Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

[Chris L]

I thought that auditing was supposed to sort out these kind of people. If it can't what's the purpose of auditing?


Saying "others do it too' isn't much of a defense.

Exactly. It's not as if the Scientologists in the McPherson case were acting out of character. They did everything in accordance with the principles laid out by Hubbard. They followed the rules (literally) to a fault. The result was a bunch of supposedly functioning adults who stood around as a woman (who believed in what they believed) faded away and died. All because their church (with it's reality warping vocabulary and endless "disciplinary committees") had left them unable to step outside the conceptual box long enough to see what was happening. Lisa McPherson needed real help from real medical professionals, not people adhering to the rants of a pulp sci fi writer who pulled most of his "philosophy" out of his anal cavity.

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Any progress on finding those examples of people harmed by skeptical bullying or nasty skeptical criticism?




This Nancy Grace?

Born Nancy Ann Grace
October 23, 1959 (age 52)
Macon, Georgia, United States
Education Valdosta State University
Mercer University (BA, JD)
New York University (LLM)
Occupation Political commentator, television personality, former prosecutor
Years active 1996–present
Notable credit(s) Closing Arguments anchor (1996–2007)
Nancy Grace anchor (2005–present)
Religion Christian

Yes, I see. I should have asked for clarification. I see that under the definition I have to meet, I am not a skeptic. I do post at JREF, but I understand one doesn't have to declare oneself to be a skeptic to do so. I have no standing in the skeptic community, no blog, or any following or celebrity. But, using this more constricted notion of what you meant, I'll still see what I can come up with. Would Anonymous's attack on Scientology fall under the "bullying by a skeptical organization" label? Or do they get a pass, since they appear to only be skeptical of Scientology? But if that's the case, then how are we to tell if criticism here in the JREF is based on a skeptical stance or simply an artifact of people disagreeing? I hope you see the problem I'm having.


The request was to find an example of bullying from a skeptic or harm, correct?

On a hunch, I'll offer the recent kerfuffle about misogyny in the skeptical ranks as bullying. Since bullying is in the eyes of the perceived victim, I don't see why skepticism, especially in it's conversations with Christians, wouldn't be seen as a bully sometimes.

The harm part is rather an easy one, as long as it is general harm and harm in the service of truth isn't ruled out. For example, anything we do to debunk a charlatan making a living at her craft would constitute financial harm to that person. This too shouldn't be surprising, since each side of a binary stance, regardless of truth value, would tend to harm the other side.

But perhaps you meant physical harm? That would be harder to pull out of my rectum on an off beat.

You seem to have missed my post. Nancy Grace is a Christian.

 

[marplots]

You seem to have missed my post. Nancy Grace is a Christian.

Christians cannot be skeptics?

Not even Martin Luther?

But since that post, I think the question was clarified -- someone recognized primarily for their skeptical views or standing in the skeptical community.

 

[tsig]

Christians cannot be skeptics?

Not even Martin Luther?

But since that post, I think the question was clarified -- someone recognized primarily for their skeptical views or standing in the skeptical community.

Skeptic Christians are called atheists.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Clear also can be approached, but never completely obtained on this planet.

I drove 50,000 accident free miles while drunk in terms of percentage of blood alcohol before I was clear and OT.

Clear = Not Clear. You said it, not me.

What's the point of spending 40 years trying to be clear if you'll never be clear?

 

[Justinian2]

Clear = Not Clear. You said it, not me.

What's the point of spending 40 years trying to be clear if you'll never be clear?

The average person is only 20 percent clear, by my reckoning. You seem to think the average person is 90% clear.

Being able to go totally clear at will is highly desirable.

 

[Twiler]

The average person is only 20 percent clear, by my reckoning. You seem to think the average person is 90% clear.
Being able to go totally clear at will is highly desirable.

I don't think that people who aren't involved with scientology believe that such a state as 'clear' exists.

 

[tsig]

The average person is only 20 percent clear, by my reckoning. You seem to think the average person is 90% clear.

Being able to go totally clear at will is highly desirable.

This would be good time for you to define what you mean by clear because I think we're talking past each other.

 

[Justinian2]

This would be good time for you to define what you mean by clear because I think we're talking past each other.

The moment that you realize you haven't been clear is the moment that you can start to learn how to be clear.

For example, if you realize your panic attacks/depression/nervousness/apathy are not rational, then you are on the first step to clear. If you are ready to read about your own abnormal psychology, then you are on the first step to clear. If you know that you have been following thoughts that are not rational and can't be explained, then you are on the first step to clear.

If you think you are clear, always have been and always will be, then you will never be clear.

 

[Twiler]

The moment that you realize you haven't been clear is the moment that you can start to learn how to be clear.

For example, if you realize your panic attacks/depression/nervousness/apathy are not rational, then you are on the first step to clear. If you are ready to read about your own abnormal psychology, then you are on the first step to clear. If you know that you have been following thoughts that are not rational and can't be explained, then you are on the first step to clear.

If you think you are clear, always have been and always will be, then you will never be clear.

That didn't answer the question. How do you measure the percentage of 'clearness' that a person has?

 

[tsig]

This would be good time for you to define what you mean by clear because I think we're talking past each other.

The moment that you realize you haven't been clear is the moment that you can start to learn how to be clear.

For example, if you realize your panic attacks/depression/nervousness/apathy are not rational, then you are on the first step to clear. If you are ready to read about your own abnormal psychology, then you are on the first step to clear. If you know that you have been following thoughts that are not rational and can't be explained, then you are on the first step to clear.

If you think you are clear, always have been and always will be, then you will never be clear.

So clear is a state that can never be achieved because as soon as someone says they are clear that's proof they aren't clear.


Neat catch that catch 22


Of course, you still didn't give me a definition of what clear is just what it isn't.

 

[hgc]

That didn't answer the question. How do you measure the percentage of 'clearness' that a person has?

If it's anything like a prostate exam, I'm not getting measured for clearness. No. way.

 

[Chris L]

So clear is a state that can never be achieved because as soon as someone says they are clear that's proof they aren't clear.


Neat catch that catch 22


Of course, you still didn't give me a definition of what clear is just what it isn't.

That's because it's nonsense, being a Clear doesn't mean anything. It certainly didn't help Hubbard (the ultimate Clear one would think) see through the deceptions of a 20something neo-fascist named David Miscavige. It didn't help his follow church founders fight off Miscavige's take over of the church. It certainly didn't help Lisa McPherson fight off the psychosis that ultimately gripped her, or give her handlers in the church any special insight to help her. Hell, it didn't even give them the common sense not to just stand around and watch her die. So being a "Clear" is about as meaningful (and real) as being a Jedi.

 

[Myriad]

So being a "Clear" is about as meaningful (and real) as being a Jedi.

Don't sell the Jedi short. Like a handful of other modern disciplines, they're actually using much older mystery teachings dressed up in recently invented science-fantasy trappings, without knowing it. They're kind of like an easy-going party guy who doesn't seem to take anything very seriously, but he has an insane billionaire uncle his family never told him about.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Chris L]

Don't sell the Jedi short. Like a handful of other modern disciplines, they're actually using much older mystery teachings dressed up in recently invented science-fantasy trappings, without knowing it. They're kind of like an easy-going party guy who doesn't seem to take anything very seriously, but he has an insane billionaire uncle his family never told him about.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Perhaps that's not a coincidence. Lucas, I believe, based the Jedi on the whole Samurai warrior tradition. In fact, the Akira Kurosawa film "The Hidden Fortress" was a major influence on Star Wars:A New Hope.

 

[Robrob]

Perhaps that's not a coincidence. Lucas, I believe, based the Jedi on the whole Samurai warrior tradition. In fact, the Akira Kurosawa film "The Hidden Fortress" was a major influence on Star Wars:A New Hope.

Actually it's kind of an "in-joke" among certain troops to list "Jedi" for religion on their dog tags.

 

[Krikkiter]

There are two types of ex-scientologists.
1) Those that believe in Hubbard's teachings.
2) Those that don't.

Both types exist in the Freezone. Most Freezoners believe in the teaching of LRH. Some Freezoners enjoy the services, but choose to ignore LRH. They say something like this: "I don't like Scientology, but I want to buy more auditing and training anyway"

Most of the objectionable parts of Scientology have been removed by Freezone practitioners. Most Scientologists that have left the Church of Scientology really like the Freezone and get gains consistent with the fees.

It's hard to label things anyway. I believe in democracy, but not the type we practice. I believe in capitalism, but not the type we practice. I believe in the free market, but not our type. I believe conservatives and liberals are inaccurate descriptions. I don't believe in Republicans or Democrats. I believe in justice, but not our type. I believe in Scientology, but not the type the church practices.

I know I'm late to this but seriously... what an odd things to say.

You mean to say that they left some objectionable parts in? Or did you really mean to say "Most of the objectionable parts of Scientology have been removed by Freezone practitioners."? If so then what do these practitioners actually practice?

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

I get angry from time to time as do all sane people. I don't stay angry long because I prefer other emotional states.

I haven't had 40 years of lost wages. I spent my 1973 income on Scientology, but live so cheaply that year with other Scientologists that I actually ended the year with a tax refund that put me financially ahead. In the prior year I spent my entire income at bars, on women, on cars and on a nice apartment.
What I've paid into Scientology in the Freezone is only a small portion of the amount my investments have earned.

You're wrong again.

So your real love with Scientology came with the fact that it gave you a purpose in life. It really had nothing to do with the message or the teachings, it just got your life on track. Happens to most people eventually. For me, it was having a kid. For some, it's a near-death experience. For you, it was Scientology.

 

[tsig]

I get angry from time to time as do all sane people. I don't stay angry long because I prefer other emotional states.

I haven't had 40 years of lost wages. I spent my 1973 income on Scientology, but live so cheaply that year with other Scientologists that I actually ended the year with a tax refund that put me financially ahead. In the prior year I spent my entire income at bars, on women, on cars and on a nice apartment. What I've paid into Scientology in the Freezone is only a small portion of the amount my investments have earned.

You're wrong again.

So your real love with Scientology came with the fact that it gave you a purpose in life. It really had nothing to do with the message or the teachings, it just got your life on track. Happens to most people eventually. For me, it was having a kid. For some, it's a near-death experience. For you, it was Scientology.

If he could manage wine, women, nice cars and a nice place to live why did he need Scientology?

In any case it looks as if he's cleared out.

 

[Justinian2]

I know I'm late to this but seriously... what an odd things to say.

You mean to say that they left some objectionable parts in? Or did you really mean to say "Most of the objectionable parts of Scientology have been removed by Freezone practitioners."? If so then what do these practitioners actually practice?

The most objectionable part to me was the Miscavige era timeshare sales type techniques the Church of Miscavige employed.

The next objectionable thing was the Miscavige era 'Sec checking' the main church would use. The tortorous part of this was it was called "NOT AUDITING" which is not "Nots Auditing" but is actually the reverse of auditing. The auditor waits for you to confess to a crime/overt while you are paying the hundreds of dollars an hour for his services.

The Freezone has never done any of the above.

The Church of Scientology under Hubbard and before the FBI infiltration and MisCavige, did this much differently and even got good results. Comparing these processes under Hubbard to those under Miscavige is like comparing the use of pepper as a spice instead of as the main course.

Miscavige was never an auditor and never a clear or OT. He rose to the top possibly with a forged signature. LRH may have granted him the right to sign his signature in order to escape prosecution for Scientology's counter espionage against the FBI.