Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[communistworkethic]

"adverse" is still incorrectly used, it shoudln't be there at all. it's is only your perception that makes it adverse, the scientologists don't see it adverse.

That aside, you can't have it both ways, those things you criticise scientology of could be said of your own religion very easily. And why are their beliefs anymore unbelievable or practices insidious than those of the catholic church?


Here's one for you, paedophilia, is it right or wrong and at what age does sex become acceptable and why?

[TANGODANCER]

"adverse" is still incorrectly used, it shoudln't be there at all. it's is only your perception that makes it adverse, the scientologists don't see it adverse.

That aside, you can't have it both ways, those things you criticise scientology of could be said of your own religion very easily. And why are their beliefs anymore unbelievable or practices insidious than those of the catholic church?
Here's one for you, paedophilia, is it right or wrong and at what age does sex become acceptable and why?

Don't remember criticising Scientology of anything specifically, except not allowing people to leave them. I didn't post the thread, Prufrock did.

Your persistant fishing; your constant attempts to throw Google'd snippets from the Bible up that relate to two-thousand -plus years ago; etc, how Moses will have had a child by one of his eight year old nieces or Solomon had three-hundred wives etc, etc, (about as daft as your arguments and more obvious because you profess not to believe in God yet never miss an excuse to know everything about him), are as tiresome as they are obvious.

We are not discussing Me, "my religion"or the Catholic Church. If you have views on Scientology, then express them. Address Prufrock's questions or put your soapbox away. Your methods are old-hat by now and you won't manage to turn this thread into another lecture on why the world should agree with your atheist views via me. No sale today buddy, pass on. Have a nice day.

[Harry Genshaw]

Leave it Tango. He's not worth it

[communistworkethic]

"adverse" is still incorrectly used, it shoudln't be there at all. it's is only your perception that makes it adverse, the scientologists don't see it adverse.

That aside, you can't have it both ways, those things you criticise scientology of could be said of your own religion very easily. And why are their beliefs anymore unbelievable or practices insidious than those of the catholic church?
Here's one for you, paedophilia, is it right or wrong and at what age does sex become acceptable and why?

Don't remember criticising Scientology of anything specifically, except not allowing people to leave them. I didn't post the thread, Prufrock did.

Your persistant fishing; your constant attempts to throw Google'd snippets from the Bible up that relate to two-thousand -plus years ago; etc, how Moses will have had a child by one of his eight year old nieces or Solomon had three-hundred wives etc, etc, (about as daft as your arguments and more obvious because you profess not to believe in God yet never miss an excuse to know everything about him), are as tiresome as they are obvious.

We are not discussing Me, "my religion"or the Catholic Church. If you have views on Scientology, then express them. Address Prufrock's questions or put your soapbox away. Your methods are old-hat by now and you won't manage to turn this thread into another lecture on why the world should agree with your atheist views via me. No sale today buddy, pass on. Have a nice day.

By the fact that you accepted the content of said link and went on to say....

Makes disturbing reading that's for sure. Way I see any of these organisations is that young kids are joining, them because of adverse publicity by well-known personalities, without knowing what they're getting into. Can't agree with any organisation that prevents people leaving anytime they like. What they teach, and who cares to believe it, should be adult decisions at best and freedom of choice should be paramount. Several years ago there was much disagreement within Spanish Gypsy communities. I'm almost certain that Scientology ( Or was it the Church of Christian Science ?)was something to do with it. It divided families and caused a lot of severe stress. Whatever, it went totally against the long-held beliefs of a basically Catholic county.

means you are criticising Scientology by accusation. The Catholic church has been as guilty of such acts as the Scientologists, you just decide to ignore those facts conveniently in your criticism. No follower of a religion is on any sure footing when pointing the finger at another for its faults, not least catholicism.

I don't google bits of the bible, it's perfectly reasonable to have read it but not be taken in by it (I read Harry POtter too and I didn't think that was a historical text either and it was more plausible in many places), it's how people find out things, reading and researching. They read lots of different things and form opinions based on the evidence presented. The difference between rationality and religion is that a decision is made based on the evidence and its probability and is open to be changed based on the evidence presented at a later date as learning changes. Religion doesn't allow things to change based on learning, it fixes at a point, which takes me to the point I was raising.

The bible has what we now refer to as paedophilia as a societal norm, it's not a sin and the 10 commandments don't ban it. Yet you wouldn't condone it, society has made it's own mind up based on something other than the bible. You see in 2,000 years we've moved on on that subject, so why should be be behold to any other 2,000 year old superstition or custom?

When it all boils down, any organised religion acts in much the same way as another or has done through its history - to coin a phrase , "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". And the only reason I refer directly to you is that you happen to be a critic and you follow a religion based on faith, just like the Scientologists and in the same way some of their practices seem wrong to you, the catholic churches forcing of rape victims to carry children result from that rape to birth, might just seem a bit cruel to them. [/quote]

[InsaneApache]

What they teach, and who cares to believe it, should be adult decisions at best and freedom of choice should be paramount

I was brainwashed too as a child. It wasn't by any scientologists either. I just grew enough intellectually to see through the deception.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What they teach, and who cares to believe it, should be adult decisions at best and freedom of choice should be paramount

I was brainwashed too as a child. It wasn't by any scientologists either. I just grew enough intellectually to see through the deception.

Well I was made to say the Lord's Prayer, sing hymns etc throughout my schooling and from a very young age; although I have emerged from that process an atheist, I still think it's an inappropriate way to bring children up.

[Lord Kangana]

What they teach, and who cares to believe it, should be adult decisions at best and freedom of choice should be paramount

I was brainwashed too as a child. It wasn't by any scientologists either. I just grew enough intellectually to see through the deception.

Well I was made to say the Lord's Prayer, sing hymns etc throughout my schooling and from a very young; although I have emerged from that process an atheist, I still think it's an inappropriate way to bring children up.

Had this discussion with my Brother-in-law a few weeks back. He was brought up a Catholic (with a Protestant Mother, and Catholic Father) and is now non- practising. He likes the 'discipline' and 'morals' taught at faith schools, so their daughter goes to one. He is by no means wanting my niece to grow up religious, but he feels that its a confusing enough world for kids, without giving them myriad choices - in essence he feels she'll be intelligent enough when older to make up her own mind, and will be happy with whichever decision she makes.

Whilst being quite a vehement atheist, I broadly agree with him.

[TANGODANCER]

I'll let the Bard add my final words on this topic. Step up good William:

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.".............................................Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167

Night Grandma, night Grandpa, night Jon boy.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Had this discussion with my Brother-in-law a few weeks back. He was brought up a Catholic (with a Protestant Mother, and Catholic Father) and is now non- practising. He likes the 'discipline' and 'morals' taught at faith schools, so their daughter goes to one. He is by no means wanting my niece to grow up religious, but he feels that its a confusing enough world for kids, without giving them myriad choices - in essence he feels she'll be intelligent enough when older to make up her own mind, and will be happy with whichever decision she makes.

Whilst being quite a vehement atheist, I broadly agree with him.

Fair enough.. it's not a simple picture by any means. Almost all good schools are traditional places with some kind of religious element, so it's very difficult to avoid anyway.

[Prufrock]

"adverse" is still incorrectly used, it shoudln't be there at all. it's is only your perception that makes it adverse, the scientologists don't see it adverse.

That aside, you can't have it both ways, those things you criticise scientology of could be said of your own religion very easily. And why are their beliefs anymore unbelievable or practices insidious than those of the catholic church?
Here's one for you, paedophilia, is it right or wrong and at what age does sex become acceptable and why?

Don't remember criticising Scientology of anything specifically, except not allowing people to leave them. I didn't post the thread, Prufrock did.

Your persistant fishing; your constant attempts to throw Google'd snippets from the Bible up that relate to two-thousand -plus years ago; etc, how Moses will have had a child by one of his eight year old nieces or Solomon had three-hundred wives etc, etc, (about as daft as your arguments and more obvious because you profess not to believe in God yet never miss an excuse to know everything about him), are as tiresome as they are obvious.

