Scientology in Cork

Pompey Magnus

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (a branch / affiliate of the Church of Scientology) have a big exhibition on in Cork City Hall over the weekend called "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death". I didn't know who the CCHR were until I talked to a guy outside who was handing out flyers and he confirmed that the CoS are involved.

I find it pretty poor form the the Council are allowing access to City Hall for Scientology events but then I don't know the rules regarding such things. It just doesn't seem right though.

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I find it pretty poor form the the Council are allowing access to City Hall for Scientology events but then I don't know the rules regarding such things. It just doesn't seem right though.

Yeah but as soon as they are banned the law suits and claims of persecution begin.

I personally think that any event like this that is tied to a higher up organisation, religious or otherwise, must make reasonable effort to display this information. If it isn't already, it should be made clear some how to everyone going that this presentation is linked to Scientology.

JimiTime

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (a branch / affiliate of the Church of Scientology) have a big exhibition on in Cork City Hall over the weekend called "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death". I didn't know who the CCHR were until I talked to a guy outside who was handing out flyers and he confirmed that the CoS are involved.

I find it pretty poor form the the Council are allowing access to City Hall for Scientology events but then I don't know the rules regarding such things. It just doesn't seem right though.

I'd say the councils motto is 'show me the money'.
What! you're going to be sacrificing a virgin??
We'll pay you a bucket of cash!
Oh, ok, just don't get blood on the carpet:)

Or the less cynical approach. Maybe they thought the 'Citizens Commision on Human Rights' sounded honourable. Anytime I see scientologists, I never see the word 'scientologist', its dianetics etc. Obviously aware of their reputation.

Zillah

I support freedom of speech. Maybe they're right about the harm psychiatry does. If you disagree so strongly then pass out your own flyers.

Dades

Zillah In Scientology Shocker

"Earlier today, renowned atheist and church basher, Zillah, defended the rights of a barmy cult to feed the public disinformation under the guise of a reputable sounding organisation. Zillah's former contemporaries have vowed to continue to fight the fight".

Zillah

"I was drunk" said the now hungover atheist, huddled over a mug of tea grumbling at the rising sun.

crotalus667

JimiTime wrote: »

I Maybe they thought the 'Citizens Commision on Human Rights' sounded honourable. .

In all fairness can any one take them seriously especially after the whole tom cruse thing ??:rolleyes:

Mena

crotalus667 wrote: »

In all fairness can any one take them seriously especially after the whole tom cruse thing ??:rolleyes:

They're no different to any of the other religions in my view. But then, I can't take any of them seriously.

JimiTime

crotalus667 wrote: »

In all fairness can any one take them seriously especially after the whole tom cruse thing ??:rolleyes:

Not sure if you got the jist of what I said. I said maybe the council didn't know it was scientology due to its pseudonym.

PDN

I hate the cult of Scientology and its false teachings. But as a secularist (and a Christian) I believe that religious groups should be given the same rights as other pressure groups, charities, or voluntary associations - no more and no less. Therefore the Scientology people have as much right as the Vegetarian Society or Amnesty International to rent property from a local authority.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I believe that religious groups should be given the same rights as other pressure groups

Would you approve of the city council renting out city hall to, say, the Provisional IRA, the UDA or Jean Marie le Pen and his unwholesome crew?

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

I believe that religious groups should be given the same rights as other pressure groups, charities, or voluntary associations - no more and no less. Therefore the Scientology people have as much right as the Vegetarian Society or Amnesty International to rent property from a local authority.

What if I were the leader of a deathcult planning on gaining as many young members as possible and committing mass suicide? Would you think I should be forbidden as Scientology were?

If so, then you're accepting that in principle a religious group should be limited if their teachings are harmful or dangerous. In which case, surely its more a question of degrees. So where would you draw the line? Is harassment, bullying, brainwashing, intimidation, profiteering and all the other things scientology is known for not sufficient grounds?

Cheeky antagonistic comment: I can imagine that accepting such a position would possibly be opening a whole Pandora's box for you, given the role Christianity has played in society.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

If so, then you're accepting that in principle a religious group should be limited if their teachings are harmful or dangerous. In which case, surely its more a question of degrees. So where would you draw the line? Is harassment, bullying, brainwashing, intimidation, profiteering and all the other things scientology is known for not sufficient grounds?

It is difficult to assess if a religion is "harmful or dangerous"

I think Christianity is harmful and dangerous, but I don't think I would get very far stopping the local Church fate.

So long as the Scientologists are holding a peaceful and legal gathering there is little reason to stop them. Yes they may be indoctrinating people with manipulation into their cult, but which religion doesn't!

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

It is difficult to assess if a religion is "harmful or dangerous"

Here's the website for last weekend's event:

http://www.cchr.ie/

As it's actively encouraging people to abandon medical treatment (pace the 2pt disclaimer at the bottom of the page), I'd say that it's quite easy to say that this jamboree is both harmful and dangerous.

Then again, any website with downloadable literature which claims that L Ron Hubbard was a "visionary humanitarian" must be immediately suspect.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Would you approve of the city council renting out city hall to, say, the Provisional IRA, the UDA or Jean Marie le Pen and his unwholesome crew?

I wouldn't approve - but if the organisation in question is operating legally then, in a secular society, they should have the right to hire public halls.

If they are committing a criminal offence, or encouraging others to do so, then that is a different matter.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

What if I were the leader of a deathcult planning on gaining as many young members as possible and committing mass suicide? Would you think I should be forbidden as Scientology were?

Sounds like a criminal offence to me.

So where would you draw the line? Is harassment, bullying, brainwashing, intimidation, profiteering and all the other things scientology is known for not sufficient grounds?

We allow Sinn Fein officials to use public property, and their record in such matters is much worse than that of Scientology.

Cheeky antagonistic comment: I can imagine that accepting such a position would possibly be opening a whole Pandora's box for you, given the role Christianity has played in society.

I think you are confusing organisations with ideologies.

If a 'Christian' organisation is engaged in illegal activities, or has a history of doing so, then I can certainly see that might cause them a problem. However, to discriminate against innocuous organisations on the grounds that they are Christian, and that entirely separate organisations who use the label 'Christian' have done bad things, is hardly reasoable.

Should socialists be discriminated against because of what the National Socialists (Nazis) did in Germany? Or because of what professed socialists did in Russia and China? I think not.

You would have more of a point in denying facilities to a political group that, in an organisational sense, descended from the Blueshirts.

lostexpectation

****ing hell, seems there have been protests

http://forums.enturbulation.org/137-europe/cork-ireland-19705/

http://www.gaycork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6878

"Lord mayor to be guest speaker at Scientology event"
http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-media/cork-lord-mayor-address-scientology-event-20289/

somebody says there's church in yeovil

http://templeofxenu.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/protest-to-city-hall-exhibition/
not big fan of dialogue ireland think everything is cult but the catholic church

lostexpectation

Speaking on RTÉ’s Liveline, former Dublin Lord Mayor Dermot Lacey said that the church had tried to hire out the Mansion House but permission was refused. “We would not allow anyone to book it who would endorse the manipulation of young people. Having such a group at the Mansion House or Cork City Hall gives them an air of respectability that they shouldn’t be given,” he said.

apparently the cork mayor 'realised he was duouble booked and didn't attend, and when the protestors outside alerted people to the fact it was scientology event they they just turned around and left.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Sounds like a criminal offence to me.

We allow Sinn Fein officials to use public property, and their record in such matters is much worse than that of Scientology.

Neither of these are actually answers to the questions I posed.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Neither of these are actually answers to the questions I posed.

Actually they are.

If a suicide cult is encouraging people to harm themselves then, if they are committing a criminal offence, they should not be allowed to rent a public building for the purpose of carrying out illegal activities.

As for where I would draw the line, obviously if Sinn Fein is worse than Scientology for the kind of stuff you mention then that helps us determine where to draw the line. If the Shinners are allowed to use public buildings, as they are, then it would be hypocritical to deny the more benign Scientologists the same facilities. If the Shinners are excluded then we would be under an obligation to examine the Scientologists more closely to see if they should also be excluded.

I thought you would be able to make the above conclusions from the answers I gave. Sorry if my rather shorthand answers proved too cryptic - that was not my intent.

KTRIC

Oh wow another SoC bashing thread. How many is it this month ??

Dades

PDN wrote: »

If a suicide cult is encouraging people to harm themselves then, if they are committing a criminal offence, they should not be allowed to rent a public building for the purpose of carrying out illegal activities.

Suicide was decriminalised in Ireland in 1993. And I wouldn't be so sure that encouraging someone to do something that isn't illegal is an offense. Assisted suicide yes, but not 'encouragement'.

I know this isn't particularly relevant - just musing.

Dades

Suicide was decriminalised in Ireland in 1993. And I wouldn't be so sure that encouraging someone to do something that isn't illegal is an offense. Assisted suicide yes, but not 'encouragement'.

I know this isn't particularly relevant - just musing.

KTRIC wrote: »

Oh wow another SoC bashing thread. How many is it this month ??

Why, as many as it takes to get a Scientologist on to defend their beliefs, of course.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Actually they are.

If a suicide cult is encouraging people to harm themselves then, if they are committing a criminal offence, they should not be allowed to rent a public building for the purpose of carrying out illegal activities.

I'm not asking about the law though, I'm asking about your personal opinion. Lets say hypothetically that my death cult is not technically breaking the law in any fashion, whats your position?

The Sinn Fein thing might be part of the reason for your answer, but I'd still like to hear that straight answer: Does my technically legal death cult get to use city hall?

KTRIC

Dades wrote: »

Why, as many as it takes to get a Scientologist on to defend their beliefs, of course.

Why do you think there is something to defend ?

Zillah

KTRIC wrote: »

Why do you think there is something to defend ?

What a bizzarely obtuse thing to say. They have beliefs ("something") and we're attacking it ("need to defend"). Do you actually not understand or are you just feeling contrary?

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not asking about the law though, I'm asking about your personal opinion. Lets say hypothetically that my death cult is not technically breaking the law in any fashion, whats your position?

The Sinn Fein thing might be part of the reason for your answer, but I'd still like to hear that straight answer: Does my technically legal death cult get to use city hall?

OK, there are limits to freedom of speech. In essence I believe we have a trade off. Will the damage to civil liberties caused by banning a group be outweighed by the damage that will be caused by allowing them to use public property?

I believe the unnecessary death of one human being would be too high a price to pay for the principle of public access to Cork's City Hall. Therefore your death cult gets the heave-ho.

The Sinn Fein thing is indeed part of my answer. Our society has made a calculated trade off with Sinn Fein. We have decided that it is better to hold our noses and pretend they are legitimate politicians, and that the pain of such a stance is preferable to continued violence in the North. It's not pretty, but realpolitik rarely is.

Scientologists, IMHO, are unlikely to increase the sum of human misery significantly on account of their being allowed to use Cork City Hall. Therefore the trade off principles means that the effect of their event would be outweighed by the damage to civil liberties involved in banning them and their rather unpleasant beliefs.

KTRIC

Zillah wrote: »

What a bizzarely obtuse thing to say. They have beliefs ("something") and we're attacking it ("need to defend"). Do you actually not understand or are you just feeling contrary?

So do you think its normal to attack someone else's beliefs because they are different to your own ?

Ciaran500

KTRIC wrote: »

Oh wow another SoC bashing thread. How many is it this month ??

First one.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Scientologists, IMHO, are unlikely to increase the sum of human misery significantly on account of their being allowed to use Cork City Hall.

Given that the raison-d'être of the jamboree in Cork was to defame and rubbish psychiatry -- the branch of medicine which attempts to resolve at least some human misery -- it seems reasonable to believe that the sum total of human misery will increase, even significantly, if people actually believe the COS's patent hogwash. Something they're more likely to do if the state appears to offer its tacit support.

Dades

KTRIC wrote: »

So do you think its normal to attack someone else's beliefs because they are different to your own ?

Am I to assume from this, that there are no beliefs held that you would attack?

You would have been as useful as string condom when they were trying to discredit flat-earthers or apartheid.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

it seems reasonable to believe that the sum total of human misery will increase, even significantly, if people actually believe the COS's patent hogwash. Something they're more likely to do if the state appears to offer its tacit support.

I guess the whole issue hangs on how big we reckon that 'if' to be, doesn't it?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I guess the whole issue hangs on how big we reckon that 'if' to be, doesn't it?

I think it's rather unlikely that the COS ran this event without at least some expectation that some people would believe them.

Heavens, I'd imagine that you yourself must expect that some portion of the unbelievers who turn up at your own religious get-togethers would convert to The Truth (the right one of course, not the COS's clearly bogus one)?

Rev Hellfire

Is Scientology classified as a religion here ?
Or a for profit organisation ?

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

I guess the whole issue hangs on how big we reckon that 'if' to be, doesn't it?

I'm working above where the presentation was taking place and one guy in my office went down to check it out, he came back up telling us that the number of people cured by psychology is miniscule, I think they were saying its in the single digits and that it does more harm than good by pumping patients full of chemicals. He was also convinced by the Scientologists that Nazism is basically an offshoot of psychology.

Just like with any religion, when people are presented with supposed "facts" very well spun by as efficient a machine as Scientology, it isn't at all surprising that people will begin to accept what they are told.

robindch

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

he came back up telling us that the number of people cured by psychology is miniscule, I think they were saying its in the single digits and that it does more harm than good by pumping patients full of chemicals. He was also convinced by the Scientologists that Nazism is basically an offshoot of psychology.

Just like with any religion, when people are presented with supposed "facts" very well spun by as efficient a machine as Scientology, it isn't at all surprising that people will begin to accept what they are told.

Give your mate a slap for me -- the COS's beef isn't with psychology, but psychiatry. I mean it's bad enough swallowing a truckload of shite about some topic, but you really have to wonder when the average punter can't even remember what the topic is.

<buries head in hands>

Point made. With knobs on.

Zillah

KTRIC wrote: »

So do you think its normal to attack someone else's beliefs because they are different to your own ?

I always find it a little amusing and disappointing when people use the word "normal" is this sense. Anyway, yes, I think it perfectly appropriate to challenge each other's beliefs, its a sign of a healthy society.

You're attacking us now. If I said we were bashing Scientology because God told us to does that mean you'd back off?