PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religion

[Gadfly]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

There is at least one person who, perhaps, is slightly more qualified than your own fine self, who would disagree as to whether person in Scientology really does have a choice. Also, your point above is based, I think, on the assumption that the person knows beforehand and agrees to being subject to mind-control. Bit tricky to give "informed consent" when you don't even know mind-control is in operation starting right from the entry-level TRs.

In today's world, one has to be an IDIOT to walk into any Church of Scientology. Information about the flaws, faults and potential dangers of Scientology is readily available. Also, with the availability of the same information, someone has to be a complete MORON to stay in the Church.

Nobody "agrees to be a victim of mind control". But, people do happily place themselves in situtations where such mind control exists. This is NOT uncommon. I might say that "watching modern TV" involves a degree of THAT. Modern media acts to "form ideas in the heads of the herd". It is not untrue to say that. Many of the ideas forwarded by modern media are arbitrary and act to define how many people view the world. In a sense it involves "mind control".

But, people can watch the major media outlets and allow the endless nonsense to seep into their brains.

On one hand free choice is real, and on another level it IS a delusion (in ANY area of life).

But again, TODAY, there is an abundance of information about the dangers of Scientology available. One has to simply refuse to investigate, and to choose NOT to do ones due diligence, to walk into the lion's den of Scientology today.

Yes, that was not true in the past. Thanks to the Internet THAT is changing.

 

[degraded being]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Christ on a stick, "secrecy" goes on anywhere.

Freedom of choice refers to an INDIVIDUAL.

There will probably never be "total access to all truthful information". We would have to shut down the intelligence services of every government that hides information and sends out contrived information as a daily function. That will NEVER happen. We would have to shut down the major media outlets, that act to GREATLY distort "accurate information". People get accurate information by LOOKING for it. By WORKING hard at learning to differentiate between truth and lies.

People, as individuals, have the RIGHT to try to gather and know "truth", but there will always be some person or some group trying to sell you lies. THAT is THEIR "freedom". Sad, but true. You can't legislate human decency.

People need to stop being idiots. THAT is the ONLY real answer.

Yes, in the tight restrictive environment of the cult of Scientology, there is NOT "freedom of information", and there is NOT "freedom to look freely". But each person DOES have the freedom to be there or not. Cripes, it kills me that people don't/can't see this. Maybe this is a "liberal" thing? Where the poor extremist left-wingers like to blame everybody else for his or her own dumb choices and results? :confused2:

But, on the WORLD stage, at least in many countries, you DO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WHERE TO BE. This will be unpopular for some, but any person who CHOOSES TO STAY IN THE SEA ORG AND SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE RPF is making that free choice. Sure, I think Scientology is loony-tunes for having an RPF, but I also think that the person who STAYS THERE and submits his or herself to the RPF is a dummy of major proportions. The person who happily stays on the RPF, imagining oneself to be "addressing my sorry degarded state and tendenies to produce overt products", exists in a SELF-CREATED mental world of very strange (Scientology-based) ideas. You can't stop people from accepting and believing whatever nonsense he or she desires.

There are TWO things going on here. The scammer, AND the "dupe". As I have said before, it does take a very special kind of stupid to choose to STAY in the oppressive environment of Scientology.

Choosing to be and stay in an RPF is far different than being herded into ovens at the force of a gun in a Nazi concentration camp.

Yes, Scientology DOES contain extensive mind control, but YOU have the CHOICE whether to be there and ACCEPT the mind control techniques. Or not.

Accurate information IS AVAILABLE on the Internet. If some Sea Org member wants to place him or herself in a ruthless environment where the Interent is forbidden, well, whose fault is it?

Scientology sucks. It sucks big time. But grown adults have the RIGHT to choose to put themselves into that oppressive environment.

My big day of realization was when, back in about 1984, I said to myself, "why do I allow myself to stay in this crazy environment that places such insane pressures and demands on me"? So, I left the Sea Org. I could see that as long as I stayed "in that environment", that it would always be nuts. But, some stay. Grown adults are free to make that choice. You might not like it, it IS sad what happens to some people, we can continue to expose Hubbard and Scientology (as is OUR free right), but adults have the right to be idiots and morons if they choose (as long as they, as an individual, do not hurt anybody).

I have used this analogy before. If you stand in the way of an oncoming train, and fail to move out of the way, whose fault is it? :confused2:

It is NOT the train's fault. People who are too blind, dumb, or caught up in some crazy mixture of beliefs and "delusional helping of others" make the mistake of not being able to see the train coming.

People, in the end, need to accept where they place themselves, and if you place yourself in a destructive environment, ultimately, it is your fault.

I know that view is too severe for some.

There are MANY dangers in life. Scammers, tricksters, and liars. No government will EVER be able to "outlaw them all", simply because more will just appear. The real solution is for people to get bright and aware enough to spot them when they appear, and to have NOTHING to do with them. Move out of the way of the fast-coming train.

Or, don't. But don't moan, complain and whine about it when the train flattens you or somebody else who CHOSE to remain in that place.

There is no doubt that Scientology takes great advantage of the freedoms guaranteed in "democratic societies". But I would rather have that than the alternative - no freedoms at all.

Lastly, some of us here on ESMB continue to expose various aspects of the scam of Scientology as best we can, and by doing that we can help some "see the train coming as the dangerous train that it is". Then maybe they will step off the tracks (leave Scientology).

Umm, yeah, in the 2 last posts you put up, I think that in the first one you were saying that reality and nice ideals don't always match, or that although responsiblity and freedom are worthy values goals, individuality means that we will not necessarily be in harmony with one another, even though they are nevertheless things worth aiming for.
In the 2nd one on freedom of choice, I think that yes, people can make their own decisions, but they cannot all necessarily make informed ones for many reasons. It's alright for educated informed articulate people to spout on about how people can take care of themselves and make their own decisions, but scientology isn't the only force that prevents that. I am not making an argument that the goverment or anyone else should make decisions for them (although they already do) just that I think that because people have a "right" to make their own decisions, they cannot always make ones that are beneficial. People who are comfortable or in power can find it convenient to overlook that. Maybe it's getting away from the topic of scientology, specifically, but even there, a 2nd or 3rd generationer can have decision making itself subverted. I think I'm just saying that in your first post you acknowledged that life is often to complex to comply to one individual's philosophical solutions broadly. I think the freedom of choice issue is another one that is also more complex than it looks. More complicated than assuming it works because it sounds good to those who think they already have it.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Perhaps you're right, Gadfly.
When we hear that friends beat up friends because David Miscavige ordered them to do so, we shouldn't care, because it's their choice.

When we hear that people are water boarded and tortured to the point where their life is in danger, because David Miscavige ordered it, we shouldn't care, because it's their choice.

When unborn children are killed because "it's the best for the greatest number of dynamics", we shouldn't care, because it's their parent's choice.

The list could go on and on and we shouldn't care, because it's the people's choice.

I didn't say that we shouldn't "care". There is no shortage of pain & injustices in this sorry world. I very much "care". I have a real and living compassion for my fellows.

But, the way to solve the problem is NOT to run out and start denying people freedom. The way to solve it is to EXPOSE THE CULT FOR WHAT IT IS, so that people stay away, so that people leave, and so that it gets shut down.

Sometimes I just don't get what you are trying to say.

I want people to NOT enter into any Church of Scientology. Agree?

I would like to see more people leave. Agree?

I would like to see the Church of Scientology shut down. Agree?

What else would YOU DO to "solve the problem"?

It IS their choice. THAT is a FACT. That doesn't mean that you should not feel sadness or compassion for people who go down THAT road.

And, of course, do everything possible to bring about a world where THAT CHOICE no longer exists as a possibility (shut down the Church of Scientology).

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

In today's world, one has to be an IDIOT to walk into any Church of Scientology.

Yep there is no way of sugar coating this one, in this day and age you have to be a complete moron to get involved with Hubbard's cult and deserve to lose all your money on principle alone.

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Well and these two members are sure that it was only Scientology who was "changing" them. I have met many people in my life who were kind of caotic in their youth then somebody helped them to bring order into their life and they changed completely. I understand your perspective - for you it looks like that Scientology helped you to find the way out of whatever mess you were in before. Are you sure that it was Scientology who helped you out? And are you sure that nobody else would have been able to help you then?
It is true - in the beginning Scientology seems to bring some order and discipline into your life - but in the long term you will find that you are a slave for Hubbard - and of course it is very important to have discipline in an organization if you want to control a lot of slaves.

Love
Markus

Nah, Markus, I meant that they could tell you what I was like "before and after". It's a kind of standing joke with some of my friends, it goes like this; "Some people might think that scientology screwed him up but you should have seen the state he was in before scientology!"

Of course, there have been many other factors in my life since I started in scientology and the changes I've experienced are probably from a combination of life and livingness, growing older and wiser plus the things I feel I achieved through auditing and training. I finally got a clue somewhere along the way.

I often say that if I'd approached Buddhism with the same zeal and dedication that I put into scientology, I'd be the Dali Lama by now. It's just a joke I like to make.

One thing is for sure, I'm doing MUCH better in life since I left scientology. That tells me all I really needs to know about it all.

 

[Infinite]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

In today's world, one has to be an IDIOT to walk into any Church of Scientology. Information about the flaws, faults and potential dangers of Scientology is readily available. Also, with the availability of the same information, someone has to be a complete MORON to stay in the Church.

Nobody "agrees to be a victim of mind control". But, people do happily place themselves in situtations where such mind control exists. This is NOT uncommon. I might say that "watching modern TV" involves a degree of THAT. Modern media acts to "form ideas in the heads of the herd". It is not untrue to say that. Many of the ideas forwarded by modern media are arbitrary and act to define how many people view the world. In a sense it involves "mind control".

But, people can watch the major media outlets and allow the endless nonsense to seep into their brains.

On one hand free choice is real, and on another level it IS a delusion (in ANY area of life).

But again, TODAY, there is an abundance of information about the dangers of Scientology available. One has to simply refuse to investigate, and to choose NOT to do ones due diligence, to walk into the lion's den of Scientology today.

Yes, that was not true in the past. Thanks to the Internet THAT is changing.

Sure. Caveat emptor, and all that. And, yes, thank god for the Internet. I'm not sure its altogether insightful to suggest anyone who has been in Scientology since (arbitrary date) before 2008 is a idiotic moron. More likely, they are hard-working, spiritually-inclined, largely altruistic, and trusting. Others have found themselves in the slowly heating-up pot after falling for one of the cult's front groups and have been taken advantage of, particularly those who have stumbled in through the Narconon entrance. Rather, these unfortunate souls have had their minds become so controlled they are, in the main, unable to properly consider the mountains of evidence as to the damage their "religion" has done to them, to others, and to society. Doesn't make them idiotic morons.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Yep there is no way of sugar coating this one, in this day and age you have to be a complete moron to get involved with Hubbard's cult and deserve to lose all your money on principle alone.

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but the analogy to cigarette companies is appropriate.

There is a warning on every cigarette pack in the US that states, "Warning: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health".

Everyone knows that smoking cigarettes is dangerous and bad for you, YET the prouduction of cigarettes isn't outlawed. But, because of the warning, in a simliar way, if you smoke and die of lung cancer, whose FAULT is it?

The suffering of people dying from lung diseases sucks, but they didn't have to smoke. Others can still "care" for their suffering, because suffering sucks (in any form).

The analogy with cigarette smoking is even more germane though, because the cigarette industries spent many years LYING, putting together deceptive "studies" making it appear that cigarette smoking was "harmless", ran intense deceitful PR campaigns (Joe Camel, etc.) to sell their products, and went so far as to add addictive chemicals to cigarettes to increase the "desire" for their products.

The solution, even with ALL that known, did not result in them being outlawed. Maybe they should be. My point is that YEARS of activity by many people EXPOSING THE SCAM OF CIGARETTE COMPANIES and along with dedicated legal actions brought them to their knees.

The same will probably eventually happen with Scientology. There are too many similarities for it not to happen.

Maybe someday every Church of Scientology might come with a warning label:

WARNING: Involvement with Scientology is potential dangerous to your life. Enter at your own risk.

But, I suspect even with such a visible warning, some will still try to say that the individual is NOT responsible for what he or she does.

In this Internet Age, the "warning" exists to a fairly large degree already - if you simply open your eyes and LOOK. While nobody can have their eyes FORCED open, they can be encouraged. ESMB is part of thast encouragement.

But, some people will keep refusing to LOOK. THAT is their freedom. Just as some will continue to smoke. You can't force people to make "intelligent choices". You can only point the way. In the end, each person chooses his or her path to walk.

Lastly, cigarette smoking and cigarette companies in ONE YEAR cause FAR MORE suffering and deaths than ALL THE YEARS COMBINED of Scientology. Yet, the various governments of the world allow them to continue. Granted, there is NO DOUBT that this has to a great deal to do with BIG MONEY and corporate lobbying. The current "setup" of the world, as a "financial-based concern", based on "capitalism", opens the door for such abuse by "those with excesses of money". The Church of Scientology included.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Sure. Caveat emptor, and all that. And, yes, thank god for the Internet. I'm not sure its altogether insightful to suggest anyone who has been in Scientology since (arbitrary date) before 2008 is a idiotic moron. More likely, they are hard-working, spiritually-inclined, largely altruistic, and trusting. Others have found themselves in the slowly heating-up pot after falling for one of the cult's front groups and have been taken advantage of, particularly those who have stumbled in through the Narconon entrance. Rather, these unfortunate souls have had their minds become so controlled they are, in the main, unable to properly consider the mountains of evidence as to the damage their "religion" has done to them, to others, and to society. Doesn't make them idiotic morons.

I was an idiotic moron when I was involved. :confused2:

I agreed with a great many dumb ideas and stupid behaviors. Not a moron? I was stupidly ignoring a great many facts that were trying to impinge on my space. I intentionally chose NOT to LOOK at a great many contradictions in and about Scientology.

I know about this, because I was there. I walked the walk (well, at least to SOME degree), and I talked the talk. I walked it more than many, and less than some others.

Note: I admit, I use the terms "idiot" and "moron" far too much, and I don't even mean them as they are usually defined, so I should probably stop using them because doing so probably doesn't "help the cause".

Also, it displays condescension, calling people idiots and morons, and I am a big idiot to do that. But, really, also, it takes one to know one.

Possibly, the word "fool" is more apt, especially because often, when there is a fool, there is also someone doing the nasty and deceitful "fooling".

 

[MrNobody]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

I didn't say that we shouldn't "care". There is no shortage of pain & injustices in this sorry world. I very much "care". I have a real and living compassion for my fellows.

But, the way to solve the porblem is NOT to run out and start denying people freedom. The way to solve it is to EXPOSE THE CULT FOR WHAT IT IS, so that people stay away, so that people leave, and so that it gets shut down.

Sometimes I just don't get what you are trying to say.

I want people to NOT enter into any Church of Scientology. Agree?

I would like to see more people leave. Agree?

Ah, the old "The Road to 'Yes'"game. Well, I don't play that game, but yes, I do agree with you up to here.

I would like to see the Church of Scientology shut down. Agree?

What else would YOU DO to "solve the problem"?

With these two questions I agree not so much, but you've already asked them in another post in this thread and I gave you the answers in my reply to that post. I have nothing to add to that.

It IS their choice. THAT is a FACT. That doesn't mean that you should not feel sadness or compassion for people who go down THAT road.

Yes, friends beat up friends because it's their choice and friends are beaten up by friends because it's their choice. So let's just feel compassionate about it. As long as we don't interfere with the beatings, that should be acceptable.

And, of course, do everything possible to bring about a world where THAT CHOICE no longer exists as a possibility (shut down the Church of Scientology).

As I already said in that previous post that you obviously didn't care to read, shutting down that cult wouldn't change anything. They'd pop up under a new name in no time.

As long as that cult has a chance to exist, it will continue to do so. Opposing them and informing as many people as possible about the cult and it's front groups will help to keep them in check and will reduce their income. Exposing their crimes will make sure that they'll be under investigation from the authorities, which will keep the number of their crimes down, but it'll be impossible to shut them down as long as they have just one believer, be it a "true" one or not.

 

[Infinite]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

I was an idiotic moron when I was involved.

As an [STRIKE]derail[/STRIKE] aside, I do wish you exes would stop beating yourselves up about having been duped. Thing is, you fell prey to an international, multi-billion dollar, super-sophisticated mind-control fraud that's had 60 years to fine-tune its lure. Nothing stupid about that, just unlucky. Or maybe karma?

I'm not altogether convinced that "it takes one to know one" when it comes to idiots. Most idiots I know don't believe they are idiots. Take, for instance, those who, having fallen for Scientology, still wish to perpetuate it on others outside of the cult. In fact, take them all. Far away.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

As I already said in that previous post that you obviously didn't care to read, shutting down that cult wouldn't change anything. They'd pop up under a new name in no time.

Obviously . . .

As long as that cult has a chance to exist, it will continue to do so. Opposing them and informing as many people as possible about the cult and it's front groups will help to keep them in check and will reduce their income. Exposing their crimes will make sure that they'll be under investigation from the authorities, which will keep the number of their crimes down, but it'll be impossible to shut them down as long as they have just one believer, be it a "true" one or not.

I think this displays a poor understanding of the the dynamics of Scientology. Where dynamics is NOT the Scio-term, but "the forces and motions that characterize a system".

Shutting down the Church of Scientology would also involve taking measures so that similar abusive organizations could not reform.

If there is NO centrally-controlled organization, the MAJORITY of the "bad effects" would cease. It would NOT "pop up again" in some "other form". THAT is absurd IF the organization has been "shut down".

I get the idea that while you don't come out and say it, because it would look so, how can I say this, STUPID, that you would like to just "outlaw Scientology".

Of course, an abstract idea can't be outlawed, but that doesn't seem to stop some from trying.

There is no "life " in "the cult". It has no "intention to live". A "cult" is not a "real thing". It is an IDEA. Only individual points of consciousness, people, have intentions. While it may APPEAR that a group has intentions, purposes and motivations, this is ONLY an illusion, and involves thinking abstractly, in metaphors and analogies. There is no group ever, not at any time, that has caused anything. There HAVE been many individual people who, agreeing with the ideas of some group, have caused things (both good and bad). I know this is hard for some to grasp.

Personally, I prefer a FREE MARKETPLACE of IDEAS where people can discuss and CHOOSE what they want - freely, withot some know-it-all telling everybody else what is right and wrong, and who is happy and willing to make their choices FOR THEM.

But I think I see where you are going. Let's round up any person who accepts and believes any aspect of Scientology, since as you say, "it is impossible to shut them down if there is even ONE believer", shuttle them off to internment camps, and then slowly eradicate them all. Would THAT be acceptable to you?

I don't think people recognize just how close to THIS your statements actually are. Granted, you skate very close and you only hint. This involves simply more OPPRESSION in the name of some cause. In this case the cause is "preventing people from being hurt by Scientology". I see the irony in it. Do you?

I have noticed that even some people who want to "help solve the problem of Scientology", at times, seem quite comfortable crossing those invisible lines of decency, to enact THEIR VIEW of how the world should be.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

As an [STRIKE]derail[/STRIKE] aside, I do wish you exes would stop beating yourselves up about having been duped. Thing is, you fell prey to an international, multi-billion dollar, super-sophisticated mind-control fraud that's had 60 years to fine-tune its lure. Nothing stupid about that, just unlucky. Or maybe karma?

I'm not altogether convinced that "it takes one to know one" when it comes to idiots. Most idiots I know don't believe they are idiots. Take, for instance, those who, having fallen for Scientology, still wish to perpetuate it on others outside of the cult. In fact, take them all. Far away.

I know. You are right. I had nothing to do with it. I was tricked. I was deceived by the big bad Scientology. It was NOT my fault. They were so powerful and I was nothing. There was nothing I could have done otherwise or differently. I abandon all responsibility to big bad Ron.

NOT!

You grant Scn far more power than "it" actually possesses. In no way do I "beat myself up about having been duped". I don't care or even think much about my own past expriences with Scn. They are more or less insignicant to me. It was what it was. And, because I SAW what it was quite early on, I distanced myself from it even when "in". Others did not.

And, in response to you overly presumptive first line, I wish that folks like you who have NEVER BEEN THERE, who have ZERO personal experience, and who largely base your often strange notions on second and third-hand reports from sometimes questionable claimants, would stop imagining that you understand ANYTHING AT ALL about what it is ACTUALLY like to be involved with Scientology. You folks are like peeping-toms or voyeurs, and you look from afar, grasping at some shred of excitement or meaning. Also, you refuse to accept all reports equally, and ONLY accept the reports that align with or confirm your decidely overall 100% Scientology-sucks view of things.

On the "it takes one to know one", I was being "funny". Humor. Joking.

 

[MrNobody]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

I think this displays a poor understanding of the the dynamics of Scientology. Where dynamics is NOT the Scio-term, but "the forces and motions that characterize a system".

How do I have a poor understanding of the dynamics involved? Please elaborate.

Here's how I understand it: As soon as the current interest of public, media and governments has mellowed out a bit, they'll begin to disseminate again, probably under a new name and with a slight change in their doctrines. Then all the exes, critics and whatnots will analyze the new, improved doctrines and point out that it's all the same old shit from 60 years or so ago, the newly caught cultists will refuse to see that, and so on and so forth. A perfect mental perpetuum mobile. Nothing will change, except that (hopefully) the next cult generation will be a bit smaller - unless they change their strategies and some of their core doctrines, in which case they may even see a true and new "highest expansion ever".

That's what I think will happen.

Shutting down the Church of Scientology would also involve taking measures so that similar abusive organizations could not reform.

And what would that measures be? Cutting down these wonderful freedoms a bit that you and others were so proud of just a few posts ago?

If there is NO centrally-controlled organization, the MAJORITY of the "bad effects" would cease.

I don't even know where that central control is, and who controls it. It might well be that the dwarf is just a marionet, a scapegoat for the ones who are really in control.

Yes, that sounds tinfoily and no, I don't believe the 12 bankers story. I just think that DM isn't smart enough to keep that billion-Dollar scam going, while he's micro-managing and regulating everybody's slightest fart in the cult and in his spare time shmoozing his celebrities. I think there is some entity behind him that I've yet to hear about.

It would NOT "pop up again" in some "other form". THAT is absurd IF the organization has been "shut down".

Not? Didn't they just register a new "church" organization two days after the Australian ombudsman story came out? Don't you think they could come up with something even "better" if they had to? I do.

I get the idea that while you don't come out and say it, because it would look so, how can I say this, STUPID, that you would like to just "outlaw Scientology".

No, I wouldn't like to "outlaw $cientology", and I wouldn't even think about it, because I don't believe that'd work. Just applying all the many laws of the many lands where this cult or one of their front groups reside would be a huge step forward. That's why I love what the Aussies are doing these days, and I'd love to see some more of the cult's dirty little secrets come out from wherever they're hidden in the world.

Of course, an abstract idea can't be outlawed, but that doesn't seem to stop some from trying.

There is no "life " in "the cult". It has no "intention to live". A "cult" is not a "real thing". It is an IDEA. Only individual points of consciousness, people, have intentions. While it may APPEAR that a group has intentions, purposes and motivations, this is ONLY an illusion, and involves thinking abstractly, in metaphors and analogies. There is no group ever, not at any time, that has caused anything. There HAVE been many individual people who, agreeing with the ideas of some group, have caused things (both good and bad). I know this is hard for some to grasp.

Personally, I prefer a FREE MARKETPLACE of IDEAS where people can discuss and CHOOSE what they want - freely, withot some know-it-all telling everybody else what is right and wrong, and who is happy and willing to make their choices FOR THEM.

But I think I see where you are going. Let's round up any person who accepts and believes any aspect of Scientology, since as you say, "it is impossible to shut them down if there is even ONE believer", shuttle them off to internment camps, and then slowly eradicate them all. Would THAT be acceptable to you?

I can see you'd love to see me in (or near) the Nazi corner and you're probably not the only one who does, but sorry, kiddo, no matter how much you and others are deliberately trying to misunderstand and misinterpret me, it doesn't work that way.

I don't think people recognize just how close to THIS your statements actually are. Granted, you skate very close and you only hint. This involves simply more OPPRESSION in the name of some cause. In this case the cause is "preventing people from being hurt by Scientology". I see the irony in it. Do you?

I see your misinterpretations. Do you?

I have noticed that even some people who want to "help solve the problem of Scientology", at times, seem quite comfortable crossing those invisible lines of decency, to enact THEIR VIEW of how the world should be.

Yes, I've noticed that too. In fact, I'm currently replying to such a person's post.

 

[lotus]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

If a given person were to truly believe that scientology was a religion and that it was their religion of choice, would you deny them the right to practice that religion?

If so, how would you justify it? Just curious.

With this

[video]http://youtu.be/D6XCXPx9yoQ[/video]

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Hmmm, have you read the thread?

 

[Veda]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Hmmm, have you read the thread?

Have you?

 

[lotus]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Hmmm, have you read the thread?

Yes

I find my answer clear

with Gerry's justification of why denying the right to practice criminal cult that drive people psychotics
Better said than I could

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

Yes

I find my answer very clear

as a justification of denying the right to practice criminal cult that drive people psychotics

Thanks. I have no problem with "denying the right to practice criminal cult that drive people psychotics". My question is about an individual's right to practice the religion of their choice. Some people think that these two separate things, the cult and individual scientologists, are the same thing. I don't.

 

[Infinite]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

. . . And, in response to you overly presumptive first line, I wish that folks like you who have NEVER BEEN THERE, who have ZERO personal experience, and who largely base your often strange notions on second and third-hand reports from sometimes questionable claimants, would stop imagining that you understand ANYTHING AT ALL about what it is ACTUALLY like to be involved with Scientology. You folks are like peeping-toms or voyeurs, and you look from afar, grasping at some shred of excitement or meaning. Also, you refuse to accept all reports equally, and ONLY accept the reports that align with or confirm your decidely overall 100% Scientology-sucks view of things . . .

Oh, dear, its good ole:

Scientology 101: in the face of undeniable facts and/or irrefutable logic apply ad homs.

Personal experience is not required for an accurate understanding. Perspective, and all that. Dismiss your allies as thrill-seeking voyeurs if you must but it does seem to undervalue our contribution to preventing further abuses at the hands of Scientology. As it happens, I don't believe *all* of Scientology sucks, the trap, after all, has to be baited. It still remains, however, that there is nothing of value in Scientology that cannot be found elsewhere and which is also cheaper, more effective, longer lasting and far, far safer. The "questionable complainants" tend generally to be those who wish to perpetuate KSW even after having been fooled.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: PandaTermint's question on the rights of scientologists to practice their religio

The "questionable complainants" tend generally to be those who wish to perpetuate KSW even after having been fooled.

I don't. :confused2:

I routinely spell out HOW and WHY KSW is the exact package of insanity that the Church of Scientolgy (or ANY nutty version of Scientology) rests upon.

And, while your above post was in response to mine, possibly you weren't referring to me.