"One of the most remarkable legal hearings in Scientology's history" set to begin

[AlwaysShocked]

Well, I've recently been doing some in-depth study of the Aztecs. And they had a sophisticated culture with an established religion. Which included lots and lots of live sacrifices to their "Gods".

The Christian Spaniards were apalled at the bloody sacrificial ceremonies. So they just went ahead and killed those Aztecs. And actually, the Aztecs were quite friendly and welcoming to the Spaniards.

To me, all organized religion is a bunch of BS. IMO

But I do think Joe Smith and his looking into his hat to come up with divine prophesy (yep, that's how he did it) and the current practice of gaining new converts by baptising (by proxy, of course) long dead strangers into the Mormon church is just a hoot.

The Scientologists? I think some of the current leaders are dangerous people.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Do you know this from personal experience?

I ask because the same thing used to be said of Rev. Moon's Unification Church: "they act like a regular church until they get you hooked." Yet when I went to their outreach center, one of the first activities was a lecture with all of Moon's convoluted theology diagrammed on a blackboard. They weren't hiding one bit of the nonsense.

And while we're on the subject, I know what "clear" means in Scientology and, obviously, it takes an act of faith to believe in it. But the same may be said for the Christian "state of grace." I don't think there's any scientific evidence that brainwashing is involved, just the usual social pressures, including the big one that after you've spent a certain amount of money, it gets harder and harder to admit you've been fooled. (But that can be said of any religion.)

My brother is a Scientologist. You and I have been involved in Scientology discussions in the past. I agree with you re: what I have bolded above

 

[legalmania]

What I was told is LRH started out as a science fiction writer. He had to live on a sail boat because he was wanted in several countries for fraud.


http://www.nolanchart.com/article4776-scientologys-hubbard-convicted-of-fraud-in-france-1978.html

Hubbard never served his prison sentence because he was essentially on the run from the law, sailing in the Caribbean on his yacht Apollo, trying to avoid not only French authorities but the US authorities as well. In 1978, the US Federal Government was preparing for the trial of Hubbard's wife Mary Sue, and numerous other Scientology officials, Hubbard, along with Scientology super-lawyer Kendrick Moxon, were named as "unindicted co-conspirators" in that case.2 This means the federal prosecutors were very sure they were involved, but couldn't quite generate the evidence for a sure conviction. Mary Sue and the others ended up serving several years in federal prison. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service had evidence that Hubbard was taking millions of dollars "off the top" of Scientology profits, and hiding it in overseas banks.3

The link below is about his life.

http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-founder/who-was-lronhubbard.html

 

[Nova]

But again, by comparing scientology to a religion you give them credence they do not deserve....

But, Jack, that is your point of view and I understand you have reasons for believing what you do. To devoted Scientologists, however, things probably look rather different. And to those of us on the outside, pots and kettles are both black.

And I can't believe that you, as a Roman Catholic, are telling me a religious organization is illegitimate because some of its officials have committed crimes. You can't be arguing that with a straight face, not after everything we've learned over the past decade or two.

But as for your argument that Jesus has the same value whether he was an historical person or whether he is a metaphorical role model, that isn't simplistic at all. It is very sophisticated and very wise, if you ask me. I couldn't agree more: I don't know whether Jesus really existed in the historical sense, but as he is portrayed in the NT, he is a wonderful model for us all.

My point about founders is that while we can point to the founders of the Church of LDS, Scientology, the Unification Church, etc., and their human failings, we lack the same degree of detail about the founders of older religions. If the New York Times had been around to do in-depth profiles of the Nazarene or the Buddha or Mohammad, maybe we would see them very differently.

Or to put it another way, I am just as cynical about L. Ron Hubbard's motives as you are. But I am reluctant to paint his followers with the same cynicism. And I recognize that more established religions offer no basis for comparison; they have an advantage in that their origins are shrouded in the mystery of antiquity. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't founded just as cynically.

 

[Nova]

My brother is a Scientologist. You and I have been involved in Scientology discussions in the past. I agree with you re: what I have bolded above

I'm so sorry, OneLostGrl. I remember now that you've reminded me, but I'm really bad with internet hats (and no faces with which to associate them). The familiar ones sort of run together in my mind.

Thanks again for the reminder. Of course, I remember your account of your brother and the resulting heartache for you and your family.

And as always I appreciate your even-handed descriptions of Scientology, when no one would blame you for being biased against it.

***

As for the wild (to me) theology of Scientology, we should all recognize that much of what we believe to be rational actually comes from simple repetition by those around us. I'm often shocked at some of the things certain Christians believe, taken from passages chosen seemingly at random from the Bible. But I remember when some of the same things seemed reasonable to me because I was in a community where everyone accepted them as gospel (pun intended). We see the same process at both ends of the political spectrum.

No doubt something of the kind happens to Scientologists after awhile as well.

 

[Nova]

What I was told is LRH started out as a science fiction writer. He had to live on a sail boat because he was wanted in several countries for fraud.


http://www.nolanchart.com/article4776-scientologys-hubbard-convicted-of-fraud-in-france-1978.html

Hubbard never served his prison sentence because he was essentially on the run from the law, sailing in the Caribbean on his yacht Apollo, trying to avoid not only French authorities but the US authorities as well. In 1978, the US Federal Government was preparing for the trial of Hubbard's wife Mary Sue, and numerous other Scientology officials, Hubbard, along with Scientology super-lawyer Kendrick Moxon, were named as "unindicted co-conspirators" in that case.2 This means the federal prosecutors were very sure they were involved, but couldn't quite generate the evidence for a sure conviction. Mary Sue and the others ended up serving several years in federal prison. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service had evidence that Hubbard was taking millions of dollars "off the top" of Scientology profits, and hiding it in overseas banks....

That's all true as far as I know, legalmania. Even more damning, about a year before he founded Scientology, Hubbard was congratulated on the success of his book, Dianetics. Reportedly he replied something to the effect that if someone really wanted to get rich, he would found a religion and make use of its tax-free status. Before long, Dianetics had become the foundation for Hubbard's supposed "religious vision".

But the problem remains that outsiders can look to any religion and say, "Doesn't the church take in a lot of tax-free money? And look how it pressures its members to give even more." Unless we abolish freedom of religion in this country or at least abolish the tax-free status of non-profits, how would we ever establish fair criteria for establishing which religions are genuine?

Certainly individuals who commit crimes should be prosecuted. And courts have ruled that "freedom of religion" doesn't exempt believers from following the law in most cases. But if we declare illegitimate every religion whose members commit crimes, then we have to abolish the Catholic church, the Baptist church, etc. and so forth: pretty much every religion.

 

[wfgodot]

Interesting case overview from S.A. Current, San Antonio's free weekly - "a quick primer for those just starting down the Scientology rabbit hole":

SA Scientology spat may rope Cruise's best man

---
Asked in court if she signed the agreement under duress, she gave this chilling response: "I would have signed 'I stabbed babies' over and over again and loved it. I would have done anything at that point."
---

more at link above

 

[wfgodot]

Church of Scientology drops Bexar suit against ex-member (S.A. Express-News)

 

[legalmania]

That's all true as far as I know, legalmania. Even more damning, about a year before he founded Scientology, Hubbard was congratulated on the success of his book, Dianetics. Reportedly he replied something to the effect that if someone really wanted to get rich, he would found a religion and make use of its tax-free status. Before long, Dianetics had become the foundation for Hubbard's supposed "religious vision".

But the problem remains that outsiders can look to any religion and say, "Doesn't the church take in a lot of tax-free money? And look how it pressures its members to give even more." Unless we abolish freedom of religion in this country or at least abolish the tax-free status of non-profits, how would we ever establish fair criteria for establishing which religions are genuine?

Certainly individuals who commit crimes should be prosecuted. And courts have ruled that "freedom of religion" doesn't exempt believers from following the law in most cases. But if we declare illegitimate every religion whose members commit crimes, then we have to abolish the Catholic church, the Baptist church, etc. and so forth: pretty much every religion.

First of all the question remains is Scientology a religion? The concept behind Scientology was the power of the mind. Hubbard used the phrase Church of Scientology for tax purposes. I don't have a problem with the message, but have a hugh problem with the messenger.

 

[2goldfish]

And by the same standards, Joseph Smith was a con man who made up a crazy story about a salamander and tablets of gold.

But at least we KNOW who started Scientology and the Church of LDS. We can't say the same for Christianity; we don't even know who wrote the original gospel (which no longer exists) or any of the four gospels that now comprise the New Testament. But we are fairly certain that none of the existing gospels were written by people who knew Jesus (assuming Jesus actually existed, which is a whole other area of debate).

At least Scientologists know who their founder was. So do the Mormons.

disclaimer: I am an atheist or at best (worst?) agnostic so ...

bbm


while I was reading through this thread my 17yo and I were talking about the differences between the general public's acceptance of established religions vs their acceptance of something like scientology and I think that the fact that we "knew" l. ron hubbard, we can critique his mental health and his reasons for doing things, his science fiction writing, etc, it's easy to see scientology as obviously false whereas it's harder for people to do with other world religions where the beginning is far more obscured...and who is to say than in 1000 years time, the Big Three wont be dead and Scientology reigning supreme? that distance gives them the illusion (IMO of course) of permanence or reality....when you can look back and pick it apart from much closer, it becomes very difficult to keep it moving....


...the fact that the Big Three etc indoctrinate (is that a word, apologies if I am making stuff up again) from early childhood also adds to their staying power as it becomes very hard to go against your social group let alone your family group. that's been done far longer than the scientologists (and the mormons) have been able to do.

 

[Nova]

goldfish, I agree with your argument, but which are the "Big Three"?

Christianity, Islam, Judaism--if we are talking about "Western" religions.

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism--if we are talking sheer numbers, no?

 

[Nova]

First of all the question remains is Scientology a religion? The concept behind Scientology was the power of the mind. Hubbard used the phrase Church of Scientology for tax purposes. I don't have a problem with the message, but have a hugh problem with the messenger.

Oh, so do I. But Moses, Paul, Mohammad... None of them were exactly sweethearts either. And we only know what their fans said about them!

 

[tlcya]

As a Lutheran, I hereby declare my beliefs open for mocking, lol.

as a reformed Baptist turned Lutheran turned Wiccan same here.

 

[wfgodot]

As the great G.K. Chesterton wrote,

It is the test of a good religion whether you can make a joke about it.

Chesterton, a dedicated Roman Catholic, also wrote,

The only good argument against Christianity is Christians.

http://www.scabc.org/Chestertonaphorisms/Chestertonaphorisms.pdf

 

[Nova]

As the great G.K. Chesterton wrote,

Chesterton, a dedicated Roman Catholic, also wrote,

http://www.scabc.org/Chestertonaphorisms/Chestertonaphorisms.pdf

I'm not a big fan of the Roman Church as a bureaucratic organization.

But there's no question that it has provided a home and inspiration for a wide range of thought and humor over the centuries.

 

[2goldfish]

goldfish, I agree with your argument, but which are the "Big Three"?

Christianity, Islam, Judaism--if we are talking about "Western" religions.

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism--if we are talking sheer numbers, no?

you are correct :blowkiss: I meant the second - once you mention judaism I must have meant the Big Four!

 

[Nova]

you are correct :blowkiss: I meant the second - once you mention judaism I must have meant the Big Four!

No problem. I wasn't trying to be a wise , I was just interested in what you were saying. Thanks.

This is the point I wholeheartedly applaud:

...the fact that the Big Three etc indoctrinate (is that a word, apologies if I am making stuff up again) from early childhood also adds to their staying power as it becomes very hard to go against your social group let alone your family group. that's been done far longer than the scientologists (and the mormons) have been able to do.

"Indoctrinate" is not only "a" word, it is precisely "the" word in this context.

But I must admit I have mixed feelings about my own indoctrination into a Protestant evangelist sect. On the one hand, it caused my gay soul a lot of pain during my adolescence; on the other hand, I got a lot of good out of being raised in a "community of the spirit".

My kids are atheists and my daughter is married to an atheist; they are raising the grandkids without any religious teaching. Maybe I'm just being sentimental (because I don't for a moment believe God punishes non-believers, and my daughter and her husband are fine, decent people without religious morality to guide them), but I confess it makes me a little sad for the grandkids. (To be fair to my daughter and son-in-law, they wouldn't stop me from sharing my own religious beliefs with the kids, as long as I did so politely, but a lecture from me isn't really what I'm talking about.)

 

[2goldfish]

No problem. I wasn't trying to be a wise , I was just interested in what you were saying. Thanks.

This is the point I wholeheartedly applaud:



"Indoctrinate" is not only "a" word, it is precisely "the" word in this context.

But I must admit I have mixed feelings about my own indoctrination into a Protestant evangelist sect. On the one hand, it caused my gay soul a lot of pain during my adolescence; on the other hand, I got a lot of good out of being raised in a "community of the spirit".

My kids are atheists and my daughter is married to an atheist; they are raising the grandkids without any religious teaching. Maybe I'm just being sentimental (because I don't for a moment believe God punishes non-believers, and my daughter and her husband are fine, decent people without religious morality to guide them), but I confess it makes me a little sad for the grandkids. (To be fair to my daughter and son-in-law, they wouldn't stop me from sharing my own religious beliefs with the kids, as long as I did so politely, but a lecture from me isn't really what I'm talking about.)

I knew you werent being a wiseass ... I felt silly because I should have thought of it myself!

about your mixed feelings...I dont think that's unusual, there are very few things in this world all bad or all good..that sense of community is probably the best thing about organised religion (although I personally think strong faith in general is a necessary thing, some have a hard time having faith in themselves for example and find it easier to have faith in a higher power) but as you probably know, that sense of community also makes it much harder to think freely.

 

[Nova]

I knew you werent being a wiseass ... I felt silly because I should have thought of it myself!

about your mixed feelings...I dont think that's unusual, there are very few things in this world all bad or all good..that sense of community is probably the best thing about organised religion (although I personally think strong faith in general is a necessary thing, some have a hard time having faith in themselves for example and find it easier to have faith in a higher power) but as you probably know, that sense of community also makes it much harder to think freely.

True. Though I must say that my very conservative and devout parents not only read all sorts of conflicting religious writings, they encouraged us to do the same and to discuss our views and doubts openly. (Maybe they were sorry later when I left the church entirely; I didn't ask.)

And because our church had a lot of members who grew up in other denominations or faiths (I grew up in a rapidly growing, fairly cosmopolitan area), they really soft-pedaled the everybody-else-is-going-to-hell stuff.

It is possible to have faith without condemning everyone with a different view. The God in whom I believe doesn't punish people for having doubts or asking questions; He doesn't even punish people for not believing at all. S/He simply isn't that petty.

 

[wfgodot]

Here's the Voice's article with updates on the recent doings; as VV has covered Scientology quite extensively over the years, I should have looked for and posted this earlier, sorry, all apologies, "old age settling in," etc. etc.

Scientology settles with Debbie Cook

Interesting stuff.