"Scn = religion" meme inculcated

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

  1. The Internet Member

    The similar parts are the ascension of the self as God, the role of will or intention in causing physical reality, philosophical dualism, reincarnation, etc.

    Once you've made it to the top of any of these pyramid groups, the "end cognition" is "lol scam!" So of course no one is going to embrace the "ideology" of some other group.

    Hubbard was obviously a brilliant magician. Just look at the effort required to undo his work.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. JohnnyRUClear Member

    OK. That still misses my point.

    Let me try it this way: what happens if the MRs (or some other gaggle of butthurt blown Big Beings) start up their own parallel full-on KSW cult, completely duplicating everything as it was in the magical fairyland Good Ol' Days? They try to implement everything elRong said, just as the COS tries to do. They self-identify as Scientologists and they believe in elRong's nuttery as fervently as their cousin clams in the COS, perhaps even starting up their own GO/OSA and their own RPF, but they are in an entirely separate organizational structure with no coordination or cooperation or linkage between it and the COS aside from their shared origins in elRong's writings.

    Don't waste time saying it will be as bad as the COS. I know that. I'm sure you know that I know that. How bad it is, or the kind of badness it has, is not the point here. The question is, is "Scientology" a religion? If it is, and the above scenario unfolds, then we'll actually have something parallel to "real" religions. Until then, what we have is a single organization trying to claim that all adherents of a religion are found only within that organization, which is both silly and a violation of the rights of religion and freedom of association of anyone self-identifying as a Scientologist but feeling "do not want" toward COB and COS.

    Put yet another way: If you want to S Hubb's COHB, but not COB's, are you a Scientologist or not? If you are, then "Scientology" just might be your religion, Hubb's statement that it's not one notwithstanding. However, the COS would not be your church.
  3. Anonymous Member

    I have no doubt that, should the a replica of Hubbard's Scientology come into existence, that it would also employ Hubbard's religion angle and religious cloaking.

    Then we'd have two mind-control cults operating as businesses disguised as religions.
  4. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  5. JohnnyRUClear Member

    And both would likely claim to "be" Scientology. In fact, the Indies already exhibit something of this trait. Miscavige killed the Hubbard star! To the rest of the world, they would both appear ridiculous in this claim of exclusivity; they would resemble the ST:TOS pair of dorks who were black on one side of their bodies and white on the other side, each exclaiming that the other is obviously inferior to himself because the colors were reversed. More to the point here, though, is that they would begin to resemble an actual religion, with adherents forming new branches as needed to accomodate divergence of views or the abandoning of reconciliatory hope with the management of their prior branch.

    Scientology, as a [quasi-]religion or a way of life, is not seen to be "free", because the COS continuously asserts tyrannical dominance over it. Yet, there is the "Free Zone" and the Indies; are they not free? Certainly they are free of Miscavige's corporate control, if not entirely free of his maniacal harassments. The problem there seems to be one of durability; as we've noted, the Hubbard mindfuck erodes from its victims once they are no longer ensconced within the cult proper. Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy" does not fare well outside the laboratory. It's unviable when exposed to the harsh light of day. Thus, even now in 2013, when the word "Scientology" is mentioned, people think of the original rotten corporate enterprise, not the entire scope of all who self-identify as clams. There just aren't enough independent clams at any one time to change public perception about this.

    If Scientology as a belief system is to be treated as a religion, it will need to spread beyond just Miscavige's little empire. It was a cult with Hubbard at the helm, because it did not sustainably grow beyond Hubbard, Inc. It's a cult now because it hasn't sustainably grown beyond Miscavige, Inc. The more time passes without this occurring, the less realistic it is to expect it to ever happen, and if it can't happen, then that's Hubbard's fault, and shows the whole works for the preposterous abortion that it has always been.

    So we arrive at our now-semi-famous assessment that religion is free and Scientology is neither. Q.E.D.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    Hubbard's hall of mirrors religion angle seems to have some folks dizzy, although there are those who would say that Hubbard the hypnotist had just done a thorough job of creating agreement amongst the easily tricked humanoids.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Takes a good psychologist to that and hypnotists are the best psychologists
  8. Anonymous Member

    Portions highlighted in red are when you are referencing concepts of ‘religion’/’Scientology’ in terms of beliefs and/or a body of practice. Portions highlighted in blue are when you are referencing concepts of ‘religion’/’Scientology’ in terms of groups, organisations, or corporate structures.

    It is a clusterfuck of equivocation between two very different things (namely ‘groups’ with ‘beliefs’). An equivocation which, a few pages back, you complained hadn’t been explained well enough….

    The thing is that, when this distinction is recognised, this topic becomes really clear and the faulty reasonings that rest on this equivocation become obvious to spot. Take any Scientology press release and replace the word ‘religion’ either as ‘group’ or ‘beliefs’ depending on the context and the entire thing becomes gibberish – almost every second argument the cult forwards depends on this equivocation.

    This distinction is a lot more important than that, as RG touched on:
    The first amendment states:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    If you change the word religion to refer to beliefs you get the following:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a given set of beliefs, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    With that change support for tax-exemption and the special privileges for religious organisations goes right out the window. The counter argument to this is that religion was, when written, intended to cover both beliefs and groups. I think this fails for two reasons:

    1) Note how in the act it makes reference to the ‘freedom of speech’, which is the action, and the ‘press’, which are organisations that practice said action. Even in the first amendment we see an example of distinction being drawn between groups and the freedoms that apply to those groups. Yet, there was no such iteration of groups for the religion portion – which would seem to indicate that the group element was a later re-interpretation.

    2) Looking at the revisions the amendment went through, I think, really shows the interpretive error being made.

    Madison, June 8th 1789 – ”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

    This wording flatly contradicts the notion of tax exemption. The next revisions introduced were thus:

    House committee, July 28th 1789 – ”No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”

    House committee, August 28th, 1789 - ”Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.”

    House of Representatives, August 28th, 1789 - ”Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.

    Senate revions, September 3rd 1789:
    Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others.”
    Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”
    Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”
    Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”

    Senate, September 9th 1789 – ”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

    It should be clear from these that the intention of “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” was more referring to “the rights of conscience” than any group construct or group-related privileges. I don’t think the cult would have been immunised from trafficking claims under the first amendment had it read “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.”
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Anonymous Member

    Scientology cannot be practised outside of the organisation. To do so is a high crime.
  10. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Well, in that quoted section, I'm comparing and contrasting those things, so I don't see the problem with the fact that I'm referring to both alternately. I thought that was clear in what I wrote. Some of your highlights indicate that you took something I said differently than I meant it, so perhaps not so clear after all.

    As I've been trying to point out, yes -- and the rest of your post makes a good argument about the 1A. I do think you might want to revisit the word "press" though, with the same issue of evolving meaning in mind. Without digging up the debates about it, I'd bet that they meant that as an individual right as well. Remember a lot of individuals owned and operated their own printing presses back then and there were no giant media empires.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. The Internet Member

    Well there are other religions that take your money and keep secret doctrines. Mormons. The OTO. So I don't think Scientology is totally unique with its its "member in good standing" stuff.
  12. Random guy Member

    Of course it wouldn't be realistic to change the wording of the constitution itself, only the interpretation. It can be done, the prayer in schools and ten commandments on school walls are fairly recent examples showing change happens. It could be argued that by granting some organizations tax exemptions over others, the state has indeed made "law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship". The British Charity Benefit Commission and its proposed Australian counterpart makes no ruling on religion or worship, and is thus actually more in compliance with the US constitution that the US itself!

    With the special interest groups and the peculiar US political system I don't expect change any time soon though.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Anonymous Member

    You know, if you keep sucking on Hubbard's religion angle, you're liable to get some terrible mouth sores.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Not so sure that would be needed. The act of publicising/disseminating a work of journalism is the sole criterion needed to qualify for being part of the press. The freedom of speech is pretty clear on the matter, and the press reference was about extending these same protections from individuals to group entities or organisations engaged in that activity.
    I think you mean the Charity Commission, but there is a very important distinction between the UK/AUS systems and the US which renders this comparison inaccurate.

    In the UK it was only in 2007 (iirc) that a public benefit test was introduced for religious entities. Prior to that, for determining if a given entity operated in the public interest, the ‘advancement of religion’ was de facto assumed to satisfy this. As part of the eligibility testing for tax breaks the UK gov, prior to 2007, was making determinations over what was and was not a ‘religion’.

    In Australia things have only changed to a public benefit test at the start of this year, and it remains to be seen how this test will be administered in practice. Prior to this common law was used just as in the UK, and the Australian gov and court system were regularly making determinations over what was and was not a religion. The key case for Scientology in Australia being Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria)) where the determination was made that Scientology was religion.

    If you think about, the US is still operating under common law (not really, but the practical effect is the same) and is making the assumption that ‘advancing religion’ is automatically in the public interest. That assumption, which is a violation of the first amendment in the first place, then requires the further violation of the constitution as you noted.

    I’m not disagree with what you wrote, but I think that the events in the UK and Australia being so recent is an important point to highlight.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Random guy Member

    Indeed, that's the point I meant to make (but failed miserably to, since I'm neither an American, lawfag or even native English speaker). Poking a hole in the assumption of the benefits of advancing religion may be a way to go. It won't happen any time soon though...
  16. The Internet Member

    Is this some kind of "tech"? With repetition of these little insults will I "introvert"? Will I be herded like a cow into agreement? I'm curious to know how this mental ju jitsu is supposed to work.

    Don't you think it would be easier to simply explain why Scientology is not a religion while other obvious scams like, say, Benny Hinn Ministries, are religious?
  17. Anonymous Member

    Scientology is a fraud. There are no engrams. Hubbard knew that before he started. He lied. About everything. He only decided to use the religious cloaking device once the game was up and he was found to be personally liable to claims of fraud. Simple really. Problem?
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Random guy Member

    All this is true, the problem is non of it not disqualify scientology from being a religion. Mormonism can arguably be accused of the same things (i.e. Smith knew Moroni was lie, the golden plates a fake and the scriptures his own invention etc), yet Mormonism is widely thought of as a religion. You seem to suffer under the illusion that religions somehow have to be "true" in order to be a religion. Religion does not requite any demonstrable facts, which is why religions are faiths rather than knowledges.
  19. Anonymous Member

    You've already been herded like a cow into agreement.

