Defending or attacking Scientology
Pastor William Rennick
or defend Scientology with no critical discussion or admission of both good
and bad. Why the absolutist agenda? Religion is a personal choice and for
each of us there are many choices. It's very hard to believe that one single
choice of the noted religions is perfect or resoundingly abhorrent.
Scientology has its good points and its bad points. Some of the good points
is the belief that man can better his character through his own action. That
is very positive. Scientology defines action through various mental states,
this is applied scientific process. Scientology does not worship false
idols, practice ritual cannibalism, throw people into hell forever and other
such things. Scientology does look to the heavens in a more rational way.
Scientology accounts for all through the process of science. They even go
further to model themselves after a laissez faire capitalistic system.
People purchase certain rights and privileges voluntarily. The weak are
brushed aside just like General Electric laying off the bottom 10% every
year. It's a very rational, modern religion. There's no Pope, King or
anything like that, it's people helping people. On the other side,
Scientology has attracted a few bad people who have made it a life's work to
attack and undo the good, simply because it is good. These are the people
giving Scientology a bad name.
Pastor William Rennick
husk
Scientology has actually been found guilty of misdeeds in court more
than once. These misdeeds were not due to misguided individuals, but
due to individuals following the policies of the church or the
directives of its leader. Name any other religion that can boast
that accomplishment.
Scientology is seen as saviour or criminal. There is not much ground
between where anyone can agree.
Monica Pignotti
Actually, Hubbard advocated what he called a benevolent dictatorship,
not laissez faire capitalism. Have you actually read any of his
writings?
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hubbard himself was convicted of fraud in France in 1978 and that was
one of several reasons why he was always on the lam afterwards.
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/catholicsentinel-conviction-031778.htm
Skipper
<20e089c2-f309-4239...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Out_Of_The_Dark <formerl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That was a pretty corny comment from husk.
Pastor William Rennick
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38504bd3-33c8-4aaa...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
Actually, Hubbard advocated what he called a benevolent dictatorship,
not laissez faire capitalism. Have you actually read any of his
writings?
I believe that laissez faire capitalism is an economic system and benevolent
dictatorship is a political system. Laissez faire capitalism can exist under
a benevolent dictatorship. Is this not so?
A pure democracy is a benevolent dictatorship where 51% rule the other 49%.
Pastor William Rennick
Peter Schilte
It is one's privilege to give an opinion about a religion. Nothing
wrong with that.
That is quite different from attacking and criticizing the
organization, leadership and management of the cult. And that is what
critics do.
It is NOT about attacking the religion, although many doubt it is a
religion at all. The organization mainly is a business, selling books,
courses and studies, keeping its core beliefs a secret because the
organization sells them for a lot of money. No real religion keeps its
core beliefs a secret, no real religion have its parishioners pay
thousands for courses, books and studies. No real religion has a
secret service department, no real religion has ever attempted to
forcefully keep its parishioners in.
Peter
"Scientology's upper level spiritual therapy is essentially dead space
alien souls exorcism."
- Chuck Beatty
Skipper
<ohbej...@congregation.net> wrote:
He said that a benevolent KING would be the ideal government. He didn't
say dictator. That's only what he became.
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Pastor William Rennick wrote:
> I don't understand why so many people are so polarized. They either
> condemn or defend Scientology with no critical discussion or admission of
> both good and bad.
Oooh, that sounds "reasonable." Where is "reasonable" on the "Tone Scale?"
The fact is that cults are different from religions.
One of the many ways we can see that the criminal organisation known as
the "church" <spit> of $cientology is a cult is its many stated purposes.
Such as the purpose to get rid of "anyone below 2.0."
Let's read what L Ron Hubbard has to say about this:
"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the
tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with
them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to
raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any
one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly
and without sorrow."
Hubbard, L. Ron, Science of Survival, 2007, Bridge Publications.
So, "pastor," if your aim here is to do anything other than distract from
discussions about the crimes of the $cientoloy organisation, you're not
applying L Ron Hubbard "tech."
Best regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 510 708
"This is al fresco?" "The best there is!" 'The Producers'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLDOdnimJs3AlyPBIRAv6FAKCY4MDOJ8EAQEVSre8jPlpU6ThK2gCggDSL
FmKiLbkRmxSoxbJYNXhGH4k=
=sHTO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hartley Patterson
>
> I don't understand why so many people are so polarized. They either condemn
> or defend Scientology with no critical discussion or admission of both good
> and bad. Why the absolutist agenda? Religion is a personal choice and for
> each of us there are many choices.
You are either trolling or assuming you know what you are talking about
with no research. If the latter, please be assured that your post contains
false assumptions. See sig, lurk and read more.
--
ARS FAQ
Please read before posting
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/faq.htm
husk
> In article
> <20e089c2-f309-4239-a9f8-2131e8312...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> That was a pretty corny comment from husk.
Yes, but the husk is that of a coconut.
Monica Pignotti
<ohbejoy...@congregation.net> wrote:
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
No, not as I understand it. If a dictator is in control, benevolent or
not, laissez faire would not be possible because by definition, the
dictator would have the ultimate power to reverse whatever people
wanted to do and to impose controls -- he could revoke the laissez
faire at any time.
And a "pure democracy" would not necessarily be benevolent, not if
those 51% voted away the rights of the 49%. That is why the US is a
constitutional republic, not an unlimited democracy, which means
people have inalienable rights that the majority cannot vote away.
Would it be "benevolent" if 51% of the population decided to vote away
the rights of its African American citizens and bring back slavery?
But I digress. If you have a look at Scientology's history, you will
find that Hubbard and his successor's leadership styles, from the
"heavy ethics" and overboardings of the 60s to the creation of the RPF
to the fair gaming of critics to the present situation with DM that
recent defectors are blowing the whistle on, were far from benevolent
or democratic.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> In article <hei7o8$7o...@aioe.org>, Pastor William Rennick
>
>
>
> <ohbejoy...@congregation.net> wrote:
> > "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:38504bd3-33c8-4aaa...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Actually, Hubbard advocated what he called a benevolent dictatorship,
> > not laissez faire capitalism. Have you actually read any of his
> > writings?
>
> > I believe that laissez faire capitalism is an economic system and benevolent
> > dictatorship is a political system. Laissez faire capitalism can exist under
> > a benevolent dictatorship. Is this not so?
>
> > A pure democracy is a benevolent dictatorship where 51% rule the other 49%.
>
> > Pastor William Rennick
>
> He said that a benevolent KING would be the ideal government. He didn't
> say dictator. That's only what he became.
Benevolent dictator or dictatorship were the words I heard him use on
tapes. Sorry, I don't have the exact reference handy but maybe someone
else does.
Pastor William Rennick
No, not as I understand it. If a dictator is in control, benevolent or
not, laissez faire would not be possible because by definition, the
dictator would have the ultimate power to reverse whatever people
wanted to do and to impose controls -- he could revoke the laissez
faire at any time.
And a "pure democracy" would not necessarily be benevolent, not if
those 51% voted away the rights of the 49%. That is why the US is a
constitutional republic, not an unlimited democracy, which means
people have inalienable rights that the majority cannot vote away.
Would it be "benevolent" if 51% of the population decided to vote away
the rights of its African American citizens and bring back slavery?
But I digress. If you have a look at Scientology's history, you will
find that Hubbard and his successor's leadership styles, from the
"heavy ethics" and overboardings of the 60s to the creation of the RPF
to the fair gaming of critics to the present situation with DM that
recent defectors are blowing the whistle on, were far from benevolent
or democratic.
Monica
You are very bright and think clearly.
A laissez faire economy could only exist if the benevolent dictator did
nothing except act against those who forcefully infringed upon it. He would
basically defend the country from outside attack, provide a legal system and
a strong definition of property rights. He would have to be benevolent in
the truest sense of the word.
You are absolutely correct about a pure democracy. You also understand
inalienable rights. God bless you, I wish there were more like you.
Now a question about rights and freedom. Can equal rights exist without
contradiction? If so how, if not why? Is "freedom" a freedom to act or a
"freedom" from certain conditions? Are one of these type of freedoms based
upon contradictory equal or universal rights?
How did you ever get hooked up with Scientology? I'm interested in your
story, if you don't mind.
Pastor William Rennick
barbz
read such ill-informed garbage outside of a Scientology drone.
The cult does practice "ritual cannibalism." It devours youth, years,
and assets. They eat their members kinda like the Christers eat Jebus.
Only it's a lot more damaging to the victims than choking on a cracker.
Scientology hurts people. Scientology breaks the law. Scientology has an
immutable doctrine as written by Source that directs criminality and abuse.
Why is that so fucking hard for you to grasp?
--
xenubarb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
A walk down the path of history is crunchy with the crispy corpses of
those who pooh-poohed or ignored the clown car of ridicule when it
pulled-up to the curb.
Stephen Jones
Fredric L. Rice
>On 25 nov, 03:07, "Pastor William Rennick"
><ohbejoy...@congregation.net> wrote:
>> I don't understand why so many people are so polarized. They either condemn
>> or defend Scientology with no critical discussion or admission of both good
>> and bad.
That's nonsense. Scientology's crimes and abuses aren't something one
can defend unless it's Scientology lawyers doing so in front of a jury.
>It is one's privilege to give an opinion about a religion.
Nobody said anything about a religion. We're talking about Scientology.
---
10-year-old boy rejects Republicanism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbfs0EVsHbs
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Fredric L. Rice
>The fact is that cults are different from religions.
All religions are cults.
Barbara loves Marty
<ohbejoy...@congregation.net> wrote:
> I don't understand why so many people are so polarized. They either condemn
> or defend Scientology with no critical discussion or admission of both good
> and bad. Why the absolutist agenda? Religion is a personal choice and for
> each of us there are many choices. It's very hard to believe that one single
> choice of the noted religions is perfect or resoundingly abhorrent.
> Scientology has its good points and its bad points. Some of the good points
> is the belief that man can better his character through his own action. That
> is very positive. Scientology defines action through various mental states,
> this is applied scientific process. Scientology does not worship false
> idols, practice ritual cannibalism, throw people into hell forever and other
> such things. Scientology does look to the heavens in a more rational way.
> Scientology accounts for all through the process of science. They even go
> further to model themselves after a laissez faire capitalistic system.
> People purchase certain rights and privileges voluntarily. The weak are
> brushed aside just like General Electric laying off the bottom 10% every
> year. It's a very rational, modern religion. There's no Pope, King or
> anything like that, it's people helping people.
To me it seems that DM is considering himself as the King of
Scientology.
He comes away with having maintained and awarded people on staff for
decades who turned INT into a wasteful fight club (and the jury is
still out of he was violent too).
That is not good.
L. Ron Hubbard's reputation and the reputation of Scientology suffered
here.
The reputation of all Scientologists suffered and the public thinks of
Scientologists now as violent people, which could be a step in a
psychiatric terror set up against Scientologists.
If he would apply the tonescale and other Scientology tech, he would
make wise choices in selecting his executives.
Barbara Schwarz
barbz
Nuh-uh they're not.
Pastor William Rennick
"barbz" <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:BacPm.49308$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
> Why is that so fucking hard for you to grasp?
>
Consider the source.
DamOTclese
>Pastor William Rennick wrote:
>> I don't understand why so many people are so polarized. They either condemn
>> or defend Scientology with no critical discussion or admission of both good
>> and bad.
>read such ill-informed garbage outside of a Scientology drone.
Obviously "Pastor Rennick" is Mary DeMoss. LOL. It's amusing in some
ways. The hand full of Scientology criminals who st6ill try to play
pretend can't "complete the cycle" and learn from decades of FAILure.
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata DDT, OD, DTS
"Pastor William Rennick" <ohbej...@congregation.net> wrote in message
news:hekehk$rha$1...@aioe.org...
L. Ron Hubbard had a lot to say about attacking and destroying critics of
his mind-control ufo cult. He said that the purpose of courts was to
destroy enemies of Scientology, and that they should be used extensively to
destroy the lives of people telling the truth about him and his criminal
organization.
*
"Now we say there's, well, another place in the world�there's India.
Wonderful place � except for its people."
- L. Ron Hubbard, "The Control of Hysteria" (lecture), 15 April 1957
*
"They smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is,
there are too many chinks here. "
- L. Ron Hubbard, personal journal, 1928
*
"Don't break your back scrubbing floors. Get yourself a nigger, that's what
they were born for."
- L. Ron Hubbard, in a letter to his 2nd wife
*
"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any
organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause
them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so
make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't
ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks
work best."
- L. Ron Hubbard HCO PL 15 Aug 1960, "Department of Governmental Affairs"
*
"In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his statistic
is up and can't sneeze without a chop if it's down. ... When people do start
reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the
person who turned in the report."
- L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 1 September 1965, "Ethics Protection"
*
"A long term propaganda technique used by socialists (Communists and Nazis
alike} is of interest to PR practitioners. I know of no place it is
mentioned in PR literature. But the data had verbal circulation in
intelligence circles and is in constant current use. The trick is -- WORDS
ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST.
Many instances of planned and campaigned in order to obtain a public opinion
advantage for the group doing the propaganda. Given enough repetition of the
redefinition public opinion can be altered by altering the meaning of a
word. The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of
the propagandist.
"Psychiatry" and "psychiatrist" are easily redefined to mean "an anti-social
enemy of the people". This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the
preferred list of professions...The redefinition of words is done be
associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were
intended...Scientologist are redefining "doctor", "Psychiatry" and
"psychology" to mean "undesirable antisocial elements"...The way to redefine
a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it
is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and
define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are
concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and
not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any
success with this technique of propaganda. One must know how to do it."
- L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 5 October 1971, "Propaganda by Redefinition of
Words"
*
realpch
Right Fred. And Mary DeMoss is hiding under your bed. Yikes, don't open
the closet! Mary's in there, too.
: D
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
DamOTclese
>Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> Jens Tingleff <jens...@tingleff.org> wrote:
>>> The fact is that cults are different from religions.
>> All religions are cults.
The usual primary, secondary, and tertiary definitions of contemporary
word usage says that they are.
Not all cults are religions, but all religions are cults.
DamOTclese
>DamOTclese wrote:
>> barbz <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>Pastor William Rennick wrote:
>>>> I don't understand why so many people are so polarized. They either condemn
>>>> or defend Scientology with no critical discussion or admission of both good
>>>> and bad.
>>>Is your brain only used to keep your skull from collapsing? I've seldom
>>>read such ill-informed garbage outside of a Scientology drone.
>> Obviously "Pastor Rennick" is Mary DeMoss. LOL. It's amusing in some
>> ways. The hand full of Scientology criminals who st6ill try to play
>> pretend can't "complete the cycle" and learn from decades of FAILure.
>the closet! Mary's in there, too.
Relax, rp, it's a joke -- or more accurately a spoof.
Sheesh, density is a *good* thing if one's uranium. }:-}