad Picket which was really based on the outrage of bringing Ursula over from Germany whom is very critical of COS to put it mildly. I however think it was an embarrassment. From a Scientologist position I would say let them protest and don’t give them any ammunition. But you have to understand like myself as a Jew when attacked we get passionate. However those acts were more childish than passionate in my opinion. Plus Mark and the LMT crew kept going out because in a big part they found picketing very entertaining. I imagine many youtubers do as well, it does come off comical. Anyway Bob was extremely aggressive towards COS of which you do not see in the edited videos for youtube. He would walk up and disrupt actual church functions and some affiliated with him were harassing Scientologists. There is basically a lot missing in the videos. Anyway my point is it became personal for both sides. BB became a sport for both, who would trip op first and score the most points. You can see it in the vids from both sides.
I do not see the same BB with anon, as anon is a different animal all together.
However, have you been to religious debates? Hah now that is BB all over the place.
As a Jew i run into what are called messianics who pose and dress and speak like Jews and whose churches are made up as such to resemble a shul, but it is all Christian and mission to convert Jews. That is another big battle and a lot of BB. I participated in the Jews for Jews vs the Jews for Jesus crowd for a while.
P.S. One odd thing about the trip to Clearwater in the second video on the tube he “Bob” calls out to Spencer @ 5:05 but we are lead to believe that they just learned the names a few videos later. Could be nothing but I found it odd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3worzBTRydQ&feature=PlayList&p=AF4CE3C171D9A8C6&index=1
Pat-
Okay, I understand the -philosophy- behind, at least, asking some of those questions. However, a lot of the bullbaiting clearly goes beyond that into personal insults and…well, extremely -rude- behavior.
I know “What is your crimes?” is a pretty common question. However, if you watch Mary in those videos, there’s also lots of “How many crimes have you covered up today?” or accusing a German woman of wanting to burn people, or insulting Mark Bunker’s weight and acting career. In the July 4th videos, Dan Murnan and company insinuate that he’s a child molester. Other examples of bullbaiting include calling people all kinds of names like “loser” or “nazi”, accusing people of being alcoholics or drug addicts (Heber Jentzsch was especially fond of that one), and attacking the personal appearance of the target.
Does this seem appropriate to you? It seems to -me- like the goal of the practice is to provoke the critic to the point where they do something for which:
A: Charges can be filed; or
B: They can be made to look foolish and irrational with selectively-edited video footage (see: John Sweeney).
Is the actual goal something else, and I’m simply not understanding fully what you posted before? I understand the idea of becoming “immune” to outside provocation like that as being important to your idea of “self-determinism” (though, to me, that degree of numbing to external stimuli seems…dangerous), but I’m not sure I understand why it would be applied to critics in that way and in those circumstances.
So…is it appropriate to behave like that? How do you think that behavior makes people who see it feel about Scientology?
Good response from Pat as to “what are your crimes” as I did not address that specifically. Again though I still find much of it childish and very comical in the vids of the critics sites. I laugh a lot as did Spencer when Bob deliberately showed him a pic of LRH “Is this guy still around?” which was insulting as well but then it goes to Spencer “you still going out with that whore?” Bob replies “Who’s that?” You see it was all a sport at that point. I cannot blame COS anymore than the critics themselves. I can simply say for myself and my opinion I would not have done it that way.
bradS- Thanks, that does help put things in perspective a bit.
I personally respect a lot of what Bob Minton tried to do, at least given my current understanding of things, but I have -no doubt- that things turned personal and that people on both sides did things they probably ended up regretting. We’re all human, and as such, we do make mistakes.
I also think your idea of the church’s ideal reaction is perfectly reasonable. That’s one thing that puzzles me so much about these things; it’s as if the church (or at least a significant part of it) does not realize what effect that kind of behavior has. It doesn’t -dissuade- critics. It just makes -more- people critical.
I think a lot of the backlash the church is experiencing now is due not -just- to the Tom Cruise video thing, but its history of…let’s say “aggressive” tactics towards its critics and a policy of trying to silence dissent that’s notably absent from most other religions in this day and age. I’m perfectly okay with people believing what they want to believe. I also feel strongly, however, about the ability of people to -criticize- those beliefs if they choose. In my mind, these criticisms should be countered rationally and calmly, not with attacks (legal and otherwise) and intimidation. That’s one of my primary arguments with the CoS, to be honest: the fact that they, moreso than virtually any other religion, seem to seek to -control- information and bully their critics into silence.
Does that make sense? Am I being unfair?
@ ErroneousAssumptions
Like I said about BBC Scientology would have been better served to roll with the punches, but I have no respect for Sweeney… none, he did not report honestly and BB’d COS and in the interviews. He mocked them. I mean COS was likely duped by BBC, I mean he starts out the documentary “to see if COS is still deserving of it bad rep.” I mean what kind of report are we to expect after that sentiment? I think it was wise for COS to video BBC as well and rightly so to counter the BBC material with COS material. BUT, it is a cath22 that COS got themselves into with the BBC.
As far as court orders they stem from like when Henson would harass scientologists and like when Bob would push it way too far. The only way to get them to back off is to by legal means. If they pulled something like that at my shul, they would have been taken away by the police. But then again they would have to get past the gates and fences first.
@ErroneousAssumptions
“Does that make sense? Am I being unfair?”
Well Bob and crew would not have been allowed close enough if it were my Shul flat out. Moreover, there would have been no comedy, just police and people leaving in the back of their cars. COS knows it is going to get attacked I mean the Mormons were kicked out state after state and had the U.S. military after them at one point. So when one is the small dog it has to bark the loudest. Most at least react that way.
Now as for the Tom Cruise video, it seems alien to many because again COS has its own lexicon and to be frank COS is new and off the bat people will reject it by it being different until known better. I cannot tell you how freaked out I get why my neighbor asked me for my Army utilities “Cammo” so that there kids could go dress up for a function and be “Solders for Jesus” and the whole military thing. Their expressions on their faces were a bit unnerving. I also get the typical onslaught of the conversion crew to bring me to Jesus as he is the only way and so on. So I see in Tom a man who believes with every cell in his body LRH tech and so be it as with any other believer.
Now I will disagree about copyright, I am a programmer and I am in the opposite side of the camp when it comes to enforcement I completely disagree with Anon’s position of it. I know all the debates, I have debated and on this form as well on OS theory and open and free, but truly Open is not Free it is meant to bring about more [you place the variable]…. but I am really exhausted of debating that.
Now if this is over Censorship well that is a vague line many will declare free speech but fall short when they become the target. With existing laws it is wishful thinking sometimes on the part of Anon declaring Free Speech and also for COS but the injunctions for Anon are rooted differently than for Bob and crew. They did get threats and wanted to make sure even though Anon proved to have peaceful pickets, good job again on that we did not get a smoking gun in other words react after the fact. I mean the injunction only established a certain distance not the elimination of the speech. Other critics for long periods as with Bob pushed and pushed and pushed before they got injunctions. Anon made clear threats no matter if we can agree on that or not, the position of COS if you grant that truth can be understood.
@Comment by John on March 26, 2008 7:00 pm
>Understandable Pat. I think you are of course welcome to your opinion.
Alright
>My next questions, following along these lines would be;
>Do you think that every video on youtube attributed to Anonymous was produced by the same people that are conducting peaceful protests? Reworded, do you think that some of these videos are ‘fakes’ that are unfairly attributed to those people conducting peaceful protests in an attempt to discredit their actions?
I have no way to tell the difference. The same way Anon and the anti-Scientology groups all actions of the Church into “now” without the timelines and court cases that absolved us of crimes (or punished the real ones). Right now, it’s all Anon to me.
Those that did perpetrate the crimes were punished. We’ve been over that before. You judge the current management based on dropped out time and added inapplicables. Yet you continue to want us to recognize that some of you aren’t what is generally being presented. That door swings both ways. I agree with Brad. You need to seperate yourself out from those who are trying to exploit you. Start your own group. As for the Church, we just need to continue helping mankind.
>My other question would be be, and I understand your beliefs in regard to entheta, so I can understand why you would not choose to do this, but have you taken the time to read the literature be handed out at these peaceful protests? I would of course not expect you to accept it at face value, but have you taken the time to check what the sources are and determine for yourself whether or not these sources are acceptable?
I have seen two flyers linking to xenu. Why would I want to read that?
>Unfortunately, and correct me if I’m wrong, the feeling I have gotten from speaking to scientologists is that the only acceptable source of information on scientologists are scientologists themselves as anyone outside of scientology is a criminal or has an agenda or is a bigot and for whatever reason are not an acceptable source of information. I admit that, if I am wrong on that point, I have just setup a strawman argument, so if I am wrong I withdraw the following statement.