    Agreement with Hubbard's and Miscavige's religion angle and religious cloaking.

    Scientology is a business.

    The facts of its dishonest use of "religion" as an angle and a cloak are there for anyone to see - if they can see, or if they want to see.

    Now go eat some grass.

  20. Anonymous Member

    Fine. In that case, I don't want to hear any more moanng from you about disconnection or fair game or regging or the use of hypnosis or the introspection run down or the destruction of evidence or the telepathic communication of the Xenu story to Body Thetans or any of the other religious practises of Scientology. In fact, why are you here, again?
  21. Anonymous Member

    How does recognising that none of these disqualify the claim of religiosity make these issues unworthy of protest?

    Hint: it doesn’t.
  22. Random guy Member

    Because being in a religion does not make it OK to screw people over, just like being on a football-team does not make OK to screw unconscious girls. If people want to believe in dead space cooties it is their problem, when they start to act like assholes, it becomes a general problem. That's why I'm here.
    • Like Like x 3
  23. Anonymous Member

    It doesn't make it "OK" entirely, as in every case but, to to a large extent, cloaking the for-profit, slave labor using, abortion enforcing, mind controlling, blackmail collecting, cult of Scientology in "religion" does make it "OK."

    It also gives it the means to accumulate large amounts of money - tax free - with which to further empower itself.
  24. Random guy Member

    My point is that the religious cloaking is a problem in itself, and not specific to the CoS. I believe having a closer look at how the state de facto breaks the 1st amendment is a more fruitful approach than trying to overturn IRS's decision.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    That's fine, but your "closer look," certainly in the United States, is not going to happen.

    Scientology knows that.

    Why be a chump?
  26. The Internet Member

    You have yet to offer a rational argument which supports your position (a definition of "religion" which specifically excludes Scientology). Insults are not arguments.

    The repetition is fascinating. Reminds me of that Karen de la whatsit troll. It really does look like some kind of PR "tech." I suppose repetition must work on people who aren't actually thinking about the issues. Perhaps by filling threads with the same meme ("if you disagree with me u r dum and smell bad") a casual reader will think some controversy actually exists.
  27. Anonymous Member

    There's been plenty rational argument offered.

    A chump is a chump is a chump.

    No amount of rational argument will change that.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  28. Random guy Member

    Actually, no. asked why the CoS is not a religion, your answer is that the organization is a fraud, and that their claims aren't true.

    The problem is that those arguments are moot in a fight to overturn the IRS decision. A religion does not need to be factual (if its tenets were demonstrable factual it would be science, not religion), nor does it seem intense drive for donations are a disqualifying (see TV-evangelists). No matter how rational your arguments may be, they are irrelevant if overturning the IRS is the aim. In order to fight the fight you propose, you will need different arguments than those you have forwarded so far.

    As for your assertion that the US will never have a "closer look" at their interpretation of the 1st amendment, it has actually happened in fairly recent time with school prayers (1962 and 1963) and public display of the 10 commandments (2000 to 2005). This does not mean that a campaign to change the interpretation will be successful, but is seems to be at least as doable as changing CoS status as a religion.

    In the mean time, I plan to ridicule their beliefs and point out their crimes. Seems to work quite well so far.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    You are mistaken. That has not been my argument.
  30. The Internet Member

    Thanks for clarifying. It all makes sense now.
  31. The Internet Member

    I just realized something. All the religious people I know would say that some religions or religious groups are trouble. That's why they tend to like one particular religion rather than all of them.

    The only people I know who say that religion is good, full stop, are Scientologists and politicians. The politicians say that because they don't want to piss anyone off. The Scientologists say that because they desperately need fwends.

    So I don't get why it is such a big deal about Scientology being a really shitty religion.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Given that those practises are, according to the apologists here, part of a valid religion's practises, protesting them opens up the "religious bigotry" line of attack . . . as was planned by Scientology. Geddit?
  33. Random guy Member

    You know, yielding to your argument is kind of difficult since you don't actually have one.
  34. Anonymous Member

    Yes, you definitely don't get it.

    Scientology is OK with you calling it a shitty religion.

    It's not OK with you calling it a business that disguises itself as a religion.
  35. Anonymous Member

    "Your" in this case appears to be many different people posting anonymously.

    So, duh?
  36. Anonymous Member

    No, he doesn't get it.

    Probably never will.
  37. Random guy Member

    For trolling purpose and when addressing the public, you are absolutely right. The very usable "Religion is free, scientology is neither" should remain staple signage. I thought you were aiming a tad higher, my fault.
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Anonymous Member

    Your verbal farting is not as delightful as you think it is.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins