Discussion in 'Situation Rooms' started by Anonymous, Aug 8, 2013.
You are a very naughty mod, and deserve to be spanked.
I promise no surprise buttsex.
Advocating destroying a religion isn't a hate crime. You can only commit hate crimes against people.
If you advocate violent action against members of a religion that is a hate crime.
If you advocate spreading the word to anyone who will listen that a particular religion is stupid and everyone should abandon it, thus effectively destroying it as a practised religion, that is not a hate crime.
Scientology is stupid. Most of the things it claims are known to be untrue. It's "scripture" advocates fraud, harassment, dangerous medical quackery and arguably violence.
I personally believe that anyone with a brain who knew exactly what being a scientologist entailed, down to money and hero worship of a impotent, misogynist, yet somehow fascinating failure, they would no sooner join scientology than they would the Manson cult.
I have no problem disseminating the truth about scientology. The fewer people who join in the first place the better.
The ones who are currently in power know the score. It's been 5 years after all. Siege warfare.
We help the ones who flee the fortress, but the ones who choose to stay for the reckoning, well, within all legal boundaries I say 'no quarter'.
Tell it to the fellow who was arrested in London for carrying a picket sign that said "cult."
Epic nose was epic. His case just, his balls of considerable proportions.
Arrested but released without charge, because the CPS (for Anons outside the UK, that's the Criminal Prosecution Service - police lawyers, in other words) judged that a crime had not been committed.
Some of them are clearly victims. Children for example.
It's only the beginning. More hate laws are coming.
Hubbard knew what he was doing when he used his religion angle.
If working like a slave is part of being a minister, it's not "human trafficking." It's just being in a really bad religion. The remedy for that is leaving the religion.
This old guard strategy of yelling, "Scientology is not a religion!!!!" hasn't worked for 20 years. Derp.
Are you also into Hare Krishna? I heard those guys love cows like they love their mothers.
That's what Kendick Moxon has been saying.
It works like this:
A) I agree that Scientology's a religion. All resistance to that idea is gone for me.
B) I'm opposed to Scientology's abuses, and like to emphasize that I'm opposed to Scientology's abuses.
C) Scientology disguising itself as a religion, for all practical purposes, makes it impervious to attempts to stop its abuses, but I don't mention that.
D) Did I explain that I'm opposed to Scientology's abuses?
It blocks some attempts, but far from all. Have you seen the change 5 years of Channology has wrought? The cult used to be highly visible, cocky and getting away with claiming all sorts of shit. Now they are laughingstock, even in Hollywood, shrinking fast and no-one take their claims seriously any more. New legals strategies focusing on narrow issues are making legal inroads. It is just a matter of time before one of them hit home and breaches the dam.
It would be very much easier if the cult couldn't use their religious shielding, but we have to play with the cards we are given. In the long run though, the cult has shown the US need to have a closer look at how it treats religions.
The US is not going to take a look at how it treats religions.
The cult (or as you would say, the Church) of Scientology will be around long after you're gone, largely because of its religious disguise.
All this discussion is playing into OSA's hands.
Want to piss off OSA?
Repeatedly say that we are from the church of Anonymous.
Or the church of the Holy Psych.
Church of Xenu.
Its religious status isn't helping it much with recruiting or retaining members. Unless they reverse their policy and require Sea Org members to have babies it hardly seems likely they will persist in any kind of serious form for the duration of my lifetime unless I am hit by a bus next week.
Plus, there are signs that the US is actually starting to join the rest of the industrial world in becoming less religious so their religious status could become the hindrance it already is in some countries (where they play the self-help angle a lot more).
Sometimes it's good to have this discussion especially for new friends.
Old fags are bored shitless no doubt.
Anyways if TT gets out of hand I will gore spam it.
End of discussion
Well, that's settles then.
I would like you to point out where I have ever called the CoS a church. Blinded much?
Posting under my nick so anything I say is not confused with the shit spewed in this utter trainwreck of a thread.
