# Tom Cruise on Tom Cruise Scientologist



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

Watch it quick before the powers that be get this PR NIGHTMARE yanked

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

Edit: Original link died, new one thanks to xuxa.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

What a bunch of rambling BS! Tom Cruise continues to be an idiot. :down:


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I watched this video and could feel my IQ draining. Luckily it came back after a while.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Wow. I can't believe I actually watched all of that. Nuts. Totally nuts. And that's supposed to be *good* publicity for scientology.  Nuts.


----------



## laststarfighter (Feb 27, 2006)

Did he actually ever say anything? That was like 10 mins of incomplete thoughts and vague half sentences. I think he threw in "the Iraq" and "so we will be able to build up our future...for our children."

It reminded me of this:


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Gone.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I hear the Scientoligist are getting the clip pulled as quick as they can. Tom Cruise is WACKO!!


----------



## JDHutt25 (Dec 27, 2004)

You can view it here. Not a single coherent thought in the whole thing.


----------



## xuxa (Oct 8, 2001)

or here

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

If he's not careful he might get taken out by the Scientologist leadership one of these days.

I really think he thinks he's a super hero.


----------



## Penny Lane (Dec 3, 2007)

That was 9:33 of my life I will never get back. I have no idea what he was saying. What does "We have to create the new reality mean"? I would never want to be a part of his reality.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Bryanmc said:


> If he's not careful he might get taken out by the Scientologist leadership one of these days.
> 
> I really think he thinks he's a super hero.


Stop being such an SP!


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I don't bash other peoples religions but come on this isn't a religion its something L. Ron pulled out of his rear. 

EDIT: Uh oh black helicopter full of SP's just landed in my backyard they are out to get me!!


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Well, it seems like this was meant to be viewed by other Scientologists at some 'award' ceremony, so I assume the gobbledy-**** he's talking would make some sense to them; but yeah, he's nuts!


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

Kamakzie said:


> I don't bash other peoples religions but


I make exceptions for ones less then 2000 years old. Cool, as an atheist they are all a bunch of hooey.


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> Well, it seems like this was meant to be viewed by other Scientologists at some 'award' ceremony, so I assume the gobbledy-**** he's talking would make some sense to them; but yeah, he's nuts!


So who is worse?

Tom Cruise improving about how great Scientology is....

Or the zealots who cheer this madness?


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Oh. My. Gawd. What. Was. That.

Hillarious though.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Man, if I didn't know the back story of how this was at a Scientology award ceremony, I would have thought the voice over at the beginning and end would have been mocking him!

That was the best part, from an outsider, the voice over was AWESOME! sooo funny.

paraphrasing
Ya know man, it's like an alternite reality
paraphrasing again
If you see a car wreck on the side of a road, a sicentologist would pull over and help, why? because they are the only ones that are able

YEAH, I don't want you helping me


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

503Blunts said:


> So who is worse?
> 
> Tom Cruise improving about how great Scientology is....
> 
> Or the zealots who cheer this madness?


Well, first, it wasn't improved in the sense it wasn't live and unfiltered, it was taped and edited - the fact that was the best stuff that they decided to keep is kind of funny

As far as 'bad' or 'worse'; I think of the Scientologists as pretty much harmless. They are a relatively small group with little real power over anything or anyone not in their fold.

There are other much larger, influential and 'zealous' folks in our society that I feel are far 'worse' than the Scientologists...


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> Well, first, it wasn't improved in the sense it wasn't live and unfiltered, it was taped and edited - the fact that was the best stuff that they decided to keep is kind of funny
> 
> As far as 'bad' or 'worse'; I think of the Scientologists as pretty much harmless. They are a relatively small group with little real power over anything or anyone not in their fold.
> 
> There are other much larger, influential and 'zealous' folks in our society that I feel are far 'worse' than the Scientologists...


Harmless until they're suing you!

''You think you can say our religion is a lie? Well sue you, buddy. You are so sued. You cant make fun of Scientology, kid. We are gonna sue you, and your boss. How dare you mock our faith, you little punk? Youll be hearing from our lawyers tomorrow.''

Gonna have to watch Trapped In The Closet again.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

503Blunts said:


> Harmless until they're suing you!


Yes, well, have you been sued? I haven't; there's tons of articles on this very video, Scientology can't take on everyone. The cat's kind of out of the bag at this point.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

So he drives past an accident and thinks Scientologists are the only ones who can help???? WTF??

In fairness, though, since we never heard any of the questions, his responses will of course seem disconnected and obtuse.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

My favorite was how he went on and on about how scientoligist are required to help anyone in need...

Man, I'm feeling the need to have someone give me $1 BILLION DOLLARS. 









No take backs Tom Cruise...you said you HAVE to help me as a scientologiest, so fork over the money.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

What the hell does LOH and SP mean? I found KSW, Keep Scientology Working.

I was raised to be tolerant of other folks religion but this one is so damn irritating. This is much worse than a JW or Mormon at the door because both of those are off-shoots of a historical religion with a cultural background.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

So what you guys are saying is that I probably shouldn't have stopped and taken the test?










-smak-


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

smak said:


> So what you guys are saying is that I probably shouldn't have stopped and taken the test?


Not at all - but that's the last thing that will be "free"!


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> What the hell does LOH and SP mean? I found KSW, Keep Scientology Working.


I don't know what LOH is but SP is "suppressive person" or something like that. It means a person who has evil ideas and is dangerous and you are not supposed to associate with them. Usually the evil dangerous ideas involve not agreeing with scientology.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Make the music stop!


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

sieglinde said:


> What the hell does LOH and SP mean? I found KSW, Keep Scientology Working.


Best I could find about "LOH" in a brief Google search is that someone said it's really "LRH" Technology. After watching that video, I'm sorry, but I don't even want to see if it was just mispronounced or what!  (LRH=L. Ron Hubbard)


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

WTF? Nothing he made said made sense, except that I hope if I get in an accident he will be close by because he is the only one who can do something.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Laura Ingraham was playing clips of this this morning on her radio show and just having a ball making fun of it. It was pretty funny.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I agree that he seems delusional. Who exactly is scientology helping? What programs do they run? This does seem like Tom Cruise has bought into his own mythology and believes he is a superhero of some kind.

I enjoyed the Mission: Impossible music throughout!


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

latrobe7 said:


> Yes, well, have you been sued? I haven't; there's tons of articles on this very video, Scientology can't take on everyone. The cat's kind of out of the bag at this point.


Exactly. Scientology used to be a mystery that you had to join to learn about. Now everyone knows exactly what it is and thus, no need to join to find out. Trying to stop the bad press on scientology is like trying to hold back the ocean with a rake. Cruise himself has probably done more to hurt his church than he has to help it. Now it's all a big joke. In all fairness it has about as much chance of being accurate as any other religion. Nobody really knows how we got here. People believe in nutty stuff. It's called faith.

Having said that, I also think Cruise's ship has sailed. So to speak. He seems to really think of himself as some type of messiah figure. Does he have his own compound yet? Dude seems around the bend. Especially when you consider how much this is hurting his career.


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

Trapped in the Closet


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

What are SPs?


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> What are SPs?


Where is Post # 27?


----------



## NOCOVIC (Jan 11, 2008)

Last I saw Tom was #2 in the church and it was all about profit! 

Old L. Ron Hubbard was all about the money and it still is.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Bryanmc said:


> What are SPs?


Suppressive Persons. Basically that's $cineo-speak for people who speak ill of the church or their beliefs.

For everything you ever wanted to know about the Co$ and the lives they destroy and the crimes they commit, go to clambake.org


----------



## Rainy Dave (Nov 11, 2001)

wow...just wow.

I don't think he complete a single....

But man, when he does, he just...like yeah.


----------



## Chester_Lampwick (Jul 19, 2004)

He kinda reminds me of that creep from the movie "Magnolia".


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Seriously. If I'm in a serious car accident and Tom pulls up, I'm going to tell him to just keep right on going. I hate the guy.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I want to see a remake of that clip, but done by Ben Stiller.


----------



## PacMan3000 (Sep 23, 2003)

Well, I don't know much at all about Scientology, but I have to say...what's the big deal about the video? I'm about 4 minutes into it, but it appears that he's just saying that his religion (or whatever it is) is a cause to help others in need (physically, emotionally, overcoming addictions, etc).

What's wrong with that? It seems to me that he's on a mission to help others through whatever belief system he's using. Who's he/they hurting? Hell, if someone truly believes that, say, a chair or a couch or a door is God and that makes them want to go out and help others...it's definitely weird, but it's not something I would consider bad at all. If you want to do good in this world, that's a positive regardless of your motivations.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I think he sounds a lot less funged up than the various religious zealots we hear from practically every day.


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

I think that the concept of any religion that encourages its members to help others is definitely a good thing. The only thing odd about Cruise's statements is that he makes it seem like he's specially empowered to provide this assistance. It almost makes it sound like Scientology is the official religion of the Justice League.


----------



## spdykat (Oct 17, 2005)

I doubt the scientologists want it pulled, they're all such empty-headed sheep they probably lapped up his words as gospel and soon you'll hear them saying things like "I want to do" "do you want to do?" "you want to do too"; "i know...I KNOW!"
what drivel, this is scary. run away at the next opportunity Katie!


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

PacMan3000 said:


> Well, I don't know much at all about Scientology, but I have to say...what's the big deal about the video? I'm about 4 minutes into it, but it appears that he's just saying that his religion (or whatever it is) is a cause to help others in need (physically, emotionally, overcoming addictions, etc).
> 
> What's wrong with that? It seems to me that he's on a mission to help others through whatever belief system he's using. Who's he/they hurting? Hell, if someone truly believes that, say, a chair or a couch or a door is God and that makes them want to go out and help others...it's definitely weird, but it's not something I would consider bad at all. If you want to do good in this world, that's a positive regardless of your motivations.


Only 4 min? Keep watching, it heats up.


----------



## laststarfighter (Feb 27, 2006)

spdykat said:


> I doubt the scientologists want it pulled, they're all such empty-headed sheep they probably lapped up his words as gospel and soon you'll hear them saying things like "I want to do" "do you want to do?" "you want to do too"; "i know...I KNOW!"
> what drivel, this is scary. run away at the next opportunity Katie!


The practitioners might not mind but the people in control of the church do mind because they know that the emperor has no clothes. They want to make sure they don't hurt their chances at getting new members to help them pay for that new house and new boat they wanted.


----------



## Knives of Ice (Nov 8, 2006)

yeah...he is delusional....but no worse than many other religions. there is always an extreme in every religion, he is the extreme in scientology it seems.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

I know I'll probably catch hell for this...BUT...

Everyone's religion is nutty to other people. Everyone's got these wacky stories of miraculous things happening that seem beloved to the followers, but completely silly to others.

I've heard someone talking about a burning bush that speaks!! 


That being said-this clip is hysterical. Someone should just isolate that maniacal laugh and loop it over and over again.


----------



## digdug (Jan 13, 2004)

"It's....full of stars...."


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

Poor Katie.  What did she get herself into.....


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

Tom Cruise is nuts.
Imagine someone basing their life around the writings of some author.

Oh...wait a second.

Anyway...yes, Tom Cruise is quite the nut bar anymore.
He should start hanging out with Michael Jackson and call it good.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Would it be OK to make fun of his beliefs if he were Mormon? Catholic? Pagan?


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I was raised to be tolerant of other folks religion but this one is so damn irritating. This is much worse than a JW or Mormon at the door because both of those are off-shoots of a historical religion with a cultural background.


So bad behavior is excusable or not as bad, if the religion in question is old or split off from an older religion? That does not make much sense to me. I'm sure that's not what you meant, though.

All religions were new and weird and relatively lacking in a cultural background when they first started. They only seem "normal" and "deeply rooted" in our culture because they have had time to hang around and set their roots into the culture.

The reason to be against the CoS is because of the bad and/or criminal behavior of the CoS, not because it is "weird" or "new" or lacking in the historical baggage that older religions have. If one of the older religions started behaving like the CoS does, we wouldn't excuse it just because it was "old" and "popular" and "deeply rooted in our culture" would we? I hope not.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Would it be OK to make fun of his beliefs if he were Mormon? Catholic? Pagan?


I vote yes.

About the car accident... I need to find out what religion Kiefer Sutherland is. That guy pulled over to thwart what he thought was a felony in progress. Whether or not he was drunk at the time, it still is a lot more impressive than pulling over for a car accident.


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

Kamakzie said:


> I don't bash other peoples religions but come on this isn't a religion its something L. Ron pulled out of his rear.


Who decides what is or is not a "real" religion? If we could actually go back in a time machine and explore the origins of the major world religions, we'd be surprised and more than a bit chagrined at the depths of human credulity and duplicity. Old religions seems "authoritative" because they've been around a very long time and their true origins are safely buried in the distant past. New religions don't have that luxury.

And yes Tom Cruise is nuttier than a fruitcake, and his religion is nutty as well. But there's a lot of that sort of thing going around; Scientology does not have a monopoly on nutty beliefs.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

dmdeane said:


> Who decides what is or is not a "real" religion? If we could actually go back in a time machine and explore the origins of the major world religions, we'd be surprised and more than a bit chagrined at the depths of human credulity and duplicity. Old religions seems "authoritative" because they've been around a very long time and their true origins are safely buried in the distant past. New religions don't have that luxury.
> 
> And yes Tom Cruise is nuttier than a fruitcake, and his religion is nutty as well. But there's a lot of that sort of thing going around; Scientology does not have a monopoly on nutty beliefs.


It's more than that. It's not just that the beliefs are whacky, or new. It's the *way* that the beliefs are communicated and the way believers are treated. Do a little more research and you'll find that, by pretty much any definition, Scientology is a cult, not a regular religion. And a dangerous one, at that. They brainwash people, and don't allow them to associate with non-believers. The core beliefs are kept secret until you reach a certain level, and you have to pay a lot, lot, lot of money to get there. They don't allow you to seek outside help (medicine, psychiatry) and some of thier practices are actively dangerous. They come after you and persecute you if you want to disassociate from them.

