Bart Simpson the Scientologist?

[Tweek]

Eh?

http://perezhilton.com/2008-01-30-bart-hearts-xenu

This is kinda insane!

The voice of Bart Simpson, actress Nancy Cartwright, donated $10 million to the "church" of Scientology last year.

TEN MILLION!!!

Her donation was part of Scientology’s Global Salvage effort, which aims to “de-aberrate” Earth - meaning to rid mankind of psychology ills and other “aberrant” behavior.

In other words: that's some scary shit!

Nancy, who makes over $200,000 per episode of The Simpsons, donated twice as musch as the Queen Scientologist, Tommy Cruise, who only gave $5 million in an installment plan.

Kirstie Alley matched Tom’s donation, but fellow actors John Travolta and wife Kelly Preston donated just a million each. His career ain't quite what it used to be!

I still love her and The Simpsons. Meh.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Nancy Cartwright being a Scientologist is old news. She's talked about it openly in interviews before.

Xenu helps her deal with the fact that The Simpsons hasn't been funny since 1999.

[RustyRazor]

I've known she's been a scientologist for a minute now.
And it doesn't surprise me that The Simpsons has never attempted to lampoon Scientology ala South Park because they know that Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson wouldn't dig it.

10 million.
Son of a bitch.

L.Ron is pimpin' 'em from beyond the grave.
Xenu's not happy cause he doesn't see a dime of that money.

Que sera sera, hunh?

[JJFlamingo]

Piss away that kind of money to a freakish cause, then forever in Hell one shall burn...:D

[The Postmaster General]

I don't know. I think one day we might actually realize that just because something is portrayed a certain way on an episode of South Park, and on a website, that doesn't mean it really is as funny or weird as it was shown.

If anyone needs me, I'll be out hunting Scuttlebutt or reading the Illuninatus Trilogy to learn the secrets of Freemasonry.

[Preston_79]

Taking more jabs at Scientology. I know this following statements don't apply to everyone, but some of you may need to pull your heads out of the sand and look at your own crazy beliefs, because you know you have them.

Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists....If any of you are part of these clubs then please shut the fuck up about others religions. You really believe in Christ's miracles? Any of you think you're going to enter nirvana through meditation and good will. How's about Virgins in heaven for martyrs, or being a vessel for God so you can scribe down a new testament.

Self reflection is a bitch isn't it? Your families are probably filled with people who believe in spiritual things that have never been witnessed, or proven, but they still believe in it. People make large donations to religious institutions all the time. So what if it's to the Church if Scientology?

[edonline]

$10 million dollars to Scientology. I'm more curious about what they're going to do with the money. Why couldn't Nancy Cartwright donate it to a charity or charities?

[Z_oasis]

Here it goes again, another scientology rant.. *yawn*

[Tuukka]

Taking more jabs at Scientology. I know this following statements don't apply to everyone, but some of you may need to pull your heads out of the sand and look at your own crazy beliefs, because you know you have them.

Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists....If any of you are part of these clubs then please shut the fuck up about others religions. You really believe in Christ's miracles? Any of you think you're going to enter nirvana through meditation and good will. How's about Virgins in heaven for martyrs, or being a vessel for God so you can scribe down a new testament.

Self reflection is a bitch isn't it? Your families are probably filled with people who believe in spiritual things that have never been witnessed, or proven, but they still believe in it. People make large donations to religious institutions all the time. So what if it's to the Church if Scientology?

Major religions also have small, extremist, secretive, money-grabbing cults inside them. And no, we don't like those cults either.

So your comparison doesn't really work.

A *real* religion is not secretive. A real religion is open about the way it operates. A real religion doesn't demand money from believers. A real religion doesn't offer you salvation based on how much money you pay. A real religion doesn't encourage believers to disconnect from non-believers. A real religion doesn't harass the members who want to leave the church.

Scientology is a religious cult. It operates like a cult, and treats it's members like a cult.

Saying that a cult like that is by its nature the same thing as any of the major religions is just a blatant lie.

[HHH123007]

No rant from me.

I just really enjoy that I get to see a religion form in my lifetime. All of these people are just paying to be known as religious icons hundreds of years from now. I find it funny.

[thedudeman69]

fuck me, Groening should start looking for another bart, because the church is going to kill her if she gets behind on the payments.

[Shinigami]

A *real* religion is not secretive. A real religion is open about the way it operates. A real religion doesn't demand money from believers. A real religion doesn't offer you salvation based on how much money you pay. A real religion doesn't encourage believers to disconnect from non-believers. A real religion doesn't harass the members who want to leave the church.


You're pretty misinformed, buddy. Scientology doesn't so much demand money from its believers as it has faith in the idea that worth is based on financial income (pretty Ayn Rand of them), and most importantly, this has nothing to do with whether or not 'salvation' is offered. I've never heard a viable case of Scientology actually encouraging its members to disconnect from nonbelievers. Ditto on harassing members who want to leave its organization.
That's 0/4, man. It helps if you know a scientologist, rather than research with south park and e-knowledge. This whole scientology thing in regards to celebrities is pretty entertaining and all just to hear about, but enough's enough. Jeez.

[The Postmaster General]

A *real* religion is not secretive. A real religion is open about the way it operates.


Well, that makes Catholicism not a real religion. I mean, unless hiding and harboring child molesters while dealing with them internally to help them find salvation doesn't count.

And what do you mean "disconnect" from nonbelievers? How is making Hollywood movies disconnecting from anything? How is having a member who was in muthafucking Mission Impossible 3 coincide with having members be disconnected from anything? Was there something I missed here, or where there really enough Scientologists to garner that many box office receipts?

What though, no other religion asks members to 'disconnect' from people who are against the religion? I think Catholics call it 'shunning', sometimes 'excommunication', Jehovah's Witnesses call is "disfellowshipping', Protestants call it 'marking', and the Jews call it 'cherum'.

Real religions don't ask money from its members to help salvation? The word is called "tithe" and it's in the old testament. Wiki it. You've never been to church until you've gotten the stink eye for passing on the collection plate.

EDIT: I actually just looked at the Wiki page for Scientology, just to see - and yeah - sure enough. You can even do a comparison to its current state to its state following the South Park Episode "lost in the CLoset" Amazing,

[BakeTheMooCow]

Scientology is just as nutty as "real" religions.

[Tuukka]

Well, that makes Catholicism not a real religion. I mean, unless hiding and harboring child molesters while dealing with them internally to help them find salvation doesn't count.

And what do you mean "disconnect" from nonbelievers? How is making Hollywood movies disconnecting from anything? How is having a member who was in muthafucking Mission Impossible 3 coincide with having members be disconnected from anything? Was there something I missed here, or where there really enough Scientologists to garner that many box office receipts?

What though, no other religion asks members to 'disconnect' from people who are against the religion? I think Catholics call it 'shunning', sometimes 'excommunication', Jehovah's Witnesses call is "disfellowshipping', Protestants call it 'marking', and the Jews call it 'cherum'.

Real religions don't ask money from its members to help salvation? The word is called "tithe" and it's in the old testament. Wiki it. You've never been to church until you've gotten the stink eye for passing on the collection plate.

EDIT: I actually just looked at the Wiki page for Scientology, just to see - and yeah - sure enough. You can even do a comparison to its current state to its state following the South Park Episode "lost in the CLoset" Amazing,

Is it an established part of the main principles of catholism that they need to hide the means of their operation from the public?

No, it's not.

But it IS one of the main principles of scientology. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is telling a deliberate lie.

For some reason people here are assuming that if an individual person in major religion pracises something, it means that the entire religion is like that. Of course that's a very flawed assumption.

"Disconnection" means that normal people who join scientology have been traditionally encouraged to disconnect from friends and family members who are suspicious of scientology. Typical cult behaviour, and has been systematic in scientology. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is telling a deliberate lie.

You don't need to pay to advance as a believer in any major religion. You are just as good christian even if you never given a dime to the christian church. You DO have to pay to be part of scientology. If you want to advance in scientology - to be a good scientologist - you need to pay. A LOT. Church of scientology also owns the trademarked holy scriptures and religious symbols and you need to license them. No other religion claims to own privately own the religious scriptures and symbols, because they are FREE FOR ANYONE TO USE. That's a sign of real religion.

...Do I need to write more examples?

Donating money to church because you want to is not the same thing as the church demanding money from you, or you won't be a good believer. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is telling a deliberate lie.

So please, let's try to be honest here, yes? Let's not try to distort things into something they are not.

[Shinigami]

Where exactly are you getting your information, tuuka? Most of it seems to be either accidental misunderstandings or deliberate misunderstandings. Before you cut in with the monotonous 'deliberate lie', just read me out for a moment. If I were to pick up a random translation of the bible, notice a phrase against gays (of which there are), I wouldn't then assume those faithful to the bible must take it literally and truthfully unless I was looking to pick a fight with that faith. So you can see how I might take your skew on scientology as you just trying to smack the organization around. I'm assuming you've basically taken everything scientology has to say in th emost negative light imaginable, just because that's what most people seem to be doing with them. There's a good, high chance I'm wrong, so I'll give a forward apology if you can rub my face in this.

But. Most 'official' religious texts are bogus whackjobs that represent only the most...well, bogus whackjobs. So although personal experience with scientologists certainly doesn't make me any more of an expert than somebody with a more distanced understanding, it's still a valid perspective.

[Tuukka]

You're pretty misinformed, buddy. Scientology doesn't so much demand money from its believers as it has faith in the idea that worth is based on financial income (pretty Ayn Rand of them), and most importantly, this has nothing to do with whether or not 'salvation' is offered. I've never heard a viable case of Scientology actually encouraging its members to disconnect from nonbelievers. Ditto on harassing members who want to leave its organization.

That's 0/4, man. It helps if you know a scientologist, rather than research with south park and e-knowledge. This whole scientology thing in regards to celebrities is pretty entertaining and all just to hear about, but enough's enough. Jeez.

"Scientology doesn't so much demand money from its believers"

...Really?

"salvation" of course refers to state of Clear. The state that every scientologist thrives for, as it is the ultimate goal of the religion (althought you can gain different levels beyond). It's much like Heaven and salvation for christians. Heaven costs for christians exactly ZERO DOLLARS. There is no need to pay for more.

Well, how much does it cost to go Clear? Here is a quote from the church itself:

"How much does it cost to go Clear? The cost varies depending on which path one takes. One way is to donate for auditing and participate in auditing services all the way up to Clear. The preferred route, however, is to become trained as an auditor and co-audit with another Scientologist. The co-auditing route to Clear requires far less in donations than to only have auditing ministered to oneself, plus one helps another to progress spiritually. As auditing costs much more for the church to supply (requiring several staff for each parishioner) donations necessarily must be higher. Training is much more economical and an incentive for persons to receive training and then co-audit, without cost, to the state of Clear."

...As you can see, the say bluntly that YOU NEED TO PAY MONEY. Now, I’m gonna state some money sums in the following paragraphs. Since some info is years old and the scientology church constantly changes prizes, and the course of dollars changes, the numbers are obviously not always accurate, but they give a good idea:

You have to buy a huge amount of books and tape sets. You need an "E-meter" (roughly $3000) and the LRH policy demands you own another one for backup (!). You need a full set of "Technical Volumes" (around $2000), and then there are the astonishing amount of training hours you have to pay for. If each course is taken separately, it costs approximately $750 just to go from O-IV grade, $500 for the next one, $1,200 for Grade V, $775 for Grade VI, $600 for “and finally $800 for the final "clear" or a total of approximately $4,625.

…And there are the extra courses. If a Scientologist decides he doesn't want to spend extra money on additional auditing or courses, he might not have a choice in the matter. Scientologists are not permitted to continue until the Student Examiner is satisfied that he's mastered the previous lessons, and even the demanded lessons change all the time.

It’s rather commonly stated that the lowest possible sum, with co-auditing training route, to reach the status of Clear is AT LEAST a minimum of $10.000. And that's in absolutely ideal conditions, where you are doing perfect advancement right from the start. And yes, we are talking about the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, as generally the prize tag for salvation runs from several dozens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. It’s different for everyone.

CHRISTIANITY: $0
BUDDHISM: $0
ISLAM: $0
SCIENTOLOGY: $10.000

...See a trend there? So please don't try to claim any bullshit about the church of scientology not demanding any money. You need to pay them to reach salvation.

Me 1 - You 0

“I've never heard a viable case of Scientology actually encouraging its members to disconnect from nonbelievers.”

…Really?

I guess you are not aware of that fact that the scientologist church OFFICIALLY states that the antagonists to the Church of Scientology are "Antisocial Personalities", “Potential Trouble Sources”, or “Suppressive Persons”. The church also officially teaches that association with such persons impedes one's spiritual growth.

And since spiritual growth is the goal of scientologists, the church is essentially encouraging them to cut the ties to people who are negative towards scientology. In comparison, Christian church teaches in its doctrines the Christians to embrace non-believers and even critics.

There are literally THOUSANDS of documented individual cases of the harassing. If you haven’t heard of them or you intentionally choose to ignore them, that’s your problem.

Me 2 – You 0

“I've never heard a viable case of Scientology harassing members who want to leave its organization.”

…Really?

Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth: in 1965, L. Ron Hubbard, formulated the "Fair Game Law", which states how to deal with people who interfere with Scientology's activities. These problematic people, called suppressive persons, could be considered "fair game" for retaliation.

Hubbard:

“A Suppressive Person or Group becomes fair game. By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist.”

He made it clear that the policy applied to non-Scientologists as well. He declared:

“The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to: suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty ... this Policy Letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends.”

The policy was further extended in an 1967 Policy Letter, where Hubbard defined the "penalties" for an individual deemed to be in a "Condition of Enemy":

“ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

This laste quote was later changed into:

“"Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org."

Later the church stopped using the term “fair game”, however the actual policy and actions of the “fair game” have remained a part of the church’s doctrine to this day.

In 1976 due to bae publicity Hubbard stated:

“There was never any attempt or intent on my part by the writing of these policies (or any others for that fact), to authorise illegal or harassment type acts against anyone.”

…Unfortunately there are literally THOUSANDS of documented individual cases since then that prove the practise is still in use, many of these testimonies from ex senior members of the church. Also 10 years after that statement from Hubbard, the Church tried to gain constitutionally protected right to use retributive action against "enemies of Scientology" as it was a "core practice" of Scientology.

Me 3 – You 0

“That's 0/4, man.”

…I wonder what your fourth point was, since I could find only 3. So that should be “0/3”, but of course that has reversed now.

Me 3 – You 0

[Tuukka]

Where exactly are you getting your information, tuuka? Most of it seems to be either accidental misunderstandings or deliberate misunderstandings. Before you cut in with the monotonous 'deliberate lie', just read me out for a moment. If I were to pick up a random translation of the bible, notice a phrase against gays (of which there are), I wouldn't then assume those faithful to the bible must take it literally and truthfully unless I was looking to pick a fight with that faith. So you can see how I might take your skew on scientology as you just trying to smack the organization around. I'm assuming you've basically taken everything scientology has to say in th emost negative light imaginable, just because that's what most people seem to be doing with them. There's a good, high chance I'm wrong, so I'll give a forward apology if you can rub my face in this.

But. Most 'official' religious texts are bogus whackjobs that represent only the most...well, bogus whackjobs. So although personal experience with scientologists certainly doesn't make me any more of an expert than somebody with a more distanced understanding, it's still a valid perspective.

You didn't give even one single argument agains the points I made.

Simply saying something is not true won't make any difference.

Prove it.

As for other churches, you don't even need to follow their doctrines, as you can be a christian without belonging to the christian church. You can get to heaven without believing everything in Bible, or without following all of it's orders.

You can't be a part of scientology without being part of their church. You can't find salvation without paying money to them.

You can't establish your own church (every real religion allows for this), as the scientologic church will sue you for violating their trademark. You can't even use the term "scientologist" about yourself.

Because of that, scientologist churches who don't belong to the trademarked church can't call their religion scientology, and have to use the general umbrella of "Free Zone" instead. The official scientogic church is extermely negative towards them.

If you want to make an argument, give facts.

Don't try to lie and claim that just because Bible has some stupid moral teachings, christianity is by it's nature immediately the same as scientology. That's a non-argument in any case, because I never even commented on the moral teachings of scientology. You are arguing about something I never even said.

Which is a pretty weak argument to make.

[Shinigami]

I counted the salvation and payment sentence as two. Made me feel big. Or I'm just terrible at math.
Now let me try to reiterate myself in a clearer way before I start getting you thinking I'm trying to make trouble with you. I'm struggling to get a across that there are so many anti-social, anti-human, anti-moral, and simply evil things in, say, the Bible...and I could take, I could quote, right from the translated source. Then I could flip out because this religion apparently follows the bible. But in the reality of our modern world and its vague definitions of religion, none of that is 'exactly' true. People follow what they wish. Few modern believers in the bible take its awful things literally, and to denounce their religion (even by the book that this religion worships, evidently) is just...picking a fight.
For example, what am I do to when I know a middle-class scientologist who has none of these things you're listing off as apparent 'musts' of this organization? I'm aware that this random person doesn't represent the majority, just as I'm aware the random nutjobs who actually takes the Bible as the anti-human literal spew it truly is can be minorities.
So I think I started this wrong. Instead of defending scientology, I should be defending scientologists, just as while I would defend a christian, I might have trouble defending christianity itself. Then again, an organization is made up by its followers, so I suppose we're at square one again. But it should be obvious enough to you by how fiery your words are getting that scientology is something you're almost personally offended by. Partiality and religion never mix. That's where you get those righteous athiests demanding these religions be shut down because of how terrible their literal bibles, their literal teachings, their literal MESSAGES are, when they completely miss the point in favor of that venom.

Edit:
That's a non-argument in any case, because I never even commented on the moral teachings of scientology. You are arguing about something I never even said.


That's pretty much it. I'm only trying to get across that all of these supposed 'musts' of scientology aren't necessarily followed by scientologists. I don't know if it's a norm or a minority, but I'm stating the defense. And in doing so probably started arguing a point that wasn't even against mine to begin with. SO I suppose I should cue my forwarded apology.

[Tuukka]

I counted the salvation and payment sentence as two. Made me feel big. Or I'm just terrible at math.
Now let me try to reiterate myself in a clearer way before I start getting you thinking I'm trying to make trouble with you. I'm struggling to get a across that there are so many anti-social, anti-human, anti-moral, and simply evil things in, say, the Bible...and I could take, I could quote, right from the translated source. Then I could flip out because this religion apparently follows the bible. But in the reality of our modern world and its vague definitions of religion, none of that is 'exactly' true. People follow what they wish. Few modern believers in the bible take its awful things literally, and to denounce their religion (even by the book that this religion worships, evidently) is just...picking a fight.
For example, what am I do to when I know a middle-class scientologist who has none of these things you're listing off as apparent 'musts' of this organization? I'm aware that this random person doesn't represent the majority, just as I'm aware the random nutjobs who actually takes the Bible as the anti-human literal spew it truly is can be minorities.
So I think I started this wrong. Instead of defending scientology, I should be defending scientologists, just as while I would defend a christian, I might have trouble defending christianity itself. Then again, an organization is made up by its followers, so I suppose we're at square one again. But it should be obvious enough to you by how fiery your words are getting that scientology is something you're almost personally offended by. Partiality and religion never mix. That's where you get those righteous athiests demanding these religions be shut down because of how terrible their literal bibles, their literal teachings, their literal MESSAGES are, when they completely miss the point in favor of that venom.

I want to emphasize that I don't have anything against the practioners of scientology. For example many people think negatively of Tom Cruise because of his religion. I don't. He is misguided, but it's not his fault. He believes he doing a genuinely good thing by spreading his religion, and with no doubt the church has always treated him extremely well, so he has a rosy picture of it.

The problem is that the church itself has been built on the foundation of greed, control and corruption. It's a secretive cult which aims to brainwash the believers, rip them of their money, submit them under its power, and destroy anyone who opposes it.

That's the modus operandi of the church of scientology. And that's not the main operation model for any of the major religions, even if some corrupt segments of them do the same thing.

If scientology would be real religion, it would let go of its trademarked content. It would allow anyone to manufacture the books and machines that are part of its doctrine. It would allow anyone to establish a scientologist church or organization. It would change it's doctrines to allow believers to freely choose in which organization they want to belong to - If any at all. It wouldn't pressure or harass anyone.

Until then, it's just a corrupt, money-grabbing cult. Not a religion.

[Tuukka]

For example, what am I do to when I know a middle-class scientologist who has none of these things you're listing off as apparent 'musts' of this organization? I'm aware that this random person doesn't represent the majority, just as I'm aware the random nutjobs who actually takes the Bible as the anti-human literal spew it truly is can be minorities.

I'm only trying to get across that all of these supposed 'musts' of scientology aren't necessarily followed by scientologists. I don't know if it's a norm or a minority, but I'm stating the defense. And in doing so probably started arguing a point that wasn't even against mine to begin with. SO I suppose I should cue my forwarded apology.

...A question: Is your friend part of the official church?

Because he might be part of the free zone. He would be a "real" scientologist only in his own mind, but he wouldn't be part of the actual religion. Personally I don't really have much at all against the free zone. It's an umbrella for many different organizations, and I think some are quite good-natured. Some have separated from the church exactly because they dislike the cultish aspects to much. But the trick is, they can never call their religion officially scientology, because they would get sued for trademark violation.

And if your friend is part of the official church, then a question: How long has he been part of it, and how much money has he spent on it?

[Shinigami]

I've never heard of the free-zone term, but I googled it, and sounds like a fit. She thinks the church is bogus. But I've never heard her babbling on about L. Ron Hubbard either. She studies scientology's teachings apart from the church itself. While she's also experimental enough to call herself a faith pretty much on her own volition, none of what she's doing seems to be out of the ordinary either, so I've become very inclined towards assuming most scientologists aren't patterning themselves too stiff after those quotes you got. Unfairly, but I'm aware of my bias. I know some christians and catholics around my age (early twenties) who do the same things with themselves. Although that behavior is always found in the young and experimental, a lot of westerners seem to be taking whatever they please of a faith and leaving out the rest, traditions be damned. The modern world doesn't take too kindly to such literals. I don't meet many whom follow the beliefs as they are supposed to...at least, from an outsider's perspective. I'm sure I'm missing the fine details as to why strict rules and guidelines translate to young kids as 'worship God wherever you want, whenever you want, however you want'.

[Scorpio24]

Who would have thought Bart Simpson would have brought us to this conversation?

Scientology like most Religions is whacky as shit. Crazy things be going on with people who blelieve in these things.

[Tuukka]

I've never heard of the free-zone term, but I googled it, and sounds like a fit. She thinks the church is bogus. But I've never heard her babbling on about L. Ron Hubbard either. She studies scientology's teachings apart from the church itself. While she's also experimental enough to call herself a faith pretty much on her own volition, none of what she's doing seems to be out of the ordinary either, so I've become very inclined towards assuming most scientologists aren't patterning themselves too stiff after those quotes you got. Unfairly, but I'm aware of my bias. I know some christians and catholics around my age (early twenties) who do the same things with themselves. Although that behavior is always found in the young and experimental, a lot of westerners seem to be taking whatever they please of a faith and leaving out the rest, traditions be damned. The modern world doesn't take too kindly to such literals. I don't meet many whom follow the beliefs as they are supposed to...at least, from an outsider's perspective. I'm sure I'm missing the fine details as to why strict rules and guidelines translate to young kids as 'worship God wherever you want, whenever you want, however you want'.

Now, your friend doesn't really have anything to do with scientologic religion I've been talking about.

In the eyes of scientologic church she is a heretic. She can't belong to any scientogic organization, because no organization can call itself scientologic except the church and the branches of the church. And with that kind of attitude your friend would never be accepted into them.

If she is in contact with other believers and they form an organization together, they can never legally call themselves scientologists (Althought the trademark laws may vary in different countries).

Maybe some day we well associate the word "scientology" with what is now called "free zone". But so far the word still commonly associates with the official church and its religion. Personally I think that the free zoners are the way to break the influence of the church, so in that sense they have my support.

Generally - there are many different variations of free zone - their only crime is to believe in the unproven supernatural. And that can be said of any religion.

[The Postmaster General]

Is it an established part of the main principles of catholism that they need to hide the means of their operation from the public?

No, it's not.

But it IS one of the main principles of scientology. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is telling a deliberate lie.[/b]


I've never denied it's a part of Scientology, but what you seem to be denying is that it's a common practice in other religions.

For some reason people here are assuming that if an individual person in major religion pracises something, it means that the entire religion is like that. Of course that's a very flawed assumption.

You are drawing and assuming that an entire worldwide church is involved in brainwashing based on a relatively few claims vs. thousands saying otherwise.

"Disconnection" means that normal people who join scientology have been traditionally encouraged to disconnect from friends and family members who are suspicious of scientology. Typical cult behaviour, and has been systematic in scientology. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is telling a deliberate lie.

How did you not get that I got that? Explain to me the difference between shunning, and disconnecting.

You don't need to pay to advance as a believer in any major religion. You are just as good christian even if you never given a dime to the christian church. You DO have to pay to be part of scientology. If you want to advance in scientology - to be a good scientologist - you need to pay. A LOT. Church of scientology also owns the trademarked holy scriptures and religious symbols and you need to license them. No other religion claims to own privately own the religious scriptures and symbols, because they are FREE FOR ANYONE TO USE. That's a sign of real religion.

I feel like Scientology is losing point with you for doing the one thing that other could use more of - and that is giving you the terms of the contract before asking you to invest your own self.

I really don't see what this fascination with money is. Really. You act as if it is some sacred thing and 'oh heaven forbid people have to pay for literature that they WANT.

Mormons come to my house all spring and summer, wanting to tell me about their literature. Do you know how many times I actually got to keep the literature they placed in my hands when I refused to donate? None. How that is somehow better than them just coming to my door and saying if I gave them money, they'd stick around, and if not, they wanted nothing to do with me --- I don't know, other than for some reason money is just as important to you as you claim it to be of the church.


...Do I need to write more examples?

Depends on if I have to pay you or not.

Donating money to church because you want to is not the same thing as the church demanding money from you, or you won't be a good believer. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is telling a deliberate lie.

So please, let's try to be honest here, yes? Let's not try to distort things into something they are not.

Who's trying to distort what here? Scientology is upfront about every single thing you claim makes them a nonreligion. To me, the biggest distortion is somehow trying to prove that because you have chosen to position yourself to not become a Scientologist, that every single Scientologist is being conned and manipulated, while you can see right through it all, and despite having admittedly no real insight into the actual functioning of the church, you somehow know they are just being taken for fools without being given any real spiritual closeness.

Also, it is widely interpreted that the Old Testament states in several places that good believers provide 1/10 of all their earnings and belongings. Sure, in more recent times, fewer churches are demanding that (although Falwell, one of the largest xtian churches in the US still demands it), but hey - it took them several thousand years to figure out it was making them look wrong, scientology is how new?

And can he be honest about one thing - Scientology did not start off claiming itself as a religion. The only reason it is classified as a religion is because of laws of various countries, where some countries it is either not recognized or outright banned. Hubbard never in any shape or form said, "I'm starting a religion and despite being a fiction writer have no interest in money. I only ask money of you because the devil will burn our church down if you don't pay."

It was my understanding that Scientology sought religious 'entitlement' when they came to realize that what they provided was no different than what religions were providing, and why should they be able to further produce profits under tax exempt status when they couldn't.



Again, why is Scientology so slighted because it openly expresses it's intentions profit? What makes a 'real' religion? Laws of various countries differ, and I think if you have a real problem with their rel. status, you'd be better minded to address how they obtained non-profit status to begin with and if your determining of what a 'real' religion is is based objectively or on a strong feeling you have, because the latter would be pretty damned near distorted, though I'd never accuse you of telling a deliberate lie. That's just tacky, and I wouldn't buy it for a dollar.

[Tuukka]

[/b]

I've never denied it's a part of Scientology, but what you seem to be denying is that it's a common practice in other religions.

You are drawing and assuming that an entire worldwide church is involved in brainwashing based on a relatively few claims vs. thousands saying otherwise.

How did you not get that I got that? Explain to me the difference between shunning, and disconnecting.

I feel like Scientology is losing point with you for doing the one thing that other could use more of - and that is giving you the terms of the contract before asking you to invest your own self. I really don't see what this fascination with money is. Really. You act as if it is some sacred thing and 'oh heaven forbid people have to pay for literature that they WANT.

Mormons come to my house all spring and summer, wanting to tell me about their literature. Do you know how many times I actually got to keep the literature they placed in my hands when I refused to donate? None. How that is somehow better than them just coming to my door and saying if I gave them money, they'd stick around, and if not, they wanted nothing to do with me --- I don't know, other than for some reason money is just as important to you as you claim it to be of the church.

Depends on if I have to pay you or not.

Who's trying to distort what here? Scientology is upfront about every single thing you claim makes them a nonreligion. To me, the biggest distortion is somehow trying to prove that because you have chosen to position yourself to not become a Scientologist, that every single Scientologist is being conned and manipulated, while you can see right through it all, and despite having admittedly no real insight into the actual functioning of the church, you somehow know they are just being taken for fools without being given any real spiritual closeness.

Also, it is widely interpreted that the Old Testament states in several places that good believers provide 1/10 of all their earnings and belongings. Sure, in more recent times, fewer churches are demanding that (although Falwell, one of the largest xtian churches in the US still demands it), but hey - it took them several thousand years to figure out it was making them look wrong, scientology is how new?

And can he be honest about one thing - Scientology did not start off claiming itself as a religion. The only reason it is classified as a religion is because of laws of various countries, where some countries it is either not recognized or outright banned. Hubbard never in any shape or form said, "I'm starting a religion and despite being a fiction writer have no interest in money. I only ask money of you because the devil will burn our church down if you don't pay."

It was my understanding that Scientology sought religious 'entitlement' when they came to realize that what they provided was no different than what religions were providing, and why should they be able to further produce profits under tax exempt status when they couldn't.

Again, why is Scientology so slighted because it openly expresses it's intentions profit? What makes a 'real' religion? Laws of various countries differ, and I think if you have a real problem with their rel. status, you'd be better minded to address how they obtained non-profit status to begin with and if your determining of what a 'real' religion is is based objectively or on a strong feeling you have, because the latter would be pretty damned near distorted, though I'd never accuse you of telling a deliberate lie. That's just tacky, and I wouldn't buy it for a dollar.

I have no idea what you are trying to do here. Either you are very ignorant, or you are telling deliberate lies.

"I've never denied it's a part of Scientology, but what you seem to be denying is that it's a common practice in other religions."

...Being secretive of the main operational models is an established important part of scientology. It's not an established part of any of the major religions. You are trying to make a claim that two opposite things are the same thing. They are not. The fact that there are some people and some segments that are secretive doesn't mean that the religion is secretive by its nature.

"You are drawing and assuming that an entire worldwide church is involved in brainwashing based on a relatively few claims vs. thousands saying otherwise."

...Apparently you didn't notice that in order to prove my points I took quotes from the doctrines of their Church and their founder? Or are you trying to claim when defining Scientology and its actions we can't use their basic beliefs as arguments? The beliefs that they practice in action?

Also, about brainwashing: The "few" you are talking about are thousands and thousands of documented cases, often from independent sources, like respectable journalists who joined the church temporarily to know more about it. Also like I have *proven*, the church of scientology disconnects members from opposing ideals and harasses those who criticize scientology. Disconnecting is a part of brain-washing, as is the whole "fair game" policy, and as is the fact that auditing process involves command hypnosis.

"Explain to me the difference between shunning, and disconnecting."

...Shunning is not a main operational model in any of the major religions. Disconnecting IS so in scientology. Again, how are two total opposite the same thing, huh?

"I feel like Scientology is losing point with you for doing the one thing that other could use more of - and that is giving you the terms of the contract before asking you to invest your own self. I really don't see what this fascination with money is. Really. You act as if it is some sacred thing and 'oh heaven forbid people have to pay for literature that they WANT."

...Again, I was making a point that it's an organization which has the making of money as one of its major operation models. You can't be a believer, unless you pay. In any of the major religions, you can. Again, a complete opposite.

“Mormons come to my house all spring and summer, wanting to tell me about their literature. Do you know how many times I actually got to keep the literature they placed in my hands when I refused to donate? None. How that is somehow better than them just coming to my door and saying if I gave them money, they'd stick around, and if not, they wanted nothing to do with me --- I don't know, other than for some reason money is just as important to you as you claim it to be of the church.”

…WTF? You can be a mormon and enter heaven without paying any of their churches. You DON’T NEED TO PAY THEM TO FIND YOUR SALVATION. Like I said earlier on, a complete opposite of scientology. For some reason you seem to think that complete opposites are the same thing. If you want to draw comparisons, draw honest ones that make some sense.

“Who's trying to distort what here? Scientology is upfront about every single thing you claim makes them a nonreligion.”

…Another lie. They are NOT upfront about the things I have claimed makes them a cult.

For example, they don’t state how much money you have to pay them to reach salvation. The amount of money changes all the time, the amount of courses and other payments changes all the time. And in the beginning you pay less, and more and more over time.

They are not upfront about their disconnection policy. In fact they consistently try to claim to deny it.

They are not upfront about their “fair game” policy and have done their best to hide it, despite the fact that it still remains active.

How the hell being secretive equals being upfront, huh?

“To me, the biggest distortion is somehow trying to prove that because you have chosen to position yourself to not become a Scientologist, that every single Scientologist is being conned and manipulated, while you can see right through it all”

…Another WTF? I’m simply stating FACTS. Facts are facts. Facts don’t go away if you choose to ignore them. I have already stated earlier on that I have nothing against the practitioners of scientology, and I have nothing against the free zone. I have something against only the church of scientology, for factual reasons I have stated repeatedly.

The members of the church of scientology ARE being conned and manipulated, and I’ve already given countless of examples of this. Are you trying to claim that stating facts makes me a biased bigot? I hope not, because that would make no sense whatsoever.

“And despite having admittedly no real insight into the actual functioning of the church, you somehow know they are just being taken for fools without being given any real spiritual closeness.”

…And again, WTF? I have NEVER admitted to having no real insight into the actual functioning of the church. Please, don’t try to put words into my mouth. For god’s sake, I have filled this thread with a huge amount of real, factual insight into the functioning of the church. On the other hand, you have continuously made factually false claims of their functioning.

I have also NEVER said that the believers don’t get any “real spiritual closeness”. Where the hell did you read that, because I for sure NEVER said that. For the record, I’m absolutely sure that many members of the church have experiences of real spiritual closeness. So DON’T PUT WORDS TO MY MOUTH.

“Also, it is widely interpreted that the Old Testament states in several places that good believers provide 1/10 of all their earnings and belongings. Sure, in more recent times, fewer churches are demanding that (although Falwell, one of the largest xtian churches in the US still demands it), but hey - it took them several thousand years to figure out it was making them look wrong, scientology is how new?”

…And that proves what? I didn’t live 1000 years ago, so I wasn’t back then in a position to criticize the Christian church for its actions. If 1000 years from now Scientology doesn’t follow its current habits, then cool. But I’m criticizing what they are NOW, and I’m comparing them to what major religions are NOW. Because anything else would be pointless. Nobody knows what Scientology will be 1000 years from now, and the current Christian church is not the same it was 1000 years ago.

And if there is some Christian segment in USA which demands from people to belong to that particular Christian church, that still doesn’t mean that it would be the official principle of Christianity. You can enter heaven without ever paying a dime. Try to refute that fact, if you can.

“And can he be honest about one thing - Scientology did not start off claiming itself as a religion. The only reason it is classified as a religion is because of laws of various countries, where some countries it is either not recognized or outright banned. Hubbard never in any shape or form said, "I'm starting a religion and despite being a fiction writer have no interest in money. I only ask money of you because the devil will burn our church down if you don't pay."”

…Hubbard famously said in a private conversation that a way to make a lot of money is to start a religion. Of course Hubbard later denied this, and the church of scientology denies it. And the Church Of Scientology DIRECTLY SAYS THAT SCIENTOLOGY IS A RELIGION.

Saying that scientology didn’t start off claiming itself as a religion is a non-argument, because it claims to be one NOW. And I’m critizising the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, WHICH IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. And besides, no religion has ever started as religion from point one. Jesus didn’t come out of Maria’s womb and shout “I’m here to start a religion called Christianity”!

“It was my understanding that Scientology sought religious 'entitlement' when they came to realize that what they provided was no different than what religions were providing, and why should they be able to further produce profits under tax exempt status when they couldn't. “

…Well, you have understood wrong. Hubbard invented Scientology to accompany dianetics in 1952 and the church was created in 1953. From then on he referred to scientology as religion.

“Again, why is Scientology so slighted because it openly expresses it's intentions profit? What makes a 'real' religion? Laws of various countries differ, and I think if you have a real problem with their rel. status, you'd be better minded to address how they obtained non-profit status to begin with and if your determining of what a 'real' religion is is based objectively or on a strong feeling you have, because the latter would be pretty damned near distorted, though I'd never accuse you of telling a deliberate lie. That's just tacky, and I wouldn't buy it for a dollar.”

…I have stated facts. You have stated incorrect assumptions, distortions and mis-information.

Literally, I have shot down every single argument you have made. And I have done it with facts. So claiming that I fail objective approach, or that I’m basing my opinions just on strong feelings, is ridiculous.

As for what in my opinion makes a “real” religion. I have already stated several things in my previous posts (For some reason you have ignored them). But here is a re-cap:

1. A real religion is open about its doctrine, anyone can learn about it, independently of the church.

2. A real religion allows its symbols and scriptures to be public domain.

3. A real religion doesn’t demand money in exchange for salvation.

4. A real religion allows for different branches of the religion, with no monopolistic central leadership that controls everything.

5. A real religion doesn’t claim that anyone who doesn’t submit under the power of the central leadership is a heretic.

…I guess those will do for starters, as they extremely central key issues that are a part of scientology, but not a part of any major religion.

[Lindsey]

I respect the fact that you two are having a debate, and I give you guys a lot of credit for your postings... But I can see where this is heading when religion and opinions collide.

I don't want to close this thread at all, so I'm just asking for you guys to watch out for the name calling, etc. Thank you! Happy posting! :cool:

[Shinigami]

I've already been over my misunderstandings with tuuka after I got confrontational for no good reason (but don't worry, I do that a lot, I'm used to it). However. Thanks to my powers of incompetence, I've gotten used to catching other mistranslations and goggly hoo hah. It's like that spiderman. I need a theme song.


Another WTF? I’m simply stating FACTS. Facts are facts.

I also have a bad habit of speaking for people, so while I can't be sure...I think strangelove's post was less about denying what you are saying, than how you have taken its context. Whereas I started with denying its legitimacy just because I knew someone who differed from your facts, strangelove just seems to be disagreeing on how you've interpretted those facts as 'un-religious'. I have no knowledge on these particular specifics, so this is only in regards to what strangelove said, not anything else. I've been over that.
But reading what he posted, while you've made statements of facts, strangelove took them to be more or less in line with various other established religions. Even if you disagree, that's entering into the universe of opinions. I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on for it, though. I've been busy enough taking every attack of scientology as an indirect attack of scientologists, that I've forgotten to form any sort of opinion on the traditional church itself. :(

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The #1 defense used by Scientologists: other religions are weird too.

[The Postmaster General]

I have no idea what you are trying to do here. Either you are very ignorant, or you are telling deliberate lies.

I'm trying to have a discussion, not partake in some vast conspiracy. I'm also doing it while trying to be respectful, humorous, and amicable. On the other hand, you have accused me of either being ignorant or a liar.

"I've never denied it's a part of Scientology, but what you seem to be denying is that it's a common practice in other religions."

...Being secretive of the main operational models is an established important part of scientology. It's not an established part of any of the major religions. You are trying to make a claim that two opposite things are the same thing. They are not. The fact that there are some people and some segments that are secretive doesn't mean that the religion is secretive by its nature.

No, what I'm pointing at there being a difference between a religion's doctrines, and the practices of its church members.

If you keep saying that they are so secretive about it's doctrines, explain how you seem to know so much about what they do. Either it's not that secretive, or you were part of the church and able to leave - both of which contradict two of your points.

Furthermore, I'm asserting that practicing to keep your religion's doctrines secrets is probably not as concerning as a church-wide conspiracy to harbor and save pedophiles. I was pretty clear in saying I really don't care that they charge members money for the sake of gaining whatever it is you call it --- To me that is not a big deal. To you it is. Ok.

"You are drawing and assuming that an entire worldwide church is involved in brainwashing based on a relatively few claims vs. thousands saying otherwise."

...Apparently you didn't notice that in order to prove my points I took quotes from the doctrines of their Church and their founder? Or are you trying to claim when defining Scientology and its actions we can't use their basic beliefs as arguments? The beliefs that they practice in action?

What? You didn't post one single doctrine in your response. I quoted and responded to each and everyone of your points.

Besides - which is it? Are the doctrines kept secret, or can we read them on a Canadian movie website?

Also, about brainwashing: The "few" you are talking about are thousands and thousands of documented cases, often from independent sources, like respectable journalists who joined the church temporarily to know more about it. Also like I have *proven*, the church of scientology disconnects members from opposing ideals and harasses those who criticize scientology. Disconnecting is a part of brain-washing, as is the whole "fair game" policy, and as is the fact that auditing process involves command hypnosis.

If you are going to throw my words in quotes, please do so in context. I said "relative few" --- Thousands of Scientologists don't equal millions or billions of people who have abused major religions for their own gains.

"Explain to me the difference between shunning, and disconnecting."

...Shunning is not a main operational model in any of the major religions. Disconnecting IS so in scientology. Again, how are two total opposite the same thing, huh?

Again... How do you know that disconnecting is a main operation model of Scientology, if they are so secretive about the way they function?

The are not opposite things because both words mean exactly the same freaking thing (lol) and are common throughout religion.

"I feel like Scientology is losing point with you for doing the one thing that other could use more of - and that is giving you the terms of the contract before asking you to invest your own self. I really don't see what this fascination with money is. Really. You act as if it is some sacred thing and 'oh heaven forbid people have to pay for literature that they WANT."

...Again, I was making a point that it's an organization which has the making of money as one of its major operation models. You can't be a believer, unless you pay. In any of the major religions, you can. Again, a complete opposite.

There's a difference between an organization and religious doctrines. If a church decides to keep its doctrines secret, so what? Some Christian Churches, like Farwell's which is the largest in the world, (this sounds familiar) will not allow members in if they do not provide 1/10 of their total earnings to the church.

On the other hand, you keep telling me all about Scientology, and I haven't given you a single dime.


“Mormons come to my house all spring and summer, wanting to tell me about their literature. Do you know how many times I actually got to keep the literature they placed in my hands when I refused to donate? None. How that is somehow better than them just coming to my door and saying if I gave them money, they'd stick around, and if not, they wanted nothing to do with me --- I don't know, other than for some reason money is just as important to you as you claim it to be of the church.”

…WTF? You can be a mormon and enter heaven without paying any of their churches. You DON’T NEED TO PAY THEM TO FIND YOUR SALVATION. Like I said earlier on, a complete opposite of scientology. For some reason you seem to think that complete opposites are the same thing. If you want to draw comparisons, draw honest ones that make some sense.

sigh...

Some Christian churches insist that it says in the bible that you give up your money, and others don't.

What you keep doing, is when talking about Scientology is looking at the actions of its church, but when talking about other religion, speaking in broad terms and ignoring the practices of many churches.

Even more interesting is apparently you are bent on insulting me while doing this, which I really don't get.

“Who's trying to distort what here? Scientology is upfront about every single thing you claim makes them a nonreligion.”

…Another lie. They are NOT upfront about the things I have claimed makes them a cult.

For example, they don’t state how much money you have to pay them to reach salvation. The amount of money changes all the time, the amount of courses and other payments changes all the time. And in the beginning you pay less, and more and more over time.

They are not upfront about their disconnection policy. In fact they consistently try to claim to deny it.

They are not upfront about their “fair game” policy and have done their best to hide it, despite the fact that it still remains active.

How the hell being secretive equals being upfront, huh?

How the hell is being secretive equal learning all this shit on joblo.com? Huh? Huh? Huh?

ARe you really a Scientologist, and with every my keystroke tapping money from my bank account via some clever PayPal-type virus? If that's the case, I get why you're so suspicious of everyone being liars.

“To me, the biggest distortion is somehow trying to prove that because you have chosen to position yourself to not become a Scientologist, that every single Scientologist is being conned and manipulated, while you can see right through it all”

…Another WTF? I’m simply stating FACTS. Facts are facts. Facts don’t go away if you choose to ignore them. I have already stated earlier on that I have nothing against the practitioners of scientology, and I have nothing against the free zone. I have something against only the church of scientology, for factual reasons I have stated repeatedly.

Yeah, I got you said that you have nothing against them, but at the same time, it came across as you thought they were ignorant and just being conned and manipulated, despite them, the people directly affected, not having an issue - whereas you have an issue as an outsider. It seems like you are passing judgement on what they appreciate.

The members of the church of scientology ARE being conned and manipulated, and I’ve already given countless of examples of this.

Oh, okay. So I guess that's why my statement actually did make some sense whatsoever.

Are you trying to claim that stating facts makes me a biased bigot? I hope not, because that would make no sense whatsoever.

Sure and David Duke used facts to show blacks were more likely to commit crimes, and therefore a problem against society.

There's a difference between stating facts (unless of course you claim those facts are secretive and veiled) and being a bigot. You've done nothing that makes me think you're a bigot.

It doesn't make sense, because that's not what I said was, “To me, the biggest distortion is somehow trying to prove that because you have chosen to position yourself to not become a Scientologist, that every single Scientologist is being conned and manipulated, while you can see right through it all”

Which you reply, "The members of the church of scientology ARE being conned and manipulated" then go on to say you've given all the facts.

What makes no sense is how you jumped to the conclusion that I was slighting your character based on me stating facts.

“And despite having admittedly no real insight into the actual functioning of the church, you somehow know they are just being taken for fools without being given any real spiritual closeness.”

…And again, WTF? I have NEVER admitted to having no real insight into the actual functioning of the church. Please, don’t try to put words into my mouth. For god’s sake, I have filled this thread with a huge amount of real, factual insight into the functioning of the church. On the other hand, you have continuously made factually false claims of their functioning.

I know you never said that word for word. What you said is that they are secretive and veiled in the way the function, which unless you are a member yourself, would mean you have no real insight into how they function.

And where have I made false claims of how they function? I don't think I've made any claims, because I continuously admit that I don't know about it because I haven't given them money.

I have also NEVER said that the believers don’t get any “real spiritual closeness”. Where the hell did you read that, because I for sure NEVER said that. For the record, I’m absolutely sure that many members of the church have experiences of real spiritual closeness. So DON’T PUT WORDS TO MY MOUTH.

Sorry that I apparently offended you. I guess it sets a hostile tone when you start referring to peers as being ignorant and dishonest.

“Also, it is widely interpreted that the Old Testament states in several places that good believers provide 1/10 of all their earnings and belongings. Sure, in more recent times, fewer churches are demanding that (although Falwell, one of the largest xtian churches in the US still demands it), but hey - it took them several thousand years to figure out it was making them look wrong, scientology is how new?”

…And that proves what? I didn’t live 1000 years ago, so I wasn’t back then in a position to criticize the Christian church for its actions. If 1000 years from now Scientology doesn’t follow its current habits, then cool. But I’m criticizing what they are NOW, and I’m comparing them to what major religions are NOW. Because anything else would be pointless. Nobody knows what Scientology will be 1000 years from now, and the current Christian church is not the same it was 1000 years ago.

100% agree, but again my point is to distinguish religion from organized relgeon, since they are two very different things, evidenced by your referring to every other religion in a spiritual sense, but Scientology as an organization, which I honestly think is fair, but surprisingly non-progressive, esp. coming from you.

And if there is some Christian segment in USA which demands from people to belong to that particular Christian church, that still doesn’t mean that it would be the official principle of Christianity. You can enter heaven without ever paying a dime. Try to refute that fact, if you can.

I can't, but I can also use you reply as proof that you can learn Scientology doctrines and practices without paying a dime.

“And can he be honest about one thing - Scientology did not start off claiming itself as a religion. The only reason it is classified as a religion is because of laws of various countries, where some countries it is either not recognized or outright banned. Hubbard never in any shape or form said, "I'm starting a religion and despite being a fiction writer have no interest in money. I only ask money of you because the devil will burn our church down if you don't pay."”

…Hubbard famously said in a private conversation that a way to make a lot of money is to start a religion. Of course Hubbard later denied this, and the church of scientology denies it. And the Church Of Scientology DIRECTLY SAYS THAT SCIENTOLOGY IS A RELIGION.

Yeah, well Jesus was a weed head and I can't prove that either.

Saying that scientology didn’t start off claiming itself as a religion is a non-argument, because it claims to be one NOW. And I’m critizising the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, WHICH IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. And besides, no religion has ever started as religion from point one. Jesus didn’t come out of Maria’s womb and shout “I’m here to start a religion called Christianity”!

Hey, you agree with me about this for once.

“It was my understanding that Scientology sought religious 'entitlement' when they came to realize that what they provided was no different than what religions were providing, and why should they be able to further produce profits under tax exempt status when they couldn't. “

…Well, you have understood wrong. Hubbard invented Scientology to accompany dianetics in 1952 and the church was created in 1953. From then on he referred to scientology as religion.

It wasn't recognized by the US until like the 90s, or something. I suppose I'm looking at it from the stand point that you are denying their right to function as a religion, and I'm saying that it has as much right to function as any other.

Maybe a big part of this is in how the church is recognized in our home countries, and maybe where I'm looking at it as the freedom to practice, you are looking at as something I'm not seeing because I'm a liar and secretly trying to put metochlorites into you so you'll be a powerful Jedi... Shit, wrong forum.

“Again, why is Scientology so slighted because it openly expresses it's intentions profit? What makes a 'real' religion? Laws of various countries differ, and I think if you have a real problem with their rel. status, you'd be better minded to address how they obtained non-profit status to begin with and if your determining of what a 'real' religion is is based objectively or on a strong feeling you have, because the latter would be pretty damned near distorted, though I'd never accuse you of telling a deliberate lie. That's just tacky, and I wouldn't buy it for a dollar.”

…I have stated facts. You have stated incorrect assumptions, distortions and mis-information.

Literally, I have shot down every single argument you have made. And I have done it with facts. So claiming that I fail objective approach, or that I’m basing my opinions just on strong feelings, is ridiculous.

As for what in my opinion makes a “real” religion. I have already stated several things in my previous posts (For some reason you have ignored them). But here is a re-cap:

1. A real religion is open about its doctrine, anyone can learn about it, independently of the church.

2. A real religion allows its symbols and scriptures to be public domain.

3. A real religion doesn’t demand money in exchange for salvation.

4. A real religion allows for different branches of the religion, with no monopolistic central leadership that controls everything.

5. A real religion doesn’t claim that anyone who doesn’t submit under the power of the central leadership is a heretic.

…I guess those will do for starters, as they extremely central key issues that are a part of scientology, but not a part of any major religion.

Yeah, but those 5 things are not a text book definition of what makes a religion, which is why I say you arent being objective. You are dictating based on your personal feelings what makes a relgeon real or not.

That's cool though. Power to the people, yo! If you want to share more Scientology secrets with me, I dig. Send the bill to Paramount.

[someguy]

I'm not going to get into the debate over whether scientology deserves its status as a religion, but I will say that I'm 100% against their shady and disgusting tactics to destroy anybody who speaks out against them.

Here's that BBC Panorama special that aired last year which shows how the crew was spied on and followed throughout their reporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3pG49lg5AU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnG--NCL4KI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGecZssWc5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv8IQ0Z_G_U

Here's a great article by writer Paulette Cooper who wrote a book against scientology which ended up nearly killing her. Later on it was discovered that scientology had documents called 'Operation Freakout' which was focused on trying to make Cooper get imprisoned or in a mental institute.

http://www.lermanet.com/paulette-cooper/

And I should mention Operation Snow White which occured in the 1970s

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

"Operation Snow White was the Church of Scientology's name for a project during the 1970s to purge unfavorable records about Scientology and its founder L. Ron Hubbard. This project included a series of infiltrations and thefts from 136 government agencies, foreign embassies and consulates, as well as private organizations critical of Scientology, carried out by Church members; the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history with up to 5,000 covert agents."

This is what turns me off from scientology. A lot of people actually aren't aware of the tactics that they use towards anyone considered a suppressive person, like it's been said a lot of people's knowledge is that it's just a 'wacky' religion celebrities like.

[someguy]

Bubba, I've been reading through your responses and I just wanted to bring up something because I'm kind of confused by what you mean by this

How the hell is being secretive equal learning all this shit on joblo.com? Huh? Huh? Huh?

ARe you really a Scientologist, and with every my keystroke tapping money from my bank account via some clever PayPal-type virus? If that's the case, I get why you're so suspicious of everyone being liars.

From what I understand, scientology never willingly released the information about their religion. The documents and such were leaked out by people against the church or former members who have turned against it. So yes, scientology does in fact prefer to be secretive about what they do believe in but other people against them are preventing that by revealing the information from 'upper levels.' Again, I'm not stating that this is fact or anything but this is what I've assumed based on what I've read/seen/heard about it.

[The Postmaster General]

^^^Agreed. And don't get me wrong, I'm familiar with this stuff, both outlined in two of my favorite books, Robert Wilson's last conspiracy encyclopedia Everything is Under Control, and also in Larry Beinhart's American Hero. I just think it's slippery ground to decide what constitutes a 'real' religion.

A major issue I have with the church is the reports that they claim to 'cure' homosexuality, but at the same time, at least they aren't using their church to incite laws barring homosexuality. Or are they?

I just wish Jeff Foxworthy would become a Scientologist, since he'd probably provide the best translation of what they are all about. Okay, another lame attempt at humor.

[The Postmaster General]

Bubba, I've been reading through your responses and I just wanted to bring up something because I'm kind of confused by what you mean by this

From what I understand, scientology never willingly released the information about their religion. The documents and such were leaked out by people against the church or former members who have turned against it. So yes, scientology does in fact prefer to be secretive about what they do believe in but other people against them are preventing that by revealing the information from 'upper levels.' Again, I'm not stating that this is fact or anything but this is what I've assumed based on what I've read/seen/heard about it.


I look at it a lot like Freemasonry conspiracies in that you can't both claim an organization of total secrecy and at the same time declare what those secrets are, especially when you only seem to hear the really freaky and interesting stuff.

The biggest opponent in making me accept that Tuuka has answers about Scientology is the process of disinformation. Without experiencing something myself I can't trust that what people claim to know is really what they believe they know, or if it is really what the church is about.

It seems to me, that if the church functions as this vast sinister and manipulate entity, that they could probably know beforehand that a member was becoming disinterested, and based on this description of how they operate.... You know. I mean, yeah, it sounds crazy, but so do the claims against scientology, so why not? If they are capable of this, then why not that.

Based on what is claimed against them, they are painted as anything other than being an entity that would fall one-step behind.

What is most important to me, though, is that I have no real life-interest in this group, and I think it's a larger number of them that look at it as a cult than just some goofy religion. I suppose that if people get involved, and what is claimed to be true is really true, you know, it isn't like they weren't warned. Maybe that's unsympathetic of me, but then again, maybe I could use a good auditing.

[cl0n3b4by]

More scientology ranting, the internet is an uproar.

I assume you guys have heard of project chanology.

Sure all religion has absurd claims (virgin birth, burning bush, parting seas, coming back alive.. etc..)

But the main thrust against the negativity of Scientology is the fact it runs like a business cult.

They are ruthless and brainwashed to such a point that some must have been brainwashed.

Look at Mark Bunker or anything on Xenu.Net

A real religion doesn't send officials running around at critics telling them they rape babies or there mothers. A real religion does not infiltrate the United States goverment. Gather confidential files on critics so they can use it against them and try to get tax exempt status through it (Operation Snow white.) A real religion does not endorse the "fair game" policy. Nor does the religion send out its own offical members to break into a critics office steal there stationary so they can put the fingerprints on a crime so they could go to jail. Or if that didn't work, send lewd amounts of porn to them, tell there peers and family they are pornstars. Send them death threats etc... (operation freakout)

People do not attack the beliefs people attack how the church operates more of a cult its not the church of scientology but the cult of scientology. It is awful what they are doing and some people are taking action.

[Raimo69]

Why couldn't i been smart enough and start a clut about aliens and shit. If any one of would of done this we would be really rich,

[cl0n3b4by]

Actually go to google and type in dangerous cult look at the first link xD

[The Postmaster General]

That's funny, but I really want to know how that works, like when you put a search for "dumbass" or something, you'd get the Pres. Bush white house site first.

What I think is interesting is this - try and find scientology jokes on the web...

About Scientology and The Simpsons tho - I can't recall any jokes ever used on the show. They've never been into skewing religion, but they have always portrayed all of them or all I can think of - even Unitarians. (heh) Can anyone think of any?

[someguy]

Well the Movementarian episode could have small jabs at scientology

Also, read this up Bubba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

[cl0n3b4by]

Exactly that entire episode was a jab at cults in a whole, if they did do a scientology spoof Nancy Cartwright would leave. Same thing that happened with South park. Also yes its called a Google bomb its interesting.

[The Postmaster General]

Also, read this up Bubba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb


Ah, okay, I kinda knew about the ranking thing, based on clicks, but wasn't bright enough to figure out how they could accomplish that.

Heh. It's funny that Operation Clambake is part of a conspiracy using underhanded tactics to destroy a reputation. I mean, not funny like "SNAP" I mean just funny like seeing a squirrel fall out of tree and then regaining consciousness and looking over at you then acting like nothing just happened.

[a7xfan]

im not going to have a pointless rant about scientology, okay i dont agree with most the 'wierd' shit they get up to in certain aspects of their lives, but all religions have this 'wierd' shit, so theres something about every religion i dont see the point of, so i dont care anymore.

she can be a scientologist all she fucking wants, i dont give a shit, the simpsons has been shit for the last 10 years anyhows

but i dont see why she used the 10m on this 'church' instead of a charity ???????

[Vong]

Celebrity culture doesn't get much worse when people start making fun of other people's beliefs. Yeah, they may be fucked up, but more than likely (in some way) so are you.

[electriclite]

Taking more jabs at Scientology. I know this following statements don't apply to everyone, but some of you may need to pull your heads out of the sand and look at your own crazy beliefs, because you know you have them.

Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists....If any of you are part of these clubs then please shut the fuck up about others religions. You really believe in Christ's miracles? Any of you think you're going to enter nirvana through meditation and good will. How's about Virgins in heaven for martyrs, or being a vessel for God so you can scribe down a new testament.

Self reflection is a bitch isn't it? Your families are probably filled with people who believe in spiritual things that have never been witnessed, or proven, but they still believe in it. People make large donations to religious institutions all the time. So what if it's to the Church if Scientology?


Yes but with those religions you mentioned, admission is free, Scientology is not. Thaaaaaat's part of the gripe. I've never heard that to achive spiritual enlightenment "swipe card here".

Plus whenever those mentioned go on some radical campaign to overthrow: science, women's rights, human rights, governments etc, we all speak up and make it known that crazy shit ain't gonna fly. Believe what you want just don't oppress people and those that fall outside your beliefs with your beliefs.

Scientologist want to rid the world of psychologists because their beliefs tell them to... That's chime in time.


And the Simpsons haven't been funny since season 5 and should've been canceled a long time ago so Nancy wouldn't be writing those checks and starting these threads :D

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Anyone who has read the work of L. Ron Hubbard knows that he was a very poor writer. That's the one thing I can't get past. They think his work is the secret to life and he's one of the worst writers ever. I mean, maybe if Dianetics had been written by Thomas Pynchon or Salman Rushdie...but L. Ron Hubbard? Please.

[notchreturns]

I'd rather read a copy of Playboy than anything by Hubbard.

Or the Bible for that matter.

[Shinigami]

I'd rather read a copy of Playboy

I smell a new and profitable religion for the 21st century!

[The Postmaster General]

In Hugh we trust.