Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: abb3w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Arthur Bernard Byrne)
Subject: Re: A few definitions
Message-ID: <1991Nov7.220245.23877@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <JLd_YFB@engin.umich.edu> <1991Nov6.034657.4605@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <f8d_N2_@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 22:02:45 GMT

First of all, may I request that people include the proper indentations to indicate what is your own words and what is someone elses? Or at least be careful HOW you remix. The post I am commenting on had our dear freind David saying that "Arthur Byrne Writes:" and then included a piece supporting scientology. Outright theft of what I say is one thing. By all means steal the phrasing of an idea; I do it often, and admit it. BUT. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Editors are not that hard to use. I've re-edited the article so things are indented as usual.

In article <f8d_N2_@engin.umich.edu> davidb@caen.engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes: >In article <1991Nov6.034657.4605@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, abb3w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Arthur Bernard Byrne) writes: > >First of all what is the definition of RC's? Why do you think that truth is >unknowable? Why would Man keep looking for truth if it was unknowable? If >you dropped your keys on the floor in the dark you wouldn't give up looking >until you found them. The problem with truth in my opinion is that it has >been so long since anyone has found it in the dark that we gave up. The >secret is that someone found a light and now millions are finding it. >Scientology never evaluates anything for you. It just guides you down the >path with the light on and you find all sorts of keys that you know you lost >but had even forgotten you lost them. The only word I can think of that even >starts to describe it is magical. I know it's not terribly technical but >it truely is. > >>world's most power and money hungry groups in history ... >>get suckers money, even by dubiously legal means >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Who said this garbage? Could you possibly generalize more? >Yep, Scientology is out to get YOU so go run and hide in the closet. Go read >my posting BY THEIR ACTIONS ...

I am basing this on hearsay. The actions described recently in "Scientology: a comedy in 3 acts" sound to my (non-lawyer) mind suspiciously close to the edge of the law. As a result of this and other horror stories, it is my intent to do my best at avoiding the C.o.S. as best I can. While a few portions of the R.C. church have used similar suspicious tactics, they are restricted for the most to one or two organizations (Deus something, I think. Name, anyone? Means "Work of God" or something?) in the Church. I consider it highly suspicious that the C.o.S. has not have anyone of note get far into the program and leave due to disallusionment with the philosophy, only because it's cultish nature. And before you claim that this is because of Scientology having the truth, it should have had people leave who simply didn't like the "truth". The only way anyone I have heard of has gotten out of the C.o.S is kicking and clawing every inch of the way they progressed, with the hounds of Hell trying to hold them in. Metaphorically speaking.

> >>What bothers me is the way they scream when someone acts against them, and >>slaps them on the wrist when they bend the laws. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >If someone told a baldfaced lie right in your face wouldn't you get a little >pissed!!!! Scientology is the MOST law abiding organization on this planet. >They even have an entire department devoted EXCLUSIVELY to ethics. Wouldn't >it be nice if Congress had that and it actually worked!!!!

The most law abiding organization on the planet? They were under investigation for tax fraud, I thought. Amoung other things. The contract mentioned in the post I referenced abouve may be legal, but I doubt ethical. And the reporter for either Newsweek or Time who did a story on them apparently had people calling those near him pretending to be authorized to get information about him that should not have been released save to a court order. I reccomend this article to anyone who is interested in the Church; does anyone have a date for it? As for ethics, the article made reference to the church buying its own books and then re-sending them to the stores, to send the book up the best sellers list.

> >I would love to have you find even one law that Scientology bends. A mighty >big generalization I must say! Go for it.

I'm not a grand jury, or a lawyer. Anyone ever read the RICO acts? Granted, they seem to be fairly careful about what they are doing. But a big legal department implies nothing about ethics. And the contract, as I said, sounded Borderline.

> >>corrupt heirarchy of L. Ron Hubbard's little church. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Oh NO! Look another lie. L. Ron Hubbard designed the Church of Scientology >exactly himself. The operation of all parts of the church is written >down in policy for everyone to understand. It also is the responsibility of >all to report any violations of these policies so that any misapplication >of standard tech is swiftly fixed.

Ahem. UVa here has a student run Judiciary. The admins have been bithching that it doesn't work as well as it should. Not reporting the rule violation is only one more rule... which can be broken. And WHAT are the policies?

> >Is it just me or does all this seem like rumor and gossip? >

Stipulated, this is all second hand or worse. I have fortunately not had to deal with this group personally. I will do my best to make myself unlpleasant to the utmost of my ability if they do decide to bother me for my opinions. I have been trying carefully to avoid libel and slander.

>Go read Dianetics. It doesn't matter where you get it. But just imagine the >immense profit the church must get from the $5.95 book. You have to be kidding. > >

Ever heard of the Paradox of the Commons? Marginal benefits and detriments add up. By my refusal to by the book, I may be able to act as a lever, and prevent the church from getting others behavior. Can you say, "Monkey See, monkey do?" Go on....

My main objections could best be settled if I could find one person, say from around OT 9 or whatever it is, that has, after LONG and CAREFUL examination, left the C.o.S., and has retained tollerable relations with the Church. If you're out there on the net, and you have LEFT the church, I'd like to hear how high you got, and what caused you to leave.


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