The St. Petersburg Times is running a series on the Church of Scientology that has some pretty eye-popping allegations, particularly with regard to Church leader David Miscavige. For those who have long argued that the Church is a cult (most recently in Europe) the exposé will likely reinforce their views.
The newspaper reports bizarre and abusive conduct by Miscavige, including hitting high-ranking officials and forcing them to play a game of musical chairs (where the losers allegedly are banned from the Church).
The Los Angeles Times also has a story alleging rampant corruption in the Church.
The series on Scientology is something of a surprise. Many reporters that I have spoken with over the years are privately reluctant to do Scientology stories because of the Church’s aggressive reputation in responding to press. The Church has a history of suing critics and pursuing members who have joined the movement opposing Scientology. This has led to recent lawsuits ( and here) and complaints. Recently, Scientology also was barred from making edits on Wikipedia because of what it viewed as a pattern of misleading or false changes on sites referencing the Church.
For the first part of the three-part series, click here.
For the second part of the three-part series, click here.
understood
FFLEO,
“L” is the first letter of his wife’s name.
My experience here is limited. However, I have never seen you object to limited off-topic discussion in the past.
Either way, I will acquiesce.
Er, um…
I thought this thread was about
Cult or Miscavige of Justice? Newspaper Runs Indepth Exposé on Church of Scientology
Jim Byrne and Troll,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt; however, your back and forth regarding “L” or your pets, or whatever, has nothing to do with the topic. If you continue, I certainly will not disparage you but I will not reply to either of your screen names regarding any topic.
You gotta see this:
Last night, Olbermann gave a Bronze Worst Person in the World award to Rep Neugebauer (R-Texas) for signing onto the Posey bill: “When asked if he thought Obama was a U.S. citizen, Neugebauer relied on the tried and true birther excuse, ‘I don’t know I have never seen him produce documents that would say one way or another.’” http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-GOP-birther
Apparently unaware of the fact that Obama may well run in 2012, he thinks it does not apply to Obama. He seems also unaware that Obama has already complied with the express terms of the proposed bill by obtaining and releasing an official certified birth certificate to press and public.
Here is the Olbermann video. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31533909
It is interesting that World Nut Daily, which is leading the birther charge, has actually confirmed that the certification is authentic: “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
L appreciated your adaptation of her favorite word into your gracious response to BIL. If he only knew.
She also wnats to know if she’ll make more money, now that she is a neocon.
Byrne is back in a tight tag team with Troll. Over on the thread “Obama Adopts Cheney Policy,” Byrne wrote, about Obama, that “He supposedly traveled to Pakistan in 1981. However, U.S. Citizens, traveling on a U.S. Passport, were prohibited from going to Pakistan.”
As posted over there, this is Not True. Travel to Pakistan by U.S. citizens was not banned in 1981: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
This factoid was caught at the Obama Conspiracy site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/open-questions/
The poster there had this to say: QUOTE
First the Travel Advisory’s true document designation is No. 81-33A. The 81 indicates the year issued and the 33A basically means its the 33rd release in that year of all Travel Advisory releases regardless of country or zone. The numbering sequence does seem specific to Travel Advisory’s only and should not be confused or numbered along with Travel Warnings or Consular Information Sheets (CIS). Note that it is not the 33rd issuance that is only specific for Pakistan. The prior advisories as well as the ones that followed for 1981 could be any nation or region besides Pakistan with no apparent numbering format being followed.
Second, don’t bother with the ”Department Publication M-264″ mentioned in the Advisory itself. It is an ongoing and frequently updated guide for visa and similar procedures issued for the benefit of travelers. It’s content has absolutely no bearing on the information given in the Advisory and is much akin to being a standard footer for all these types of State Department issued documents.
Finally somebody wrote “State 209063 – 8-7-81″ in the lower right corner at some stage of the transfer from film to image to PDF. I have no idea what it means other the obvious date 8-7-81 (or maybe 8-17-81?) after State 209063. UNQUOTE
That travel advisory is on the State Department archives maintained by the Federal Depository Library of U. Illinois Chicago, for 1981:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/Pakistan.htm
Troll,
I should be able to get freed up in a couple of hours. I’ll call.
BTW -Be sure to tell “L” that by supporting the freedoms protected by the Constitution, she became a conservative wingnut neocon (I really wish the definition of which would be standardized).
What is a NEOCON?
It may help for this blawg to provide a link to the accepted definition of terms. Then again, the ambiguity of such terms makes the use more personal.
The legend lives!
Jim,
Man, I thought you were dead. LOL (or waiting outside of BIL’s house so that you could promptly redirect his awaiting finger.
Come over later today, if you can. L needs your help. We’ll cook you dinner.
I’ve been holding down the fort here. (with some help from lottakatz and Jill)
Troll,
Don’t waste your time on Mike Spindell. He, like Buddha, arrived at the conclusion that best fit his fancy.
“It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf.” —Thomas Paine
These three quotes from Ayn Rand seem particularly appropriate.
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.”
“The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it.”
Mr. Spindell,
Please support the rationale used to conclude that Jim’s statement was covertly intended to associate President Obama with Adolf Hitler. In other words; show your work.
We all know that you arrived at a personal conclusion. You’re an articulate man. If you arrived at your conclusion logically, you should be able to demonstrate what led you to that conclusion.
I’m not baiting you. I just don’t see it. Please enlighten me. Guilt by assumed association is convenient, but fails to permit logic to prevail.
Buddha,
Go “fornicate yourself”! You really need to go “fornicate yourself”. You panzy-a**ed little fektard. You’re an ignorant, feckless, little twit.
** -While this is not my communication style of choice, it is yours, and since it appears to be welcomed and acceptable on this blog, I may as well make use of it. I’ll apologize to those who find this to be offensive language (as do I), but sometimes you must make use of the “native tongue” in order to effectively communicate.
Lottakatz, Jill, and a few others have repeatedly demonstrated how your personal conclusion is adverse to that which was stated. However, you continue to be too freaking ignorant to see the error.–I sincerely appreciate those of you who had the courage to voice your opinion in support of individual freedoms, at the risk of opening yourself to attack by mespo and buddha.
FFLEO, I don’t need to defend myself from ridiculous insinuations. Another thread attempted to discredit me by claiming that my country of origin was not the U.S.A. -Even if such were true, it would be of no consequence to the argument presented. I chose not to post, even an abbreviated, CV, so as to avoid presumptive determination of my position. However, I will disclose this; I am a veteran of the U.S. Navy, and held a TS clearance. I am not aware of any foreign nationals that can make the same claim.
Now back to Buddha:
“If you found this insulting, well, you did to yourself. Although you didn’t use the word itself, you did indeed describe yourself as a proponent of ignorance.”
No I did not. YOU’RE A FLAT-OUT LIAR! I challenge you to locate, and quote, any statement I made that would indicate that I am a proponent of ignorance (other than engaging you). In addition, if you’re not tolerant of many things, of which you are not a proponent, you would have no idea of what tolerance is. That may be the source of our disagreement.
Tolerating became an “advocate for” (mespo) and then a “proponent of” (Buddha), only because you needed it to. Your inability to differentiate words serves well to exemplify what I would call “the educated ignorant”. -The mindless prattle of an obnoxious lemming.
You are so intent on finding a fight, that, as demonstrated above, and in a number of your posts, you freely admit that a word wasn’t used, but you’re going to act as if it was anyway, because you needed it as the basis of your diatribe. Are you really that desperate for attention?
If you want to “own” the un-American rhetoric, feel free to do so. That’s your choice. When you pick up the un-American name tag, and place it over your shirt pocket, you do so freely, and without my assistance. Your wounds are self-inflicted. I didn’t place the label upon your chest; you did.
What I really find disturbing, is that the two most vocal advocates for constricting individual freedom are elders of the legal profession. While we, as a society, have been reluctantly tolerant of the demonstrated ignorance of groups like KKK; the fact is, we tolerate them because of what we, as Americans, consider to be that which is protected. –The freedom to be stupid, perverse, and ignorant…as long as it does not interfere with the protected rights of others.
Do I support, advocate for, am a proponent of, education? YES
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
I support that mandate. Always have, and always will, but I refuse to shove it down the throat of those who have reached adulthood.
Troll,
You are entitled to your opinions and I have mine. Do I have an agenda…damn straight. So do you and so does JB. To me the difference is he was trying to disguise his agenda and I think that is disingenuous. You don’t? Fine.
Mr. Spindell,
Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
If we express a thought that has been aligned with the liberal philosophy, we have a left-winged agenda. Those that express a thought that has been attributed to a conservative ideal, have a right-winged agenda. Or is it only an agenda when it differs from your opinion?
I think the comment left by Gyges (above) would concur with my opinion that you have over-simplified political differences of opinion so that they may easily fit into a convenient bundle. That “convenient bundle” makes it easy for the visually impaired person to swing at anything that resembles a certain shape, but it hardly represents that which society would consider to be the rational decision of one who is not so impaired.
Why do you take the time to express or promote your individual opinion on a subject, if it is not your “agenda” to influence the thoughts of others? The only way to avoid being accused of having an agenda is to remain silent or effectively silent by not taking a position.
Aren’t most, if not all, opinions intended to promote an agenda? Aren’t they all an effort to present a concurring or alternative point of view? Is not the agenda to provide information that may influence the rationalization of others?
I agree with you. Jim has expressed views that would be associated with conservatism. Is that a shameful act? What most of us today have accepted as customary was, at some point in time, a liberal or conservative agenda. I find Jim’s point of view, when stated, to be obvious.
In reading the comments on the link that you provided, all you did was come to a personal conclusion.
Jim said; “The country was frustrated. They wanted change..and the person with the least baggage got elected.
Was Obama really the most qualified candidate we could find? I hope not.
I’m still not sure if President Obama was elected because he is black…or in spite of being black. I think the former is more likely. -Not that there is anything wrong with that….That was just the sentiment that prevailed.
I don’t think the 3 major networks are conservative. I think FOX is, but CBS and NBC lean too far to the left to be considered conservative. –If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.
I don’t think becoming sheeple was a conscious choice. I think the mainstream media lulled them into it. More importantly, both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the current state of affairs. Not enough people are willing to stand up and say NO MORE.
Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.
Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.”
You made the leap needed to arrive at your conclusion. Let’s take another look at the last paragraph again.
“Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.”
It looks to me like Jim wasn’t comparing the actions of anybody to those of Hitler. It looks to me as if he was comparing the actions, or better stated, the lack thereof, of those with the ability to prevent the atrocities. Much like our Congress has the ultimate control over our president. Could the atrocities of the Bush Administration have taken place without the support of Congress?
Further reading of the comments left by both you and Jim indicate that Jim expressly denied any intent of associating President Obama with the actions taken by Hitler. He repeatedly denied that intent. That wasn’t good enough for you. You decided that since some on the right wing fringe have suggested a possible link between the acts of Hitler to the campaign promises of Obama that must be the hidden intent of Jim’s statement.
Lotta,
That’s in line with my original point. Conservative doesn’t mean corporatist, or capitalist, or authoritarian, etc. Our current political language is so limited in terms that it can only accomplish a reduction of an entire menagerie of thought into only two animals, making the Us V Them tactic much easier.
Guess some 1984 did creep into my Orwellian after all.
Lotta,
I come at it from a much more Orwellian point of view (His essays, not 1984): conservative, liberal, progressive (IS was right in that the opposite of conservative is progressive, but progressive doesn’t equal liberal like the modern usage implies) are basically meaningless the way they are used now, at least in American debate. They had specific meanings once that have become distorted over time to the point where to IS conservative was “us” and liberal was “them.”
I’m a sucker for accuracy.
Lottakatz,
I also have been a lifelong and current supporter of the ACLU and I doubt there is a dimes worth of difference in our support for free speech or human rights. However, going back to the specific posting by JT which begins this thread, my question is at what point does, what to me at least, is an obvious scam, become subject to government intervention.
For instance: I might represent to you that I own the Brooklyn Bridge by right of my birth in Brooklyn and nobility of character. I then sell it to you. Am I committing fraud, or am I exercising my free speech and thought rights? I think that the Church of Scientology is committing fraud in posing as a religion in order to escape the IRS and government scrutiny. While I can’t personally prove this, I am of the opinion that proof probably exists in the form of the early musings of L.Ron Hubbard and in the way that it appears that one has to buy their way to enlightenment.
Incidentally, you might notice that I wrote part of the above to make clear that this is my opinion and I have no actual evidence. This is because Scientology has a history of
being litigious and from my point of view tries to silence critical speech about it’s doings. I know it becomes a dicey question when you balance the right of free speech/thought up against the governments duty to prosecute fraud. Frankly, on this I have no answers, but my opinion is that an investigation of this movement is needed, that isn’t tainted by political fear, or necessity.
As to Jim Byrne, I though Mespo equating the two of you is incorrect. However, in my opinion Mr. Byrne is a very smart person, with a right wing agenda, that slips his knives in disingenuously and that is my problem with him. To me he doesn’t come at any issue in a straightforward manner, but cleverly hides his points. However, when it came to his defense of the “birther” movement I think his agenda of disinformation became clear. Below is the link to the original thread here where I called him on his disingenuity.
Make up your own mind as to whether I was being unfair.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/18/supreme-court-rules-against-constitutional-right-to-access-to-dna-testing/#comments
Jill,
I think my response to lotta addresses that issue of content over tactic. Mike A is correct that the most dangerous counter to an idea is another idea. The idea of what was wrong with Jim’s tactic has been explained. You said “one person’s stupid, perverse or irrational ideas may be another person’s well researched/reasonsed argument that isn’t popular in the current social climate” and you are correct. That’s not whole picture though. You miss that argument doesn’t happen in a vacuum so social mores will always come into play. The best one can do is to pare down to the barest logics and use ethics as a guideline instead of the alternative value loaded (and therefore intrinsically subject to misuse) terminology sets provided by religion or political parties. I should also point out that Galileo, my man from Padua, didn’t merely run afoul of social mores. He ran afoul of the wealthy and well armed religious organization that had dominance over said mores at the time. It wasn’t that he threatened the mores proper, he threatened their effectiveness as a control mechanism of the Church. In addition, democracy is supposed to be a marketplace of competing ideas. This by it’s nature means some win and some lose. Yes – stupidity, ignorance and perversity (which I’ve left out of my comments unless referencing as perversity is an individual value judgment more often than a logical conclusion) are indeed protected thought and speech. But when one puts a bad/stupid/ignorant thought into action, even if that’s just speaking it, one still suffers the consequences of their missteps – just as one can suffer the consequences of missteps on the path of putting a good idea into action (we call this “misadventure”). It’s the rules of natural selection as applied to memes. That’s the universe in action. Mankind’s social laws have little to do with that.
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!” (Jim)
——————————————————————
Mespo:
“Ok, so jim byrne and lottakatz are now on the side of stupidity, perversion, and irrationality because they are free to be so”
—————————————————————-
“there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.” (BIL)
——————————————————————
I don’t think tolerating a belief is in contadiction with criticizing it. I’m an atheist. I live in a hyper religious environment. I will say flat out that not one of the relgious beliefs I have heard; not the new age, not the jewish, not the christian, not the muslim, not the hindu, not the buddhist, make any sense to me. I find many of these religious tenants harmful and destructive to the human mind/body/spirit. I find many of them absolutely appalling. So to me, I’m not going to back down on any criticism of religion but I, by honoring our Constitution, have a duty to tolerate the existence of religion.
During the run up to the Iraq war, questioning the idea that we ought to attack Saddam was considered “stupid, perverse, or irrational” by a rather large majority of our population. Bush certainly pushed that way of thinking in the public sphere, even encouraging calling people who thought otherwise, traitors. That silenced many people who had doubts. I remember how scary it was to criticize the invasion of Iraq. So one person’s stupid, perverse or irrational ideas may be another person’s well researched/reasonsed argument that isn’t popular in the current social climate (Galileo for example). It may also be simply, stupid, perverse or irrational. Either way, I believe our Constitution protects it.
Mike A. wrote that the most dangerous counter to an idea is another idea. I believe he is correct about that.
lotta,
I’m with you on the usage of Nazi. It’s often misapplied. I really find the misuse of fascist and fascism annoying – especially by politicians. A hardline Neocon GOP’er calling ANYONE a fascist is simply ridiculous in light of the Secret Energy Task Force and their roll in the violation of our laws and the illegal invasion of Iraq. That was an example of letting corporations make the decisions, just like dear old Mussolini advocated. Yet they try and try to slap the “fascist” label on progressives just like they try the to keep alive the old “socialism is evil” trope despite the fact many of our allies are socialist countries and that some of these countries have the happiest and healthiest citizens in the world. Pure Orwellian doublespeak on the usage. Next time someone uses the word fascist against you, try asking them to define fascism. It’s usually good for a laugh. 9 out of 10 times they have no clue what they are talking about.