The Scientologists Are Alright By Me

The Scientologists Are Alright By Me

‘The film so funny it’s been banned in Norway!’ This was how The Life Of Brian was marketed in that most scampish of Scandinavian states, Sweden. Upon its release, the Monty Python troupe’s cinematic summa (allegedly developed from a quip by Eric Idle that their next project would be Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory) caused outrage amongst the Jewish and Christian communities, each clamouring to be most offended and whip up the most fervour. Followers were dissuaded from screenings by a ‘C’ for condemned certificate issued by the Catholic Church (note that neither The Devil Inside, ‘the film the Vatican doesn’t want you to see’,  nor The Exorcist received such a label.)

All sorts of fatuous charges were levelled at the former Oxbridge men, mostly during the laughable TV debate between Michael Palin, John Cleese, the then Bishop of Southwark Mervyn Stockwood and the religious commentator Malcolm Muggeridge. The Pythons’ film was blasphemous, portrayed men dressed as women, offended homosexuals (not that the Church wasn’t well practised at this themselves), wasn’t funny, used too much bad language and targeted Christianity unfairly…apparently. Clease and Palin outmanoeuvred their opponents with one clinching line: ‘have you seen the film?’ Of course neither of the religious representatives had. They’d made their assumption based on snippets of information and made an inductive leap to a spectacular conclusion. To be fair it wouldn’t have been the first time a religious leader would fall foul of such irrationalities.

It’s in light of this that my opinion of Scientologists has improved.  Harvey Weinstein, the Oscar-generating, Malcolm Tucker-inspiring Hollywood mogul, has been promoting his latest charge The Master, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, on the premise that powerful unnamed Scientologists in Hollywood applied ‘lots of pressure’ to stop the project. Weinstein’s case seems strengthened when the parallels between Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character, Lancaster Dodd, and L. Ron Hubbard are exposed. Both were trained as nuclear physicists and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II before setting up a cult in 1952 and married women called Mary Sue. This has to be more than coincidence. Yet it is Weinstein, not the Church of Scientology, who is trying to generate a ruckus over these similarities.  The Church has stated that ‘the movie is a work of fiction…Paul Thomas Anderson is quoted as saying: ‘This is a fabricated story: pure fiction’ and Philip Seymour Hoffman is quoted as saying: ‘It’s not a Scientology movie.’ There is nothing more to say about the matter.’  When pressed on how the famously Hollywood-based Church would react, Karin Pouw uttered those immortal words: ‘We have not seen the film, so can’t say one way or the other’.  What perfection. An admission of ignorance and a line so very many critics should remember. The Scientologists are not banishing Anderson and his team on the basis of rumours and supposition. John Travolta has not had to bad-mouth his Ladder 49 co-star Phoenix. Instead they are reserving judgement and acknowledging fiction for what it is. Presumably, they have cast a similar critical gaze on Dianetics – Scientology’s holy text – and not found it wanting.

American amateur film Innocence of Muslims demonstrates the danger of religious hype and the damage it can cause. This week four American soldiers, the American Ambassador to Lybia  and countless other civillians have been killed across the Muslim world in reaction to a privately financed, manipulatively edited film called Innocence of Muslims. It  portrays the Prophet Muhammed as a madman, philanderer and child molester. Of course, very few of the rioters can possibly have seen this movie. Whilst it is fiction, it does directly contravene many of their religious beliefs and directly insults an icon at the heart of their culture. This is what real anti-religion films look like. Not mild-mannered Brit-Comedy from the late 70s, nor a drama which looks set to fall neatly into Anderson’s back-catalogue (his theme that the search for happiness corrupts us looks set to continue, watch Boogie Nights for the sex and drugs version, There Will Be Blood for the money and power alternative, The Master probably for religious salvation). Trying to equate satire or historically-inspired narratives with a politically motivated religious insult, as the Christian denominations did with Brian and Weinstein is attempting to do with The Master, only invites the kind of tragedies that are occurring across the Middle East. Compared to them, the rational thinking and calm talking of the Pythons and the Scientologists is looking pretty sophisticated.


Share/Bookmark

73 Responses to "The Scientologists Are Alright By Me"

  1. John Davis  18/09/2012 at 03:21

    Mike,

    You raise so many points, I’m afraid I don’t have time to get into all of it. So let me just pick one.

    I have my own experience with a – the technology of Scientology, the work of Hubbard and b – scientologists and staff members.

    As for a, it has all been totally positive as you know. It’s quite amazing to me to see the incredible quantity of material put out by one person, material that rarely repeats itself and that all fits together beautifully.

    As for b, my experience has been mixed. But anything non-optimum I could have avoided and in any case, the help that I have received from some truly dedicated people completely overshadows anything else.

    Some people appear to have had problems with Scientology as an organization or with staff members. I have no interest in hearing about these things because a) they are personal to the people concerned and b) there isn’t enough information available to formulate an objective opinion. It’s one sided.

    Person A has a problem with a Scientology organization. So, get the information on Person A, the exact time, place, form and event of what happened and do the same with the Scientology organization member(s) Person A had a problem with, do a data analysis and you might get a clearer view of what the situation was.

    I don’t see the point of getting into all of this.

    Studying Hubbard’s work helps me to come to an understanding of myself, of people, of life. Not because I believe wholesale everything he wrote, but because the way he writes and lectures gets me to look at things from a different point of view.

    It’s eye-opening and I like that.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -4 (from 10 votes)
  2. Bea  18/09/2012 at 13:10

    Dear John – please take a good hard look at what has been written here by critics of scientology. I believe they are trying to enlighten you. Ponder on why you “don’t see the point of getting into all of this”. Is it because you are frightened? Is it because by doing so you are forced to reflect on the past 32 years and how you may have been brainwashed? I dare you to read the Village Voice, Xenu Net or other “enturbulating” websites as well as Blown For Good by Mark Headly. I hope, sincerely, you eventually manage to escape!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 12 votes)
  3. John Davis  18/09/2012 at 15:02

    Now, Bea, what on Earth do you suppose I would be frightened of?

    Do you fondly imagine that if I went to the sites you mention, I would realize the truth and suddenly see that it’s all baseless, cave in, collapsing in a flood of tears and remorse?

    I’ve been there.

    I’ve read the crap put out by Village Voice.

    I’ve posted there too!

    I’ve been to many other “enturbulating” sites. Many more than you mention here.

    That’s why I wrote that the anti-Scientology comments are so boring.

    It’s the same old songs, over and over and over again.

    I could do as you say, read more about the people who have “left” Scientology or who were kicked out, but what would I get?

    One side of a story!

    What’s the point of that?

    My interest is in reading what Hubbard wrote and listening to his lectures. I find his work tremendously interesting.

    Is this difficult to understand?

    Let’s make an analogy.

    Let’s say there is a restaurant I go to.

    I like the food there.

    Some customers don’t like the food and make a noise about it.

    They scream and yell and make a hell of a noise.

    That doesn’t change the taste of the food.

    I like it.

    And there are plenty of other customers who do too.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -6 (from 10 votes)
  4. Rebecca g  18/09/2012 at 17:27

    What we all saying is even if you listen too or study in l rons tapes lectures books and films are you really getting the whole truth?
    Cos seems to bend alter or just plain omits the whole truth from its members example go to you tube type in l ron Hubbard – rasist it was submitted by xenutravolta it is l ron making fun of black people or watch the fall of man it is also l
    ron himself on video. Just make sure u also get both sides

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 7 votes)
  5. Mike  18/09/2012 at 18:38

    John –

    I’m hurt that you “didn’t have time” to answer the questions in my last post (so you cherry-picked the easiest one for you), yet you had plenty of time to answer Bea.

    This is typical of the Scientologists I’ve discussed this issue with over time. They run away from the tough questions and just pretend they’ve never been asked.

    The bottom line for you seems to be this: I have benefited personally from Scientology, so I’m completely and utterly uninterested in fate of all of those who’ve been hurt by it. Again, have I got this right? A simple yes or no will do.

    You can finesse the “two sides” argument all you want, but the fact is that Scientology has NOT presented their side of the story when confronted with the horrific tales of those who have escaped its clutches — despite every opportunity to do so.

    Their sole response has been along the lines of the joke post earlier in this thread — these are “lies” spread by “bitter, defrocked apostates.”

    I have NEVER heard of an official Scientology who has said “No, we don’t force our members to have abortions. No, we don’t force family members to completely cut off ties with each other if we don’t like some of them. No, we don’t force children to work 12-hour days while receiving a minimum of education (beyond the works of LRH). No, we don’t throw errant members in ‘The Hole,’ where they live in primitive conditions and eat slop for food for months or years at a time.”

    If every one of the former church members’ statements is a blatant lie, then it should be quite easy for the “church” to provide evidence that could easily prove the falsehood of these accusations.

    If this has ever been done, I hope you’ll direct me to a link or two.

    Meanwhile, since you blew past it the last time, I’ll pose one of my questions to you again, John: why are Scientology compounds surrounded with barbed-wire fences?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)
  6. John Davis  19/09/2012 at 00:23

    Mike,

    There’s no need to be miffed because I didn’t have time to answer all the points in your very long post and yet I had time to answer Bea’s.

    Let’s see if I can do a better job this time.

    1. That I evaded tough questions.

    Well, Mike that’s a negative view. What actually happened was I picked the easiest thing to answer. If it helps for you to think I evaded your questions, go ahead.

    2. I have benefited from personally from Scientology.

    Close, but not exactly what I wrote. It differs in these respects:

    I didn’t say that I have benefited from Scientology, but from the works of Hubbard.

    It’s an ongoing thing. There is such a tremendous wealth of data put out by this man that it’s a lifetime’s work to study it. He must have done very little else in his last 40 years than research, study, write and lecture.

    I have gained tremendous benefit from the study of Hubbard’s work and still continue to do so.

    3. I’m completely uninterested in the fate of those who you say have been hurt by it.

    As I said, it’s very difficult to get the full story. And even if I did, how would that benefit me? The examples you give are completely different from my own experience:

    Forced abortions?

    I’ve never heard of this. The wife of a friend of mine at Flag (Florida) got pregnant. Since policy didn’t allow staff members at that organization to have children (for no other reason than they weren’t set up for it), they were asked to go to another organization where they did have facilities. They chose Tokyo, where I was living at the time.

    Splitting up families

    This is an old saw, isn’t it? The way you phrase it makes it sound like bad old Scientology is forcing its members to break ties with loving uncles and aunts just because said uncles and aunts incur its displeasure.

    Whom one is related to is the accident of birth. It may be that Hitler’s parents were wonderful people. If these were getting auditing, going into session, having a wonderful time and going home to psychotic ranting, raving and destruction, it might be distractive, don’t you think?

    So they might be advised, if they can’t handle the problem, to separate themselves from their son (Adolf) for the period of their auditing.

    Forcing children to work 12 hour days

    Again, this is out of my experience. I’ve never seen it. I’ve never been to an org where children were working. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just personally have no experience of it.

    I have several friends who are staff members who have children. I gave an example above. Those I know of are going to schools, either regular schools or schools that use Study Technology, such as Delphi.

    Throwing errant members in the hole

    I’ve seen this on the internet. Again, I have never seen or heard of this otherwise. I’ve never read anything about it in Scientology policy (and I’ve read pretty much everything LRH has written). It probably refers to the RPF, which a person can get out of at any time by completing his program or just by walking out the door.

    Barbed wire fences

    This is news to me. Are Scientology orgs surrounded by barbed wire fences? There were none at Flag when I was there, there were certainly none in London, Saint Hill, Portland, LA, Paris, Tokyo or New Zealand or Sydney.

    Does that wrap things up for you, Mike?

    I’ve tried to answer each of your points.

    If you wish to discuss these points further, might I ask that you take up one point at a time?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 7 votes)
  7. Bea  19/09/2012 at 09:57

    Dear John – many thanks for your reply. I thought you might be frightened of “enturbulation” and ending up in ethics. I’m pleased you’ve had the opportunity to read and post on various anti-Scientology sites and present an alternative opinion. From all I have read about Scientology parishioners are encouraged to avoid them.

    However, I’m surprised you find them boring – I find them fascinating. If even a fraction of what it claimed were true, I would have serious doubts about the validity of what Hubbard has written and why – although perhaps some of the courses are useful tools – they have lead to such misery.

    Correct – If you only read about people who have left and have an axe to grind you would have one side of the story but since you have read the works of Hubbard you would have both. I recommend it. They are a good read! And the point is, you would broaden your horizons and perhaps think more analytically about this controversial religion / cult.

    I have no issue with you finding the works of Hubbard interesting – but your ability to do so is, I presume, because you live in a country with human rights, with the freedom of religion and of expression.

    Interesting that you use Hitler as an analogy in your reply to Mike about disconnection. Are you suggesting that all SP’s are on a par with Hitler? An extreme scenario! I imagine most are not – they may have a difference of opinion but can agree to differ and continue to love their family and friends. From all I understand about Hubbard’s methods, despotism is far more applicable to Scientology (and David Miscavage). Moreover, I understand he (and Scientology) is someone who takes away the freedom that has allowed you explore alternative philosophies.

    I hope this is food for thought.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  8. John Davis  19/09/2012 at 15:57

    Dear Bea,

    I don’t know why you think I would be frightened of enturbulation. Do you know what enturbulation means? It means being very confused and upset. Anti-Scientology sites don’t upset me. And even if they did, I don’t know why that would land me in ethics.

    “Parishioner?” Gosh! Is that what I am? No, I wouldn’t describe myself as a parishioner. How about “Hubbardist?”

    I find the anti-Scientology sites that I’ve been to – I obviously can’t speak for all of them – boring, because they repeat the same old lines. “Enforced abortions.” “Working for slave wages.” “Split up families.” LRH quotes taken out of context to make it look bad. I’m sure you know what I mean. They spell Scientology with a dollar sign. On the Village Voice site, I was told, “We don’t like using the words Scientology and scientologist.” Can’t think why.

    On a more positive note, I’m glad you got my point about the impossibility of getting the whole picture when you only have one side of the story.

    But, Bea, I wonder by what convoluted logic you imagine that the other side of the coin of a person with an axe to grind about Scientology is Hubbard’s work?

    Do you get what I’m saying?

    The opposite of “up” isn’t “fish,” is it?

    Perhaps I didn’t put it clearly enough.

    Let’s take an example.

    I’m sure you have heard of Paul Harris.

    He spent 30 some years in Scientology. He came into Scientology, loved it, had auditing, had good wins, did some study courses, raved about them, told his friends and people he was working with how good it all was and encouraged them to have auditing and training too. This guy wrote hundreds of success stories on how good Scientology was and what he got out of it. He gave speeches at graduation every week.

    Then he suddenly, after 30 years, finds out that it’s terrible and that he doesn’t want to have anything to do with it.

    Now, if he had been a scientologist for a couple of weeks and had a bad experience that dampened his enthusiasm and so he decided not to continue, I could understand that.

    But 30 years, Bea. That’s a LONG time. It’s the length of time between being 10 years old and being 40 years old. I don’t know how old you are, but 30 years ago is 1980. Doesn’t that seem like a long time? And ALL that time he was saying how great it all was.

    There has to be a lie somewhere. Either he was lying with every success story and rave speech he gave and decided after 30 years to come clean and say what he really felt. That’s almost impossible, by the way, but just as an idea, it might have happened. Or maybe he really did have great wins for 30 years and then said that the thirty years he had spent on Scientology had been a total waste of time. Or maybe he had wonderful wins for a while. Then did something bad, hid it and decided to leave to avoid being found out. It has happened.

    It might be this, it could be that, he would have . . , there is so much we don’t know, there is so much missing in this story.

    But, but, but, Bea, I could read LRH books and listen to LRH lectures day in and day out for years on end, and it wouldn’t give me any information about Paul Harris. It wouldn’t answer the questions above.

    The example of Adolf was a bit extreme. There is a whole technology on SPs what they are, what they do and how they get that way. It’s a huge subject.

    Sometimes a person has a problem with a family member, as you say, because there is a difference of opinion. The first action that would be taken would be to locate the source of the antagonism. Maybe dad is disappointed with his son for getting low grades on his A levels. This can be handled. One possible solution might be as you said, “Dad, you think I should have an academic career, but, honestly, I’m not cut out for it.” Agree to differ and move on.

    This is not an SP. An SP is destructive. If the son got good grades, they wouldn’t be good enough, or getting good grades was a sign that the son was an intellectual snob, or that he must have cheated, the questions were easy this year or some such slur.

    But surely you must have met people who are destructive like this.

    If you try to handle the source of the antagonism and it just cannot be done, the SP keeps on pushing the guy down, criticising, pulling out his legs from under him, then one of them has got to go. The son should move out or the dad should.

    One of the people I was auditing was a housewife. Her husband was an SP. He drank heavily and one of his favourite things to do in the evening was get a big kitchen knife and play with it on the table. He never actually cut anybody but he scared the bejeesus out of the kids.

    We got her out of there and into a safe house.

    So, it was bad to split up that family?

    Mea culpa!

    Gosh, this is getting long!

    Lastly, you mention alternative philosophies.

    Well, you may or may not believe this, but I have looked. I’m 64 years old and I’ve been into all kinds of things.

    My room in our apartment has three huge bookshelves floor to ceiling. These are stocked with LRH books and lectures on CD.

    I don’t have his total output. There is much much more.

    I’ve never seen anything like the sheer volume of data as this. I don’t think there is. It’s all linked together, it rarely repeats itself and doesn’t contradict itself.

    It explains other philosophies.

    It’s quite amazing. It really is.

    That one person could produce all of this.

    So I don’t see why I need to spend a lot of time looking into other philosophies. To some degree it’s useful. But it’s not very productive.

    I have the same request to make of you, Bea. I wonder if you could discuss just ONE point at a time. Then we might make some forward progress.

    I have tried to answer your questions. I hope I didn’t miss anything.

    John

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  9. Bea  19/09/2012 at 18:20

    Dear John

    Although you would like me to discuss my arguments one point at a time I’d prefer to present them as a whole. For clarity I will list them one paragraph at a time. Not sure what can be achieved by arguing them in isolation. I’m sure your brain (and mine) can multitask?!

    1. Enturbulation: yep – I have read up on what it means and your definition is what I understood it to be. However, my understanding is that Scientologist do not wish to have “bad” or “upsetting” memories as this can prevent them reaching “clear”. Maybe having studied Scientology for so long you are at such a high level you are permanently “clear”? Or doesn’t it work like that?

    2. Parishioner vs. Hubbardist: OK – I’ll call you a Hubbardist if that’s what you prefer.

    3. Anti Scientology sites: seriously – how can you find the headlines “Enforced abortions”, “Working for slave wages”, “Split up families” (as well as others which you have not included – “Physical violence by David Miscavage” and “Child abuse”) boring. There is a large body of evidence (including court depositions) verifying the truth of this. I would like to suggest that by ignoring these crimes you are behaving in the same fashion as the German “Mittlaufer” in Nazi Germany. Rightly or wrongly, they felt unable to stand up and “be counted” due to fear of retaliation including against their families. Is this what you are worried about? That you will be disconnected from your friends and family for criticising Hubbard? Or is it that having read Hubbard for, say, the last 40 years it is difficult to admit that he is was a charlatan?

    4. $cientology: I believe the $ sign is because it costs so much money to do the courses and that “parishioners” (not you of course – you’re a Hubbardist) are frequently solicited for donations.

    5. Convoluted logic: well I didn’t find my logic convoluted. I thought it pretty obvious! A vs. B. A being the works of Hubbard in theory (his books / lectures etc) vs. B the reality of those works in practice (short term wins at huge financial expense, pressure to keep buying more course and of course the policy of “disconnection” and “fair game”).

    6. Paul Harris: I suspect he was brainwashed and finally woke up and smelled the coffee.

    7. SPs: so now an SP is being compared to domestic violence (which in my book is always wrong and I’m very glad you helped this lady). However, as far as I can work out, the only people who have been declared SPs are those who are critical of the “Church of Scientology”. Surely not the same as someone who intimidates his wife with a knife.

    8. Alternative philosophies: with regard to your large collection of LRH books – quantity does not equal quality! I’m not saying you should look into other philosophies just that you are fortunate you have the freedom to do so (I presume Hubbardists are allowed to?) unlike “parishioners”.

    Sayonara and oyasuminasai

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
  10. againstscientology12  20/09/2012 at 14:32

    Love Co$ logic :1) One must never believe apostates 2)ANYONE who criticizes the Co$ is an apostate;thus 3) no critisism can be believed

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  11. John Davis  20/09/2012 at 16:42

    Konbanwa Bea-san,

    Ogenki desuka?

    1. Enturbulation: yep – I have read up on what it means and your definition is what I understood it to be. However, my understanding is that Scientologist do not wish to have “bad” or “upsetting” memories as this can prevent them reaching “clear”. Maybe having studied Scientology for so long you are at such a high level you are permanently “clear”? Or doesn’t it work like that?

    And you want me to reply to this in a few lines?

    Here goes:

    You have read up on what it means.

    Do you know the derivation of enturbulate?

    “en-” is a prefix meaning “bring into the condition of . . .”
    “turb” is from “turba” = tumult = rapid random motion. The nuance of “turba” is interesting. It contains two elements – sudden or rapid motion and a confusion or lessening of mental function.

    We see this in the word “disturb,” when there is a sudden motion or action that results in a broken train of thought.

    We also see it coupled with “manus” = by hand, to form “masturbate.” Rapid motion leading to a lessening of mental function.

    So, “enturbulate” is bringing a person into a condition of confusion or lessening of mental function.

    If Mr Jones is going to have an auditing session, in which he is going to look over some of his less pleasant memories, it wouldn’t help things along if, before he left the house, granddad ripped him to pieces on the lines of “It would do you any good anyway. You? Remember things that’ve happened to you? You’ve a memory like a sieve. You can’t remember what you had for breakfast!”

    How Mr Jones is affected by this depends on his emotional state.

    It might drive him into apathy and get him to give it all up.
    It might make him very sad and upset.
    He might get scared.
    He might make some snide remark at granddad.
    He might slam the door on his way out, really pissed off.
    He might tear into his grandfather for speaking to him like that.
    He might get bored, having heard it all before.
    He might smile and say something like, “Good old GD! Never miss a chance, do you?”
    He might laugh and carry on doing what he was going to do anyway.
    He might sit down with GD and get him to tell him what the beef was, let him get it all out, until he felt better about it – audit him, in other words.

    What you say doesn’t upset me Bea. I think the thing is that you just don’t very much about Scientology and are very influenced by the negatives you get from people you’re connected up with. Maybe I’m wrong. That’s how it sees to me, anyway.

    In the above example, I’d rather sit down with someone and let them get it out of their system until they felt better about it.

    While we are on the subject of words, here are another couple of interesting ones, “look” and “see.”

    “Look” is an outflow. A person puts his attention out to look.

    “See” on the other hand, is an inflow. A person receives information.

    LRH writes: “Instead of arguing with others, get them to look.”

    The impulse is, in an argument, to get people to SEE your point of view. You want them to inflow – receive – accept your point of view as being the correct one. If both members of the argument try to do this, it ends up as a bloodbath.

    “You listen to me! I’ll tell you how it is! It’s like this . . . ”

    “No! You listen to me! It isn’t like that at all. This is the truth!”

    What LRH is suggesting is getting someone to LOOK.

    “So, what did you do?”

    “I beaned her with a brick. She deserved it! My dinner was cold!”

    “I see. You beaned her with a brick. And what did she do then?”

    “She cried a bit.”

    “Did she? How did she look when she was crying?”

    “Not very good, actually. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that.”

    “Alright. Let’s continue. How about the next day?”

    “Worse. She looked like she was going to give up everything. God, I really shouldn’t have done that. I have a cruel streak in me, I think.”

    “OK. Ever do anything like this before?”

    “Yes. To my mother. Wait a minute. I see what’s been happening now! My wife has exactly the same mannerisms. I think I had them sort of confused in some way! I’ve been so stupid!”

    He looks and he finds out!

    Bea-san, It’s 12:30 in the morning. And I’m having difficulty keeping awake. I’ll continue with my “homework” tomorrow, if that’s alright with you.

    One last thing.

    I’m curious as to why you used the Japanese in your last post.

    Did you live in Japan?

    Have a Japanese friend?

    John

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  12. Bea  20/09/2012 at 20:51

    Konbanwa John-san

    Genki desu!

    1. Enturbulation: thanks for the entomology lesson (who’d have thought it is linked to masturbation!!!!).

    2. So I guess my next point is why would I need Scientology if I am upset or confused. I am fortunate to have good friends and a great family I can turn to. Or I can ask them for clarity. And unlike Hubbard they don’t charge me. Being enturbulated is a normal human condition and something we learn to process as children and become wiser from as we grow older. Not a condition that needs a cure.

    3. Looking vs. arguing: in my opinion argument doesn’t have to lead to a blood bath. A good argument can broaden the mind and open it to new points of view. Surely, just “looking” is not enough. I also take some things on trust (the person’s actions lead me to believe they are trustworthy), on faith (my belief in God) or on proof (it is true as it is demonstrable) not because I am extrapolating a situation to its n’th degree. Debate is healthy and there is one raging on the Internet about Scientology.

    4. And finally, to bring this conversation back round to The Master why don’t you “look” at it and consider why the director felt it might be a “good” story to tell.

    Bea

    P.S. I have studied foreign languages

    P.P.S. I’m curious what you have to say about fair game

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
  13. Mike  21/09/2012 at 03:40

    John –

    I’ll try to keep my response short.

    It takes a very special kind of person to look at the overwhelming volume of independent reports of abuses and cruelty within Scientology and dismiss them as irrelevant or “not interesting.”

    Either you haven’t actually looked into them at any more than the most superficial level, or you’ve invented a mightily impressive set of mental gymnastics to deal with them. Certainly you put a few on display in your more recent posts.

    If the precepts of Scientology have done you some good in your personal life, then good for you. But not so good for the many that have been caused great injury by them. But again…you don’t care about any of them.

    I suggest you read this article in its entirety: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

    Then tell us in complete honesty whose words you find more credible: Tommy Davis’s, or those who have left Scientology, and the author of the article who has reported their stories. This is a simple question that doesn’t require a complicated answer. After reading this article, WHO IS MORE CREDIBLE? Please don’t weasel out of this.

    Then while you’re at it, tell us who you find more credible on the subject of L. Ron Hubbard’s war record — the Scientology spokesperson, or U.S. military officials who actually have Hubbard’s official records and have declared the ones Scientology has produced as forgeries.

    If Hubbard was the greatest human being who ever lived, why would he feel the need to lie about several aspects of his life (his college career being one of several others)? What else might he be lying about?

    I’ll close with this general thought: many, many people in the history of the world have come to grief of various kinds by believing that ONE human being has ALL the answers to everything. I sincerely hope you don’t one day prove to be another of them.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
  14. John Davis  21/09/2012 at 05:19

    Dear Bea,

    When I read your last post, it struck me.

    You haven’t a clue, have you?

    You haven’t the faintest idea what Scientology is.

    The conversation we have been having is about as daft as this imaginary one:

    JOHN Did you see the soccer last night?

    BEA Soccer! Nah! Don’t watch that. Too bloodthirsty!

    JOHN Bloodthirsty?

    BEA Yes! They kill bulls! Stab them with swords! Blood
    all over the place!

    JOHN No, no. I was talking about soccer.

    BEA Yes, I know! Soccer. It’s a cult! Should be banned!
    Stamped out! Very dangerous!

    JOHN Dangerous? Soccer?

    BEA Yeah! People always breaking their collarbones.

    JOHN In soccer? Breaking collar bones? You’re getting it mixed
    up with something else.

    BEA No, I’m not. I know what I’m talking about. They break
    their collarbones in scrims.

    JOHN “Scrims?”

    BEA Or is it crumbs?

    JOHN Do you mean scrums?

    BEA That’s it! scrums!

    JOHN They don’t have scrums in soccer!

    BEA Oh yes they do! You can’t fool me! It’s all over the
    internet!

    JOHN I assure you that they don’t have scrums in soccer!

    BEA Well, let’s just agree to disagree, shall we?

    JOHN ? ? ? ?

    Sayonara, Bea-san. Gambatte ne!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)
  15. John Davis  21/09/2012 at 05:29

    Mike, I’ll get back to you later.

    But there’s one thing at the end of your post that I want to make just a small comment on:

    You write:

    “I’ll close with this general thought: many, many people in the history of the world have come to grief of various kinds by believing that ONE human being has ALL the answers to everything.”

    You may be surprised to find that I agree with you wholeheartedly. So, if you cared to commit the cardinal sin of actually reading what he wrote, does Hubbard.

    It’s rather like the spoof I just posted. You’re getting Scientology mixed up with something else.

    Scientology auditing consists of an auditor asking a question, waiting until the guy finds an answer to it and listening to his answer, with interest and without judgement, criticism or comment until he has finished. The auditor then asks another question and the process is repeated. This goes on until the guy has a new realization about himself or his life.

    Someone (not Hubbard) said this, “Some religions have some wonderful answers. Scientology has amazing questions!”

    Scientology doesn’t tell you what to think.

    It gives you the opportunity to find out.

    John

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)
  16. Bea  21/09/2012 at 10:39

    Dear John

    All analogies are false to some degree but to some degree also true. They are not tautology. So, to what degree is your analogy true of false?

    I would argue that it is true as far as I really have no idea what you are going on about now! Indeed, we seem to be having two different kinds of conversation. (Surely, it would have been far easier to write, “You have misunderstood me!”).

    However, I believe my argument with you here has been stronger as it is based on validity, confidence and logical argument. While it is true that you have gained much from Hubbard and find it interesting this does not mean that all people who have been exposed to Scientology do. Based on multiple premises (the large number of people persecuted by Scientology) I have deduced that they are probably telling the truth (and are not individual cases of sour apples!). Conclusion: there is something evil about the founder and current leader of Scientology.

    Ganbatte to you too!

    Bea

    P.S. What do you think of “fair game”?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  17. Bea  21/09/2012 at 11:55

    P.P.S. “Scientology has amazing questions! Scientology doesn’t tell you what to think. It gives you the opportunity to find out”

    John, but are you asking the right questions and are you really finding out? I think you are in denial. I hope you escape soon.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  18. Mike  21/09/2012 at 16:37

    John –

    Here are some of the “clues” that *I* have about Scientology:

    1. There have been zero scientific studies of its effectiveness. I understand that there are those such as yourself who feel personally that it has benefited them, and I can respect that. But anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.

    2. Similarly, there is zero scientific evidence that the E-meter, the centerpiece of the discipline, produces any measurable data that is proven to be of use in bettering the user’s condition. History is filled with tales of charlatans who have used one device or another that supposedly gave true readings of people’s psyche. Until scientific scrutiny proves otherwise, this is just another one.

    3. Scientologists are pressured to come up with “gains” following auditing sessions. This pressure is so intense that many resort to making things up out of whole cloth in order to advance in their “studies.”

    4. The man who came up with all of this stuff had zero background or training in the various disciplines that are a part of it, and had a disdain for anything approaching the scientific method. He said things were so, and they were so — end of story. (He also said, famously, that smoking cures cancer! How has that worked out for him and many other Scientologists who have died from this disease at an early age?) Before you say all of this doesn’t matter, tell me that you would feel the same way about the heart surgeon who was about to operate on you.

    5. Most Scientologists willfully turn a blind eye to the abuses of their “church.” They work VERY hard to protect themselves from coming in contact with anything negative about it. Those who do come in contact either dismiss these negative reports with the blanket “It’s all lies” approach, or come up with incredibly convoluted reasoning to explain it away. (You have certainly given us your fair share of the latter.) Once these two approaches fail, many become ex-Scientologists who are ashamed they were ever a part of these abuses.

    I could easily go on, but I’ll stop for now.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)
  19. Mike  21/09/2012 at 17:12

    John –

    So “Scientology doesn’t tell you what to think”?

    Hubbard didn’t tell his followers, in black and white, that homosexuals are “deviant” and “perverted,” leading to a church policy that discriminates heavily against them to this day (and Scientology’s endorsement of California’s anti-gay ballot measure, as detailed in the link in my earlier post).

    Scientology doesn’t tell you to believe that drug addiction can be cured by massive (potentially toxic) doses of niacin and sitting in a sauna for hours at a time (also posing a grave health danger), despite zero scientific evidence for this?

    Scientology doesn’t very explicitly tell you to believe that psychiatry is “evil”?

    (On this latter point, tell you what I’ll do: I’ll concede that Scientology may have helped some people in some way if you’ll concede that in decades of practice, psychiatry just may have possibly helped some people too. Deal? Or will you get in trouble with Scientology if you say this?)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  20. John Davis  22/09/2012 at 14:32

    Well, Bea-san, this is the end of the road.

    I have to thank you. You taught me a lot.

    I’m out of here.

    In case you wonder why I got on this site and other “anti-Scientology” sites, I’ll tell you.

    Partly it was curiosity.

    I told you several times that I like to look at things from all angles.

    So, I wanted to find out what kind of person posts on these sites, and what – terrible cliche, I know – makes them tick.

    And partly, I wondered why nobody was posting anything on these sites to correct the hideous false data, misunderstanding, and lunatic imaginings about Scientology.

    I found out.

    It’s a total and complete waste of time.

    You didn’t take in a single word I wrote, did you?

    You don’t dare to.

    It also amazes me that you can have such totally fixed ideas about Scientology WITHOUT KNOWING THE FIRST THING ABOUT IT.

    Let’s be honest.

    You haven’t a clue, have you?

    Don’t worry, I’m not angry or upset, in fact, I’m very happy.

    You told me what I suspected, but wanted to confirm.

    I will bother you no longer.

    I have the information I need.

    Thanks!

    Domo arigato gozaimasu.

    Okagesama de totemo benkyo ni narimashita.

    Bye-nara!

    John

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)
  21. Jory  22/09/2012 at 19:41

    So, “John Davis”, here we are at last: You wasted your life away.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
  22. Mike  24/09/2012 at 04:27

    This is completely consistent with what I’ve found on all other sites. The moment the questions get tough, the Scientologists, who believe so completely in their “faith,” run and hide. They can’t stand the heat, so they get out of the kitchen.

    As they leave, they congratulate themselves on their utter superiority over us mere mortals, and declare that we’re just not worth wasting their time on.

    All the best to you John. You can tell yourself anything you’d like to make you feel better. But we’ve got your number.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  23. Bea  24/09/2012 at 13:03

    Dear John

    Thank you for this conversation. It has highlighted to me how “Hubbardists” tick.

    Before we go our separate ways (and since Scientology is all about questions) could I ask a favour? The next time you are on an e-meter could you ask someone to read the following:

    1. How much internal political and social power do you think David Miscavage exercises over Scientologists and what are Scientologists rights?

    2. How much external political and social influence do you think David Miscavage desires or tries to obtained by directing Scientologists’ external political and social behaviour?

    3. What amount of infallibility does Hubbard / David Miscavage declare or imply about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations? How many (and to what degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials) did Hubbard claim?

    4. What is the hostility level of Scientologists towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts?

    5. What is the rigidity of reality concepts taught? What is the amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism” hostility towards relativism in Scientology?

    6. What emphasis does Scientology put on attracting new members? How much proselytizing is there? What are the requirements for all members to bring in new ones?

    7. How many subsidiary groups using different names are there from that of the Church of Scientology? How many of these connections are hidden?

    8. How much money and/or property is desired or obtained by Scientology? What is the emphasis on members’ donations? What is the economic lifestyle of David Miscavage compared to ordinary Scientologists?

    9. How much control is exercised over the sexuality of Scientologists in terms of sexual orientation, behaviour and/or choice of partners?

    10. What advancement or preferential treatment is given for sexual favours?

    11. How much control is there over Scientologists’ access to outside opinions?

    12. How much effort is there to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers?

    13. What is the intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning Scientologist from leaving the Church?

    14. How much approval is there for violence especially when it is used by or for Scientologists on behalf of its doctrines or when it is being committed by David Miscavage?

    15. How frightened is David Miscavage of real or imagined enemies? How much does he exaggerate the perceived power of opponents? What is the prevalence of conspiracy theories?

    16. How much disapproval is there concerning jokes about Scientology, its doctrines, David Miscavage or Hubbard?

    17. How much emphasis is there on Scientologists not having to be responsible for personal decisions? What is the degree of individual disempowerment?

    The above questions have been adapted from Isaac Bonewits list.

    I am pleased to read “Okagesama de totemo benkyo ni narimashita”

    Good luck and wishing you a happy future!

    Bea

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

Leave a Reply