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.
Jim Byrne,
Return and defend thyself! You are receiving attacks on several threads, especially since you said you were leaving this blawg.
“With the advent of the Internet there is no excuse to be ignorant of anything.”
IS,
How is it then that you are so ignorant of those you call progressives? Everyone has their blind spots. It is the wise individual that attempts to see what they are. Perhaps if you adopted the “Golden Rule” as a guiding philosophy you might be able to have compassion for others.
“The entire history of (conservative) philosophy has been one of totalitarianism. From (Burke to William Buckley) to whomever the (conservative) de jour is today. They limit free speech and other freedoms, they are aggressive, in short they are thugs.
They cannot win in the ballot box so they use the courts or other forms of intimidation. They have no belief in anything except the certainty of their knowledge that their beliefs are right and must be implemented no matter the cost.”
IS,
Have you actually known any communists? Have you actually read Saul Alinsky? Have you even read any modern history by authors with who you disagree?
I have on all counts. In the late 60’s Communist Party People, Maoists and Trotskyites all tried to recruit me into their orbit. I talked with them to get to know their beliefs and then laughed at them for being gullible enough to believe them. By the way they uniformly hated Saul Alinsky, who was decidedly not a Marxist in that context. They hated Alinsky because he offered an alternative to their beliefs that froze them out of the picture. You display an ignorance of these issues, that to me is born of a closed mind that is so partisan you can’t even see the flaws of your own people.
Your statements above, with a few lines inserted (as shown)would indicate the same thing about conservatives, I could find actual incidents that would back up each charge, but if I adopted that tack I’d be as wrong as you are. On all areas of the political spectrum there are thugs and people who want to oppress other people. Only a fool could not understand this and brand people with whom they disagree as bad and evil. The problem is not the philosophy per se, Marx actually wanted to do good, but was flawed in that he couldn’t get beyond his own pre-judgments, sort of like you.
In your pre-judgment you deem me a leftist and while there might be some truth to that, what I really am is a pragmatic iconoclast, who believes in the “Golden Rule” (Hillel’s formulation)fervently and has tried to live my life in concert with it. Free you mind and you might actually escape the box you’ve built around your intellect.
Troll,
I was the one of the one’s your buddy called un-American, so put a sock in it, Neocon. I owe Jim jack squat other than the trouncing he got.
lotta,
Yeah, what mespo said. Freedom of Speech is not the equivalent of the Freedom From Ridicule. Freedom To Be Ignorant, on the other hand, is a choice a person – citizen or not – is free to make. A choice Jim, and to my shock – you, both seem to think is acceptable. An odd choice if you think education leads to a better world for all, but okay, it’s your choice. Should that choice be free of consequence? Don’t think so. If one sticks ones hand in a bear cage, they shouldn’t be shocked when they get bit. That’s just a reflection of the mechanics of natural selection. Just like when someone says something aggressively stupid, they shouldn’t be shocked when they get the smack down. I was willing to let Jim be as stupid as he wanted up to the un-American comment – as I said it was his choice to be a bad example. The un-American comment was the equivalent of not only sticking his hand in the cage, but poking the bear in the eye.
Oh, would you look at that! Jim got his hand bitten by the bear!
His choice. Actions have consequence.
Jill:
“Lottakatz, at least, laid out a point by point reading of your arguments. I think it is fair to take her seriously and dispute her, but your statement above is a personal attack which she does not deserve.”
*************
I merely took her argument to its absurd logical extension. Not a personal attack on her but her reasoning. That’s precisely the difference I am arguing for.
mespo,
I read your original statement in the same way that lottakatz did. I don’t appreciate the way Jim B. has conducted himself in many of his exchanges (and I think he’s a troll), but I read his original post also as saying people should not be stopped from thinking/doing stupid things, only illegal ones. I don’t think it’s fair for you to say lottakatz and jim are on the side of stupidity, perversion and irrationality. Lottakatz, at least, laid out a point by point reading of your arguments. I think it is fair to take her seriously and dispute her, but your statement above is a personal attack which she does not deserve. Honestly, I thought you meant to restrict stupid thoughts and actions that were illegal, until later, when you seemed to have changed this to the position you now advocate. It might have been a misread, it might have been a poorly worded argument, or a combination of both.
Ok, so jim byrne and lottakatz are now on the side of stupidity, perversion, and irrationality because they are free to be so. Hooray!!! BTW nobody said anything about banning that kind of “thinking,” you just don’t get a free pass for doing so. Obviously that would silence both of your voices, and frankly we (Buddha and I) need the comic relief!
So what is the difference between one doing un-American things and being un-American? If you do it, you are it. Otherwise you end up going down the path ‘Hitler was really a nice guy that just got, you know, bulls***ed by his associates, he liked dogs after all’. BIL, you and Mespo are being IMO silly regarding Jim’s statement. Dangerously silly.
Jim made a flat statement (that I also agree with totally) that thought should not be restrained. He said: “People can, and will, believe in whatever they want to believe. They should be able to do so; even if it will hurt them in the eyes of others.”
Mespo characterized that as “muddle-headed thinking that leads to disastrous and preventable social problems.” and after Jim stated unequivocally that tolerance is not advocacy he was asked by Mespo
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?” and Jim responded with “As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES! Very emphatically YES. I will tolerate people being stupid, perverse, and irrational.”
You then came in with “Well there’s your problem right there. It’s two fold. … First, stupidity and irrationality almost always screw up something which usually means some non-stupid rational person is the victim although moron on moron crime is not new or unheard of. … Second, there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.”
And it went from there. You actually ‘attacked’ him as a “problem” because he did not want thought restrained and said he would tolerate “that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational” so long as it didn’t infringe the rights of others.
Mespo actually shifted the argument slightly, Jim’s original statement regarded only what one believes and Mespo responded negatively to that argument then broadened the focus to include other things but there is no indication from my reading that the added items are actions. I’m just seeing a listing of thoughts.
Regarding thoughts: I agree absolutely with Jim’s position.
You and Mespo are arguing to ban certain thoughts. How would that work exactly? Just exactly what am I not to think- what is on your list of banned thoughts? What would you have done to me, or Jim or Seamus if we start thinking banned thoughts? How do you propose to keep us from thinking banned thoughts? If we speak a banned thought will you put us in a little box with spiders until we recant?
On actions that reflect the characterization of stupid, perverse and/or irrational: I agree wholeheartedly with Jim on that also.
Don’t we already have laws prohibiting those things when my S/P/I acts infringe your rights? Do you want to expand that list? What would you add? Would you predicate your list on the infringement of another persons rights? If not why not? What laws don’t we have in this country related to S/P/I that we need?
Srsly, you guys IMO, are a cold-one shy of a six-pack on this one and way too aggressive about it.
BIL said “LOOKS YOU MADE THE MISTAKE OF BEING UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE CALLING A POLICY UN-AMERICAN AND CALLING AN AMERICAN UN-AMERICAN.”
LOOKS LIKE BIL HAS THE SAME PROBLEM
Jim Byrne
1, June 23, 2009 at 11:39 am SAID: “I almost can’t believe that I am reading such ignorant, un-American rhetoric from such elitists.
JIM COMMENTED ON THE RHETORIC NOT THE AMERICAN.
LOOKS LIKE YOU OWE JIM AN APOLOGY!
I’LL HAVE TO CONCUR WITH HIS ELITISTS FINDING.
cough cough cough containment cough cough cough
Troll,
LOOKS YOU MADE THE MISTAKE OF BEING UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE CALLING A POLICY UN-AMERICAN AND CALLING AN AMERICAN UN-AMERICAN.
But I admire your honesty in nick choice. Seriously. It’s refreshing.
“If a law or proposed law is unconstitutional, it is un-American, as are the law’s proponents, no matter how many people vote for it.”
http://www.calnews.com/Archives/contreras28.htm
“Far more damaging is the administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights that we ought to have and do have as American citizens. The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the president of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale and un-American and it ought to be stopped.” -Al Gore
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/flashback_gore_calls_bush_policies_un-american_in_2002_speech.html
LOOKS LIKE JIM MADE THE MISTAKE OF LISTENING TO AL GORE
Troll,
What mespo said.
Troll:
“MESPO AND BIL: IS AN ACT, REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION UN-AMERICAN?:
**********
Nope, it’s unconstitutional?
IS,
I once witnessed a fight between two drunks because they had dated the same girl at the same time. At least until one thought to ask the other one what her last name was. I don’t really want to argue semantics with you, but a common definition is key, thus my suggestion we pick one from a neutral source. If you don’t want to do that, sorry I wasted our time trying to have a conversation with you.
If your world view is so fragile that a simple change in phraseology causes it to crumble, then you may be better off for it having fallen. My original points (defining things as liberal or conservative stifles conversation, etc.) hold up even if we decide that liberal means someone that believes in the Easter Bunny and conservative means someone who punches kittens.
We don’t ask for much here, that you back your claims up with proof or at least some sort of sympathetic material. The standards are actually pretty loose, we just like to be able to read over the primary material so we can see if it really says what you think it says.
Buddha:
“mespo,
But that being said, the un-American thing is always uncalled for, even when true (see Cheney comment).”
**********
If jim byrne’s is representational of the intellect of America, it may be a compliment!
GWLSmom:
I have read a good deal about the camps, it was horrible and may it never come to pass again. I am sure we can agree on that.
But in my opinion when the state is placed above the individual and that is what socialism and communism do, the logical conclusion is the destruction of human beings. It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in China, it happened in Soviet Russia, it is happening in Iran.
Gyges:
how many books do you remember titles and authors from over 10 years ago? I found the book in my library it is by Gitta Sereny and is called Albert Speer His Battle with Truth.
So tell me your definitions, not what your wikipedia says or some other web site but what you think. All this quoting of sources is, to my mind, an evasion of having to think for oneself.
BIL, from what I can see, dosent do much original thinking, he just quotes Wiki and Huff post and then rehashes the same old format over and over again when he tries to troll stomp. It’s actually pretty funny and since most people are not used to it they run and hide. I could argue with him by just cutting and pasting his words and filling in my own tidbits here and there. I will say one thing he sure is consistent. I think he must have the standard stuff saved, for example when he isnt quite sure it’s-
“I’ll give you this you may be a troll but your better than most” or some such tom foolery. Buddha can you give me a sample so I can cut and paste? I am working on a library of BILisms so I can effectively argue on this web site.
If it makes you all feel any better I went to the handbook of progressive thought in the 20th century and sure enough on page 213 was a description of Nazi’s – right wing organization dedicated to the destruction of individual freedom and liberty. Used by modern day conservatives as a role model for good government.
My apologies. And I thought they were on the left, gosh darn wrong again. Thank goodness for the handbook.
MESPO STARTED THE PROBLEM WITH JIM. BIL JUST PILED ON.
mespo727272
1, June 23, 2009 at 8:24 am
jim byrne:
““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!
Very emphatically YES.”
************
That’s like advocating free lance dynamiting in Manhattan, but only so long as it doesn’t affect others.
________________________________________________________
AS YOU CAN SEE, JIM DIDN’T ADVOCATE ANYTHING. HE MERELY IS WILLING TO TOLERATE WHAT THE US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS. THAT IS AN AMERICAN TRADITION.
MESPO AND BIL: IS AN ACT, REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION UN-AMERICAN?
As Robert Tilton was asked by a reporter in response to the excessive lifestyle he was living he said: “G-d never meant for me to be poor.”
Yes, in Jesus name we pray. Pay the Leader.