There is really a lot going on that is way beyond a religion with unusual tenets. And that's the stuff that is objectionable -- not the beliefs themselves.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Ruth nailed it. The issue with Scientology is not that they believe in alien souls that flew in intergalactic DC-80s (as opposed to rising from the dead, or burning bushes, or golden plates translated in a hat). The issue is that they are aggresively pushing dangerous tenets, violently striking back at those who reject or leave them (check out clambake.org for the stories of a FORMER scientologist) and, at least from their most famous mouthpiece's point of view, appear to be on the cusp of thinking a jihad is in order.

There's a reason the South Park episode about Mormonism, while lambasting what Mormons believe, still ended with the "lesson" that Mormons can, and usually are, pleasant and nice people despite whatever "crazy religion" they believe while the Scientology episode's lesson portrayed them as cornered and crazed wolves waiting to strike with lawsuits and threats.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Ruth said:


> It's more than that. It's not just that the beliefs are whacky, or new. It's the *way* that the beliefs are communicated and the way believers are treated.


Yep. To me (as an atheist), the beliefs are no nuttier than those of other religions. But the difference is that the REAL religions don't charge you for believing. You can go to a Catholic or Lutheran church any Sunday and they will greet you with open arms, let you listen to the sermon, join the church or convert to their belief, and it's about the BELIEF, not about how damaged you are and how much it'll cost you to be healed.
That's the difference here. Scientology is a money grabbing scheme, no matter what their beliefs are.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MitchO said:


> The issue is that they are aggresively pushing dangerous tenets, violently striking back at those who reject or leave them _(...)_


And how is that any different from how Christianity has acted for most of its existence?


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> And how is that any different from how Christianity has acted for most of its existence?


Exactly. I'm sure the Carribeans that Columbus ran into would have a few things to say about that.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

It's different because of when it's being done. It was a very different world when the Catholic Church marched with a divine right. Frankly, we're a smarter world and know better from that behaviour.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> And how is that any different from how Christianity has acted for most of its existence?


Christians tell you what they believe, for free, before you convert. Paying them is optional; it is not a condition of being able to worship with them. They let you come to church when you want, and if you choose not to, the worst that will happen to you is that they might express regret or concern. You are allowed to associate with Jews, Muslims, and authiests if you want. If your family members don't believe in Christianity, or don't like your church, you can still have Thanksgiving dinner with them. You don't get kicked out, hunted down, sued in court, or physically punished for associating with people who don't believe in Christianity, or for not wanting to be a Christian anymore yourself.

I mean, it's pretty different!!


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Ruth said:


> It's more than that. It's not just that the beliefs are whacky, or new. It's the *way* that the beliefs are communicated and the way believers are treated.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There is really a lot going on that is way beyond a religion with unusual tenets. And that's the stuff that is objectionable -- not the beliefs themselves.


Ruth, I have to say how impressed I am with your responses to pretty much any topic. You approach things in a level-headed manner, and explain your viewpoint so clearly and based on knowledge/research. I sometimes word things whereby they get inadvertently misinterpreted by some forum members, but I am trying to learn to write like you.

Bottom line = I agree with Ruth. :up:


----------



## Penny Lane (Dec 3, 2007)

Ruth said:


> Christians tell you what they believe, for free, before you convert. Paying them is optional; it is not a condition of being able to worship with them. They let you come to church when you want, and if you choose not to, the worst that will happen to you is that they might express regret or concern. You are allowed to associate with Jews, Muslims, and authiests if you want. If your family members don't believe in Christianity, or don't like your church, you can still have Thanksgiving dinner with them. You don't get kicked out, hunted down, sued in court, or physically punished for associating with people who don't believe in Christianity, or for not wanting to be a Christian anymore yourself.
> 
> I mean, it's pretty different!!


Amen sister.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Ruth said:


> Christians tell you what they believe, for free, before you convert. Paying them is optional; it is not a condition of being able to worship with them. They let you come to church when you want, and if you choose not to, the worst that will happen to you is that they might express regret or concern. You are allowed to associate with Jews, Muslims, and authiests if you want. If your family members don't believe in Christianity, or don't like your church, you can still have Thanksgiving dinner with them. You don't get kicked out, hunted down, sued in court, or physically punished for associating with people who don't believe in Christianity, or for not wanting to be a Christian anymore yourself.
> 
> I mean, it's pretty different!!


I admit I don't know much about Scientology that I didn't learn on this board (and Southpark) but WOW! Do they really do all that? I knew they sued people but I had no idea it was so radical. That IS pretty culty... I can't believe they get so many actors to join them. Maybe it's (or used to be) a "career advancement technique"? Either Cruise is nuts as many feel, or this is the biggest con game going. My guess is, it's both.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

getreal said:


> Ruth, I have to say how impressed I am with your responses to pretty much any topic. You approach things in a level-headed manner, and explain your viewpoint so clearly and based on knowledge/research. I sometimes word things whereby they get inadvertently misinterpreted by some forum members, but I am trying to learn to write like you.
> 
> Bottom line = I agree with Ruth. :up:


/Ruth blushes.

Thank you. This is a very, very nice thing to say. 



bareyb said:


> I admit I don't know much about Scientology that I didn't learn on this board (and Southpark) but WOW! Do they really do all that? I knew they sued people but I had no idea it was so radical. That IS pretty culty... I can't believe they get so many actors to join them. Maybe it's (or used to be) a "career advancement technique"? Either Cruise is nuts as many feel, or this is the biggest con game going. My guess is, it's both.


Yeah, it's really scary, and also super interesting. There is a TON of stuff on the internet about it if you want to learn more. As someone else posted, Operation Clambake is the best place to start. Lots of info and tons of links. I found the personal accounts from ex-members particularly fascinating. But beware -- if you're anything like me, you will kinda get sucked in and have a hard time stopping reading about it! 

The celebrity thing, BTW, isn't an accident. It's an intentional corporate strategy to enhance the public perception of Scientology and to attract members. Celebrities are recruited and get a lot of special benefits.


----------



## barbeedoll (Sep 26, 2005)

Do you think Tom Cruise could be channeling Steve Carell's protrayal of Michael Scott on The Office? That's the only other place I've ever seen someone so self important and proud of the wisdom he's sharing while simultaneously saying absolutely nothing.

Ricky Gervais must be moonlighting during the writer's strike.

Barbeedoll


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ruth said:


> The celebrity thing, BTW, isn't an accident. It's an intentional corporate strategy to enhance the public perception of Scientology and to attract members. Celebrities are recruited and get a lot of special benefits.


That's putting it mildly.
Beside beinig recruited to push Scientology's agendas, Celebrities are kept seperate (as in segregated facilities) for the most part from regular members and do not go through the same programs as the regular members.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Ruth said:


> Amnesia said:
> 
> 
> > And how is that any different from how Christianity has acted for most of its existence?
> ...


You missed the part where I said "for most of its existence".

Have you forgotten the Crusades? Or all the other trials and executions in the past few thousand years for the "crimes" of heresy, witchcraft or blasphemy?

For most of its history, Christianity has ruthlessly pursued those who dared to express doubt, much less outright disagreement with its ideas.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> You missed the part where I said "for most of its existence".
> 
> Have you forgotten the Crusades? Or all the other trials and executions in the past few thousand years for the "crimes" of heresy, witchcraft or blasphemy?
> 
> For most of its history, Christianity has ruthlessly pursued those who dared to express doubt, much less outright disagreement with its ideas.


I did gloss over the historical aspect of your post.

I am not by any means defending the Crusades or any of the other things you mention. Personally, I'm no huge fan of organized religion, and I think it's pretty much beyond dispute that many people (Christians and non-Christians alike) have done many terrible things in its name during the course of history.

I do think Scientology has significant cult-like aspects that I'm not aware of being present even in early Christianity (particularly the brainwashing, keeping secret the core beliefs, and the fee-for-service aspect), but I freely admit I'm no religious scholar, so I could be wrong about that.

But, I'm not really trying to make a broad, historical argument at all. My main point is simply that, today, Scientology is dangerous and cult-like in a way that I don't feel is any way comparable to, say, 21st-century Presbyterianism.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> You missed the part where I said "for most of its existence".
> 
> Have you forgotten the Crusades? Or all the other trials and executions in the past few thousand years for the "crimes" of heresy, witchcraft or blasphemy?
> 
> For most of its history, Christianity has ruthlessly pursued those who dared to express doubt, much less outright disagreement with its ideas.


And I think you missed MitchO's post



> It's different because of when it's being done. It was a very different world when the Catholic Church marched with a divine right. Frankly, we're a smarter world and know better from that behaviour.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

WhiskeyTango said:


> And I think you missed MitchO's post


I was responding to Ruth's response to me. MitchO had nothing to do with it.



Ruth said:


> I do think Scientology has significant cult-like aspects that I'm not aware of being present even in early Christianity (particularly the brainwashing, keeping secret the core beliefs, and the fee-for-service aspect), but I freely admit I'm no religious scholar, so I could be wrong about that


Well, I certainly consider it brainwashing when any religion is the only one available and non-believers are punished harshly. And haven't you heard of indulgences? That's where you could buy your god's forgiveness for a fee.

But yes, it's true that the modern Christian church does not officially condone these practices. Give Scientology a few thousand years and they might change as well.

I, for one, don't see any qualitative difference...


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Ruth said:


> Yeah, it's really scary, and also super interesting. There is a TON of stuff on the internet about it if you want to learn more. As someone else posted, Operation Clambake is the best place to start. Lots of info and tons of links. I found the personal accounts from ex-members particularly fascinating. But beware -- if you're anything like me, you will kinda get sucked in and have a hard time stopping reading about it!
> 
> The celebrity thing, BTW, isn't an accident. It's an intentional corporate strategy to enhance the public perception of Scientology and to attract members. Celebrities are recruited and get a lot of special benefits.


I had a Client a few years ago whose wife had a harrowing tale of becoming a member at 19 and working at the Sea Org under slave labor/boot camp conditions and eventually escaped the church after an actual chase through Europe on and off trains. She has some of her story documented on some of the websites exposing Scientology practices (or should I say "malpractices").

The tales from ex-members are the most intriguing stories, as they speak from inside experience, and have suffered the outrageous consequences after leaving. Some members never made it out of the "religion" alive. Here are more obits. Chilling.

One particularly interesting account is that of former member Tory Christman. We first see her in videos when she is a mindless zombie for the CoS, and later when she comes to her senses and starts campaigning against the CoS. Fascinating stuff.

Even LRH's son tried to expose his father's motivations behind the creation of the movement and how LRH sr. decided to turn it into a "religion".

LRH jr. was also featured on 20/20 in 1982.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> I, for one, don't see any qualitative difference...


That makes one of you...


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Uhm, yeah... Xenu called. And he wants his space jets back.

Oh, and he asked me to tell you to please stand over by those volcanos.

THANKS


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

A couple years back Rolling Stone ran a great article about Scientology that one of Ruth's posts reminded me of.

It's a good read:

Inside Scientology


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

For a lighter view of Scientology, here is a hilarious video where Andy Dick plays Tom Cruise's wedding planner. NSFW, but definitely worth a look. I found it about a year ago while doing research about Scientology.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a Thetan Level 7. And a Bishop!


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

For more quick-hitters, there's two YTMND animations (supported with sources), to see how scary and influential they are. And you thought organized crime was deeply embedded.

The Un-Funny Truth about Scientology
The Un-Funny Sequel about Scientology
And some information about the first animation

Just... scary.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

1. without the questions or other possible banter back and forth, its hard to just the disconnect

2. i feel bad the man cannot take a vacation.. that is an American right....can we get together some money and send the poor guy on a vacation where he wont have to worry?

3. if you arent a spectator you arent in the arena...ok what about the players? Lost me there

4. it's amazing how someone can be good when there is a script but fall apart when they have to think on their own. I guess there are jobs called writers that handle this stuff? Where were his cue cards in the background? It was like he was fishing in his own mind for something to say because he was scared of silence. He should have taken his time and thought out the answer


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Amnesia -

Once again, you're comparing something that was done in a different time, with different values, to something that the general public understands better today. It feels like the equivalent of saying "Well, it's OK if they burn witches at the stake. We used to do it, and in 400 years, maybe they'll know better."


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I dont care much about what christians did 100 years ago.

Why?

It was 100 years ago. If they were doing what they did then RIGHT NOW, I'd be concerned.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MitchO said:


> It feels like the equivalent of saying "Well, it's OK if they burn witches at the stake. We used to do it, and in 400 years, maybe they'll know better."


My point is not to say "OK or not OK", but rather to highlight the hypocrisy of Christians complaining about Scientologists' tactics when their own religion has been guilty of much, much worse actions.

And people in this thread have made fun of the Scientogists' beliefs. Again, that's hypocrisy; to an outsider, Christian beliefs are no less fanciful.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

This is the stupidest video I have ever seen. I am now dumber for having viewed it.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

The Mission: Impossible music was a nice touch though.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Being a Christian myself, I am still able to see both sides of the argument with a clear head.

The bottom line is, a lot has been done in the name of Christianity that has nothing to do with being Christian or our core beliefs. The same can be said for most faiths. Being a Christian certainly does not mean that I believe the crusades were justified or acceptable on any level.

That's pretty much all I have to say on this matter.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

MitchO said:


> Amnesia -
> 
> Once again, you're comparing something that was done in a different time, with different values, to something that the general public understands better today. It feels like the equivalent of saying "Well, it's OK if they burn witches at the stake. We used to do it, and in 400 years, maybe they'll know better."





Amnesia said:


> My point is not to say "OK or not OK", but rather to highlight the hypocrisy of Christians complaining about Scientologists' tactics when their own religion has been guilty of much, much worse actions.
> 
> And people in this thread have made fun of the Scientogists' beliefs. Again, that's hypocrisy; to an outsider, Christian beliefs are no less fanciful.


Fine. But my point remains: "Well, it's not OK to complain if they burn witches at the stake. We used to do it, and in 400 years, maybe they'll know better, so it's hypocritical to complain".


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I am not a Christian or a Jew but I would hold up their core beliefs and ethics against Scientology.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Would it be OK to make fun of his beliefs if he were Mormon? Catholic? Pagan?


I'm okay with it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Knives of Ice said:


> yeah...he is delusional....but no worse than many other religions. *there is always an extreme in every religion, he is the extreme in scientology it seems*.


See, that's the sad part... he's _not_ the extreme, he's the typical.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Yep. To me (as an atheist), the beliefs are no nuttier than those of other religions. But the difference is that the REAL religions don't charge you for believing.


And the Catholic Church doesn't keep a dossier of your confessions to use against you if you should ever fall out of line.

Guess who does?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> And how is that any different from how Christianity has acted for most of its existence?


Go to clambake.org. Seriously. It's a lot of stuff to read, but once you read it I doubt you'll have any more of these questions.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

getreal said:


> For a lighter view of Scientology, here is a hilarious video where Andy Dick plays Tom Cruise's wedding planner. NSFW, but definitely worth a look. I found it about a year ago while doing research about Scientology.


"Dushkock"


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> My point is not to say "OK or not OK", but rather to highlight the hypocrisy of Christians complaining about Scientologists' tactics when their own religion has been guilty of much, much worse actions.
> 
> And people in this thread have made fun of the Scientogists' beliefs. Again, that's hypocrisy; to an outsider, Christian beliefs are no less fanciful.


I'm complaining about their tactics and mocking their beliefs, but I'm not a Christian (shudder the thought). So is that okay?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

busyba said:


> I'm complaining about their tactics and mocking their beliefs, but I'm not a Christian (shudder the thought). So is that okay?


If you're not a believer, then it's OK...


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> If you're not a believer, then it's OK...


WTH?  So... you're saying that Christians (and while I was was raised in a Christian household, I don't identify myself as Christian) should not complain about Scientology because the Christians have done bad things in the past, too; because that would be hypocritical??

OK...so can an American make a comment about, say, sweatshops in the 3rd world; I mean, would that be hypocritical since there used to be slavery here?

And can a Catholic condemn kiddie-porn? Would that be hypocritical because a lot of priests have been pedophiles?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> WTH?


My comment was (mostly) tongue-in-cheek...

I don't have a problem with Christians complaining about Scientology (or other religions' practices in general), as long as they also acknowledge the "sins" of their own religious hierarchy. And of course, the same should be said when they talk about Scientology's belief set.

A self-professed Christian is implicitly saying that they believe in their own religion's mythology---that's what it means to call yourself a Christian. If they simultaneously condemn another religion's mythology, that's hypocrisy. Basically, they're saying that this religion's beliefs are crazy but mine are OK. (And of course an objective observer sees no qualitative difference.)

And as for sweatshops, that's completely different. When an American condemns foreign sweatshops, they are not simultaneously claiming that American slavery is (or was) OK.


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

Worf said:


> For more quick-hitters, there's two YTMND animations (supported with sources), to see how scary and influential they are. And you thought organized crime was deeply embedded.
> 
> The Un-Funny Truth about Scientology
> The Un-Funny Sequel about Scientology
> ...


Interesting stuff, had to watch them with the sound off though.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> My comment was (mostly) tongue-in-cheek...
> 
> I don't have a problem with Christians complaining about Scientology (or other religions' practices in general), as long as they also acknowledge the "sins" of their own religious hierarchy. And of course, the same should be said when they talk about Scientology's belief set.
> 
> ...


I think there's a definite distinction between the mythology (like virgin-born son-of-god rises from the dead and prehistoric extraterrestrial war results in spirits trapped in Earth's volcanoes) which by definition require faith to accept; and actions, like the Inquisition, the Crusades; or Scientologys brain-washing and intimidation.

I did not get the impression that anyone was saying, explicitly or by implication, anything like "Scientology is bad because of their tactics" while simultaneously claiming "the Inquisition and the Crusades were OK".


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> I think there's a definite distinction between the mythology (like virgin-born son-of-god rises from the dead and prehistoric extraterrestrial war results in spirits trapped in Earth's volcanoes) which by definition require faith to accept; and actions, like the Inquisition, the Crusades; or Scientologys brain-washing and intimidation


True, but some posts in this thread have definitely derided the Scientologists' beliefs. If they do that while somehow exempting their own belief set from scrutiny, that's hypocrisy.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

getreal said:


> Ruth, I have to say how impressed I am with your responses to pretty much any topic. You approach things in a level-headed manner, and explain your viewpoint so clearly and based on knowledge/research. I sometimes word things whereby they get inadvertently misinterpreted by some forum members, but I am trying to learn to write like you.
> 
> Bottom line = I agree with Ruth. :up:


Bottom line: I also agree with Ruth! :up:

Tom Cruise is nuttier than a fruitcake, but all religions have some nutty beliefs. Rising from the dead? Virgin births? Angels with halos? 

Anybody can believe what they want to believe. It's their BEHAVIOR and the POLICIES of the organization that I have problems with. Ruth has explained the evils of CoS very well.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I found out recently that one of our local veterinarians is a scientologist. The first thing that struck me is that he has the same hyper, ultra "too happy" demeanor and crazy/creepy/weird smile that Tom Cruise has.

Is this a skill they teach at their church?


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Jstkiddn said:


> I found out recently that one of our local veterinarians is a scientologist.


I've read that they love to "get" veterinarians and dentists. Professional types like that who aren't actually "doctors" who might take issue with their _OMG psychiatry is EVIL_ message.

Of course, they aren't trying to recruit at homeless shelters and trailer parks. They will leave the poor people to the Mormons and the JW. CoS only wants paying members.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Couch jumping!


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Apparently, Scientology is as dazzled by Cruise's celebrity as the tabloid reading public is. Otherwise, they would have realized by now that choosing him as their spokes-model has been a major PR nightmare. Everytime he opens his mouth, he gives the impression of being an incoherent, inarticulate, glassy-eyed zealot who should be living in a room with padded wallpaper.

Truth in advertising, to be sure, but still ... if your goal is to make a favorable impression on the public and recruit new members, then continuing to send Cruise out to front for you is going to continue to have the opposite effect.

Then again, they believe in Scientology, Delusions R Us, so they probably think he's doing a bang-up job.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

You all should see the real Tom Cruise video:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5892340#post5892340


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

busyba said:


> I want to see a remake of that clip, but done by Ben Stiller.


How about Craig Ferguson?


----------



## Mishkin (Apr 20, 2002)

Watch the below BBC 30 minute "Panorama" expose on Scientology. The organization starts to use their intimidation techniques against the BBC filming crew. Eventually the reporter blows up at the representative from Scientology (Anne Archer's son). Before release of the BBC expose a clip of the outburst was posted all over YouTube out of context, presumably by "Church" of Scientology.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> You all should see the real Tom Cruise video:
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5892340#post5892340


That is hilarious!


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

IndyJones1023 said:


> You all should see the real Tom Cruise video:
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5892340#post5892340


very nice! :up:


----------



## Uncle Briggs (Sep 11, 2004)

sieglinde said:


> This is much worse than a JW or Mormon at the door because both of those are off-shoots of a historical religion with a cultural background.


You're right. Scientology is basically a Book Club That only reads one author.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> This is much worse than a JW or Mormon at the door because both of those are off-shoots of a historical religion with a cultural background.


Why is that worse? Maybe it's better---clean slate and all.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I don't approve of religious sects when they deny their members medical treatment. I believe Scientology did/does that and some sects of Christianity does that as well. So I don't disapprove of all Christianity but I do of the sects that put their members in danger like that.


----------



## thudtrain (Sep 29, 2005)

Link to an old (Thanks latrobe  ) cover story on the cult aspects of Scientology. Pretty good read.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

thudtrain said:


> Time's running a cover story on the cult aspects of Scientology. Pretty good read.
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html


I thought that sounded familiar, they ran that quite awhile ago; check the date on the by-line 

Still a pretty good read though, IIRC...


----------



## thudtrain (Sep 29, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> I thought that sounded familiar, they ran that quite awhile ago; check the date on the by-line
> 
> Still a pretty good read though, IIRC...


Doh. Heh. Edited my post. Not much has changed in 16 years.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Has anyone mentioned Jerry O'Connell's spoof yet?






Favorite line: "Basically it's all about KFC. It's just good chicken. *Pooh*"


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The LA Times went after them years ago and they tried to attack the Times. Huge newspaper huge. Didn't even notice them.

The fact that the internet bunch is going after them renders them pretty helpless. Shut down one site and a hundered spring up. 

If you have to defend your religion with mafia type tactics, it just shows it is not much of a religion.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> The fact that the internet bunch is going after them renders them pretty helpless.


So you condone the hackers' attack? What if they start attacking your religion's Web sites? Or is that somehow different?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> So you condone the hackers' attack? What if they start attacking your religion's Web sites? Or is that somehow different?


Have you read clambake.org yet? Seriously, read it before you post stuff like that again.

Co$ started the Internet War. They would flood the newsgroups where critics congregated, they would sue the people who posted their sekret skriptures and raid their homes and seize their computers.

If any other religion employed the same tactics, then yes, I would condone the hackers attack on them as well.

You really need to stop equating the Co$ with other religions, not because the other religions are any less ridiculous, but because they don't engage in fundamentally evil acts on a massive scale.

(And before you go and say "The Inquisition", let me go on record as saying that if hackers attacked the Church's websites back during The Inquisition, I would condone that as well.  )


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

busyba said:


> You really need to stop equating the Co$ with other religions, not because the other religions are any less ridiculous, but because they don't engage in fundamentally evil acts on a massive scale.


I could not disagree more. Scientology's actions are on a much more limited scale than more mainstream religions who indoctrinate children on a daily basis.

The hacker attack is made by those who disapprove of Scientology. If you condone that attack, then you should also condone Internet attacks by anyone against any organization with which they disagree---including other organized religions.

Whether or not you personally agree with the hackers' viewpoint is irrelevant. You (and they) might think they have a valid reason to attack the Scientology servers---other people might think they have a valid reason to attack the Vatican's servers.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The hacker attack is made by those who disapprove of Scientology. If you condone that attack, then you should also condone Internet attacks by anyone against any organization with which they disagree---including other organized religions.


I guess you just skipped over the part of my post about the Co$ Internet War.

The hackers actions aren't over a philosophical disagreement, they are a proportionate response in kind to the attacks the Co$ has made on internet entities themselves. They don't "disapprove of Scientology", they disapprove of their behavior on the internet. The Co$ has not been a good neighbor; think of the hackers as the HOA. 

If you want to keep ignoring that distinction in order to promote the point that you are trying to make (which in general is a valid one, but is simply being misapplied here), there's not much I can do to help you.

Again, seriously, go read clambake.org.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> I could not disagree more.


A familiar refrain.


> Scientology's actions are on a much more limited scale than more mainstream religions who indoctrinate children on a daily basis.


There's a fundamental difference that you refuse to recognize, even if everyone else does. Just because you say it with feeling does not convince anyone. Just because it's members call it a 'Church' does not equate it to any or every organized religion.



> The hacker attack is made by those who disapprove of Scientology. If you condone that attack, then you should also condone Internet attacks by anyone against any organization with which they disagree---including other organized religions.


I don't know what 'hacker attack' you're referring to. The line you quoted was in reference to the large number of Co$ debunkers on the web, and that Co$ can't shut them all down. And yes, I'm quite sure you can find plenty of sites that debunk Catholism, or Mormonism or Judaism; it just that those religions don't try to sue (nor do they charge their membership to hear their teachings, for that matter).


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> There's a fundamental difference that you refuse to recognize, even if everyone else does. Just because you say it with feeling does not convince anyone. Just because it's members call it a 'Church' does not equate it to any or every organized religion.


Umm...what's the difference? It's an organization that promotes a philosophy that includes belief in the supernatural. That's what a religion is.



latrobe7 said:


> I don't know what 'hacker attack' you're referring to.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325586,00.html



latrobe7 said:


> _(...)_ and that Co$ can't shut them all down _(...)_


I'm pretty sure that Scientologists would find the dollar sign you use in their church's name as offensive as Jewish people would find some of the epithets used by people who don't like their religion...or do you think all religious epithets are OK?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Umm...what's the difference? It's an organization that promotes a philosophy that includes belief in the supernatural. That's what a religion is.


This has been reviewed with you several times by multiple people in this thread. Suffice to say that the objectionable part of Co$ is not it's philosophy, nor any belief in the supernatural.



> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325586,00.html


I had not heard about that; good for them.



> I'm pretty sure that Scientologists would find the dollar sign you use in their church's name as offensive as Jewish people would find some of the epithets used by people who don't like their religion...or do you think all religious epithets are OK?


I could care less what your assumptions are about what someone else might feel. I think it's odd that you put words in other peoples mouths to make your point.

But for the sake of argument; I do not accept Scientology as a religion and even if I did, attacking the Church of Scientology would be equivalant what attacking the Vatican; doing so would not neccesarily make one anti-Catholic.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> Suffice to say that the objectionable part of [Scientology] is not it's philosophy, nor any belief in the supernatural.


Um...you said:


latrobe7 said:


> Just because it's members call it a 'Church' does not equate it to any or every organized religion.


Your quotes suggest that Scientology wasn't a religion and I explained why I thought it was. Remember? Do you understand why it's a religion now?

No matter how much you might agree or disagree with its practices doesn't change the fact that it's as much a religion as Christianity.

Seeing as how you still insist on the childish dollar sign must mean that you think such religious epithets are OK. What other religious epithets do you regularly use?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Don't let the SP's get you down, Amnesia!


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Don't let the SP's get you down, Amnesia!


Yes, put them all in a volcano, add in some atomic bombs and stir!


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Um...you said:
> Your quotes suggest that Scientology wasn't a religion and I explained why I thought it was. Remember? Do you understand why it's a religion now?
> 
> No matter how much you might agree or disagree with its practices doesn't change the fact that it's as much a religion as Christianity.


Only a Scientologist or someone with an agenda would make such a statement. I don't think you're a Scientologist.

A few minutes of research on the Internet can reveal how different the Co$ functions from a religion; it's much more like a cult, and much more still, like a money-making scam. But you don't want to take the time, or if you have, acknowledge the facts; because you can't then use attitudes about the Co$ as some example to point out hypocrisy in Christians (?), I guess, is your point; but the comparison does not work for anyone but you.

We get it, you don't like religion. But trying to define the Co$ as a religion like Christianity just makes you look hard-headed.



> Seeing as how you still insist on the childish dollar sign must mean that you think such religious epithets are OK. What other religious epithets do you regularly use?


I explained why a derision of the Co$ is not a derision of Scientology. Remember?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> But trying to define the Co$ as a religion like Christianity just makes you look hard-headed.


It's not "hard-headedness". You seem to be arguing that it's not a religion based upon its practices. I'm arguing that it is a religion based upon its philosophies.

Back in the middle ages when Christianity did all kinds of overtly evil and greedy things, did that make it any less of a religion? If you answer "no", then you're acknowledging that it's not disreputable practices that define a religion.

And you're right---I am someone with an agenda. I dislike discrimination and hypocrisy in all forms. Putting down one religion's beliefs as crazy while believing in your own religion's is hypocrisy. Childish name-calling of a church or its members (like your dollar sign) is religious discrimination.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Hasn't the Church of Scientology said in the past that it is not a religion? I remember hearing that a few years ago and being confused by the word Church.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> It's not "hard-headedness". You seem to be arguing that it's not a religion based upon its practices. I'm arguing that it is a religion based upon its philosophies.


Again, you are failing to make the distinction between the Co$ and the beliefs of Scientology, they are not interchangeable terms. If you cared to look; you would find that there are people who identify themselves as Scientologists who just as critical of the Co$.



> Back in the middle ages when Christianity did all kinds of overtly evil and greedy things, did that make it any less of a religion? If you answer "no", then you're acknowledging that it's not disreputable practices that define a religion.


And again, you are confusing a belief system with an organization. You are confusing the general religious philosophy "Christian" with the specific acts of a particular church. I have no problem saying that the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was a corrupt organization and if there was a snarky, three letter acronym to refer to it, I would have no problem using it.



> And you're right---I am someone with an agenda. I dislike discrimination and hypocrisy in all forms. Putting down one religion's beliefs as crazy while believing in your own religion's is hypocrisy.


It would be, but I haven't seen much, if any, of that around here.


> Childish name-calling of a church or its members (like your dollar sign) is religious discrimination.


Please. It's not even much of a 'name-call'.


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> Again, you are failing to make the distinction between the Co$ and the beliefs of Scientology, they are not interchangeable terms. If you cared to look; you would find that there are people who identify themselves as Scientologists who just as critical of the Co$.


he's not failing to make the distinction, he's refusing to make it... otherwise his arguments fall apart. Stop wasting your time.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

chavez said:


> he's not failing to make the distinction, he's refusing to make it... otherwise his arguments fall apart.


Hardly.

Latrobe is claiming that the Scientology is not a religion. I have stated that it's just as much a religion as Christianity---what makes something a religion is based upon its belief system. Latrobe seems to be suggesting that because he disagrees with some of the practices of the Scientology church that it shouldn't be called a religion. I used the analogy of the official actions of the Christian church to show that disagreeable action do not prevent something from being a religion.

Let me make it more clear: 


latrobe7 said:


> A few minutes of research on the Internet can reveal how different the [CoS] functions from a religion; it's much more like a cult, and much more still, like a money-making scam. But you don't want to take the time, or if you have, acknowledge the facts; because you can't then use attitudes about the [CoS] as some example to point out hypocrisy in Christians (?), I guess, is your point; but the comparison does not work for anyone but you.


He is claiming that the actions of the Church of Scientology mean that it's not "functioning as a religion". My response stated that it's not actions that define a religion but rather a belief system.

My example of the terrible acts committed by the official Christan church shows that bad actions do not prevent something from being called a religion.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Hardly.
> 
> Latrobe is claiming that the Scientology is not a religion. I have stated that it's just as much a religion as Christianity---what makes something a religion is based upon its belief system. Latrobe seems to be suggesting that because he disagrees with some of the practices of the Scientology church that it shouldn't be called a religion. I used the analogy of the official actions of the Christian church to show that disagreeable action do not prevent something from being a religion.


 You are as poor at articulating my arguements as you are your own, please do not try. Whether or not Scientology is a religion is immaterial to the discussion here; it is true I don't thiink of it as a religion, but I have not touched upon my specific opinions on that. The discussion here is about the Co$, which is an organization, not a belief system.

As it relates to the discussion here, I think that the Co$ is a corrupt cult now, today. It is true that many people have misused religion throughout history to do bad things, and they are just as bad for doing so; that does not mean that I, or society as a whole, should turn a blind eye towards the misdeeds of the Co$ in the now.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I prefer Jerry O'Connel's spoof


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

I got a question.

Amnesia, have you even read any of the links or info people have given you? I understand the black/white line that you're trying to uphold here (a religion is a religion is a religion), however, it falters in the face of actual knowledge of what Scientology is, does and how it behaves as a "Church". 

It's not a religion; it's not the same thing. Read up before you stand so firm.


----------



## laststarfighter (Feb 27, 2006)

Awwww, no! You guys have done did it. Paul Fetch is taking Anonymous serious!






He doesn't fear Anonymous. He doesn't even care if you take his five-star Youtube videos down to one star.

BRING IT ON ANONYMOUS, YOUR DOOM IS COMING THIS FRIDAY!!!1!111one!!

(I dunno if I can wait until Friday. I need more laughs from this guy.)


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I used to be a Wiccan. Attacking that religion on the web would be like attacking water. There is very little money in it and sure there are books but folks are not copywriting it like crazy and it has no deep pockets and since it only has small groups in it there is no large entity owning a server.

As for a larger religion such as Catholicism, yes they do have deep pockets and probably own ISPs and server farms but they don't copywrite much of their material. Most of it is in the public domain. They don't go after people criticizing the content of their religion with lawyers and evil threats. 

So when someone asks would I feel the same if hackers went after my religion. I don't know about hackers but enough far-right Bible thumpers have tried to censor Wiccan books from public libraries and out of the internet using filters.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MitchO said:


> Amnesia, have you even read any of the links or info people have given you? I understand the black/white line that you're trying to uphold here (a religion is a religion is a religion), however, it falters in the face of actual knowledge of what Scientology is, does and how it behaves as a "Church".


Yes, know all about Scientology, people's issues with it and their negative experiences with the church's actions. I've known about its practices for many years.

However, you seem to be using its practices to decide that it's not worthy of the title of "Church".

Are *you* aware of some of the practices of the Christian church throughout the ages? The Inquisition, the Crusades, buying and selling of "indulgences" and all that? Does that make you think that during that period Christianity didn't deserve to be called a religion?

If not, then please explain why. I'm honestly curious how you would condone one set of actions but not the other.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Yes, know all about Scientology, people's issues with it and their negative experiences with the church's actions. I've known about its practices for many years.
> 
> However, you seem to be using its practices to decide that it's not worthy of the title of "Church".
> 
> ...


I've already answered that at least two other times in this thread.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Yes, know all about Scientology, people's issues with it and their negative experiences with the church's actions. I've known about its practices for many years.


I don't think you do; or you would not take the position you have... or you're just 'trolling'.



> However, you seem to be using its practices to decide that it's not worthy of the title of "Church".
> 
> Are *you* aware of some of the practices of the Christian church throughout the ages?


 There is no one 'Christian church', what specific church are you referring to?


> The Inquisition, the Crusades, buying and selling of "indulgences" and all that? Does that make you think that during that period Christianity didn't deserve to be called a religion?


 Oh, see, those things where done by the Catholic Church, a specific organization. The religion itself is not responsible for those things, and there are many Christians who are not Catholic.



> If not, then please explain why. I'm honestly curious how you would condone one set of actions but not the other.


Why would anyone feel the need to satisfy your curiosity? Intellectual honesty is not one of your strong suits.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MitchO said:


> I've already answered that at least two other times in this thread.


No you haven't. You've said that the actions of the Catholic church during the middle ages shouldn't be compared to the modern-day actions of Scientology because they occurred in different eras. I understand that argument.

However, you now are saying that Scientology's actions mean that it does not qualify as a "religion". Again: does that mean that you feel that the Catholic church didn't qualify as a church during the middle ages?



latrobe7 said:


> Intellectual honesty is not one of your strong suits.


It very much is. Just because we disagree is no reason for personal insults.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Part of MY belief of religion is respect. AGAIN, if the Catholic Church did the things you keep talking about (over and over, as it appears to be your only fighting stance) in THIS day and age, when people would know what they did was so inappropriate, I wouldn't respect those who were responsible for it. And AGAIN, as others have mentioned, you're continually blaming things that were done in the name of the church instead of by the church itself, I don't hold this against the entire Catholic Church. 

I cannot respect a group that does what the CoS does.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MitchO said:


> AGAIN, if the Catholic Church did the things you keep talking about _(...)_ I wouldn't respect those who were responsible for it.


Yes, yes, yes. But that's not what I asked.

You have said that Scientology's actions are such that it does not currently deserve to be called a religion.

Does that mean that you feel that Catholicism's actions *back then* meant that *back then* it wasn't a religion?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Wow, I totally got trolled. I feel stupid. That's it, I'm out. *plonk*


----------



## thudtrain (Sep 29, 2005)

busyba said:


>


Is that a...leprechaun


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

thudtrain said:


> Is that a...leprechaun


It's a Troll. As in "Don't Feed The."


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Does that mean that you feel that Catholicism's actions *back then* meant that *back then* it wasn't a religion?


And AGAIN, *back then* our understanding of right and wrong wasn't the same. It's an "if they knew then what we know now" scenario, which isn't possible. Society as a whole did not understand why what some of those acts were horrific.

Busy's right, we should probably just stop feeding you.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

If you don't want to answer the question just say so. But I'll try one more time: Do you think that the actions of the Catholic church during the Middle Ages meant that back then it didn't qualify as a church?

It's a yes or no question.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> If you don't want to answer the question just say so. But I'll try one more time: Do you think that the actions of the Catholic church during the Middle Ages meant that back then it didn't qualify as a church?
> 
> It's a yes or no question.


It's also irrelevant.

The answer is "no", BTW.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> It's also irrelevant.


To what? To the discussion of whether or not Scientology's actions mean that *it* shouldn't be considered a church? Of course it is! Either something's a church based on its actions or its philosophy. You can't pick one reason for one church and another for a different church.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> To what? To the discussion of whether or not Scientology's actions mean that *it* shouldn't be considered a church? Of course it is! Either something's a church based on its actions or its philosophy. You can't pick one reason for one church and another for a different church.


There are layers of irrelevance to your "argument". It's absurd.


----------



## leeherman (Nov 5, 2007)

Scientology. Sometimes you've just got to say WTF!

(with apologies to "Risky Business")


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

I know many Christians that are not official members of the catholic church. I don't know many scientologists that are not members of the Church of Scientology. 

Philosophy of religion/tenets of belief based on their holy book are vastly different than the actions of an organization, no matter how much they purport to be the sole repository of the faith.

If some church decides to "crusade" that does not reflect on what the Bible teaches. An example today is the church that protests at funerals should be obvious that they do not represent what the actual Bible says.

When Christians go out and commit acts of hate, they are going against Christianity. When scientologists terrorize people on the Internet, they are following Scientology.


----------



## Solver (Feb 17, 2005)

Is this a section of some type of award Tom Cruise got for the video or is the video part of the award or what? He doesn't seem to be doing or saying much in the video.
Maybe I do to much "spectatorism"


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

From what I could tell of the complete version, this is a video that played before he was brought up on stage.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Do you think that the actions of the Catholic church during the Middle Ages meant that back then it didn't qualify as a church?


Yes. Now what?


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

In regards to the question are there Scientologists that don't belong to Scientology. There are folks who believe in what Scientology teaches but don't belong to the organization.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> In regards to the question are there Scientologists that don't belong to Scientology. There are folks who believe in what Scientology teaches but don't belong to the organization.


There are? Why?


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

They are the ones that broke off and started their own cult, like Werner Erhard and EST, now known as Landmark Forum. Start your own group and you get to keep the money.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Saw this blurb today:

Nancy Cartwright gives Church of Scientology $10 million dollars. Along with a list of other large donations from celebs.

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2008-01-31/celeb/7


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

Nancy recently sent me a letter (a form letter to all the neighborhood) inviting me to check out "The Way to Happiness"

A couple of years ago I happened to walk past this building in Glendale and knew something had to be up with it. They really go out of their way to convince you that it is not related to scientology.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

drumorgan said:


> They are the ones that broke off and started their own cult, like Werner Erhard and EST, now known as Landmark Forum. Start your own group and you get to keep the money.


Very interesting. I had no idea. Thanks.


----------



## 503Blunts (Apr 8, 2005)

anonymous is fighting the good fight!


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

"We are Anonymous, we are Legion."


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

PJO1966 said:


> "We are Anonymous, we are Legion."


 Doctor Who better not be a Scientologist!


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

When me and my friend drove by that building in Glendale we just "knew" it was Scientology. A web search confirmed it when we got to her house.

I guess we could just smell it.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

membership has its privileges

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20080130/D8UFTE380.html

Cruise First to Get New Ducati Superbike


----------

