This is really an impossible question to answer. No one person will ever have the final say on the Church of Scientology. Unless you mean if I were God, with some sort of unlimited power to enforce my will -- which is really a rather silly exercise here. I definitely wouldn't go smiting people, if that's what you mean. I suppose I would let it run its course and die a slow death, while keeping people informed as to the realities of this so called "religion." Oh wait, that is exactly what is occurring now.

You Are In Charge

Your response:


When you wrote that you would ignore my books suggestions, you really did.

You Are In Charge

That is not what I said.

How exactly was I "supposed to know that" when you made absolutely no distinction?

So then, are you making any distinction now between Reitman's and Urban's works versus Lifton/Zimbardo's or Milgram's work?

You Are In Charge

WUT? I will say what is not true?

That you only read the books that promote your own world view? I have no idea if you do this or not. But I guess I can assume that if you say you do this, then it is true.

I have not always had a choice about "what I read". When I was in scientology, I was only allowed to read scientology books. Anything else was considered

1. a waste of time
2. involving myself "other practices"
3. being a dilettante
4. restimulating my case
blah, blah, etc. etc.

I still read scientology. I read their "Freedom Magazine" and the material they send me (and they send LOTS of it!!!) But now I have the freedom to read whatever I want outside of the tiny box for the mind which they impose upon their membership. And I revel in that freedom. It would be a waste of that freedom to only read a narrow perspective. I think its a shame that you do such a thing. JMHO.

I make it a point to get my news of the world from many different sources. That is one of the wonders of the an Information Age. So many choices!

If the Church of scientology was offering any news besides the talking points that their PRs repeat ad nauseum (which I do read), and their own propaganda pieces (which I do read), I would read that too. Besides that stuff, and all the junk LRon wrote (which I read over and over for years), there is no other information available to read about LRon that I am aware of. Do you know of any other books that you can refer me to? If so, I'll be happy to read them.

Earlier, you asked,


Aside from the fact that this is just another one of your loaded question (it assumes all biographies were written for the purpose of making him look bad), CoS has been working on his "official" biography for at least 30 or 40 years, but it is never finished or released. Why do you suppose that is? And if they do ever release it, do you think their biography will be written "to make him look good"?

You Are In Charge

I was saying and I still am saying that - I have my pile of books and papers and you have your pile of books and papers and we both get to choose which pile we will assign value to and which pile we will invalidate and marginalize one way or the other. People cherry pick the pile that most promotes his or her point of view and survival and ignores the rest. Yes you can argue that it is otherwise in some argument or theory but I have never seen any evidence that it is any other way in actual practice ( for the most part), especially in internet debates such as this one.[/quote]


This is an astute and accurate observation about anyone.
Just like your earlier one about human beings and contradiction.

Which is why I am baffled that you would 'stumble upon' OCMB, which has an unapologetic agenda against Scientology.

So us asking you what your agenda is,....that is a fair question.
I don't really have heartburn with that agenda (I rather enjoy the discourse), but I am curious about it.

Oh c'mon. You can do better than that. You are becoming so obvious. Why the "no answer"?

You Are In Charge

Maybe Turtlez really didn't want to talk about L. Ron Hubbard's biography.

Please note: Public disavowal of Clambake is a HIGH CRIME and will result in a gold piece of paper that will immediately spit out of our arses and then magically turn into titanium vessels which will be stored somewhere in a seekrit location in Norway where our Leader is ammassing great wealth with which to Clear the Planet of all green disembodied ruddy rods.

I disagree that this is an impossible or even hard question. There are two elements here and it is vital to put some separation between them. One is religious belief. That is sacrosanct and cannot and should not be in question as a right.

The other element involves the practices, actions and policies of the origination itself. Religion should not in any case be allowed as a shield for activities which are illegal.
When a clear and pervasive pattern of criminal activity such as illegal wire taps, threats, attacks, financial fraud, harassment, human rights violations, child labor violations, and the intentional infliction of emotional harm on citizens becomes apparent we can reasonably charge the organization as a criminal entity. There is no religious litmus test here on the content of the beliefs but also there is no religious shield that allows any belief to violate the law. The few exceptions to this such as the Native American peyote and Amish education for children exceptions all rely on specific proof that the long standing traditions of established groups held a standard BEFORE laws against them were enacted. COS has no such defense.
You cannot ban COS as a religion, you can rule that abuse being perpetrated under the banner of the church will lead to investigation and prosecution of those in charge.

It is also reasonable to mandate that any church or temple receiving tax exempt status may collect donations from its members but may not made such donations compulsory nor use intimidation or threats to collect said donations. If a religious order wishes to act as a business
, it should be taxed as one.