"Scn = religion" meme inculcated

Discussion in 'Situation Rooms' started by Anonymous, Aug 8, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Seriously, read the judgement. The cult didn't disagree with any of Claire's claims, rather they claimed that there were religious practices that were motivated by religious doctrines - and the judge ruled that she was unable to examine any religious practices.

    If you don't read the source material then....wot's the point...??
  2. The Internet Member

    The part I read made it sound like the court decided not to review the evidence related to the human trafficking claim. You make it sound like the court said, "Yep. Human Trafficking. But that's okay for religions."
    • Like Like x 1
  3. The CHURCH of Scientology is a legitimate religion.
    This message by tuagalpf has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 4
  4. The theological scholars at the IRS would agree with you.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Don't read all of it because you could stain your eyes. That eye strain is terrible.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Kendrick Moxon would love you.

    That's the meme that Scientology wants the be accepted by Scientology critics.

  7. jensting Member

    The criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology gets away with a lots of shit in the US because it is getting the courts to recognise it as a church. That is why it's important to highlight the criminality while also mentioning that it is labelled as a "church."

    In more enlightened jurisdictions, it's enough to call it what it is: a criminal organisation
    • Like Like x 1
  8. The Internet Member

    You see, I was never in a cult so I actually care about what is true not merely what is expedient to my cause.
  9. The Internet Member

    So what is your take on it?

    BTW, "Go read this tl;dr I'm not going to bother summarizing" is trolling if you didn't know.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Quotation marks are important, as in the "Church."

    Scientology doesn't want the quotation marks there. It doesn't want it referred to as "the SO CALLED 'Church' of Scientology," as some, such as Australia's Senator Nick Xenophon. do.

    It's counting on its critics to be kind of stupid.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    Quotation marks are important, as in the "Church."

    Scientology doesn't want the quotation marks there. It doesn't want it referred to as "the SO CALLED 'Church' of Scientology," as some, such as Australia's Senator Nick Xenophon, do.

    It's counting on its critics to be kind of stupid.
  12. Anonymous Member

  13. Anonymous Member

    What BS! You don't care about what is true. You're just farting around. And you know it.

    Now go see Moxon. He wants to give you a big smile, shake your hand, and pat you on the back.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    that is no meme it is a bare assertion fallacy!
  15. Anonymous Member


    Seriously, deciding to hold a view on a document you can easily read, while steadfastly refusing to read said document, is bizarre. Had you read the full decision you would see that, yes, the judge in effect ok’d trafficking for religious organisations.

    From Tobin & Childs:
    To put it as simply as I can:
    The cult, in court, claimed that what occurred to Claire was based on religious doctrine. The court, as a result, ruled that it cannot consider any such claims regarding trafficking on its merits as to do so would necessary involve the court having to examine that religious doctrine. If you can explain to me, when you get around to read the decision, how this is not in effect giving the ok to trafficking for religious institutions I would love to hear it.

    Seriously though, don’t take my word for it. Here is the relevant passage from the ruling itself (with my emphasis):

    And, if you read closely, you may have noticed the bizarro situation where Headley was claiming the conduction wasn’t Scientology whereas the cult was claiming that it was…..

    I do not think I can be any clearer than that. Will you need me to spoon feed you and wipe your ass now?
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Random guy Member

    The problem here is not whether scientology is a religion or not, but the travesty that goes for a juridical system is parts of the US coupled with the veneration of anything that calls itself religious. That problem need to be addressed, because even if we somehow managed to get the cults oh so religious status overturned, the next group is going to take up the reins, then the next and so on. In many ways, scientology is just a symptom of the underlying US social and legal problem.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Thanks for importing typical esmb faggotry.
    You seem to want to hype something that's been going on over there for longer then WWP has existed.
    Still if retards want to carry on posting in this waste of bandwidth.
    Feel free.
    ▼▼▼ retards
  18. It's a CHURCH!!!
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  19. The Internet Member

    Yeah that's what I said. The court didn't bother reviewing the case for/against human trafficking. They simply addressed the question, were the Headley's ministers of the church or not? Labor laws are different for ministers of churches verses working at McDonald's.
  20. The Internet Member

    Yes it is. It's a legally recognized religious non-profit organization in the US. But this is not a major barrier to exposing the abusive practices of this organization.

    Keep postulating that Scientology is not a religion. Postulate postulate postulate! Because the US legal system and the common usage of the word "religion" in the US are basically MEST and you are at-cause.
  21. The Internet Member

    I just clicked the ESMB to page 1 of 30+ pages of is/is not a religion. This guy Veda agrees with you.
    Between Veda and the Hare Krishna sympathizer earlier, I am convinced. Say, must be something to that Krishna consciousness afterall!

    Everybody over to my place for some steaks!

    cheese steak sandwich  - 02.jpg
  22. jensting Member

    Damn straight! "Deeds, not creeds" are the problem.
    We note that Europe has "religious" exceptions in law as well, it's just not throwing up such egregious errors as the US ones (in this particular case).
  23. Anonymous Member

    Sure it's a barrier.

    Anything that strengthens the organization of Scientology acts as a barrier to exposing its abusive practices.

    The IRS decision could be overturned.

    But that's less and less likely if people are approvingly agreeing that the business, and slave labor cult, of Scientology is a "religion."
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Anonymous Member

    No, that’s not what the judge ruled (why haven’t you read the thing yet..???). She ruled that being a religion absolves them of being prosecuted for trafficking when the conduct behind such trafficking is religiously motivated.

    It is like how Xenophon said something bad about the cult in parliament and, because of how that setting grants absolute qualified privilege, he can never be prosecuted for saying it. It would be silly to argue that any case attempted against Xenophon over this, which would be dismissed due to this immunity, had nothing to do with the immunity but rather because “The court didn't bother reviewing the case” for libel. It would, as the phrase go, miss the point.
    Did you read the section from Childs & Tobin that I quoted? Where they reported the reaction of a “25-year Justice Department veteran” who recognised that the ruling completely bars any trafficking claim? Because of how any such claim is, according to the judge, protected by first amendment right to practice religion without government interference?
    I am unsure what there is in what I wrote that needed much convincing. You have two organisations (the HK andScn). One of those organisations abuses and defrauds the fuck out of its followers, the other does not. Is it really such a difficult point to realise that, based on this fact, only one of those organisations deserves protesting and warning messages…????

    Fucking idiot or troll, I can’t quite decide. Either way, it is too shit of a thread to continue spoon feeding a clown.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. The Internet Member

    Why haven't you quoted the judge saying this? Maybe because you think this conclusion logically follows from the judges decision and you're confusing the two: what the judge said and what you are concluding from it.

    There's probably a fuzzy line between "sacrifices people make for their religion" and "woah too much sacrifice." For example, working ridiculously long hours for low pay. That's a sacrifice people associate with religious work. Refusing an abortion even if bringing the pregnancy to term would have dire risks for the mother is another. Vowing not to have kids is another. Giving up a kidney --haven't heard of it, but it might be a religious sacrifice. Amputating an arm --whoa too much.

    If my boss at McDonald's insisted that I work 90 hours a week, that would be a crime against US Labor laws. But if the priestmunty at my local chabbernacle wanted me to work 90 hours to prepare for a celebration of the secrets of Tarvuism, no problem I'm up for it.

    If my boss tries to have sex with me, that's a crime. But if my wife tries to have sex with me, that's just normal. So the relationship context can make a big difference. The relationships among co-religionists is not the same as among employees in a secular company.

    It's not exactly the case that religious groups can get away with crimes that other corporations can't --although the distinction does provide an opportunity for exploitation.
  26. Anonymous Member

    I quoted the entirety of the judge’s decision that was relevant, and even added bolding and emphasis to some portions to help you.

    What part of this line from the judge are you having difficult with?:
    Defendants argue that this claim fails because of the First Amendment’s ministerial exception. The Court agrees.

    Or this?:
    The Court has already determined as a matter of law that Defendants are religious institutions and that Plaintiff served as a minister for them. (Docket No. 100.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s TVPA claim cannot be grounded on conduct shielded from judicial scrutiny by the ministerial exception.

    Or this?:
    In contrast to Bollard and Elvig, Defendants here represent that the challenged conduct was doctrinally motivated. (E.g., Defs.’ Reply 10-11, 15-18.) Therefore, inquiry into these allegations would entangle the Court in the religious doctrine of Scientology and the doctrinally-motivated practices of the Sea Org.

    Or this?:
    For example, inquiry concerning the pressure Plaintiff allegedly faced after becoming pregnant would require review of Scientology’s doctrine prohibiting Sea Org members from raising children. In order to determine whether Defendants’ means of persuading members to remain with the Sea Org, etc. fall within the purview of the TVPA, a trier of fact must inquire into Scientology’s policies, practices, and scriptures.

    Or this?:
    Determining whether Scientology’s practices of routing out, censorship, or heavy manual labor as a form of discipline, for example, constitute involuntary servitude within the meaning of the TVPA is precisely the type of entanglement that the Religion Clauses prohibit.

    Or this?:
    The Court also rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the ministerial exception categorically does not apply to claims under the TVPA.
    It’s much simpler than that. I read the judge’s decision which laid it out in fairly simple terms. Which you would discover if, you know, read the fucking thing….
  27. Random guy Member

    A friend of mine who's a law-student one told me that the problem with the US legal system is not that they have too many obscure laws, it is that they have too few. Hence, the system tends towards rule of lawyers rather than rule of law.

    I have no law degree, but from what I have seen following this board certainly chimes in with what he said. It appears the lawyers have far greater role and the outcome is far more dependent on how much resources you can spend on legal aid in the US as compared to my own little patch of turf here in Euroland.
  28. Anonymous Member

    "The Opposite Of Poverty Is Justice" - Bryan Stevenson (see his legendary TED talk here)
  29. The Internet Member

    Krishna guy, you aren't understanding my point.

    If my wife touches my butt that is fine.

    If my boss touches my butt that's harassment.

    OMG marriage is a get out of jail free card for sexual harassment!
  30. Anonymous Member

    Not really. The US courts do prosecute such, even in marriage. But as for trafficking, at least according to Fischer, it is barred from even looking at religion that does that.

    Had a US court ruled that any claims of sexual harassment could not be examined due to marriage then you may have had a point, but that would have required you to have understood what the judge wrote (which, in turn, would have required you to have read it).

    There must have been a point where making shit analogies up has used up more time than a quick one-over reading of what the judge write.....
  31. The Internet Member

    I read what you quoted. You're interpreting the judge to say, trafficking is fine for religions. I interpret the judge to say, it's not actually trafficking if the alleged victim is consenting to the slave-like conditions out of religious devotion.

    The distinction is one of consent. The believer is consensually sacrificing his personal best interests to the greater good of the religion, whereas the victim of trafficking is not in agreement with his state of affairs.

    The believer can leave the religion if the disagreement becomes too great. The trafficking victim, presumable, cannot escape.

    If someone on the RPF starts mouthing off about LRH being a con artist, I think the Sea Org is not going to want them around. Yes, that means not being a Scientologist any longer, disconnection from family still in Scientology, and no eternity on Target 2 or whatever. But sometimes you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Scientology gets new recruits through front groups. Many times I've encountered people who had no idea of what they getting into when they "joined." They were deceived.

    From reading Dianetics and going to a Dianetics Center, to Narconon, to Applied Scholastics, to any number of other front groups. The person is not told anything about what awaits him. He's tricked.

    Is that OK?

    And is it OK to have children pulled into the Sea Org?

    Why are you even here if you think it's OK for Scientology to abuse people because if it's in the context of religious devotion"?

    Do something else. Get a hobby. Go for a walk.
  33. The Internet Member

    To destroy Scientology we first need to assess its defenses and then focus our energies against its most vulnerable aspects. Don't confuse a discussion of its defenses with an actual defense of Scientology.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

    You're advocating destroying a religion?

    That's religious bigotry.

    That's a hate crime.
  35. anonamus Member

    ^^ This! Scientology must be recognized for what it is: A dangerous Cult, and not a religion. As long as the cult has that bogus status, they'll play the religious bigotry card at every option available.
  36. OK, I hereby revoke Scientology's religious "status".
  37. Anonymous Member

    Just as you placed the word "status" in quotes, so words such as "religion" and "church" can be placed in quotes.

    One goal of Scientology is that people be in agreement, without reservation, that Scientology is a "religion." They can privately dislike Scientology, but the bottom line is that they accept it as a religion, without quote marks, or any comment that denigrates the "Scientology religion," as a religion.

    Otherwise, so Scientology says, we are in the realm of hate speech, and you don't want that do you? Of course not.



    Good to see you getting with the program.

    No point in fighting the inevitable.

    Be happy and stop hating.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Actually, if you had read the judges own words, you would see that she could not even attempt to make that determination because to do would have entangled gov and religion (according to the judge).

    English. Do you read it?
  39. I hate this post.
    It's very politically correct.
    The hate speech label can be used to suppress free speech.
    Discussing if the cult is a religion would apply.
    Seeing it was the IRS that under duress gave them religious status,it should be discussed.
    Also me being such a fucking disgusting waste of space should also be discussed.
  40. Anonymous Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins