In the most recent edition of its ‘Freedom’ magazine, Scientology may demonstrate why the people of France and their institutions constitute one of the few remaining bastions of resistance against abuses of the cult. Freedom’s article entitled ‘Get Religion?’ is at first blush a level-headed plea for ‘freedom of religion.’ Clearly it is scientology’s latest effort to hide behind the cloak of religion in response to unprecedented media coverage of its abuses. In that regard, Freedom espouses a number of ‘religious freedom’ arguments that are the epitome of hypocrisy. They rail against censorship and alleged attacks upon conscience while carrying on operations as perhaps the most censorious and violent usurper of expressions of religion and conscience. Its aims to dominate and silence opposition are so strong that even within its best efforts to convince the world it is reasonable, scientology cannot restrain nor well-disguise its overriding intentions. Scientology’s stripes appear loud and clear to the attentive reader in the following Freedom passage on the recent, highly publicized terror attack on and murder of French journalists and artists:
“The editors at Charlie Hebdo appeared to go to great lengths to antagonize extremists and some might even say provoke the deadly terrorist response with its publishing of sacrilegious depictions of the Prophet Muhammad they knew to be deeply offensive to Muslims. Is the freedom to publish also the freedom not to publish?”
‘Some might even say’ is textbook scientology code for ‘everybody knows’; a generalization technique deftly developed by its founder L. Ron Hubbard to mean ‘we say, but the hell if we are going to take responsibility for saying it.’
Scientology is notorious for its take-no-prisoners retribution apparatus. The stories and testimonials about its vicious attacks on whistleblowing former members and the media who interview and publish their testimony are legion. Perhaps then it should be no surprise that they would be in the vanguard of defending fundamentalist terrorism and murder particularly when it is ‘justified’ by media coverage that some might even say would provoke as much.
Scientology’s final word on the Charlie Hebdo murders is this:
“The fury aimed at the Muslim community speaks to a disturbing level of bigotry and outright discrimination.”
Interesting. Bigotry and outright discrimination against the ‘scientology community’ is precisely what Scientology accuses French law enforcement officials and media of when it comes to scientologists. Yet, there are no scientology ghettos in France. There are no scientologists arrested for crimes committed by others because of the way the scientologist looks or even acts. There is freedom of economic opportunity for scientologists in France. The millions Scientology continually rakes in and funnels overseas is testimony to that. Scientology has even giddily published evidence that it has unbridled access to the highest levels of French government (photo of Tom Cruise schmoozing with former President Sarkozy).
Scientology has no respect or affinity for the Muslim community in France or anywhere else. At the same time Scientology espouses a mighty fury aimed at France. Could that be because France apparently is one of the few republics remaining that has not been cowed and censored by Scientology?
Moving On Up a Little Higher 
Very well said Marty. Scientology has no affinity for anyone who does not sing its praises from every mountain top. Scientology is the only religion that I know of that, when questioned on even the tiniest level, turns into a raging psychopath that would make Glenn Close’s character from “Fatal Attraction” blush.
Never in my life have I seen such outright lies and grotesque distortion of facts from any group in an attempt to bolster their own standing. Most times when people are attacked they find the chink in the attackers armor and go for that. That is a technique that you learn in 11th grade debate class, you don’t have to be right or tell the truth you just have to make the other person seem untrustworthy.
But what is happening to Scientology now, is the more they rail against anyone who speaks out, the slimier and more loathsome they appear. And the more people in the public move away from the “Scientology is just as weird as every other religion, that’s why it gets attacked and I don’t really care” argument to the “Whoa nelly. Scientology is batshit crazy and I can’t WAIT to find out the secrets of their crazy and discuss it over coffee.”
They are single handedly fueling the firestorm for Going Clear and it is BRILLIANT!
I read the statement by the Church of Scientology in its Freedom spokesrag to mean:
“We wholeheartedly endorse the murder of caricaturists who dare question or mock religion, and do not in any way consider such murder to be bigoted. In fact, we firmly consider it our religious right. You have been warned.”
It is also sleezy, as they are attempting to get innocent bystanders to agree that murder is 1) a solution, and b) a good solution.
Yuck.
Oh, and if anyone thought the positioning of Going Clear along with a movie about campus rape at Sundance was bad, the Church of Scientology can do better:
They are aligning themselves wil al-Qaida and IS. Perhaps it is fitting.
France is unique among all the countries which experienced the Holocaust. France was the only defeated Allied country whose government actively assisted the Nazis.
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/hol/holc-fra.html
(See bottom of my post for DM story)
Scientology is an image machine. Falsehoods ARE the foundation of it’s existence. They always have been.
The teacher of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard was a liar. This is not anti scientology rhetoric. This is now historical evidence: fact
Since L Ron Hubbard was a liar, David Miscavige, Ron’s student, being of low intellectual capacity and no moral rudder, is simply following the imprinted course material and writings of Ron on how to keep power.
Threats, lies, slander and deception are the methods.
Ron tried to garner world approval by lying about his history.
Ron tried to associate himself with other religions when he thought it expedient to his purposes of world take over.
David Miscavige is simply following the blueprint of lies and deception that his mentor initiated him in.
BTW, I was talking to a friend from my Scientology days that I haven’t seen in a long time. This is what he told me:
“In March of 1982 I was in La Villa Taxco, A Mexican restaurant on Sunset Blvd in LA. I was eating there with my girl friend and in comes David Miscavige in his minions. All dressed in Sea Org outfit.
I was trying not to listen in to their conversation as they were sitting close to our table. But I did hear them speak.
This is what he ALLEGED Miscavige said:
” WE CAN DO THIS, WHEN THE OLD MAN DROPS HIS BODY WE ARE GOING TO CLEAN UP”
It was after hearing this that my friend decided to leave Scientology. He was a loyal Scientologist up to that point.
Jesus Christ, Mark, do you agree with the offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
LRH wrote and said NOT TO USE generalities. You are twisting the facts, Mister.
Much of the world says that these cartoons were way over the top, Jane.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11344377/Insulting-and-provocative-how-the-world-reacted-to-Charlie-Hebdos-Prophet-Mohammed-cover.html
Just this week I made a friendly call to Jo’burg Org to enquire after the repayment of some two hundred thousand Rands held on my account in advance payments for services not delivered.
My call was put through to the ED Albert de Beer, (a long lost friend I thought, who acted as Reg at the time most of this money was extracted from me on various cycles of urgencies and emergencies. I greeted him like a long lost friend, and he replied: ‘But are you not declared as a suppressive person’? I replied that I know nothing about that – as I got no notification to this effect, and according to Scientology teachings, ‘if it is not written it is not true’ and that I was thus supposed to get notification on ‘a yellow piece of paper’ to this effect.
I asked him how and when and why I was declared, or if this sort of thing is just done by rumour. This angered him somewhat as he snapped back ‘you are a suppressive person and you get nothing. Speak to OSA.’ But, before I could ask to be put through to OSA he slammed the phone down…..
Undaunted I phoned back, this time from a cell phone as I thought they might have caller ID, and I asked my grandson to ask to be put through to OSA – as I gathered that the receptionist might also have gained ‘voice recognition’ of just-spoken-to-suppressive persons. After identifying himself and asking to be put through to OSA he was informed that he was going through, and handed the phone to me.
I was surprised to hear Albert answering the phone again, and when I asked to be put through to OSA – he said ‘Jane stop phoning here – you are a suppressive person’ and slammed the phone down again. Irony – there is only one telephone number to contact the entire organisation…. If there are other numbers these are kept highly confidential. Not a win-win situation.
So much for ‘communication is the universal solvent…. ‘Suppressive person’ LOL! 🙂
Excellent article Marty. The Chalie Hebdo cartoonists used to make fun of any body whether left or right wing, men or women, Catholics, Jews, Muslims. It was;t always my cup of tea, but it was satire and provocation at all levels. The cult of greed doesn’t like jokes and It tries so hard to prove it is a religion because as a business it sells overpriced products that it cannot provide. The religious card is a good idea in the US, It doesn’t work that well here in France but they tried hard because in the last legal case they lost at all levels and were definitely condemned for FRAUD.
“Ah yes” retorts the Scientologist – “but look at all the GOOD WORKS being done – drug lectures in schools, rehabilitating criminals and so on”. Case in point: a Scientologist very recently tried to drum up donations on my local Streetlife page under the heading “Sussex man does sponsored walk for drug education” https://www.streetlife.com/conversation/32402qon0mz2a/ No mention of Scientology or Narconon, although the clues were there if you knew what to look for, even down to a blog posting from “the adventurer Grant Cardone”.
Now I’m pretty familiar with the “Truth About Drugs” talks as I’ve delivered them myself. And some of the common-sense biology material in them is reasonable. The problem is that, as with all the front groups, it’s intended as a first step down the rabbit hole that would eventually lead them into Orgs, or worse, Narconon facilities. And whether Steve or Pete Dwan is aware of it or not, the SOLE purpose of these talks to introduce kids to Hubbard’s “tech” and create PR for Narconon and Scientology. That’s straight from the horses mouth, ED ABLE UK. (Not to mention it’s right there on the ABLE Org Board). You MUST credit LRH at the beginning of each talk (even though all the good stuff in the talks isn’t LRH at all, it’s common sense and basic human biology). Duplicitous and deceptive. But, anyone pointing this out is a “bigot”. Vive La France!
Hi OSA,
“Much of the World” does not say that. Only religious extremists and totalitarian governments like the Church of Scientology say that.
“Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, called for respect in the aftermath of the Prophet Mohammed Charlie Hebdo front cover.
“We believe that sanctities need to be respected and unless we learn to respect one another it will be very difficult in a world of different views and different cultures and civilizations,” Mr Zarif said.
I criticise the French Republic’s militant secularism when it means persecuting Muslim populations (thus building support for terrorist scum like the Charlie Hebdo attackers); but I must say it also means they don’t fall for Co$ bullshit for a moment, which is a plus.
Nonsense. Every occupied country had a puppet government. Where do you think the word Quisling comes from?
Dunno about Mark; the cartoons were disgusting racism, but that doesn’t mean the cartoonists deserved having their heads blown off. No to Muslim baiting and no to “revenge” terrorism, the two are not incompatible.
Most French people are much too opinionated and common sense oriented to care for Scientology or fall for their veiled approval of murder.
Their sense of humor can be brutal and they do not shy away from whatever form of expression they choose.
Shame on the Church for their stand on this horrific event, but why should we be surprised , they have no sense of humor but for the one created in their bubble, insipide and boring , no finesse , no intellectual integrity .They are just using these murders to forward their agenda. So transparent , it’s not funny.
Charlie hebdo is brutal but it maintained this balance that allows people to take a few steps back and inspect with a grain of salt.
Freedom of expression will live. Artists are still the ones able to change things for the better or at least bring joy and laughter in an otherwise serious , serious world.
Kati Osatorium, I would say it looks like France has learned its lessons.
Maybe France can teach the IRS. The IRS still supports an organization as a charitable organization whose only charity is directed at itself and is sucking reources from society without any benefitting anybody other then themselves.
By pointing out irrelevant history (forgetting Poland and other countries) you overlook the issue in present time. And that issue is the criminal behavior of an Orgnization called CO$. That is what is creating the criticism, not the religious cloak they use to hide their crimes.
They can believe one can blow BT’s everytime they takes a real good shit and call it religious if they want. But when they defraud people of large sums of money for this nonsense, ruin people, lie and deceive and destroy families so they can continue their monetary fraud, that is where it stops with France and should stop here in the US with the IRS.
Any religion which has a belief system which causes its churches and parishioners to destroy peoples’ families through disconnection, which charges tens of thousands of dollars for their services – even coercing people to declare bankruptcy for those services, which enslaves people in billion year indentured servitude contracts, and which has abusive teachings which command its parishioners to “trick, lie to, and destroy” people DESERVES every bit of questioning, scorn, and outright ridicule it receives.
Why should religions which have this kind of power to destroy other peoples’ lives through the abuse of religious power not be questioned, and their actions exposed, and even ridiculed?
I suppose the Church of Scientology would say that governments who abuse their powers should also not be questioned, exposed or criticized?
Why should religious beliefs be held exempt from scrutiny and criticism? Especially when they harm people?
The answer is THEY SHOULD NOT. Religious beliefs with the power to harm MUST be scrutinized, and when they do harm, those religions MUST be held to account.
Criminal organizations masquerading as religions like the Church of Scientology must be exposed, their members’ crimes prosecuted, and held up to the whole world so everyone can be warned about them. To advocate anything else is to return society back to the religious abuse that was rampant in the Dark Ages.
And we are not going back there – no matter what L Ron Hubbard taught.
Alanzo
Je Suis Jenna Miscavige
Reading the ‘Freedom’, scientology’s public relations and propaganda magazine might be in itself a maddening experience. You might risk insanity. Almost every sentence contains a lie. Common sense, truth, reality are being twisted to such an extent, that you risk getting migraine just from reading it. If there is one organization that is misusing freedom of speech it is the scientology cult. Their hypocricy knows no boundaries. And they dare to criticize the murdered journalists?! They asked for it?!
They think readers don’t get what is going on here? If there are any readers at all. Most scientologists don’t even read it. Even they don’t understand the cryptic language. And those outside scientology don’t read it at all, or very few people maybe. It’s a waste of paper and ink. But it looks good to the whales of course, who are easily fooled.
No, give me Charlie Hebdo at all times! I hope they’ll point their arrows on scientology one of these days and show the world what this cult really is. With cartoons, with humor. Which is more ‘killing’ and truthful than all the Freedom magazines together.
I say: Scientology asked for it, when the judge passes his final verdict. It cannot come too soon.
I agree with offensive David Miscavige cartoons…..
“Common sense biology” of LRH also included ‘smoking prevents cancer’, so I would be careful when agreeing with LRH on items that can be fact checked.
Other gems:
Space is warm;
Large doses of niacin are good for you;
Dianetics can cure leukemia;
But hey, don’t let the facts get in between the Co$ and your wallet.
PS…to Martin…..when I say “you” I was not referring to you personally!
Interestingly, Charlie Hebdo also had scn in its sights on numerous occasions, as reported by Tony Ortega (scroll down as it’s not the lead item):
http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/07/the-new-scientology-ad-running-on-tv-and-maybe-for-the-super-bowl/
But beyond that, I find that there appear to be quite a few other parallels between Islam and scn.
For example, both rely on a single “Source.” In both cases, that source was not particularly qualified to speak on what they did, yet they proclaimed to have the answers on just about everything. Even though neither can be corroborated very well, you just have to believe “source.” It’s his way or the highway.
Both “faiths” were spread using a military/paramilitary organization. They had/have no qualms overrunning or subverting a society and its institutions. Both consider nothing less than world dominance acceptable.
Both order religious observances in quite minute detail. Adherents are not so much encouraged to think for themselves and let their enthusiasm for their faith take its course but are ordered to perform these observances.
Both “religions” proclaim that their founder/source is a mere man. Yet the adherence to those respective sources is quite fanatical. The lives of both founders have been questioned, as that should not be a problem with a mere man. Yet the consequences–threatened as well as implemented–to those doing the questioning are draconic.
Neither source was particularly original. They both cribbed from and liberally appropriated the thoughts of others. In both cases, there is significant evidence that they were severely out of their depth. Yet the finished result–which they claimed as theirs alone–rejected those that had come before them and had those thoughts in the first place. They are denounced as infidels, wog’s, psychs and demonized.
Both represented, and to different degrees still represent cults of personality.
Both are wedded to a specific place of culture and time. Neither one has a very easy time, or even desire, to move on from there. They’re stuck in time and place. Modernization or cultural adaption equals heresy. If they are forced to live in another culture (such as present-day Europe or America), they are more apt to create a subculture governed by their own view than appreciate the world around them for what it is.
Both distinguish themselves to those watching from the outside by extreme rigidity. Neither one has much love for modern democracy and its institutions when they get in their way.
Not to overdo my points, I realize that there are significant differences between many Muslims living in America as opposed to Middle Eastern Muslim countries, not to mention “cultural Muslims” in either place. Nor am I claiming that there aren’t features in other religions that wouldn’t be open to comparison as well. Still, I can’t help but notice these interesting parallels…
France has a long history of satire. Moliere , in the 17th Century, through the comedy of his plays left no French institution untouched. Even satirical cartooning pre-dates Charlie Hebdo. if an institution can’t withstand an assault of satire, which is, in effect criticism, no matter how pointed or brutal, then what is it worth? The sharper the criticism, the more the layers can be peeled away for view. Fallibilty, lies, abuse, insanity, hypocrisy, nonsense and brutality can be uncovered. And one has the option not to read the play or criticism, or look at the cartoons. It seems to me the more violent the response, the deeper the truth of what has been satirized. Which could be the reason why Scientologists and Scientology are so fearful of humorous criticism, that they have rules against it.
You just gave an example of the many discrepancies of Hubbard’s doctrines. He was making ample use of generalities himself! It seemed to be okay when he did it, but it was an “attribute of an antisocial personality” when somebody else did it. Go figure! Only arrogance or hypocrisy (or both)?
Even having been hooked on the Kool-Aid, I realized this at the time.
When will see cartoons on Scientology? I am sure there is plenty of material for it.
The journey is often more memorable, and more remarkable than the destination. I found this article one of the more fascinating of modern date and well researched regarding the history of Islam, and a timely sentiment.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
I can’t answer for Mark, but I would ask you this, VIP. Do you agree with murdering an office full of people because of offensive “cartoons”?
Interesting parallels!
Islam is also the only religion besides Scientology that puts stress on Social and anti-social personalities. Non-believers (those who subscribed to eastern religions) are looked upon in Islam as anti-social.
Please see,
QUR’AN: THE COW
.
Vinaire, Charlie Hebdo did have a cover at some point.
Regraded being on Mike Rinder is cool too.
DM,
When this has fully unraveled, you will become the textbook example of a sociopath’s influence on society.
Todd,
Great comment.
“For example, both rely on a single “Source.” In both cases, that source was not particularly qualified to speak on what they did, yet they proclaimed to have the answers on just about everything.”
I would like to ad that perhaps the ingrained violence and warfare against the non-believers characteristic of both religions has to do with the fact that their “Sources” are impeachable and highly suspect at best.
Mohammed’s scripture, The Quran, is believed to have been dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel through a series of revelations.
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
L. Ron Hubbard’s main source Aleister Crowley, created his Thelema out of a similarly obtained divine revelation.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema
And also Hubbard tried to emulate his spiritual mentor in his ‘THETA BODY ENTITIES’, a lecture and auditing demonstration given on 16 April 1952.
Sci community and the Muslim community both have serious blind spots and harmful intentions which affect numbers of individuals. I would mention others but this is the central point of the discussion. Forcing others to follow and abide by ones thoughts is the basic defect. It is a common and insidious intention. It is deep seeded and widespread. It is NOT natural to a being. But it is CLOSE and learned early.
Just look at the rise of the Nazi movement in Germany. There were hundreds of thousands who were lured by the idea of being in charge and control of their neighborhood, street, community, city, etc. CONTROL. No need to do worthwhile work or production, just decide the fate and lives of others and drink your wine in the evenings. A powerful draw to many.
There are approx. the same percentage of people who would do the same thing under the same circumstances, living in my community now. Yours as well.
Want a more familiar example of the same intention? How many times have you or someone else said, “There otta be a law” concerning some restriction or requirement of individuals. It is easy to say and may sound reasonable. But was it really justified to restrict or require ALL individuals for the purpose of handling some believed out point of a few? It is the very definition of a “Slippery Slope”.
Mark
Hey Scien007,
Did you know that every critic of Scientology is a criminal?
And everyone who blows Scientology is an SP with evil intentions?
Every Psyche is from the planet Farsec?
So let’s see, you said ,”LRH wrote and said NOT TO USE generalities”.
Scientology is not being attacked, per se. Simply, individuals like Marty, Mike and several others sharing different degrees of contributions, are just exposing how the things really are inside Scn. We have heard them and even experienced them, so no need to repeat the crimes and abuses.
The media with internet is powerful; scn remained closed to the world, considering itself – including its leaders and followers supporting sociopaths- as the only ones who could handle the world when, in fact, there has being nothing but scams, rip offs, abuses and innumerable lies to carry on the pretense of ‘we are here to help make a better world’.
Their reaction is common to a beast that finds itself being cornered from all angles by someones that have stood up and said: enough is enough. The beast may growl, pounce its paws, may be even bite here and there, but decent people is, and has been able to see how the beast behaves.
We will continue to expose it, from whatever degree each one can contribute, until the beast leaves and decent people can live their lives as they choose.
well ironically the worthwhile parts of the talk such as the liver functions are either not LRH stuff or actively contradict him. There’s a slimmed down version here http://www.walkthekingdom.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Truth-and-Lies-Booklet1.pdf
JE SUIS CHARLIE
is the best answer to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_suis_Charlie
VIVE LA FRANCE !
What could be more perfect than Scientolgy aligning itself with Islamic jihadist terrorists? No two groups ever thought more alike and then to put Islamic jihadist terrorists in the same category as the millions of upstanding, law abiding, faithful Muslims that inhabit this world. Their total ignorance is showing. But what can you expect from the lunatic fringe? Je suis Charlie!
Um, there was a whole TV show episode cartoon: South Park. Plenty of others as well.
Scientology’s scriptures permit the same level of violence against apostates as do all Abrahamic religions. The reason that we do not see public murder of ex-Scientologists is because the cult is not strong enough nor pervasive enough to get away with it.
Thanks for drawing this to our attention Marty. What is striking about this article is its sheer ineptness: the first two sentences are such a spectacular non-sequitur. And it’s downhill from there, as your other readers have already remarked.
The irony is that Eric Roux, Scientology’s main spokesman France who also does a lot of travelling and campaigning abroad, handled the crisis with great sensitivity.
On the day of the Charlie Hebdo attack he published was an open letter to the magazine on his blog, expressing unconditional solidarity with the victims and offering his condolences. While making no secret of the fact that he had plenty of reasons not to like the magazine, he also made it clear that nothing could justify the attack.
Now he is back to his main activity, developing links with other religions and religious freedom activists, presenting the acceptable face of Scientology — and very good he is at it too. Have a look at his Twitter feed, @eric_roux, and you’ll get an idea of how he goes about his business.
Now he has to contend with another spectacular faux pas from Freedom magazine — the journalistic equivalent of Travolta at the Oscars.
I wish I knew the French for face palm. I expect Roux does.
I am not a fan of Freedom and what it is currently used for, but these _specific_ articles in question are actually fairly balanced. You skipped over/ignored this;
“At the heart of the murders of the French cartoonists working for Charlie Hebdo was the belief of terrorists that their religion entitled them to silence—with bullets—the opinions of nonbelievers.”
Note: The heart of the murders.
The articles are well-written. Rather than try to find something menacing in the articles themselves (the most menacing piece I saw was a call to limit our freedoms for safety reasons), I think it is devastating that here we have such a well-written and balanced article published in a church organ that ALSO has such outrageous articles on you and other critics of the church. It also damning that the very church that calls for religious tolerance in such a (surprisingly) articulate way openly disregards in practice the very factors the article says make religion an overall moral and economic good.
Mark
Thanks. Eric’s actions are no mystery. There was never a disaster that scientology did not fail to attempt to exploit.
I want to see new material. 🙂
Such cartoons basically point out inconsistencies that are obviously outrageous.
“MarkNR: “Forcing others to follow and abide by ones thoughts is the basic defect.”
Well said.
Usually, the scenario is that one feels that one has a solution that will help others. This may be very true. He broadcasts his solution, but people reject it, because the solution is not real to them. He supports his solution by further research, and lets it all play itself out. It may take some time but, ultimately, the truth shakes itself out and gets recognized. That is what happens in science. Galileo was incarcerated by the Catholic Church, the most powerful entity of his time, but his truth prevailed.
Muhammad was in a similar situation in the sixth century. He was convinced that his solutions will help the Arab culture improve. The Arab culture was way behind the Christian culture of his time. He probably had many good ideas but he could not get them recognized broadly. So, Muhammad and his followers forced those ideas down the throat of the Arab society. Not only that, he made the force as part of his “solution.”
Look at the Arab culture today. On the long run Muhammad’s solution has not worked regardless of its correctness, simply because it involves force.
Christianity got into the mode of force also during the Dark Ages. Luckily that mode did not take hold. It was followed by renaissance, and the better aspects of Christianity prevailed. Force is not that deeply a part of the Christian solution, as it is part of the Islamic solution, though Christianity has its blind spots too.
So, what do you do when the other person rejects your solution, even when you are convinced that it is what he needs? The other person has his own solution that is complex and not so efficient. Maybe his solution doesn’t even work and you see him going around in circle. You want to help him. That is a great desire. But the moment you force your solution on him, your own solution gets corrupted.
