New Scientology Video clarifies “Front Groups”

Here is a brand-new video (also on Scientology.org) that is pretty much sel-explanatory what groups the Church of Scientology supports and how.

93 Comments

  1. This site was… how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I’ve found something which helped
    me. Thanks!

  2. Criminon gets results just like Narconon does. This is a fact.
    Ultimately that does not matter to the critics as they sneer.
    Lots of people have been helped by these ”front groups”.
    They all use the valuable technology of L. Ron Hubbard.

  3. “My partner and I stumbled over here different page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward to looking over your web page yet again.”

  4. Wonderful article! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web.
    Shame on the search engines for now not positioning this put up upper!
    Come on over and talk over with my site . Thank
    you =)

  5. Comment by BigDaddy on February 9, 2011 9:49 pm

    Are you really independant? Like FreeZone independant?

    As in self-determined. Freezoners aren’t Scientologists per the Code of a Scientologist.

    Pat

  6. New video:

    Pat

  7. “I’m an independant Scientologist ”

    Are you really independant? Like FreeZone independant?

  8. I’m with BG on this one, Pat. To be honest, you’re not actually answering anything, as you can’t seem to discuss objective concepts, and have avoided any attempts to discuss anything except for opinions and subjective experiences. Louanne is very well able to actually answer and discuss, so I think that I would prefer to save web space for discussions with her. Me, I welcome BD to converse with me. I don’t want to be forced to ignore others just because of your standards, which are yours alone and not based on any “rule” that this blog has. I, too, don’t want to be forced to behave a certain way, when it’s based on a rule that you alone made up and have not followed yourself.

    You’ve ignored questions- I really don’t see how you can claim to come here to answer them.

    So, I accept and ack your statement that there is “nothing to prove”, and I maintain that it couldn’t be proven if the attempt was made. There’s nothing more to say there. So, unless you have anything new to say about the subject, and assuming that you’re not going to be answering the questions that you have so far ignored, then I think that we’ve reached a point where it’s time to move on.

  9. “I did that to demonstrate a point.”
    Yeah, I bet.

    To further clarify. Were you “demonstrating a point”:
    on August 31, 2010 3:08 pm, notorious human rights violator loses task force, when you jumped in between me and louanne?
    Which you also did in the same thread at August 24, 2010 2:13 pm between me and lounne?
    Or on August 19, 2010 7:55 pm between anon and lounne?
    Or on September 28, 2010 5:00 pm in the Yawn thread, between Louanne and _Failroot?
    Or on on July 16, 2010 11:33 am, in the 11:30 thread, between anon and louanne?
    Or on July 16, 2010 11:49 am in the same thread, with both me and louanne and anon and louanne?
    Or on August 5, 2010 8:39 pm in the same thread between me and louanne?

    That’s only a small sampling. Were you demonstring a point those times as well? Or are you, as I suspect, making rules for others that you yourself won’t follow?

  10. “I did that to demonstrate a point.”
    Yeah, I bet. In all seriousness, you were doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. And in doing so, you were inventing your own rules and forcing others to follow them. That’s controlling. I don’t like to be controlled by a stranger. To be honest, if you don’t want to acknowledge my statements, don’t. To be honest, I don’t think I’ll lose out too much.

    “Look, there’s a FAQ here and you violate it. It’s not my rules, it’s the blog owner’s”
    Where? Where is that her rule? No, that’s YOUR rule. Nowhere does Louanne say that you “can’t talk to someone if they’re talking to someone else”. So don’t blame it on Louanne- it’s a rule that you yourself made up.

    “I’m an independant Scientologist who comes in here hoping to answer some questions for you”
    So far, you really haven’t. Even the things that you’ve promised specifically to answer (such as the effectiveness of criminon). You come here of your own volition and “answer” questions that are not asked of you.
    And all you’ve provided so far is your opinion, your beliefs (which I respect as such) while invalidating mine. But, either way, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You made your point, you repeated it several times, and refused to move on to the realm of independantly verifiable facts. I got your opinion, you got mine- but only one of us wanted to move on past those.

    “Scientology is not belief-based. That knowledge of does it work only comes in personal observation.”
    Much like voodoo. You still haven’t been able to explain how scientology and voodoo are different in that regard.

    Look, pat, with all due respect, I appreciate your efforts, but I’ve heard your same point repeated time and time again, refusing to move past the unverifiable or subjective. That’s fine for you, but repeating the same things is just taking up space from actual productive conversation. To be blunt, Louanne is able to actually discuss issues without repeating herself over and over again.

    So, again, you’re trying to be controlling- controlling what others can and can’t do on this blog. I don’t allow you to control me. Nor will I try to control you. You don’t want to talk to me, fine. But, I really have no interest in it until you’re able to actually come up with something new, rather than continue repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over. I understand that your position is that “Scientology is not belief-based. That knowledge of does it work only comes in personal observation. It’s just simply not debatable at this point. You either used it and found out for yourself or you didn’t”. You’ve said that time and time again. But that’s the only point you can address, ignoring everything that’s not subjective.

    So, if you’re unable to actually discuss facts, then I thank you for your repeated statement, acknowlege it, and will happily repeat it to myself so you don’t have to.

  11. “As for conversing with more than one person at a time in an online forum… It’s called the “Internet”. It’s the same way when you’re talking in person with more than one individual at a time.”

    That’s where the problem likely falls, as I wasn’t talking to more than one individual at a time. I was talking to you, Scientist.

    Pat

  12. Comment by Scientist on February 9, 2011 7:41 am

    “Ah, so you admit it’s rude. Good to know”

    Since I imagine that you actually read the post to which you replied, I can simply confirm that, yes, I do believe that the way you spoke to bd was very rude.

    And vice versa, BD walking on my communication with you was. I did that to demonstrate a point.

    But….
    Not based on YOUR reasoning….. [down arrow] LOL

    As for conversing with more than one person at a time in an online forum… It’s called the “Internet”. It’s the same way when you’re talking in person with more than one individual at a time.

    Look, there’s a FAQ here and you violate it. It’s not my rules, it’s the blog owner’s. Louanne. I’m an independant Scientologist who comes in here hoping to answer some questions for you, but instead get your opinions. I am under no obligation to debate any of your opinions with you nor am I under any obligation to pay any attention to you whatsoever. Scientologists, who’ve received the data and apply it, know it works.

    There is nothing to prove beyond that. You aren’t being forced to believe anything. Scientology is not belief-based. That knowledge of does it work only comes in personal observation. It’s just simply not debatable at this point. You either used it and found out for yourself or you didn’t.

  13. Comment by Scientist on February 9, 2011 8:04 am

    “Yes…
    Many =/= all”

    Repost:
    “Dianetics and Scientology technologies are very exact and well-tested procedures that work in 100 percent of the cases in which they are applied standardly and as intended. Which is to say, the procedures must be applied in exact accord with L. Ron Hubbard’s direction as preserved in the Scientology scripture, which very much includes the moral and ethical standards by which the individual participating in auditing must abide.

    A further proviso is that the individual must participate on their own determinism.

    The Church makes no guarantee of results as auditing is something which requires the active participation of the individual. Auditing is not something done to an individual; it is something done in which the individual is the active participant.”

    http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-and-dianetics-auditing/does-auditing-really-work-in-all-cases.html

    Pat

  14. “I told you. I don’t debate. I gave you my links”

    Do you have your opinion and provided slightly relavant links… Where can we go from there? Our opinions are equally valid, and unless your willing to move to the realm of facts, I’m afraid that u really don’t understand what you’re wanting to do.

  15. Yes…
    Many =/= all

  16. Scientist,

    Look at what you just wrote. I rest my case…

    “Many leave the church, but choose to remain as a scientologist- and that’s great. But your claim in quotes above seems unsupported.”

    Pat

  17. “Ah, so you admit it’s rude. Good to know”

    Since I imagine that you actually read the post to which you replied, I can simply confirm that, yes, I do believe that the way you spoke to bd was very rude.

    As for conversing with more than one person at a time in an online forum… It’s called the “Internet”. It’s the same way when you’re talking in person with more than one individual at a time.

    All I’m saying is that if you’re going to force rules on someone, either start your own forum or follow the rules that you set for other people. Otherwise, it’s simply hypocritical.

  18. So, again, we never had a debate since you stayed in the realm of opinion and belief, never touching objective fact.

    I told you. I don’t debate. I gave you my links.

    Pat

  19. Comment by Scientist on February 8, 2011 8:40 pm

    “Pat, why would you be so rude to BD, insisting that he “repect that communication cycle” by not commenting on an exchange that you and I had (a rule you imposed), but then you comment on a conversation between me and he? Isn’t that a little bit hypocritical? I mean, at least, follow the rules that you set for others.”

    Ah, so you admit it’s rude. Good to know.

    Pat

  20. “I gave you the links, BD. You disagreed with them. Debate ended.”
    -pat

    I see a link to scientology’s website, a link to an anti-scientology website discussing criminon and a link to CCHR. Are these the links you’re talking about? There’s nothing there to agree or disagree with- they’re not related to any of the main points presented. Unless you’re still talking about “proving” that pendry was with Narconon instead of criminon, which is a fact that I happily accept. I just don’t see how it changes (or even addresses) the points brought up.

    What I was referring to was the fact that you, at one time, promised to provide evidence that criminon worked, if I could provide evidence that it didn’t. I provided my evidence, but for some reason you broke our comms cycle. I never could figure out why, unless I somehow offended you.

    So, again, we never had a debate since you stayed in the realm of opinion and belief, never touching objective fact.

  21. “Oh yes, absolutely. The earliest of Hubbard’s scientific and medical claims were made almost 60 years ago. If some of the more grandois claims were remotely true, then such a thing would have been noticed by now.”

    Pat, why would you be so rude to BD, insisting that he “repect that communication cycle” by not commenting on an exchange that you and I had (a rule you imposed), but then you comment on a conversation between me and he? Isn’t that a little bit hypocritical? I mean, at least, follow the rules that you set for others.

    Anyways, you say “Neither Dianetics and Scientology need to be proven.” That’s your opinion and, as such is unprovable. My opinion differs greatly from yours. But you seem to present yours opinions as fact- am I wrong about that? I merely point out that your standards apply equally well to other psuedosciences, such as voodoo, a fact that you have not refuted. FOr that matter, when attempts were made to turn the conversations into facts instead of comparing opinions, you refused to address them. Your -opinion- that “Neither Dianetics and Scientology need to be proven” is merely that- opinion.

    You also say, “Even the apostates don’t claim it doesn’t work”. Where do you get that data? Many leave the church, but choose to remain as a scientologist- and that’s great. But your claim in quotes above seems unsupported.

    Again, we’re at a stalemate if you only want to talk about subjectives beliefs. Me, I like facts.

  22. Comment by Bigdaddy on February 4, 2011 11:19 pm

    “Wowee!
    But isn’t that what you’ve already done to me multiple times, such as after you promised to provide proof as to the validity of criminon (some time ago)? Is that why you broke comms then?
    But, hey, just let me know when I can talk to you again. In the meantime, I’ll direct my conversations to scientist- I think he can manage it.
    Standing by for when you’re ready to talk to me, too.”

    I gave you the links, BD. You disagreed with them. Debate ended.

    Pat

  23. Comment by Scientist on February 5, 2011 11:18 am

    “Oh yes, absolutely. The earliest of Hubbard’s scientific and medical claims were made almost 60 years ago. If some of the more grandois claims were remotely true, then such a thing would have been noticed by now.”

    They are proven exactly as he says on the basis of personal observation of workability.

    They worked for me. You’ve hopefully seen vids of people talking about their own results, So it worked for them. That’s the only thing that counts since LRH has been very specific about personal integrity when it comes to his research. It doesn’t need to be proven for anyone.

    So, I say it again. Neither Dianetics and Scientology need to be proven.

    That’s not debatable unless you contend somehow that the technology didn’t work for me and every other Scientologist on the planet who personally experienced it. Even the apostates don’t claim it doesn’t work. LOL

    Your obsession with this is amusing. To know for yourself you only need to try it. LOL

    Pat

  24. “Scientist, do you think that the specific medical and scientific claims that had been made would have been definitively proven to be true by now, if they were so?”
     
    Oh yes, absolutely. The earliest of Hubbard’s scientific and medical claims were made almost 60 years ago. If some of the more grandois claims were remotely true, then such a thing would have been noticed by now.
     
    Now, of course, I’m not talking about his outright… mistruths… such as regarding his military record, phd or other assertations- most of the stories about his personal life HAD been held to scrutiny and found to be greatly exagerated, to say the least.
     
    But limited to his scientific and medical claims, yes, certainly, they would have come to light if accurate. And, of course, I’m not talking about the OTIII and above historical/medical claims, as this is a public forum.

  25. “between me and Scientist. If you can’t respect that communication cycle, BD, then I will hereafter cease any and all communication with you.”

    Wowee!
    But isn’t that what you’ve already done to me multiple times, such as after you promised to provide proof as to the validity of criminon (some time ago)? Is that why you broke comms then?
    But, hey, just let me know when I can talk to you again. In the meantime, I’ll direct my conversations to scientist- I think he can manage it.
    Standing by for when you’re ready to talk to me, too.

    Break

    Scientist, do you think that the specific medical and scientific claims that had been made would have been definitively proven to be true by now, if they were so?

  26. Now, Pat.
    BigDaddy helped with the comms (something you don’t welcome) because he actually understands what I”m saying. I don’t understand how you don’t, but your comments make it clear that, once again, you’ve gotten caught up in minor examples and missed the big picture. Or, in this case, even 1/4 of the big picture.
    BD sees that it doesn’t matter if it’s narconon or criminon- the point is the same. Unproven techniques financially benefiting scientology. In fact, I echo BD’s factual statements, which sum it all up neatly.
    Do you really need me to copypasta what he said for you to hear it?
    Now, you’re on the internet. If you want a private conversation, you can come over for coffee. If you can’t handle talking to more than one person at once (while never objecting when you and louanne shared the same viewpoint), then an online forum isn’t for you.
    BD didn’t presume- he understood. I don’t get how you don’t, but he clarified neatly for you.
    The hotel thing was an aside, but related to the fact that the tax dollars of private citizens are being used (or raised) to benefit scientology.
    So, multiple examples have been given of tax dollars benefiting scientology- it’s the concept. Can you address the concept? There’s plenty of other examples, but I get the feeling that I could list them all day. Until I can show you the difference between a concept and an example, I fear that we’re talking on two different levels.
    I would defer to BD’s factual statements, which better layout the overall concept.

  27. No, pat, bd is just able to understand what I’m saying. You can not. I’ll break it down for you later on.

  28. One last attempt here

    In reference to Scientists original comment on about Criminon using tax dollars, he brought up a business called Second Chance, which had no affiliation with Criminon, being a drug rehab program.

    He then repeated the mantra about tax dollars being used for it (Criminon) by throwing in a non-sequiter reference to Flag hotel bed taxes in Pinellas County, Florida. I won’t be going there since it’s irrelevant to getting at what he means by Scientology having to prove Criminon or Applied Scholastics or Narconon, since it’s supported by tax dollars.

    My question “what tax dollars?” is still unanswered, by Scientist. I want to know what HE meant not what anyone else presumes. Can he now say that it was an unfounded allegation or does he have some data that tax dollars support these programs? This is between me and Scientist. If you can’t respect that communication cycle, BD, then I will hereafter cease any and all communication with you.

    Pat

  29. This is the Scientology I refer to when I say it doesn’t need to be proven.

    “Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology is a religion that offers a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being.

    Scientology addresses the spirit—not the body or mind—and believes that Man is far more than a product of his environment, or his genes.

    Scientology comprises a body of knowledge which extends from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these are:

    Man is an immortal spiritual being.

    His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

    His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

    Scientology further holds Man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself, his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

    Scientology is not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to accept anything on faith alone. On the contrary, one discovers for oneself that the principles of Scientology are true by applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results. What is true for each person is only true if he / she personally observes it. These principles are things we DO not believe. ”

    http://www.scientology.org

    Pat

  30. Corrections to last:

    “another scientist” = “another scientologist”

    The end of that paragraph was asking if you will be accepting replies to your comments.

  31. Take all the time you need, pat, no one’s rushing you.
    I have to admit, though, that I’m a little bit confused as to your expectations. The last several comments are quite related to the topic; scientist’s are direct replies to your own comments, and answering all of your questions/assertstions. Mine was an attempt to make the conversation more productive by breaking down scientist’s 4 opinion statements into the raw facts that encompass them. However, if you would prefer to deal with the opinions, that’s fine- I’m actually quite eager to hear what you have to say about the others.
    I don’t really hold out too much hope that another scientist will start posting on those subjects other than those about which you’ve agreed to speak, but it would be a delight if so, and I truly hope for it. In the meantime, if you’d like to only talk about a certain subject, please let us know when you’re ready, and if replies

    Btw- this is very related to the subject at hand, as we’ve been talking about criminon. Some time ago, you said that you’d share information about the effectiveness of the program if I did so first. I did so. Perhaps, if you’re willing, you would be so kind as to address it to some degree as it relates to numbers 1-4?

    I look forward to your reply. Are you complete with 1 and moving onto 2, or is there more to discuss?

  32. I will not be addressing any further questions until those designated #1 – 4 are complete.

    If other Scientologists wish to help out with these other questions than the ones I agreed to address, that’s fine. Until then, you have me when I can find the time, specifically addressing Scientists questions. No others. Continued commenting tends to bury the original questions. If you wish, I can ignore them as I don’t have the time to slog through continuous commenting that’s off the point, as above. If you don’t like that, you can go elsewhere.

