BS: Isaac Hayes Quits

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:09 AM

It was never kicked out of Hull, Ted; it was bought in Hull, refitted in Southampton, and then sailed off to its various adventures. That was wayyyyyy back, if I recall correctly, wasn't it? 1967 or thereabouts?

I think it was refused entry at Gib once -- something about being a spy ship for the CIA. No telling what they thought!

Most of its port adventures were much friendlier, I am told by those who knew.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

I've been a big fan of Isaac Hayes since he was a guest star on Rockford Files (called James Garner's character "Rockfish").

He was definitely one of the high points of South Park, and it was a stroke of near genius when they invited him on, so to speak.

Hope they can make up, but if not, it's one of those 'thangs'.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:14 AM

According to Operation Clambake that episode will not be shown again in the US or the UK. It is a network decision. It is being shown on the website:

http://www.xenu.net/



"Got my Scientology warning today via PM. Can't wait to see the smear attempt.

~Susan "
When I saw this I believed that Susan had actually been threatened. But I could not understand why no one else had been sent the same threat. After reading Amos' post, I am more confused.

I firmly believe that all religions offer hope to some people. My son was a Black Muslim for a while when they were the only ones to help him out during a jail stay. It gave him something to hold on to. If Scientology or Christianity or Hari Krishna or Paganism gives a person a foundation on which to anchor his life, good. In my experience, all require a "believer" to suspend reason and accept certain tenets "on Faith". Be it Xenu and the lost souls or a GodMan redeeming the sins of mankind.
The problems start when any religion claims it is the only true faith and condemns everyone else to damnation. Assuming "god" exists, does anyone really think he cares whether he is worshipped in the form of a mass or a moon festival or whatever? And if a religion helps people to live and prosper - isn't that what it is all about?

Sorry for the stream of consciousness.
Mary, who loves South Park

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: saulgoldie
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM

The main difference between what we call a "cult" and what we recognize as "legitimate religion" is the time they take to indoctrinate their followers. But as long as there is no coercion, followers of either should be free to practice how they will without our interference. And also free to keep their practices off ME.

Shame Hayes doesn't jibe with the "take no prisoners" attitude of South Park. (Or so it seems.) I'll miss him. But I will move on to the next chapter, whatever that may be. South Park is funny as all get out!

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Windsinger
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:33 AM

the "take no prisoners" attitude of South Park

That's just it; the show basically follows the comedic style of a roast. Not everybody enjoys watching roasts, but I do.

One thing about a roast is that nothing is considered too low, too scathing, or too off-limits for comedic fodder. Another, is that if one has been held for each of your friends, rest assured that eventually it WILL be your turn.

When that day comes, to throw a hissyfit and stalk off in a huff instead of laughing it off (especially if you were an active participant in all the other fiery engagements!) is just plain sulky.

Slán,

~Fionn

www.geocities.com/children_of_lir

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:43 AM

I don't know if he threw a hissyfit or not. As far as him working on the show when it was taking the piss out of other religions and quitting when it came to taking his own on, well, he may be a hypocrit. It may also be the 'final straw' syndrome, or he could have changed his mind. It's not worth getting upset about, and the South Park folks are happy just to let him out of his contract. Mary, I agree with you completely. Religion, when it helps individual people cope and gives them some power over their own world, helps them feel less afraid and strong enough to be kind, is a good thing. When it becomes about power over others, be-littling people, taking from them and controlling them, and going through life treating others as if they're lesser beings, it's not.

ANY religion can go either way, and sometimes the nasty stuff is institutionalized. BUT... most folks would be under the radar of the powerful, and the threats and other scary stuff are likely to happen only to the rich, famous, or otherwise influential folks.   

I heard an interview with George Clooney on NPR a couple of months ago. (Paraphrasing, from my memory) He said one of the most important things a famous person needs to be able to do is to laugh at themselves. This is probably a good ability for everyone to have, if they don't want to be overly vulnerable and get their egos injured all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

I just read John Travolta's free e-book. It is a guidebook to happiness that appears to me to be a rip-off of the ten commandments, the Golden Rule and common sense.
Don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, respect your parents? Not exactly groundbreaking, I think. One point he makes is a little unsettling. That is that truth is whatever you know to be true. HMMMMM. Truth is relative to an individual. So if one is dyslexic, god is a dog? Absolute fact? For the record, I am NOT being facetious.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Alba
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:49 PM

Well if that's the case Sins and the truth is what we want it to be....

I AM A GODDESS


Although I have to say that particular extract from the "Guide to Happiness" is a tad unsettling!!
Kind of like saying if you don't like things the way they actually are you just stick your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalala very quickly while at the same time forming a "truth" as you would like it be:)
If you get my drift!
I don't even know if "I" get my drift on that...sorry I am hungry..lol
Love
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: GUEST,Dave'sWife
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:09 PM

AMos, I don't know you very well, but I am glad to hear that my experiences are not unusual with regard to my freindships with Scientologists. Since I am active in a Christian Church and take issue with a fair amount of what my Scientology friends choose to believe, I don't see how I can remotely be labelled as an "apologist" by anyone. An Apologists seek to demonstarte that the tenents of a particulr faith are true and to be believed. I've done none of that.

For the record, I'm an Anthropologist and linguist with a fair amount of fieldwork in the are of New Religious Movements. I've seen the good, the wacky, the simply misguided and the dangerous. I believe there is potential for emotional abuse in every faith and sect. The basic issue is not is Sceintolougy weird, it is are people as adults free to choose what they wish to believe in and/or worship. I use the term 'worship' in the legal sense but I acknowledge that many faiths don't worship at all including scientology.

This thread has both saddenned me and encouraged me. Amos, if I ever figure out my password, I'll PM you. We may have some friends in common. Shame on me for not being in touch with them for a long while. I think the perfect antidote to this thread might be a nice dinner with some old pals.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:14 PM

"truth is whatever you know to be true"
Is that really any different than saying "It's just common sense" when you really mean "that's what I was taught to believe, so that's my final answer" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:30 PM

All great spiritual teachings could be termed "ripoffs" then, SINSULL, because they do all emphasize the same basic principles, I've found. (like, Duh!) Combine common sense, good morals, good rules of bodily health, being kind, being truthful, not stealing, the Golden Rule, and various stuff like that and PRESTO! ...you have the basic essential teachings that underlie virtually every major faith and most of the minor ones. It would be incredible if they did NOT appear in L. Ron Hubbard's books.

It's the political authority structures that gloss over that stuff, pay it lip service, and go around conquering and enslaving. That is not the fault of the original teachings, it just shows that greedy people can take ANY teaching and rapidly turn it to evil ends if they want to.

As for the remark someone made about "apologists" for Scientoloy...that was particularly nasty, in that it makes the automatic assumption that there must BE something to apologize for. There might not be anything to apologize for.

It's like saying, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and requiring only a "yes" or "no" answer in reply.

There's never been anyone who joined any offbeat spiritual organization who wasn't accused by some @sshole of being in a "cult". Matter of fact, even people who change into another major religion are usually accused of the same thing, in different words.

People have a 100% right to freely join any darned religion they want to, and be left alone, and not be pre-judged or condemned for it. Judge them by what happens afterward if you wish to judge them. Judge them by their fruits...their attitude and their works, not their religious label.

I have found excellent people and jerks in most religions...although...I don't think I've ever met a Buddhist who was a jerk. (but I'm sure there's one out there somewhere...I just haven't met him yet, that's all)

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:51 PM

"Apologist" as a term discussiong religion is not about apologies as we understand that word today-- it's about explaining in such a way as to convert. It's not a pejorative, although when used in a secular sense it would be. CS Lewis, for example, was a well-known apologist. Look it up, LH-- you'll see what I'm explaining so poorly.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:57 PM

Okay....

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:58 PM

I found my cookie! yay. Actually, found my password and so reset my cookie. but:

Littlehawk - Apologetics or to be an Apologost isn't apologizing for something - it's defending it. it's a subfield of theology.

Here's a link to an exlanation of what Apologetics is:


Apologetics - definition

In brief:
>>> Apolegitcs is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete".<<



While it was mean to call me or Amos an Apologist for Scientology, it was mean for different reasons. It characterizes us as people who believe in Scientology's principles which both of us has stated we do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM

Yes, well, I could certainly detect a bit of nastiness behind Eric the Red's use of the word...a clear presumption of his own superiority to those who could find anything good to say about scientology, shall we say?

I recall, back in the early 70's, seeing stuff about scientology. I figured it was probably weird, and I wasn't interested in it, but I never actually knew anything about it worth mentioning...nor did any of the people I ever heard voicing strong opinions about it.

They were all just talking to hear themselves talk, basically.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:25 PM

I actually don't feel Eric the red meant anything personal by it just that it was a handy way to dimiss my own and Amos' experiences. Just thought I'd say that. Perhaps he also thought ther term means something other than what it does. EtR is OK.

The page I linked to shows a little of what I was discussing regarding the vehemence of the Anti-Cult movement. if you look down the page to the bibliographic references, you will see a classic Anti-Cult work entitled KINGDOM OF THE CULTS - a book that if you read it today ould appall you in its small-mindedness of 1960s spirtual movements.

Another interesting thing is how the world 'cult' is viewed in different countries. It simply means 'sect'and is still used that way in French common usage. It wasn't until some very angry British parents of young adults who joined The Processs sued in court to have them declared as incompetants (circa 1965) that the word came to its present association with mind control.

The Processeans were a fascinating grouo, one that still exists here in the United States as Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. They have attemtped to go mainstream Christian and leave their Tri-une appraoch of Jehovah/Lucifer/Satan behind them. Their founders were dissident Scientology students. Their legal cases in the United States and in England are important ones in terms of freedom of religion and rights to worship. One could argue that as misguided as they seemed to be, they advanced the rights of everyone who wants to not have to worry about the parents labelling them insane for leaving Christianity for paganism or other more experimental-seeming faiths. (The Processeans had a decidely pagan bent in their first 10 years which faded after the ouster of the original leader, Robert De Grimston.)

Well, that's more than anyone needed to read I'm sure. I'll stop now. This isn't class after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:26 PM

I will say again that Amos is a wonderful human being. And that ain't apologetics; that's fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:42 PM

I was frequently encountering people with the Process on Toronto streets in the early 70's. Again, I thought they were a little weird, but it was a superficial impression I had, and nothing more than that. I was opposed to all religions at that time on principle. ;-)

It's easy to be an atheist when you're at that young age, and besides, it makes you feel cool, sophisticated, and way smarter than people who are religious. Everyone loves feeling smarter than other people, that's what I've always noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:42 PM

Little Hawk,
John Travolta has published an e-book and that is what I was referring to. He wants everyone to read it and pass it on to their friends. In the end, he believes, it will change the world.
My point is that if the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and common sense haven't changed the world to date, I doubt that John Travolta's reciting of them will.
But go read it for yourself. It will take less than hour. And tell me what you think.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:53 PM

Okay. Will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:22 PM

Thanks, Dave's Wife, for the apologetics clarification. I was multitasking when I posted earlier and I could not get the small portion of available brain to spin to the correct place! :~)

This, from Wikipedia, further clarifies my post:

Religious apologetics is the effort to show:

<> that the preferred faith [being defended] is not irrational,
<> that believing in it is not against human reason,
<> and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs.

~S~
[my bullets and bracketed text]

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:13 PM

Susan - don't thank me too quickly. You pointed out something in your post that makes your calling anyone in this thread an apologist for scientology sorely mistaken.

Neither Amos nor I ever tried to defend the things Scientology believes in. Rather, we defended their right to freely associate with like-minded people without being accused of en masse dementia. We defended the rights of adults to choose to believe in something that might seem disturbing or weird to their communities and families - all rights deeply embedded within the US Constitution.

Here's my problem with apostasy in any religion in a nutshell - and apostasy is another one of those terms that gets horribly misused by people in the Anti-Cult movement. An Apostate is not someone who has merely left a faith but someone who goes to a great deal of trouble and effort to either try and seek the utter demise of the faith they left or to actively dissuade current members to leave through various means, often as questionable as any means used to convert new members.

The way I see it, if a religion, sect, faith etc is something you grow to feel is no longer for you - why not walk away, send a letter of disassociation to make the break and then go walk with "god" on your path to enlightenment? Why dedicate your life to the destruction of something you don't believe in? Just asking.

The organized groups that are "against" a particular faith be it Christian Science, Catholicism, Scientology Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krishna, WICCA, Neo-Paganism, Amway, etc etc are virtually New Religious Movements in their own right. To belong, you must adhere to a stated set of belief which includes that your former beliefs are wrong and evil. To defy the 'order' of the anri-faith group is to be 'excommunicated' from that group. Smells like religion to me.

If I were an "apologist" for Scientology, I would have to be telling you that what they believe is either true or rational or valid. I've said no such thing. All I've said is that I know dozens, maybe even hundreds of Scientologists and that I have not once seen the legendary stuff referred to in this thread. I've further stated that NO scientologist has ever tried to 'program' me despite having had me in their "evil clutches" for days at a time while vacationing at the Manor Hotel or on long trips I've taken with those Scientologist friends. My Sea Org friends have never tried to kidnap me and take me to sea either. Am I so special that they wouldn't dare? I doubt it.

Enough of that -

Littlehawk - I would LOVE to talk to you real time about any experiences you had with members of The Process. I have been making field recordings of stories people tell about The Proceess or about Processians for over 20 years. I am espeically interested in any experiences any one had at one of their ceremonies, at any visits to Processian sponsored Cafes in Toronto, NY, Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco and Los Angeles. I would be very intrested in any recordings of any music performed at such cafes.

If you can recall any of the names of Processians that would be fabulous. They used to adopt names such as 'Brother Ely' 'Sister Hecate" and so on. Having the Process names of people helps me trace the evolution of the group during their travels. Their records were largely destroyed in 1974.

My goal is to publish a serious acadamic work on the history of The Process, their specific liturgy prior to the 1974 rift and to trace the various factions' evolution following the great rift. The serious study done of The Process is woefully subjective. Bainbridge, the author, was virtually a member while he travelled with them and he obsured the identities of his 'subjects' in a lame effort to claim academic distance. He was not objective and his observations stopped shrotly after 1974.

Anyone here can help me will have my assurance that I will assign you coded names in the event that you have concerns about being identified. Many people who encountered the Process in the late 60s and early 70s mistakenly believed them to be Satanists and so are often scared to talk about them.

I am especially interested in an offshoot of The Process which sprung up in Yonkers, White Plains and Brewster NY in the mid-1970s. They were Neo-Pagan in nature and had some connection to a few well-known rock musicians. Anyone with info, please PM me. Again, confidences will be kept. I already have an academic publisher interested - this will not be a smear campaign although I will be covering some unsavory aspects of the Brewster group and clashes with law enforcement.

Thanks. Forgive my typos please. The mere prospect of getting new info on The Process and Process splinter groups overwhelmed me with excitement.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:17 PM

I didn't call ANYONE an apologist, Dave's Wife. So I didn't read past that in your post.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 01:44 AM

Boy, my Erhardt Seminar Training is paying dividends right now!

Gotta pee.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: GUEST,Billy
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 01:51 AM

There used to be a maxim for taverns. Don't try to argue about politics or religion and everyone would get on fine. In other words, "Don't try to change my viewpoint and I won't try to change yours." That doesn't seem to work on the internet but it would be nice if it did.
IMHO ALL religions are "cults" to one degree or another. I had to attend "Sunday School" as a kid for many years. But at the age of 14 (I guess I reached the age of reason) I was learning science and attempted to engage my (presbeterian) minister in a discussion on the reality of God. I was puzzled between the charictarization of the vengeful god of the old testament, the loving God of the new testament and the presbeterian visualization as an angry God who would not forgive a sin. I also argued science and Natural Selection. After some arguement on both sides, I asked, "If God created the Earth with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then why did he take so much trouble burying all the dinosaur bones in the ground that date to well before the supposed 5,000 BC Jewish date (corroborated by the King James Bible of "Eden" so beloved of the presbeterians) when the Garden of Eden supposely existed. At that he gave up and said, "You have to have FAITH!" Well, growing up poor, I didn't see where this magical commodity was going to appear from so I just gave it up as a complete fraud on the part of all organized religions. You either have FAITH or you don't. It seems to be as Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." And organized religions of all persuasions are the drug pushers.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:23 AM

Guest Billy I recall getting into a protracted argument with an R.S.L. member back in the eighties.
He had taken great offence at my suggestion that Leninism was itself,to all intents & purposes, a surrogate religion.
I was subjected to a tediously long & ill-tempered itemisation of the Materialistic & empirical bases of Marxist thought which concluded with him informing me that "You've lost your FAITH in the Working Class!"
Since which time I have tended to the view that Dialectical Materialism is the opiate of the Marxists.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:32 AM

Purple Fox, yes you have quite a point there and so does guest Billy. Is it any wonder that we often pair up politics and religion in the same code of things that shouldn't be discussed lest they start arguments. Political beliefs are no different than religion to many and an Ex-members of political parties often dedicate their lives to trying to warn the massses of the evils and dangers of their former party associations the same way former members of certain faiths do.

Rock Ross, the anti-cult crusader I mentioned earlier goes even further than that and labels Multi-level marketing schemes such as Amway as "cults." I bring that up just to illustrate that once one begins assigning negative 'cult' status to groups they don't like, it's fairly hard to stop.

But even as Guest Billy has pointed out that arguing about regligion and politcs is fairly pointless, there seems to be no shrotage of BS threads about both!

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:54 AM

Dave's Wife, how would you define a cult?

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:31 AM

From the ' Rhythm Of Life ' " Theres a million pigeons, waiting to be hooked on new religions "

Scientology was invented by Ron Hubbard, who was proved to be a charlatan many years ago in the UK, how can it be a religion ? cult is a kind word for it, are these peoples lives so meaningless that they have to have something invented to give them meaning or worth ?

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM

Erhardt was an offshoot of Holiday Magic. I worked for them running a warehouse in the 60s. I was signed up as a distributor to keep the members from recruiting me and attended their Alpha Training and Executive Training seminars. Yes - no peeing except when allowed and no sleeping given the length of the class and the amount of homework given. I got in trouble when I just didn't bother to show up on Day 4.

There was a "Cult" atmosphere. If you believed and belonged, all was happy and prosperous. If you doubted, you were abused. $10,000 later I ended my association with cults.

But I got my first sales training there and it has stood me well for years. At the same time, I saw very sad cases - people with no money borrowing from relatives to advance up the pyramid when it was obvious that they didn't have a clue about the business end. No one sold product; everyone who made money did it by recruiting new distributors who also never sold product.

It was a constant "up and down" for them. They would go to a seminar, come back all psyched, and a week later when they couldn't find a single recruit, they'd be down, way down and abused into attending another seminar. There was a never ending line of paid seminars. Strange times.

But EST, Amway and other offshoots prospered for years even after Holiday Magic got in trouble with the bunko squad.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM

eric,
Can you not see that the same can be said of any organized religion? Texts read with magic glasses that conveniently get lost, Virgin births and Resurrections, guarantees of an afterlife surrounded by virgins, the evil of using medications even for fatal illnesses - these are beliefs accepted by members of established major religions.

This is NOT a criticism. It is an observation. I am not ridiculing anyone's beliefs. I respect religion and understand the stabilizing affect it has on society. I understand that for some, the church is the very center of their lives and the place they turn to when trouble strikes.

If Scientology offered me a belief system that made it possible for me to live and function happily, I would accept Xenu as easily as I would accept an angry god turning people into salt or drowning everyone and starting over. Faith is the key. That one step beyond what can be proved. As far as I can tell all religions require a Leap of Faith.

Scientology is a legally recognized religion. It has tax free status in the US. There are people who accept Scientology as their belief system. I can respect that. Money? I know many Catholics and Jews who routinely give huge amounts of money to their churches and synagogues as donations, payment for instruction, payment for funeral and wedding ceremonies. $10,000 for the key to existence would be a small price to pay if I believed someone had it.

SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

Totally agree with you SINSULL, I've been an atheist since my father died over fifty years ago but most of my friends and aquaintences are bog standard christians ie. catholics and protestants although some are devout, I also have some pagan friends, all these have one thing in common, [ no matter how daft I think them ] they were founded thousands of years ago, by whom I don't think anyone really knows, scientology on the other hand was invented only a few years ago by a third rate science FICTION writer called Ron.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM

As an aside, let me apologistically add that the whole Xenu routine was laid on top of a subject that was pretty fully developed already, around 1968. The fundamentals of Scientology are an effort to take the major peieces of human thought and experience -- such as communication, human affinites, and agreements -- and build a working understanding based on how these things work. I have always thought that was an idea that made more sense than trying to insist that all thought, feeling and reality comes from neurons having good or bad days.

My suspicion is that Isaac would have laughed off the Scientology episode of South Park, if left to his own devices, but that he was put under some sort of organizational pressure to make an issue out of it. As has been pointed out above, the show about Scientology was pretty minimal compared to some of the silly take-offs about other religous groups. And it was certainly within the norms of South Park. So it may not be a hypocrisy on Hayes' part, but rather on the organization's part.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

I know this is threadrift but.......

since we are discussing cults in general, can you tell me what you know about the Landmark group? Seems to me that their 'training' involves practices that are similar to brainwashing. What have you heard about this group?

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 01:05 PM

I think that any religion...and I do mean ANY...could easily be seen as a cult by people who didn't belong to it. And why not? But what does that say about religion? Nothing. It just says that people have a resistance toward stuff other people believe if it's different from what they believe or they just are ignorant of it. They tend to judge divergent and unfamiliar forms of belief in a negative manner.

Is Leninism a religion...or a cult? Darned right it is! But it's not a religion or a cult about God, it's a religion and a cult about dialectical materialism.

Are multi-level marketing sytems cults? Yeah! But they are cults, in the most basic sense, about making money through a pyramid scheme.

Are political parties cults? Damn right they are! That's my
opinion. They are complex and highly powerful cults which manipulate the public in order to secure political power for an elite few.

Then you've got the Masons and various other smaller organizations. More cults. They all have their ow particular beliefs, their own power structure and hierarchy, and they are all a mystery to people who don't belong to them.

The only people who won't join cults are people who refuse to join anything at all, in my opinion. So...if you want to join something in oder to give your life more meaning, just find the cult that best suits you, join it, and stop fretting about all the other cults that don't suit you. They aren't there for you, they're there for somebody else, obviously.

If a religion (cult) makes you happier and improves your life, then it's clearly useful for you, isn't it?

Dave's Wife - Regarding the Process: Sorry, I have no real information to offer at this point, I just remember running into their people on the street numerous times, and glancing at some of their flyers.

SINSULL - I read about half of Travolta's Ebook. It appears to be mostly just common sense to me. I don't think I'll bother reading the 2nd half.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 01:38 PM

Eric:

Ya know, I am not so sure it is true that Hubbard was proved to be a charlatan. I think he may have been a bit carried away with himself, but if you have not, yourself, examined what he did and said, I would be reluctant to throw around so condemnatory a word. Idiosyncratic, eccentric, I can see.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 03:08 PM

I have been following this thread with interest, if not occasional alarm. I am pleased that Amos and Dave's Wife have acquited themselves so well. I was a little bit worried for a while...

I have always had an affinity for "fringe" beliefs, and always give people as much time as I can to tell me about what they believe and why. I wish that more people would do that--I think there would be a lot less trouble if people made it their objective to understand, rather than to argue or "expose"--

At any rate, I've met some interesting people, some of whom later came to rather bad ends--I have found it much easier, over time, to find compassion for them, despite their human failings, than to have sympathy for their antagonists--

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM

Good post, M.Ted.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 03:38 PM

Sins,

I don't think the statement was, "truth is anything you think". I have never spoken about it to Hubbard, but my impression is that it is not a statement about vocabulary or articulation. A dyslexic does not KNOW backwards -- he just manages symbols backwards or sees them wrongly. The proposition that 'the truth is what is true for you' is a terribly important spiritual principle that flies in the face of authoritarian religions (including the organization of Scientology to some degre, paradoxically enough) by asserting that for any individual being, truth must be what that being owns as truth, not what he is told to believe by others. This does not preclude communication, learning, changing your mind, but it warns the individual that his own integrity is important and not to be cowed by others who would like to enforce their view of truth. I think it is a valuable little maxim, but like any maxim, you have to use it well to make it useful. Cf. "The kingdom of heaven is within you" loosely translated from another philosopher, which if used wrongly can do more harm than good, for example, by making someone feel they have no reason to do anything positive in life "because they already have heaven within them". That isn't what the maxim really means, in context, if you see my point! :D

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 04:08 PM

To be truly free, any human being must own their own truth, not have someone else's truth grafted onto them by persuasion, trickery, repetition, common convention, charismatic power, or whatever. The only way to know truth is to KNOW it inside yourself as a direct realization. People will tell you absolutely anything...for a variety of reasons...but only you can know what is true for you.

I take it that is what was meant by the passage in question.

I don't take it as referring to someone believing the moon is made out of cheese or the Earth is hollow or something else arbitrary or capricious like that...which they have no actual experience of.

If, for instance, Joan of Arc believed that she had been spoken to by Angels, then there was (and is) no one else who really had or has anything definitive to say about the matter at all as to whether it might be false or true. Only Joan could say, because only she KNEW by direct experience. For her, it was true, true beyond question, and for her that was the only relevant opinion on the matter. This made her strong. It enabled her to accomplish incredible things. (And it made her very dangerous to the status quo of her society, which is why it was used later to kill her.)

This may bug someone who cannot believe in Angels and who wants everyone else to share his disbelief. If so, that's his problem, his hangup, it's not the problem of Joan of Arc. He wasn't there, she was.

This is why you must find your own truth, not let other people browbeat or frighten you into theirs...if you want to be free, that is. If you are, a lot of people won't like it. They'd rather you let them decide for you what is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:11 PM

Little Hawk - I understand. When I read that one of the key 20 rules I needed to follow in order to promote world peace was to brush my teeth - I'm sorry. Yes - the world will be a better place if no one has bad breath. And people will have more self confidence if they have all their teeth. But promote world peace by brushing your teeth? I'd rather go dig for those missing magic glasses.

Amos - thanks for the clarification.

Eric - I too am an atheist with a family that is at times vehemently Catholic. They love me so they pray for me - A LOT. What they can't understand is how I pray for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM

What St. Joan meant when she says"Angels" may not be what you think of when you hear someone say "Angels". You never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:18 PM

To have supportive thoughts for someone and to wish them well is to pray for them in my way of thinking...and you can do that just fine whether as an atheist or not.

I guess that in general the world would be a more peaceful place if everyone were healthier. No question about it, actually. People do antisocial things most often when they're under stress of some kind. But yeah, it makes for kind of boring reading, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:32 PM

Amway. Anyone heard of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:52 PM

Yeah. I had an acquaintance who tried to sell me on Amway. I went to a meeting, but was not impressed. Not my kind of thing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:02 PM

the truth is what is true for you'

hmmm, Amos...the difficulty is, that 'principle', said in such a way, is poorly stated. It is, by its very nature, ambiguous and subject to gross misuse. It can easily fall victim to something like you note in "the kindgom of heaven" example.

We have here a statement, and implicitly also, a 'meta-statement' about the very definition of 'truth'. This happens over & over in some of these debates as one person takes a poetic, subjective idea of a concept and thinks they are expressing some sort of absolute. All "True for me" can be is an assertion that I like the locution being put forward. This can be useful, and if all it means is that "thinking this way is comforting for me and expresses my belief system..etc..", then we have, if not agreement, at least useful communication. But if a person gets the notion that merely holding a view somehow ennobles and establishes it as **true** in a more precise sense, then we have a problem!

I write..(yeah, maybe 'preach') over & over about equivocation and the very real problems it causes.....and I'm sorry, but not really 'getting' why it IS a problem doesn't excuse one from the ramifications of its use. It is beyond important to be clear about what is being claimed to be 'true' if we are to have a meaningful discussion about it. The same points hold even more strongly for uses of the word 'valid'...as in "my belief is just as valid as yours.

If we don't adopt some rules about all this and educate people in their use, we'll be forever just talking past one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:09 PM

We will forever be talking past each other, Bill. Accept it, that's my advice. ;-)

Or else start a brand new church, and you can preach your gospel of non-equivocation and total objectivity there. In time you may succeed in assembling a large number of people who are as bothered about the use of equivocation as you are. Together you will become a mighty force which can then go forth on the planet, spreading the word and converting (or exterminating) the heathen. Why confine your efforts to this puny forum? Think big, man! You could become as famous as Jesus or Mohammed or even Harry Lee Wigley, if you play it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:39 PM

Ayn Rand tried that. She made some money and still has a cult following. A is A.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:40 PM

Amway uses the same techniques as religions to attract followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Isaac Hayes Quits
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:42 PM

Oh, BTW,



C