All one can do is put one’s thoughts out there. No matter how correct one believes those thoughts to be, consequences are going to be bad if those thoughts are forced.
Force is going to be out there when wrong solutions are being used. Force will have to be used to prevent harm, but it should not be used any more, once the harm is prevented.
One has to leave the good solutions to do their work through the peaceful means of education.
.
That is a good response, Brian.
All laws and principles are general. So, the problem is not with using generality when it is a correct within its context. The problem occurs when one uses generality in a wrong way.
Scientologists are brainwashed to think that ALL generality is bad. The irony is that this claim itself is a generality which does not qualify either as a law or as a principle.
Hubbard also had his revelation, I think, on a dentist’s chair during a nitrous oxide incident, when he visited the pearly gates and read the smorgsboard he was not supposed to read.
That knowledge resulted in Excalibur, which was deadly if anybody read it. So Hubbard had to make it more palatable through the writings of Dianetics and Scientology.
Thank you, Conan. Well said.
Hebdo pushed buttons for sure. But does anyone remember the “piss Christ” exhibit on the East coast funded in part by the US National Endowment for the Arts? Christians around the world did not flip out into a babyish tantrum of destruction and threats as some Muslims did.
While Hebdo was responsible for its actions, affected Muslims were responsible for their own inflamed emotions — not Hebdo — and for the cowardly crimes committed in dramatizing their emotions.
Here would be an example of a true scientological response to Hebdo:
“Dear Offended Muslims: Get your TRs in. Look at it as being bull-baited. Start. Flunk: you reacted and committed mayhem again. Start!”
Scientology not only tries to be a religion (not every country recognizes it as such), but it is also quite eager to try to use the cloak of religion to justify crimes it and others commit and then use the “hey, we’re a religion” sleight of hand for protection from accountability for the crimes thus committed.
In a way, Scientology is Radical-Islam-lite, so of course it would stick up for similar bad actions and resort to blaming the victim: in Scientology, anyone who has a problem always pulled it in — except if Scientology itself pulls in a problem it is the other guy’s fault. Heads I win, tails you lose.
If the church really believed that Hebdo pulled in the murders (“provoked” them), then logically the church would be asking itself, “Hmm. I wonder what we did to pull in that HBO film?”
But that would be logical. And inside the bubble of the church, logic only serves one master, and that master is not the truth.
I disagree Mark. I don’t find anything menacing in the piece, but it pisses me off that the issue of freedom of speech, even the freedom to blaspheme, is just brushed aside.
There is an interesting debate to be had about the wisdom of the French state’s hard line in imposing its secular values in the public sphere, about the way the far right in France and others have hijacked the principle of secularism for its own ends. But to pay lip service to the horror of the Charlie Hebdo killings — of course they condemn the killings, how could they do otherwise — while fleeing the free speech debate in favour of platitudes about religious freedom strikes me as opportunistic and cynical.
If it sounds like I’m taking this personally by the way, it’s because I am. As a journalist living in Paris, for me, this was a bit too close to home.
Vin.
This was a wise and utterly sensible post. That it has not been stated often and reffering to many subjects and sayings, is a testament to the generality that “Common sense is not so common”.
Mark
Brilliant, Vin. Excellent.
How do you get your solution to be implemented? Make it broadly available and broadly known, but make it just a little bit hidden, a little bit hard to get a hold of. Make it dear, valuable, desirable.
This is based on the premise that the solution is broadly workable in the first place.
Mark
I don’t know what you disagree with. You have described precisely what I was referring to, scientology’s version of disaster capitalism.
I don’t care about the mystery sandwich. We now have Internet available and people are searching for answers.
Sites like http://www.quora.com/ are simply wonderful for dissemination of knowledge.
.
I should have rather said, “… for exchange of knowledge…” This kind of site is capable of filtering out nonsensical data.
Marty: Scientology’s stripes appear loud and clear to the attentive reader in the following Freedom passage on the recent, highly publicized terror attack on and murder of French journalists and artists:
It seems that the COS is trying to prevent sacrilegious depictions of Prophet Hubbard after the HBO documentary “Going Clear: Scientology And The Prison Of Belief” is released in March.
Whatever one may think about Charlie Hebdo, the purpose of this publication is to highlight outrageous outnesses in the human society. It is just that Charlie Hebdo is not afraid of upsetting sacred cows. In a larger context how much more can you upset Muslim extremists? They are already quite upset and out of control. There is a war raging to contain their excessive brutality. Should one kowtow to these extremists?
Perhaps, COS wants that extremists should not be antagonized, because COS itself fits that category. It is seeing writing on the wall that its intimidation is no longer going to be tolerated. It is just reacting to it.
I am all for pointing out and highlighting the outrageous outnesses in the human society. If it takes provocation to put attention on it then so be it. Enough is enough.
By the way, somebody put a link to a well researched article on ISIS, which made an excellent point that ISIS is simply operating on the policies set by Muhammad in the early phases of Islam. I think that is a spot on observation.
.
The answer to the (rhetorical probably) question you end this essay on Marty is of course “YES”
Vinaire – you may be referring to the article on what ISIS really wants in the current issue of The Atlantic (available online). It is an hour VERY worthwhile for those folks interested in the current world scene.
BBJane – I’ll steal what Mary McCarthy said in her feud with Lillian Hellman : Every word put out by the Scientology PR machine is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.
Yes. Here is the link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
.
vinaire. You need to read the response to that article. IS is actually operating off of Islamic policies from medieval times, 600 years after the death of Muhammad when they were under attack from the Mongols, who decimated them but later were converted to Islam. Also, the Renaissance was in part created by the knowledge that came from the Islamic empire up through Spain into Europe. We don’t learn that in school because the Catholic Church through Queen Isabella wanted all mention of the Moors removed from history. Remember the Inquisition? That kicked all the Muslims and Jews out of Spain, where many had lived for centuries. Remember there are a billion Muslims on the planet and ISIS only controls 8 million of them, less than 1%. And of the 8 million only about 40,000 of them are actual followers and no one can say out of that number how many are true believers, so let’s not paint all Muslimswith that brush. Most of that 8 million are just like you and me when we were Scientologists, only they have to worry about being beheaded.
PS. Joe, you made me laugh with your Mary McCarthy wrote!😄
Muslim conquest was in action for hundreds of years before Pope Urban started the crusades. It was a response. No doubt the Catholics had their own brand of brutality. But the crusades was a response. How do you think Muslims arrived all the was to Spain? It was not a Tupperware party.
Google Will Durant 80 million Hindus slaughtered top get an idea of what was going on.
The Crusades started in 1100. By that time at least 80 million Hindus were slaughtered.
What is not told in schools and news is the 10s of thousands of temples burned to the ground, the mountains of sculls outside of towns that muslim leaders wanted as a tribute to success. Each severed head fetched a fee from the leaders.
Will Durant calls it the biggest genocide in human history that is not known by most people.
Christianity and Islam remind me of oscillations that are out of phase by 500 years.
I haven’t read what the Freedom magazine has to say about the killing of the journalists in France, but I personally believe that freedom of speech does not include the right to be offensive. Obviously if one feels offended they do not have the right to “take the law into their own hands” so what the extremists did is un-defensible.
The reality is that Fundamentalists of whatever flavour whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic or Scientologist are emotionally unstable and this should be taken into account when dealing with them. The saying comes to mind Question: “what do you call a crow with a machine gun?” Answer “Sir!”
Anyone who has understood the fundamentals of Scientology knows that the REACTIVE MIND CAN BE RELIED UPON TO REACT IF RESTIMULATED, and since all religion is an implant what else would one expect.
Regards
Pip
Thanks for that link Vinaire. Currently we have a young man living with us who is a Muslim from Senegal which is a French speaking country, and who has been living in France for the past ten years. He observes that here in England we are much more tolerant of Muslims than they are in France. I showed him you blog post Qur’an: The Cow, and since I had already talked with him about the personality types, we found we had much common ground.
Regards
Pip
I agree and the “slippery slope” started when man chose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After which he believed himself able to make judgements. So true it’s so “close and learned early.
Love
Pip
I hope he doesn’t see what I wrote as criticism.
I think not and if he did he is big enough to be able to put it down to your ignorance.
Do you mean he is prejudiced?