I can only give you an analogy here. Ask John what the Pope had for breakfast. Why not ask the Pope? or his cook?
Did you see those definitions I gave? The only reason you wouldn’t trust our data is that you (generically speaking) have yourself done or said things to not be trusted
>If what I said is true then what you are saying is that I should only listen to scientologists and the Church of Scientology in regards to scientology.
See above.
Who watches the watchmen?
Reference: Introduction to Scientology Ethics (in the libraries)
Pat
@ErroneousAssumptions
Also the drama of it all bugs me like take Atlanta, “Riot Gear, Riot Gear” but no one mentions that they also had Riot gear for the Feb protest. They made the March protest look like it was the first time. Ohhh the drama of it all. Plus the guy with the ticket, he will deny it but I give the benefit of the doubt to the officers, he drove around a couple of times and the cops knew it. He likely went back around to get the video shot.
BradS-
The Atlanta protest was…silly. The fact that they had riot gear for the Feb. one was also really, really unnecessary.
However, it’s worth noting that the county (DeKalb) has some -notoriously- corrupt politics (do a quick google search on “Vernon Jones” if you want to see what I mean), and their police chief (Bolton) was fired from his PREVIOUS job for corruption.
A lot of the beat cops in DeKalb are great people, but some of the higher-ups in DeKalb government are knee-deep in corruption and cronyism. Frankly, -everyone-, CoS and Anon alike, should be embarrassed and irritated to see that display.
I can also verify (from second-hand reports) that the cruising claim was false, and the video footage backs that up. Still, I’m not blaming the CoS for that. Like I said, there’s more than enough history of screw-ups in upper level DeKalb management to account for that.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions
I am not arguing the point of the riot gear, but the facade of making it to be the first time. ATL did make it look creepy I will not argue, but that was not the point I was making. The riot gear issue never came up until march that has to be noted.
Now as for the video I saw them too, I firmly believe the guy went back to get his own video shot. He will likely get off anyway but maybe not.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions
I could also give him the benefit of the doubt on that he did say he lived right next door, so that could be a misconception of the officers. People do come and go from home. I cannot deny that possibility.
BradS-
Fair enough. Actually, people did comment on how silly the riot gear thing was back in Feb., but it only really became a big deal -this- time because of the arrests, ticketing, and unnecessarily adversarial behavior.
It seems like the whole thing was a misunderstanding, though, so here’s hoping it doesn’t happen again.
As for your response RE: some of the actions taken by the church…
If/when there are actual threats made, I do not fault the church for taking legal steps to protect itself.
However, the church has a history of hiring private detectives, picketing people’s houses, “noisy investigation”, intimidation, and other unsavory activities when faced with critics. I mean…say what you will about John Sweeney, but having people -follow- a reporter and keep a watch on them at all times isn’t exactly the sort of behavior that wins you any friends. I know you say the BBC thing was handled poorly, but there are -other- examples of that same behavior being perpetrated against other individuals (the Time Magazine article’s author, various IRS officials, ex-Scientologists who spoke out about their experiences, etc.)
I may not -agree- on the intellectual property issue, but I can at least understand and respect your point of view on that issue. I cannot understand, however, how…aggressive and confrontational the church is with anyone who dares speak against them. At least, that’s the way it -seems-.
That’s one of the main issues I personally have, and that kind of things sends up red flags for me all over the place. I understand people feel strongly and want to defend their religion, but a lot of this stuff (to me) seems to cross the line from “defending” to “actively attacking and pursuing”. Granted, I know that Hubbard wrote something to that effect (”Always attack, never defend” and “Attack the attacker”), but do you see my perspective on that kind of behavior in a civilized society?
lol for the word clearing the use of word should have been transgressive perhaps??? lol
Pat-
“Did you see those definitions I gave? The only reason you wouldn’t trust our data is that you (generically speaking) have yourself done or said things to not be trusted”
That’s the kind of thing that starts alarm bells ringing for me.
Why should I trust a Scientologist telling me something any more than I should trust anyone ELSE telling me something? If someone tells me something significant, and I do not have prior data or experience to verify their claim, I generally go out and look into it myself.
The issue is: Of -course- Scientology is going to say great things about itself. ALL organizations, when speaking of themselves, promote the good and omit the bad. That’s why, in looking into any organization, its claims about itself can be only -one- part of the whole picture.
Maybe, though, this is just one of those insurmountable differences we’ll have to move past. I cannot, try as I might, understand or sympathize with a viewpoint of “anyone who disagrees with us -must be- the enemy and a criminal, or have dark secrets that they’re hiding”. It just seems…too easy. It fosters an “us and them” mentality where your actions are automatically justified because, hey, the other guys are -evil-. It also reminds me uncomfortably of 1984.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions
“It seems like the whole thing was a misunderstanding, though, so here’s hoping it doesn’t happen again.”
Cheers on that.
I interpret LRH’s statement as the best defense is a good offense, but yes there is a history. As for PIs, I will not defend COS in times that it is not warranted, as for suppression of speech, everyone does this. ADL to many other Jewish groups, comedians get sued if a joke goes bad, you name it. Can you imagine if All in the Family were back on the air mainstream? Ha, good luck. What about the Jeffersons? Today everyone is way too sensitive. This is not a moral equivalence speech but one of todays reality.
“I may not -agree- on the intellectual property issue, but I can at least understand and respect your point of view on that issue. I cannot understand, however, how…aggressive and confrontational the church is with anyone who dares speak against them. At least, that’s the way it”
Fair enough and likewise. I will say this to that affect, I think COS had a knee jerk reaction flat out. The vid is still up and I think COS concedes they made a mistake in the first place because while COS has every right to pull that vid, by doing so without thinking they bring more attention to something insignificant. It comes down to opportunity costs. So you wade through a few more jokes and perhaps jabs and everyone moves on, could have been the result.
As for aggressive, yep COS is but in different ways than the big boys. Take ADL or CAIR and other organizations that dispense with the trivial and use hard corps legal action. The result likely the same in many cases but the means different. Again I will not defend COS’ tactics when it is not warranted.
But talking about aggression Anon in many cases attacks likewise, we are wackos, idiots, morons and so on.
I do thank you for your candor and discussion.
BradS-
I sincerely appreciate your honesty, as well. I….well, online especially, you run into a lot of people who simply repeat the party line. True, it may be what they believe, but it becomes a little frustrating. By admitting that the church has reacted poorly to criticism sometimes and things like that, you’ve definitely given me a new, more positive outlook on a lot of people who are in the CoS.
And for what it’s worth, I would -hope- that, especially now, the idiot/moron/crazy person stuff coming from Anon would be in the minority. I can only speak for myself, but I will say that I have absolutely -no- problem with any Scientologist except for those who are responsible for the particular acts I object to, and they are obviously a distinct minority. Even then, I feel that -most- of them do these things not because they’re bad people, but simply because they believe very strongly but go too far in advancing/defending that faith.
I mean, bear in mind, a lot of the people that Anon appears to listen to and respect are ex-Scientologists. They didn’t instantly go from “evil person” to “good person” simply by virtue of quitting the church. To use Tory Christman as an example, she did some kind of lousy stuff as an OSA volunteer back in the day, but in reality, she seems to be a genuinely nice, caring individual. I think most people in Anon realize that even when we might -disagree- with someone in the CoS, they’re not our -enemies-, nor are they bad or insane or stupid.
I, uh, know that’s not really a question, but I just wanted you guys to know, for what it’s worth, that even though the more hostile stuff might be what stands out and what you tend to notice the most, it really does -not- represent the majority opinion, so far as I’ve seen. If nothing else, I can respect strong faith, and I certainly respect a genuine desire to help people and improve the world, even if I don’t necessarily agree with the methods espoused by the church.
As for the big religious organizations using their own rough tactics…That is true, though the shadier tactics used by the CoS are, so far as I know, not really in common usage by those groups. Of course, I’m not really fond of -anyone- throwing their weight around to silence dissenting opinions, so it’s not like I’m thrilled when they try to sue people into silence, either.
>Did you see those definitions I gave? The only reason you wouldn’t trust our data is that you (generically speaking) have yourself done or said things to not be trusted
I see what you did there. But while I understand the concept behind this, that I am relating prior experiences to this experience the answer is no, I do not agree.
A healthy skepticism and request for proof of statements does not mean I believe you are not being dishonest. But where there are two conflicting statements I expect to see proof from one or both sides of the argument so that I may form a fair opinion.
Let me give an example; I met two people for the first time.
Person A says person B is a liar.
Person B says person A is a liar.
Given no other information who do I believe? While no conflict is ever this simple certainly, from my perspective, in the vast majority of situations it is important to find information outside of the parties involved.
I feel that I need to percieve information from multiple sources and weigh for myself the veracity of the information in order to form a well rounded and informed decision.
In regards to copyrights; It was not the video of Tom Cruise (I agree, he seems very dedicated to his cause) nor the legal efforts of the Church of Scientology to remove this video that raised my ire. They did, however, draw my attention. What made me join Anonymous was the information I found out after doing my own research and the aggressive actions by the Church of Scientology when dealing with criticism.
>Who watches the watchmen?
This is the tag line to a very famous comic book, The Watchmen, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. If you haven’t read it I highly recommend that you do.
If the reference to ‘The introduction to scientology’ was the answer to this question, which is really more of a hypothetical question, it didn’t really answer much. Can you explain how ‘The introduction to scientology ethics’ examines this concept?
> The only reason you wouldn’t trust our data is that you (generically speaking) have yourself done or said things to not be trusted.
Could the inverse not be said of you not trusting ours?
@ PAT
>I thought Anon wasn’t interested in the personal lives of Scientologists?
>I’ve actually never been asked to come to this site to participate. It’s considered sufficiently entheta dealing with the stuff that crops up here on occasion. There’s not many that WILL come here and I’m here because I hope to make a difference. Strictly volunteer. We are all individuals that have different “things”. This is one of my “things”. Why are you here, SP?
Pat
When did I say that I am a member of anonymous? you presume that which you do not know… STOP
I ask as a suburban mother who reads for a living and has an internet connection, who’s children attended a protest. I’m simply trying to learn more (and don’t you point me to information, I’ll find it myself)…..
LOTS to read on the internet, now stop turning the question on me. I DID NOT ask why you were here, I asked what OT level you are.
Ot3 at the very least am I right?
forums.enturbulation.org/showthread.php?t=6124
radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-scientology-anonymousfacts-youtube-video.php
http://forums.enturbulation.org/showthread.php?t=2298
there was another by the friend of that “Sean” guy who posted pictures of his guns.
That one had said that people came in his house and messed with his gas tank! At home AND at WORK!
My children are not terrorists (although one is a total pyro, but then what 17 year old boy isn’t?)
What say you to your “disbanded fair game policy”?
I’m not stopping my children, If this is what a “religion” does to peaceful protesters I’m supporting their decision to attend.
@ErroneousAssumptions
Tory is a sweetheart. I know very little of what she experienced but let me say this. In my opinion I still believe she believes in the ‘tech.” I could definitely see structure changes and politics pissing some one off. Like when the top execs leave, I do not so much say “it is because COS is evil” NO, but its politics and internal games that all organizations have. My place of business is terrible at times with office politics. Office politics drove my wife out of her employer. So for Tory she got burned, if some one told me (and I giver her the benefit of the doubt on this because the new Basics release is an admission that the older tech was harder to learn and missing information) I have to retake a course and etc… whew, I would likely be very angry especially when you work hard on these auditing levels for long periods of time, if you can understand its very serious and involved for the faithful. Then comes a decision to say “nope” got to redo it, hah and “stuff it” would be my initial reaction… lol
But Tory has changed, she knows better and simply touts party lines now. Look how long it took for her to get declared SP, what was it 8 years and that is because she went from genuine disgruntled Scientologist to outright party line anti-COS crowd. I disagree with her on disconnection and that is rooted and a debated opinion in the courts as well but is now at least via most for the protection of the individual and their freedom. More on this in next post.
Ok disconnection.
I am just as supportive of uniting families but there is much to consider just as our courts have especially back in the 70s. Most cases of this where it gets bitter is when one decides to become for use of a very crude word a COS monk if you will. Most Scientologists are not, they have their own jobs, lives and so on and some quit and nothing is said, no hard feelings “hope to see you back in the future” kind of thing.
Ok many times and individual becomes faithful and for many of us the spiritual connection is the strongest as in G_d, family, country and so on. << This is a mental structure I am stating for many. Ok so let’s use an example of a family, the wife joins Sea Org, loves COS very faithful, but the husband eh not so much Sea Org is not for him he decides. Ok but to keep the family together he goes along with his wife. They have kids and the kids are raised accordingly. One day the father cannot take it and wants to get out and does. He becomes a potential trouble source but the wife tries to reason with him and vice-versa. However in reality they are at an impasse just as with a family I saw where one was Jewish and the other Baptist, whew they had kids and everything went to hell. A very bitter divorce. I have also seen Methodist and Lutheran divorce over difference of faith when it was stressed. Ok so what happens to the kids who the mother wants in Scientology but the father does not. This is no longer COS territory but the courts to decide custody. Perhaps a child wants to go with the father and does not care for the mother as much or is not happy with COS for any reason, the child has to abide by the custody ruling and the parents the best they can. It is a terrible thing in either case but has nothing to do with COS. COS position is that it will protect the rights of the individual as do the courts, that is what is legally enforced today.
Child = adult age for the following.
Another example is a the parents are Catholics and the child perhaps keeps their faith or abandons it, either way that is moot but joins COS and Sea Org. Again the chose to be a “Monk” In any faith where applicable that is a hard but spiritually rewarding life but it is not for everyone. So communications are slow but its always love ya ma and pa type thing until the parents usually complain that life sucks as they do not get to see their child as much as they would like and blame COS not their own child for their choice. So then the relationship deteriorates because now the parents are in direct conflict with their child’s beliefs. The COS policy is if nothing can be reconciled and becomes the position of the courts, the child’s choice stands. It has nothing to do with COS this is a family matter and it happens all over the place. My wife is Hispanic and I white I came within inches of never speaking to my parents ever again after they insulted here with their racist beliefs. Just to note all is well now. Continuing on disconnection occurs everywhere for the dumbest of reasons to the most important ones but COS has nothing to do with it. That is human behavior.
Many will argue “brainwashing!!!!” The courts have already denounced that argument and have the fields of Psychiatry and Psychology when used as witnesses in court. I hate to see families splitting up but it is wishful thinking to assume we can prevent it. COS gets attacked because people are bias. Would we blame Judaism or the Baptist church for the couple who could not reconcile their spiritual differences?
Then comes the movies like “A ticket to heaven” which covers deprogramming where do you draw the line in the law of who is right? An adult made a conscience decision to join something against the will of the parents, rightly so and adult has their own will. Deprogramming or the new words of exit counseling is a contradiction of sorts because who is right, are we to say that from now on we follow are parents mantra? So the courts must now force me to abide by my parents wishes? The words “exit counseling” … exiting what and to what? I thought the initial “exit” was ones free will to choose as they wish. So the blame is misplaced, the child made the decision and COS and the courts back that freedom of choosing.
I hope that makes sense.
To OT9 Declared SP:
If you want to have a dialog, you need to chill. Do you have a question that hasn’t already been answered?
Pat
@Comment by John on March 27, 2008 9:13 am
>A healthy skepticism and request for proof of statements does not mean I believe you are not being dishonest. But where there are two conflicting statements I expect to see proof from one or both sides of the argument so that I may form a fair opinion.
I think it depends on where the statements are coming from. Are you debating the people who post on the anti-scientology sites for their proof, as well? Why do you lean toward their data, more than ours? I feel that this is too ONE-sided. Why can’t the Scientology books be source for Scientology? It’s better than my “say-so”.
You asked about watchmen. The data is in the book.
I just DON’T get why you think Scientology has anything to prove to you, unless you are examining whether you wish to apply the technology or not. I can understand skepticism in that. That’s why we have Personal Integrity. I am not source. I can’t prove anything to you that isn’t already written
The data is there in the books. It’s either real for you or it isn’t. LRH spent most of his life researching and writing the doctrines. I think to some degree that we have gone off the track to answer questions about these doctrines when they are freely available from the source of those doctrines.
Pat
>I think it depends on where the statements are coming from.
Agreed
>Are you debating the people who post on the anti-scientology sites for their proof, as well?
Usually I don’t have to, they are good at providing proof in the form of court documents, transcripts or through analysis of videos and other media to back up their claims. Where proof is not provided, yes, I am skeptical.
>Why do you lean toward their data, more than ours?
I don’t. However, to this stage, they have provided a lot of evidence with excellent sources to support it. The Church of Scientology has provided little, and that it has provided included Encyclopedia Dramatica links. This is the equivalent of me pointing you to a Robin Williams stand up act for evidence of Nazi crimes.
> I feel that this is too ONE-sided. Why can’t the Scientology books be source for Scientology? It’s better than my “say-so”.
I’ve never said they aren’t an excellent source for scientology/dia