    Pat

  33. Comment by Scientist on February 3, 2011 11:52 am

    “It’s not true for you because you’ve never bothered learning any principles of it and personally applying it to see if it works. Am I wrong about that, Scientist?”
    Yes you are- that’s a fallacious chain. The correct term is a “non-sequiter”, or “it does not follow”.

    Alright, what were the principles that you applied to your life?

    Pat

  34. Pat,

    Most of us prefer to debate in facts, rather than opinions or belief. Relevant to this discussion, it is your opinion that Scientology should not have to prove it’s claims, aside from subjectively and inconsistently. And that’s fine- I value your opinion. However, the opinions expressed by scientist and me are equally valid as opinions, and I trust that you would extend to us the same courtesy. Essentially, our equally valid opinions are only true to us and common ground is not possible in those very different beliefs. We could try all day, but you’ll never adopt our belief that the claims should morally be held to independent scrutiny, and I, at least, will never come to believe that such matters should not be examined in such a way.

    So, perhaps we could tackle some pure facts? I believe the following to be verifiably true, but I would welcome your thoughts:

    1. At least one (as the number is irrelevant to the concept) claim has been made, upon which adherents or customers, depending on the claimant, have been obliged to pay funds in order to receive said benefit.
    2. Multiple specific medical or scientific claims have been made by Scientology
    3. Many of these claims would be able to be validated or disproven using existing independent resources or processes
    4. No such an attempt has been sanctioned or attempted by the church
    5. All research and validation currently accepted by the church is based on subjective experience in a non-controlled environment

    Am I in error on any point?

  35. “It’s not true for you because you’ve never bothered learning any principles of it and personally applying it to see if it works. Am I wrong about that, Scientist?”
    Yes you are- that’s a fallacious chain. The correct term is a “non-sequiter”, or “it does not follow”.
    You make three statements:
    1. It’s not true for you: that’s correct, it is not true for me.
    2. You’ve never bothered learning any of the priciples of it: that’s false. I’m rather familiar with the principles based on Hubbard’s writings and other supporting documentation, both released from the official sources (Hubbard’s writings, etc) and from those that have experienced it.
    3. personally applying it to see if it works: Correct, I have not personally applied it. I believe, however, that your belief is the only one that you would hold to that standard, and I say again that that’s not science as it’s practiced in this century. For example, you hold that the only “proof” required is to try it yourself. Would you hold that standard to psychiatry? drug usage? voodoo?

    “Because all the stats in the world aren’t going to prove that it isn’t true for those who’ve benefited”
    If that’s a reasonable standard, and renders actual independant validation unneccessary, then we’ve really opened up a can of worms.
    Perhaps psychic surgery or riekke is just as valid? I can’t see any stardard that you’ve set for scientology that wouldn’t give such other belief-based subjective systems the same credibility. And, as scientology’s techniques are not to be held to modern scientific standards, it will have only the same level of validation as such.

    “What tax dollars?”
    Did you not read what I wrote? New Mexico, for one.

    “He wasn’t. His position was in Narconon, which is drug rehab. Criminon is a criminal reform program.”
    For which did be pay licensing fees to scientology?

  36. “It’s not true for you because you’ve never bothered learning any principles of it and personally applying it to see if it works”

    Again, do you believe psychiatric care to be a workable solution? If not, have you learned and applied the priciples?
    I would hazard to add that most cchr adherents have not as well.
    One could argue, however, that the beliefs are based on hubbard’s word, as he did request psychiatric care and did try psychiatric medication*, so perhaps it’s felt to be okay to take his word for it, but that kind of undermines the subjective basis of the rest of Scientology.

    * we’ve had this conversation before, and someone may state that whole the drug found in his system is “technically” a psych drug, it was prescribed for allergies. That does not change the fact that, even at the time, the drug was classified as a psychiatric drug, generally perscribed for anxiety, and that there were far more effective anti-histamines at the time. Even if Hubbard was not able to overcome his allergies (which I would imagine an ot could do), the fact is that he tool psych drugs into his system.

  37. Comment by Pat on February 3, 2011 9:30 am

    I base my data on observed phenomenon and research of available data. I believe that my findings are accurate.
    Your opinion, as I stated, is that such things don’t need to be proven. My opinion differs from yours. You accept faith and personal belief, which is fine; but I point out that several of the stated claims could easily be proven or disproven by independent validation. It is a fact that scientology’s claims have not been subjected to any sort of modern scientific study.
    I point out, also, that your arguments, based entirely on personal experience, could easily be applied to validate psychiatry. What of those that have been helped through psychiatric care? By your standards, psychiatry is easily as valid based on subjective experiences, if nothing else.

  38. “What tax dollars?”

    Two questions can answer that:
    Has criminon been proven to be effective (that is, more effective than no program participation of any sort)?
    And, does not Scientology receive licensing fees from any approved criminon-based program?

  39. “Applied Scholastics is still #1”
    In what context?

  40. Comment by Scientist on January 30, 2011 9:11 am

    Applied Scholastics is still #1

    Pat

  41. “My whole point, pat, is that your opinion is that scientology doesn’t need to be proven. ”

    Exactly. It doesn’t. The proof is in the application and seeing if it works or not. Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. What is true is only true if you personally observe it to work. It’s true for me. It’s not true for you because you’ve never bothered learning any principles of it and personally applying it to see if it works. Am I wrong about that, Scientist?

    When you question any betterment activity like Narconon, or Criminon or Applied Scholastics, are you stating this from personal observation of Scientology and it’s workability as a practical application? Because all the stats in the world aren’t going to prove that it isn’t true for those who’ve benefited,

    Pat

  42. Comment by Scientist on January 30, 2011 9:00 am

    “Regardless, the unproven criminon techniques unarguably benefited from tax dollars.”

    What tax dollars?

    Pat

  43. Comment by Scientist on January 30, 2011 9:00 am

    “I see, you’re correct. I suppose that I had throught that with Mr. Pendery being a former criminon exectutive”

    He wasn’t. His position was in Narconon, which is drug rehab. Criminon is a criminal reform program.

    Pat

  44. Yes, exactly.
    The claims that could be proven and have not are beliefs. The claims that have been disproven (criminon stats, for one example) are lies.

  45. Pat, he’s saying that MORALLY Scientology should provide certain pieces of information. It is understood that it is not able (or willing) to do so.

  46. On a similar and related note, is it right that the local economy lost $1.5M a year in tax revenue because scientology wasn’t charging a “bed tax’ in its hotels?

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1140580.ece

    So, yes, as a taxpayer, I really do believe that when my taxes are used to fund something, or my taxes are raised to pick up the slack for such an organization, that certain answers should be expected. You may disagree, and I respect your opinion. However, I would hold any other organization to the same standards. If the Catholic Church were benefiting from a Catholic-based drug treatment center, I would consider it reasonable to expect it to… you know… work.

  47. Besides, for #1- you turned the example into the point. There’s more examples- Applied Scholastics in public schools, for one. The point is very simple, and evaded:

    Tax dollars benefit scientology through license fees and direct attempts (and I would be very surprised if DM didn’t know about criminon in NM), and I believe that for that reason, scientology should prove some of its claims. It would be very easy to do so, but I’m not too surprised that it hasn’t.

  48. I see, you’re correct. I suppose that I had throught that with Mr. Pendery being a former criminon exectutive and licensing the techniques from criminon, that it would be related. You seem to disagree, but, tomato, tomahtoe. Regardless, the unproven criminon techniques unarguably benefited from tax dollars. My point, still, is that in doing so, criminon techniques should have (morally speaking) been proven to be effective. You have already seen in a previoud thread that it is not. And yet, they still take people’s money and make certain claims, which are used to attract paying members. How is that not false advertising?

    My whole point, pat, is that your opinion is that scientology doesn’t need to be proven. Maybe to you, because I think that you know that it CAN’T be proven. It’s true for me that scientology owes proof for, at least, the four items that I listed.

    I maintain that the elements I listed, and many more, NEED to be proven, that that they can’t be.
    Feel free to work on #2 if you want, I’d be very interested in that one.

  49. Comment by Scientist on January 30, 2011 1:28 am

    Second Chance was not Criminon. It’s a privately owned company belonging to Rick Pendery, Scientologist. www(dot)rickpendery(dot)net/

    Interesting page here btw.
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=9220

    #1 is merely the first of your 4 different “prove its” that I wished to address.

    “My point is that if any program is using any tax dollars, then it owes accurate data as to its effectiveness.”

    And those are?

    What does this have to do with my saying that Scientology has nothing to prove?

    Pat

  50. Oh, perhaps you were trying to ask how criminon was actively seeking federal funds, rather than just being so spit-hot that people were lining up to take advantage of the program?

    In 2004, former chief district judge (former due to drunk driving and drug posession charged) W. John Brennan, was hired by the program to lobby NM judges to send inmates to the program.

    This, and my previous post, fully answers your question.

  51. “Scientist only on these #1 to #4. Keeps off topic and ad hominem to minimum or none (I hope). If that starts, discussion is over. Stay on the topic and not the person.”

    Excuse me? I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Please clarify this statement, as I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about ad hom, which is something that I didn’t do. These statements are very on topic. You say that such things don’t need to be proven, I say that they really should be, and easily could, if the specific claims were true.

    “Another part is How do you connect that with “Scientology does not need to be proven”?”

    Apparently #1 is the only one you have a beef with, so I’ll stick with that. My point is that if any program is using any tax dollars, then it owes accurate data as to its effectiveness. More in the next bullet:

    “Is Criminon trying to get tax dollars for its programs? Where did that data come from?”

    If you’re asking only about criminon (you are) and not the other ways that scientology benefits from non-member’s taxes (the difference between an example and the overall point- I see you’ve had this conversation before), then I’ll limit my answer to this and won’t talk about, say, narconon or the bed tax issue, etc. So, criminon:

    If one example is enough, how about securing $1.5 Million dollars in federal funds in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 2006, which was shut down in 2008 after an investigation by city officials? This also prompted the New Mexico evaluation of the program, which of course found that the Criminon program did not produce the stated results, nor did it offer the success rate claimed. (link available if you need it). The program, to the best of my knowledge, never did pay the $672k in unpaid taxes- the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill.

  52. Scientist only on these #1 to #4. Keeps off topic and ad hominem to minimum or none (I hope). If that starts, discussion is over. Stay on the topic and not the person.

    Pat

  53. On #1,

    Another part is How do you connect that with “Scientology does not need to be proven”?

    Pat

  54. Comment by Scientist on January 28, 2011 7:22 pm

    Let’s take these up one at a time then. We’ll call this #1

    “When it’s trying to get tax dollars for their programs (especially the questionable results from criminon), it needs to be proven.”

    Is Criminon trying to get tax dollars for its programs? Where did that data come from?

    Pat

  55. “Scientology doesn’t need to be proven to anyone.”

    I respectfully but vehemently disagree.
    When it’s trying to get tax dollars for their programs (especially the questionable results from criminon), it needs to be proven.
    When its making claims which are used to attract paying members (benefits, membership stats), it needs to be proven
    When it is slandering an entire profession and harming its practitioners, it needs to be proven.
    When its based on supposed science, but members aren’t able to see for themselves whether it’s true or not without paying money up front (unless auditing and the book alone is enough, and the courses aren’t necessary), it needs to be proven.
    NEEDING to be proven and UNABLE to be are two very different things.

  56. Actually, pat, I do happen to like you. Disagreeing with a person doesn’t always mean you dislike them. Heck, my best friend is an actual satanist. We disagree all the time.
    Are you taking these conversations personally?

  57. My purpose in life is not getting you to like me or approve of me. If I don’t get back to you, don’t worry. Its probably because I don’t need your approval nor care whether you like me or not. I have nothing to prove. Scientology doesn’t need to be proven to anyone.

    Pat

  58. Yes, that’s what I was thinking of. I recall seing that claim before. It’s amazing how many psychiatrists are pushing for reform, yet they’re still the “bad guys”.

  59. I think, scientist, that you’re thinking of COL JR Rees and the written summary of his speech from 50 years ago regarding his personal views on the role of psychiatry in fighting the then-current world war 2. That quote that you’ve surely heard is only a small portion of the speech and is stripped from all context.

    Sane thing as those scientologists that claim that the church “killed” the Alaska mental health bill in the 50s (which actually passed); just using snippets of information in order to slander people that had nothing to do with it.

    Are some psychiatrists evil? Sure, so are some cops, teachers, priests and even scientologists. I ask you, pat, is there any other group that you regard in the same manner?

  60. Pat,
    Is that any more scandalous than hubbard’s statements about infiltrating government? Or, of course, hubbard’s wife’s efforts to do so? Or Scientology affiliates failing to disclose their affiliations when trying to work in schools? Or criminon failing to disclose their Scientology ties and being criticized by local governments?

    It’s funny, but… Murder, fraud, lack of scientific validity… Many of scientology’s claims about psychiatry can be easily demonstrated as being within the church…

    Just an observation.

  61. On the aside, I can’t view the link, but I’ve heard such a claim from Scientology before. Could you please remind me of the man’s name and the date he said what was quoted? It sounds like you’re saying that’s what you want to talk about now, and I would be happy to, if you can clarify that point.

  62. A button? Sure. I rail against any organized hate group, just as if you were quoting the kkk or rfw.

    I’m confused, at one time you complained because I made a claim without adding the background information. But if I make a statement and explain it, you call it a rant. Should I back up my statements or not?

  63. Hit a button, did I?

    Posted a link to some Psychiatrists exposed describing intent to infiltrate government, schools and religion with intent to take over, and got a rant. LOL

    Pat

  64. I would suppose that it would be in poor taste for me to make a claim (“CCHR is a hate group”) without being willing to back it up. If I may:

    A “hate group” is defined as “an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society”

    CCHR is an “organized group”, with employees and a defined charter
    Hostility is aggression, ill-will, hate, etc, and is often used to describe military action
    Psychiatrists are a “designated member of society”.

    So, we may plug in those terms and see if it fits:
    “CCHR advocates hostility towards psychiatrists”. That fits.

    Furthermore, psychiatrists are targeted solely based on their profession, with no regard to their individual thoughts, feelings and basic human needs. It’s not uncommon to see CCHR advocates bragging about putting x number of “psychs” out of business! These are real people, with real families, that are hurt because of the actions of CCHR.

    In other words, CCHR targets individuals, attempting to destroy their way of life and disrupt their work without regard to the individual.

    This, of course, is a reflection on the beliefs and statements of the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. Before founding Scientology, Mr. Hubbard was quite friendly with the profession, claiming even to have studied under Sigmund Freud, the Father of Psychoanalysis. On October 15, 1947, he even requested psychiatric help through the VA hospital, writing:

    “My last physician informed me that it might be very helpful if I were to be examined and perhaps treated psychiatrically or even by a psycho-analyst. Toward the end of my service I avoided out of pride any mental examinations, hoping that time would balance a mind which I had every reason to suppose was seriously affected. I cannot account for nor rise above long periods of moroseness and suicidal inclinations, and have newly come to realize that I must first triumph above this before I can hope to rehabilitate myself at all.”

    However, his attitude changed after the psychiatric field soundly rejected Dianetics.
    After this point, he began writing very angry things about the field, such as:

    “I would say that the control philosophies called psychiatry, psychology, and sociology were a failure. Probably the biggest failure of the last two centuries. Isn’t it time we got rid of them?” LRH 15 June 1969, quoted in CCHR mailer signed by Cuch Figueroa

    “There’s only one remedy for crime – get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!” [HCOB of 6 May 1982, “The Cause of Crime”]

    “Psychs… destroyed every great civilization to date and are hard at work on this one. [HCOB 26 Aug. 1982 “Pain and Sex”]

    CCHR, today, continues to blame the holocaust and 9/11 on the influence of psychiatrists! This is a flaw in the belief of cause and effect- that somehow, the entire industry is causing certain events, rather than local individuals reflecting the societal standards, and a gross ignorance of history and politics.

    That being said, I would agree that the psychiatric field needs reform and advancement, much as did the medical field if the dark ages (leeches, anyone?). What’s more, many prominent psychiatrists also push for reform and responsible action, which even the CCHR website concedes. I would wonder how, if the industry is evil and worth of destruction, even the practitioners are advocates for responsible behavior?

    But CCHR doesn’t seem to be content with reform or advancement. Tom Cruise summed it up best when he said “I think psychiatry should be outlawed.” Also from the group:

    “Be part of the team that is taking out psychiatry!” [CCHR mailer Dec. 7, 1993, signed Don Gershbock]

    “Get rid of the psychs! That is just what CCHR is doing.” [CCHR mailer “Stop Psych Experiments on schoolchildren!” copyright 1997]

    I’m not going to go into the story of psychiatry, according to Hubbard, so as not to offend, but CCHR is clearly a group dedicated to destroying the lives of individuals- guilty of crimes or not.

  65. Re: cchr

    Pat, you don’t actually support that hate group, I hope? I mean, I hold you in high respect, and I would be sad to lose that.

  66. Pat,
    What is that in reference to?

  67. From the horse’s mouth so to speak

    http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatry-an-industry-of-death/psychiatry-hidden-influence.html

    Pat

  68. Louanne; “2005 was when the site actually became a professional representation of what YHRI is and does. Before that it was a bunch of enthusiastic boys and girls (like me) that operated from home and were oblivious of the “controversy”.”

    did the corporate entity itself found the yhri, or did they not?

