One opened, more to come!
It is currently Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:53 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Jason Beghe wants his files...
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:09 am
Posts: 2070
Location: cyberspace
I have a question about this:

When you JOIN SCIENTOLOGY, before you receive ONE SERVICE, don't they make you sign away your rights to your PC Folders?

If this is true then Jason may have to sue for breach of contract, and then subpoena those files. Otherwise, I wonder how else he will get them if he signed his rights of ownership over to Scientology.

Another thing is that Scientology asks you to periodically sign papers saying that Scientology is working. I want to see these kinds of documents challenged. Sure, hypnosis works. Jason exteriorized. He may have attested to it with all the abandon of a religious zealot when it happened. But in retrospect, he was bamboozled. These kinds of documents need to be shown for what they are, a way of Scientology covering it's legal ass and padding it's extortion against Scientologists who choose to leave, speak out or GOD FORBID GET THEIR MONEY BACK FOR SERVICES WHICH DON'T WORK.

THIS kind of thing would be of interest to our congresspersons. It's just like the Lisa Clause. If it isn't illegal, it should be.


Love,

Os

_________________
Latest stuph:

The latest fave video- a blast from the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxOmrS6uqVM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9294
Quote:
"I am giving up any and all rights of ownership, possesion and
control, copying and viewing the PC folder and other files
concerning myself, both with respect to the files themselves
and the information contained therein."

Thanks to Digger, Enrollment Application, at
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=15260

My comment: I can't see how this contract can be valid, since in another part the person gives up all their rights to due process. Nobody can sign away their own human rights, in my non-lawyerly opinion. The above link shows the whole indefensible contract.

Here's a different waiver mentioning the files, but it's for people getting a refund, and it's for Denmark.

Quote:
The undersigned, NN, receives upon signing this declaration a sum of d.kr. ______ from The Church of Scientology Denmark, whereupon:
• The balance of my account in Church of Scientology Denmark is zero,
• My demand on repayment of money paid to not finished courses and auditing has been meet

As The Church of Scientology Denmark at the same time buys back one Quantum E-meter and one set of Management Series in Danish, as it is and is found, for the total sum of d.kr. 30.000, the economic account difference between Church of Scientology Denmark and NN (but not any if at all demands from NN against other Scientology organisations) is fully settled upon the recipient of a bank check on the full amount of d.kr. ____________.

The Church of Scientology confirms in addition by signing this declaration that all pc folders with all contents, all sec check interviews, all ethic folders, all student folders, all contracts and life stories plus any thing else that might contain person sensitive data about me has been destroyed.

This document constitutes henceforth the formal declaration from me about my secession from the Church of Scientology Denmark.
I understand that secession under these circumstances allows for a later readmission into the Church of Scientology Denmark, but that the first step in that direction will be acts that express a change in attitude.

Date: ______________ Location: ________________________

________________________________ _________________________________
Name and Signature

For The Church of Scientology Denmark:

________________________________ _________________________________
Name and Signature


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9294
CoS might be able to refuse return of the files.

Quote:
In Mockaitis, the Ninth Circuit also found that the priest and archbishop had a well-established reasonable expectation of privacy, based on Oregon's clergyman-communicant privilege and the "history of the nation" revealing "uniform respect for the character of sacramental confession."54
...
Footnote 54 Id. at 1531-34. See also Mazza, supra note 14, at 191-92 ("Some have argued that the 'right to privacy' found emanating from the penumbras of the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut provides a constitutional basis for protecting certain confidential communications. . . . The firmer ground is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment).


Quote:
In re Verplank, 329 F.Supp. 433 (C.D. Cal. 1971) (draft counseling services when rendered by a clergyman were performed with the course of his function as a clergyman and were privileged; privilege extended to counseling staff members who were not ordained ministers).


from
http://www.clsnet.org/clrfPages/pubs/clergyPriv.php

My comment: It looks like Beghe might be able to force CoS to destroy the files, but if the auditor has "a reasonable expectation of privacy" Jason can't take the files and publicize them.

However, if Jason has a witness that says Jason's auditor blabbed about Jason's confidential auditing session, I believe Jason could sue CoS for violating the priest-penitent privilege, perhaps by suing for breach of contract, even if it is a bad contract. He could sue for money or sue to have the files returned to him.


Last edited by Don Carlo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:05 pm
Posts: 2119
Location: Clearwater Florida USA
Don Carlo wrote:
CoS might be able to refuse return of the files.
Quote:
... reasonable expectation of privacy ...

The moment the CofS breaches their fiduciary duty to keep "priest/penitent" records PRIVATE, is the moment they lose the right to hold on to those files.

There are numerous cases of CofS taking private information from pc files and making the contents public.

_________________
We are the architects of our own lives. Design and build the life you want.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:05 pm
Posts: 2119
Location: Clearwater Florida USA
The Church of Scientology "contracts": http://www.researchthetruth.com/cosdocs.html

Quote:
"Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance." This assistance might involve holding you against your will for an indefinite period, isolating you from friends and family, and denying you access to appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not, the release form absolves your caretakers of all responsibility for your suffering and death. Welcome to the Church of Scientology." Dr. Dave Touretzky


The webpage includes:

Agreement and General Release Regarding Spiritual Assistance

Religious Services Enrollment Application, Agreement and General Release

Agreement Regarding Confidential Religious Files

Attestation Regarding the Scientology Religious Film called "Orientation"

Application, Declaration and General Release Declaration of Religious Commitment and Application for Membership in a Scientology Religious Order and for Active Participation on Church Staff

http://www.researchthetruth.com/cosdocs.html

_________________
We are the architects of our own lives. Design and build the life you want.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:13 am
Posts: 12
I am new to the boards and have a naive question: Who is Jason Beghe and what role does/did he have in the COS?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:20 am 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNUjMz9-W2I
Hollywood Actor and ex-scien.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:09 am
Posts: 2070
Location: cyberspace
These are fantastic resources. Thank you for posting them. This discussion is necessary.

Here's where I am going in my mind with this. I was associated with a group of satanists who exploited people the same way- by getting them to sign away rights to talk about what has happened, compromising their ability to prove what has happened, and by getting them to attest on paper to crazier and crazier things that they believed as a result of hypnosis. This strategy effectively gutted the raw meat's ability to seek justice or even speak publicly about things that happened.

I am going to write a few thoughts about this. These thoughts are my opinions, but I am taking what has been written and posted into account. I am not speaking on the authority of being a lawyer, but on the authority of one who has been associated with people who perpetrate these kinds of cons, so I know the mechanics of them.

Most people don't recognize the difference between enforceable and unenforceable contracts. An unenforceable contract might be the Lisa Clause, because everybody has a Constitutional right to freedom to practice which ever religion you want, or not practice a religion- which that contract attempts to circumvent by preventing you from quitting if you change your mind. An enforceable contract might be "Before you join our forum, you must agree that any content you contribute to this forum becomes the property of the owner and you waive all rights to ownership when you post". So, Scientology might have an enforceable contract regarding the PC files.

One thing people could do which might serve Justice is to publicize this contract and point out what the ultimate consequences of signing such a document MIGHT BE. Which is what Jason is going to accomplish.

Informing potential Scientologists is a good tactic. But how can Jason or anybody legally invalidate it?

Here are some thoughts along that line:

Scientology has asked you to sign over the rights to the story of your life and your spiritual evolution. This is not about Priest/penitent privilege. YOU have the right to your story, the Priest doesn't- that is why Priests protect your confessions from prying eyes- and they do NOT DOCUMENT YOUR CONFESSIONS. This is all for your protection. Scientology has twisted this 180º. They are NOT protecting you when they ask you to sign this. They are ripping off your right to the story of what happened to you in Scientology. THIS IS FOR THEIR PROTECTION. It is a NON DISCLOSURE CLAUSE IN EFFECT.

Non disclosure clauses can be knocked down. All Scientologists have been offered something they did not or will not ever receive, and this should void all contracts enabling that situation to exist, because every contract was based on the promise which was not ultimately delivered. The signator engaged in good faith, and paid in good faith, but the creator of the contract did not. The only way they can prove that they ever delivered what they say they do is by showing us someone with CLEAR or OT POWERZ©. Certainly JASON did not receive what HE WAS PROMISED.

Another area to address is undue influence to sign these contracts.

People sign these contracts under pressure that they will be denied enlightenment unless they do. Scientology does not present itself as ONE WAY to enlightenment, it presents itself as THE ONLY WAY. Jason was told that he could not receive treatment for the toxins in his bloodstream unless he took other courses. The sold him on something he felt he needed, and then held that hostage until he agreed to TRs which were in fact hypnosis. Then, they made him take the TRs first. VERY CANNY.

That is a lot of pressure, not to mention that learning to hard sell expensive services is EXPECTED of Scientologists. We can prove that Scientologists are pretty much trained at conmanship: L. Ron wrote a specific course (Dissemination Drills) which is basically a manual for breaking down objections to purchasing services and employing hard sales tactics.

All this is applied both before AND after an hypnotically induced euphoria like Jason experienced during his first TR.

I think being under the influence of hypnosis when it is signed is a good reason to void a contract.

Aside from the unethical techniques, most people do not understand what they are signing. That is why so many people are losing their homes to foreclosure these days. They listen to the salesperson, sign papers without really reading them. Scientology uses it's facade of credibility to break down objection to signing. If a person went to the Catholic Church, he would ASSUME that the priest wasn't there to con him. And Scientology is a CHURCH. People ASSUME that they are not engaging in cons.

Oh well.

Maybe Jason can argue that the contract is unenforceable because there was no quid pro quo- Scientology guaranteed him results when they registered him. I wonder if that guarantee were ever on paper? Certainly, L. Ron Hubbard has been quoted repeatedly stating that the tech cannot fail if properly applied.

Jason said that he did not get the promised results, and when Scientology was confronted by hundreds of people with the same complaint, their excuse was:

"The tech isn't being properly applied! That is why it is failing! Buy the new and improved version, because the first one was a buggy beta!"

At this point, the customer should have been provided corrective services FOR FREE. Instead Jason was given more processes which also failed to provide results. And again they said, "You were improperly handled! You need to buy more services (be assigned an ethics condition, get more auditing, repeat courses, yadda yadda) to correct the errors we made!"

Well, Jason was promised results he didn't get. Now, he's being asked to buy even more buggy programs which continue not to work. Finally, he wants to apply the concept of the lemon law because this dog won't hunt. And he gets hammered by Scientology with the full force of all their extortions and abuses instead of refunding his money as they promised BEFORE he signed his first check.

I think that any contract entered into for the benefit of Scientology is invalid because there cannot be a valid quid pro quo. You put up the quid, but where is the quo? It never arrives. Even if there were legitimate errors in tech, Scientology failed to deliver and therefore all bets should be off and all contracts should be voided. Jason kept up HIS END, didn't he? He paid for all the courses and procedures.

So, if he took this to court, he should prevail.

If you get this far, here is the part where they use the attestations of "wins" against you. When you go to make a claim that the procedures failed, they go through the file you signed away the rights to, and pull out every single paper you signed saying that the procedures WORKED!

DOH!

This will stop most people.

This is where we have to prove that those attestations were faulty because of the undue influence of hypnosis. And this is harder to prove than breach of contract.ioooooooooooooo9

Sorry, little Blaize wrote that last part. =^..^=

I see what Jason is doing as a very very strong tactic against Scientology. He is brave enough to make his PC files an issue in public. He is brave enough to stand against every document in there to be thrown against him. He has to keep going with this and others need to join him, by golly. It is the way to go.

I think he would surely prevail if his case included very good evidence that hypnosis occurred.

The Anderson Report goes into the use of covert hypnosis in Scientology, but that is a pretty old document. Arnie has accumulated a lot of very good data regarding this. I really think that this has to be the point of attack because hypnotizing people into euphoria and then getting them to sign testimonials and attestations in that condition is a real ace in Scientology's hole.

Hypnosis is the core of the problem Jason and others doing what Jason is doing must address.

Anyhow, I have blown my energy wad for the day.

Thank you for the thoughtful and informative posts!


Love,

Os

_________________
Latest stuph:

The latest fave video- a blast from the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxOmrS6uqVM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9294
Good points here. Jason could push for a new ruling that allowed him his files back, if he were ambitious about the law. I posted the ruling that protected the priest's right to privacy because if I could find it in fifteen minutes, so could a CoS lawyer. If Jason plans to sue, he should have as much information as possible. If he really wants to push and perhaps make new law, he could ask for his files back, but it would be expensive, lengthy, and CoS might appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. If Jason just wants the files to be destroyed, he should be able to force CoS to do so without much fuss. Perhaps he could compel CoS to provide a written affirmation that they have destroyed all his files. I still wouldn't trust them.

The good thing is that a star like Will Smith may think twice about auditing when he sees how vulnerable CoS makes you after your audit session.

It's ironic that in the Catholic Church, the priest-penitent privilege is designed to protect the confessing person, but in CoS this "privilege" is designed to put all the power in the hands of CoS. I have never seen such one-sided contracts as CoS forces on its staff and members.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:09 am
Posts: 2070
Location: cyberspace
Don Carlo wrote:
Good points here. Jason could push for a new ruling that allowed him his files back, if he were ambitious about the law. I posted the ruling that protected the priest's right to privacy because if I could find it in fifteen minutes, so could a CoS lawyer. If Jason plans to sue, he should have as much information as possible. If he really wants to push and perhaps make new law, he could ask for his files back, but it would be expensive, lengthy, and CoS might appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. If Jason just wants the files to be destroyed, he should be able to force CoS to do so without much fuss. Perhaps he could compel CoS to provide a written affirmation that they have destroyed all his files. I still wouldn't trust them.

