Archive Message - 1995

From braintree!!!!internetMCI!!!!!!!!!netnews Tue Oct 31 10:53:52 1995 Path: braintree!!!!internetMCI!!!!!!!!!netnews From: (Neal Hamel) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Help with COS history? Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 16:15:35 GMT Organization: Serious Cybernetics Corporation Lines: 67 Message-ID: <47067e$> References: <> <46q7fn$> NNTP-Posting-Host: X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Oct 29 7:22:22 AM PST 1995 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 wolftrip <> wrote: (Paper Tiger) wrote: :> :> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- :Best I can remember Scientology was incorporated in California as "The Church of :Scientology of California" in 1954. The most common (and ineffectual) :attack CofS critics have made over the years is that the religion aspect was a :tax dodge. The reason this was ineffectual is that all religions and most :*well-meaning* organizations also incorporate as tax-exempt. The public has :snoozed collectively for 40 years over this non-issue. All the while Hubbard and :his proteges smirked. They knew the real reason for becoming a religion. Taxes :were just a side benefit, it was the freedom to audit without practitioners :needing medical or Psychiatric training that was the issue. CofS got a scare in the :70's when the IRS came calling. The word went out that all auditors had to become :ministers - and quick! What used to be the Franchise Network became the Mission Network :and after 20 years of freedom from dog-collars, auditors had to begin acting like :preachers. Heber looks good in his outfit, don't you agree? Actually your history shows one more aspect of the hypocracy of scientology. I was in the GO and you were at ASHO. Even after the events of the FDA raid, the GO, who was entrusted with keeping scientology *looking* like a religion, had a hell of a time keeping places like ASHO looking religious. Given a month or so, all physical manifestations of religious character tended to be neglected in scientology organizations. This meant the religious symbols (crosses etc), were set aside and the 'ministers' stopped wearing their collars. The hypocracy of scientology is they (the GO then and OSA now) had to force the 'ministers' to wear collars and the organizations to put up religious symbols in the first place. Can you imagine the same sort of problem in the Catholic church? Do you think the Catholic church would forget about Christ on the cross and if no one was watching, just toss the cross into a closet because it was in the way? This is what scientology organizations did with its religious symbols unless someone told them not to. Wearing a minister's collar and putting up religious symbols had nothing to do with scientology. It was all show to prove the the outside world that scientology was indeed religious. The twist was that this display of religious symbols was the only religious aspect to scientology. You would not walk into an 'org' look around and say, "Ahhhh, this is a religion". You would never know it was a religion unless the *symbols* were there. Scientology never did develop its own religious symbols. (I maintain there was a good reason that scientology never did develop its own religious symbols.) Instead, the Hubbards (Ron and Mary Sue) ordered the appropriation of symbols from exant religious organizations so as to look the part. Looking the part was what was important. Getting back to your point, of course the reason Hubbard incorporated scientology as a religion was to not pay taxes. He said so at the time. The fact that scientology didn't and doesnt act religious, bears this out.


Return to The Skeptic Tank Alt.Religion.Scientology Archives Master List
Go to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank