|
|
alt.religion.scientology |
>>>No, not "just following orders". That is _your_ straw man. >>Then the responsibility still lies with the individuals, does it not? If >You are the one who claimed that I was promoting a "just following orders" >Our society feels that it is very much in it's interest to protect people >>I don't think it's naive at all. The idea that each of us is responsible >You are not responding to what I said. The law holds individuals >How could I know, when all I hear is your "valuable lesson learned" >>>No, I am IN a great moral crusade. And YOU are on the sidelines. >>I fully understand your need to believe that. That's kind of the same >No, it's self-confidence that my assessment of Scientology is correct. What you see as apology, I see as fairness. BP wrote in message <73a1g0$p0...@nnrp03.primenet.com>... Actually, no, I didn't claim either of those things. I used the "just
>In article <739373$...@enews3.newsguy.com>, hart...@erols.com says...
>>BP wrote in message <738cdl$gc...@nnrp02.primenet.com>...
>>>I stated that they had internalized the teachings of Scientology,
>>>specifically the Introspection Rundown. They were acting
>>>morally and ethically, and applying the best treatment for
>>>mental illness that had ever been devised, in their opinion.
>>someone guns down a bunch of FBI agents because they've "internalized"
some
>>wacked-out Aryan Nation militia junk, are they somehow absolved of
>>responsibility for those killings? No, they're not.
defense.
>Now you claim that I absolve the caretakers of Lisa MacPherson, or in the
>general case, any follower of a wrong and immoral code of ethics.
following orders" analogy and you claimed that this wasn't correct because
the individuals had "internalized" Scientology. So, I moved on to the
analogy of militia members who have "internalized" a philosophy which
teaches that killing FBI agents is a good idea. Is the "internalization"
process different for Scientologists than it is for members of other groups?
If so, how? And why? If it's *not* different, then it would seem that the
analogy is a good one and I'd have to return to my question: Would the
militia guys be somehow absolved of personal responsibility for the murder
of FBI agents because they had "internalized" a violent philosophy?
>The responsibility lies both with the individuals _and_ with the Hello? Hello? Isn't that what I originally wrote? If you agree with me
>organization/philosophy that promulgates the values and incorrect
>ideas that the individuals use to make the wrong decisions.
that the individuals are at least as much to blame as the organization, what
exactly is it you're arguing with me about?
> As long People make wrong and immoral decisions all the time. They make these
>as the recruiting/teaching/deploying organization exists, more
individuals
>will be taken in and make wrong and immoral decisions.
decisions regardless of the organizations to which they belong. The fault
is not in our stars (or our "applied religious philosophies"), but in
ourselves. Eliminating Scientology isn't going to prevent wrong and immoral
decisions from being made. Those who would have become vicious
Scientologists will instead become vicious Amway salesmen.
> The individuals I do understand that you believe Scientology makes people who would have
>can be taken one by one and tried and convicted, but the wrong-doing
>will continue. _That's_ the point you fail to grasp.
otherwise been perfectly normal into heartless killers. I disagree.
>>I'm available M-F, 9:30-5:00. ;-) Obviously, if they knew it was a And that, of course, is really the distinguishing factor. In the United
stupid
>>choice in advance, they probably wouldn't do it. I don't think we're
>>obligated as a society or as individuals to protect every other member of
>>our species from making stupid choices for themselves. Making such
choices
>>(I've done it myself!) and dealing with the consequences is a valuable
>>learning experience.
from
>a great number of stupid choices, especially when those choices affect
>not only themselves but those around them.
States we're permitted to make all sorts of silly choices for ourselves as
long as those choices don't endanger others. The presumption is that
mentally sound adults are capable of making these choices for themselves. I
like it that way.
>>>They were acting according to the teachings of Scientology. Their own consciences, of course. Scientologists do not live in a vacuum
>>>Do you think that they sould have had some incorruptible
>>>moral guide within them? That is naive.
>>for our behavior is something of a cornerstone of western civilization and
>>of our legal system.
responsible
>after the fact, but what is supposed to tell those individuals not to
commit the deed,
>if their actions are correct _within the culture created by the Co$_?
and neither, imo, are they brainwashed zombies who are unable to tell right
from wrong. I think that almost every one of us reading a.r.s. right
now--Scientologist and critic alike--could come to agreement on most of the
big issues regarding right and wrong.
>It is this culture/organization/value set/"church" that is ultimately the I don't believe it is naive. I think we *do* all share some core set of
>dangerous enemy. You seem to be assuming that we all share some
>core set of values that tells us what is right or wrong, independent of
the
>culture around us. That _is_ naive.
values that tells us what is right or wrong. The people who frame our laws
also believe this. As I indicated in my answer the first time around, the
presumption that we all know the difference between right and wrong is the
foundation of our entire criminal law system. It works for me, too.
>>I have more empathy than you know. You'll just have to take my word for it, BP. You and I are still discussing
>cover up for Scientology mind-rape?
things in a relatively civil fashion, aren't we? Do you think that would be
possible if I had no empathy?
>>>>And, BP? He just seems to want to join a Great Moral Crusade. In this particular venue (a.r.s.) I think maybe it takes more courage to
thing
>>Scientology itself uses to attract members, isn't it?
>And I have the courage to oppose what I see as a dangerous
>and immoral organization, causing great harm.
express *my* point of view! ;-)
>So you keep right on apologizing for them and I will continue fighting them.