Reminder: Scientology, much more beautiful than the media...

[Aetixintro]

Here's the presentation of non-cult Scientology that a religious movement built on something very admirable: non-authoritarian in nature and more...

THE AIMS OF SCIENTOLOGY
Written by L. Ron Hubbard in September 1965.

A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.

Source: http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scie ... ology.html.

Please, add the Basics, incl. The Way to Happiness and A New Slant on Life, then add the very excellent book, Scientology 0 - 8, The Book of Basics.

Inside Book of Basics you find something very special, p. 133: the "S" column that comments on the "Ethic Level" and "down there" with "Tone Scale" 1.1 and 0.5, it reads: "Sex criminals. Negative ethics. Deviously dishonest. Perverts honesty without reason." and "Non-existent. Not thinking. Obeying anyone. [Understood very negatively, obeying the hideous, I suspect.]. On top, then, 4.0, "Bases ethics on reason. Very high ethic level."

Great or what?

----
(Edit:)
The Basic Books, no more than 6 - 8 when I bought them: http://www.bridgepub.com/store/catalog/ ... index.html.

The reasoning for Non-Cult Scientology:
Why Scientology can be described as religious (and not cult)

Scientology, for removing petty quarrel below the worth of the readers of this discussion page, can be described as religious out of these reasons:

1. That it has a goal for humanity or sentience of inifinity, by the 8th dynamic.

2. That it has a special standing ascribed to human beings beyond being animals, that is, how it describes people as „Thetans“, people with body and soul.

3. It elevates or describes human beings within a definite ethical context, i.e., something along the 10 commandments for this inifinity to be achieved.
- also see „Aims of Scientology“.

4. It abides to certain common corpus as movement that can plausibly be followed by everybody, also the autonomy-principle for its members, New Slant on Life, pp. 33 onwards.
- this point also removes, along with the others, that Scientology can ever be a cult in the true sense. A signal for this is its churches and missions always placed decently with the cities, usually the capitals too, as matter of street location and other.

Further:
"Picked up from the internet".

There is another non-cult consideration of Scientology that has a similar standing to the opinion-polling of 1000 people from the Social Sciences, it has to do with the number of members. That, regardless of the negative view of Scientology, a membermass that has reached a scope with more than 100 Churches and Missions around the planet, with a ship, Freewinds, and all from appx. 3 members to 30 million members or more, can't, simply CAN NOT, be described as cult, that the words on the Scientology Ethics by "The Way to Happiness" - "A Common Sense Guide to Better Living".

That we who are with Scientology can now easily deflect/dismiss any criticism against what we believe in and that a simple word for this to fx. the Cult Awareness Network can be made as a pre-emptive measure. That we stand absolutely defended under L. Ron Hubbard's brilliant contribution to human kind!

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 10 by Aetixintro]

Still no acknowledgment or explanation of the long list of direct, documented quotes from L. Ron Hubbard.

Ignoring them and pretending they were never posted isn't going to work. Sorry about that, but there they sit, uncontradicted and unacknowledged.

"'Bye" really worked much better. Might be best to leave it at that.

[Aetixintro]

A psychiatrist today has the power to (1) take a fancy to a woman (2) lead her to take wild treatment as a joke (3) drug and shock her to temporary insanity (4) incarnate [sic] her (5) use her sexually (6) sterilize her to prevent conception (7) kill her by a brain operation to prevent disclosure. And all with no fear of reprisal. Yet it is rape and murder… We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one… This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them.
-- Confidential memo "Project Psychiatry" (22 February 1966)

I only bother with this one, 1, example from your "very crucial excerpts/loose statements, the rest"...

As opposed to teen-age minds relating more to MTV than to TV news, L. Ron Hubbard relates to some very undemocratic/dangerous sides of society. These matters are also given by this:
Psychiatry as science is defended/disciplined by two Boards of Authority,
the Ethics Board
and
the Science Board

and they EVICT corrupt/malpracticing psychiatrists (away) from the profession!

So: CORRUPT psychiatrists exist! (But conduct the science poorly!)

Code of Conduct for Psychiatrists
http://psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Pr ... -final.pdf
http://wpanet.org/detail.php?section_id=5&content_id=48
Code of Conduct for Psychologists
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
http://www.efpa.eu/ethics

Besides, these "apart from context" statements from L. Ron Hubbard are "weak in force" and I refuse to bother with the Gonza journalism for this reason!

That is, true criticism can't be built seriously on loose statements becaus everybody knows the serious side lies with the Religious corpus, the official books and you
can look up the New York (USA) PUBLISHER yourself! End.

(A bit upset: UNDERSTOOD?!)

----
Research ethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki.

----
(Edit:) Some people would say very special things over this "(4) incarnate [sic] her". Today, this also gets worded as "police code" and "priest stories" by "coming alive again", freak nature, etc... For you to investigate. My suspicion.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 12 by Aetixintro]

Nonsense. This --

"We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one… This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them."

-- is very clearly a call to slander and calculated character assassination against ALL psychiatrists, guilty or innocent.

Okay, so much for that lame attempt at "explanation." Now go ahead; explain what ALL of those direct and documented quotes from L. Ron mean, IN CONTEXT. ALL of them. Go ahead; if you're going to regain a scrap of credibility, you'll have to "bother" with them.

"Can't be bothered" IS an answer, you know; it means YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.

Go ahead. Can't wait.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 12 by Aetixintro]

An afterthought:

Telling your opponent to do his own research -- saying "you can look up (x) yourself" or that "(x) is for you to investigate" -- is the oldest dodge on this forum. It's not MY job to support YOUR arguments with research. That's YOUR job.

If there is actually anything out there to support your point of view -- which is, apparently, that all these documented direct quotes from L. Ron ought to be dismissed and ignored -- let's see what you've got.

Otherwise -- "'Bye" remains your best and most appropriate answer.

For your convenience, here again are the documented quotes from L. Ron Hubbard himself. The link is here; the sources are given after each quote.

On his goals and methods:

Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.
-- As quoted in the Los Angeles Times (27 August 1978)

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.
-- Lecture: "Off the Time Track" (June 1952) as quoted in Journal of Scientology issue 18-G, reprinted in Technical Volumes of Dianetics & Scientology Vol. 1, p. 418

You can get a much better fee — I tell you as auditors quite frankly — it's much easier to get a great deal of money out of somebody who's on a down spiral into becoming MEST than it is to get money out of somebody who is going on an up spiral toward becoming theta.
-- "Philadelphia Doctorate Course" #15 (1952)

Let's see your explanation of these coldly cynical statements of strategies for manipulation and exploitation of the suckers.

His claims about Scientology:

Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb) burns.
-- All About Radiation (1952) p. 109

You are only three or four hours from taking your glasses off for keeps.
-- "Eyesight and glasses" in Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin Vol. 2, No. 7, (January 1952)

Twenty-five hours of Scientology by an auditor who fairly understands how to process arthritis can be said to produce an invariable alleviation of the condition. Some cases, even severe ones, have responded in as little as two hours of processing, according to reports from auditors in the field.
-- Journal of Scientology Issue 1-G, (1952)

Leukemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'
-- Journal of Scientology Issue 15-G (1953)

Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer! If anybody is getting a cancerous activity in the lung, the probabilities are that it's radiation dosage coupled with the fact that he smokes. And what it does is start to run out the radiation dosage, don't you see.
-- Saint Hill Special Briefing Course 35 (19 July 1961)

Advanced Courses are the most valuable service on the planet. Life insurance, houses, cars, stocks, bonds, college savings, all are transitory and impermanent ... There is nothing to compare with Advanced Courses. They are infinitely valuable and transcend time itself.
-- On his Operating Thetan Courses, in Flag Mission Order 375 (1970)

Arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of illnesses goes away and stays away.
-- 1987 Edition of Dianetics : The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950)p. 72

It would be especially interesting to see some documented evidence of these factual claims about the causes of various diseases and the claimed health benefits of Scientology. You know, something like a peer-reviewed study or controlled experiments from a legitimate scientific or medical facility. Got any?

On his methods of dealing with critics:

Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts.
-- "Critics of Scientology" (5 November 1967)

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
-- A Manual on the Dissemination of Material (1955)

If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.
-- Dept. of Govt. Affairs policy letter (15 August 1960)

A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.
-- "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists" policy letter (1 March 1965)

This is the correct procedure: Spot who is attacking us. Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.
-- "Attacks on Scientology" policy letter (25 February 1966)

ENEMY: SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
-- "Penalties for Lower Conditions" policy letter (18 October 1967)

The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.
-- "Cancellation of Fair Game" policy letter (21 October 1968)

A psychiatrist today has the power to (1) take a fancy to a woman (2) lead her to take wild treatment as a joke (3) drug and shock her to temporary insanity (4) incarnate [sic] her (5) use her sexually (6) sterilize her to prevent conception (7) kill her by a brain operation to prevent disclosure. And all with no fear of reprisal. Yet it is rape and murder… We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one… This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them.
-- Confidential memo "Project Psychiatry" (22 February 1966)

These aren't ETHICAL approaches to dealing with criticism, by any stretch of the imagination. They are directions for character assassination, slander, and for unrelenting scorched-earth efforts at the total destruction of any critics by any means. Or do you have a more benign "interpretation" that somehow avoids the obvious?