  69. ^^^Correction…doesn’t look like he actually got any services. But regardless the man found out Hollanders was affiliated with the “church” of Scientology. MUD!

  70. This is very common amongst Scientology related groups because they know Scientology’s name is mud.
    A perfect example is the company Holland Consultants. They changed their name because a customer was extremely unhappy with the services he got and posted it on line. So the first thing that came up with an internet search was this customers letter about Hollander Consultants.
    Easy fix, let’s change our name. Let’s call ourselves “Silkin Management”.

    http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/letter-to-hollander-consultants.htm

    BAM!!

  71. “Comment by bigdaddy on May 17, 2010 9:11 pm
    Or, you could use archive.org and see for yourself, just like you recommended people do. Problem is, you told folks to start from 2005, possibly knowing full well that 2002 (the actual start of the site) would prove you wrong.Can you do that?”

    2005 was when the site actually became a professional representation of what YHRI is and does. Before that it was a bunch of enthusiastic boys and girls (like me) that operated from home and were oblivious of the “controversy”. The church helped sponsor the material from the beginning and everyone, the schools, youth clubs and any other group was happy about that, and knew who we were and liked it. And still does. YHRI is an institution now, a charity that is fully tax exempt and raises millions of dollars of donations every year for the cause of spreading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and human rights education.

    – L

  72. Actually, pat (if you’re sticking around this time), you might note that your question is ironic. I first brought up the concept as related to a specific website. Louanne responded regarding the same specific website. I made a counterpoint about the very same website. Louanne then brings up booklets, rather than continue discussing the same website we were talking about. But you target me in your post? If I didn’t know better, I’d say you have something against me :)

  73. Pat… maybe the response would be best in the form of a limerick.

    There once was a lady named Pat…
    Who found herself now up to bat.
    But when she was asked,
    (a quite simple task)
    her tongue was found to be the cats!

    Does that make sense to you, pat?
    If you had bothered to read the full thread, you wouldn’t have asked the question.

  74. I have to wonder why you refer to a web site when Louanne said “booklets”. The fact of the matter is — the data has been there all along.

    Pat

  75. Here, I’ll make it super easy for you:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020528165234/http://youthforhumanrights.org/

  76. Or, you could use archive.org and see for yourself, just like you recommended people do. Problem is, you told folks to start from 2005, possibly knowing full well that 2002 (the actual start of the site) would prove you wrong.
    Can you do that?

    “It is general bullshit, dreamed up and targeted to stir up hate against Scientology members”

    your tin foil hat’s a little tight. You sound crazy. Not saying you are, of course, but you sound very paranoid. The scrutiny IS working, you can see that. And it’s not coming from inside- the outside pressure is fixing things.

  77. ” Comment by Bigdaddy on May 17, 2010 3:30 pm
    Are you being serious?”

    Absolutely. I have been with YHRI for years and for sure in 2002. From the first issue on the UDHR booklets said “sponsored by the Church of Scientology”.

    This controversy is artificial and made up from scratch. Or should I say this criticism is invented?

    – L

  78. “Comment by Bigdaddy on May 17, 2010 4:03 pm”

    Wow, quite a long speech. While I partially agree – about the need for scrutiny – we won’t find common ground for your claim criticism of the current flavor has any justification at all. It doesn’t. It is general bullshit, dreamed up and targeted to stir up hate against Scientology members. It is intimidation this “criticism” is after not “reform”.

    – L

  79. What’s funny is that Anonymous, in the way Louanne uses the term, is completely at cause over the CoS. The critics keep digging, keep finding things to force into the light, and the CoS can only react, and, in many cases, publically change them. You see, Louanne, the Critics don’t want to destroy or bring anything down, they want to effect change for the better. They want to see people safer and better cared for. I generalize, of course, but that’s true in most cases- look at the assistance offered in Iran and all of the lives saved. The VM’s will go to a place where people have died… the Anons are there to keep them alive in the first place, whenever possible.
    But, I digress.
    Point remains that the anons will continue to press for reform- not destruction. And they are seeing it happen, remaining at cause.
    Look at scientology affiliations. In 2002, as I pointed out, YFHRI had a website that had no mention of scientology. Also, several schools did the same. And there was the New Mexico / Narconon issue, but under a harsh spotlight, scientology is being forced to change their ways, and the critics are happy to be a part of that.
    Granted, of course, the Cult Awareness Network was bought by CoS attourney Steven Hayes, and has since then spoken highly of scientology while still pretending to be neutral, but again I digress, and would be the first to point out that they really do try, as a group, to leave their scientology-ness out of it.
    Point being, the critics are a good thing, Louanne. You would agree, I’m sure, that when you say that the affiliations are “now is what (you) would call “upfront””, that it’s a good thing that they are doing so. It’s a positive thing. Wouldn’t you agree?

  80. Are you being serious?

  81. For example, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Narconon had bypassed District Offices in order to pursue the schools directly, prompting Lee Saltz, a drug counselor with the Los Angeles school district, to note, “We don’t use their curriculum because it’s not grounded in science. But they bypass our office and go directly to the schools. They’re very persistent.”

    Further, according to the Chronicle, material presented under the name of Narconon, includes “all the Scientology and Dianetics Handbook basics,” while purging most “church parlance”. Weighted on its own, the material presented was described as “irresponsible” and “pseudoscience.”

    Another examples are the Delphi Academies, which outright deny any affiliation with scientology, claiming only to base their education on the works of “American Philosopher Mr. L. Ron Hubbard”. However, what is not mentioned, is that Bridge Publications is the sole source of this material, and Miscavige, through the RTC, is the copyright holder, thus the content and usage controller. Furthermore, the teachers are trained using the Applied Scholastics’ Basic Study Manual, also owned by the CoS. In fact, The Study Technology is licensed through the Scientology related group Applied Scholastics, so its very use, and the associated tuition fees, directly benefit Scientology.

    To whit: The form 990 filings for the Florida Delphi Academy- just one of seven nationwide- reports nearly $100,000 in licensing fees, paid directly to Applied Scholastics (which as you point out, is financially tied to scientology), bringing in almost a Million dollars since its inception. Across all seven sites, this represents Millions of dollars in licensing fees alone. In fact, 2007’s licensing fees of $74,000 serviced just 130 students at that site, at a cost of over $500 in licensing per student. Perhaps more direct than the financial tie, is the leadership. Founding President Sandra Adair? 18 year Scientologist. Founding Vice President Nancy Calkins? 20 year Scientologist. Current President Colin Taufer? 19 Year Scientologist. Current Vice President Belinda Young? 19 Year Scientologist. Secretary Bettina Pope? 21 Year Scientologist. Treasurer Beth Voss? 20 Year Scientologist. In fact, ALL of the current and former officers listed on their IRS form 990 are current scientologists. So, this program claims to be completely secular (as claimed in Education Week, September 17, 1997, p. 1), it just pays licensing fees to a religious entity, and uses their methods based on their beliefs (referring to Hubbard’s beliefs underlying study tech) and fill their office and leadership staff entirely with Scientologists. Right.

    Now, despite the fact that the Hubbard “Study Tech” has been widely discredited as a teaching method….

    (Johanna Lemlech, professor of education at USC specializing in curriculum and teaching, ” [The books are] awful [and] violate everything we know about how children learn, and appropriate pedagogy. In short, these books should be carefully placed in the cylindrical file.”)

    (Sidnie Myrick, who leads a UCLA research group on early literacy, teaches a master’s course in reading at Cal State L.A., teaches a class of first, second and third graders at Thomas Edison Elementary School in Glendale and was Glendale’s 1993 Teacher of the Year: “In fact, in many cases the student won’t get the meaning until the material is presented in a completely different way. [The illustrations are] cutesy and condescending, and the explanations stilted and manufactured and study technology, all in all, woefully inadequate.”]

    (Harvard University literacy professor Victoria Purcell-Gates: “There isn’t anything new. It’s also sort of sketchy. What we know about teaching comprehension skills and study skills is a little more complex. Basically, there is nothing new in this text that is not known by reading/study specialists at a very basic level. The only thing really `different’ is that Mr. Hubbard has renamed basic concepts to fit into his overall scheme of things.”)

    (and many more quotes, statements and articles)

    …It remains true that people have a right to make their own choices. However, deceiving people, who will make those choices on behalf of their children, is not the right way to do it.

    To further illustrate the point- all of the key books, Learning How to Learn, How to Use a Dictionary, Grammar and Communication, Study Skills for Life, and Basic Study Manual, tied to the “study tech”, and referenced in literature handed out to schools, without parental involvement or notice, are all standard works listed in the Church of Scientology’s catalogue. Furthermore, one of the stated goals of Applied Schoolastics is to “create overwhelming public popularity for Hubbard” (Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1990, p. A18), which is certainly not a secular aim, nor removed from Scientology. All this promted the ACLU to state that they have “some fairly serious questions about the constitutionality and, from a public-policy standpoint, the propriety of using these materials in public schools. It seems like the books go out of their way to use terms that have a technical definition within their religion”.

    We’ve all seen the news- the police officers that were reprimanded for distributing scientology literature into schools while in uniform, teachers suspended for doing the same, programs trying to integrate into schools and government programs. Is this the right way to do business?

  82. What about the 2002 version, shown at archive.org, which makes no mention of Scientology?
    But, that’s not my beef, I already made mention of my points. Why should a goveremt or school official have to research for affiliations, rather than being told up front?

    • “Why should a goveremt or school official have to research for affiliations, rather than being told up front?”

      I would think that they are obliged to do this (as officials). But they don’t have to, because the sponsorship of those various groups by the Church of Scientology has always been transparent and now is what I would call “upfront”.

      – L

  83. “Comment by Bigdaddy on May 9, 2010 10:22 pm
    Question: true or false, yfhri did NOT disclose their affiliations with the cos when it first launched its website”

    False.

    Actually the first version of the website some time around 2005 had a lot of praises for the support of the Church of Scientology. You’ll find that in archive.org.

    – L

  84. “Comment by Anon on May 9, 2010 7:07 pm
    The church supports them and they support the church by paying licensing fees for LRH material to the RTC.”

    ORLY? Where did you get this information?

    – L

  85. Question: true or false, yfhri did NOT disclose their affiliations with the cos when it first launched its website

  86. Pat, will you be staying for a discussion, or will you disappear and ignore all replies, as you generally do?

  87. The church supports them and they support the church by paying licensing fees for LRH material to the RTC.

  88. Grahame, it doesn’t look like he did since the organizations clearly state their connection (“association”) to Scientology and / or LRH, and the fact that the Church supports them. I don’t know where people get these weird ideas that we would hide the fact that we are out front. We want it known and it’s all over our web sites. Available for those who will actually look for themselves.

    Pat

  89. Grahame, if you’re referring to my comment… Dud you even read it?

  90. To say any of these groups don’t disclose their association with Scientology or tries to hide it is ridiculous. Just go to their sites and you’ll find some mention of Scientology, the Church or use of L. Ron Hubbard’s name. You’d have to be really thick to not see the connection.

  91. What lovely production values. I would be very eager to hear where they got their information.

    It’s barking up the wrong tree- if those groups were ALL that the cos did, that would bs swell. The critici lies with the actions of the corporation itself, as well as the activities of the associated groups in which their Scientology overtones are not disclosed. For example, tring to get involved in schools or criminal Programs without fully disclosing their associations. All other religions are held to the same standard, why should the Cos be any different?

  92. Why did yhri list it’s affiliation with the cos for it’s first few months of existence?


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • 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