BS: Scientology revisited.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

Alas, "...it is appointed unto Man, once to die..." Denial won't change that fact. Everybody whom Jesus healed, eventually died of something. It is just that, through stupidity some of die sooner than the actuarial tables say we should - much sooner.

And gee, Sieggy was on to something. He got the science of medicine looking in another direction for answers. It was not a closed system as is Scientology or Christian Science. The proof of the validity of Freud's theory (theories) is that it is open for discussion and modification, growth and multi-directional propagation. Cults are cutoff from those things and brook no descent!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

Dianetics is not the same as the Church of Scientology. You have to look at the deeds of the organization to see the abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM

No, it's their Bible, written by their founder. It is the seminal inspiration for the cult.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM

What I mean is, Hubbard's Dianetics book does not show what the deeds of Scientology became. People can read Dianetics and still not see the picture of how controlling and abusive CoS is. It certainly plants the seeds of his science fiction "church", but it's not the whole picture. Also, reading the book is not the same as going through the indoctrination of paying the high charges to be personally indoctrinated in the Dianetics Course. But I get your point, Slag. It was part of founding the cult and luring in members.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: olddude
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:20 AM

Interesting read my friend. I found the author to be pretty confrontational with the owner who simply emailed and I paraphrased "how can we help you get the parts you need" She seems bent on blasting the lady for a belief system that she doesn't agree with.   I personally have no interest in their stance as mine belongs to Christ but I didn't think she needed to try and pick a fight with her. It made the author look far worse than the owner of Deering I thought. As far as those pamphlets, I would just throw them away as I do the stuff other groups put in my mailbox from time to time.

I know very little about their belief system. For me it is wrong thinking but America has Freedom of Religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:26 AM

I applaud the person who spoke up and challenged Deering.

Freedom of religion was not meant to allow setting up fraudulent organizations just to make money and abuse people. Scientology was deliberately founded to make money.

OPEN MINDED and TOLERANT DOES NOT MEAN being blind to what con- artists do.

Their religious tax status was a con job on the IRS.

----------
"The New York Times reported that in 1993 David Miscavige, Scientology's leader, told a gathering of Scientologists that Scientology's U.S. tax bill could have been as much as one billion dollars. But according to the terms of the secret IRS deal, Scientology did not have to pay one billion dollars, and that was just the beginning of Scientology's tax windfall.

The Wall Street Journal just disclosed the confidential 76-page agreement through which Scientology was given previously unprecedented tax relief...

To understand the unprecedented scope of the this secret IRS deal and the growing allegations of foul play surrounding the means by which this secret deal was extracted from the IRS, one should understand some of the context and history of Scientology's previous dealings with the IRS.

Scientology's history of tax fraud:

Click Here

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

a bit from that link in my last post

---
Fifteen years later in 1984, the IRS's tax court decided another Scientology case, the Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner (104 S.Ct. 2136,2142 n.4). The case concerned the "new" Scientology mother church for the years 1970 through 1972. Again Scientology was denied tax-exempt status for covertly funneling money to Hubbard and his family, this time through dummy and sham corporations. This more recent asset-skimming during the 1970's involved money laundering through Panama and then through Swiss and other foreign bank accounts. In this decision, the court stated:

"OTC [Operation Transport Corp. Ltd.], was a sham corporation controlled by L Ron Hubbard and petitioner [CST] (p. 399)… Its board of directors lacked bona fides (p. 399)… To disguise these payments as debt repayment and to conceal the OTC sham a cover story was developed (p. 439)… In pursuit of the conspiracy, petitioner filed false tax returns, burglarized IRS offices, stole IRS documents, and harassed, delayed, and obstructed IRS agents. Petitioner gave false information to, and concealed relevant information from, the IRS about its corporate structure and relationship to OTC… CHURCH MEMBERS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE HIERARCHY, NOT JUST ORDINARY CHURCH MEMBERS, PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY (emphasis added, p. 505-506)." [From Church of Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 381 Aff'd, 823 F.2d 9th Cir. (1987) cert. den. 486 U.S. 108 S. Ct. 1752 (1988). Also see Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.]

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:40 AM

Scientologists MAKE MONEY FOR EVERY NEW RECRUIT they get into the church of $cientology.

It is a multi-level marketing scheme. The person who confronted Deering probably knew this.

No wonder Deering would be including marketing of Scientology in her banjo business - many scientologists earn their entire living off the "downline" of people they have recruited into the cult, getting money off what those people are paying for the expensive scientology "services".

Scientology is often called the "Amway of religions".

Scientology has so many business front groups, I don't think you'd even be able to find a complete list.

$cient targets dentists and other professionals to get high income members to recruit other members in the pyramid. It is common to see the scientology brochures like what Deering sent out in dentist and chiropractor waiting rooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: olddude
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

Alice my friend
I admit I know nothing about them. About as much as I know about medicine and that is pretty slim. You are right I am sure. There was that phase in the 60's where there was the church of the everything for IRS purposes ... you could pay a small fee and be ordained and get tax free status ... so maybe you are right ... I am clueless. My point was the lady was asking how she could help her with parts and the author turned it into a religion discussion ... that I didn't agree with for she was asking a service question about her company. She shouldn't include their booklets if they still do that, it is not good for her company I am sure.

:-)
Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:20 AM

How did they manage to hook Tom Cruise and surprisingly John Travolta? Do they tend to attract people who are vulnerable and open to any suggestion more so than strong thinking people? John Travolta has always seemed to be a lovable amiable sort of man.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

"John Travolta has always seemed to be a lovable amiable sort of man. "

And don't forget - he's an actor. We only see the side of him that he wants us to see. For all we know he could have the heart of Jack the Ripper. Or Ghandi. How would we know?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:40 AM

Travolta and his wife denied that his son Jett had autism, as $cientology does not recognize autism as a real affliction. Also, Travolta has paid enough money to reach the top level of being "clear", so he is not supposed to have problems like an ill son, according to CoS. It was not until after his son's death that he finally defied the church and acknowledged his son probably had autism (but was not treated for it when he was alive).
Scient. and Autism

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

Well, thanks, Bill, I certainly did not invent Scientology.

But I do know a bit about it, and I am constantly surprised at the confusions that surface about it. My own opinion is that the organization and its cult-like practices have earned them all the PR misery to which they are heir. But my earlier point about being clear about the difference between the PR claptrap they have generated, and the original materials and efforts on which they were first built is an important one. Judging the works of all Christians by reading media reports about abusive bishops is probably not a good approach to getting the story straight, I am sure, and I think there is a parallel caveat to be taken in trying to know what drives the subjects of Christian Science, Buddhism, Taoism, or Scientology.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:35 PM

Amos, I've read Dianetics. I've read some biographic material on Hubbard.

Check this out

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." There are also variant rumors. For some reason, this is often mentioned on Usenet. Evidence is discussed below, but the short answer is that it's almost certainly true.

The Church of Scientology has actually taken German publishers to court for printing this story. Stern won (see below).

One form of the rumor is that L. Ron Hubbard made a bar bet with Robert A. Heinlein. This is definitely not true. It's uncharacteristic of Heinlein, and there's no supporting evidence. There is, however, inconclusive evidence that Robert Heinlein suggested some parts of the original Dianetics.

Another variant is that Hubbard talked of starting a religion to avoid taxes. Jay Kay Klein reports that Hubbard said this in 1947.

The Church's media guide tells reporters that the rumor is confused, and that it was George Orwell who said it. In 1938, Orwell did write "But I have always thought there might be a lot of cash in starting a new religion...". However, Robert Vaughn Young, who was Scientology's spokesman for 20 years, says that Hubbard learned about the Orwell quote from him. Young further states that he met three people who could remember Hubbard saying more-or-less the famous quote. Nor did Hubbard write a rebuttal of the rumor -- Young claims to have ghost-written the rebuttal in the Rocky Mountain News interview. "

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM

The point is not whether he said it or not.

The question is what he was doing. And what he did.

I'm afraid that that side of the question is a black pit of ignorance as far as this thread is concerned.

In any case, the man's dead and gone. So I don't much mind if he said some oddball things. I think it is silly to conclude from that one remark that he spent fifty-odd years of work to make it happen with no other motivation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:50 AM

I find it amazing that people demand forms of open government, access to seeing decision making in action, accountability and freedom.

And then...

Religions claim to wish to have an effect on peoples' lives and influence their well being, just like governments, but at the same time want to remain in a cloak of secrecy?

if you like the air of enigma, if you want to have an inner circle where people get to know more, (freemasonry thrives on this point) and if you want to be revered...

Accept that people will be hostile to you and your intentions if they aren't opened up to scrutiny. and if they are, then criticism at least stands a chance of being objective.

L Ron Hubbard made a decision to avoid tax and make money. In doing so, he inadvertently or purposely screwed up a huge number of lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM

You almost wonder if a guy like Cruise, who seems to have a little something on the ball, doesn't wake up and see the scam, but for pride's sake sticks in it. I wonder what political clout he may have with those powers that be? Gee, if he plays his cards right, he could wind up the Pope of Dianetics!