There are also the interesting documents linked in goodwithoutgod's post 8 on this thread:

Here is what I was able to find within 2 mins of looking last night....

http://www.xenu.net/archive/secret.html

http://jeta.home.xs4all.nl/scn/ot3/ot3.html

http://unchain.gr/seizeddocs.html

and the final document in his handwriting no less....

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/

And, just for fun, here is a link to even more interesting information about the "Church" of Scientology -- and another, asking questions about the remarkably large number of mysterious deaths associated with Scientology.

See, this is how it's done: I didn't tell you to look up the quotes and documents that totally and indisputably discredit Scientology "for yourself" -- I posted some links.

So: Other than "Look at all these wonderful and noble teachings of the Church of Scientology and IGNORE ALL THAT HARD INFORMATION about it" -- what have you got? Continuing to refuse to even acknowledge these quotes and documents isn't doing anything at all for your credibility. It's merely making clear that you have nothing to say about them, in terms of either defense or explanation, at all.

Try again.

Or, of course, just revert to "'Bye."

[Aetixintro]

To give examples of your incoherent argumentation:

You say,

Nonsense. This --

"We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one… This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them."

-- is very clearly a call to slander and calculated character assassination against ALL psychiatrists, guilty or innocent.

and

It would be especially interesting to see some documented evidence of these factual claims about the causes of various diseases and the claimed health benefits of Scientology. You know, something like a peer-reviewed study or controlled experiments from a legitimate scientific or medical facility. Got any?

For the 1st: I don't vindicate (I hope you know the word) L. Ron Hubbard, I merely provide support for some of his suspicions, not his wanton.

For the 2nd: I religious corpus of text doesn't take "peer-reviewed study or controlled experiments from a legitimate scientific or medical facility", it takes credible appeal by these religious texts to establish a church and L. Ron Hubbard has done this in style, with 4 Guinness World Records to go! I assume you have NONE!

Bye!

[cnorman18]

To give examples of your incoherent argumentation:

Asking you to explain direct, documented quotes is "incoherent argumentation"?

Sounds like another lame attempt at handwaving to me...

You say,

Nonsense. This --

"We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one… This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them."

-- is very clearly a call to slander and calculated character assassination against ALL psychiatrists, guilty or innocent.

and

It would be especially interesting to see some documented evidence of these factual claims about the causes of various diseases and the claimed health benefits of Scientology. You know, something like a peer-reviewed study or controlled experiments from a legitimate scientific or medical facility. Got any?

For the 1st: I don't vindicate (I hope you know the word) L. Ron Hubbard...

Oh, I know the word; and what you just said was that you have no defense for his ludicrous claims and obvious lies.

...I merely provide support for some of his suspicions, not his wanton.

What "suspicions"? Those are straight-up factual claims.

No one ever said that all psychiatrists are flawlessly ethical. But L. Ron says that ALL of them are corrupt predators. That's NONSENSE.

For the 2nd: I religious corpus of text doesn't take "peer-reviewed study or controlled experiments from a legitimate scientific or medical facility", it takes credible appeal by these religious texts to establish a church...

And you call ME "incoherent"...

Sorry. L. Ron definitely and directly made some factual claims about the origins of certain diseases and some amazing health benefits of Scientology. If you want to claim that his writings are "religious texts" and therefore give hm license to LIE about SCIENTIFIC and MEDICAL FACTS, feel free; but your credibility goes right out the window along with his. We're not talking about 2,000-year-old documents based on even more ancient oral traditions; we're talking about claims of scientific fact made by a supposedly educated man just a few decades ago.

...and L. Ron Hubbard has done this in style, with 4 Guinness World Records to go! I assume you have NONE!

So what? Al Capone is in the Guinness book too.

I'd say "nice try," but it wasn't.

Bye!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, etc.

Phffft.

