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

  1. Okay, I’ve got another general question about Scientology belief/practice:

    It is stated on the site that the CoS’s anti-homosexual beliefs have been amended. While there are recent reports to the contrary, for the purposes of this question, we’ll accept that premise as true.

    What is the CoS’s policy towards the transgendered? Particularly in terms of those who end up seeking gender reassignment surgery, I can’t help but -guess- that it probably takes a somewhat dimmer view of these individuals. Again, I’m basing this on my admittedly limited knowledge, but it -seems- like the church would group such surgery under “psychiatric abuses” rather than a genuine medical treatment, and that the issue of gender identity disorder would be believed to be something to address/repair via auditing.

    However, it is -completely- possible that my reading of the situation is mistaken, and if so, I’d welcome clarification on the subject.

  2. Hear! Hear! for Keeping Scientology Working! :)

    Whether for lulz or not, even John admits Anon is serious and until Anon can distance itself from the threats legally, there will always be that idea about them from the Church. No matter what is said here it still comes down to Keeping Scientology Working and the Code of Honor.

    You can criticize our tactics til hell freezes over but that isn’t going to stop the fact that we’re going to dig until we get the truth out there. There will always be investigations into this until it’s resolved. It’s a matter of Justice and Ethics.

    I meant what I said about using this site to “bash Scientology or Scientologists”, which some keep forgetting. If that is your intent, you’re not welcome here. If your intent is to get our side too, then follow the FAQ. If you want anti-Scientology agreements there are plenty out on the internet. This site isn’t one of them.

    Pat

  3. bradS- I do appreciate your input, and I do respect your disagreement with some of the PR/anti-criticism tactics that have been used in the past. Most notably, seeing a CoS member disagree with ANY part of the church’s actions is, from my experience thus far, pretty rare, and that’s a little disconcerting. I’m sure there are many people who -don’t- have any objections, but the almost total lack of dissent…well, you know.

  4. Either way all Scientologists here would agree to Keep Scientology Working. ;)

  5. For the record I hope my dialog comes off as to a stark difference in how COS handles Anon vs the prior critics.

    COS’ position is that it must protect itself from what Anon would call a perceived threat nonetheless it is real for COS and threats are not games and so COS takes precautions. Other than the constant looping of the way to happiness respect for religion video while i love those videos, in my opinion it is not affective in getting the message across to the protesters and in many cases hardens them and comes off childish as many of whom are outside the debate do not know the context.

    My statements about being embarrassed come from the old LMT and Xenutv videos even though they are heavily edited I do not agree with every action in dealing with those critics. Bob was vicious and you will never see what those critics did unless COS publishes its own taken vids to counter. There are sound reasons in general but in my opinion not every case in how things went down. Thus the motive was sound but sometimes the result was childish.

  6. @Comment by Nobody on April 1, 2008 5:56 am

    >“Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups? What the heck? It’s statements like that that make you guys sound so paranoid.”

    LOL. Psych terms on a Scientologist? That communication was to “Okay, I’m Anonymous Now”
    You’re taking it out of the context, and you may not have read the series of posts between he/she and I over the last few days to see what I was talking about. It’s rude to jump into the middle of someone else’s communication.

    >That, and the PI’s, and the stalking and harassing. Even after all those explanations I don’t understand why you guys behave that way. You guys seem so afraid of everything, it’s really concerning.

    Contrary to BradS’ statements, there are sound reasons behind those actions. It’s not going to work to invalidate us and spew your generalities. We’re not playing some petty little game with Anonymous. If you don’t like the heat, get out of the frying pan. Read our Creed and our Aims. Seriously, really read them. Is this something you don’t want for our planet? That’s what you tell us everytime you go on these attacks. The game is bigger than Anonymous and all the anti-betterment groups out there. Scientology is winning. Our tech works. The books are in the libraries for anyone to read who really wants to gain understanding of what we’re doing.

    Again, this is a Scientology site. This is not a “bash Scientology” site that you usually play in. This is a site where Scientologists will come to answer your legitimate questions, and not propaganda veiled as questions. Read the FAQ.

    Pat

  7. @John

    many do not even know much about computers period. its something i find perplexing in terms of affiliation.

  8. @john
    ah you misunderstand many new anon = noobs as they do not behave in the fashion of the orig anon.

  9. original anon (noobs), original Anon = noobs?

    That’s a pretty sweeping statement. Considering I’ve been a /b/tard for years.

  10. @john,

    lol no.

  11. Did you just call me a noob? :P

  12. @john

    yet many new anon do not behave in that fashion of the original anon (noobs) but thanks for the post.

  13. @nobody

    I know these forums get very long a good way to find the old posts is to use your find on page tool and type BradS and simply click next or previous (button commands will differ per browser) If you use firefox it will list next and previous.

    thanks again.

  14. @nobody

    “BradS, thanks for the link and thanks for being sane during this discussion. Still, the stuff the Keith did was wrong, but it’s the same stuff that the church is doing to critics now. It’s still wrong no matter who does it. I’m glad that some of those actions embarrass you because it’s the type of behavior that attracted me to this whole debacle in the first place. I’m glad that there are some people on the inside that see just how weird and paranoid those acts come off to the general public. You might have justification for them in your own minds, but for a lot of people it’s just…. bizarre…”

    I can respect your opinion, as with any group there are differing opinions and behaviors amongst its ranks. If you find the time I did have more on the bull baiting and gave more examples than stated today in the questions, questions, questions forum. As giving example of Bob and COS baiting each other and how personal things got and so on. I hope this site and the time spent by fellow scientologists were at least informative and shed some new light on COS. Thanks for the discussion, much appreciated.

  15. “Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?”

    What the heck? It’s statements like that that make you guys sound so paranoid. That, and the PI’s, and the stalking and harassing. Even after all those explanations I don’t understand why you guys behave that way. You guys seem so afraid of everything, it’s really concerning.

    BradS, thanks for the link and thanks for being sane during this discussion. Still, the stuff the Keith did was wrong, but it’s the same stuff that the church is doing to critics now. It’s still wrong no matter who does it. I’m glad that some of those actions embarrass you because it’s the type of behavior that attracted me to this whole debacle in the first place. I’m glad that there are some people on the inside that see just how weird and paranoid those acts come off to the general public. You might have justification for them in your own minds, but for a lot of people it’s just…. bizarre…

  16. I’m going to find it difficult to describe this one BradS, so please bear with me.

    Everything is always for the lulz, and it’s always srs biz (serious business), one does not necessarily exclude the other. This is the contradiction of Anonymous.

    Anonymous appears to lack a cohesive core, rather it is comprised of many part-object selves that are constantly in conflict with each other. Anonymous’ thinking is overly abstract, its speech is “dizzying” and “fragmented”.

    I found the above quote on a website and modified it slightly, it gives a good idea of what Anonymous appears to be, at least from my perspective.

    I believe it is possible to perform an action in a humourous fashion while doing so for a serious purpose. Political cartoons are a good example of this.

  17. Scientology and Dianetics don’t address the body. Only the spiritual.

    We’ve been over this before. And, you’re getting hostile again. Interesting how you seem to go in and out of that. Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?

    Pat

  18. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 31, 2008 9:23 pm

    It’s not the first time I’ve mentioned this.

    Have you ever read History of Man? It tells you all about body entities. In the libraries.

    Pat

  19. @Okay I’m Anonymous Now
    “In other words, your Church(TM) filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS finally agreed to an illegal and/or unconstitutional deal just to shut you up. You fair-gamed the government, and I bow to your skills in that regard.”

    Just to shut us up, while the IRS could have easily gone to appellate courts to shut COS up. No I am not so sure of that assumption.

    I understand Hernendez thus fixed payments the courses not equaling charitable gifts donations. But I would argue and too many churches I have been to have fixed payments for the year based on gross income. COS has no such structure all rev comes from the courses and auditing. I however have read that in that case it was not found to be equal because of quid pro quo but there is a quid pro quo that if I do not pay my annual % to my shul that I cannot attend High Holy Days or like my friends cannot attend their churches’ major events if the % fee is not paid. So perhaps a different type of quid pro quo?

    “In addressing the validity of Revenue Ruling 93-73, two important issues are raised. First, a court reviewing the controversial ruling must determine whether Hernandez precludes any further interpretation of § 170. Specifically, the issue is whether the Supreme Court was interpreting a statute, § 170, or an agency interpretation of it. Second, a reviewing court must examine the longstanding limitations imposed on taxpayer standing…

    The IRS cannot be allowed to overrule Supreme Court decisions. However, as this Comment has shown, situations exist in which an IRS Revenue Ruling could overrule a Supreme Court decision and avoid judicial review because of the limitations imposed on taxpayer standing.”

    I will wait to see the outcome of the courts.

  20. @John
    “I did not comment on the BBC Panorama case in that post, you’re twisting my words. All I stated was that the ‘Anonymous Terrorists’ video, which was produced by the Church of Scientology, is heavily biased, if not outright bigoted, against Anonymous similar to the ‘BBC Panorama Exposed’ video (also produced by the Church of Scientology).
    Why should it be serious, why not for lulz?
    For the record, John Sweeney’s editor supported him.”
    Ah my mistake on BBC, you referred to the COS film. I made my statement as to that a few posts up. It was stated as coincidence as far a I understood it. Sweeny was also caught protesting himself I believe at a movie debut. Nonetheless, his editor can back him but doesn’t change much in my opinion. The COS film id interview some former BBC personal and caught Sweeny saying a few things.
    Why not for lulz??? If I truly believed in my cause that Lisa was murdered and other have been murdered and COS was that evil, I would take it very seriously. It seems insulting when its for the lulz and non-sincere.

  21. “Ok as for the establishment clause, I do not see a violation COS courses are not even close or can be considered day school equivalents. COS courses are not instructional or of equal educational value as in schools. COS courses are of spiritual value only.”

    And that is precisely why making such a deal universal would violate the Establishment Clause. There is no reason why intangible religious benefits should be given preference over intangible secular benefits for tax purposes. A payment to a non-profit organization for spiritual training must be treated as equivalent to a payment for practical education. And since the latter is considered non-deductible, the former must be as well.

    “the IRS deemed the deal made in the 90’s was fair enough.”

    Yeah. And you know why? Again, from Sklar v. Commissioner:

    [I]t appears to be true that the IRS has engaged in this particular
    preference in the interest of settling a long and litigious tax
    dispute with the Church of Scientology, (14) …

    (14) See Alison H. Eaton, Can the IRS Overrule the Supreme Court? 45
    Emory L.J. 987, 987-89 (1996) (“Since its inception the Church [of Scientology]
    has been embroiled in an endless stream of litigation with the
    Internal Revenue Service . . . [h]owever, in late 1993, a truce was called
    [by way of the Closing Agreement].”).

    In other words, your Church(TM) filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS finally agreed to an illegal and/or unconstitutional deal just to shut you up. You fair-gamed the government, and I bow to your skills in that regard.

  22. I did not comment on the BBC Panorama case in that post, you’re twisting my words. All I stated was that the ‘Anonymous Terrorists’ video, which was produced by the Church of Scientology, is heavily biased, if not outright bigoted, against Anonymous similar to the ‘BBC Panorama Exposed’ video (also produced by the Church of Scientology).

    Why should it be serious, why not for lulz?

    For the record, John Sweeney’s editor supported him.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/05/investigating_scientology_1.html

  23. @Okay I’m Anonymous Now
    Ok as for the establishment clause, I do not see a violation COS courses are not even close or can be considered day school equivalents. COS courses are not instructional or of equal educational value as in schools. COS courses are of spiritual value only. Many courts can disagree but until and I have no problem with the IRS disclosing the deal that a court rule over the IRS’ decision does the argument really go anywhere.
    As for Hernedez and the Supreme Court Ruling, fair enough, however the IRS deemed the deal made in the 90’s was fair enough. It can and will be challenged and we will get the answer then.

  24. @John wrote
    “Did Paulette Cooper make a bomb threat against the Church of Scientology?
    Should I take what Church of Scientology spokespeople say on similar occurrences at face value? If so, why?”

    As for Cooper, there is not enough evidence either way as to the investigation, I like this for middle ground the best.

    http://www.bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/cooper_bomb.htm
    While we are on bomb threats what about Ron Clark???

    http://www.bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/rob_clark_bomb_threat.htm#bomb

    Quite frankly you do not have to believe anything COS or Scientologist say but then again you are here having great discussions which is more than I can say for many.

  25. @John wrote
    “I disagree BradS, in the cases where the Church of Scientology or its members have publically outed individual Anons and declared them to be Anonymous they have slandered the individual with the actions of the whole. If they had previously stated that there were individuals attacking the Church and not Anonymous as a whole then there wo I once again bring your attention to the fact that there is no public evidence against
    Anonymous. Disregarding the Church of Scientology’s own propaganda video, which in its nature is very similar to the heavily biased expose of BBC’s Panorama.uld not be a case.”
    I disagree with that logic and this is going in circles in the previous forum I demonstrated via evidence that Anon the original did hack scientology with service of denial spam, all the typical anon stuff. Even Mark Bunker stated to tone it down. I will say that yes it appears that most anon are peaceful protestors and great job on that but because I know the history of Anon and its declarations revealed identities of its enemies that the whole because identity cannot be singled is the blame. Why not call yourself something else???? Why for lulz, it should be serious. Why take on the name anon of a group that if the majority are innocent call and affiliate to something else. I stated all this before. It is too easy for anon to say if some radical does something to quickly say “they are not real anon” well I know the chans did ban many of the noobs of the same token so anon can work it all out, in the mean time all of anon will be suspect.
    What about the BBC, am I to believe a journalist have a charge of libel? Should I believe a documentary that stated what was agreed to in the beginning of the documentary only to see that it was violated by the journalist?
    This goes in circles as these arguments come and go come and go when there is nowhere else to debate I guess.

  26. “Thus I want to see the challenge that exactly parallels COS structure for the deduction.”
    No, you don’t. Because the courts don’t look kindly upon your deduction, and if a parallel case were to arise, it’s likely that the deduction would be truly and finally destroyed. As the 9th Circuit noted, in passing:

    “[R]ather than concluding that the IRS’s pro-Scientology policy would require it to adopt similar provisions for all other religions, we would likely conclude, were we to reach the issue, that the policy must be invalidated on the ground that it violates either the Internal Revenue Code or the Establishment Clause. See Hernandez, 490 U.S. at 694; Lemon v. Kurtzmann , 403 U.S. at 612-13.”

  27. > I would also add, COS if we were to make a parallel did not make bomb threats and etc… towards FACT or LMT.

    Did Paulette Cooper make a bomb threat against the Church of Scientology?

    Should I take what Church of Scientology spokespeople say on similar occurrences at face value? If so, why?

  28. > But as far as anon the nature of anon makes it impossible for COS to descriminate against specific individuals who make the threats vs the whole of anon.

    I disagree BradS, in the cases where the Church of Scientology or its members have publically outed individual Anons and declared them to be Anonymous they have slandered the individual with the actions of the whole. If they had previously stated that there were individuals attacking the Church and not Anonymous as a whole then there would not be a case.

    I once again bring your attention to the fact that there is no public evidence against Anonymous. Disregarding the Church of Scientology’s own propaganda video, which in its nature is very similar to the heavily biased expose of BBC’s Panorama.

  29. @John

    I would also add, COS if we were to make a parallel did not make bomb threats and etc… towards FACT or LMT. There are degrees here, and each state has its laws as to what is the definition. Remember anon, xenutv, fact and Lmt went to COS and thus COS responded, not the other way around. Anon could bring a case if they could prove harrasment in my estimation if there are provalbe cases where COS did indeed comit this against anon. I have already given my opinion though, there are cases while not against the law where if it were me, I would not have allowed certain behaviors to occur. But as far as anon the nature of anon makes it impossible for COS to descriminate against specific individuals who make the threats vs the whole of anon.

  30. @John

    because anon does not fall in the following of California law:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.6-422.95.html

    422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
    shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
    interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
    exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
    by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
    laws of the United States because of the other person’s race, color,
    religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual
    orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has
    one or more of those characteristics.
    (b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall
    knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of
    any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with
    the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
    the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
    Constitution or laws of the United States, because of the other
    person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
    disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she
    perceives that the other person has one or more of those
    characteristics.
    (c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall
    be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year,
    or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by
    both that imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the
    defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed
    400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days,
    during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school
    attendance. However, no person shall be convicted of violating
    subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that
    the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
    group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to
    carry out the threat.

  31. Did you read the site you linked to BradS?

    “No, the essence of this case — which so many self-described critics refuse to acknowledge — is that Henson stalked scientologists, following them to their residences, copying their license plate numbers, taking their photographs, etc.”

    And it seems Keith Henson was charged for this behaviour, which I agree is the correct outcome. But how does this differ from tactics the Church of Scientology is using against Anonymous? and why is nobody being charged over it?

  32. @Okay I’m Anonymous Now

    Then again COS does not have the same funds model as most faiths. Most faiths have a % of gross income for the financial commitment that can be deducted on an annual basis and from my experience usually goes up each year until retirement. COS has no such annual % of gross income, the funds come from the courses and auditing. Do not confuse this with the international COS membership as that would be equivalent to donating to the Orthodox Union or Baptist Union that some faiths have where the local church or Shul gives a certain part of the financial commitment to.

  33. @Okay I’m Anonymous Now

    In the case opinions I have read the Sklar family has yet to present a 100% Jewish advancement program. They tried to deduct the Shul’s school education which is not 100% for Jewish advancement, it is a day school. Basically everyone who would go to a private school with religious affiliation could deduct the education which would thus cause major problems for those at secular private schools and public not having the benefit. Thus I want to see the challenge that exactly parallels COS structure for the deduction. I have yet to see that brought to the courts. If that challenge exists, please do provide the source.

    As for purely religious advancement it is quite a stark contrast between a day school and COS courses, very stark. The IRS audited COS for a long period of time and identified that the courses have no secular bases as a day school would. Moreover, to say one is non-profit is also monitored by certain checks and balances to ensure one is truly a non-profit org as to parallel your question of purely religious. In my estimation as an org, ask to be audited for that purpose so that your followers can get the deduction.

  34. “It’s not the OT 3 I did at the actual Church.”
    A-ha! So Pat is at least OT 3. What was it, then, if not the legend of Xenu and the Body Thetans?

  35. “Did you get the part about psychosomatic (caused by the mind) ills? Dianetics is spiritual auditing.”

    Did you get the part about the common cold? The common cold is not psychosomatic. It is caused by a virus. Your precious Source is wrong. A positive and stress-free mind may make one less susceptible to colds and other infections, but it will not make one utterly immune, as one would expect if the “reactive mind” were “the only thing in the human being which can produce these effects.”

    “Sorry, but I don’t see any such promises or medical claims here. Just what happens when you get rid of the reactive mind (spiritual auditing).”

    O RLY?

    “Discharge the content of this mind’s bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away.”

    How does that not constitute neither a “promise” nor “medical claim”?

    “I would bet that if the Sklar’s tried to deduct education as to 100% Jewish they could get the deduction and if not, than instead of attacking COS, I would attack the IRS and say what gives, we are meeting the requirement of 100% religious advancement. I think across the board that should be the result.”

    But it isn’t. The law is the law. You don’t like it? Get the law changed, and pray that it passes constitutional muster. See, the problem is, how is the IRS supposed to determine whether a given service is purely religious? Would you have me believe that, for example, the Purification Rundown is a purely spiritual exercise?

  36. @nobody
    Keith Henson – from a moderate critic site
    http://www.bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/keith_henson.htm

  37. Those other threads are hundreds of posts long and it’s very difficult to find the answer I’m looking for. You are right, I didn’t find it.

    Even with that explanation, picketing outside of somebodies home seems extremely bizarre anyway. I guess we just have to disagree on that, but that just seems way, way too far.

    As for Anon, I’m really surprised that the CoS sees them as such a threat. They are pretty much just internet trolls. They seem to usually just pull pranks. I really do think you guys are over reacting to them. Every time a PI follows one of them, they get loud and even more upset. It’s like poking a beehive with a stick. If you ignored them, they’d probably get bored and go away (well, maybe they’ve been poked too much at this point for that to be an option). But I guess that’s just another point we’ll have to disagree on.

    Also, I have no idea who Keith Henson is, but I’ll look into that. If he did stalk CoS members home, that’s messed up too. Stalking people home is messed up no matter who is doing it. Even if the CoS is doing it in revenge, that’s still wrong. That’s just, ugh, so wrong.

    Thanks for your response at least.

  38. @nobody

    I guess you did not bother to look for the old arguments. Bob created a very personal situation where the same tactics were done to each other. Take Keith Henson, he followed COS members home took down their license numbers, took photos, followed them everywhere with signs, basically harassed COS members everywhere they went. How do you think LMT and FACT got good info on COS members both groups would do the same to each other. You did not see that on the videos. You also do not see on those edited videos Bob interfering with COS operations of which got him the injunctions. He pushed and pushed and pushed for quite a while before the injunction during the time of FACT net and LMT. So when Bunker came on board COS wanted payback it was already a personal issue as they deemed Bunker one of the crew of which he was anyway. Notice no one else reports of home picketing outside that group of whom are critics and there are a lot of critics. Keep in mind you see what xenutv wants you to see.

    Anon is different if you do not believe in the threats against COS than reading on is moot. COS is dealing with a group whose identity is intentionally hidden and thus each member must be treated equally as a possible suspect of the threats. Thus the random use of PIs against Anon. I have stated all this before if you bother to read up in the forums here. I disagree with some of the pickets and I am embarrassed by some just ask ErroneousAssumptions.

  39. @Comment by Nobody on March 31, 2008 4:27 pm
    >Context or not, it seems weird under ANY circumstances to go and picket in front of somebodies house and to blanket the neighborhood in fliers calling him a religious bigot. You can hold that opinion if you want, but standing in front of the man’s private residence with a sign? What possible justification is there for that? I haven’t been able to find a response to that, so help me out a bit.

    >Also, I’m still not finding adequate justification for stalking people with Private Investigators. That seems to cross lines on so many levels. Digging up information on people is one thing (a little weird, but I’ll give you that on the “defense” thing), but actually following people in cars and setting up outside of peoples homes to take pictures? Again, what possible justification is there for this? It’s extremely creepy and I can’t even fathom a reason that this type of behavior would be acceptable.

    >Enlighten me. Please.

    Gladly. We received bomb threats and death threats (I heard the recording of 2 of those at my local Church off of an answering machine /voice mail recording)

    We’ll do whatever we can to track those down. Our right.

    Pat

  40. Context or not, it seems weird under ANY circumstances to go and picket in front of somebodies house and to blanket the neighborhood in fliers calling him a religious bigot. You can hold that opinion if you want, but standing in front of the man’s private residence with a sign? What possible justification is there for that? I haven’t been able to find a response to that, so help me out a bit.

    Also, I’m still not finding adequate justification for stalking people with Private Investigators. That seems to cross lines on so many levels. Digging up information on people is one thing (a little weird, but I’ll give you that on the “defense” thing), but actually following people in cars and setting up outside of peoples homes to take pictures? Again, what possible justification is there for this? It’s extremely creepy and I can’t even fathom a reason that this type of behavior would be acceptable.

    Enlighten me. Please.

  41. @Comment by John on March 31, 2008 8:11 am
    >>“I disagree, I believe he was asking each scientologist for a reason.”

    >Just a further note on this point, I do this at work. When customers ask why I recommend a more expensive brand over cheaper models I take them to our technicians. I then ask each technician in front of the customer which brand they would purchase, all answer that they would purchase the more expensive brand.

    >Confirmation by multiple sources.

    John, don’t take this the wrong way, but the example you give and what Sweeney was doing was asking for opinions. The only thing you’re confirming is that people have opinions which can vary from person to person, or be part of a “group think”. Galileo was imprisoned because he said the world wasn’t flat. By Confirmation of multiple sources the world was flat.

    My point is getting multiple sources confirms nothing but opinions.

    Pat

  42. @Comment by John on March 31, 2008 8:08 am
    > As for OT3, I am not anywhere near that auditing level, but I can answer this.

    >With all due respect, no you can’t. I’m not questioning whether or not the infamous OT3 story is the core belief of scientologists. I was attempting to confirm whether or not the infamous OT3 story is correct, from a scientologist.

    The “infamous OT3 story” didn’t come from Scientologists (It’s hard to know which version you mean since there seem to be quite a few different interpretations out there, and it changes with every telling). It’s not the OT 3 I did at the actual Church.

  43. @John

    Actually I am a bit confused as to the reply in mixing or perhaps what I stated came off wrong. I refer to cult. I think you refer to xenu, Davis did say he answered that before and Sweeny stated himself “the church denies” obviously multiple sources. Sweeny had a lot of info going into this and was ready to ask what he wanted to try and expose which was an agenda IMO vs the agreement with COS to show what COS is rather than the opposite. It is fine in my opinion to do investigating on an organization but do not break your agreement if one is made, at least keep your word as to what you agreed to interview and not ask or say. Perhaps no such agreement should have been made.

  44. @John

    For OT3 fair enough.

    “By whom” was Davis in his statements thus the reaction on the video also Sweeny in the beginning stating the agreement of no use of the world cult. So in my opinion again it was jabbing the interviewers per an agreement they made prior.

  45. “I disagree, I believe he was asking each scientologist for a reason.”

    Just a further note on this point, I do this at work. When customers ask why I recommend a more expensive brand over cheaper models I take them to our technicians. I then ask each technician in front of the customer which brand they would purchase, all answer that they would purchase the more expensive brand.

    Confirmation by multiple sources.

  46. ErroneousAssumptions was partially correct in his interpretation of my statements/questions. In the simplest terms I can think of what I was trying to say is that ‘Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from criticism’.

    > 1. Sweeny had already asked the question and prior to the interviews it was answered.

    By whom?

    > In other words the actions there after became a simple jabs.

    I disagree, I believe he was asking each scientologist for a reason.

    > As for OT3, I am not anywhere near that auditing level, but I can answer this.

    With all due respect, no you can’t. I’m not questioning whether or not the infamous OT3 story is the core belief of scientologists. I was attempting to confirm whether or not the infamous OT3 story is correct, from a scientologist.

  47. @ nobdy

    I have commented on this exact statement if you do not mind to look in the question,questions, questions forum and farther up this forum. As for xenutv you will find some of the answers there as there is a history that has to put things in context with xenutv specifically.

  48. To me it seems like most of the people nailed by Scientology so far haven’t had anything to do with the DDoS (or if they did, it has yet to be proven). One of them was just a girl that worked at a nearby Starbucks in Clearwater and had nothing to do with the protests.

    Likewise, I don’t really think the best way to defend your organization is to harass critics and protestors. Hiring PIs to find the identities of protesters and then hold signs above their heads with their home address on it seems like a bit too much. Not to mention all of the other things that I’ve seen (a lot of the harassment on XenuTV goes way out of line). How do you justify that type of harassment? Is it “in the tech?”

    It just doesn’t seem like a path that normal people would take. You say it’s “defending” yourself, but it seems more like an attack to me.

  49. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 31, 2008 5:41 am
    >Pat-

    >>“As for others, I find that the objections are at times hatefully stated, so, yes, those I feel are coming from bigots or even those who have vested interest in wanting Scientology to lose.

    >>It’s the “Why does Scientology kill people” kind of thing versus “Why is your account of what happened to Lisa McPherson different that what’s stated on the internet?”

    >>Do you see what I mean?”

    >Absolutely. For what it’s worth, I apologize if I’ve been guilty of that, myself, phrasing things in such a way as to do that whole “Do you still beat your wife?” thing. I can also understand how that sort of rhetoric would be extremely frustrating and presumptuous.

    >I can also understand why the “hatefully stated” things would cause that kind of reaction. I probably have a different perspective on this than you do, since at this time I -do- believe that there are people who feel they’ve been deeply harmed by the practices of the CoS; thus, their strong feelings tend to come through in the way they tend to phrase things. That said, I’m simply saying I -understand- why they might do that, and likewise, I understand why you’d perceive that in a certain way.

    >Also, I know that -you- haven’t called anyone a religious bigot/terrorist/etc. simply for posing those objections in a civil fashion. It -is- a generalization that I’ve personally seen OSA apply to groups of dissenters, though, which is why I bring it up. Again, though, you don’t control what OSA does, so it’s not fair to pin that kind of stuff on you.

    Thanks. I really do feel that you understand. :)

    The only thing about OSA that I have to say is that
    1. Anonymous presents itself as a group.
    2. Anonymous is in itself a generality by it’s very nature.

    How else would OSA be able to address these actions when Anon has threatened to take down Scientology? Put yourself in our shoes for a moment and see it from our side. The only way to protect the Church from repeat attacks like the web site thing in January would be to find the individuals. Legally. In ways I’m sure would be objected to by those doing the actions.

    Just a thought.

    Pat

  50. Taxes and Scientology.

    1. From what I am reading as early on and I wanted to clear up COS pays taxes and a lot of it at least via property tax. One can look up the county and then COS. Here is a link for Clearwater or Pinellas county
    http://www.visualgov.com/pinellascounty/Results.aspx?Name=Church%20of%20Scientology&RollType=R&TaxYear=2007&SearchType=1

    another from LA, but they have a popup non direct link but here is the Assessor’s ID No.
    5586-027-012

    All of which is public information and can be searched within 5 minutes.

    2. the Sklar case, I WOULD LOVE to deduct my kids Jewish education, ha fat chance. I deduct my financial commitment to my Shul which is a % of my income. Now that said my local COS has no such commitment, only for books and courses do they receive a financial commitment. Now back to my kids’ education, that is an accredited school and has all the normal workings of a public school but also include Jewish religious studies. COS courses are 100% COS nothing else no secular stuff nothing, 100% COS. I would bet that if the Sklar’s tried to deduct education as to 100% Jewish they could get the deduction and if not, than instead of attacking COS, I would attack the IRS and say what gives, we are meeting the requirement of 100% religious advancement. I think across the board that should be the result.

  51. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 31, 2008 3:48 am

    http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/info/01/pg003.html

    Let’s put up the whole excerpt, so it get’s seen in context.

    Starts on page 65.

    “If there ever was a devil, he designed the reactive mind. This functional mechanism managed to bury itself from view so thoroughly that only inductive(1) philosophy, traveling from effect back to cause, served to uncover it. The detective work which was invested in the location of this archcriminal of the human psyche occupied many years.

    The reactive mind is possessed by everyone. No human being examined anywhere was discovered to be without one or without aberrative content in his engram(2) bank, the reservoir of data which serves the reactive mind. What does this mind do? It shuts off hearing recall. It places vocal circuits in the mind. It makes people tone-deaf. It makes people stutter. It does anything and everything that can be found in any list of mental ills: psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions . . .

    What can it do? It can give a man arthritis, bursitis, asthma, allergies, sinusitis, coronary trouble, high blood pressure and so on, down the whole catalog of psychosomatic ills, adding a few more which were never specifically classified as psychosomatic, such as the common cold. And it is the only thing in the human being which can produce these effects. It is the thing which uniformly brings them about. This is the mind which made Socrates think he had a demon that gave him answers. This is the mind that made Caligula appoint his horse to a government post. This is the mind which made Caesar cut the right hands from thousands of Gauls, which made Napoleon reduce the height of Frenchmen one inch. This is the mind which keeps war a thing of alarm, which makes politics irrational, which makes superior officers snarl, which makes children cry in fear of the dark. This is the mind which makes a man suppress his hopes, which holds his apathies, which gives him irresolution when he should act and kills him before he has begun to live. If there ever was a devil, he invented it. Discharge the content of this mind’s bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away. Discharge the reactive engram bank and the schizophrenic faces reality at last, the manic-depressive sets forth to accomplish things, the neurotic stops clinging to books which tell him how much he needs his neuroses and begins to live, the woman stops snapping at her children, and the dipsomaniac(3) can drink when he likes and stop. These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience.

    The reactive mind is the entire source of aberration. It can be proved and has been repeatedly proven that there is no other, for when that engram bank is discharged, all undesirable symptoms vanish and a man begins to operate on his optimum pattern. ”

    -L Ron Hubbard

    1 inductive: of or using induction, logical reasoning that a general law exists because particular cases that seem to be examples of it exist.
    2 engram: a moment of unconsciousness containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions, and is not available to the analytical mind as experience. The engram is the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills.
    3 dipsomaniac: a person suffering from an uncontrollable craving for alcohol

    Did you get the part about psychosomatic (caused by the mind) ills? Dianetics is spiritual auditing.

    Now, back to your question –
    >”What about the laws against making false medical claims? Shall I bring up the quotes from Dianetics where LRH promises freedom from physical and mental disease to all who reach the state of Clear?”

    Sorry, but I don’t see any such promises or medical claims here. Just what happens when you get rid of the reactive mind (spiritual auditing). I’ve had it. Pretty awesome stuff!

    Pat

  52. Pat-

    “As for others, I find that the objections are at times hatefully stated, so, yes, those I feel are coming from bigots or even those who have vested interest in wanting Scientology to lose.

    It’s the “Why does Scientology kill people” kind of thing versus “Why is your account of what happened to Lisa McPherson different that what’s stated on the internet?”

    Do you see what I mean?”

    Absolutely. For what it’s worth, I apologize if I’ve been guilty of that, myself, phrasing things in such a way as to do that whole “Do you still beat your wife?” thing. I can also understand how that sort of rhetoric would be extremely frustrating and presumptuous.

    I can also understand why the “hatefully stated” things would cause that kind of reaction. I probably have a different perspective on this than you do, since at this time I -do- believe that there are people who feel they’ve been deeply harmed by the practices of the CoS; thus, their strong feelings tend to come through in the way they tend to phrase things. That said, I’m simply saying I -understand- why they might do that, and likewise, I understand why you’d perceive that in a certain way.

    Also, I know that -you- haven’t called anyone a religious bigot/terrorist/etc. simply for posing those objections in a civil fashion. It -is- a generalization that I’ve personally seen OSA apply to groups of dissenters, though, which is why I bring it up. Again, though, you don’t control what OSA does, so it’s not fair to pin that kind of stuff on you.

  53. @John wrote:
    “What I was trying to get at with my questions earlier was regarding the actions of Tommy Davis, at no stage did I suggest that I do not think the outburst by John Sweeney was acceptable.”
    That outburst in my opinion was that I think Sweeny was after more information as to expose a terrible COS. That did not happen and finally at the end when the conversation came up about brainwashing and Shawn Lonsdale, Sweeny lost it as I think he was thinking Lonsdale was his ticket that did not materialize to a perceived exposing of COS.
    @John wrote
    “I must admit that I am always amused by scientologists reactions to ‘the’ OT3 question. Surely they must have known that was coming, Sweeney would not have been much of a journalist if he didn’t ask it. And given the amount of information that has surfaced from multiple sources I also find it amusing to see Tommy call the question nonsensical.”
    1. Sweeny had already asked the question and prior to the interviews it was answered. In other words the actions there after became a simple jabs.
    As for OT3, I am not anywhere near that auditing level, but I can answer this.
    1. OT3 was added years later to Scientology by LRH. Thus as it is an auditing level and therefore it is not the religion itself or belief itself only a service or action via auditing that gets one further on the bridge.
    2. Even if I find that Xenu exits, and I have tried to find it, but have found other space opera, again it is not the belief of COS obviously as reasons stated above and the beliefs of COS are found in the “Basics” and again you can find a lot of metaphoric space opera in the Basics, like in “History of Man.” Thus Xenu if existing would fit that context.

  54. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 31, 2008 4:40 am
    “It is in the Courts. It’s back in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as we speak.”
    You mean Sklar v. Commissioner. Or should I say Sklar v. Commissioner, Round Two. The Sklars tried this before, and in 2002 the 9th Circuit shot them down:

    http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/282/282.F3d.610.00-70753.html

    As a bonus, they also rebutted the claim you are now making about the 1993 law.

    “Despite the clear statutory holding of Hernandez, the Sklars contend that recent changes to the Internal Revenue Code have clarified Congressional intent with respect to the deductibility of these payments. We seriously doubt the validity of this argument. The amendments to the Code appear not to have changed the substantive definition of a deductible charitable contribution, but only to have enacted additional documentation requirements for claimed deductions.”

    You’re not operating on current data. Hernandez was 1989. Congress changed the Code in 1993 regarding intangibles. That overrides the Supreme Court opinion of 1989.

    As for the current Court of Appeals,
    http://www.nysun.com/article/70957

    Nope, you totally ignored the fact it’s in the Courts now.

  55. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 31, 2008 4:17 am
    >Pat- RE: the sympathy thing- Okay, I can see that. Like I suspected, we were operating under different definitions of sympathy, which caused some confusion. Consider that rectified.

    Yes, it’s interesting how words with different meanings can cause problems.

    >As for this, though:

    >>“Let John say what John meant.”

    >Ow. Perhaps I’m simply reading into that, but that seemed…unnecessarily hostile.

    Not intended that way. He does fine on his own. It was in HIS defense.

    >>“As for other’s perceptions of us, that’s a generality. We’re bettering lives, and experiencing incredible wins through our betterment programs. I see those stats and the people that are helped. I don’t see the negativity you claim is there except from the small percentage of anti-scientologists. It’s petty noise at this point compared to what we’re acheiving for people around the world. ”

    >Two things, here:
    1: It seems uncomfortably like “generality” is being used as a catch-all term for “things I do not like/agree with”. More to the point, I was not “generalizing” about the public perception of Scientology (though I, of course, have my own thoughts on that.)

    Not at all. “Public perception of Scientology” = “Everybody thinks …” to me.
    Definitions of “public” per Random House Unabridged 2006
    –adjective
    1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.
    2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution.
    3. open to all persons: a public meeting.
    4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, esp. as a government officer: a public official.
    5. maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.
    6. generally known: The fact became public.
    7. familiar to the public; prominent: public figures.
    8. open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public: a public dispute.
    9. pertaining or devoted to the welfare or well-being of the community: public spirit.
    10. of or pertaining to all humankind; universal.

    You see. It’s those words again.

    >2: That didn’t really address my point. My point wasn’t “The entire world is against Scientology”. My point was, “If Scientology carries out actions that some people find objectionable, whether or not those actions are sanctioned by the scriptures, do those people not then have every right to protest those actions without being called ‘religious bigots’?”

    I understand your question better phrased this way. I know there are things that are found objectionable (which I can’t help with at this point except to refer to source data), but I have yet to call anyone a religious bigot for stating them. It’s only when I am insulted or called names that I object. Or when the FAQ is abused.

    As for others, I find that the objections are at times hatefully stated, so, yes, those I feel are coming from bigots or even those who have vested interest in wanting Scientology to lose.

    It’s the “Why does Scientology kill people” kind of thing versus “Why is your account of what happened to Lisa McPherson different that what’s stated on the internet?”

    Do you see what I mean?

    Pat

    I think that’s why Lu set this blog up, with the rules about not using questions to further propaganda.

  56. “It is in the Courts. It’s back in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as we speak.”
    You mean Sklar v. Commissioner. Or should I say Sklar v. Commissioner, Round Two. The Sklars tried this before, and in 2002 the 9th Circuit shot them down:

    http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/282/282.F3d.610.00-70753.html

    As a bonus, they also rebutted the claim you are now making about the 1993 law.

    “Despite the clear statutory holding of Hernandez, the Sklars contend that recent changes to the Internal Revenue Code have clarified Congressional intent with respect to the deductibility of these payments. We seriously doubt the validity of this argument. The amendments to the Code appear not to have changed the substantive definition of a deductible charitable contribution, but only to have enacted additional documentation requirements for claimed deductions.”

    Neat, huh?

    “I didn’t know Catholic priests charged people to pray for them.”
    That was purely hypothetical. I don’t know of any religion that charges for its services.

    Oh wait.

  57. by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 31, 2008 3:18 am
    >“It’s in the courts. I’d be happy if all religions got those exemptions.”

    >IT IS NOT IN THE COURTS. It was in the courts, and the courts have decided that your auditing purchases are not tax-deductible gifts. Hernandez v. Commissioner was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land. It is as much a part of the law as any bill passed by Congress, and the principles of that decision apply to every religion.

    It is in the Courts. It’s back in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as we speak.

    Congress amended the tax code in 1993, adding intangible benefits from charitable donations to the list of things that are deductible. For example, a $125 ticket to a fund-raising dinner is reduced by the value of the dinner, and the difference can be deducted.

    We don’t deduct books – only spiritual training and auditing. And not all of that is deductible.

    I didn’t know Catholic priests charged people to pray for them.

    Pat

  58. Pat- RE: the sympathy thing- Okay, I can see that. Like I suspected, we were operating under different definitions of sympathy, which caused some confusion. Consider that rectified.

    As for this, though:

    “Let John say what John meant.”

    Ow. Perhaps I’m simply reading into that, but that seemed…unnecessarily hostile.

    “As for other’s perceptions of us, that’s a generality. We’re bettering lives, and experiencing incredible wins through our betterment programs. I see those stats and the people that are helped. I don’t see the negativity you claim is there except from the small percentage of anti-scientologists. It’s petty noise at this point compared to what we’re acheiving for people around the world. ”

    Two things, here:
    1: It seems uncomfortably like “generality” is being used as a catch-all term for “things I do not like/agree with”. More to the point, I was not “generalizing” about the public perception of Scientology (though I, of course, have my own thoughts on that.)
    2: That didn’t really address my point. My point wasn’t “The entire world is against Scientology”. My point was, “If Scientology carries out actions that some people find objectionable, whether or not those actions are sanctioned by the scriptures, do those people not then have every right to protest those actions without being called ‘religious bigots’?”

  59. I don’t think Pat is a liar, he/she’s probably just trying to get back on course. Maybe we just need the word ‘member’ cleared for us. What do you mean by membership when you say “Membership has increased from 6.1 million in 2000 to approximately 10 million at the end of 2007.” I had also heard that you consider anybody who has ever taken a course as a ‘member’. You also have annual memberships that you can buy (I think it was about 2000 dollars, or is that a one time thing?).

    So what do you mean by membership? Who is included in the 10 million?

  60. http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/info/01/pg003.html

    Unfortunately, no page numbers or other references are given, but this is apparently from the chapter on the reactive mind:

    “Discharge the content of this mind’s bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away. Discharge the reactive engram bank and the schizophrenic faces reality at last, the manic-depressive sets forth to accomplish things, the neurotic stops clinging to books which tell him how much he needs his neuroses and begins to live, the woman stops snapping at her children, and the dipsomaniac can drink when he likes and stop. These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience.

    Emphasis added.

  61. http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/info/01/pg003.html

    Unfortunately, no page numbers or other references are given, but this is apparently from the chapter on the reactive mind:

    “Discharge the content of this mind’s bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away. Discharge the reactive engram bank and the schizophrenic faces reality at last, the manic-depressive sets forth to accomplish things, the neurotic stops clinging to books which tell him how much he needs his neuroses and begins to live, the woman stops snapping at her children, and the dipsomaniac can drink when he likes and stop. These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience.

    Emphasis added.

  62. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 31, 2008 3:20 am
    >“The tech and the law don’t conflict and never have.”
    What about the laws against making false medical claims? Shall I bring up the quotes from Dianetics where LRH promises freedom from physical and mental disease to all who reach the state of Clear?

    I need you to give me the section where he says that. I have a book right here and can look it up as soon as you give me where to look.

  63. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 31, 2008 2:59 am
    >I’ve got an actual, genuine Scientology “philosophy” question, also:

    >On the tone scale, why is “sympathy” lower than “no sympathy”? Unless the church is using a different version of the word than I am, it seems like that promotes a lack of empathy and compassion for -individuals- which I find…unsettling.

    Sympathy is defined as “same feeling”. When someone cries, in grief, you don’t want to cry too. It won’t help him and tends to keep him in whatever caused the grief. So, you have to keep out of going into sympathy with him. That applies to any Tone like anger or pain or covert hostility. When you go a little above you can raise a person out of it. It is due to our compassion that we do this. It’s one of our tools to help people. Sympathy sucks YOU down scale, too, making it hard to really help.

    Pat

  64. “The tech and the law don’t conflict and never have.”
    What about the laws against making false medical claims? Shall I bring up the quotes from Dianetics where LRH promises freedom from physical and mental disease to all who reach the state of Clear?

  65. “It’s in the courts. I’d be happy if all religions got those exemptions.”
    IT IS NOT IN THE COURTS. It was in the courts, and the courts have decided that your auditing purchases are not tax-deductible gifts. Hernandez v. Commissioner was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land. It is as much a part of the law as any bill passed by Congress, and the principles of that decision apply to every religion. If I buy a Bible from a non-profit Christian publisher, that is not a deductible gift. If I hire a Catholic priest to pray over me, that is not a deductible gift. That is how non-profit religious organizations work in the US because that is how all non-profit organizations work in the US. This should not be hard to understand.

    I would like to not treat you like an idiot, but you are making that very difficult for me.

    “I’ve already experienced your inability to understand simple directions to look at the stats.”
    I looked at those stats. Then I looked at the stats compiled by an unbiased source:

    http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Scientology

    Apparently the Church(TM) counts everyone who has ever been exposed to LRH tech as part of its membership, regardless of whether that person has since blown, died, or never even joined the Church(TM) proper. It may not be a lie necessarily, but it certainly is deceptive.

  66. @ Comment by me on March 31, 2008 3:06 am
    >Holy crap, things are hot in this here thread.

    >Judging by a lot of the responses here, it seems that Scientologists believe that the “tech” is the only source of truth. My question is, do you feel that the information that you learn about in Scientology is above the law? If the law and the tech were to conflict, which one would you follow? This is mostly hypothetical, but I’ve seen some questionable things related to this and I’m really curious.

    Scientologists are required to live within the laws of the land. The tech and the law don’t conflict and never have. The one’s (Guardian’s Office) who broke the law were handled punitively, by us and the government.

    Pat

  67. Holy crap, things are hot in this here thread.

    Judging by a lot of the responses here, it seems that Scientologists believe that the “tech” is the only source of truth. My question is, do you feel that the information that you learn about in Scientology is above the law? If the law and the tech were to conflict, which one would you follow? This is mostly hypothetical, but I’ve seen some questionable things related to this and I’m really curious.

  68. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 31, 2008 2:20 am

    Let John say what John meant.

    As for other’s perceptions of us, that’s a generality. We’re bettering lives, and experiencing incredible wins through our betterment programs. I see those stats and the people that are helped. I don’t see the negativity you claim is there except from the small percentage of anti-scientologists. It’s petty noise at this point compared to what we’re acheiving for people around the world.

    Pat

  69. I’ve got an actual, genuine Scientology “philosophy” question, also:

    On the tone scale, why is “sympathy” lower than “no sympathy”? Unless the church is using a different version of the word than I am, it seems like that promotes a lack of empathy and compassion for -individuals- which I find…unsettling.

  70. >>I must admit that I am always amused by scientologists reactions to ‘the’ OT3 question. Surely they must have known that was coming, Sweeney would not have been much of a journalist if he didn’t ask it. And given the amount of information that has surfaced from multiple sources I also find it amusing to see Tommy call the question nonsensical.

    >Because it is.

    So, then are you denying that the contents of OT3 have anything to do with, or even imply, aliens, volcanoes, hydrogen bombs and/or an intergalactic ruler? Yes or No please.

    > If you don’t know the scriptures then how can you scrutinize how we act on them?
    Is there a particular Scientology scripture that we need to be corrected on?

    Did I say I hadn’t read them, not all of them of course, but I have doubts that all scientologists are strictly adhering to the scripture of even ‘The Way to Happiness’. Would you like me to clarify?

    > And here you are with your covertly hostile insult likening us to the Nazis. You obviously still do have biased view of the Church.

    You’re right, but given the number of times I’ve been referred to as such by Church of Scientology spokespeople I felt it only fair to return the favour. I refer back to statements by Mike Ferriss, head of the New Zealand Church of Scientology, personally calling me a member Anonymous and saying that I am no better than the KKK. Also, Karin Pouw’s letter to Radar has some rather unpleasent terms in it, for which I have yet to see any evidence. Have you read /b/’s scriptures? Perhaps you need to if you take anything they say seriously.

  71. @Comment by Tony Meman on March 31, 2008 1:55 am
    >Ah, yes. The difference being that there’s a central unresolved issue in my question: Where are the churches to serve all these Scientologists? Why did so few Scientologists watch Battlefield Earth? Why is there a giant disparity between your claims and the claims of every other group on the planet?

    >Given the extreme variance between your word and other sources, it’s apparent to me that you’re lying. So, why are you lying?

    >Also:

    >I was reading the Psychiatry page. A number of citations are for “FOIA document”. Do you have copies of these documents? I’d like to see them.

    I guess you’d better read the FAQ about this site. This site is a Scientology site. We are not on trial. You were welcomed to come and ask your questions, but the moment you started calling people here liars you lost any right you have to be communicated with, at least by me. I’ve already experienced your inability to understand simple directions to look at the stats. Since you apparently either didn’t look, or have decided that I’m a liar no matter what I say, I’m done giving you any data at all. Bye!

    Pat

  72. Pat-

    I’m going to address these points together, since they’re pretty much related.

    “If you don’t know the scriptures then how can you scrutinize how we act on them? Is there a particular Scientology scripture that we need to be corrected on? You can route that report to any Qualifications Secretary in any Church and ask for it to be corrected. ”

    What John is saying, I think, has little to do with whether or not Scientologists are “correctly” following the scriptures. One does not need to know the scriptures of Scientology to judge the -actions- of the organization. Whether the organization believes those actions to be in service to their scriptures or not, the actions largely speak for themselves. That, I believe, is what he was commenting on: That the -actions- of the CoS should always be under scrutiny, regardless of how one feels about the content of the organization’s beliefs.

    Which brings me to an earlier comment:

    “Using a radical Christian Church as a parallel. You’re still trying to associate and compare us with the older religions. Scientology is a new religion. We’re new. We’re different. We’re the fastest growing religion on the planet. Of course, we’re going to get attacked.”

    That has nothing to do with what I was actually saying, though. Whether Scientology is a “new” religion or not does not change the basic content of what I was saying, which is that acting under the aegis of “faith” does not automatically make one’s actions exempt from scrutiny or censure. I used the Phelps example -not- because I wish to compare the CoS in any way to that organization, but merely because I wished to demonstrate that -even though- they claim that they’re acting in service of their beliefs, and EVEN THOUGH their actions are legal, that their actions are still deserving of contempt and condemnation.

    Thus, to bring it back to the CoS, simply -because- a policy is hypothetically supported by the scripture, and simply because a policy is hypothetically legal, does NOT mean that everyone else simply has to accept it because it’s “part of the Scientologist faith”. Does that make sense?

  73. Ah, yes. The difference being that there’s a central unresolved issue in my question: Where are the churches to serve all these Scientologists? Why did so few Scientologists watch Battlefield Earth? Why is there a giant disparity between your claims and the claims of every other group on the planet?

    Given the extreme variance between your word and other sources, it’s apparent to me that you’re lying. So, why are you lying?

    Also:

    I was reading the Psychiatry page. A number of citations are for “FOIA document”. Do you have copies of these documents? I’d like to see them.

  74. @Comment by Tony Meman on March 30, 2008 10:58 pm

    >Why do you continue to lie about there being millions of Scientologists when there’s absolutely no logic at all behind that statement?

    Exactly. That’s the point I was trying to make about YOUR question, but I guess you didn’t get that. Here is your quote back to you. Same applies.

    “This is called a fallacy of complex question. I can’t give a valid answer since any answer would imply that the underlying assumption within the question is valid.”

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

    The latest statistics as of 13 March 2008 aren’t available, so you’ll just have to go with the Statistics page on scientologymyths.info. Those are from January 2008. I have already given this to you once before. Sorry if that’s not logical enough for you. It’s the stats.

    Pat

  75. >I must admit that I am always amused by scientologists reactions to ‘the’ OT3 question. Surely they must have known that was coming, Sweeney would not have been much of a journalist if he didn’t ask it. And given the amount of information that has surfaced from multiple sources I also find it amusing to see Tommy call the question nonsensical.

    Because it is.

    >I don’t have a biased view of the Church, but from where I stand there is a lot of documented evidence on one hand and very little on the other. I can read the scriptures and accept them 100%, word for word. But how scientologists act on those scriptures should always be under scrutiny… or are you suggesting that no one has the right to question the Nazis actions as they were following their beliefs.

    If you don’t know the scriptures then how can you scrutinize how we act on them? Is there a particular Scientology scripture that we need to be corrected on? You can route that report to any Qualifications Secretary in any Church and ask for it to be corrected. And here you are with your covertly hostile insult likening us to the Nazis. You obviously still do have biased view of the Church.

    Pat

  76. >Tony, Do you still beat your wife?

    You know, at this point I don’t know if you’re being serious. It’s a strong possibility that you’re someone posing as a Scientologist to make them look bad. Either that or you just don’t know how bad you sound.

    This is called a fallacy of complex question. I can’t give a valid answer since any answer would imply that the underlying assumption within the question is valid.

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

    I can only respond indirectly by saying that I have never been married.

    Why this isn’t a lie, it IS extremely deceitful and dishonest. You reveal yourself with your own words.

    How many Scientologists are there, in truth?

  77. @Comment by Tony Meman on March 30, 2008 9:08 pm
    >Ok, the question is:

    >Why do you continue to lie about there being millions of Scientologists when there’s absolutely no logic at all behind that statement?

    LOL. Tony. Do you really believe that this is a question?

    Tony, Do you still beat your wife?

    Pat

  78. Ok, the question is:

    Why do you continue to lie about there being millions of Scientologists when there’s absolutely no logic at all behind that statement?

  79. I did watch a 55 second clip that was mostly John Travolta’s security member speaking, I won’t apologize for viewing it with a healthy dose of skepticism. That particular clip was also very one-sided and opinionated. I find it entirely plausible that the member of security who spoke on camera was told what to say. But as I have no particular reason to doubt it motives it falls into the ‘gray’ data bin.

    What I was trying to get at with my questions earlier was regarding the actions of Tommy Davis, at no stage did I suggest that I do not think the outburst by John Sweeney was acceptable.

    I must admit that I am always amused by scientologists reactions to ‘the’ OT3 question. Surely they must have known that was coming, Sweeney would not have been much of a journalist if he didn’t ask it. And given the amount of information that has surfaced from multiple sources I also find it amusing to see Tommy call the question nonsensical.

    I don’t have a biased view of the Church, but from where I stand there is a lot of documented evidence on one hand and very little on the other. I can read the scriptures and accept them 100%, word for word. But how scientologists act on those scriptures should always be under scrutiny… or are you suggesting that no one has the right to question the Nazis actions as they were following their beliefs.

  80. @ ErroneousAssumptions wrote

    “As for the Sweeney thing…Come on. You know the reason that report turned out as slanted as it did? Because Tommy Davis -made- it that way. We’re talking about a multiple award-winning journalist working for one of the most respected journalistic institutions in the -world-.”

    While I have stated I would not have handled the BBC that way but, Sweeny admits to a libel charge and the BBC has had to make retractions before what about the good old NY Times and their muck ups and retractions? Come on, to put that much faith is missing the mark for truth in my opinion. The documentary simply showed both COS and BBC not acting on let us say best behavior. Honestly I came out with no changed opinion on the matter. Sweeny had only one-sided line of questions; no actual information on what COS does in real interviews per the places he went to find out more. Everything I saw was slanted to show the opposite. As for the terrorist email deal COS states it as coincidence and is being investigated as I remember. Emails have trails and if being investigated it will turn up something. I myself do not say the BBC did it but acknowledge that some one did.

  81. @ ErroneousAssumptions wrote

    ‘That’s fair, but then, the Lisa McPherson documents presented by the church also tend to exclude the evidence of harassment towards the medical examiner to the point that she was rendered useless as a witness. It also usually doesn’t include the settlement paid to her family.”

    Lisa McPherson case is muddled.
    1. The examiner did not do the original and Davis the assistant disagreed with Woods statement.
    2. Woods was finally brought down when she muddled more cases the Long and Peel families where one was where Woods accused Mr. Long for murder of the baby which was not the case again pathologists proved Woods wrong. As happened before with Lisa McPherson.
    3. All courts have ruled McPherson was not detained and had to be stricken from the civil case. Keep in mind civil does not incriminate one. That case became muddled when Bob and Stacy reversed course and testified on behalf of COS and the lawyer for the prior case starting fouling up everything.

    McPherson is a tragedy and it is a further tragedy to see her death used falsely against COS.

  82. @Comment by Tony Meman on March 30, 2008 6:03 pm
    >I’m searching for the truth. However, that’s hard when you lie and use misinformation.

    I lied? When? What misinformation? That the data had been turned over to the FBI? That’s from Karen Pouw in her letter to radar.

    http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/scientology_radar_feb_12a.pdf

    >So, the shooting at a church thing is in the hands of the FBI? Fine. I welcome a full investigation, and if someone did violate the law I hope they’re arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent.

    I look forward to the investigation as well. :)

    Pat

  83. @Comment by Tony Meman on March 30, 2008 6:03 pm

    >David Miscavige promised that Battlefield Earth would be a hit because he would order millions of Scientologists to watch it. Somehow, those millions of Scientologists failed to show up.

    Is there a question here, or just more propanganda?

    Pat

  84. I’m searching for the truth. However, that’s hard when you lie and use misinformation.

    So, the shooting at a church thing is in the hands of the FBI? Fine. I welcome a full investigation, and if someone did violate the law I hope they’re arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent.

    And again, millions of Scientologists? Here’s another counter to that:

    http://exscientologykids.com/eskforums/viewtopic.php?t=684&sid=0c0e10d8ff65c1a4fe17127e28dc202b

    Summary:

    David Miscavige promised that Battlefield Earth would be a hit because he would order millions of Scientologists to watch it. Somehow, those millions of Scientologists failed to show up.

  85. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 30, 2008 4:34 am
    >It’s not which section says you aren’t eligible. It’s which section doesn’t say you are eligible. In this case, U.S.C. Title 26, Section 170, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Hernandez v. Commissioner (490 U.S. 680, 1989).

    >“Held: Payments made to the Church’s branch churches for auditing and training services are not deductible charitable contributions under § 170.”

    >You can’t get much clearer than that.

    >http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/680/case.html

    Oh, I should point out that by that same section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code, we are allowed to deduct the intangible portions.

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96102,00.html

    We are not illegal per the law. The Supreme Court did not overturn that section.

    Pat

  86. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 30, 2008 6:36 am
    >>“There’s that mold again.

    >>Scientology had enemies long before Anon ever came on the scene.”

    >I’m not really sure what you mean by the first statement. I mean, I know the “mold” you’re talking about, but I’m not really sure what it has to do with the question or the parallels I brought up.

    Using a radical Christian Church as a parallel. You’re still trying to associate and compare us with the older religions. Scientology is a new religion. We’re new. We’re different. We’re the fastest growing religion on the planet. Of course, we’re going to get attacked.

    >Hey, I know Scientology had enemies, and the Anon thing isn’t the first time the CoS has faced external challenges or scrutiny. I might argue it’s the first time it’s happened on this sort of scale, and it’s certainly the first time that it’s happened in such a widespread manner while the internet has been around, but your point stands.

    Yes, but that works in our favor too, because the internet opens doors for alot of people to find the tech.

    Pat

  87. @Comment by John on March 30, 2008 8:00 am
    >>I think it was great that he exposed that Sweeney was concentrating on the anti-Scientologists which meant he’d already pre-written the script. Not even good journalism.

    >>I have no sympathy for Sweeney.

    >I’m sorry, not only does this not answer my questions but it seems as if you yourself have preconceived ideas about Sweeney’s motives. I find your logic in the jump between concentrating on anti-scientologists to pre-writing the script to be fallacious.

    I feel that the article would have been more balanced if a number of scientologists interviewed did not withdraw their interviews at the last minute.

    I realized a few days ago that this is all too one-sided. This site is not “Scientology on Trial”.
    We are Scientologists here. Sorry you didn’t like my answer. That’s my logic. Someone comes here and complains that we were too harsh with someone who deliberately went after only the negative. That is why the celebs dropped out. Did you see the YouTube of what he did to Travolta? That wasn’t “sleazy”? BBC, so revered, in action. You don’t think the celeb interviews weren’t more of the same? We recorded his interviews. Don’t kid yourself that it was otherwise.

    Most of the stuff being asked here now is more attack than question. I haven’t seen what I consider a genuine search for knowledge for awhile now.

    We already know what you think of us and I seriously doubt at this point that anything I can say will change that. When you look for negative that’s all you’re going to get.

    Pat

  88. >I think it was great that he exposed that Sweeney was concentrating on the anti-Scientologists which meant he’d already pre-written the script. Not even good journalism.

    >I have no sympathy for Sweeney.

    I’m sorry, not only does this not answer my questions but it seems as if you yourself have preconceived ideas about Sweeney’s motives. I find your logic in the jump between concentrating on anti-scientologists to pre-writing the script to be fallacious.

    I feel that the article would have been more balanced if a number of scientologists interviewed did not withdraw their interviews at the last minute.

  89. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 30, 2008 4:34 am
    >It’s not which section says you aren’t eligible. It’s which section doesn’t say you are eligible. In this case, U.S.C. Title 26, Section 170, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Hernandez v. Commissioner (490 U.S. 680, 1989).

    >“Held: Payments made to the Church’s branch churches for auditing and training services are not deductible charitable contributions under § 170.”

    >You can’t get much clearer than that.

    >http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/680/case.html

    It’s in the courts. I’d be happy if all religions got those exemptions.

    Pat

  90. “There’s that mold again.

    Scientology had enemies long before Anon ever came on the scene.”

    I’m not really sure what you mean by the first statement. I mean, I know the “mold” you’re talking about, but I’m not really sure what it has to do with the question or the parallels I brought up.

    Hey, I know Scientology had enemies, and the Anon thing isn’t the first time the CoS has faced external challenges or scrutiny. I might argue it’s the first time it’s happened on this sort of scale, and it’s certainly the first time that it’s happened in such a widespread manner while the internet has been around, but your point stands.

  91. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 30, 2008 5:05 am
    “I don’t agree. You evidently have some hidden standard about how you think someone of a religion should behave. We don’t operate on the “turn the other cheek” idea of some churches.

    The whole idea is gaining back ourselves through training and auditing. A full restoration of self-determinism. It means that we aren’t going to be at effect of some group that doesn’t like that we insist on our right to be who we are. It doesn’t mean that we have to sit back and let some sleazy “journalist” spread the anti-Scientology partyline. At this point, I don’t care if you don’t like what we do or that you “disapprove” of our actions. We don’t have anything to propitiate for, Erroneous. It’s right in the Aims.”

    >Well, okay. Fair enough. I don’t think it’s unfair of me to point out, though, that Scientology is practically ALONE in this behavior amongst recognized religions. Whether you believe it should adhere to that standard or not, that basic assertion stands.

    Fine. What’s true for you is true for you, right?

    >The “I don’t care” thing came across as pretty combative, I’ve got to admit. You ask why people protest? Well, part of it is stuff like that. They -disapprove- of the church’s tactics in dealing with its critics. Scientology “disapproves” of psychiatry. Both psychiatry’s practices and Scientology’s self-acknowledged practices are legal. Does that mean BOTH should be exempt from protest, or neither should?

    >Freedom of religion does not entail freedom from scrutiny or disapproval. I doubt you would disagree that the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps, though practicing what they -believe- to be the tenets of their religion, deserve nothing but the strongest condemnation and contempt. Would you be averse to people protesting -them-, even though their practices are technically legal and cloaked in their “faith”?

    There’s that mold again.

    Scientology had enemies long before Anon ever came on the scene.

    Pat

  92. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 30, 2008 4:58 am
    I’ll break this up, as per your request.

    “My “threats” statement was backed up by the video.
    That’s the data whether you believe it or not.”

    And I’ve backed up my points with court documents, testimony, and statements from ex-members. When I have been unable to, I have conceded the point to you until I could dig up further information.

    As for the video, it contains…well, generalities and vagueness. There’s no -proof-, no solid evidence. You say it’s in the hands of the police…I say, great. You know why?

    If there were illegal actions, those people should be punished. However, I will not be involved in those criminal proceedings, because I have not done anything wrong. The claims of criminal action, at this point, come across as a veiled attempt at intimidation, ie: “lay off or the big scary police will come and get you”.

    So let me ask you this: Have you, personally, seen this “evidence” of all the illegal activities? Have you been presented with the raw data to make your own decisions? Or are you relying on what you’ve been told by higher management?

    My Church received several of these. I did hear those. So for me that makes the rest of the video completely believable. I have no reason to distrust members or execs in my church.

    That’s all. You can believe what you want. I answered your question.

    Pat

  93. “I don’t agree. You evidently have some hidden standard about how you think someone of a religion should behave. We don’t operate on the “turn the other cheek” idea of some churches.

    The whole idea is gaining back ourselves through training and auditing. A full restoration of self-determinism. It means that we aren’t going to be at effect of some group that doesn’t like that we insist on our right to be who we are. It doesn’t mean that we have to sit back and let some sleazy “journalist” spread the anti-Scientology partyline. At this point, I don’t care if you don’t like what we do or that you “disapprove” of our actions. We don’t have anything to propitiate for, Erroneous. It’s right in the Aims.”

    Well, okay. Fair enough. I don’t think it’s unfair of me to point out, though, that Scientology is practically ALONE in this behavior amongst recognized religions. Whether you believe it should adhere to that standard or not, that basic assertion stands.

    The “I don’t care” thing came across as pretty combative, I’ve got to admit. You ask why people protest? Well, part of it is stuff like that. They -disapprove- of the church’s tactics in dealing with its critics. Scientology “disapproves” of psychiatry. Both psychiatry’s practices and Scientology’s self-acknowledged practices are legal. Does that mean BOTH should be exempt from protest, or neither should?

    Freedom of religion does not entail freedom from scrutiny or disapproval. I doubt you would disagree that the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps, though practicing what they -believe- to be the tenets of their religion, deserve nothing but the strongest condemnation and contempt. Would you be averse to people protesting -them-, even though their practices are technically legal and cloaked in their “faith”?

  94. I’ll break this up, as per your request.

    “My “threats” statement was backed up by the video.
    That’s the data whether you believe it or not.”

    And I’ve backed up my points with court documents, testimony, and statements from ex-members. When I have been unable to, I have conceded the point to you until I could dig up further information.

    As for the video, it contains…well, generalities and vagueness. There’s no -proof-, no solid evidence. You say it’s in the hands of the police…I say, great. You know why?

    If there were illegal actions, those people should be punished. However, I will not be involved in those criminal proceedings, because I have not done anything wrong. The claims of criminal action, at this point, come across as a veiled attempt at intimidation, ie: “lay off or the big scary police will come and get you”.

    So let me ask you this: Have you, personally, seen this “evidence” of all the illegal activities? Have you been presented with the raw data to make your own decisions? Or are you relying on what you’ve been told by higher management?

  95. Pat –

    “As for the rest of your considerations, I’m not going to address them at this time. I believe that I requested that these be restricted to one question at a time.”

    You’re more than free to answer or not based on whatever reasoning you like, but I don’t think it’s really reasonable to expect someone to not address -each- of your claims when you, personally, make several different and distinct arguments in a single post.

    Let me ask, then: If I restated those points, verbatim, as a “new question” in a single post, would you THEN address them?

  96. It’s not which section says you aren’t eligible. It’s which section doesn’t say you are eligible. In this case, U.S.C. Title 26, Section 170, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Hernandez v. Commissioner (490 U.S. 680, 1989).

    Held: Payments made to the Church’s branch churches for auditing and training services are not deductible charitable contributions under § 170.”

    You can’t get much clearer than that.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/680/case.html

  97. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 30, 2008 4:07 am
    >U.S.C. Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code), Sections 7201 (Tax Evasion) and 7206 (Tax Fraud). You’re probably safe as far as previous tax years go, since those sections require specific intent (i.e. in this case, ignorance of the law is an excuse). But if you continue to deduct your payments for Scientology goods and services, having read the Hernandez and Sklar decisions, then you’ll be in violation of those laws.

    That is not what I meant. What Federal Law says we aren’t eligible for those deductions?

    Pat

  98. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 30, 2008 1:51 am
    >Pat-

    I don’t mean to be rude, but it seems to me like you’re twisting things somewhat.

    I don’t agree. You evidently have some hidden standard about how you think someone of a religion should behave. We don’t operate on the “turn the other cheek” idea of some churches.

    The whole idea is gaining back ourselves through training and auditing. A full restoration of self-determinism. It means that we aren’t going to be at effect of some group that doesn’t like that we insist on our right to be who we are. It doesn’t mean that we have to sit back and let some sleazy “journalist” spread the anti-Scientology partyline. At this point, I don’t care if you don’t like what we do or that you “disapprove” of our actions. We don’t have anything to propitiate for, Erroneous. It’s right in the Aims.

    >No, to the family of Lisa, who had entered into civil proceedings parallel to the local authorities’ case. I’m sorry if that was unclear.

    I never saw anything that said we paid her aunt anything. I know it was settled out of court.

    The good works statement was backed up by the links to our social betterment programs.

    My “threats” statement was backed up by the video.
    That’s the data whether you believe it or not.

    But it is unfair to expect you to be specific for each issue you have with my religion.

    Again, I’ll note that the church has yet to describe the threats in anything -except- for “generalities”, save the…dubious, at best, Youtube video.

    In Karen Pouw’s statement to radar she states that the data is in the hands of law enforcement. Guess we’ll just have to let them sort it out.

    As for the rest of your considerations, I’m not going to address them at this time. I believe that I requested that these be restricted to one question at a time.

    Pat

  99. U.S.C. Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code), Sections 7201 (Tax Evasion) and 7206 (Tax Fraud). You’re probably safe as far as previous tax years go, since those sections require specific intent (i.e. in this case, ignorance of the law is an excuse). But if you continue to deduct your payments for Scientology goods and services, having read the Hernandez and Sklar decisions, then you’ll be in violation of those laws.

  100. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 30, 2008 2:20 am
    I>’m sorry; it’s hard to be civil and courteous to someone who proudly violates federal law. Or are you willing to stop taking those deductions on your audits and rundowns?

    Ok.

    What federal law is it that I’m violating? I’m serious about that question.

    Pat

  101. I’m sorry; it’s hard to be civil and courteous to someone who proudly violates federal law. Or are you willing to stop taking those deductions on your audits and rundowns?

  102. Pat-

    I don’t mean to be rude, but it seems to me like you’re twisting things somewhat.

    “So where is this coming from? There was a settlement paid to the coroner’s family? That’s news to me.”

    No, to the family of Lisa, who had entered into civil proceedings parallel to the local authorities’ case. I’m sorry if that was unclear.

    “Not inefficient. Truthful. Full time place form and event. If you were to do that with each issue, you might begin to see the pattern.”

    Not a fair claim. I’ve seen you using “generalities” just as often. For instance, “the good works of the church”, “threats and acts of violence against our churches”, etc.

    Using generalities like that is not a rhetorical failing; it’s simply a requirement of basic dialogue. It is unreasonable to expect people to go into great detail about every point on the list when those points are simply in -support- of a larger issue. If one wishes to -question- those points, then it is suitable to provide greater detail. I would not expect you, for instance, to say, “The good works of the church, which include this program, run by this person and documented here and here and serving this many people for this long, and this program…” because, frankly, that kind of thing could conceivably go on for ages, and there are larger issues to address.

    Again, I’ll note that the church has yet to describe the threats in anything -except- for “generalities”, save the…dubious, at best, Youtube video.

    “How in the hell do you turn litigation into “fair game”? I think I’ve asked this before. Why is it wrong for us to insist on legal rights? Why is that twisted into “fair game”? Sounds like partyline to me. Who wants us to back off and let people walk all over our rights?

    Private Investigation of attackers is legal. Protecting our copyrights is legal. What you call “bull-bait” is confronting someone face to face. We’re not allowed to do that when someone is going around bothering Scientologists? It’s ok for Sweeney to do it to us, but not ok for us to do it to him? That’s the kind of “objective” journalism you’re protecting. ”

    I don’t -need- to turn litigation into “fair game”. It was already -part- of fair game from the very beginning. As Hubbard himself wrote in the Manual of Dissemination, the purpose of these suits is often to harass and distract one’s opponents, rather than to win. There is a -written doctrine- of using the law as a tool to harass one’s enemies. Much of the time, it appears to have very little to do with “protecting the rights of the church”, and a lot to do with “intimidating critics into silence through threats of legal action”. See: Time Magazine.

    Fair game does not, by definition, have to be illegal. The fact that hiring private detectives to investigate people is LEGAL does not mean it is not fair game. Something can be a pretty sleazy, intrusive, antisocial thing to do and still be “legal”. I would certainly classify “noisy investigations” that way. I mean…what -other- “religious groups” behave that way, in this day and age? The church does not have a “right” to be free of criticism any more than any other group does, and the assertion that the investigators are there as part of some defense of the group’s “rights” seems a bit specious, to me.

    Likewise, bullbaiting is not simply “confronting” a critic. It is a deliberate, calculated attempt to agitate and provoke through socially unacceptable behavior. I cannot think of another religious group that has such fundamental practices that boil down to, basically, being as rude as is legally allowable. If someone is doing that to Scientologists, well, they’re rude -too-, but two wrongs don’t make a right. I wouldn’t endorse people walking up to some Scientologist and saying, “How many children have you molested today?”

    As for the Sweeney thing…Come on. You know the reason that report turned out as slanted as it did? Because Tommy Davis -made- it that way. We’re talking about a multiple award-winning journalist working for one of the most respected journalistic institutions in the -world-. How did Scientology respond? From the outset, it followed him (which is already -way- unacceptable, guys), harassed him, shouted him down, etc. When Sweeney finally lost it, Scientology used that clip WITHOUT any of the harassment leading up to it to provide context. This was supposed to prove what a “biased lunatic” Sweeney was, but it’s no more fair than prodding a docile family dog with sticks for days on end, and then when it finally bites someone, claiming it was a vicious, violent beast from the outset.

    Oh, and then Scientology had the -audacity- to claim that the BBC, again, one of the most RESPECTED JOURNALISTIC BODIES IN THE WORLD, had orchestrated a demonstration against them which involved…lo and behold!…terrorist threats. Is any of this sounding familiar?

    I’m sorry if I seem a bit agitated, but this is the kind of thing that really gets to me. This sort of behavior is indefensible in ANY situation, but especially from a group that styles itself as a religion. This is not the way an enlightened group of “free” beings behaves.

  103. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 30, 2008 1:02 am

    Poor dude, are you feeling ok? Maybe you should go take a walk and look around. It helps you get oriented. Go and do that and when you’re not confused anymore you can come back and chat :)

    —————————-

    Don’t like being treated like you’re stupid? I don’t either.

    When you’re ready to be civil and courteous, I might talk to you again.

    Pat

  104. “Why would we pay taxes on money we spend?”
    Income taxes, Jerry. You have to earn the money before you can spend it. Money that is given to a non-profit organization is deducted from taxable income. Money that is spent on a good or service provided by the organization, however, is not deductible. Do I really have to link you to the thread ON THIS VERY SITE where we went over this? Did the Study Tech fry your short-term memory, Bob?

  105. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 30, 2008 12:28 am
    *sigh*

    >We already went over this, Steve.

    When are you?

    >Even if the Church(TM) is a tax-exempt organization, the members still have to pay taxes on the money they use to buy books and auditing sessions. By claiming that those payments are tax-deductible, the Church(TM) is encouraging its members to commit tax evasion.

    Why would we pay taxes on money we spend?

    Pat

  106. *sigh*

    We already went over this, Steve. Even if the Church(TM) is a tax-exempt organization, the members still have to pay taxes on the money they use to buy books and auditing sessions. By claiming that those payments are tax-deductible, the Church(TM) is encouraging its members to commit tax evasion.

  107. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 29, 2008 11:42 pm
    “Why is it wrong for us to insist on legal rights?”

    >There’s nothing wrong with that. But it seems a tad shady to whine about your legal rights when you fail to live up to your legal responsibilities, like the responsibility to pay taxes on income that was used to purchase services from the Church(TM).

    What’s illegal about 501(c)(3) which is what each Church applied for and received?

    Pat

  108. “Why is it wrong for us to insist on legal rights?”

    There’s nothing wrong with that. But it seems a tad shady to whine about your legal rights when you fail to live up to your legal responsibilities, like the responsibility to pay taxes on income that was used to purchase services from the Church(TM).

  109. @Comment by John on March 29, 2008 9:18 pm

    I think it was great that he exposed that Sweeney was concentrating on the anti-Scientologists
    which meant he’d already pre-written the script. Not even good journalism.

    I have no sympathy for Sweeney.

  110. Just a quick question about the Sweeney incidednt Pat,

    Do you think it was appropriate for Tommy Davis to show up unannounced and uninvited when John Sweeney was attempting to interview Shawn Lonsdale?

    Similarly, do you think it is appropriate for Tommy Davis to turn up at the hotel John Sweeney was staying at unannounced and uninvited? Especially when the hotel that the BBC crew were staying at was not disclosed to Tommy Davis.

  111. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 29, 2008 5:30 pm
    >Pat-

    >That’s fair, but then, the Lisa McPherson documents presented by the church also tend to exclude the evidence of harassment towards the medical examiner to the point that she was rendered useless as a witness. It also usually doesn’t include the settlement paid to her family.

    Certainly not according to her. She states she received no undue pressure from us or her seniors. So where is this coming from? There was a settlement paid to the coroner’s family? That’s news to me.

    >I’m not sure your claim of me speaking in “generalities” is fair. -Everyone- speaks in generalities sometimes, simply because it would be inefficient to say “in this case and this case and this case and this case and this case…” ad infinitum, rather than saying, “In the vast majority of cases”. One example does not take the place of a broader statement.

    Not inefficient. Truthful. Full time place form and event. If you were to do that with each issue, you might begin to see the pattern.

    >I’m all for the church continuing its “good works”, but there is OTHER continued behavior from the CoS that makes its claims about certain issues seem…questionable.
    To use the old Fair Game example, the CoS of course claims that fair game was canceled.

    >Yet, the organization still litigates more than any religious organization I’m aware of, hires private detectives to intrusively investigate people, approaches the employers/co-workers/business partners/family members of its “enemies”, conducts “black PR” campaigns against its “enemies”, bull-baits critics, selectively edits video footage to present a skewed and unfair picture of certain events, etc. Those are only the things that there’s clear evidence of.

    >So when the CoS claims that “fair game” was canceled, but everyone can still see all these things happening, what exactly are we supposed to believe? Isn’t it a bit like the story of the frog and the scorpion crossing the river?

    How in the hell do you turn litigation into “fair game”? I think I’ve asked this before. Why is it wrong for us to insist on legal rights? Why is that twisted into “fair game”? Sounds like partyline to me. Who wants us to back off and let people walk all over our rights?

    Private Investigation of attackers is legal. Protecting our copyrights is legal. What you call “bull-bait” is confronting someone face to face. We’re not allowed to do that when someone is going around bothering Scientologists? It’s ok for Sweeney to do it to us, but not ok for us to do it to him? That’s the kind of “objective” journalism you’re protecting.

    Pat

  112. Comment by Tony Meman on March 29, 2008 5:59 pm
    >So, how many Scientologists and orgs are there?

    Looks like you got some stuff mixed up here.

    I’ll give it to you from the statistics page.

    There are presently 7,731 churches, missions and groups in 164 countries worldwide. Membership has increased from 6.1 million in 2000 to approximately 10 million at the end of 2007.

    Pat

  113. @Comment by GrandFalloon on March 29, 2008 3:45 pm
    >Yes, I know the reasoning behind not getting audited while you have an SP. And I still think people should have the freedom to decide who is and who is not suppressing them. Isn’t that what you teach your children? They should decide for themselves what they want to do, and that you shouldn’t threaten or punish them for not obeying their parents.

    You are absolutely right. I can’t think of any instance in my 38 years that anyone was told who was suppressing them. That’s always been a personal realization. The person (if the tech is being applied standardly) is asked if anyone is suppressing him. This is done if the signs are there and after reading the data that describes why he’s being asked.

    They are then required to handle. Disconnection in this case is rare, and totally on one’s determinism). We aren’t forced to disconnect from anyone. It’s always on our determinism. There is the added caveat on this that we don’t make gains when so connected to someone declared or otherwise, due to the anti-social characteristics. It’s kind of a no-brainer if someone wants to keep going. Not because we HAVE to but by personal choice.

    It’s a bit of a different scenario when a Scientologist adheres to someone who is officially declared a Suppressive Person. The person declared is restricted to contact with terminals who are trained in the PTS/SP tech and it is their job or post to be the terminal for these people. That’s to keep it off of the lines of those who are on training and processing services. Do you see the connection here, now? There are specific steps laid out that one would need to do to get this restriction lifted. Unless a Scientologist is authorized to help someone so declared to do those steps, the Declared person is pretty much limited to the Administrative lines that is set up for them. Even those now attacking the Church have recourse. LRH set that up in policy.

    Pat

  114. So, how many Scientologists and orgs are there?

    8 million in ~164 orgs?

    That’s 40,000+ per org… unlikely.

    8 million in ~8,000 orgs?

    1,000 per org… still unlikely.

    60,000 in ~8,000 orgs?

    7 per org… that sounds low.

    60,000 in ~164 orgs?

    A bit less then 400 per org… that seems reasonable.

  115. Pat-

    That’s fair, but then, the Lisa McPherson documents presented by the church also tend to exclude the evidence of harassment towards the medical examiner to the point that she was rendered useless as a witness. It also usually doesn’t include the settlement paid to her family.

    I’m not sure your claim of me speaking in “generalities” is fair. -Everyone- speaks in generalities sometimes, simply because it would be inefficient to say “in this case and this case and this case and this case and this case…” ad infinitum, rather than saying, “In the vast majority of cases”. One example does not take the place of a broader statement.

    I’m all for the church continuing its “good works”, but there is OTHER continued behavior from the CoS that makes its claims about certain issues seem…questionable.
    To use the old Fair Game example, the CoS of course claims that fair game was canceled.

    Yet, the organization still litigates more than any religious organization I’m aware of, hires private detectives to intrusively investigate people, approaches the employers/co-workers/business partners/family members of its “enemies”, conducts “black PR” campaigns against its “enemies”, bull-baits critics, selectively edits video footage to present a skewed and unfair picture of certain events, etc. Those are only the things that there’s clear evidence of.

    So when the CoS claims that “fair game” was canceled, but everyone can still see all these things happening, what exactly are we supposed to believe? Isn’t it a bit like the story of the frog and the scorpion crossing the river?

  116. Yes, I know the reasoning behind not getting audited while you have an SP. And I still think people should have the freedom to decide who is and who is not suppressing them. Isn’t that what you teach your children? They should decide for themselves what they want to do, and that you shouldn’t threaten or punish them for not obeying their parents.

  117. @ Comment by John on March 27, 2008 3:50 am
    >>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.

    And here I thought things were improving. My response above was in regards to someone asking for our OT Levels here in the forum. How did that warp into “past crimes of individual scientologists.” ?

    Pat

  118. @Comment by Tony Meman on March 29, 2008 2:32 pm

    Ignore my last answer, Tony.

    All evidence is in the hands of the FBI.

    Pat

  119. @Comment by Tony Meman on March 29, 2008 2:32 pm
    >I’m going to ask yet again…

    >This website claims that shots were fired at a church.

    >What’s your evidence?

    Well, you can just keep asking, I guess, since we didn’t post that here. Why don’t you ask where that was posted?

    Pat

  120. I’m going to ask yet again…

    This website claims that shots were fired at a church.

    What’s your evidence?

  121. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 29, 2008 8:53 am
    @Comment by GrandFalloon on March 29, 2008 6:21 am

    I’m going to reply to both as they overlap somewhat.

    Whether a person is in the Sea Org or not, the policy of “no auditing or training” applies when one is connected to a suppressive person. The reason for this is not punitive. When a person is trained or audited he experiences gains that build to the point where one acheives the overall ability as stated for that action. If you look at the anti-social characteristics you’ll see that his actions are mainly in the direction of criticizing any betterment. The anti-social or SP is going to do his damnest to invalidate and criticize the one getting the gains so the person loses them to some degree. He goes back in session, gets gains rehabilitated, goes out gets invalidated, etc. Up and down, up and down thus the term rollercoaster in referring to what happens to one who is so connected (PTS).

    That is the reason one cannot get auditing or training while connected. That’s all.

    Erroneous,

    I hear what you’re saying. I don’t know if you realize that you did the same thing you accuse us of doing regarding generalities.

    “The main problem is that while many (though, granted, not all) claims that the critics make are backed up by video and photographic evidence, primary source documentation, and court/legal records, the vast majority of the CoS’s evidence consists either of “scripture” or personal/anecdotal experience.”

    Now, let’s take one example here:

    Court/legal records:

    The Lisa McPherson case. Our documentation here on myths shows the final death certificate and a dropping of all charges, but the one on-lines shows the original one and the original charges, prior to the Coroner amending her findings after the Church’s defense team requested peer review of the autopsy. Why would they omit those?

    If that one is a “corruption” of truth, how do you know that there aren’t others? Yes, we can’t prove a negative, and that’s counted on, believe me. We can only continue our good acts and continue to help people and show by our actions that we are a betterment group. Somewhere along the line, people see that the truth is in what we do, not what the generalities try to portray us as.

    Pat

  122. Incidentally, to answer an earlier question:

    I have, in fact, critically researched -both- sides of the argument. Let’s be honest: A lot of the claims about the CoS are things that would make any -remotely- skeptical person pause before accepting the accusations outright. Of -course- I looked into things from both sides.

    The main problem is that while many (though, granted, not all) claims that the critics make are backed up by video and photographic evidence, primary source documentation, and court/legal records, the vast majority of the CoS’s evidence consists either of “scripture” or personal/anecdotal experience.

    To be fair, I realize that you cannot prove a negative, as in ‘We do not do ____________.” However, simply pointing to a particular place where Hubbard wrote something does not, in itself, constitute a rebuttal. The Bible says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”, and it has that old saying about not removing the splinter from your neighbor’s eye until you’ve removed the plank from your own, and yet there are still many judgmental individuals who call themselves Christians.

  123. Pat –
    I’ll be honest and say that I cannot actually think of a specific case that I know of where someone has been sent to RPF for refusal to disconnect. For the time being, I’ll have to say that it was strictly hypothetical and has not, to my knowledge, happened. I’ll look into it and, if I find any specific cases, I’ll get back to you.

    As for the suppressive thing, maybe I should clarify. I’m not so much insulted as…annoyed?

    This is just a personal thing, I guess, but I automatically tend to…fight back against generalities and broad characterizations. I find that dividing the world into “us and them” almost never does anyone any good, in the end, nor does painting all dissent, even from one’s “enemies”, with the same brush.

    There’s a reason words like “heretic” are practically never used now -except- in an ironic way. I find that “suppressive person” is, in -practice-, very similar to the -old- use of the word “heretic”, except, perhaps, slightly worse, since being a “heretic” did not automatically put one in the same category with some of the worst mass murderers in history.

  124. REPEAT POST AS THE WORDS RAN TOGETHER ON THE LAST
    GrandFalloon wrote
    “Withholding auditing from a PTS for whatever reason is hard to justify. The church is basically saying “Choose between your relationship and your religion”. No one should be made to make this decision!”

    >>
    You miss the point, they already have made that decision thus the relationship is in conflict. If the decision was not made, what would be the point of contention? The spouse raises issue because the decision is made and then the conflict begins because neither are willing to give up their respective faith for the other.
    All I can say is to what I have witnessed, I do no not like to speak on things I do not know much on. But that said, in really is up to the individual, yes there is a written policy, but it does not differ in reality from any other mix-faith breakup in terms of what a Pastor/Rabbi/Priest might suggest in that to please take care of your family (if that is applicable of course) perhaps Pat or Lou can add more in case I have missed other points.

    GrandFalloon wrote
    “So what policies does the church follow when making these SP declares and for what kind of things do people get declared?”

    >>
    honestly do not know but could guess and will leave this for the other Scientologists to answer.

  125. GrandFalloon wrote
    “Withholding auditing from a PTS for whatever reason is hard to justify. The church is basically saying “Choose between your relationship and your religion”. No one should be made to make this decision!”
    You miss the point, they already have made that decision thus the relationship is in conflict. If the decision was not made, what would be the point of contention? The spouse raises issue because the decision is made and then the conflict begins because neither are willing to give up their respective faith for the other.
    All I can say is to what I have witnessed, I do no not like to speak on things I do not know much on. But that said, in really is up to the individual, yes there is a written policy, but it does not differ in reality from any other mix-faith breakup in terms of what a Pastor/Rabbi/Priest might suggest in that to please take care of your family (if that is applicable of course) perhaps Pat or Lou can add more in case I have missed other points.

    GrandFalloon wrote
    “So what policies does the church follow when making these SP declares and for what kind of things do people get declared?”
    I honestly do not know but could guess and will leave this for the other Scientologists to answer.

  126. @ ErroneousAssumptions

    I highly doubt they will go to the RPF for following policy. I will also not comment as to ethics, I simply do not know enough in that area in specifics to Sea Org, but only equate it as I did above to being a COS monk.

    As to labels, you read to much into it honestly. It’s a label, I can tell you we all label something, I was called a kike, while that is much more insulting an SP is a suppressive person they attack COS. My congregation has many choice words for those who are bigots against Jews. Back to COS not all critics get declared and most don’t, it took Tory 8 years to get her “golden rod” as she puts it.

    I have a hard time criticizing COS on that part for simple label use. I am not much of a formality kind of person, but others are. I think everyone has the innate ability to see if one is against them or not with or without a label. But I respect your opinion on it.

  127. @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 29, 2008 6:16 am
    >Another thing regarding disconnection:

    >What if the person is in the Sea Org? What if, in addition to facing the discontinuation of services, they also face being sent to the RPF for their failure to disconnect with the “suppressive person”?

    >Also, I find the whole SP thing kind of insulting, honestly, since when Hubbard at one point outlines what a TRUE suppressive is, it’s people like…Hitler and Stalin.

    >Putting people who simply criticize the church in that same category seems, honestly, laughable.

    Did someone actually say they got sent to the RPF for refusing to disconnect from an SP?
    Link?

    Why would you feel insulted if you don’t have the anti-social characteristics?
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_1.HTM

    Why would someone want to stay connected to someone who does these things? And please take note: These characteristics aren’t about people attacking Scientology specifically. They can apply in anyone’s life Scientologist or not.

    Pat

  128. What I mean to say is that it is up to the individual whether they have a relationship with someone or not. I also think it should be up to the individual to practice their religion, independent of who they happen to have a relationship with.

    Withholding auditing from a PTS for whatever reason is hard to justify. The church is basically saying “Choose between your relationship and your religion”. No one should be made to make this decision!

    Now I’ve seen a supposed list of crimes a person can get declared for, but it could be all lies.

    So what policies does the church follow when making these SP declares and for what kind of things do people get declared?

  129. Another thing regarding disconnection:

    What if the person is in the Sea Org? What if, in addition to facing the discontinuation of services, they also face being sent to the RPF for their failure to disconnect with the “suppressive person”?

    Also, I find the whole SP thing kind of insulting, honestly, since when Hubbard at one point outlines what a TRUE suppressive is, it’s people like…Hitler and Stalin.

    Putting people who simply criticize the church in that same category seems, honestly, laughable.

  130. What I mean to say is that it is up to the individual whether they have a relationship with someone or not. I also think it should be up to the individual to practice their religion, independent of who they happen to have a relationship with.

    Withholding auditing from a PTS for whatever reason is hard to justify. The church is basically saying “Choose between your relationship or your religion”. No one should be made to make this decision!

    Now I’ve seen a supposed list of crimes a person can get declared for, but you will tell me it’s all lies.

    So what policies does the church follow when making these SP declares and for what kind of things do people get declared for?

  131. @GrandFalloon wrote
    “I’m not Jewish, but I doubt a Rabbi would tell someone not to come to services. That’s strictly a Scientology thing. I understand a person not wanting to talk to someone anymore. But what is bad is when a church ‘declares’ a person supressive and bans a person from buying services until they solve the problem. Isn’t that up to the individual? It’s that kind of control that upsets people.”

    Its funny to see those that argue for continuation of services in the face of a family breakup as freedom but descent in the face of arguing disconnection against COS. Although I admit I am not sure of your position. That statement as not to come to services is a plausible possibility of which I have not witnessed from either organization but for the sake of keeping a family together, it does not change ones identity, but say if one can perhaps salvage something especially if kids are involved and the hard-line following of social practices like services can be toned down a bit while the family tries to reconcile. In the end it is the freedom of the individual when one cannot reconcile and must move on. There is no control as stated above, as the question contradicts the point of arguing against disconnection. It is good to hear you are for individual rights and whose position agrees with COS and the law to protect those rights, but I think you went even farther in the example of a family where one has responsibilities to the family before that line of defense is reached.

  132. @Comment by bradS on March 28, 2008 6:47 pm

    “But let us say COS says you cannot move on until the SP is handled, that is the same as the Rabbi saying it is “best you work it out rather than ignoring the situation with your spouse. Perhaps taking a break from services.” However do not stop being a Jew. That policy is actually putting more attention to the family, COS wants it handled as priority 1 over other COS studies in other words policy is saying family first. If that is not sufficient, I do not know what else any religious organization can be expected to do.”

    I’m not Jewish, but I doubt a Rabbi would tell someone not to come to services. That’s strictly a Scientology thing. I understand a person not wanting to talk to someone anymore. But what is bad is when a church ‘declares’ a person supressive and bans a person from buying services until they solve the problem. Isn’t that up to the individual? It’s that kind of control that upsets people.

  133. @anmn
    “I understand that strong religious beliefs can be very difficult to reconcile, but Anonymous’ current point is that the Church of Scientology handles this very differently than other faiths. Do Jews and Baptists have guidelines for dealing with loved ones that are heathens? I’m not too clear on how that goes.”

    I do not know about Baptist other than my friends at the time were counseled by both of their respective faiths on the issue. As for Judaism I know that most Rabbi will not marry mix-faith as policy, usually people convert to the other. In that case the position of the faith would not agree to say to the Jewish person, “fine stop being Jewish” I would imagine the same for the Baptists.

    I really see no difference, other than Scientology labels everything, I mean everything. The policy is no different than a Rabbi stating: “Can you work it out” if that cannot be reconciled the Rabbi is not going to do anything further and let the law and legal process work itself out and the same as COS, the only issue is COS attracts anti-cult groups sooo they bring about deprogrammers and exit councilors that are not backed by law. So the COS, written policy is nothing more than restating law to counter. The law being, the rights of the individual stand.

    @anmn
    “Still, there is the difference that ErroneousAssumptions has pointed out: in most religions, such disagreements are personal matters. If you can’t live with a person who believes so differently, that’s your own decision. In Scientology, if you hang out with people or groups declared suppressive or critical, you’re PTS and blocked in your progress until you handle or disconnect. That’s probably a bit extreme, but I understand it does happen.”

    This is not true, I know of two cases locally where the spouses outright do not like COS but do not voice or attack COS. But again Scientology has a label for everything. That does not mean the result is any different than another religious organization. The shul is not going to think highly of the dissenting individual as in to be SP you must attack COS. So if the spouse actually attacks the Shul, “you Jews with all the money… yadda yadda” If she does this on premises she will leave in the back of a police cruiser flat out.

    But let us say COS says you cannot move on until the SP is handled, that is the same as the Rabbi saying it is “best you work it out rather than ignoring the situation with your spouse. Perhaps taking a break from services.” However do not stop being a Jew. That policy is actually putting more attention to the family, COS wants it handled as priority 1 over other COS studies in other words policy is saying family first. If that is not sufficient, I do not know what else any religious organization can be expected to do.

    You simply get caught up in labels. But those labels do not make the results any different than the others other than the fact that there is an official label.

  134. >Fair Use? Justifications.

    Fair Use means that I’m quoting a bit of copyrighted material for educational purposes. My comments are the bits in the parentheses (). The quote is from a set of documents released by Frank Oliver, formerly of the osa/dsa. It should still be on wikileaks.org

    >It a treatise for dealing with the insane. So?

    >How do you deal with the insane if they were attacking you?

    It’s not a treatise on dealing with the insane, per se. It’s a treatise on dealing with the government. I don’t spy on the government and steal documents; but that’s just me.

    >LRH was absolved of any wrong doing in relation to the GO stuff. Was there a reason you omitted that? Yes, his wife as head of the GO was also jailed. So?

    Lu also omitted that by not mentioning his involvement at all. Having the founder’s wife involved negated her characterization of the GO as a few isolated ne’er-do-wells.

    >Where do you get 3000 churches?

    From the Guardians office page: “more than 3,000 churches, missions, related organizations and groups ”

    As I said, the vast majority of which would probably be surprised to find that the front group they had shown some support to was run by Scientology, much less that they were Scientologists themselves.

    The statistics page actually says: “7,731 churches, missions and groups in 164 countries worldwide”

    I’d actually believe 164 churches; that seems completely reasonable. I wonder, though; the RTC is buying up new properties. It seems like some currently existing orgs will get transferred into them. Some of those numbers are probably duplicates.

    >What did the Church do to you, Tony?

    I take issue with people who claim that a child’s fever is due to their grandparents and forbid contact; people who use child labor and neglect education since a child is just a small adult; people who want to take needed medication away from everyone.

    In each loss I am lessened, for I am connected to all humanity; to paraphrase.

  135. “As in any insane being, one is looking for the basic intention that prompts the false reports factory to operate.

    Somewhere at the bottom of the mess there will be found a being and an intention.

    Confrontation of a government agency and DAing (Dead Agenting, discrediting with accusations) cools them down and causes them to back down. This is an insane attribute – to fear disclosure and greatly value their rickety PR. (Seem familiar? ^_^) So nothing in this should inhibit doing that.

    But at the end of this trail will be a blockbuster of a hidden order or intention.”

    OSA NW ORDER 19, L. Ron Hubbard 1-28-75 (reissued 2-18-88) Fair Use excerpt

    Fair Use? Justifications.

    Only an excerpt? Interspersed with comments. Do you have a scan of the actual doc?

    I can’t separate your comments from the docs but there’s nothing there that isn’t already in the Administrative policies of the Church. It a treatise for dealing with the insane. So?

    How do you deal with the insane if they were attacking you?

    LRH was absolved of any wrong doing in relation to the GO stuff. Was there a reason you omitted that? Yes, his wife as head of the GO was also jailed. So? She did her time, right? The GO was disbanded (and all policy cancelled) so WTF does this have to do with current management? Are you one of the ex-GO?

    Where do you get 3000 churches? Last count as of January 2008 is 164. That’s on Lu’s site in Statistics. There are more (I think 7, as of LRH’s Birthday 2008) and more missions now than the Jan 2008 number.

    What did the Church do to you, Tony?

    Pat

  136. Let’s take another look at one of your pages… the one about the Guardian’s Office.

    First of all, we have the internal documents that authorized their actions. In accordance with Scientology’s core belief that anyone who attacks Scientology is guilty of a crime, it was believed that there must be criminals within the US government:

    “As in any insane being, one is looking for the basic intention that prompts the false reports factory to operate.

    Somewhere at the bottom of the mess there will be found a being and an intention.

    Confrontation of a government agency and DAing (Dead Agenting, discrediting with accusations) cools them down and causes them to back down. This is an insane attribute – to fear disclosure and greatly value their rickety PR. (Seem familiar? ^_^) So nothing in this should inhibit doing that.

    But at the end of this trail will be a blockbuster of a hidden order or intention.”

    OSA NW ORDER 19, L. Ron Hubbard 1-28-75 (reissued 2-18-88) Fair Use excerpt

    You also neglected to mention that the people convicted of breaking Federal law included Mary Sue Hubbard, L. Ron’s wife; and that L. Ron Hubbard was named as a co-conspirator.

    Beyond that, the explanation seems utterly convenient to the current leadership. Major critics are just people who held criminal intentions and, for some reason, hold long term grudges against Scientology for not letting them break the law. (I’ve known a few criminals, and generally they just move on.) How does the explain people who left many years after all that happened?

    David Miscavige’s power grab is explained by him clearing out these dissident elements (which happened more then a decade after Snow White), so he’s beyond criticism.

    You mentioned the troubled history of my church. Fair enough. When is Scientology going to admit that extensive disconnection, the use child labor in the Sea Org, and forcing people to undergo a years-long process to leave is wrong? If you did that, a lot of the criticism would stop.

    And you say again you have 3,000 churches… where are they? I found ~150 in Dianetics. scientology.org doesn’t list anywhere near that many. Anonymous certainly hasn’t found that many. Many potential org sites were deemed not suitable for protest since they were just a person’s house. Counting people’s houses where auditing goes on as a “church” really stretches that definition beyond usefulness. Can you point me to a list of these 3,000 churches?

  137. Well, with the usual BS caveat that every situation has to be judged individually…

    Yes, withholding information is also bad. I disapprove of any effort to keep people away from the truth.

    I work with kids, so withholding information is second nature to me. Sometimes; it’s just better that people be allowed to come to the truth on their own.

    So, yeah, context.

    In this context, Scientology’s line that everything else is evil and your sole source of information should be the leadership; I’d say that’s bad. That’s a straight line to dictatorship, and that in fact is what happened.

  138. Would you also agree, Tony, that deliberately witholding information can be as bad as telling false information?

  139. I’m gonna ask again, since noone answered.

    I’ve been following a lot of news sources since this all started. Noone but you has claimed that shots were fired. There’s no news reports or police reports. A quick search of Google turns up:

    Clive Barker, a Scientologist who was arrested for planting a car bomb and shooting at police.

    Another claim that the Lisa McPhearson incident resulted in shots being fired on buildings; which ALSO had no proof except the church’s allegations.

    Once again, you’re making accusations without proof. Without proof, we don’t have any recourse except to call you a liar. If you’re lying, why should we believe anything you say?

    Also:

    8 million? I c wat u did there. The 8 million figure is by taking every member of every group that has ever even vaguely agreed with one of Scientology’s fronts and counting them all as Scientologists and all those groups as Scientology organizations.

    I’m willing to bet that over half of those counted don’t know anything about Scientology beyond “Tom Cruise lol wut?” I’d bet that 98% of those people would not call themselves Scientologists to any degree.

    I’m still force to consider this exaggerated figure as yet another lie.

  140. @Pat:
    >Are you debating the people who post on the anti-scientology sites for their proof, as well?

    Not as intimately as I have been here, but I certainly have been looking for evidence. And most people and sites are eager to provide it. On occasion I’ve dissented, pointing out weak arguments or disproven facts.

    For example, here are two sites. One official, one critical.
    narconon.org
    narconon-exposed.org

    I went in to each looking for success rates of the program. The official site has a few pages of reference materials. Most of them are related to theories of the program. I found two full studies, one from Utah, 2005, and one from Stockholm, 1997. There are also mentions of several other studies, in various states and a few overseas, over the last 40 years. But these don’t have titles or authors or publishing information given, so I can’t verify the results.

    The Utah study is promising, showing a 74% graduation rate and a 64% non-recidivist rate, compared to half of that for the comparison group.

    However, after some searching, I found that the study was published by FASE, the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education, which was founded by and appears to have strong personnel and financial links to the Church of Scientology. Also, the center in Utah was shut down five years before the study was published, when its connection with Scientology was revealed by a local Fox channel. The report of this is on Youtube if you search for ‘narconon utah’. The shutdown seemed overly hasty to me, to be honest. But it was also revealed that the center didn’t have a license for the rehab work it was doing.

    The Stockholm study shows a 67% completion rate, and a stellar reduction in further crime. I’m wary of the followup methods, though. The questions seem extremely specific, and only 40% of the targeted graduates responded.

    Further, I found that the study was written by Shelley Beckmann, who serves as the research director for Narconon International, and apparently has been a Scientologist since at least 1993.

    I don’t bring up the links to Scientology as ad hominem. But I do find it suspicious that the only full studies about the program that are published in full have authors or publishers who are strongly linked to Scientology.

    Now, the critical site. At http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/studies.htm , many of the smaller studies are checked. Several cannot be found, and the lack of reference is noted. The ones that are checked show poor graduation rates or suspicious numbers.

    Also, it appears that most of the professional individuals or groups that support Narconon are Scientologists or strongly linked to FASE or Narconon itself. Perhaps this is a testament to the quality of the tech, but it could also be interpreted as a very aggressive PR campaign for a program that cannot stand on its own merits.

    I also see a striking similarity to the mysterious religious experts I mentioned earlier. The critical site says that Narconon lists 21 authors who have written about the program, but six of them are responsible for 62% of the papers, and those six have written very little medical literature on other topics.

  141. @bradS:
    >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 understand that strong religious beliefs can be very difficult to reconcile, but Anonymous’ current point is that the Church of Scientology handles this very differently than other faiths. Do Jews and Baptists have guidelines for dealing with loved ones that are heathens? I’m not too clear on how that goes.

    Still, there is the difference that ErroneousAssumptions has pointed out: in most religions, such disagreements are personal matters. If you can’t live with a person who believes so differently, that’s your own decision. In Scientology, if you hang out with people or groups declared suppressive or critical, you’re PTS and blocked in your progress until you handle or disconnect. That’s probably a bit extreme, but I understand it does happen.

    Also, your use of “potential trouble source” is unlike what I’ve seen before. In your example, from what I’ve heard, the wife would become PTS if the husband were declared SP.

    I admit I was surprised when Gerard Ryan, Irish CoS spokesman, took to the streets on 2/10. In a radio interview later, he said his wife was not a Scientologist and they got along fine. That’s encouraging, and I would love to hear more along those lines after all I’ve heard to the contrary.

  142. To be honest, when I first became involved in this my position was further in favour of the Church of Scientology than it is now. While I thought that some of the actions by the Church of Scientology were perhaps a bit heavy handed, I still respected them as a religious institution.

    In this case I refer to the southpark episode ‘In the closet’ and Isaac Hayes subsequent departure. Given the many other groups that have been lampooned by the shows creators I found it odd that this particular episode was banned.

    I initially found it difficult to accept a lot of claims made by Anonymous and other long time activists.

    Since then I have done my own personal research. I have read scientology websites, I have read anti-scientology websites and I have read impartial websites. I have viewed countless videos produced by the Church of Scientology, scientologists, Anonymous and people simply responding. I have read court documents and listened to radio interviews. I have absorbed as much information as I can and weighed it accordingly. I continue to absorb information and as new information becomes available my knowledge changes.

    Since the start of this I have seen very little evidence backed up by proof from the Church of Scientology. I am still interested to know where the opinion that we are religiously bigoted cyber/domestic terrorists who read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto came from – other than the youtube video I pointed out in a prior post as satirical humour.

    As a further point to this I have heard unsubstantiated claims that the Church of Scientology, in particular David Miscavige, has deduced that we are being led by the German Secret Service and psychiatrists in addition to being part of a Marcarbian invasion fleet. While I find the thought humorous, as I just said these are unsubstantiated, so I do not consider them to be ‘good’ information. That is, I cannot verify whether they are truthful or not, I call this Schrödinger’s data.

    As for my personal opinion on scientology, at this point I disagree with it for the same reason I disagree with a lot of religions. In ‘The Way to Happiness’ Hubbard outlines absolute rules where as my personal belief is that there are no absolutes, only relatives.

    In regards to ‘The Way to Happiness’, section 7. “Seek to Live with the Truth”.

    “Think your own way through things, accept what is true for you, discard the rest. There is nothing unhappier than one who tries to live in a chaos of lies.

    7-1. Do not tell harmful lies. Harmful lies are the product of fear, malice and envy.”

    What is true for me is that the Church of Scientology has told harmful lies about me. Once they have lied once I find it difficult to accept further evidence from them without some form of proof.

  143. @Comment by John on March 27, 2008 10:32 pm

    I do find the idea of being able to ask you questions appealing. Reverse the “flows” (the direction that particles travel such as I flow to you with communication, and you flow to me when you respond and vice-versa). Maybe Lu could set up a separate topic for us? Scientologist questions for Anonymous, or something like that.

    However, that’s not exactly what I meant.

    You have come here with questions about things Scientology “did” which you got from other sites. My question was do you question their data the way you question ours? Have you already decided on what you would accept or not? Does it really matter what we say here?

    That’s what I mean. Does that help? I’d like to hear from the others on this too, ok?

    Pat

  144. > I feel that this is too ONE-sided.
    Exactly, I agree. I realise this is your website and technically the questions page is for us to ask questions of you. But as I have stated I am happy to answer questions in return. You’re right to question me and not accept what I say at face value. You can listen to my answers to your questions and weigh the sincerity and veracity of my statements for yourself.

  145. >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/dianetics. In fact I agree with you that they are. However, they do not cover actions committed by the Church of Scientology. I am refering to actions by those individuals that form the leadership of the Church of Scientology and not all scientologists or scientology. I’m sorry, I can’t be any clearer than that.

    > You asked about watchmen. The data is in the book.

    With all due respect, there is nothing in ‘The introduction to scientology’ that covers this concept. If scientologists are the absolute authority on scientology who is checking if what they say is right or wrong? (and I don’t mean correct or false)

    According to your doctrines if I ever question what the scriptures say regarding scientology I am PTS, or possibly an SP. At this point I must be guilty of a crime. When Gallileo theorised that the Earth revolves around the sun he was condemned by the Christian Church and arrested (had Anonymous been around then I’m sure they would have done something). Thankfully the Christian Church has softened its stance when it comes to scientific theory.

    “The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.” And yes, this was specifically about evidence contrary to what was written in scriptures.

    Speaking of source, who better to speak to than the people featured in one of the Church of Scientology’s promotional videos (obtained from http://www.scientology.org);
    http://forums.enturbulation.org/showthread.php?t=5387

    This was reported on by French website http://www.bakchich.info on the 20th of March, 2008. I’m not dredging up 30 year old actions, this is happening right now.
    English translation: http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bakchich.info%2Farticle3073.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

    How do you respond to this?

  146. @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

  147. 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

  148. 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.

  149. @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.

  150. 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.

  151. @ 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?

  152. > 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?

  153. >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?

  154. 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.

  155. @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.

  156. 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.

  157. lol for the word clearing the use of word should have been transgressive perhaps??? lol :)

  158. 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?

  159. @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.

  160. @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.

  161. 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.

  162. @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.

  163. @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. :P

    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

  164. @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.

  165. @ 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.

  166. 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?

  167. 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.

  168. 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?

  169. @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.

  170. @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

  171. 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.

  172. >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.

  173. 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.

  174. 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.

  175. @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

  176. @Comment by OT9 Declared SP on March 27, 2008 2:48 am

    I thought Anon wasn’t interested in the personal lives of Scientologists?

  177. 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?

  178. 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.

  179. @ Okay I’m Anonymous Now

    thanks lol word has been cleared ;)

  180. “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.

  181. 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’.

  182. @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.

  183. @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.

  184. 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?

  185. 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.

  186. @ Comment by Anothernonymous on March 26, 2008 2:13 pm
    >https://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

  187. @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

  188. @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

  189. https://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?

  190. 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.

  191. 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.

  192. 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. :)

  193. “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 :)

  194. “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?

  195. @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

  196. @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

  197. -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?

  198. @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

  199. Is it true that Mary Panton just blew?

  200. 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

  201. @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

  202. 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.

  203. 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.

  204. “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?)

  205. “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.

  206. “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.

  207. 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.

  208. @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?

  209. 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 :(

  210. 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.

  211. @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.

  212. 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

  213. 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.

  214. 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.

  215. @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

  216. 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?

  217. > 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?

  218. 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?

  219. @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.

  220. Is she telling the truth?

  221. 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?

  222. @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

  223. @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

  224. 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.

  225. @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

  226. 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.

  227. @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

  228. 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?

  229. 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?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos