From: christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Christi)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <CHRISTIR.91Aug10155940@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 91 20:59:40 GMT
References: <CHRISTIR.91Aug3211923@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <34837@usc.edu>
	<CHRISTIR.91Aug7174859@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <5030@beguine.UUCP>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Who?  Me?  Organization?
Lines: 47
In-reply-to: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu's message of 9 Aug 91 00:05:18 GMT

In article <5030@beguine.UUCP> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:


>btw: why is scientology unwilling to accept those into its folds who >are not interested in spending their life savings? i would think that >a person in real life (tm) would be more effective in showing what a >religion was all about (the good points etc...) than someone who only >deals with people of his own religion... Oh, from all the flyers & all that my family got (& still gets), I'd say that they're not really that picky about funding-potential. Though the flyers did often suggest that we buy something.... I, personally, think that one can be a perfectlly offical and accepted Scientologist without paying one's life savings, so long as one is an unofficial "good PR" person. That's what I'm trying to do.

the following few lines are the ones i was responding to.

-- This also addresses the price issue. Only those who are serious about reaching the upper levels and becoming a skilled auditor are willing to pay the price in terms of time and money. The church would rather not waste time on those who are "here today and gone tomorrow". Sorry if it's affending to some but that's the way it's got to be. --

if we take and reword this a bit we get "the church would rather not wast time on those who are not willing to pay the price in terms of time and money".... a) only those who are serious will pay large amounts of money (stated) b) the church would rather spend time only with the 'serious' (implied) c) the church would rather spend time only with those willing to pay money (conclusion). faulty logic?

if the church is not worried about fund raising, why don't they give the courses free to the interested, rather than the rich who are willing to pay?

free courses would give them more opportunity to get their information out to the general public. it would give them more opportunity to overcome the bad publicity they get.

if the courses are really that good, then i would think that people would be willing to donate time and money, rather than the current situation of being 'encouraged' to give time/money before courses.

c. --

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