Customize

Co$ Front Organisations: Probably Not Secular?

Discussion in 'Projects' started by jensting, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. jensting Member

    From Tony Ortega's blog we have tikk https://ortegaunderground.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/another-narconon-lawsuit-oregon-dentist-to-fight-order-and-more-scientology-links/comment-page-1/#comment-1537

    It struck me that the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology has already shown its colours in that lawyers for the Co$ claimed that all L Ron Hubbard writings were religious, fromhttp://www.lermanet2.com/reference/wollersheimsupremecourt.htm

    So, the booklets used to do $cientology training in the front organisations, like in narCONon as show by David Love, are they different books (i.e. different ISBNs)?

    If the training materials used in front orgs were different titles/ISBNs it might be useful to have a list of front org materials which are identical to the ones used inside (which were declared "religious" above).

    Just a thought.

    Best Regards

    Jens
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. tigeratbay Member

    Scientology contended throughout the case that everything written by L. Ron Hubbard for Scientology and Dianetics was copyrighted religious scripture or copyrighted religious practices, everything from Hubbard’s “how to wash a car” bulletin to the “fair game” policy [....]
    I don't believe it matter what forum the scripture is in, like books etc. The fact that they use his marked quotes for everything or state somewhere that it's his, that's the scripture, although layed out a little differently in some training books. As long as it's been ok'd by the cof$. All the front groups must have permission and ok's on training procedures, I believe.
  3. grebe Member

    Can something be religious and secular at the same time depending upon the context?

    For example, I might say, "treat other people as you yourself would like to be treated," in a classroom with kids. I might say that Jesus wants us to treat other people as we would like to be treated in Sunday School. Same concept in both settings, but one setting is religious.
  4. tigeratbay Member

    I'd say the only difference is opinion versus using a name like Jesus. A religious fanatic might say hey he said it differently, prove it. Of course they don't have copy laws on the bible. I personally think religious is in the heart and good will. So I'd say yes, the same depending on the context.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Not the same at all. In the first case it's a moral precept, which can be arrived at in many different ways.
    In the second case it's a command form a god, which must be followed to appease him under threat of eternal torture.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. grebe Member

    I think there are some legal tests which operationally define "religious text," but I am not a legalfag.

    I am a simple person who relies upon two questions for classifying just about everything:

    1. Is it "is" or is it "ought"?
    2. Is it "mine," "yours," our "ours"?

    "Is" statements are descriptions of the world or some bit of it, as it is, has been, or will be.

    "Ought" statements describe how someone would like things to be. These statements rest upon direct experience of feeling states by a living person. It's lucky that most people feel the same about most things and disagree only about a few things, else we'd never understand each other.

    "Mine" is information I can access but others cannot; sometimes called, "first person data."

    "Yours" is information that you can access but others cannot; sometimes called, "second person data," or "hearsay."

    "Ours" is information that independent parties can access. This is where "facts" live, and where "science" lives. This category is "secular" and belongs to all of us.

    "Religions" are big things with bits in all those categories. For example the Bible says that Rome occupied Palestine during the early years of the Christian church. That is an "ours" statement because it has been verified by independent parties and so is "secular" as well as "religious." The Bible also claims that Jesus rose from the dead. That is hearsay or second hand information, as it arises from personal accounts of Jesus' followers but has not been corroborated by independent sources.

    LRH claims that you can sweat out toxins. This has not been corroborated by independent sources. In fact, this claim violates other well established information within the "ours" category. So it is not even a candidate for future admission to the "ours" category, although it might be important to LRH and his followers.

    Data within the "ours" category are socially compelling whereas data in the "mine" or the "yours" categories are not. When people say, "don't impose your opinions on me," or "don't impose your religion on me," what they mean is, "you are elevating first person data to third person status; don't do that."

    Using my Two Question Tech™ many hazy category distinctions can be avoided, such as the "is/is not religious" distinction. So buy it today. Lifetime subscription available at reasonable cost.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. grebe Member

    I think you are making my point for me. We could imagine a teacher in a secular classroom and a Sunday School teacher saying exactly the same words. But in one context those words would be secular and in another context those words would be religious.
  8. Jeff Jacobsen Member

    Look at the materials Narconon uses. All of them say at least based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, and a copyright to him or the church appears. It's not just the counselor giving advice. It's the counselor imaging the thoughts of LRH. And the church has already said that all his writings are scripture. So it's hard to get away from that.

    If it were easy to "secularize" religious teachings, then a church could in one place claim to be teaching secular stuff (when legally that is better for them), and in another situation be teaching the same thing, but calling it religious. But no "church" would be so sneaky, would it?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    Public school teacher says "Do not murder."

    Sunday school teacher says "Do not murder."
    • Like Like x 2
  10. grebe Member

    We have the example of Catholic Charities, which hires some non-Catholics and serves many non-Catholics. Catholic Charities is not Catholicism, although it is supported by the Catholic Church. So there is some precedent for Scientology claiming that its social betterment programs are not Scientology proper.

    It may be true that every word spoken by LRH is sacred scripture for Scientologists. But that does not mean that others will regard those words as such.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Public school teacher says "Do not murder. Let's discuss why we should have a law that punishes murderers, and why people think murder is bad."

    Religion school teacher says "Do not murder. God said so. End of discussion."
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. grebe Member

    Again I think you are making my argument for me. A written statement like, "Do not murder," can have different meanings depending upon the context.
  13. anon walker Moderator

    If you will recall from the Sparrow file transcript, his lawyer was able to make a distinction between Hubbard's directives and Hubbard's doctrine. This is important, it meant his HCOPs about fair game etc. weren't protected as religious doctrine in court. Hah! Hah! Hah! </tomcruise>
    • Like Like x 3
  14. jensting Member

    Cool! And we should use that to our advantage while at the same time holding the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology responsible for its contradictory claims. (No, we're not saying that any LRH writings are or are not "religious" we're saying that the same piece of writing cannot be claimed to be both, as different times, just because the context is different.)

    Best Regards

    Jens
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. BigBeard Member

    It's religious in the USofA because they told the IRS it was, and the IRS agreed with them for some stupid reason. Also note that the word "secular" is not used anywhere regarding the 'front groups'. They are either "social benefit" or "public benefit" entities.

    BigBeard

    From the infamous 1993 Closing Agreement:

    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins