I’ve been procrastinating a return to this thread, but there’re a few points raised that I now would like to address. Constipated Mathematician, begging your permission:
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician]
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?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what the answer is to this question, CM, and I’m not sure it matters. Could the US Government have bigger fish to fry? Could the government have already investigated the CoS and decided that they couldn’t find any illegality? Could every undercover FBI officer that attempted to infiltrate the CoS have undergone auditing and subsequently gone completely insane? 
What’s your theory?
My point here is that even if the CoS is involved in no illegal activity, there are still valid reasons for this thread to exist - namely, warning people about the dangers of getting involved with a money-making scam of a pseudoscientific religion.
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, absolutely. That doesn’t make them evil or wrong.
What makes them “evil” (your term) that they are bilking people out of cash for services that they know to be spurious (unless they are profoundly deluded, in which case we can give them a pass). What makes them “evil” is that they commit themselves to ruining their critics.
What makes them wrong is that there is no valid science behind their method of “helping” people.
What makes them wrong is that there is no plausibility to their explanations of human emotional struggle.
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician]
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.
[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, CS, you may want to save that for the Christian Science thread. Establishing that other religions shun medicine won’t legitimize the CoS, except with respect to their philosophical right to shun medicine or psychiatry. I certainly won’t begrudge them that right, whereas I reserve the right to shout from the rooftops that their methods are dangerous - which, again, is the value of this thread.
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Right again, CS, that’s not what makes them a “public menace”.
What makes them a “public menace” (your term) is that they are bilking people out of cash for services that they know to be spurious (unless, again, they are profoundly deluded, in which case they’re unwittingly a public menace). What makes them a “public menace” is that they commit themselves to ruining their critics.
And while the practice of psychiatry certainly has had it’s troubles, some distinctions need to be made between the legitimacy of psychiatry versus Scientology:
A) Psychiatry: founded by credentialed, ostensibly sane people.
Scientology: founded on the theories of a single dissatisfied science-fiction writer with no discernible credentials, who professed to posess super-human abilities.
B) Psychiatry: theories developed, tested, then judged in peer-reviewed journals in an ongoing process.
Scientology: Theories developed by L Ron Hubbard, quite some years ago. Can you find evidence that the theories described in “Dianetics” were subject to affirmative review by L Ron’s peers - who, presumably, were likewise-dissatisfied science fiction writers with super-human abilities- or by anyone with any legitimacy, for that matter? Yeah, me neither.
C) Psychiatry: requires a rigorous cirriculum to practice legally. Practitioners subject to board review:
Scientology: Indoctrination is essential. Beyond that, who knows? Is there any evidence to suggest that any practitioner should be assumed competent?
D) Psychiatry: A mostly a transparent, mostly scientific discipline. Textbooks available almost everywhere.
Scientology: Not so transparent. Fiercely protective of “secrets”. Vengefully litigious.
E) Psychiatry: “OK, so you disagree with our theories? Well, prove us wrong.”
Scientology: “OK, so you disagree with our theories? Well, let’s see how you like it when we call your boss and tell him about those dirty secrets we’re explicitly encouraged by our religious leader to spread about you.”
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician]
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.
[/QUOTE]
First, CM, I think it’s worth noting that Operation Snow White is a valid example to bring up, as long as it’s brought up in context.
In this case, the context is the fraudulent “research” described in “Dianetics”, on which the religion’s “auditing” techniques are based.
The context is the risible mythology which the CoS serves up to believers after collecting tens of thousands of dollars from them.
The context is the larger pattern of behavior exhibited by the CoS toward it’s detractors, stretching from at least the 1960’s to the present.
Exhibit A) Filing a lawsit for $400 million in damages against Time Magazine, after Time published an article critical of the religion. A suit that the CoS lost by dismissal.
Exhibit B)
Lest we forget (and Lord knows, I’m trying my best to hammer this point home):
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
These are the things we know to be true. Within this context, the onus is on the CoS to convince us that Operation Snow White is an irrelevant anomaly.
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, thanks, Constipated Mathematician, I like you, too. 
) is absolutely in the right for asking for reputable, unbiased cites of some of the wrongdoings alleged to have been perpetrated by the CoS. This is the Dope; it’s what we do.