The good thing is that a star like Will Smith may think twice about auditing when he sees how vulnerable CoS makes you after your audit session.

It's ironic that in the Catholic Church, the priest-penitent privilege is designed to protect the confessing person, but in CoS this "privilege" is designed to put all the power in the hands of CoS. I have never seen such one-sided contracts as CoS forces on its staff and members.


I think that a ruling like the above which protects the rights of the expert authority practitioner over the neophyte penitent practiced upon is something that can be undone. Anyhow, there are two parties to the creation of the auditing session files. If one party is entitled to copies of the records, then the other should be- especially because the priest bears the burden of the upper hand in regards to his or her fiduciary duty to the penitent. So, if I were an attorney I'd be game to retry an issue like this with a different case, angle or judge.

Anyhow, I just got this link that you might be interested in. I haven't been able to look at it yet, it might be a bit OT because it purports to be a Staff Contract waiving rights. I apologize in advance if it has been posted elsewhere. I'm posting it here because CoS is having it pulled off the web, so get it while it's hot.

http://wikileaks.org/leak/scientology-s ... ntract.pdf

Love,

Os

_________________
Latest stuph:

The latest fave video- a blast from the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxOmrS6uqVM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:13 am
Posts: 12
What about intellectual property? If someone formulates an idea, and they can prove they had it first, that idea belongs to them no matter who else writes it down.

Can Jason copyright his story? And if so, would'nt using the material in the PC files without his consent and approval then be a copyright infringement?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9294
Jason could ask CoS to cut out all the auditor comments, and return the parts where Jason was talking. That way the "privacy" of the auditor would be protected.

Even then, CoS would fight this tooth and nail, because a victory by Beghe would cause a flood of similar demands, and they would spend all their time snipping out auditor remarks from folders.

Speculation: When CoS collapses the folder issue will be a mess. CoS won't even exist to safeguard them. The government can't take them, destroy them, or return them to the individuals, in my opinion, because any government handling could be seen as religious persecution. The files might be auctioned off as "just another asset" to pay off creditors. Gossip magazines, greedy guys, and rich kooky fans will bid for the files. The movie stars will try to stop the auction, but bankrupcy law is straightforward: everything can be sold to raise money to pay off creditors. Remember the personal files of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) had to be sold this way. A bizarre possibility is that each celebrity file will be auctioned off separately, with each actor bidding desperately against tabloids.

The government can't force CoS to give back its folders, but bankruptcy law might drop them into the hands of tabloids. CoS's only decent action, before the bankruptcy was final, would be to destroy every file. It's unknown whether CoS dogma even allows destruction of files, however. Whether it does or not, the bankruptcy court might try to block file destruction on the grounds that CoS can't destroy valuable property. Again, this is all speculation and I'm no expert in bankruptcy. But, movie stars and billionaire James Packer, don't spill your secrets to your auditor. CoS blabs internally about your secrets, and if CoS goes bankrupt, your file might become a prize possession of The National Enquirer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:05 pm
Posts: 2119
Location: Clearwater Florida USA
Hi Os, Glad to see you taking up the banner of something else now.

To add to what you're saying here in this thread:

1. One is not allowed to bring home the CofS documents (contracts) to get legal advice before being told to sign them. It can be argued that the contracts were signed under duress and without legal counsel, at least with legal counsel DENIED.

2. TRs comes AFTER the Purification Rundown on the Scientology Grade Chart (The Bridge to Total Freedom) so requiring TRs before Purif is off policy and out-tech for CofS. This is definitely a bait-and-switch, which is illegal.

3. Priest/Penitent confidential, or any confessionals, are garnered under the guise that they will be held as confidential and for the benefit of the confessor only. No one would confess if they thought their confessions were going to be used AGAINST them. If the CofS ever uses your confessional information for something OTHER than "for the benefit of the confessor", then they CANNOT then argue that the files are for spiritual purposes (and should remain in "a church"). The confessor can argue that the CofS can no longer be trusted with the information and require that the files be returned or destroyed under supervision, and require the CofS to attest that no copies have been retained. And if any copies were retained and evidence is found later (such as using the confidential information against the confessor), then the CofS should be penalized with punitive damages (a monetary award to the confessor).

Let's look at other confessions or the history of confessions:

a) The Inquisition is uniformly agreed to have been heinous and suppressive, and that all confessions garnered were likely false -- spoken under extreme duress. These confessions are used AGAINST THE CONFESSOR.

b) Confessions obtained through tortures while a prisoner, or through mind control pressures (political prisoners), are considered as likely to be false. These confessions are used AGAINST THE CONFESSOR.

c) Confessions in the Catholic Church are not recorded (neither audio nor paper). The purpose is to allow the confessor to get something off their chest, and offer a means to repent or make amends. These confessions are used FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CONFESSOR, and are NEVER re-broadcast. (Just you try to get a priest to cough up someone's confession!)


If the Church of Scientology shows patterns of using confessions as per A and B above, and does NOT show patterns of using confessions per C above, it can be easily argued that the CofS should have no "rights" to withhold confessional folders, and in fact should be required to turn them over or destroy them.

If the CofS cannot prove that it performs only C above, and never A or B, it CANNOT DEFEND ITSELF in its desires to withhold folders.



Don Carlo writes "The government can't force CoS to give back its folders" but I disagree. You have repeated this statement more than once, and it is not true.

_________________
We are the architects of our own lives. Design and build the life you want.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9294
Beghe COULD fight this. I was worred about this precendent:
Quote:
In Mockaitis, the Ninth Circuit also found that the priest and archbishop had a well-established reasonable expectation of privacy, based on Oregon's clergyman-communicant privilege and the "history of the nation" revealing "uniform respect for the character of sacramental confession."54


BUT CoS is already violating the "reasonable expectation of privacy" because a supervisor is monitoring the auditing session by videocamera, and because the files are accessible to people besides the auditor. Beghe could get witnesses to swear to these breaches of privacy.

The greatest case EVER would be if Beghe's auditor quit, and he plus Beghe TOGETHER sued to get Beghe's files. Then CoS doesn't have a case - hanging onto the files just proves they are trying to control and intimidate both auditor and auditee.

There are two paths here - lawsuit or legislation.

The lawsuit may be the quickest, but for the person filing it, it may be expensive and full of harassment.

Legislation would be stickier, and might take longer; the main problem is that you can't pass a law designed exactly against only one person or group, but, hey, there's Freezone, and they're writing notes on their auditing sessions! Calif. and Florida could each pass a law that religious confessions cannot be recorded in writing, audio, or videotape, and can't be observed by a third person by any means, to "better protect the privacy of the confessional." Cos could still tape auditing sessions, but then they wouldn't be protected under priest-penitent confidentiality. Or, CoS could stop taping and writing up auditing sessions, and BE protected under priest-penitent confidentiality. It's politically sticky to write such a law, but it's obvious that CoS cannot maintain pure confidentiality when multiple auditors or staff have access to the files, and the whole process is watched by videocamera. CoS may squawk about quality control and training but that's their problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:34 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Lead Free in Condor Country
Don Carlo wrote:
The only legal precendent I can find is
In Mockaitis, the Ninth Circuit also found that the priest and archbishop had a well-established reasonable expectation of privacy, based on Oregon's clergyman-communicant privilege and the "history of the nation" revealing "uniform respect for the character of sacramental confession."54

I can't do fancy legal searches, but it would be great if someone could, and found a case that the person owns their own words from a confessional.

Maybe Calif. and Florida could pass a law that religious confessions cannot be recorded in writing, audio, or videotape, to "better protect the privacy of the confessional."


Well stop me if I'm wrong, but my take is that the records kept during auditing include, essentially, any footbullet that the auditees may toss out during auditing that is then duly recorded and saved, to be loaded into a magazine and fired back at the auditee if it subsequently becomes necessary, as in, if that person decides to leave the church and perhaps speak out against it. Is this not so? If THAT can be shown, I think all bets are off. That is J.Edgar Hoover tactics; maintain your power by getting the goods on anyone who may ever oppose you.

Doesn't the Skull and Bones have an initiation ritual that asks a question along the lines of "What is the worst thing you have ever done?" Sounds like the same sort of thing.

I'm not Catholic, but isn't the purpose of confession to confess your sins and be absolved, not to have them rolled up into suppositories and shoved back at you later if you sin again? I'd think that if the actual way that this information is used by the Co$ were established through the testimony of former members, the whole confidentiality thing might be tossed and the status of the "church" as a religion would be seriously undermined.

Go Jason!

Smitty

_________________
"He who filters your good name steals trash." Stan Laurel in "Tit for Tat"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group