BP wrote in message <7353uf$fe...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...Just following orders, eh? Without invoking Godwin's Law, I think if you
>The "individuals who were responsible for caring for her" had no legal
>right to keep her locked up in a room without a court order of
>which a mental hospict would have required! They were not "responsible",
>they were usurping kidnappers. She wanted to leave - they kept her against
>her will. They did that _because_ of the teachings of Hubbard,
> the Introspection Rundown. The Rundown _killed_ her. That said:
give a little thought to the historical precedents for that defense, you'll
realize that it isn't usually successful. It is every individual's
responsibility to disobey orders--even orders issued by "applied religious
philosophies"--when those orders are unethical or otherwise harmful. When
people fail to disobey stupid or dangerous orders the field of
responsibility enlarges to include those people. I presume that you don't
really misunderstand the meaning of "responsibility" when it's used in this
>At the Mesa org, a woman lost her leg because she believed that herIf it weren't an isolated case, we'd be seeing a lot more one-legged
>OT8 training to "postulate" reality would cure the circulatory disease
>that she suffered from. Do you think this is an isolated case, or would
>you agree that it is _part and parcel_ of the Co$ belief system?
Scientologists than we do, don't you think? As I mentioned in a previous
post, I strongly suspect that the practice of Christian Science has
unnecessarily killed a lot more people than has the practice of Scientology.
I think that's very sad, but I also think people (like the woman at the Mesa
org) are entitled to make stupid choices if they want. People aren't,
however, entitled to make stupid choices on behalf of those--like Lisa
McPherson--who are incapacitated. It is for this reason that I believe the
individuals who made those choices for Lisa are at least as much to blame
for her death as is the practice of Scientology itself.
>Do you deny that the members of the cult have about the same incidentAbout the same incident [incidence?] as whom? To whom are we comparing
>of family or job problems that could be alleviated with standard medical
>intervention of counseling and support drugs?
them? Assuming that the comparison is to the general non-Scientologist
public, I'd say, yes, they probably have about the same incidence of family
or job problems as non-Scientologists.
> What do you think theMost would probably get better on their own-- with or without the help
>outcome will be in these instances, given the Co$ attititude to psychology?
offered by Scientology *or* psychology. This is the basis for my oft-stated
opinion that what Scientologists frequently offer up as "wins" are really
just life changes that most of us go through naturally as a consequence of
living and maturing. Believe me, I think psychology is a great thing, but
the reality of it is that it's no magic bullet for eliminating everyday
sorts of family and job problems.
Some people, though, may well get worse as a direct result of their
>Scientology Kills, Hartong Apologizes.If Scientology kills, it must not be very good at it. Considering the 50 or
so years that Scientology's been around, you'd think there would be
mountains of bodies piled up. No, Scientology doesn't kill. Stupid and/or
cruel individuals kill.
Hartong just tries to see things fairly and realistically.
And, BP? He just seems to want to join a Great Moral Crusade.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.