We are not discussing Me, "my religion"or the Catholic Church. If you have views on Scientology, then express them. Address Prufrock's questions or put your soapbox away. Your methods are old-hat by now and you won't manage to turn this thread into another lecture on why the world should agree with your atheist views via me. No sale today buddy, pass on. Have a nice day.

By the fact that you accepted the content of said link and went on to say....

Makes disturbing reading that's for sure. Way I see any of these organisations is that young kids are joining, them because of adverse publicity by well-known personalities, without knowing what they're getting into. Can't agree with any organisation that prevents people leaving anytime they like. What they teach, and who cares to believe it, should be adult decisions at best and freedom of choice should be paramount. Several years ago there was much disagreement within Spanish Gypsy communities. I'm almost certain that Scientology ( Or was it the Church of Christian Science ?)was something to do with it. It divided families and caused a lot of severe stress. Whatever, it went totally against the long-held beliefs of a basically Catholic county.

means you are criticising Scientology by accusation. The Catholic church has been as guilty of such acts as the Scientologists, you just decide to ignore those facts conveniently in your criticism. No follower of a religion is on any sure footing when pointing the finger at another for its faults, not least catholicism.

I don't google bits of the bible, it's perfectly reasonable to have read it but not be taken in by it (I read Harry POtter too and I didn't think that was a historical text either and it was more plausible in many places), it's how people find out things, reading and researching. They read lots of different things and form opinions based on the evidence presented. The difference between rationality and religion is that a decision is made based on the evidence and its probability and is open to be changed based on the evidence presented at a later date as learning changes. Religion doesn't allow things to change based on learning, it fixes at a point, which takes me to the point I was raising.

The bible has what we now refer to as paedophilia as a societal norm, it's not a sin and the 10 commandments don't ban it. Yet you wouldn't condone it, society has made it's own mind up based on something other than the bible. You see in 2,000 years we've moved on on that subject, so why should be be behold to any other 2,000 year old superstition or custom?

When it all boils down, any organised religion acts in much the same way as another or has done through its history - to coin a phrase , "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". And the only reason I refer directly to you is that you happen to be a critic and you follow a religion based on faith, just like the Scientologists and in the same way some of their practices seem wrong to you, the catholic churches forcing of rape victims to carry children result from that rape to birth, might just seem a bit cruel to them.

[/quote]

i have to say commie whilst my beliefs religiously match yours a lot more than they do tango's i think you are out of line here. what you are effectively saying is that because Tango is a catholic (i assume from this discussion) that he agrees with everything any other catholic has done, and is as guilty for their crimes as they are by association.

Im guessing you are a communist. if however the communist party came up with a policy you didnt agree with, you might feel distanced and disenfranchised, but as a term for describing your political leanings to a complete stranger you would probably still say communist. Just becasue Tango, or whoever is a catholic, or whatever, does not mean that they agree 100% with everything the catholic church and each individual catholic thinks. religion, like politics is a very personal thing where two people never share the exact same views.

the point brought up about scientology is nothing to do with the faith. would you attack every member of scientology like you have tango for the methods of that church? i doubt it. if scientology stops preventing people leaving, using terror as a method of control, but merely relies on the strength of its beleifs to attract people, then i will go back to personally thinking it just as dullally as the rest. but i wont be trying to stop people beleiving it. similarly if somebody discusses an instance where christianity, or islam or any other religion uses these tactics, i will condemn it. this thread was about scientology. although not my thread i have asked what peoples' views on the 'dodgy' practices of scientology, and am still interested in them. if someone wants to write a thread on any particular instances of any other religion and dodgy practices i would be happy to discuss them as im sure would others, for instance being made to say the lord's prayer at school. in my mind this is wrong. but not as wrong as some of the practices accused of scientology. if i persoanlly could get rid of both sets of practices i would. if i had to pick one to get rid of, it would be scientology's money extraction, since in my view it is more dangerous.

[communistworkethic]

you guess wrong prufrock, i'm not a communist, you see you've done what religious people do, had a gap in your understanding and filled it with a vague assumption, do you think Insane Apache is mad, a native american or both? Bruce Rioja made of spanish red wine? (Actually there may be some truth in that)

I am not out of order to pull TD up at all, he and his religion have beliefs based on a book that has little basis in fact or reason, same as the scientologists. And like the scientologists some of that belief system will be disagreeable to others; the Catholic fathers in Ireland are legendary for the brutal upbringing of boys, where beating and sexual abuse have been commonplace - all done in the name of God, by priests who have to spend years in a seminary learning about God. If you take those as being the extreme and not how Catholicism should be taught etc, your denial of its use of indoctrination and fear as a tool are laughable. And I've already pointed out the rape pregnancy issue, which you ignored. And as I pointed out, TD's own religion tells him(catholics) not to criticise others unless he's (catholics) not guilty himself (themselves); as part of that faith the acts that it undertakes are ones which he (they) have aligned themselves with.

Arguing it's personal is just as big a cop-out as the assertion that bits of religious text are to be taken as read but others are analogies to be interpreted - which bits? And at what point are you actually following the religion or making it up as you go along? And then at what point have you created your own sect that differs from the core belief system because you're interpreting bits differently? Either you believe the teachings or you don't, they are all from one source, they are not their to pick and choose. And on what basis can you reasonably rationalise some bits but not others - back to my "duplicitous" comment. Religion only changes when it needs to stop itself being marginalised in a society which changes of its own free-will, CofE and RC are the most cynical in this respect.

Brainwashing and indoctrination are how religions work, just look at this lad with learning difficulties in Exeter, brainwashed in to becoming a terrorist and planting a nail bomb in a family restaurant. And Scientologists are dangerous?? Catholicism teaches ignorance; apparently dinosaurs never existed, austrolipithicus is nonsense and all humans derive from two adults who had a pet talking snake. And Scientologists talk rubbish?

Just because we've started with Scientologists, it does not prevent us from drawing a parallel with religion in general, to do so would be to ignore the facts- just like religion. Here's a lovely example from this morning....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7418957.stm

TD quotes Shakespeare's "more things in heaven and earth", indeed there are more things in the heavens and on earth that we can totally explain, the difference is I accept that I don't have all the answers and that science is a learning process based on the available facts, rather than filling of the gaps with superstition and myth, which is what all religions do, none can claim the moral high ground.

[Puskas]

What they teach, and who cares to believe it, should be adult decisions at best and freedom of choice should be paramount

I was brainwashed too as a child. It wasn't by any scientologists either. I just grew enough intellectually to see through the deception.

Well I was made to say the Lord's Prayer, sing hymns etc throughout my schooling and from a very young; although I have emerged from that process an atheist, I still think it's an inappropriate way to bring children up.

Had this discussion with my Brother-in-law a few weeks back. He was brought up a Catholic (with a Protestant Mother, and Catholic Father) and is now non- practising. He likes the 'discipline' and 'morals' taught at faith schools, so their daughter goes to one. He is by no means wanting my niece to grow up religious, but he feels that its a confusing enough world for kids, without giving them myriad choices - in essence he feels she'll be intelligent enough when older to make up her own mind, and will be happy with whichever decision she makes.

Whilst being quite a vehement atheist, I broadly agree with him.

But this takes us back to the point CWE raised slightly above this post - the fixed nature of theist beliefs. Surely it's better, if bringing up children to be "moral", to give them the very basic, non-confusing axiom that it's good to help people and bad to harm them, and then encourage them to work out whether their actions are good or bad from the consequences (and, of course, the intent behind the action), rather than laying down "This is bad, because it says so in this text written x-many years ago"?

[Lord Kangana]

What they teach, and who cares to believe it, should be adult decisions at best and freedom of choice should be paramount

I was brainwashed too as a child. It wasn't by any scientologists either. I just grew enough intellectually to see through the deception.

Well I was made to say the Lord's Prayer, sing hymns etc throughout my schooling and from a very young; although I have emerged from that process an atheist, I still think it's an inappropriate way to bring children up.

Had this discussion with my Brother-in-law a few weeks back. He was brought up a Catholic (with a Protestant Mother, and Catholic Father) and is now non- practising. He likes the 'discipline' and 'morals' taught at faith schools, so their daughter goes to one. He is by no means wanting my niece to grow up religious, but he feels that its a confusing enough world for kids, without giving them myriad choices - in essence he feels she'll be intelligent enough when older to make up her own mind, and will be happy with whichever decision she makes.

Whilst being quite a vehement atheist, I broadly agree with him.

But this takes us back to the point CWE raised slightly above this post - the fixed nature of theist beliefs. Surely it's better, if bringing up children to be "moral", to give them the very basic, non-confusing axiom that it's good to help people and bad to harm them, and then encourage them to work out whether their actions are good or bad from the consequences (and, of course, the intent behind the action), rather than laying down "This is bad, because it says so in this text written x-many years ago"?

I broadly agree with him because the majority of schools in this country struggle to teach English, let alone morals, ethics, how to behave etc etc. As I reiterate, I'm a committed atheist, but without a decent alternative to a 'faith' school, he wants the best for his child.

[InsaneApache]

As for schools, they should never have abandoned selective education. The biggest betrayal of the working classes.

[TANGODANCER]

what you are effectively saying is that because Tango is a catholic (i assume from this discussion) that he agrees with everything any other catholic has done, and is as guilty for their crimes as they are by association.

Just becasue Tango, or whoever is a catholic, or whatever, does not mean that they agree 100% with everything the catholic church and each individual catholic thinks. religion, like politics is a very personal thing where two people never share the exact same views.

Dear, dear. Despite my intention, it's so very hard to keep out of this when others keep discussing me and my views; especially on a topic that was supposed to be about Scientology not a one man war on the Vatican.

Thank you Prufrock for saying what I refused to do, because it should be so very obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence. In that respect I commend your perception. I care not for friend Commie's views on life and don't begrudge him them. They are of no interest to me; a fact he constantly refuses to accept. I just wish mine were of the same interest level to him. In almost sixty-nine years of life I've seen, experienced and studied all the options and done so with an open mind for most of my adult life. That's what you do, and then you lie in the bed you make. I'm quite comfortable in mine.

There are probably the same amount of assholes in Christianity as in every other race, religion or political body throughout the world, due to the fact they are human. Don't decry the menu content because you might not like the looks of the waiter, or just move on to the next restaurant. It isn't rocket-science.

[communistworkethic]

given all the restaurants appear to be serving horse's ring piece but labelled as "Filet mignon", I reckon there's no reason to eat out. Best staying at home, you know what you get then.

[Lord Kangana]

given all the restaurants appear to be serving horse's ring piece but labelled as "Filet mignon", I reckon there's no reason to eat out. Best staying at home, you know what you get then.

If you're looking for 2 meals for a fiver you get what you pay for.

[communistworkethic]

given all the restaurants appear to be serving horse's ring piece but labelled as "Filet mignon", I reckon there's no reason to eat out. Best staying at home, you know what you get then.

If you're looking for 2 meals for a fiver you get what you pay for.

so what you're saying is Scientology must be better than other religions as it costs more to get on further?

[Prufrock]

you guess wrong prufrock, i'm not a communist, you see you've done what religious people do, had a gap in your understanding and filled it with a vague assumption, do you think Insane Apache is mad, a native american or both? Bruce Rioja made of spanish red wine? (Actually there may be some truth in that)

I am not out of order to pull TD up at all, he and his religion have beliefs based on a book that has little basis in fact or reason, same as the scientologists. And like the scientologists some of that belief system will be disagreeable to others; the Catholic fathers in Ireland are legendary for the brutal upbringing of boys, where beating and sexual abuse have been commonplace - all done in the name of God, by priests who have to spend years in a seminary learning about God. If you take those as being the extreme and not how Catholicism should be taught etc, your denial of its use of indoctrination and fear as a tool are laughable. And I've already pointed out the rape pregnancy issue, which you ignored. And as I pointed out, TD's own religion tells him(catholics) not to criticise others unless he's (catholics) not guilty himself (themselves); as part of that faith the acts that it undertakes are ones which he (they) have aligned themselves with.

Arguing it's personal is just as big a cop-out as the assertion that bits of religious text are to be taken as read but others are analogies to be interpreted - which bits? And at what point are you actually following the religion or making it up as you go along? And then at what point have you created your own sect that differs from the core belief system because you're interpreting bits differently? Either you believe the teachings or you don't, they are all from one source, they are not their to pick and choose. And on what basis can you reasonably rationalise some bits but not others - back to my "duplicitous" comment. Religion only changes when it needs to stop itself being marginalised in a society which changes of its own free-will, CofE and RC are the most cynical in this respect.

Brainwashing and indoctrination are how religions work, just look at this lad with learning difficulties in Exeter, brainwashed in to becoming a terrorist and planting a nail bomb in a family restaurant. And Scientologists are dangerous?? Catholicism teaches ignorance; apparently dinosaurs never existed, austrolipithicus is nonsense and all humans derive from two adults who had a pet talking snake. And Scientologists talk rubbish?

Just because we've started with Scientologists, it does not prevent us from drawing a parallel with religion in general, to do so would be to ignore the facts- just like religion. Here's a lovely example from this morning....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7418957.stm

TD quotes Shakespeare's "more things in heaven and earth", indeed there are more things in the heavens and on earth that we can totally explain, the difference is I accept that I don't have all the answers and that science is a learning process based on the available facts, rather than filling of the gaps with superstition and myth, which is what all religions do, none can claim the moral high ground.

commie, i agree with everything you say regarding religion and christianity in particular as a whole. i think as a group it is guilty of many crimes and is the perputrator of many dangerous ideas. i didnt reply to many of the allegations you levelled against it because i agree with you. the only one i would squabble slightly over is the pregnant rape victim abortions as whilst i dont agree with it, the idea that the child is a living thing and must be protected is at least founded it well- meaning ideas, even if i think it is narrow minded in the extreme. my point was that just because the Catholic church, and members of it do things which are wrong, doesnt mean that every member of that church is guilty of those crimes. nor does it mean that they cannot condmen others for their crimes. i said what i said because i thought you were making a personal attack on Tango, and i sense you guys have a history of disagreement . i am not interested in what it was, its none of my business, i'm new and i dont know you guys too well. however, like i said your comments seemed very personally directed at one person, as if to say because they belong to the same church as people who have done bad things, they themselves are (a.) guilty of these bad things, and (b.) therefore not allowed an opinion on the deeds of others. that's just what you came across as saying to me. if thats not true then i have misinturpreted it and apologise

as for the emboldened bit. No-one here has questioned the right for scientologists to beleive in what they do. You defend that, which is admirable, but i feel you attack the right of other religious folk to beleive in their religion. defending the right to faith is not the same as defending the practices of the religion. I think very few people religious or not beleive that if there were a god, he intended these Catholic fathers to beat children. similarly, whilst peope have a right to beleive in Xenou ( i think thats his name) and Thetans, they do not have a right to use that to extract cash from the weak. Therefore i condemn the practices of the Scientology church. However if a random scientologist were to condemn certain practices of Islam, i woulnt say he was a hypocrite or out of order unless he personally had been involved in the misdemeanors of his own church

as for my assumption you were a communist. i guessed wrongly. all it does is change the word communist in my example for whatever you are though. Just because you belong to a group does not mean you share, nor in fact condone every one of its views. i have used Tango here merely as an example, which i am trying to avoid too much as i dont want to speak for him.

finally commie, we agree on a lot of things, if you want to go on a march agaisnt beatings by Catholic father's, or extremist preachings in Mosques or any other dubious practice by any religion, i will be there. The subject of this thread was scientology, i was condemning the practices it performs i do not agree with[/b]

[Lord Kangana]

given all the restaurants appear to be serving horse's ring piece but labelled as "Filet mignon", I reckon there's no reason to eat out. Best staying at home, you know what you get then.

If you're looking for 2 meals for a fiver you get what you pay for.

so what you're saying is Scientology must be better than other religions as it costs more to get on further?

No, you used the analogy. I merely pointed out the flaw in it.