Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by Anonymous, Jul 3, 2011.
That's not OT VII, it's a forgery.
Poor Ronnie, he was so deathly afraid of being gay, he even projected it into his Messiah complex.
Oooh, Kindle version, Ooooh!
I bought one. Did you?
I thought it said "larklessness". It is what did it for me.
Blogcritics.org book review 5th Oct 2011 by Damian Penny
Book Review: The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion by Hugh B. Urban
rings a bell. This is a reprint of a review from elsewhere?
Variations of, with different lead-ins.
Edit: now also published at Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
What u got agin larks?
Many parts are edible!
Don't overdo it though.
and, unlike Janet Reitman's cloth-eared publishers, a Kindle version of Urban's book has been made available to the UK:
I thought it was about swallows.............
Funny, when I first saw the title, I thought it was written by Nicole Kidman's husband. It's nice to see academic criticism in print. It's only a matter of time before a clinical psychologist does an objective study.
^^ lol. The fisher study. Touche. The Fisher study was good and it dealt with a pretty important claim re the effectiveness of Scientology in improving IQ relationships, etc.
I would like to see a lot more and in particular, the effect of some auditing techniques to condition people into believing strange things (like Xenu). The impact Scientology actually has in destroying people's lives.
^^Nice. Ireland is full of so much WIN here lately, my irish ginger genes cant hardly stand it!!!
There's now a review in Amazon UK, for the Kindle edition. http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B005CQAIMM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
I've got just two complaints about the book;
"Despite the apparent exoneration of the church, however, Lisa McPherson's case is still commonly cited by critics as one of the clearest examples of the church's dangerous, destructive, and cultlike activities." [p. 207] The church was NOT exonerated. The prosecutor's main witness flipped out on him [http://www.lisamcpherson.org/tt6-13.htm]. The church SETTLED with the family. that's hardly exoneration.
Urban's conclusion tries to contrast how governments dealt with an iron fist with the Branch Davidians, and with a lack of concern over Aum Shinrikyo. I don't understand this contrast. The Branch Davidians were ignored by the government for quite a while, even after Koresh was tried for attempted murder. They couldn't really be ignored eventually since they were stockpiling weapons, including a .50 cal sniper rifle, 200,000 rounds of ammunition, conversion kits for AR-15 and AK-47 rifles, grenade launchers, etc. [BATF Investigation of Vernon Wayne Howell, Sept. 1993, p. B-181, and other sources] All this spending was done while at the same time the compound had no running water (kids were living there, remember). They were making their own weapons, and practicing bomb-making. They preached that they would have a Biblical confrontation with the government. ex-members were sounding the alarm of the violent nature of the group. There were reports of child abuse. So I don't see how the government could have turned a blind eye to this group, whether it was religious or not.
Japan DID have people investigating Aum Shinrikyo. Brave attorneys, some of whom died for their diligence, sought to expose the group. ex-members sought to expose the group. It is true that both the US and Japanese governments have a generally hands-off approach to "religions" which slows down investigation. This happened with both the Branch Davidians and Aum.
Here's Urban's summary of his point: "In short, the question we face today is 'whether the State and its citizens require greater protection from religious groups...' or whether, conversely, minority religious groups in fact require greater protection from government intrusion in order to prevent yet another Waco-style disaster." [p. 214] I would submit that that is not a legitimate contrast between Koresh and Aum. And it's not a good question in the first place. The question should be whether groups that BREAK THE LAW should be treated any differently if they are a religion. And obviously, to me, they shouldn't. The US government made a mistake by using an assault to handle Koresh. The Japanese government made a mistake by not taking warnings about Aum seriously enough to go after them. But that's a far cry from claiming one government was too tough while the other was too passive.
I don't mean to restart arguments about these groups. I just want to make some points about the book.
Thank you, Jeff. You raise interesting questions vis-à-vis the legal, political and cultural biases about minority "religious" groups. I have yet to read Urban's book but your post impels me to organize a close reading of the text.
Jeff, good catches. I especially think that Urban really needs to lose the word exoneration, because that is absolutely NOT what happened in the Lisa McPherson case.
Well, I thought it was interesting to hear from a religious scholar who did not dance to the tune of the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology.
The clams certainly wanted everyone to believe that they had been exonerated...
What I really want is for criminality scholars to take a similar interest. I could start by reading and understanding Arnaud Palisson's thesis, I guess
Would exculpation work?
I guess not.
that's a bit better. But the DA has always maintained that Scientology was guilty in Lisa's case. His problem was that his main witness freaked out on him, so he didn't think he had enough evidence without her to take to a jury. I disagree with that.
In the civil case, Scientology settled out of court with Lisa's family. That's where guilt can be implied, but again not proven. So in both cases the implication is that they are guilty, at least to me. When Scientology crows that they were "exonerated" that's just a huge twist of the facts.
How about unindicted?
Hugh Urban on Ireland's RTÉ Lyric FM: http://culturefilepod.tumblr.com/post/12245793458
Mwah!!! Thx <3!
Prayers and paranoia
by Barney Zwartz. Sydney Morning Herald
January 7, 2012
Related WWP threads:
Hugh Urban: History of a New Religion
Hugh Urban: An Interview With the Professor Who Took on Scientology -- Village Voice
Hmm. A number of errors in that review. (DC3s, it was the Wall Street Journal that broke the secret agreement story, and so on.)
Was the NYT
The Shadowy Story Behind Scientology's Tax-Exempt Status
New York Times, 9 March 1997
Tax Agency Hints At Inquiry on Leak On Scientologists January 1, 1998, Douglas Frantz, New York Times
Looks like the WSJ wins by a nose.
As always, I reserve the right to be completely wrong. And exercise that right frequently.
Another /hattip to TonyO on fb finding this one, and wow is it a doosey. Best review yet.
London Review of Books - The Church of Scientology by Hugh Urban
Vol. 34 No. 2 · 26 January 2012
Religion, grrrr by Rachel Aviv
I have a very hard time "liking" or frankly even getting excited over these listings that are "Anonymous"
Sorry but this whole thing fueled a thread over what......
........even Hilter got fueled by anti-semetic....shit......that was anonymous.....
L.S.S. Any "Anon" post started here.....i dont trust, listen, look-up or acknowledge....<any longer> as real shit.
Anyone can do this and thats great but look and or review your history before posting this....
.....it works both ways and I refuse to become some sort of Amazon critic meerly because some "Anon" says.......HEY LOOK AT ME! A BOOK YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT AND SHOULD NOW BUY AND RATE!
This is not a game, we are not a game.....and fuck you
u mad bro?
mad at the OP, for (allegedly) trying to sell him a book.
re: the game
Keith Urban was only quoting Source.
U mad at Keith or LRH?
Herp derp. No!
Hubbard very definitely incorporated the first church of Scientology in New Jersey in 1953. (He also incorporated two corporations, one of which was to be the mother church for all other franchises. [For a short time.]) The 1954 California incorporation wasn't done by Hubbard, but it acknowledged Hubbard's New Jersey corp as its mother church. (Followed shortly by Arizona, according to The Aberree.)
It's all in the incorporation papers, which have been on the net for years.
It's a good touch-stone: If a story says 1953, then they're on good sourced ground. If they say 1954, then they're directly or indirectly quoting CoS sources.
There are a number of second hand reports that she and Frederik Pohl witnessed the bar bet. (No, Heinlein wasn't there, and unless Harlen Ellison provides more details, I doubt he was too.)
astute observation is astute. /bows
nice catch there.
It still rankles me when Scientology is discussed in a religious framework.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!