Scientology and Xenu

[ironduck]

I heard of a case of a LA Scientologist manager who diverted CoS funds to a sham bank that lent money to clients so they could afford courses, thus upping his recruitment statistics. I'd be very surprised if that was the only incident of its kind.

I guess Miscavige must be slacking off then! - but it sounds like this person wasn't actually stealing money for his direct personal enrichment, but rather for status within scientology (better stats).. maybe part of the power game to rise to the top chain of command?

I haven't followed the going-ons in scientology for years. Just wanted to raise the red flag since it was brought up.

 

[FredLC]

I find it outrageous to see people beating scientology like this.

It's a believe, and some people are quite sincere about it.

Do I find it outrageous in the claims and silly on the doctrine? Yep, I do, pretty much like i find any other religion. Still, it deserves the very same respect that other religions does.

This means I can criticize their claims, but not that I can paint them as a criminal pyramid scheme with criminal behaviour.

People give them money because they want to, not because they are forced. If they are beating up people, that's another story... but if that beating is consented, if they in the end agree, I doubt much can be done until someone changes their minds and denounce.

I also don't stomach too well the claim that scientology founder was in for the money, while other religious leaders (but particularly Jesus) were not. Jeeezzz, none of these guys were around during capitalism. That makes their orders of priority a biy different, and pretty hard to assume that they wouldn't want to take a few bites on the economy pie if they were around today.

Finally, calling it a "cult" does not advance it's detractors. AFAIK, the difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the army that profess it.

I have to ask, are there criminal charges against them, the leaders? If not, much of the criticism here is WAY over the top.

Regards .

 

[ironduck]

Fred, I've only seen well thought out posts from you before, so this really surprises me.

Yes, the people at the bottom of the food chain in scientology believe the fiction they're indoctrinated. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a pyramid scheme that enriches the top, nor that people are coerced, beaten, and die under mysterious circumstances while in the hands of scientology.

This means I can criticize their claims, but not that I can paint them as a criminal pyramid scheme with criminal behaviour.

There is plenty of evidence that it's a pyramid scheme. Check out the structure - people are recruited, and as a result have to pay increasing amount of money for each step they advance up the 'enlightenment' ladder. If they cannot pay they have to recruit others. This is the basics of any pyramid scheme. Check out the published scientology pricelists. Check out the testimonies of previous members.

People give them money because they want to, not because they are forced. If they are beating up people, that's another story... but if that beating is consented, if they in the end agree, I doubt much can be done until someone changes their minds and denounce.

The beating is consented? What the heck are you talking about? It's not an s&m group! People who get in trouble with their superiours in scientology are being kidnapped and locked into places until they have a mental breakdown and comply. That is highly criminal and not 'consented'!

I also don't stomach too well the claim that scientology founder was in for the money, while other religious leaders (but particularly Jesus) were not.

So do you 'stomach' that Hubbard was in it for the money or not? You can always check out the internal notes he made to his companions. They spell it out very clearly, in case you missed it.

Finally, calling it a "cult" does not advance it's detractors. AFAIK, the difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the army that profess it.

The way I usually define a cult is that it's a closed society that does not let others into its secrets. Scientology fits perfectly into that description. Mainstream religions like the christianity we have today does not, as it is fairly open.

I have to ask, are there criminal charges against them, the leaders? If not, much of the criticism here is WAY over the top.

There has been quite a few criminal charges against scientology and Hubbard.

I suggest you do some research before defending scientology in outrage. Try xenu.net for starters.

 

[Homie]

Yep, I do, pretty much like i find any other religion. Still, it deserves the very same respect that other religions does.

And what respect is that? It is non-existent! In this very thread Christendom was mocked at the very first oppurtunity by TLC, then backed by the other posters.

And to top it of, you joined the mob of mockers (ever so discretely) by saying that if Christ was aware of Capitalism, he would want a piece of the pie too:

I also don't stomach too well the claim that scientology founder was in for the money, while other religious leaders (but particularly Jesus) were not. Jeeezzz, none of these guys were around during capitalism. That makes their orders of priority a biy different, and pretty hard to assume that they wouldn't want to take a few bites on the economy pie if they were around today.

Saying that Jesus was in it for the money is ludicrous, you don't have to be a Christian to see that.

 

[ironduck]

Saying that Jesus was in it for the money is ludicrous, you don't have to be a Christian to see that.

From what I know about christianity I'll have to agree. Of course I don't know whether any of the stories of Jesus are true, but that's another matter.

Fred, your argument that it's only because capitalism 'wasn't around' at the time of Jesus that he wasn't considering taking a piece of the pie is ridiculous. Greed is not a new phenomena, there are several accounts of greed in the old testament for that matter.

 

[FredLC]

Ironduck:

Pffff... You actually think I’m defending Scientology?

Not really no! I’m defending justice, with scientology being a casual (and abhorrent) beneficiary.

One of the reasons of my well-dreaded prolixity is that I usually assume that my axioms will not be self-evident, and I take the trouble to explain them in length. For how terribly my point was missed in this reply, I think I should never have dodged that procedure. I have discussed mockery of scientology before, but I should know that it would not be remembered… so I guess it will have to be in here now.

Yes, the people at the bottom of the food chain in scientology believe the fiction they're indoctrinated. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a pyramid scheme that enriches the top, nor that people are coerced, beaten, and die under mysterious circumstances while in the hands of scientology.

If you must know, I have a great deal of dislike for scientology. But what annoys me in this thread is to see it used as a scapegoat for human stupidity.

There are lots, LOTS of people which give up their prudent judgement and their possessions in behalf of stupid doctrines. Scientology is not one iota different, nor more harmful, than these.

People are coerced, like they are for fear of hell, to take an example of religion.

People are beaten, like gays by neo-nazis, to take an example of sociology.

People die in mysterious circumstances, like dissidents by dictators, to take an example of politics.

Scientology is not better nor worse than these. People are sheep. Scientology is just a Sheppard with little popularity. And exactly because of it’s little influence, the world is nor better or worse because of it.

We live in a culture of the outrageous, a reign of the preposterous. Scientology is an average absurd, and when I see people ridiculing it as "particularly weird", I don’t see the rightful slander of a mockery of mankind – I see the indirect validation of the traditional incongruence that haunts us all.

There is plenty of evidence that it's a pyramid scheme. Check out the structure - people are recruited, and as a result have to pay increasing amount of money for each step they advance up the 'enlightenment' ladder. If they cannot pay they have to recruit others. This is the basics of any pyramid scheme. Check out the published scientology pricelists. Check out the testimonies of previous members.

Yeah, but how exactly is that worse than giving away 10% of your income to a regular church? I know lots of people who do it. And they calculate from their brute income – before taxes, that is.

One thing that you miss, as well, is that people which get in go for an ethereal (spiritual), not financial, benefit. Unlike a regular pyramid scheme, it’s not about tricking people about winning a money they can’t possibly win – is about getting them at a particularly vicious form of financing their church – but still, an expense which is legitimate, even if idiotic.

The beating is consented? What the heck are you talking about? It's not an s&m group! People who get in trouble with their superiours in scientology are being kidnapped and locked into places until they have a mental breakdown and comply. That is highly criminal and not 'consented'!

You know I almost used sado-masochism as an example myself?

First, you’ll notice that I did not said it is something nice. I said that it is hard to do anything about it if the victims don’t cooperate. Not quite the same.

Second, if we admit that para-sexual bliss can justify beating, why not spiritual bliss? In other words, why would it be ok if it were S&M, for the purpose of sex, but not for “salvation”?

If these people are blackmailed or threatened for not denouncing their beating, making than the sustaining of it be against their will or judgment, than I agree it’s entirely criminal. But even if they are kidnapped and beaten, if they, realeased and in condition to seek the police, decide not to, if they think that scientology is SO important to them that they are more willing to validate that sick brutality than to risk loosing their access, who am I to say they can’t?

I’m a firm believer of letting dumbasses live out their minds.

So do you 'stomach' that Hubbard was in it for the money or not? You can always check out the internal notes he made to his companions. They spell it out very clearly, in case you missed it.

Yeah, I do. Hubbard is for certainly a man I do not admire. Instead, the kind of man I consider very unworthy.

Thing is that I don’t particularly think much of any religious icons, with the honorable exceptions of Kung-fu tsé (Confucius) and Mahatma Gandhi.

The way I usually define a cult is that it's a closed society that does not let others into its secrets. Scientology fits perfectly into that description. Mainstream religions like the christianity we have today does not, as it is fairly open.

Your description is what I would call a “sect”, not a “cult”. But this may be just a linguistic idiosyncrasy.

There has been quite a few criminal charges against scientology and Hubbard.

I suggest you do some research before defending scientology in outrage. Try xenu.net for starters.

Were there convictions?

I doubt it considering the posts I have read… and, while I think it’s very possible that they are guilty of crimes of the kind, I am also a firm believer of “innocent until proven guilty”.

This means that I would not have people having even the mafia as criminals if there were no proven charges against them.

I loath these sects which swallow people down and deprive them of their individuality. In my perfect world, the hells they all profess would exist, and would be exclusively for their leaders.

But I am not the King of the world, and there is one more thing I’m a firm believer of – the right to disagree with me. These people feel, however unreasonably, that scientology made their lives better? It is their right to do so. And it’s not mine to mock them because of it.

Regards .

 

[Fifty]

L. Ron Hubbard was commodore at the yacht club to which I belong, and he lived ~15mins from where I live.

 

[FredLC]

And what respect is that? It is non-existent! In this very thread Christendom was mocked at the very first oppurtunity by TLC, then backed by the other posters.

And to top it of, you joined the mob of mockers (ever so discretely) by saying that if Christ was aware of Capitalism, he would want a piece of the pie too:

Saying that Jesus was in it for the money is ludicrous, you don't have to be a Christian to see that.

What, you think I am "mocking christianity" because I don't think Jesus was a perfectly selfless man that would never in the world be interested in the slightest advantage to himself?

This is akin to saying that to mock your religion suffices to disagree that Jesus was perfect, the flawless son of God - or, in other words, to mock Christianity all one would have to do was to not be a Christian.

Please do think your opinion over again, Homie.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Fred, your argument that it's only because capitalism 'wasn't around' at the time of Jesus that he wasn't considering taking a piece of the pie is ridiculous. Greed is not a new phenomena, there are several accounts of greed in the old testament for that matter.

You think that money is the only thing people can be greedy for? Or that when I spoke of money, I embraced all other forms of greedy within it?

I doubt that in Jesus time there was any real possibility for him to achieve wealthy in his position as a preacher. Particularly considering he was better known and accepted among the poor and the excluded.

I don't doubt one tiny bit that he could be greedy for influence, for example, or even for some life improvement (though never in the refined manner scientology seeks for welathy in modern day and age). Schemes for wealthy-seeking would be altogether impossible at the time, and that is the safest reason for why religious leaders of two millenia ago - Jesus included - could never have had one.

Maybe he wouldn't anyway, but that is something we will never know - we will speculate at best.

So, comparing them and Hubbard is ludicrous at that regard - this being my pooint from scratch.

Regards .

 

[ironduck]

Fred, I honestly don't understand what you're saying, you seemt to contradict yourself quite heavily.

Let me just spell out a few things:

If someone is tortured into submission that is not voluntary. So when scientology detains people and break them down until they are no longer able to fight back, the victims are not 'idiots' or whatever you want to call them. They are victims of a crime, quite simply. If you cannot see that I think you need to study the effect of torture on people and general brainwashing techniques.

There are other organizations that do this as well, but this thread is about scientology. I'm not aware of mainstream christianity doing this, for instance. Christian sects/cults like Jehova's Witnesses do it. But not the mainstream branches.

If you must know, I have a great deal of dislike for scientology. But what annoys me in this thread is to see it used as a scapegoat for human stupidity.

My dislike for scientology is the way it hunts people down and ruins their lives. You may say that it's only 'stupid' humans that 'allow' themselves to be swallowed like this, but reality is that people who are under great emotional pressure will seek help anywhere they can get it and are therefore easy targets for these groups. That is not stupidity, that is vulnerability. There's a big difference.

People are beaten, like gays by neo-nazis, to take an example of sociology.

Which is a crime.

People die in mysterious circumstances, like dissidents by dictators, to take an example of politics.

Also a crime.

Scientology is not better nor worse than these. People are sheep. Scientology is just a Sheppard with little popularity.

I agree, scientology is no better than organizations that beat up and kill people. But to call them a 'shepherd' makes no sense. Are all criminals who use a gun to rob people with 'shepherds'? And are all their victims 'stupid'? If you think so you have some weird definitions.

And exactly because of it’s little influence, the world is nor better or worse because of it.

So if a single person is killed the world is nor better nor worse because of it? That is a sickening statement. Evil acts by other human beings make the world worse!

We live in a culture of the outrageous, a reign of the preposterous. Scientology is an average absurd, and when I see people ridiculing it as "particularly weird", I don’t see the rightful slander of a mockery of mankind – I see the indirect validation of the traditional incongruence that haunts us all.

Well you can take your Weltschmertz and write books about it, but that doesn't change the fact that scientology is more than just absurd, it's a destructive organization.

Yeah, but how exactly is that worse than giving away 10% of your income to a regular church? I know lots of people who do it. And they calculate from their brute income – before taxes, that is.

First of all it's not 10% with scientology - people lose every single dime of their own money if they get sucked in completely. We're talking financial ruin, not 10%. Secondly, scientology is a pyramid scheme which means that the fees are hidden, people are pushed to go increasingly further in to pay increasingly larger amounts. They're not told from the start that they'll be paying all their life savings. With the church the fees are not hidden. You cannot even compare the two.

One thing that you miss, as well, is that people which get in go for an ethereal (spiritual), not financial, benefit. Unlike a regular pyramid scheme, it’s not about tricking people about winning a money they can’t possibly win – is about getting them at a particularly vicious form of financing their church – but still, an expense which is legitimate, even if idiotic.

It's not legitimate, pyramid schemes are illegal in most countries. It doesn't matter that it's not a financial benefit, it's still constructed the same way as a pyramid scheme, only people are lured and coerced to go further rather than just lured with money.

If these people are blackmailed or threatened for not denouncing their beating, making than the sustaining of it be against their will or judgment, than I agree it’s entirely criminal. But even if they are kidnapped and beaten, if they, realeased and in condition to seek the police, decide not to, if they think that scientology is SO important to them that they are more willing to validate that sick brutality than to risk loosing their access, who am I to say they can’t?

Because, as I said before, when people have been broken down mentally through physical or psychological torture the crime is no less. Do you know what brainwashing is?

I’m a firm believer of letting dumbasses live out their minds.

People who have escaped the clutches of scientology did not 'live out' their minds, they were mutilated.

Were there convictions?

I doubt it considering the posts I have read… and, while I think it’s very possible that they are guilty of crimes of the kind, I am also a firm believer of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Here are some convictions. Innocent, eh?

http://www.scientology-lies.com/convictions.html

No conviction in this case, but perhaps there should have been? http://www.lisamcpherson.org/

If you prefer the words of judges to testimonials from people who got out.. http://xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html

I guess you don't know this, but scientology spends an exhorbitant amount of money on lawyers. It's almost impossible to win a case against them in countries like the US where lawyers with resources can stall and harrass the small fish into oblivion.

This means that I would not have people having even the mafia as criminals if there were no proven charges against them.

So back when Stalin was murdering people left and right we shouldn't have believed the testimonies from refugees because there were no proven criminal charges against Stalin? And likewise today in North Korea, perhaps? This makes no sense, just because there hasn't been a court case doesn't mean that you cannot make an informed opinion. Plenty of court verdicts are wrong as well, the court is not perfect, you know.

Do you think Saddam Hussein is innocent until the judge declares him guilty? Do you really?

I loath these sects which swallow people down and deprive them of their individuality. In my perfect world, the hells they all profess would exist, and would be exclusively for their leaders.

So you do see that they are evil, manipulative sects who prey on innocent human beings? Because that's not what you stated above. You just said that people who are stupid enough get what's coming to them.

But I am not the King of the world, and there is one more thing I’m a firm believer of – the right to disagree with me. These people feel, however unreasonably, that scientology made their lives better? It is their right to do so. And it’s not mine to mock them because of it.

For the people who feel that it makes their lives better - I have no beef with that. But that's not the topic of my accusations. I'm saying that scientology is an organization that uses criminal, inhuman methods to achieve its means of enriching the top dogs.

 

[ironduck]

You think that money is the only thing people can be greedy for? Or that when I spoke of money, I embraced all other forms of greedy within it?

I doubt that in Jesus time there was any real possibility for him to achieve wealthy in his position as a preacher. Particularly considering he was better known and accepted among the poor and the excluded.

I don't doubt one tiny bit that he could be greedy for influence, for example, or even for some life improvement (though never in the refined manner scientology seeks for welathy in modern day and age). Schemes for wealthy-seeking would be altogether impossible at the time, and that is the safest reason for why religious leaders of two millenia ago - Jesus included - could never have had one.

This is what you said and I responded to:

I also don't stomach too well the claim that scientology founder was in for the money, while other religious leaders (but particularly Jesus) were not. Jeeezzz, none of these guys were around during capitalism. That makes their orders of priority a biy different, and pretty hard to assume that they wouldn't want to take a few bites on the economy pie if they were around today.

I simply said it was ridiculous to say that: "Jeeezzz, none of these guys were around during capitalism. That makes their orders of priority a biy different". As I already said, there was plenty of greed back then, including greed for money! You're completely off the mark.

 

[Perfection]

Ya know what would be better, if instead of Xenu it was Xena. I'd bet there'd be more scientologists if Xena was in thier doctrine.

 

[Homie]

You think that money is the only thing people can be greedy for? Or that when I spoke of money, I embraced all other forms of greedy within it?

Row, row, row your boat...

 

[Homie]

Xena is so manly, why are so many men attracted to her. A mystery to me

 

[sanabas]

I agree, scientology is no better than organizations that beat up and kill people. But to call them a 'shepherd' makes no sense. Are all criminals who use a gun to rob people with 'shepherds'? And are all their victims 'stupid'? If you think so you have some weird definitions.

Shepherd in the sense that they try to influence/lead the sheep into doing what they want. That makes sense to me.

 

[Perfection]

Xena is so manly, why are so many men attracted to her. A mystery to me

It's all about the ineffective armor.

But really though, she's much easier on the eyes then these scary evil aliens.

 

[ironduck]

Shepherd in the sense that they try to influence/lead the sheep into doing what they want. That makes sense to me.

Yes, but they do more than 'try to influence'. They use both physical and manipulative force to make people obey them. Thus I ask, is it being a shepherd to rob someone with a gun?

It doesn't matter what you think a 'shepherd' is, though. The important thing is that people are being abused by scientology.

Also, there are many children in the clutches of scientology through their parents. Are they 'stupid' as well? Because they are used for slave labour and brainwashed the same way.

 

[sanabas]

Yes, but they do more than 'try to influence'. They use both physical and manipulative force to make people obey them. Thus I ask, is it being a shepherd to rob someone with a gun?

It doesn't matter what you think a 'shepherd' is, though. The important thing is that people are being abused by scientology.

Sheepdogs use physical and manipulative force too. Agree it's not that important, I was just saying that Fred's analogy did make sense to me, even if it didn't to you.

Agree that people are being abused by Scientology, but I don't think that's restricted just to scientology. I have to agree with what was posted earlier in this thread, the main difference between a religion and a cult is the size of the fanbase.

 

[FredLC]

Fred, I honestly don't understand what you're saying, you seemt to contradict yourself quite heavily.

Let me just spell out a few things:

Go right ahead.

If someone is tortured into submission that is not voluntary. So when scientology detains people and break them down until they are no longer able to fight back, the victims are not 'idiots' or whatever you want to call them. They are victims of a crime, quite simply. If you cannot see that I think you need to study the effect of torture on people and general brainwashing techniques.

There are other organizations that do this as well, but this thread is about scientology. I'm not aware of mainstream christianity doing this, for instance. Christian sects/cults like Jehova's Witnesses do it. But not the mainstream branches.

If the scientology brainwashing army is so powerful, why arem’t them torturing random people to make them believers? Why are they limiting their scope to the already converted who, for one reason or another, feel in doubt?

In the case of scientology, seems to me that there is a predisposition. Is that idiocy or vulnerability? Well, I’ll go into that right below.

My dislike for scientology is the way it hunts people down and ruins their lives. You may say that it's only 'stupid' humans that 'allow' themselves to be swallowed like this, but reality is that people who are under great emotional pressure will seek help anywhere they can get it and are therefore easy targets for these groups. That is not stupidity, that is vulnerability. There's a big difference.

Well, have you ever felt vulnerable in your life? I did. I am yet to know someone so strong which have never felt that way for a given amount of time.

But, is that an excuse to give oneself away like this? It’s like saying that all children which were sexually abused will become, say, rapists, and all rapists should not be condemned because understandable circumstances have made them that way.

I think that people which take advantage of the weak are despicable, for sure. And I sympathize with the victims of sects, I do. But this does not mean complete moral absolution, nor that I fail to see their own part of responsibility in the turn of events. And if their ways are so brutal and invasive, it’s not a small part they have.

Which is a crime.

(&#8230

Also a crime.

And that I have not excused. But remember, I was not praising Scientology here, just saying that it is not worse than regular human scourges.

One more thing to point out:

Should this thread be about strictly the criminal records of scientology, I would have asked “Well, show the convictions than, and have fun”. You have given some examples of that now, which I’ll address later.

But this thread have been from inception, about mocking the absurdity of their scatology, of how ridiculous is the “aliens and their soul-entrancing” theory. Bah. As mentioned before, Having Xenu mesmerize souls does not sound any more absurd to me than having God turning a mud statue and a rib in the first human couple, IMHO.

Now, whether or not their leadership is criminal, and deserving of antipathy, this does not make the mockery of their scatology any more correct. The believers, “idiots” or “vulnerable” as we might prefer to address them, are sincere. And the disrespect of them (which I don’t consider an evil “per se”, just an evil considering how society handles other equally preposterous views) is the thing I am really criticizing here.

I agree, scientology is no better than organizations that beat up and kill people. But to call them a 'shepherd' makes no sense. Are all criminals who use a gun to rob people with 'shepherds'? And are all their victims 'stupid'? If you think so you have some weird definitions.

Only that they are not shepherds "because they beat people". They are because they offer a guidance as to how people should perceive life. One that is outright wrong – that is another question – but still, the fact they have some things in common with these robbers, always assuming they do, does not makes them be the same in all accounts.

So if a single person is killed the world is nor better nor worse because of it? That is a sickening statement. Evil acts by other human beings make the world worse!

Thankfully, that’s not what I said. Any murder, by anyone, is a crime, a tragedy, and an evil act, save for legitimate defense. What I said is that there are too many fingers pointed at scientology for something which is not distinctively worse than many others.

Perhaps they bother people because they enticed rich good-looking Hollywood guys.

Well you can take your Weltschmertz and write books about it, but that doesn't change the fact that scientology is more than just absurd, it's a destructive organization.

Oh, yeah, I’m allowed my little rant too, am I not? Mine is fairer than the one in this thread, though – I’m not placing headlights over anyone in particular, just speaking of a diffuse problem in a diffuse manner.

My discourse is open to comentary, like it happened in here. Yours too, just like in here as well. Write your books, get read to the critiques.

First of all it's not 10% with scientology - people lose every single dime of their own money if they get sucked in completely. We're talking financial ruin, not 10%. Secondly, scientology is a pyramid scheme which means that the fees are hidden, people are pushed to go increasingly further in to pay increasingly larger amounts. They're not told from the start that they'll be paying all their life savings. With the church the fees are not hidden. You cannot even compare the two.

There was once upon a time when 10% was obligatory, and actually more than 10%, but that is past so I’ll not evoke this as proof of the correctness of my argument.

I’ll only submit that people can burn their own money for all I care. I would have a problem with mainstream religions, and scientology, if they forced people to contribute. If they don’t, if that is voluntary, than I’ll council people away from them, and rightfully consider them parasites... but I’ll not be able to say they are doing anything wrong at all.

It's not legitimate, pyramid schemes are illegal in most countries. It doesn't matter that it's not a financial benefit, it's still constructed the same way as a pyramid scheme, only people are lured and coerced to go further rather than just lured with money.

You know why pyramid schemes are illegal in most countries in the first place? The reason is simple – it’s a form of trickery. It’s a trickery because it promises an impossible profit, one that is mathematically unachievable.

If the pyramid scheme does not revolve around financial gain, the impeditive factor is removed, because no longer the advantage promised is a mathematical impossibility. Particularly if what is promised is a “spiritual” gain, salvation if you will, it’s not different at all, in nature, from the promisses of other churches, even if possibly more expensive.

Because, as I said before, when people have been broken down mentally through physical or psychological torture the crime is no less. Do you know what brainwashing is?

Yeah, the mighty brainwashing army which removes all will of the members and removes all traces of responsibility from their faithful.

Lemme ask you this: why the heck aren’t all criminal organizations in the US religions. If all they need to do to be able to be openly criminal and violently oppressive of people is to call themselves a religion, why the hack don’t they do it? They have lawyers as well too.

Perhaps there are skeletons in scientology closets, and I actually find that very much likely, but the picture you are painting of a worldwide mob-style clan that brainwashes kidnapped victims on regular bases sounds a little too “conspiracy theory” for an organization which is relatively open, and that investigating by the powers that be – which are not sympathetic to them in our Christian society, I must add – is not that much of a task.

People who have escaped the clutches of scientology did not 'live out' their minds, they were mutilated.

How did they managed to, against the brainwashing armies of scientology, specially if the damage was already done?

Perhaps their mental grasp is not as strong as you are portraying, unless people allow it to be.

Here are some convictions. Innocent, eh?

http://www.scientology-lies.com/convictions.html

No conviction in this case, but perhaps there should have been? http://www.lisamcpherson.org/

If you prefer the words of judges to testimonials from people who got out.. http://xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html

I guess you don't know this, but scientology spends an exhorbitant amount of money on lawyers. It's almost impossible to win a case against them in countries like the US where lawyers with resources can stall and harrass the small fish into oblivion.

I am weary of websites dedicated to attack something. This site obviously becomes dubious on this criteria. It’s a bit obscure as well. Some claims look sensible, but there are some are outright wrong, like saying that they “extort people by saying it’s scientifically proven that not paying for their courses will make their lives worse”, which is not extorting, but just a very dumb sale’s pitch which they are allowed to make (and that surprisingly works, but it’s not due to idiocy of the buyers, it’s because they were brainwashed right?).

I can find in the web sites about moon landing being fake, I can find it that there were WMD in Iraq. Hell, once I found a site that “proved” that Brazil was in a conspiracy to use computer-chip implants to brainwash US citizens and use a under priced orange juicy commercial blitzkrieg to ruin the economy of Florida.

Have you noticed that the first page you linked, the single one with convictions, has only one working link, the one to 1980’s “breaking and entering” and even at that, it’s not to any governmental legal site, but to another fact-check site? Did you even try the links, or just took the site’s opinion?

Hell, on top of that they even list as “crimes” things witch aren’t crimes at all, like filing frivolous lawsuits.

As for lawyers stalling everything, the powerful ones, well, I’m a lawyer myself, and I work for the richest bank in south America, which has also more than 50% of public money, hence, string links with both private and public capital and resources.

In my daily life, I see it loosing, a lot when it is wrong, and still quite a large number of times when it is right. It’s much more rare to win when we are wrong than vice-versa, to tell the truth, because judges tend to be sympathetic of the common folk, and see banks as gargantuan soulless mega-structures.

So, I’m also weary if the US justice is so clueless as the common perception dictates, or if it is it’s compromise with the legality instead of public opinion which creates this overview.

So back when Stalin was murdering people left and right we shouldn't have believed the testimonies from refugees because there were no proven criminal charges against Stalin? And likewise today in North Korea, perhaps? This makes no sense, just because there hasn't been a court case doesn't mean that you cannot make an informed opinion. Plenty of court verdicts are wrong as well, the court is not perfect, you know.

Do you think Saddam Hussein is innocent until the judge declares him guilty? Do you really?

No, please, feel very free to have your informed opinion. Just don’t fail to separate opinion from fact, when commenting.

Besides, courts, while don’t always get things right, are the less worse resource available to decide these things.

You know what happens when people take their opinions for granted? Tanks roll over Baghdad to destroy WMD with plenty of public support.

So you do see that they are evil, manipulative sects who prey on innocent human beings? Because that's not what you stated above. You just said that people who are stupid enough get what's coming to them.

Yeah, contrary to the manner in which you interpreted me, I don’t fail to see the obvious. I know very well that Scientology is a bad thing, one that if it were up to me, wouldn’t exist.

But the fact that I’d rather if people’s weaknesses didn’t bring them such ugly consequences does not change the outright fact that it does happen.

For the people who feel that it makes their lives better - I have no beef with that. But that's not the topic of my accusations. I'm saying that scientology is an organization that uses criminal, inhuman methods to achieve its means of enriching the top dogs.

And that is an opinion that, IMHO, you failed to demonstrate in this post, my friend.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

This is what you said and I responded to:



I simply said it was ridiculous to say that: "Jeeezzz, none of these guys were around during capitalism. That makes their orders of priority a biy different". As I already said, there was plenty of greed back then, including greed for money! You're completely off the mark.

Some of your commentary on my post was sensible and I feel the necessity to clarify was existing. Not this, though. You extrapolated that by my saying that the fact Jesus possibly didn't have any money-grabbing scheme because such countours were not avaiable at the time meant that I felt there was no greed in Jerusalem 2.000 years ago.

Clearly, an undue extrapolation.

regards .