Marty Rathbun: thoughts on Scientology and spirituality

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Re: Marty: "Scientology management was a breeding ground for accomplished liars."

If you are determined to do so it can be done easily, I'm sure. In the same way that people find daily events that fulfill "Biblical prophecy".

I guess you missed the 'relatively sane' part

 

[Alle G]

Re: Marty: "Scientology management was a breeding ground for accomplished liars."

This is true for just about every aspect of Scientology, try listening to one of Hubbard's lectures again and find something he is claiming that is 'relatively sane' ... I dare you.

I can’t listen to Hubbard lectures again because I have never listened to them.

I am just wondering if Hubbard or any one offered any explanation, no matter how insane, why he ranked ‘emotions’ like 'controlling bodies' below death, and why say 'worshipping bodies' is below 'regret'. :confused2:

 

[In present time]

Re: Marty: "Scientology management was a breeding ground for accomplished liars."

"I was actually training them to increase their peripheral vision so that they could note how 1.1's were so adept at showing their true emotion the micro second that you took your eyes off of them."

LOL. With training in skills how to spot a 1.1 like that, it's a wonder Marty couldn't spot Miscavige as being low toned, but maybe he was looking at him directly too much and not peripherally enough? Of course, I realize he didn't develop these extraordinary skills until after years of study and research. He was sure giving Scientologists real skills!

How do you spot someone who is having bad thoughts about Hubbard though? Just put everyone in the Hole, to be safe.

I'm glad Dr. Hubtard laid the foundation for so much discovery in psychology and the sciences of the mind, according to Marty Rathbun, Esquirrel. That will be noted in the history books when Marty and other followers of Dr. Hubtard save the whole planet.

Peripheral vision, uhhh yeah. Look at all these sp's. http://www.imaginationstationtoledo.org/content/2011/07/flashed-face-distortion-effect/

 

[Infinite]

Re: Marty: "Scientology management was a breeding ground for accomplished liars."

..

. . . <snip for reference> . . . Here . . . have a practise . . . <snip> . . .

Just for the record: I am not Simply Dishy. Bad form, dude.

 

[Infinite]

Re: Marty: "Hubbard policies that excused otherwise destructive behavior of beings"

.
.
Which cup are the criminal charges hidden under> The TAO cup?, The Secret cup?,
The Pick at Ron cup??

Those cups is moving 'round so fast I can't not tell which cup those criminal charges is hidden under. Are they really still under there? Maybe they is all disappeared? Ay mayzin!

And the statute of limitations goes . . . tick tock tick tock

 

[Simply Dishy]

Re: Marty: "Scientology management was a breeding ground for accomplished liars."

Just for the record: I am not Simply Dishy. Bad form, dude.


I debated whether to include "Here...Have a practice...", but opted for subtlety to heighten the chances of getting past the censor. Though it pained me to leave the kicker out.

As above, nor did I think crediting "Infinite" was a good idea (since you're known as OSA in those circles, Lol), or even mention ESMB (Hubbard hating natter board).


On another note I see the debate it's sparked has led to OralMysticism passionately defending the treatment dished out to Paulette Cooper. Truly mindblowing.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Marty: Hubbard's "his lack of trust was proved justified by his own creation."

Marty: Hubbard's "his lack of trust was proved justified by his own creation." ("The Psychopath Test")

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-psychopath-test/

The Psychopath Test

Posted on April 12, 2013 by martyrathbun09 | 33 Comments

References:

Judgment

Sitting In Judgment

I am adding The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson to my recommended reading list. This short excerpt from What Is Wrong With Scientology explains why:

Ironically, perhaps the best way to understand the most fundamental flaw in the Scientology system of dealing with the influence of sociopaths is to read a book that touches on corporate Scientology’s vehement, costly protests against the alleged failure of the field of psychiatry to do the same. In The Psychopath Test, Ronson chronicles a member of corporate Scientology’s Citizens Commission on Human Rights (a group established to “clean up the field of mental healing”) and his quest to free an allegedly falsely labeled psychopath from a United Kingdom mental institution.

Ronson becomes fascinated with the apparent terrible injustice of “Tony’s” (pseudonym) incarceration. As Ronson researches the matter in greater depth, he comes to find the Bob Hare psychopath test, or checklist, rather rational and workable. The more time Ronson spends with Tony, the more he begins to doubt the fellow’s sanity against the psychopath test. Out of curiosity, Ronson puts the test to use on a businessman who is unrelated to the matter of Tony. When he completes the analysis, Ronson shares his condemning findings with a fellow journalist. His colleague points out that Ronson only spent a couple hours with the target, and perhaps his journalistic “skill” of catching a target out on lurid admissions, and his preconceived notions of guilt, played a part in his finding. Ronson, in his honest and entertaining style, rides the rollercoaster of enthusiastic certainty to self-deprecating doubt in his own and others’ use of the psychopath test.

Ultimately, Ronson causes the reader to consider that while there is a tremendous, accurate compilation of information that helps us detect sociopathy, can any one of us be trusted with the power to judge and sentence anyone else against that information? Are any of us worthy of the God-like power to condemn another to a life of quarantine and isolation? Do we, in wielding such a powerful tool of knowledge, tend to take on the characteristics of the sociopath when we sit in judgment?

Ronson seems to wind up in much the same place L. Ron Hubbard did when he published this statement: “I have come to find that man cannot be trusted with justice.” While Hubbard persevered and constructed an elaborate system of justice intended to overcome that fatal flaw of humankind, for whatever reason, his lack of trust was proved justified by his own creation.

Ultimately, though, L. Ron Hubbard said that the only guarantee that one would not wind up on the receiving end of a sociopath’s club was to understand how to identify one in the first place. And that conclusion was echoed by Martha Stout. The founder of Scientology and his long-time nemeses in the field of mental health ended up agreeing on one unifying principle: When it comes to the havoc others can wreak upon one’s life, the best protection is the truth – know it, and it shall set you free.

And so my recommended remedy in dealing with the very real problem of sociopathy, or the suppressive person, is as follows:

• Learn for oneself how to evaluate the worthiness and value of one’s fellows.
• Never forfeit your judgment to some authority, no matter how apparently wise and judicious, when it comes to judging the merits of others.
• Strive to be worthy of the trust of those you care about.

 

[uncover]

Just wondering if Marty will apply Robert Hare´s work an do a check with the PCL-R on Hubbard:

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is a diagnostic tool used to rate a person's psychopathic or antisocial tendencies. Originally designed to assess people accused or convicted of crimes, the PCL-R consists of a 20-item symptom rating scale that allows qualified examiners to compare a subject's degree of psychopathy with that of a prototypical psychopath. It is accepted by many in the field as the best method for determining the presence and extent of psychopathy in a person.


The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:
Score 0 if it does apply, score 1 if it somewhat applies, score 2 if it fully applies.

1. Glibness and superficial charm 2
– smooth-talking, engaging and slick.

2. Grandiose self-worth 2
– greatly inflated idea of one’s abilities and self-esteem, arrogance and a sense of superiority.

3. Pathological lying 2
– shrewd, crafty, sly and clever when moderate; deceptive, deceitful, underhanded and unscrupulous when high.

4. Cunning/manipulative 2
– uses deceit and deception to cheat others for personal gain.

5. Lack of remorse or guilt 2
- no feelings or concern for losses, pain and suffering of others, coldhearted and unempathic.

6. Shallow affect / emotional poverty 1
– limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness.

7. Callous/lack of empathy 1
– a lack of feelings toward others; cold, contemptuous and inconsiderate.

8. Fails to accept responsibility for own actions 2
– denial of responsibility and an attempt to manipulate others through this.

9. Needs stimulation/prone to boredom 2
– an excessive need for new, exciting stimulation and risk-taking.

10. Parasitic lifestyle 2
– Intentional, manipulative, selfish and exploitative financial dependence on others.

11. Poor behavioral controls 1
– expressions of negative feelings, verbal abuse and inappropriate expressions of anger.

12. No realistic long-term goals 0
– inability or constant failure to develop and accomplish long-term plans.

13. Impulsiveness 1
– behaviors lacking reflection or planning and done without considering consequences.

14. Irresponsible 2
– repeated failure to fulfill or honor commitments and obligations.

15. Juvenile delinquency 1
– criminal behavioral problems between the ages of 13-18.

16. Early behavior problems 0 (no info)
– a variety of dysfunctional and unacceptable behaviors before age thirteen.

17. Revocation of Conditional Release 1
– Violating probation or other conditional release because of technicalities.

18. Promiscuity 2
– brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs and an indiscriminate choice of sexual partners.

19. Many short-term marital relationships 2
– lack of commitment to a long-term relationship.

20. Criminal versatility 2
– diversity of criminal offenses, whether or not the individual has been arrested or convicted.

Score (at least) 30

Result

The PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders score around 22.

 

[Gib]

Re: Marty: "Scientology management was a breeding ground for accomplished liars."

I can’t listen to Hubbard lectures again because I have never listened to them.

I am just wondering if Hubbard or any one offered any explanation, no matter how insane, why he ranked ‘emotions’ like 'controlling bodies' below death, and why say 'worshipping bodies' is below 'regret'. :confused2:

Thank you

I believe he had to come up with those emotions below body death, (but they are not emotions)

to explain the thetan without a body in the 1952's when scientology came into existence because he had lost rights to dianetics (although he got back dianetics at that time sort ofl).

so he had to make the whole story, history of man and his superman thetan theory all jive together.

But yet, the present church is all about controlling bodies. Go figure.

 

[Gib]

Re: Marty: "Scientology management was a breeding ground for accomplished liars."

Just for the record: I am not Simply Dishy. Bad form, dude.


I debated whether to include "Here...Have a practice...", but opted for subtlety to heighten the chances of getting past the censor. Though it pained me to leave the kicker out.

As above, nor did I think crediting "Infinite" was a good idea (since you're known as OSA in those circles, Lol),

or even mention ESMB (Hubbard hating natter board).

On another note I see the debate it's sparked has led to OralMysticism passionately defending the treatment dished out to Paulette Cooper. Truly mindblowing.

or even mention ESMB (Hubbard hating natter board). = ESMB is actually hubbard correction board = qual deptment = to remove fixed ideas installed by hubbard.

EP = one can think for themselves = self determisn = life is not "what Ron says" = pursue one's own goals

 

[tired_of_pain]

Just wondering if Marty will apply Robert Hare´s work an do a check with the PCL-R on HIMSELF:
Score (at least) 30


The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:

Score 0 if it does apply, score 1 if it somewhat applies, score 2 if it fully applies.

1. ​

Glibness and superficial charm

​

2
​

– smooth-talking, engaging and slick.

2. ​

Grandiose self-worth

​

2
​

– greatly inflated idea of one’s abilities and self-esteem, arrogance and a sense of superiority.

3. ​

Pathological lying

​

2

– shrewd, crafty, sly and clever when moderate; deceptive, deceitful, underhanded and unscrupulous when high.

4. ​

Cunning/manipulative

​

2
​

– uses deceit and deception to cheat others for personal gain.

5. ​

Lack of remorse or guilt

​

2
​

- no feelings or concern for losses, pain and suffering of others, coldhearted and unempathic.

6. ​

Shallow affect / emotional poverty

​

1
​

– limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness.

7. ​

Callous/lack of empathy

​

2
​

– a lack of feelings toward others; cold, contemptuous and inconsiderate.

8. ​

Fails to accept responsibility for own actions

​

2
​

– denial of responsibility and an attempt to manipulate others through this.

9. ​

Needs stimulation/prone to boredom

​

2
​

– an excessive need for new, exciting stimulation and risk-taking.

10. ​

Parasitic lifestyle

​

2
​

– Intentional, manipulative, selfish and exploitative financial dependence on others.

11. ​

Poor behavioral controls

​

2
​

– expressions of negative feelings, verbal abuse and inappropriate expressions of anger.

12. ​

No realistic long-term goals

​

1
​

– inability or constant failure to develop and accomplish long-term plans.

13. ​

Impulsiveness

​

1
​

– behaviors lacking reflection or planning and done without considering consequences.

14. ​

Irresponsible

​

2
​

– repeated failure to fulfill or honor commitments and obligations.

15. ​

Juvenile delinquency

​

1
​

– criminal behavioral problems between the ages of 13-18.

16. ​

Early behavior problems

​

0
​

– a variety of dysfunctional and unacceptable behaviors before age thirteen.

17. ​

Revocation of Conditional Release

​

0
​

– Violating probation or other conditional release because of technicalities.

18. ​

Promiscuity

​

2
​

– brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs and an indiscriminate choice of sexual partners.

19. ​

Many short-term marital relationships

​

1
​

– lack of commitment to a long-term relationship.

20. ​

Criminal versatility

​

2
​

– diversity of criminal offenses, whether or not the individual has been arrested or convicted.​

BAM!

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Marty: Total Certainty – Really?

Marty: Total Certainty – Really?
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/total-certainty-really/

Total Certainty – Really?

Posted on April 14, 2013 by martyrathbun09 | 36 Comments

Reference: What We Are Doing Here

Some people get mixed up in Scientology with its sometimes obsessive attempted attainment toward and assertion of ’total certainty.’ It would seem such folk may have jettisoned some basic Scientology axioms and laws in pursuit of later claims and emphases. Consequently, I find a lot of former and independent Scientologists are mixed up on the Know-to-Mystery scale. They can’t seem to understand why it is that ‘Not Know’ is the second highest rung on the scale. This conundrum was addressed in an earlier post, What We Are Doing Here. Of late, we have been examining the subject of judgmentalism on this blog – most recently its relationship to sociopathy, The Psychopath Test. In reviewing one of the texts from the recommended reading section of this blog, The Sociopath Next Door, I came across a passage that sheds a little light on this subject of ‘total certainty’ particularly as it relates to judgmentalism. It gives some idea why it can seem untoward or uncomfortable or even anti-survival to obsess with attainment of total certainty.

From Chapter Five, why conscience is partially blind:

One of the more striking characteristics of good people is that they are almost never completely sure that they are right. Good people question themselves constantly, reflexively, and subject their decisions and actions to the exacting scrutiny of an intervening sense of obligation rooted in their attachments to other people. The self-questioning of conscience seldom admits absolute certainty into the mind, and even when it does, certainty feels treacherous to us, as if it may trick us into punishing someone unjustly, or performing some other unconscionable act. Even legally, we speak of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ rather than of complete certainty.

 

[Gib]

Re: Marty: Total Certainty – Really?

Marty: Total Certainty – Really?
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/total-certainty-really/

I find a lot of former and independent Scientologists are mixed up on the Know-to-Mystery scale. They can’t seem to understand why it is that ‘Not Know’ is the second highest rung on the scale.

Because hubbard designed it that way so people would not know about hubbard's life and antics.

 

[Infinite]

Re: Marty: Total Certainty – Really?

Because hubbard designed it that way so people would not know about hubbard's life and antics.

Exactly. Even KSW installs the notion that unless a person "knows" the tech works, it won't.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Marty: "the only thing I am trying to teach you is look" ("Becoming Clear")

Marty: "the only thing I am trying to teach you is look" ("Becoming Clear")
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/becoming-clear/

Becoming Clear

Posted on April 16, 2013 by martyrathbun09 | 37 Comments

The communication training routines in Scientology are very much downplayed in my opinion. Supervised with the requisite attention and emphasis, in and of themselves they are a tremendous advance toward the state of Clear. Ron Hubbard at one time made that point rather plain.

From L. Ron Hubbard’s lecture Scientology and Effective Knowledge (15 July 1957):

I woke up eventually to discover that these training drills (communication training routines) all by themself, practiced with sufficient rigor and coached well enough and instructed well enough, were steps on the road to Clear, all by themselves, without any further processing…

…And where training and processing processes are successful, they lead toward a straighter communication. And therefore, the road out is marked by simplicity and direct observation….

…The whole subject opens up at its inception with just this: that the simplicity of observation, the simplicity of communication itself and only itself, is functional and will take Man from the bottom to the top. And the only thing I am trying to teach you is look.

Provided one approached the training routines with the above in mind, and not as a bait and switch toward dependence on years and years of costly and complex psychotherapy or membership in some true-believer group, one might avoid the pitfalls Ron warned of in the same lecture:

Now, that’s the first thing we must know about Scientology is that by the attainment of a simplicity we accomplish a benefit. By the attainment of a simplicity, we accomplish a benefit. By the invitation of or involvement in a complexity, we accomplish the unfathomable and create a mystery. We sink Man into a priesthood, we sink him into a cult.

It is interesting to note that Taoists had a similar philosophical view about becoming clear more than two millenia ago. From Lieh-Tzu: A Taoist Guide to Practical Living (translations of ancient Taoist texts) by Eva Wong:

Those who are involved are muddled; those who watch are clear.

There was a man who was so intent on avenging his father’s death that he could think of nothing else. He was so engrossed in making plans for his revenge that he forgot he was holding his walking stick upside down. He leaned on his staff and the sharp point punctured his cheek. One of his friends said, ‘He is so deep in his own thoughts that everything around him is a blur.’

There was another man who was obsessed with getting rich. One day he went into the bank and tried to walk off with several bags of gold. The guards caught him immediately. A passerby said, ‘only a fool would think of robbing a bank in the presence of armed guards.’ The man said, ‘my mind was so
set on the gold I didn’t see the guards.’

You often see people stumbling into walls or stepping into holes because they are so occupied by their thoughts that they don’t see what’s in front of them. When we are too involved in a situation, we can’t see straight, and things that are obvious and clear to bystanders are a blur to us. This is very dangerous.

The training routines that Ron devised, well supervised by those not caught in the rapture/delusion of complex scripture, go a long way in attaining that ability to be clear. A handy stable datum to help steer one clear of the ‘priesthood’ and ‘cult’ aspects of Scientology is to question anything you encounter that doesn’t seem to contribute to this: And the only thing I am trying to teach you is look.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Marty uses early LRH to reject KSW ("The Story of Scientology Prophesied?")

Interesting technique, and one I've seen Marty use before. Marty uses early, relatively liberal LRH to reject KSW - though some on his blog might not at first recognize that is what Marty is doing.

Marty uses early LRH to reject KSW ("The Story of Scientology Prophesied?")
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/

The Story of Scientology Prophesied?

Posted on April 19, 2013 by martyrathbun09 | 47 Comments

L. Ron Hubbard, from Scientology: Milestone One, 3 March 1952:

Science, as it’s been known, has been the collection of data (almost a random collection of data), assembling it into piles of similar data and calling these piles ‘piles of data-ology’…

…You can see how biology, for instance, has dead-ended. Great study; it was started with a lot of verve way back. Francis Bacon was quite interested in this. Lucretius before him was very interested in this. In modern times, it has fallen away from its own definition. It’s ‘biology’. It’s sort of a hopeless dead end. They are not looking toward any source of life, they are just looking toward new kinds and combinations of life that they might discover by happenstance. The adventure of search has gone out of the field. Until this day, if you walked into a high school biology class or talked to a high school professor of biology, and you said, ‘How is it that your theories of biology do not carry along with or parallel some of the material in the theory of evolution? How is that the study of biology does not parallel its companion science, cytology? Why are these opposite in some respects?’ He would say to you, ‘Oh-huh! We study out of this text book.’ And you’d say, ‘Well now, do you realize if you went into the laboratory and you picked up a microscope and you started looking at these things – if you did some thinking about this – one of these days you might discover a great big piece of knowledge which would unify all of these fields: evolution, cytology, biology and many others?’ ‘Oh-h-h, no. No. This is something that is taught in a codified way.’

This is actually the history of any science. They push out into the unknown, they collect data, they formulate this data around a few theories and then they end. And they become stultified. And according to one of the very ancient Greeks, that mixture which is not shaken stagnates. And they don’t go any further; they stagnate. And it becomes a codified, specialized subject capable of producing a certain effect in the material universe. There it stops.

It’s a rather sad story, actually, because it’s the story of pioneers going out into the unknown world of data, phenomena – going so far, blazing a trail to a certain distance, and then one day getting very tired and sitting down and saying, ‘Well all we’ll do now is look at the back track. And if anybody tells us that all we’re doing is looking at the back track, we’ll protest. And we’ll say, ‘Well, we have a truth here and you can’t do any more about it, and from here on its all complex and if you went from here on, you’re liable to fall off a cliff.’

Compare that to the admonition in KSW No. 4 - SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY:

Man is caught in a huge and complex labyrinth. To get out of it requires that he follow the closely-taped path of Scientology.

Scientology will take him out of the labyrinth. But only if he follows the exact markings in the tunnels.[SUP]1[/SUP]

It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out.

It has been proven that efforts by man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth. Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be traveled.

What would you think of a guide who, because his party said it was dark and the road rough and who said another tunnel looked better, abandoned the route he knew would lead out and led his party to a lost nowhere in the dark. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy guide.

[...]

People have following the route mixed up with "the right to have their own ideas." Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions—so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others.

Scientology is a workable system. It white-tapes the road out of the labyrinth. If there were no white tapes marking the right tunnels, man would just go on wandering around and around the way he has for eons, darting off on wrong roads, going in circles, ending up in the sticky dark, alone.

Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess.

[...]

Scientology is a new thing—it is a road out. There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in theworld can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery.

Scientology is the only workable system man has. It has already taken people toward higher IQ, better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor.

Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked.

So put the feet of students and preclears on that route. DOn't let them off of it no matter how fascinating the side roads seem to them. And move them on up and out.

[...]

Don't let your party down. By whatever means, keep them on the route. And they'll be free. If you don't, they won't.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Marty: Scientology is not a religion, but instead a "spirtual-oriented psychotherapy"

Interesting technique, and one I've seen Marty use before. Marty uses early, relatively liberal LRH to reject KSW - though some on his blog might not at first recognize that is what Marty is doing.

Marty uses early LRH to reject KSW ("The Story of Scientology Prophesied?")
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/
Compare that to the admonition in KSW No. 4 - SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY:

Marty: Scientology is not a religion, but instead a "spirtual-oriented psychotherapy"
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/#comment-263463

EnthralledObserver | April 20, 2013 at 9:00 am | Reply

This is the kind of thing that annoys me. First Scientology is a ‘science’ as an advancement or alternative to psychiatry, then it’s a religion, because it’s easier to say ‘don’t pick on us’ (or a tax break – or both), and then it’s a science because we want MEST validation, then a religion again because our research is missing and apparently why should LRon ‘NEED’ to do clinical studies like every other ‘scientist’, but it’s a science, trust us, because somebody else had the same thoughts as me.

Seriously, these reasons are void, because two insane people can have similar delusions, but it doesn’t make their delusions real nor healthy, it’s NOT proof of anything at all.

So, what IS Scientology… a SCIENCE or a RELIGION? I’m seriously confused which side of the fence scientologist actually sit on, it’s like you all keep moving the goal post so you can’t be pinned down to actually categorically admit which argument you’ll be defending for the long haul. Because, quite
frankly, there is a separate case supporting each alternative which conflicts with the other’s case.

martyrathbun09 | April 20, 2013 at 9:10 am | Reply

Good point. From my perspective it is neither science or religion. Though it has characertistics of both, it is more accurately – in practice – a spirtual-oriented psychotherapy.

 

[Terril park]

Re: Marty: Scientology is not a religion, but instead a "spirtual-oriented psychother

Marty: Scientology is not a religion, but instead a "spirtual-oriented psychotherapy"
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/#comment-263463

I like that!

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Marty: Scientology is not a religion, but instead a "spirtual-oriented psychother

Marty: Scientology is not a religion, but instead a "spirtual-oriented psychotherapy"
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/#comment-263463

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/#comment-263521

CommunicatorIC | April 20, 2013 at 7:43 pm | Reply

Marty: “Good point. From my perspective it is neither science or religion. Though it has characertistics of both, it is more accurately – in practice – a spirtual-oriented psychotherapy.”

Therefore, Scientology is not, or at least should be, protected as a religion in the U.S. by the First Amendment?

Therefore, Scientology entities are not, or at least should not be, exempt from taxation on the grounds of being religious institutions (as opposed to otherwise qualifying as tax exempt charities and satisfying the reporting requirements thereof)?

Therefore, Scientology entities are not, or at least should not be, exempt (as they are now) on the grounds of being “religious” from a host of secular laws, including for example and without limitation, wage and hour laws, prohibitions against sexual orientation discrimination, prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of physical or medical illness or infirmity (i.e., the Illegal PC rule), exemptions from certain Social Security Administration requirements re: clergy, entitlements to immigration benefits re: clergy?

Therefore, the use of the E-Meters is not exempt from FDA requirements requirements concerning safety and effectiveness on the grounds that it is a “religious artifact,” and E-Meters are possibly subject to being condemned and confiscated? See Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/E-Meter/courtfile-2-69.html

AND

Court Order
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5024758/Court-Order-FDA-Scientology-Dianetics-Hubbard-Emeter

martyrathbun09 | April 20, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Reply

Your conclusion couldn’t be more wrong. Read the Court of Appeals opinion you linked to by the august Skelly Wright. It all depends upon the context in which one practices. The church of Scientology – and most of the independent field – is all about religion. They are true believers – they believe as strongly and as sincerely as the most evangelical Christians and most radical Muslims.

 

[Terril park]

Re: Marty: Scientology is not a religion, but instead a "spirtual-oriented psychother

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-story-of-scientology-prophesied/#comment-263521

Spiritual oriented psycotherapy fits in the category religion IMO.

CO$ is a business. Thus should not be tax excempt. IMO.