[Aetixintro]

For the 2nd: [The] religious corpus of text doesn't take "peer-reviewed study or controlled experiments from a legitimate scientific or medical facility", it takes credible appeal by these religious texts to establish a church...

with one correction: I -> The.

And you call ME "incoherent"...

Clearly, cnorman18 does not know what it takes for a text to represent a religious corpus and shows no understanding for wanting to learn of it either.
There are many general traits for a given religious corpus to obtain this status.
You can compare, plainly, with the Bible, the Quran, the Torah etc. and find definite ethics, supply for eternal meaning etc. Also the religious corpus needs to be definite. In this discussion you will find that cnorman18 has ignored much text in this comparatively small discussion of only 2 pages. Very poor performance by him, failing to respond to anti-cult text by posting nr. 1 or early on.

2nd, every academic knows that the books are most important when criticism is to be held against a body of text. cnorman18 fails to mention one (crucial) Scientology text. Implied here, cnorman18 must be considered a newspaper-article "rider" and be consequently seen as an unserious critic based on finding L. Ron Hubbard's "secret beast" in Hubbard's psychology BY ALL HIS ACTIONS, which is rubbish and delinquent, not "entirely" representing character. That again, failure to criticise Hubbard's Scientology books implies that the critics HAVE LOST!

This implies also that the critics are to blame for a kind of "statements-hunt", shoving Scientologists into a "bad" corner where they feel afraid for getting hit by "corrupt minds/forces", you know, these criminal people of society, where they "drop"/are coerced to "drop" unfortunate sentences. Again, smallness of statements makes a case for them in wringing cult-meaning out of these and the rest of the body of similar statements.

[goodwithoutgod]

Scientology salesman shows the potential buyer the shiney used car. "can I pop the hood?" asks the potential buyer, "no no my friend, nothing to see there, once you buy it, i will show you the engine" says the salesman.

Here is some enlightening behind the curtain of scientology information from a former scientologist.

http://mormoncurtain.com/

ENjoy!

[cnorman18]

For the 2nd: [The] religious corpus of text doesn't take "peer-reviewed study or controlled experiments from a legitimate scientific or medical facility", it takes credible appeal by these religious texts to establish a church...

with one correction: I -> The.

And you call ME "incoherent"...

Clearly, cnorman18 does not know what it takes for a text to represent a religious corpus and shows no understanding for wanting to learn of it either.
There are many general traits for a given religious corpus to obtain this status.
You can compare, plainly, with the Bible, the Quran, the Torah etc. and find definite ethics, supply for eternal meaning etc. Also the religious corpus needs to be definite. In this discussion you will find that cnorman18 has ignored much text in this comparatively small discussion of only 2 pages. Very poor performance by him, failing to respond to anti-cult text by posting nr. 1 or early on.

First, your posturing as speaking ABOUT me, from some imagined position of AUTHORITY, as opposed to responding directly TO my posts -- which this is very clearly an attempt to do -- is noted.

But to respond to this latest bit of handwaving -- Sorry, but claiming that books sold by the Scientology racket are "religious texts" is no more than an obvious attempt at begging the question. No one but the suckers drained dry by the racket, and the scammers busily composing "texts" to continue working the racket themselves, accept them as "religious texts." The overwhelming majority of the rest of us quite rightly consider them propaganda documents, published to give a veneer of respectability to an obvious scam. It's hardly a mark of enlightenment or genius to recommend basic ethical behavior -- and it's rather suspect when other Scientology documents seem to contradict those recommendations as directly and egregiously as the writings of your Great Leader do, not to mention plainly and directly LYING about matters of scientific fact that were most certainly known to him.

You compare the Scientology "texts" to the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah (apparently unaware that the Torah consists of the first five books of the Bible), which were composed millennia ago and have a long and distinguished history of scholarship and study worldwide; I have numerous serious and scholarly books on the Bible written by Jews, by Christians, by Muslims, and by atheists on the shelves in the room where I am sitting as I write this, some of them centuries old. By way of contrast, I MYSELF am older than the "Scientology" texts, and I know of NO serious scholarship examining them as "religious texts" outside of the tight, heavily enforced little circle of scammers and suckers themselves. Your comparison is ludicrous on its face, rather like comparing The Divine Comedy to Spider-Man.... or, better, to Amway promotional literature.

For the record, I have myself studied directly under world-class scholars of theology and Scripture, William R. Farmer and Schubert Ogden, to name two. I know my way around the Bible pretty well, from both Christian and a Jewish perspectives. I have glanced at the "Scientology texts," because that is all the effort they were worth, and they don't compare in ANY way -- in age, in cultural impact, in the respect and study given them by scholars and students and believers of MANY different religions and approaches, and most of all in their provenance. The "Scientology tests" were produced by a tiny, private scam factory, and not over millennia by a multiplicity of authors from many times and places. The Book of Mormon compares favorably with the Scientology scam's propaganda, and no one outside of THAT group takes THAT text seriously either.

Here's the big news flash: The fact that a group of people swallow something fed to them doesn't make what they swallow true, nor a legitimate religion, nor immune to direct and on-point criticism based on examination of its own stated origins, policies, practices, and claims.

2nd, every academic knows that the books are most important when criticism is to be held against a body of text. cnorman18 fails to mention one (crucial) Scientology text.

Oh, I think I mentioned some very crucial "texts," that is, WRITINGS by the FOUNDER and CHIEF SCAMMER of the racket, L. Ron Hubbard himself. Documented direct quotes, which you STILL refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE as the unquestionably authentic and genuine quotes that they are -- since they are drawn from Scientology publications!

Until you deal with THOSE glaring contradictions, outright lies, and vicious policies of scorched-earth tactics against critics of ALL kinds, especially including members of the psychiatric specialty, there's really no point in even considering anything else the criminal enterprise to which you are devoted has to say.

For the record, "criminal organization" is no more than accurate terminology. Scientology was fined US$900,000 in France for criminal fraud. I say nothing about the very long list of nations that do not recognize Scientology as a legitimate religious organization, nor about the many criminal investigations and civil suits directed at the organization, both past and ongoing, worldwide.

It might also be worth noting that Scientology has been banned from editing entries on Wikipedia since 2009.

Implied here, cnorman18 must be considered a newspaper-article "rider" and be consequently seen as an unserious critic based on finding L. Ron Hubbard's "secret beast" in Hubbard's psychology BY ALL HIS ACTIONS, which is rubbish and delinquent, not "entirely" representing character. That again, failure to criticise Hubbard's Scientology books implies that the critics HAVE LOST!

Namecalling isn't an explanation nor a justification of these direct quotes. Sorry you're having such a hard time with this, but I didn't write them. L. Ron Hubbard did.

I have no interest in reading anything written by this fantasist and practitioner of criminal fraud. Bring me some scholarship that takes them seriously as "religious texts" FROM SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE SCAM, and I might consider it.

Got anything?

I didn't think so.

This implies also that the critics are to blame for a kind of "statements-hunt", shoving Scientologists into a "bad" corner where they feel afraid for getting hit by "corrupt minds/forces", you know, these criminal people of society, where they "drop"/are coerced to "drop" unfortunate sentences. Again, smallness of statements makes a case for them in wringing cult-meaning out of these and the rest of the body of similar statements.

Precisely NONE of which deals with the direct, documented quotes from the FOUNDER of Scientology.

All your posturing, handwringing, namecalling, and attempts to shift the focus and the blame aren't getting you anywhere here. Do you actually have anything to say about L. Ron Hubbard's outrageous claims, obvious motivation, clear dishonesty, or vicious tactics -- or are you going to continue to try to distract everyone's attention from them?

[alexx]

Some people happen to think that Scientologists are some unscientific people. THEY ARE NOT!

This relates to psychiatry and superstitions to Scientology more, to which we in Scientology answers:

Beliefs in Myth - The critics are far out, with Xenu too, again!

It should be noted that the official view on Psychiatry as science is up to each and every Scientology-member on grounds of the Autonomy-principle, one of the best in the World for religious followers, described in A New Slant on Life, p. 33 and some pages onwards. Also, Hervey Cleckley lists "The Psychopath as psychiatrist" in chapter 24 of Mask of Sanity, 3rd., 1955, by Hervey Cleckley, that, of course, fuels an objective criticism against parts of psychiatry.

By this, the critics commit the logical fallacy of universalisability, thinking that criticising one part of psychiatry makes one an "enemy" to all of psychiatry, that's ridiculous to think of modern people in 2013, living and enjoying the information society.

Good?

Links, 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Sanity.

nice links especially the last 1. about scientology sounds like a great idea but prolly fails in reality due to human errors the 1rst of which is having a leader or founder that retains power over the whole process.