So far, in the five years of chanology, I have yet so see any evidence that would convince me that your statement above is true. Let’s take some examples:
1) Mary Johnston getting a settlement from the cult in 2002. Believed to be in the region of €2 million. Because the case never went to judgement it did not set a precedent, but it was hoped at the time that it could inspire others to achieve similar results. Still waiting for that to happen. There were so many things that went right in this case though that are unlikely to be present in other cases – and even with that it still took over 7 years to get the settlement. No floodgates where opened, and this is afaik one of the best legal results outside of the US.
2) The Wood’s successfully sued the cult for libel, getting a judgement in 1999. The venue for this, the UK, is the most favourable for libel suits. But, since then, no similar suits have followed. The original took over 6 years to finally get a decision.
3) The landmark case, of course, was the Wollersheim. That took over two decades, and so far I have not seen a single case following it able to get anywhere close to it.
What has been occurring has been pay-offs, dismissals (sometimes with the most asinine and idiotic reasonings given) and whatever else. Where are the ‘legal inroads’??
Let’s a do a comparison. Take the case that was mentioned in the 1980’s edition of BBC’s Panorama here:
Compare the 1980’s case with the best you have today. Which, being honest, would you have thought was the most likely to succeed?
Can you point to any demonstrable ‘legal inroads’????
The failed Dandar, Brennan's and the Headly's cases, infuriating and unjust as they are, have served the purpose of charting some traps the cult use to derail cases, i.e. what not to do the next time.
The Debbie Cook case was settles in a hurry, but leaving a nice trail of court dox to follow for people in similar circumstances.
The PIs likely got a handsome settlement, though with everything being under the table is useless to the world at large.
AnonSparrow won his case arguing 1st amendment rights. This also appear to have been the last case where Moxon had the main role as a cult attorney (so far).
The Laura de Crescenzo case is still ongoing. Whether she will actually succeed is any ones guess, but at least she have charted important territory.
The Garcia case is extremely interesting, and has the potential to do some serious damage to the cult. It is one of the "new breed" of cases focused extremely narrow to avoid their religious shielding. I've got my fingers crossed for that one.
A flurry of Narconon-related cases have been argued extremely successfully, and left a nice and broad paper trail (RfTTP forum has details).
We are not there yet, but the many cases are slowly but surely getting closer to target.
You kind of proved my point Random guy. Let’s look at each case in turn:
This has been a recurring mantra since the ARS days, which is kind of my point. If you think this constitutes ‘legal inroads’ then I have a bridge to sell you.
What dox? Seriously, what dox? The only thing to come out of that was Debbie’s testimony which won’t be admissible in any court of law without herself to testify, and she won’t be testifying because of the gagging order. So what dox???
So completely useless and doesn’t demonstrate any legal inroads then?
You think that was a ‘win’ and an example of ‘legal inroads’? What happened was the cult made shit up and, after costing him time and money, those accusations didn’t fuck sparrow in the ass. The cult did the same with Gregg, and similarly suffered absolutely no fucking repercussions and is free to do the same shit all over again. What a ‘win’ and a great example of a ‘legal inroad’ that was.
I think folks are far too quick to label court cases as ‘important territory’. Compare the 1987 case which was similarly ‘important territory’. Compare the McPherson cases. There has been no ‘legal inroads’ here. While I desperately want this case to succeed I would be deluding myself into ignoring the many many seemingly good cases that have fallen by the wayside over the years
Until a single one hits I won’t be holding my breath. That a case has been filed and that some argumentation has occurred doesn’t seem to qualify as ‘argued extremely successfully’ given such cases are still in their infancy. Part of the issue I would raise about the Narconon suits is that, fundamentally, they are set up to allow the cult to case the entity aside and just continue on as normal without it.
For all the cases that you cited that had judgements there was no win to be found. All others still to get a judgement you are just expressing the same optimism that has been expressed over similar cases throughout the cult’s legal history. When you are considering the Sparrow case a 'win' then, frankly' your metric of what constitutes a 'win' needs adjusting.
I constantly forget the US has a very ... peculiar legal system. Being able to gag someone from testifying in court is .... something you'd expect in 3rd world countries.
Compared to earlier cases where the cult managed not only to screw the people over, but having them sentenced and the legal council's office dismantled, it is a win. Not a great one though.
We'll see how this one plays out though. The latest case may tie the chain of Narconon firmly around CoS' neck. The Desmond case was very damaging to the cult, and it did leave heaps of non-admissible dox.
True, but judging by how earlier cases ended, Sparrow did reasonably well.
Lots of religions are bad news and deserve to wind up on the trash heap of history. Like Heaven's Gate. People's Temple. Aum Shinrikyo. Hare Krishna. That Bagwan guy's cult. Anything that isolates people and turns them into deluded slaves.
It's a dangerous cult and a religion.
Lots of people who get suckered into Scientology are seeking some spiritual meaning. They hear the stuff about being an eternal thetan reincarnating, and certain practices that can help a person "go exterior" from the body. That sounds pretty cool and it might take away the fear of death, blah blah blah.
All that stuff sounds religious to me. It also must seem religious to the sincere people who get into Scientology to find out more about this spiritual "tech."
Nobody in this thread has yet offered a rational argument in favor of Scientology *not* being a religion. Such an argument would require a definition of "religion" that specifically excludes Scientology.
Instead of an argument we hear about expediency. It would be beneficial to our cause if Scientology were not regarded as a religion. That is likely true. But we are supposed to care about more than our own desires.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Being reasonable about the scientology cult as a "religion" is like saying cancer is good, because it helps prevent overpopulation.
Are you saying that religion is always a good thing? And because Scientology is bad, it cannot be a religion?
I'm not in favor of ignoring the dark side of religion.
All I'm saying is, if scientology is religion, then so is the mafia. That's all. Over & out. End of discussion for me.
Scientology is a Sadomasochism club
How is the mafia a religion? They talk about making money but I don't hear them talking about life after death, reincarnation, God, thetans, spirits, or other religious stuff like that.
Scientology is similar to al-Qaeida in being both a religious and a political movement.
Both groups seek to recruit young people into pseudo-military organizations that view themselves as transcendent, spiritual forces charged with utterly defeating some demonized enemy. For al-Qaeida, that enemy is the US and its allies. For Scientology the psychiatrists are the ultimate evil that must be destroyed.
Some groups are crazy. Some are dangerous. Some are crazy and dangerous, and those are the worst.
And the safe word is "leaving." Because there's no safety inside the cult.
You're statement was that the US needs to take a closer look at how it treats [all] religion.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to saying "religion" generally.
And the answer was that it's not going to happen.
On the other hand, it is by no means a certainly that the IRS could not reverse its 1993 cave in to the Scientology cult, that is if enough people don't perfect their "I'm a happy patsy for L. Ron's religion angle" routine, and the powers that be sense that the public would support reevaluating the 1993 cave in to a criminal organization with giant crosses on its buildings.
OK. You just argue that we should docilely accept it as one.
Maybe you should re-think that part.
I see you have a crystal ball allowing you to make perfect predictions? Cool, can I borrow it?
One thing's for sure, unless someone is willing to work for it, change won't come, whether it is the 1993 IRS decision or the juridical interpretation of the 1st amendment.
I did? Could you quote the part where I said so? Because again i think you are referring to someone else.
All I have said, and which I maintain as true, is that to successfully argue the cult is not a religion using a definition, you need that definition accepted by the world at large. Since "religion" is not a natural phenomenon, it can't be precisely defined, at least not in a way that will include the traditionally accepted religions and at the same time exclude scientology.
Feel free to spend your time and energy fighting the idea of scientology as a religion. I'll work on trying to get around in in stead.
The great ConMaster Hubbard himself said that scientology is not a religion!
The Creation of Human Ability, L. Ron Hubbard, 1953.
The US is not going to amend the Constitution, and change how all religions are regarded and treated.
It may re-evaluate the status of Scientology.
Newsflash!, he changed his mind.
Of course he did. When he found out it could protect his fraud, scientology became "religion".
THAT'S WHAT THE FUCKING AUTHORITIES NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND!
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!