Anonymous

The ten per cent tithing you mention was introduced by priests so that they could be sure of a very good standard of living. The poor could barely (and some even today) afford it and this kept them enslaved and obedient to religion. In my view anyone who puts a price tag on spiritual progress should be avoided. Keep your money and enjoy it - give to any cause that touches your compassion, that way you will be giving to where the real need is to be found and not to those who would seek to dominate your thinking as well as taking your money.

um, sparrow?

my point was that ALL RELIGIONS do this.
andthat ALL HOLY WARS are predicated on the monetray basis of religion.

my question was
WHY SINGLE OUT SCIENTOLOGY
when they are only duplicating what's been done in religion for thousands of years?
you have to picket the Catholics and Jewish too if you're going to do this!

Hi Anonymous. You may feel bombarded by concepts and ideas here, so I'll take one at a time, starting with the idea of criticizing the head of one's religion.

You said you were a Buddhist, so you've probably heard of a new book out (Feb 2001), called "The Buddha" by Karen Armstrong, about just what a critic and boat-rocker Siddhartha (he has many names) was. Before his time, ascetics devoted their entire lives to achieving nirvana, following rigid training, rules, and rituals. Nobody ever could REMAIN in any kind of enlightened state, however. Siddhartha himself said he attained temporary bliss but when he returned to the everyday world of just taking care of his own needs, he was the same person. He was VERY critical of the elitist attitude among the ruling religions of his day. He criticized himself; he was open about the flaws of his own religious approach. His was a honest, no-nonsense search for answers. He would have welcomed questioning.

There are many Catholics who step up to the pulpit and criticize the Pope publicly. Some say he is too liberal, allowing the mass in English or other native languages. Others question why women can't be priests. Although most Catholics will bristle at verbal attacks on the Pope, many, if asked "What would you do if you were Pope?" would have all kinds of changes to suggest.

ANY Protestant minister will gladly talk publicly about the nonsense of his church's leaders. For example, I visited a church where the minister came back grumpy after the National Conference voted to ban the hymn "Stand Up for Jesus" because it would hurt the feelings of the handicapped. He stood up in the pulpit and skewered the church leaders GOOD.

In Scientology, Greg and Debra Barnes were high-level members who tried to point out that the tech had been altered, or squirrelled. Their reward was to be intimidated and eventually expelled from the Org.
See their videotape at
http://www.lisatrust.net/Media/free.htm

Greg and Debra look like successful, sincere people just like your friends. I do believe there are still Scientologists like them, who don't know the whole truth.

I know that Miscavige's and Heber Jentsch's underlings, among themselves, criticize them. I'm sure there is debate at high levels in CO$. But what Scientology staff member dares PUBLICLY say that President Jentsch, on trial for several serious crimes in Spain, should resign to avoid hurting the church?

Can an org leader in another city contact other org leaders and try to reduce the huge "taxes" required by Flag? Every day in this land of plenty, no org worker should have to face a day with only rice and beans for food. (Every time my church sends money to central headquarters, it makes sure its secretary and sexton get paid FIRST.)

Where are the editorials in Freedom magazine criticizing the monstrously bad "Battlefield Earth" movie, on which the church lost millions of dollars? (People in my church send letters to the editor of the national church newsletter, criticizing wasteful projects or votes they disagree with, and DO get to see their letter published.)

Anonymous, these are questions about human rights and money, not about cherished beliefs. It's not bigotry to challenge church leaders. It's a time-honored practice.

Anonymous, regarding parishioner's tithing, my problem with Scientology is that it is not accountable to any independent agency for the manner in which it spends its donated income. It is my understanding that religious organizations are granted tax exemption because they provide a public service.

Scientology spends excessive amounts of money on lawyers, private investigators, dead agent packs, and other questionable activities. Many Scientologists are unaware of how their donations are being misused.

In forwarding Hubbard's policy of "utterly destroying" Scientology critics, Scientology lawyers typically spend 3 times the amount they recover (if any) in "going after" their critics.

This is an abuse of donations. Wouldn't you think that a responsible religion would use wisdom in its use of donations and achieve something socially beneficial rather than using church donations to destroy a person's life?

That's what bona fide religions do with money, they use it to cover their operating expenses and help the many, not destroy the few.

Responding to your comment "how can this be true for a fairly random cross section of Scientologists if indeed the church and its methods are as heinous and dehumanising as you insist?" Personally, I don't think your acquaintances are a fairly random cross section.

Scientology seems to suit some people. There are a number of people who love the tech but hate the org and operate in the "Freezone" (which CoS calls squirrels and therefore are enemies). And there is a growing number of people who feel they were abused and defrauded by Scientology.

I fall in the third class. You can read my story on-line. I was a Scientologist for 13 years. I believe it destroyed my marriage and Dianetics was the influence that led to my first child being brain damaged at birth (as mentioned in a post above). My story is at www.xenu.net. Scroll down to the Personal Accounts section and click on "The Story of Cheryl S."

I don't know the folks you speak of, but it sounds like they are intelligent enough to take the good and avoid the bad, maybe able to hold a position and not allow the abuse. I don't know. I think it takes a strong person to be able to hold a position, and a lot of people aren't strong enough and they end up being abused.

However, I don't find fault with the people that are abused because Scientology does use hard sell, heavy ethics, coercion and undue influence. There are just too many stories singing the same song that have come out to believe otherwise.

I agree though, staff have it much, much harder than public. And it can be a very damaging influence in some people's lives. Others seem to thrive on it. Overall, I think the thrivers are in the minority.

I recently wrote an essay examining Scientology's goal of "a world without war, crime and insanity." You can read it on-line at the same page. Scroll down to the Tech section and click on "A World Without." This paper brings together lots of information about the Scientology into one place. I personally believe that the management is running Scientology into the ground with its many questionable activities.

I do not hold any Scientologist any ill will. I think most Scientologists are bright, idealistic people.

However, I cannot condone an organization that walks all over other people's human rights. I am talking about how critics are sued, harassed, followed by private investigators, frivolous criminal charges are filed against them, businesses are ruined, employers are harassed so they cannot remain employed, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Scientology's rights are not senior to anyone else's rights. You need to educate yourself about Scientology's forced labor organization called the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force), a website that does not have any indication that it is maintained by Scientology, yet has nothing but Scientology's critics displayed in an unfavorable light with inflammatory narrative at www.parishioners.org.

I have recently learned of a secret RPF on the Freewinds (the ship on which OT8 is delivered) wherein the most dangerous defectors are imprisoned and stay in international waters where no one can touch them (read about it at www.lermanet.com--Ashcroft testimony about the Freewinds). This in addition to people whose passports are held hostage until large sums of money are extracted in exchange for their passports and other unconscionable acts, the RPF at Golden Era Studios in Hemet, CA, and the local RPF's at ASHO's and AO's and other upper orgs.

I suspect your friend probably doesn't know about the real activities of OSA and Scientology management. If he did, he would be very concerned. If he cares about Scientology continuing, he should study the issues and seek reform.

You can always write me at clamato1@yahoo.com

All religions ask for donations and contributions to maintain their churches and pay for whatever needs they may have. They don't ask for money to make a profit and the certainly do not tie a person's salvation to how much money they donate. At least not any respectable church. Jim Bakker did, as did some of the lesser known televangelists. "Send me your money","sow your seed of faith" etc. etc. Those guys were giving out pass-fail IQ tests on TV and anyone who passed it got to take it for free.

What makes scientology different from a true religion is that it is a money making enterprise. What they euphemistically call a "donation" is actually payment for services. That in and of itself I have no problem with. If they have a service or a good that people have a need or use for there is nothing wrong with charging for it and turning a profit. What I do have a problem with is the exorbitant prices they charge and the way that they, in practice, put the pursuit of money above everything else. Their pricing policies are designed to extract the maximum ammount of money out of the smallest group possible. They don't want a large group of scientologists, or for scientology to become truly popular with the public at large. If that were to happen they would lose control of it and the cash cow would leave the pasture. If they wanted scientology to be popular they would try to sell it to as many people as possible. If a thousand people buy something at ten dollars a piece you're going to make just as much money as if you sold it at 500 dollars a piece to 20 people. Economies of scale come into play as you begin to deliver services to more and more people, meaning it would cost less per unit of service to deliver to 1000 people than it would to those 20. Simply put your profit marging would improve. If scientology wanted to be popular it could be, but it won't because the people in charge aren't interested in clearing the planet. They're interested in milking their scam for all it is worth while keeping it small enough that they can control it. Making it expensive is simply the easiest way to keep demand for it down since demand is defined as an ability and willingness to pay for a good or service. If I want a Ferrari it doesn't represent economic demand unless I've got the money for one and I'm willing to spend it. How many scientologists are there out there who aren't doing services because they can't afford them? Whose progress on the bridge is stalled because they don't have ten thousand dollars to spare and their credit cards are already maxed out? Quite a few believe me, I knew them. Of course the official party line in scientology is that they should just somehow make it go right to come up with the money. That they can do it and that they are just unwilling to. I don't think I need to explain why this is a crock. If you read and understand the previous paragraph it should be clear to you.

I'm now going to tell you a story of a young man named Sean Dobson. He lived in the Phoenix area and was on lines at the Mesa org. He was in his early twenties and had just inherited a relatively large sum of money. What happened when the org found out? They went after it of course. A certain FSM got a hold of him and together with the org's registrar "reged" him out of most of his money. Then the FSM took him to flag where the IAS, and CCHR had their turn as well as FSO. In the end he had no money left. Different scientology organizations gang banged him out of his inheritance. The FSM got a nice kickback from it too. This was before I got there. The reason I know about it it was that shortly after this was done to him he came to his senses and got an attorney to help him get his money back. When I was there the Mesa org was in the process of slowly paying him back the money he'd "donated." I saw a list of the things he'd bought in Mesa and it really bothered me. I was a devout scientologist at that point too. He was sold things he wouldn't be able to use for quite some time. Emeters, multiple auditing intensives, books, tapes, training courses (all the way up to class V), the purif, KTL-LoC, etc. etc. Do you see the problem with this? Is there any particular reason why a new public person needs to be sold the Class V auditor course? Why not wait till they've finished their class IV training to do that? Its not like he got a volume discount after all. He didn't need to spend all of his money at once. If the org had his best interests at heart and was actually trying to help him it would have sold him what he could use at that point instead of talking him into spending all his money. In the end all they did was take someone who could have been an active scientologist and turn him into an enemy. When the staff at the Mesa org would talk about him they never had anything good to say. One woman regularly called him a psychopath and seemed to like to mention him from time to time as an example of someone crazy. I don't blame her and I don't really blame the people at the org. I do blame the organization itself. The people at the org and even at FSO, the IAS, and CCHR were simply doing what they thought was best. They were in the truman show as one ex-scientologist calls it. I was once too so I know how it is for them. I said and did things that looking back make me feel like a complete fool. Most scientologists are in the same boat. Its the few at the top who are making fools of the rest of us that I have a problem with.

Lee

They don't ask for money to make a profit and the certainly do not tie a person's salvation to how much money they donate.

What makes scientology different from a true religion is that it is a money making enterprise. What they euphemistically call a "donation" is actually payment for services.

Hi Lee
IN response to these words in your post - you are absolutely incorrect in the most basis sense. You forget you are dealing with a person who raised in the Catholic church and then educated in Chrisitanity (and insideits churches) until young adulthood.

ALL CHURCHES
are profit making machines. How do the priests get fed and clothes if not by the tithes? how do the buildings get built and/or maintained?

Yes - Scienos pay for their auditing, etc. I paid for my chrisitan education classes and seminars on a regular basis.

You're flat wrong here. You may find other differences between Scientology and and various other religions - but saying that they aren't in it to make money - or don't base one's level of salvation on the amount of their daonation - don't kid yourself.
Become a member of any Catholic church and see how the rich people get treated in comparison to the poor.

Anonymous:
You're the one who's flat wrong here. For the vast majority of religions, although the treatment may be better if you have more money, you don't get denied salvation if you don't have money. To take the Catholic example, Cardinals aren't 'more saved' than hoi polloi. There's no entrance fee to a Catholic church. You are not excommunicated (or, to use the Scientology phrase, declared a suppresive person) if you don't drop money into the collection plate. But that IS the case in Scientology.

The Bridge is *all* about being more saved than you people below you. That's the way they sell it.

Remember that 'salvation' in $cientology is being completely 'at cause' over the MEST universe. And the route to doing that is to spend more and more and more money removing layer after layer of body thetans.

And another thing, Anonymous:
With very few exceptions, religions don't promise objectively measurable benefits. $cientology does, but refuses to make any proof available. By the time you've spent $350K going up the bridge, you're supposed to be measurably much more intelligent than you were, you're supposed to never get ill and have your vision restored, you're supposed to make anything happen in the material world that you want to make happen, and you're supposed to have intimate knowledge of millions of years of your personal existance. And if these things *don't* happen to you... well, then it's your fault and you have to spend even *more* money for them to tell you what you did wrong.

In fact, Anonymous, if I'm not mistaken, your sweetie is supposed to be illness free and have perfect vision at the 'clear' level, which you said he has achieved. Also he's supposed to have a *much* higher I.Q.

The ability to make the universe do whatever you want it to doesn't come until much later.

As for the idea that churches are for profit I think you need to understand what that term means. A for-profit entity is one whose primary purpose is to make money. Any services or goods they exchange are simply a means to that end. A non-profit entity on the other hand does not exist to make money. It exists to carry out a specific purpose that those administrating and supporting it see as a benefit to society. Examples of for profit entities are McDonalds, Exxon, K-Mart, Microsoft, banks, etc. Examples of non-profit entities are the ACLU, the NRA, credit unions, churches, etc. A non-profit enterprise generates revenue for the purpose of allowing it to deliver its goods and services. A for-profit enterprise delivers goods and services for the purpose of generating revenue and ultimately a profit. In the case of a church, the money collected from donations goes toward the maintaining the church, putting a roof over the head of and food in the bellies of the priests, nuns, pastors, etc. Whatever money is left over after this is spent to allow the church to deliver more or better services, or in many cases to help those in dire straits via charitable causes.

In the case of scientology, the money generated is not primarily spent to maintain the org or to support org staff. Before any bills are paid or any staff person is paid, a sizeable portion of the money generated for the week is sent "up lines" to the org's CLO, to RTC, Gold, ASI, etc. Additionally money is put into local bank accounts such as the BFA. There are other accounts whose names I forget but they all have one thing in common, these bank accounts, while technically belonging to the local org, are not controlled by the local org. Instead the signatories on the accounts are at the org's CLO or elsewhere. According to policy the money in these accounts can be taken and used at any time, meaning the money doesn't really belong to the local org in any real sense. A percentage of GI must, per policy, be put into each of these accounts each week.

Scientology is a money making enterprise. Actually it is more than that, it is a money making scam. If it were not it would have its organizations see to paying their own bills taking care of their staff who are doing all the work. Instead the orgs are forced to pay the higher level scientology orgs money before anything else, regardless of whether the phone is about to be shut off or the landlord serve and eviction notice.

When real churches collect donations, the exact ammount as well as how that money is spent is made public to the parishoners. Not so with scientology, where the money is sent "up lines" to God knows who for some unknown purpose. Scientology is made up of multiple (dozens in fact) interlocking corporations designed to obscure where the money that people are "donating" for services is actually going. Someone or some group somewhere along the line is directly benefitting from that money, and doing so to the exclusion of the local organizations which actually generate that money.

I'm sure that low-level catholic churches do send some money off to higher level churches and even the vatican, but not before the bills are paid, the pastors/priests wellbeing are taken care of, and the spiritual needs of the community that supports that church is seen to. Why? Because catholic churches do not exist for the purpose of sending money to the vatican, they exist for the purpose of seeing to the spiritual needs of the community in which they exist. Not so for the "church" of scientology whose primary purpose seems to be the exact opposite of this.

Lee Reynolds leebreynolds@yahoo.com

Anonymous:

I'd like to get back to whether Scientologists can publicly criticize Miscavige. You didn't know his name so I will describe him. He is a high school dropout, now in his thirties, who grabbed control of the COS after Hubbard died and has done a LOT of controversial things, including changing L. R. Hubbard's writings and trainings. He is not a prophet, or even beloved. Although CO$ encourages veneration of Hubbard, this doesn't extend to the current head of COS.

Given all this, I think it would be a non-bigoted question to ask whether a Scientologist could write a letter criticizing Miscavige to the editor of "Freedom" magazine, see it get printed, and not get "declared" (excommunicated).As I said, mainstream religions don't excommunicate a member criticizing THEIR church leaders' mistakes.

Anyone criticising anything about scientology will themselves be criticised for "nattering." If they continue progressively more intense forms of pressure will be put upon them to make them fall in line.

If you want to understand the inner workings of scientology, just read 1984 by George Orwell and you'll comprehend it completely.

Lee

Hi, i'm yet another anonymous- I wanted to speak to the first one, who wrote that her boyfriend and family were all into the church. Now, I have never been a scientologist, but my research refers to a type of brain-washing where it is against policy to ever complain about your life in scientology. I'm a believer of positive affirmations, ok?, but here it seems to be in the extreme. Since fellow scientologists are expected to write "knowlege reports", reporting on people who are not keeping up a happy front, members condition themselves to think everything is going well, when in actuality, maybe they're worried about having money in their old age, or something like that. I've heard that Hubbard's teachings induce "cognative dissonance", where you live as if 2 conflicting things are both true. Anyway, I'm just saying that some people who seem to be really happy AREN'T. They're just good at putting on fronts. I am NOT saying that your boyfriend's relatives are like this- of course, I don't know them- but just to let you know that pretending things are good when they're really awful has harmed alot of members, who in their stories always talk about this when they "get out."
I don't even know you, but please, please take this thing very slowly and read everything on the net about this before you end up legally or biologically connected to this man.

Here's a spoof: McDonald's Tops Working Child Magazine List.

http://www.satirewire.com/news/0009/satire-childlabor.shtml

My comment: The award should have gone to Scientology!

Annonymous - you still need to do a little more research before posting here. The people on this website aren't just making things up or getting heated up over nothing. These people have endured TREMENDOUS pain as a direct result of their involvement with Scientology. I am an ex-Scientologist too. I am not wealthy - In fact, I was a single mom, trying to raise my kid and do Scientology courses...and I got regged for money every single time I showed up for course or went to any of those ridiculous waste-of-time Scientology events! And it wasn't just a little bit of money they demanded either... and they wanted my money all the time, to buy this book or that CD. Ask your boyfriend if he is a member of IAS. If he is, start worrying. When the subject of IAS came up while I was "public," is when I decided that was it. A registrar told me that I wouldn't be allowed to continue with any more "public" courses until I paid my IAS dues!!! IAS dues are not cheap!! When I was involved, it was something in the thousands per year. And the thing is, nobody really tells you exactly where these IAS "donations" go!! Believe me, this organization is straight from hell, no matter what illusion your boyfriend's family shows you. You need to remember also that they can't just spring the whole truth on you or you might freak out! It has to be done in a subtle way with people who weren't born into this craziness. And one more thing - What's right about the Sea Org and its abuse of children? What about the Sea Org abusing the rights of all human beings? How can these things be explained away???