From: mauler@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <1991Jul22.132559.32193@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 91 13:25:59 CDT
References: <cf7l=3Dwb@rpi.edu> <17115@life.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 82

In article <17115@life.ai.mit.edu>, whatis@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (....What Is?....) writes: > In article <cf7l=3Dwb@rpi.edu> jimcat@operators.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes: >> - As far as L. Ron Hubbard was concerned, the primary purpose of >> Scientology and Dianetics was to make money for Hubbard. Whether >> or not he actualy made the infamous bet with another author about >> founding a new religion (no mention of this is made in the book, >> which seemed quite thorough in its research, so I'm more inclined >> to think that the bet story was apocryphal), there is no doubt >> that the whole thing was a money-making scheme. > > I worked for the Church for 5 months. It is NOT a money-making scheme. > I was hardly paid at all. That's the main reason I left; otherwise I > enjoyed working there. They are the most dedicated people I have ever > met in my life. Calling them a money-making scheme is close to an > outrage. >

Read the post again. The guy said it was a money-making scheme for L. Ron Hubbard and his high-echelon cronies; not the average working devout Scientologist (such as yourself). You made no money; therefore, you just made the high people richer. Q.E.D.

>> - Scientology seems to be one of the more expensive religions to join. >> Unless my impressions are mistaken (and there are a few Scientologists >> here, I'd like to hear what they say about it), almost all of the >> things that the Church of Scientology does to help people are given as >> "treatments" which require a fee. Not that this is inherently bad; no >> one is being forced to pay for something they don't want, as far as I >> can see. But most other religious groups I know of provide some >> counseling and support to their members without charging them for it. > > Training to be an auditor is not easy. It requires incredible amounts > of studying and practicals, and you must pass everything 100% or you > don't pass. Other religious groups may be chaper, but this is hardly > a point, since no other group that I am aware of can do so much. >

Whether or not an auditor actually does anything worthwhile with his training is yet to be determined. I could probably make an Advanced Basketweaving course in college to be as difficult to pass as an auditor's training, but chances are the person who passes my class (the same requirements as yours: pass everything 100%, or fail completely) will be unable to accomplish anything truly worthwhile with his or her training, aside of being able to make truly beautiful baskets. Maybe not even that, if I emphasized the worst aspects of basketweaving, and the graduate then is unable to make a living off of all his or her hard work. Prove that an auditor's work is worthwhile and actually uses all of the training involved, and you might have a case.

>> - Hubbard was quite likely insane by the last decades of his life. His >> actions in the 1970's with the "Sea Org" and his paranoid retreat to >> California in the 80's hardly seem like rational actions. Many of the >> more wacko beliefs of Scientology seem to have been written during >> this time. By late in his life, Hubbard was even believing some of the >> more fantastic tales he'd told about himself - for example, he sent a >> letter to the US Navy requesting that they send him the medals he >> claimed to have earned during the Second World War, almost all of which >> he'd never actually been given. (The Navy was not fooled.) > > Have you ever seen the actual response of the Navy to this? It was > claimed in the LA Times article that he never received any of these > medals. I won't type the letter from the Navy in because it is > very long (I might scan it at work though) but the gist is that > LRH did a lot of top secret work and had two files: the real one, > kept very safe, and the "sheep dip" one, which was a fake one made > to cover up the existence of the real one. There are numerous examples > of differences he finds in documents that were supposedly photocopied, > and the Navy examiner decides that the evidence is overwhelming that > the Navy is holding back information about him. >

And where do you get this information that LRH did top-secret work? From the insane LRH in California? Hardly a decent source to prove anything, if the proof that they're holding stuff back comes from the guy who made the claim in the first place.

> -- > Steve Boswell | This opinion is distributed in the hopes that it > whatis@ucsd.edu | will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY... > whatis@gnu.ai.mit.edu |


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank