So who leaked the secret and when?
As I mentioned, the discussion here parallels that in the newsgroup I mentioned. That person never made any pro-Scientology arguments either. Now, why would someone adopt this strategy? (And let’s leave CM out of it - as I said, maybe he is unaware of how his posts match that of others.)
-
Hardly anyone not a Scientologist argues for Scientology - so someone would would be identified as a member of a quite restrictive organization, and his arguments would be discounted.
-
Not posting anything for a position means you don’t have to defend it.
-
Done well, the positions are somewhat equivalent. If you can knock down all arguments that position X is bad, you’ve established it as good or at least neutral. Say someone wanted to argue that the Iraq invasion was a good idea, but was not a total nitwit. (Example: McCain on The Daily Show a while back.) You’d want to argue that there were good reasons, while maybe accepting that there were no WMDs, there is still hope, that the goal is admirable, and that our leaders appreciate the difficulty and are working hard, and that all alternatives to staying the course have problems. This is pretty much what McCain did, and it is a very effective strategy.
Look at the title of this thread. Doesn’t it make sense that a Scientologist undercover would attack arguments against, and not defend it. That’s exactly in line with Hubbard’s quoted strategy.
All I can say is that two broad generalizations don’t make a well-reasoned argument. It’s starting to bother me that Constipated Mathematician says he wants a reasoned argument and then only addresses those who show signs of losing their temper. It’s like he’s attempting to say that he doesn’t want a pissing contest, only he’s mid-stream at the time.
It does bother me that people have gone off on him more than he seems to deserve. But there are a lot better responses than “You are ALL mean poopyheads, and I don’t believe a word you say.”
I’m not the only one here who’s been civil. Heck, I think half the posters in this thread have stood up for him. But I’m honestly starting to wonder: Constipated Mathematician, do you want a debate, or not?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology
This is seriously fantastic journalism, a reporter visiting Clearwater, visiting recruitment centers in NYC, writing about the approaches people take, how it affects them.
Good stuff.
After a quick scan, I didn’t see that anyone had linked to this yet in this thread. It’s well worth a read, although it’s about 93 pages long. It’s a first-hand account from someone who was introduced to Scientology, lived among Scientologists for about 12 years, and rose through the ranks to OT 3, when her brain finally balked at the ludicrousness of the Xenu story. She was then kicked out of the cult, which just about destroyed her psyche, but slowly she came to see what a scam it all was and rejoined society.
I believe it was Steven Fishman, a former Scientologist who was sued by the “Church” for statement he’d made in a Time magazine article. Fishman had copies of the OT materials entered as evidence at his trial to show that Scientology had basically driven him insane and caused him to commit financial crimes for them. Fortunately for us all, the judge elected, over the objections of the CoS, not to seal the materials, leaving them open for public scrutiny. As for the “when”, an exact date is hard to pin down, but “early 1990s” should suffice.
Interesting stuff!
I only read through the chapter on OT3, and only most of that, but that’s enough. 
I think the e-meters are operating alot like ouija boards: it sounds to me like people probably just kind of learn the “trick” behind producing a “floating needle” unconsciously, without knowing they’re doing it.
-FrL-
Perhaps they confused insanity with incredulity.
Two-hundred and twenty some odd posts into the tread, you begin to wonder? The answer of course, is no.
I predicted early in this thread how CM would behave, and if I were I wiser person, I would never have stopped in to read the latter pages. But I did. And more frustrating than CM’s behavior, was the apparent uncomprehending of so many intelligent SDMB posters.
“CM writes well and seems bright; I wonder why he isn’t directly addressing many valid points? Why does he fixate on tangential points and address even these obliquely? Why is he answering people who come in and shriek, ‘What about Operation Snow White?!?!111’ but he won’t answer my reasonable post?” No one seemed to be wondering about the fallacious logic… shrug I guess you can’t have everything.
The answer to all these questions is that he was being evasive. And it was carefully calculated evasiveness. There was nothing haphazard or accidental about it. I don’t have a high tolerance for such behavior, nor those who would overlook it, no matter how well intentioned. The good news is that I don’t hold grudges either.
I’m not a religious person, but I make room for all manner of different beliefs so long as a)no one is being harmed, and b)no faith-based tenets are put forth as scientific fact. I’m sure each of you has your own criteria. I’m comfortable with mine. And yes, I do realize that more than a few belief systems will have trouble meeting this criteria. The CoS isn’t special in that regard. Not by a long shot.
Well, arguing about totally unrelated tangents is hardly unusual behavior for the pit. The best threads sometimes come from totally unrelated discussions. The continued behavior is what changed my mind about him. It’s not always the easiest thing to judge. So I gave the benefit of the doubt.
I’m a big believer in arguing to the fence-sitters anyway. Even if CM doesn’t read a damned thing I say, hopefully someone else will, and it’ll make them think a bit harder about things. Hopefully.
Sorry for my sabbatical. I haven’t had a chance to respond to this thread properly. And quite frankly, there are a few people who have understood the point I was trying to make. Those people (like Frylock) don’t seem to be pro-CoS. They seem to me to be of the opinion that statements and assertions should be based on fact. That seems to be normal for the SDMB but for some reason on this topic (or maybe it is a rule of the Pit), the expectations are relaxed. But they shouldn’t be. **Frylock ** et. al. seem more inclined to expect more than capital letters to prove a point (DIDN’T YOU READ IT? YOU MUST BE A CoS APOLOGIST!)
Some of your comments (and I will perhaps take time to address them properly) are quite frankly beyond conprehension. Some of you admit to not even reading my posts, and yet are comfortable in calling it drivel and babble. When you don’t want to bother trying to understand someone else’s point of view, why do you expect someone else to give you the same consideration? Oh, that’s right. Because you are in the right and the burden of proof is not on you.
To address **look!ninjas ** in particular in this post. “Do I want a debate?” What *exactly * do you *want * to debate? That the CoS is EEEVIIIIIIIIIIL? No. That seems to be an undebatable fact to you and the anti-CoS crowd. And that’s ok. You are permitted to have that belief. And after reading some of the links about Scientology, I can see where you might get that point of view. I also personally have trouble believing the stories of Xenu, the volcanoes, etc., etc. I mean, what would you *want * to debate?
Do you want to debate the dangers of niacin? Again, I’ve agreed that **Frylock ** and others gave much better cites than were originally provided. But since no one except **Frylock ** actually read my post, I can see how you missed that.
If you want to debate the question I posted about 4 pages ago, as to how this evil organization (or cult) has tax-exempt status from the IRS, and how a group that is maligned as much as the CoS is in the press and mainstream media is permitted to **murder ** members, keep people against their will (kidnapping, unlawful restraint, or something), and brainwash people as a standard practice, and yet have been able to exist within the bounds of the laws of the states in which their churches exist or the US as a whole, then I think that would be an interesting discussion. I am interested in learning more. I want to know *why * this religious group has been able to walk between the raindrops when it come to the law. It’s amazing that the CoS could infiltrate a number of government institutions, and yet the US Government has no ability to do the same to them? Why is that, exactly?
But if you want to say “After reading their secret documents, how can you not believe these people are exactly what we’ve been telling you?”, well, I need more than that. Just because they have beliefs that conflict with yours (or conflict with religious beliefs that are much more mainstream), that doesn’t mean they are evil. Or wrong, for that matter. If someone tells you that some man built a big ark and gathered a pair of all the animals in the world, put them on the ark, the world was flooded, and this guy and his family were the only survivors of a great flood, would you believe it? Do you know that there are people that are actually searching for Noah’s ark? Are they crazy? Cultists? Religious fanatics? Gullible idiots? All (or none) of the above? Does that story sound any more fanciful than the story of Xenu and LRH’s tale of Science Fiction-turned-religion?
**Waverly ** seems to know me. He’s “predicted” how I’d behave in this thread. Amazing! If you want to use your predictive powers to good use, how about posting the winning numbers to Powerball, so we can all benefit? Waverly, more than most, seems to be extremely unglued. Did you read the exchange about niacin and the PDR? Did you understand it? Here’s what you wrote.
I never said that the PDR was a weak cite. Read my post again. I’d type slower for you, but I don’t think it would help your reading comprehension. My remark “and where IS my copy of the Physicians Desk Reference?” was not to impune it as a source. It was a semi-sarcastic remark made to those of you who think that when the normal person is reading an article, and the author doesn’t find a need to reference a source such as the PDR, why should I? And honestly, how many of us have a copy of the PDR laying around to use just to keep authors honest? I admitted that others posted better cites on niacin. Unfortunately, only **Frylock ** (who for some reason, actually reads all posts), **Dead Badger ** and Cemetery Savior (sorry if I missed anyone else) were the only ones to read and understand what I wrote.
If I have time, I will do my best to address as many of the posts as I can, but you have been busy since I last visited this thread, so I’m sure I’ll be accused of missing something on purpose. :rolleyes: I started reading the Rolling Stone article, but I haven’t finished it. Have any of you read that article? If so, does anything seem familiar about it to you?
As far as I can tell, not one person has answered my question regarding Christian Scientists, and their belief that medicine is not good. I would like to hear from a CS member (or at least someone who can shed some light on this), and tell us the difference between their beliefs and the CoS. But since I’m guessing that this will not happen, I’ll do some research on my own as well, as I am interested in the question and answer.
Why is it ok to skip my posts (or others that don’t align with your beliefs), but you expect me (and others) to read every post, every cite, every word of your brilliant prose? If you want an honest debate, you can’t have it both ways.
Another quote by the esteemed Waverly:
Brilliant. I’m supposed to read volumes of nonsense about the CoS, but you can’t be bothered to understand what someone else is using as a cite, or as an argument? Don’t expect me to become an expert on the CoS for you Waverly. I don’t find it particularly interesting reading, and your paranoia makes me wonder what exactly is bothering you. Are they coming to take you away?
And now we come to Guinastasia.
and my favorite…
I decided to answer this one, mainly because I think Guinastasia has plastered her personal history all over these boards. So I wrote:
That was sincere. I think she has added a lot to many conversations. However, her response (which I was expecting since she never seems to leave these boards) came quickly:
Fair enough. I’ll explain. (And I’ll stay in the kitchen). As a guest, I am not alone in reading these boards before signing up. I have read them for quite a while. Your username is everywhere (which would be expected for someone with 28+ thousand posts.) One of the posts that I recalled about you was one that told you to take a break and walk away from the computer. So I read it. I don’t know exactly when that was, but since the SDMB allows folks to read threads without registering, too bad for you. I read it. And through the links provided in that thread, I learned a LOT about you. You seem(ed) to be a very sad person, with a few mental health issues. So, your anger at Tom Cruise and the CoS *could * be viewed as a biased attack against someone that says things that conflict with who you are as a person. Mental health professionals have helped you? I think that’s great. You are (or were) on medication. If it’s working for you, again, congratulations. But you also have been told on these boards through a number of different posts that the mental health profession has a number of dark sides and stories, some of which posters have shared with this community. It’s not the answer for everyone. That’s why I personally don’t believe that because the CoS has an issue with the mental health profession, it automatically makes them a public menace. But perhaps for you, it hits too close to home and you feel a need to lash out. Do *you * actually know the history of psychiatry? Does Tom Cruise? Hell, I don’t know. What I *do * know is that I don’t have the foggiest notion of the history of psychiatry, or what Tom Cruise thinks he knows. **Frylock ** explained this very well also, but for many of you, it gets lost in translation.
Anyway, back to my point about that thread I referenced about you. That thread had a number of links, of which I followed a few. A few quotes (no dates, I’m sorry… but since I can’t search, it took me a while to find it, and I have no desire to brute search for it again).
OK… perhaps a glimmer into the hatred of CoS, or more to the point, the hatred for Tom Cruise. Or not. I don’t know.
As an editorial comment, if you aren’t sure you spelled “bachelor’s degree” correctly, then perhaps you aren’t as smart as you think.
And there’s more. (oh, for the love of God there’s more…)
I believe you identified yourself as OCD. Somewhere else I read that you were bi-polar (if this is in error, my apologies. I can’t search, so I am pulling from my memory).
Is this fair for the pit? I’m not trying to be a jerk… I’m just trying to stay in the kitchen. I’m not looking for a fight with you and I don’t plan on carrying it further than this post. But you can’t expect people to not remember your name and posting history. And in this case, it seems like there may be a personal reason for you not to like the CoS. Perhaps when T.C. rails on psychology, it makes you feel badly about yourself. Perhaps not. I don’t know and I don’t care. I hope your life is on a course you are happy with.
If you want to discuss/debate the CoS, and my desire to have strong sources to back up the alligations, (Oh, and I know about Operation Snow White. I’m talking about something that’s happened in this century) then please feel free to add. But if your sum total contribution is to resort to name calling and using CAPITAL LETTERS, I’m just going to ignore you. I can not and do not imagine you are crushed. But I’m sure you’ll have plenty to say when you read this. You always do.
Finally (and more importantly), to **Enter the Flagon **, I am happy that you had someone looking out for you at a very vulnerable time. I can understand your emotional feelings about this topic. I think your insights in particular are relevant to the discussion.
Whether I return to this thread or not depends in large part on whether I have anything important to add. This of course will be entirely IMHO. But I think I will, mainly because I’ve been working through a couple of the larger links (the RS article and that story about one woman’s journey into the CoS) which I find interesting reading. I’m sure the lunatic fringe out here will want to set me straight when I ask my questions. And I’m sure that you will have the answers. After all, you can’t study a subject for 30 years and not know the truth.
CM
At any rate, this is why I mentioned CM might be a Scientologist in the other thread. First, though it is 3AM, and my memory is weak, I recall… possibly from Fads and Fallacies? Gardner’s work, somewhere, how constipation was a key concept in dianetics. Secondly, that Scientologists have issues with psychologists, and thus, odd and unconventional opinions on pharmacology.
Finally, I would like to note that CM really should know better than trying to bring in irrelevant topics, and I invite people to diagram the lack of logical flow in his post, as it is a wonderful bit of evasive wording. I welcome him to read the Rolling Stone article and evaluate it for us. Do go ahead.
uh… yeah. :dubious:
** E-Sabbath**, I truly wonder what kind of meds you are on. (And if you could be so kind as to share the name with the rest of us teeming millions).
You are convinced of my ties to the CoS. Now, it’s because of my user name? “Constipation was a key concept in dianetics?” WTF. Are you sure? Can I ask for a cite, or is that beneath you? And please, tell me… Is being constipated good or bad? Have you read Dianetics? If so, that would make one of us.
The beauty of this is that I am not a CoS member. So if you are seeing this in me, I have to wonder how many people you actually think are CoS members in real life. Do you ever leave your house?
If I was indeed a member of the CoS, would I be so sloppy as to blow my cover by creating a user name that contains vowels (or a derivative of the word constipation), asking a question about the pharma industry, or any of the other pieces of misdirection I’ve supplied that you have been able to ferret out? Boy you are sharp. I hope your talent isn’t being wasted.
This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.
I’m afraid, as ‘Fads and Fallacies in the name of Science’ is a book, finding a precise online cite is a little difficult.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/gardner/
But not impossible. Interestingly, the constipation connection is there, which is not bad for a decade-old memory.
You’re right. Any user name that contains vowels is a sure clue the possessor is a Scientologist. As I said earlier, your arguments are lacking, your reading comprehension is poor, and if that’s the best reply you can make to my discussion, well, then, I’m greatly amused.
Where have I said I was convinced of your ties to the CoS? Do share, oh being with the wit of a small gnat. I have said that I thought it might be true, and those were the reasons why. If you were one, it would explain your apparent intelligence and your agenda, while having reason for your passive-aggressive posting style.
If you’re not one, then you’re just a literate moron.
More name calling. How… shocking. :rolleyes:
Folks, please save your time on the link that E-Sabbath has supplied us with. Here is the sum total of what he is talking about: (bolding mine)
I don’t even know what to do with this. I could have been a “sneezing” mathematician, and you would have still found my name to be interesting. I have no idea what this paragraph is even supposed to mean, but if you have invested the kind of time it would take to understand all of this, then I applaud you. Or pity you.
Are you sure you aren’t a recovering Scientologist? What on earth would possess the normal person to dig up stuff like this? Your interest in the CoS is more than just a passing curiosity. It’s an obsession.
And just so we’re clear. It’s your contention that it is up to the society at large to protect people from believing this crap? How can you read that paragraph and take it seriously? More importantly, how do you expect people to take you seriously? “Mama has constipation and baby, in the anxious effort, gets squashed.” What does that even mean?
Please, don’t answer, E-Sabbath. I’m interested in hearing from someone whose grey matter isn’t already turned into lime jello. :dubious: Xenu, indeed has a hold on someone here. Holy crap.
Oh mercy, mercy me. Here we go back into the thick of things.
You seem to be conflating me with someone else in this thread. I’ve made an effort to stay clear of “Scientology is EEEEEVIL.” Scientology is a scam with a lot of well-meaning believers who are being taken advantage of. So is Amway. I don’t endorse either, and I’ll attempt to talk people out of joining them if I hear that they’re considering it. I’m not demanding they all get sent to jail, though. Nearly everything that Scientology does is technically legal. Adults have the right to give away all their money, go off their meds, sign up for the Sea Org, take a handful of vitamins every five hours… whatever they want to do. I’m just advising against it.
Nor do I think that government agencies should be feeding drug addicts out towards Narconon. Vitamins, sweating, and cold turkey quitting aren’t really the best or healthiest way to quit a severe drug habit. There are many more reputable rehab centers out there. Moreover, it’s pretty evident that Narconon is associated with Scientology, which is considered a religion. That’s a little bit of tacit endorsement that I don’t agree with, and yes, I’d be just as cranky if it were the Catholic rehab unit or the Christian Science rehab unit or the Reform Jewish rehab unit. I’m not thrilled about the ten commandments on public land either.
But yeah, I’d be very much interested in discussing how they got tax-exempt status, and why the things that they do are technically legal, even though they probably should not be. I don’t know how much light I can shed on everything, since I honestly don’t understand how they got tax-exempt status after breaking into the IRS’s computers. You’d think they’d have a longer memory than that and hold grudges better.
Oh, and saying that Project Snow White was “a century ago?” Lordy. Kids these days.
I haven’t gone into Christian Scientists yet because I honestly don’t know very much about them, and this isn’t their thread. That doesn’t mean I think it’s okay for them to keep their children away from doctors. It is not a tacit endorsement of their beliefs; it’s just that this isn’t a thread about that.
And for the record, this isn’t a thread about Guinastasia either. What on earth was that meant to prove, exactly? Are we supposed to ignore her arguments because she posts a lot and has some issues with mental illness in her life? I think that’s called an “ad hominem,” son, and it doesn’t prove a damn thing. Your response to her had nothing to do with Scientology or psychology or even Tom Cruise, and everything to do with her posting history. This is not the “Let’s talk about Guinastasia” thread, now is it?
You are establishing a very very bad pattern of going for the easiest targets and the most out-there assertations, starting hijacks left and right, and ignoring moderate voices. In the process, you’re setting up this strawman of the “Anti-Scientologist,” a paranoid conspiracy theorist with a history of mental illness, a strong grudge against this particular religion, and a hell of a lot of time on their hands. There’s a reason that’s a logical fallacy.
If you want to talk about Scientology, shut the hell up about Guin and Christian Science and how paranoid we all are, and talk about Scientology. It is that simple. And if you don’t want to do that… well, look into my posting history or slink off in a huff or whatever you want to do. But you’ll be making yourself look bad.
Oh. Hm. Well, it’s nice that you know more about the CoS than I do, CM. It’s nice to know that you know that certain metaphors aren’t important to them. Me, I happen to recall that certain metaphors do happen to be repeated, now and again, especially ones that LRH wrote.
Now, I’m sure you havn’t told a lie in this entire thread, and all the odd behavior you exhibit just happens to be concidental, and a reflection on how your parents raised you. I do hope you were an only child, by the way.
But when you see a bunch of clues hanging around, and they do seem to point at one conclusion, it’s not horribly wrong to suggest it might be a possibility. I’m not even the only one who came to it, it seems. You seem terribly offended that I might even think you’re a member of this church, and I can’t imagine why. I’m sure many CoS members are good people. I just have issues with the organization.
Do you honestly have an issue with someone reading Martin Gardner? Or you just don’t happen to believe that someone could remember a book read over ten years ago? Really, the things I’ve dug up aren’t all that hard to find, and they’re nothing that an average reader of Great Debates and the Pit on here wouldn’t have seen before. I just happen to remember them.
Now, your debating tactics are dishonest, your implications are slightly bizarre. I suggest you try to figure out what you want here, and to tell us.
Or, you know, sod off somewhere.
There’s nothing supernatural about saying ‘I’ve seen this before, and here’s how it usually plays out.’ Did you think your shtick was original?
I fully understand my own point about niacin, but it’s still not clear to me that you have one. In response to the simple, reputable cite I provided you tried to get me to answer for another, disputed cite provided by someone else. I declined to head down that path. It’s that simple. You have since obliquely agreed that my niacin site was reputable, but you have not once acknowledged the obvious conclusion that ultra high dose niacin treatment is dangerous.
Why can’t you acknowledge this? I’m not sure, but my assumption is that you are not able to contradict something once taught by Hubbard.
Your attack on Guin was irrelevant, and highly personal. If you feel she deserved such treatment, it should have been in a seperate thread, started by you for the purpose of embarrassing her.
Unless you are a total idiot, by now everybody should know just how insane this cult is. For me, seeing the pathetic losers that staff their information tables at malls was enough. these people seem to be seriously missing something. The whole thing is weird-a founder who lied, cheated, and stole. A leadership that is secretive, a “tech” that turns people into zombies-it is all on the net to read.
And, there is a steady flow of victims. I read the McPherson story-it was heartbreaking. To think that human beings could do this (in the name of helping).
At risk of being preachy, i feel compelled to quote the words of Jesus “…by their fruits you will know them”. Surely, such words describe scientology to a t.
look!ninjas
If I have confused you (or more likely lumped you in) with the others in this thread, my apologies. Actually, as I’ve pointed out, you have given me some factual answers and some good links. And I’ve thanked you for them.
This has been my point for the most part, since this started. There are a lot of accusations, a lot of articles, but if I ask for more detail, I’m a CoS member. I’d truly like to know how they stay out of jail if all that I’ve read is true.
You are also right that this isn’t a thread about Guin, or Christian Scientists. We can get rid of both topics. My intent wasn’t to embarrass Guin, but I can see how you all could interpret it that way. As I mentioned on two separate occasions, I usually find her posts intersting, and whether I agree with everything she writes or not, she rarely doesn’t add value. But it seems that if I don’t want to call people names in a pit thread, I shouldn’t expect others to follow my lead. In her words, if I can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Fair enough. My apologies to **Guin ** and to any Christian Scientists out there.
I read the article in R.S. and I had a couple of problems with it. The first problem was something that jumped out at me when I was reading it.
Now, let’s look at that article I took to task, from cultnews. I’ll quote it again.
Do these two paragraphs strike you as being similar? Almost like they were taken from the same source material, tweaked so the author couldn’t be accused of plagiarism, but essentially state the exact same thing? Is this laziness of the writer, since neither article supplies any cites or sources (other than the anonymous kind)? Or is it just fact, needing no source.
For the record, I don’t care who wrote this, as long as it’s true. But we don’t know who that person is/was. This shouldn’t pass for “investigative journalism”, and yet Janet Reitman, of Rolling Stone, writes the article with impunity.
How exactly, did the fact-checkers of this article check any of the information in the article? Everyone is hidden behind an alias. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but it’s pretty tough to prove either way, wouldn’t you think?
The whole article is interesting reading for sure, but if I say “can I see more?” is that bad?
She says in the article:
i’ve never been to Clearwater, and my article doesn’t have pictures, but is this true? Does the RS article have pictures? Or is this an urban legend? She says that these cameras are all owned and operated by the CoS. How does she know that? Again, we don’t know. But it sounds good. But no proof is required.
There’s more. In the article, the idea that CoS goes after defectors is re-inforced.
All of this should be public record, and yet we aren’t given links to the “lies about her on the Internet”, no information on the suit filed against her, and any details on how they attempted to get her fired from her job. I’m not saying this all didn’t happen. I’m saying that the evidence given isn’t very compelling. **Janet Reitman ** should have been able to get all of this information if she was interested in proving the CoS was conducting a smear campaign against someone who wanted out. But there is nothing of substance. Why is that?
The article in RS is a very damning article if it is true. There are allegations in there that should raise the flags of law enforcement agencies. But again, I hear very little in the way of litigation to shut down the CoS. It can’t be because Tom Cruise and John Travolta are sinking their fortunes into this goofy group. Why would they do that? Wouldn’t it be more damning to their careers if they were associated with a cult?
Finally, a serious question. In this article, it states that
So, let me get this straight. LRH was facing “financial ruin”, and he decided to found his own religion? OK. Where did all of this money come from? It can’t all be from Hollywood, can it? He founded a church in LA, had boats, went global… but this had to cost some money.
Their “Gold Base” is supposed to have $60 million dollars worth of equipment in it. The CoS also has a fleet of boats. And they have centers all over the country and the world. I believe they have one (perhaps two) centers designed specifically for actors. How much money is pouring into this place?
The best part of the article is that everyone is aliased, and the author states that all of her sources emailed her to either discount their stories, retract them completely, but beg to not be quoted. That’s tough to fact-check. It could all be true, but we’ll never know it.
Another honest question. Who is the target member for the CoS? Because from what I can tell, you have to have some money. $4K is a lot of money to get started. I can see where people would flee if asked to pony up that kind of money. Down and out, insecure people looking for hope of some kind usually don’t come through the doors with thousands of dollars. Or perhaps I’m wrong.
Also, can someone please help us all understand how this organization was able to get tax-exempt status from the IRS **AFTER ** Operation Snow White? I’d think the government would have a long memory over something like that. But they managed to do it.
And these E-Meters. Aren’t they subject to any scrutiny by any federal agency? If not, why not? The CoS is calling themselves a church, so I would think that something so essential to figuring out what “level” their members belong to should be looked at by some regulating agency (but again, I don’t know.)
I have read nothing that would lead me to believe that the government shouldn’t be able to shut these people down. If not for murder, how about a confidence game? It’s robbing people out of their life savings, and yet there is nothing that can be done? Why?
How hard is it to remove the IRS’ church status?