From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:29:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.005128.23076@lds-az.loral.com>
jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>In article <1992Nov20.072527.6542@u.washington.edu>
mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes: 
>>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
[...]
>>It's my understanding that people who have presented evidence against
>>Scientology have been taken to court in an attempt to stop them.  Do you
>>feel this would have been acceptable behavior if the positions were
>>reversed--should psychiatrists sue Scientology or Scientologists to
>>stop them from criticizing psychiatry?
>
>I'm not positive, but I think there are law suits going on between
>Scientologists and psychiatry.

Jon - the question is not whether this is happening.  The question is,
_should_ psychiatrists use the same technique Scn does, ie sue to
silence the opposition?  And while we're on the topic, how do you feel
about Scn's use of 'harrassment lawsuits'?

[...]
>>I was lucky; not all pagans have it so easy.  I do appreciate the kind
>>of problems you get when your family doesn't approve.  But I don't see
>>how ISE addresses those problems.  Suppose my family had been critical
>>of my decision.  Would attempting to silence them have helped me?  I
>>think it would have convinced them that something was really wrong.
>
>There is a lot of data available on handling PTS'ness.  Silencing them
>is not the proper handling.  Doing things like you did (discussing it, etc.)
>is described in detail.

Guess I missed something here...please define "PTS'ness".

[...]
>>The occultist Isaac Bonewits made a list of 14 danger signs to consider
>>when joining an organization.  Scientology, according to what I've read
>>in its own publications, rings several of those warning bells:  attempt
>>to control communication, intolerance of criticism, lack of humor,
>>obsession with money, emphasis on the leader, claims of infallibility.
>
>Obsession with money?  The money is needed for organization survival.
>The obsession is with survival if anything.

Do you believe Scn as a whole needs more money?  Does most of the
money taken in go towards upkeep and 'organization survival', or does
it head Up & Up until it disappears?  Maybe we should start a new
thread, and try to estimate the Church's financial situation.  Make
some assumptions, plug in some figures, see what turns up.  Maybe my
hunch is wrong, but I think the Church takes in _far_ more than is
needed to keep it afloat.  Let's play with some numbers, & see.

>Leader?  Yes.  True not only for the founder but for any leader.

Yes, but Scn's allegiance to its Founder and Source is fanatical.  You
can't turn around in an Org without bumping into his ugly mug.

>Infallibility?  There have been a lot of changes in Scn tech since 1952.

Have there been any changes since Ron died?  Is the Tech now complete?
Can the Tech be added to?  If the answer is 'no', please explain how
this is different from being infallible.  BTW, this also speaks to the
previous point, fanatical allegiance to the founder.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology