Moscow court bans Hubbard’s Scientology works as extremist

Seaneh

RichieC wrote: »

http://www.rt.com/news/court-ban-scientology-extremist/

leave the dianetics books on the shelves as fiction. which is what they are.

It's a dangerous and blood sucking cult that ruins lives.

It's Dianetics that allows them to be dangerous, blood sucking feckers though, Dianetics is basically psychological torture, it's extremely effective at make people dependant on an organisation and a process.

It is used to find "flaws" in the persons personality and life and to poke and prod those flaws until the person breaks.

Dianetics is the practice of the church.
Dianetics is a form of unlicensed psychotherapeutic practice which uses a crude lie detector (an e-meter) to know when a person is trying to hide a "flaw" or lie form the person giving the "therapy" (or auditing).

Seaneh

seamus wrote: »

It's as religiousy valid as any other. If you're going to ban it, there's no good reason not to ban every other religious text.

Absolute bull****.

Temptamperu

Seaneh wrote: »

Absolute bull****.

How is it bull****? most religions are based on books written by man for man. There is none written by a deity and handed down.

Biggins

Seaneh wrote: »

It's Dianetics that allows them to be dangerous, blood sucking feckers though, Dianetics is basically psychological torture, it's extremely effective at make people dependant on an organisation and a process.

It is used to find "flaws" in the persons personality and life and to poke and prod those flaws until the person breaks.

Dianetics is the practice of the church.
Dianetics is a form of unlicensed psychotherapeutic practice which uses a crude lie detector (an e-meter) to know when a person is trying to hide a "flaw" or lie form the person giving the "therapy" (or auditing).

Just to be clear though - and I agree with you as regards some possible dangers of Dianetics (but thats also separately debatable)...
As you say "Dianetics is the practice of the church."
100% correct.
There is a distinction however that a GOOD or better church could also use good or bad practises.
Its an important point.

One (others) can argue that Dianetics can be used for good, through the practise of a good organisation - unlike the Scientology cult which is currently using Dianetics as an additional tool in order to control and profit from.

I just want to be sure that others see the distinction.
Hope I am making sense in what I'm trying to say.

Seaneh

Temptamperu wrote: »

How is it bull****? most religions are based on books written by man for man. There is none written by a deity and handed down.

Because most religions weren't formed by a sciencefiction writer who was practicing an unlicensed form of psychotherapy in southern california who, to prevent his practice being shut down by the state and federal government, invented an organisational structure which he borrowed from traditional christian churches (origianally "auditors" were called misisters and priests, with bishops above them), call it a religion and then invent a back story to invent the religion.

Most religions don't make people sign 1billion year contracts.
Most religions don't kidnap people who try to run away and lock them in room for weeks at a time untill they die of a mixture of dyhyradtion, starvation and bloodloss from flea bites!

Scientology is not a religion, it is a business.

seamus

Seaneh wrote: »

Most religions don't make people sign 1billion year contracts.

No, they do away with contracts altogether and just claim ownership from birth until the end of time.

Most religions don't kidnap people who try to run away and lock them in room for weeks at a time untill they die of a mixture of dyhyradtion, starvation and bloodloss from flea bites!

They sure don't. Most religions don't go to such lengths, they just murder them by stoning or banish them instead.

Scientology is not a religion, it is a business.

All of the major religions are just businesses. If they didn't have money coming in, they'd be dead. In every single organised religion you have a core group of people at the top with a lot of power whose only motivation is maintenance of that power, and nothing to do with any beliefs.

Seaneh

Biggins wrote: »

Just to be clear though - and I agree with you as regards some possible dangers of Dianetics (but thats also separately debatable)...
As you say "Dianetics is the practice of the church."
100% correct.
There is a distinction however that a GOOD or better church could also use good or bad practises.
Its an important point.

One (others) can argue that Dianetics can be used for good, through the practise of a good organisation - unlike the Scientology cult which is currently using Dianetics as an additional tool in order to control and profit from.

I just want to be sure that others see the distinction.
Hope I am making sense in what I'm trying to say.

I honestly don't think it can be argued that a dangerous form of unlicensed psychotherapy practiced by people whit no psychological or conseling qualifications, which makes people confess all of their deepest, darkest secrets and exploits that, on top of emotional flaws, to make the person completely dependant upon others and the "therapy" for selfworth and love, could ever be used for good.

RichieC

So pissed my thread didn't attract a creep apologist... Mod, have her shut

seamus

Seaneh wrote: »

I honestly don't think it can be argued that a dangerous form of unlicensed psychotherapy practiced by people whit no psychological or conseling qualifications, which makes people confess all of their deepest, darkest secrets and exploits that, on top of emotional flaws, to make the person completely dependant upon others and the "therapy" for selfworth and love, could ever be used for good.

Yep, that's christianity for you.

(Not getting at you Seaneh, I just find it funny that you're accusing Scientology of exactly the same things that most religions do. No qualifications as therapists/counsellors - check. Make you confess secrets - check. Make you base your self-worth on outside influences - check)

Seaneh

seamus wrote: »

No, they do away with contracts altogether and just claim ownership from birth until the end of time.

Oh wow, the catholic church doesn't let you leave (which in itself is bull****, the second you stop believing, you aren't christian anymore, who the **** cares if some organisation still claims you as a member)...


Do they force you to go to church, give them money, do they force you to cut yourself off from your family?
Do they make you work for less than €1 a day?
Do they keep you in solotary confinement for months at a time because you tried to leave?


Get some ****ing perspective Seamus, you're a smart lad but at times you, like the rest of us, can say the most retarded things.

Seaneh

seamus wrote: »

Yep, that's christianity for you.

What practice in Christianity is that them Seamus?

Get a ****ing grip.

Benny_Cake

seamus wrote: »

Yep, that's christianity for you.

(Not getting at you Seaneh, I just find it funny that you're accusing Scientology of exactly the same things that most religions do. No qualifications as therapists/counsellors - check. Make you confess secrets - check. Make you base your self-worth on outside influences - check)

There are nearly 2 billion Christians in the world spread across hundreds of denominations and sects - that's a pretty sweeping statement.

Seachmall

Seaneh wrote: »

Oh wow, the catholic church doesn't let you leave (which in itself is bull****, the second you stop believing, you aren't christian anymore, who the **** cares if some organisation still claims you as a member)...


Do they force you to go to church, give them money, do they force you to cut yourself off from your family?
Do they make you work for less than €1 a day?
Do they keep you in solotary confinement for months at a time because you tried to leave?


Get some ****ing perspective Seamus, you're a smart lad but at times you, like the rest of us, can say the most retarded things.

Not all Scientologists are living in compounds where their every move is recorded and any act of disobedience is severely punished.

Some "choose" (read: manipulated) that life but many others don't. It's the devout ones, or the more emotionally desperate, ones that move to Scientology compounds where they're are forced to work for little, are cut off from their family, and are kept in solitary confinement as punishment.


Does it happen in other religions? Yes, to an extent.

seamus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There are nearly 2 billion Christians in the world spread across hundreds of denominations and sects - that's a pretty sweeping statement.

Yeah it is.

Religion as an idea doesn't propagate by saying, "Do whatever you like and everything will be grand". The very basis of the idea is the promotion of one "true" path, the admonmishment of anyone who doesn't follow that path and discouraging people from leaving the path once it's been stepped upon.

The specifics are irrelevant really. There is nothing that Scientology can be accused of, which most of the major religions - Christianity & Islam in particular - have not engaged in, or do not currently engage in.

They are not doing anything unique to scientology. The end game is maintaining the control of wealth and power in the hands of a few individuals through psychological control of a large mass of individuals by promising answers which they cannot possibly deliver. How they go about it is irrelevant.

Biggins

Seaneh wrote: »

I honestly don't think it can be argued that a dangerous form of unlicensed psychotherapy practiced by people whit no psychological or conseling qualifications, which makes people confess all of their deepest, darkest secrets and exploits that, on top of emotional flaws, to make the person completely dependant upon others and the "therapy" for selfworth and love, could ever be used for good.

It could be argued (not by myself) that some of the ideas behind Dianetics, might given the circumstances and with a professional, be of some use to someone.
No argument over "...people with no psychological or conseling qualifications" etc.

Benny_Cake

seamus wrote: »

Yeah it is.

Religion as an idea doesn't propagate by saying, "Do whatever you like and everything will be grand". The very basis of the idea is the promotion of one "true" path, the admonmishment of anyone who doesn't follow that path and discouraging people from leaving the path once it's been stepped upon.

"Do whatever you like and everything will be grand" - you are correct that there are few,if any,systems of belief which would agree with that statement. Would an agnostic agree with it? Or an atheist? The evidence around us shows that we can't simply do whatever we like and hope that everything will be ok. Actions have consequences, if someone breaks into my house, everything won't be ok. Christianity for me at it's core is love of God and love of neighbour, that's the way I try to live, I fail at it a lot of the time. As for the rest of the Christian belief system, I choose to interpret in the light of those two commands. I have friends and family who are atheists or agnostics, including my girlfriend. I don't love them any less (and I don't believe God loves them any less either), and I respect them for thinking about the big questions in life and making up their own minds. If I was a Scientologist I would probably be told to dissociate myself from such people,as well as to dissociate myself from the contents of my bank account, not that there is a lot in it. I understand that there are a lot of people who have been hurt and damaged by religion, but to lump everyone who follows any spiritual path (and I'm not saying that you're doing this Seamus, but there are plenty around here who do) into one big box is simple-minded.

Benny_Cake

Biggins wrote: »

It could be argued (not by myself) that some of the ideas behind Dianetics, might given the circumstances and with a professional, be of some use to someone.
No argument over "...people with no psychological or conseling qualifications" etc.

What is particularly sinister though is the way in which Scientology demonises - and I really mean demonises, the psychiatric profession. It can be helpful to some people to go and speak to a spiritual advisor and so on, but that advisor should encourage the person to speak to a qualified counsellor or psychiatrist if they feel the person needs to.

Biggins

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What is particularly sinister though is the way in which Scientology demonises - and I really mean demonises, the psychiatric profession. It can be helpful to some people to go and speak to a spiritual advisor and so on, but that advisor should encourage the person to speak to a qualified counsellor or psychiatrist if they feel the person needs to.

O' indeed.
They state it bad - yet they in their unprofessional ways themselves, plays with things of the mind too!

So its ok for them but not for others? Hypocritical if nothing else?

paddyandy

They possess you almost totally like the church was in the past but Scientology ...i was with years ago and i got to know them in saint hill .They are a creepy lot too like our old type clergy here.There was simply no discussion of any sort and that's an extremely bad sign .The SCIENTOLOGISTS however do nothing that other religions (not all) don't do themselves .For Speed in any movement dissent has to be carefully controlled That's common sense .

Run_to_da_hills

With the move over to digital online books it will be a lot easier for governments to monitor and ban literature being sold over the internet and track down those that are dealing in them.

goose2005

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In Ireland the religious run the schools because no one else put money into setting up schools.

Teachers' salaries were paid by the exchequer; where a school belongs to the church, chances are it was built by a collection from all the local community and has had millions in state funding put into it. The only reason we don't have secular state schools is because of politicking by the clergy in the 19th and 20th centuries. Nothing to do with any 'generosity' by the churches.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Given that you have now rejected the beliefs that were "drilled into you" at school, surely it indicates that the school was unsuccessful? And surely the blame, if any, for sending you to such a school would lie with your parents. Ultimately, you, as an adult, have made the decision to reject those beliefs, and I'm sure that you haven't faced harassment or anything goes like that. Those who get sucked into Scientology wouldn't be able to say the same.

I wonder would you say the same if you had to send your child to the Workers' Revolutionary School, every room having portraits of Marx and Lenin on the wall, children singing the Internationale in music lessons, drawing 'socialist realism' in art classes, spending half an hour every day on communist doctrine, and months of lessons given over to the children's induction ceremony into the party. Shur we were always traditionally a communist state, and didn't the Communist Party build all the schools and hospitals (when they controlled the entire country)? Even if barely a third of parents are communist nowadays.

What is particularly sinister though is the way in which Scientology demonises - and I really mean demonises, the psychiatric profession. It can be helpful to some people to go and speak to a spiritual advisor and so on, but that advisor should encourage the person to speak to a qualified counsellor or psychiatrist if they feel the person needs to.

The Irish state pisses away a fortune on 'chaplains', which is part of the reason we don't have proper school counselling.

Capt'n Midnight

JohnMarston wrote: »

Tbh i have no idea how they have credibility in the first place, even to be labelled as 'extremist'
Its credibility is on par with the Jedi religion

IMHO it's more like the Sith

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

Yep, that's christianity for you.

"God Ted, I've heard about those cults. Everyone dressing in black and saying our Lord's going to come back and judge us all."

Capt'n Midnight

goose2005 wrote: »

Teachers' salaries were paid by the exchequer; where a school belongs to the church, chances are it was built by a collection from all the local community and has had millions in state funding put into it.

It's cheaper for the state in the short term as they don't have to pay to build schools

it's more expensive in the long run as the cost of prefabs AND a school have to come out of the economy somewhere


but it's cheaper in the short term so guess what happens...

Cork24

Will we follow next with a ban on them didn't Germany place a ban as they see them as cults

pedrofcuk

Has anyone seen any Scientologist/Dianetics activity in or around Dublin recently? They are holding an international week-long bookathon (22-29 November, 2012) and as they are not selling too many in Abbey Street I can only surmise they must be elsewhere. Please report any sightings so I can go troll them.

LivelineDipso

Good news, this law will save a lot of lives in Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E

LivelineDipso

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I remember reading in a report once that the "church" hired private investigators to dig around in the personal lives of IRS officials - they are an extremely nasty bunch.

All these UFO cults do this, even the small ones.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

http://www.rt.com/news/court-ban-scientology-extremist/

What ye make of this? I personally would just ban the "churches" operations. and leave the dianetics books on the shelves as fiction. which is what they are.

It's a dangerous and blood sucking cult that ruins lives.

I wouldn't ban Scientology. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and although I disagree with Scientology I'd happily extend the same freedom to them.

Capt'n Midnight

philologos wrote: »

I wouldn't ban Scientology. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and although I disagree with Scientology I'd happily extend the same freedom to them.

What has Freedom got to do with Scientology ?

It's not free when you have to pay €'s to get to the next level.

It's not free when their lawyers will sue you instantly

It's not free when their texts are kept secret by copyright law

It's not free when they charge so much for E-meters (Original patent expired)

Then there is the whole question of it being a religion
- it failed to get charity status, and that was before the 2009 act which closed some more loopholes

philologos

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What has Freedom got to do with Scientology ?

It's not free when you have to pay €'s to get to the next level.

It's not free when their lawyers will sue you instantly

It's not free when their texts are kept secret by copyright law

It's not free when they charge so much for E-meters (Original patent expired)

Then there is the whole question of it being a religion
- it failed to get charity status, and that was before the 2009 act which closed some more loopholes

I don't think any faith that makes a profit (gives a stake to stakeholders, or charges compulsory fees) should be tax-exempt.

I think all non-profit activities, even if they are a tiddlywinks club should be tax-exempt. There is no profit being made so it is ludicrous to suggest that they should be taxed.

That said, I still support the right of Scientologists to practice Scientology. Banning it is draconian, and would only drive it underground.

If we are going to ban specific religions we need to be consistent. I can't support it because if I did, it would start a precedent of people claiming that the religion of other people should be banned. That has no place in a pluralist society.

pedrofcuk

philologos wrote: »

I wouldn't ban Scientology. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and although I disagree with Scientology I'd happily extend the same freedom to them.

I agree with you but for one fundamental fact and that is, Scientology is NOT a religion. It morphed from self-help phenomenon to "religion" simply to avoid taxes and that lie has been perpetrated ever since.

In the 1954 edition of Creation of Human Ability, by L. Ron Hubbard, he states on page 254, "that Scientology is neither a psycho-therapy nor a religion."

They can believe what they like, even that it is a "religion" if it makes them feel any better but they cannot behave how they like and the abuse and fraud of Scientology is what has to stop.

Capt'n Midnight

philologos wrote: »

That said, I still support the right of Scientologists to practice Scientology. Banning it is draconian, and would only drive it underground.

If we are going to ban specific religions we need to be consistent. I can't support it because if I did, it would start a precedent of people claiming that the religion of other people should be banned. That has no place in a pluralist society.

There is a difference between a religion and a pyramid scheme.

There is a difference between a religion and a cult.

There is a difference between a religion and an organisation claiming to be a religion.



Remember Jim Jones ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Ten_Commandments_of_God

Ush1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is a difference between a religion and a pyramid scheme.

There is a difference between a religion and a cult.

There is a difference between a religion and an organisation claiming to be a religion.



Remember Jim Jones ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Ten_Commandments_of_God

What's the difference?

Seaneh

Never mind, had that rant already.

/edit.

philologos

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is a difference between a religion and a pyramid scheme.

There is a difference between a religion and a cult.

There is a difference between a religion and an organisation claiming to be a religion.

Remember Jim Jones ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Ten_Commandments_of_God

I think people should be allowed to claim that something is a cult when they feel it is, but I don't think the law should ban people from observing whatever they please.

Nodin

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What has Freedom got to do with Scientology ?

It's not free when you have to pay €'s to get to the next level.

It's not free when their lawyers will sue you instantly

It's not free when their texts are kept secret by copyright law

It's not free when they charge so much for E-meters (Original patent expired)

Then there is the whole question of it being a religion
- it failed to get charity status, and that was before the 2009 act which closed some more loopholes

Keeping it from being a charity = good.

Banning the poxy thing = bad, for a number of reasons, one of which being that it would give it a certain cachet.

Latchy

Scientology is so 1970s ( and even long before that ) and has only added to the sale of Migraine pills in the millions since ...not to mention the huge bills for post psychiatric care .

strobe

pedrofcuk wrote: »

I agree with you but for one fundamental fact and that is, Scientology is NOT a religion. It morphed from self-help phenomenon to "religion" simply to avoid taxes and that lie has been perpetrated ever since.

In the 1954 edition of Creation of Human Ability, by L. Ron Hubbard, he states on page 254, "that Scientology is neither a psycho-therapy nor a religion."

They can believe what they like, even that it is a "religion" if it makes them feel any better but they cannot behave how they like and the abuse and fraud of Scientology is what has to stop.

You say tomato...

GalwayGuy2

Hmm, could be used as an excuse to ban anything that comes under the law's definition of a "Cult".

Run_to_da_hills

philologos wrote: »

I think people should be allowed to claim that something is a cult when they feel it is, but I don't think the law should ban people from observing whatever they please.

I was approached by this same crowd on Tottinham Court Road London in the 80's, I was brought into a room and carried out an exhaustive questionnaire or aptitude test after of which I was recommended I should purchase this that and what ever. I told them politely to fcuk off. Total scam of the highest order and Good move by the Moscow Court.