Scientology: A History of Violence with CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 °

[Calculon]

http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/press-releases-032310-2/
(First...what an ugly press release page.)

From the press release:

In a special series beginning Monday, March 29th, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° takes a close and revealing look at the leadership of the worldwide church of Scientology. The week-long series, Scientology: A History of Violence, will examine allegations that Scientology leader David Miscavige has for years beaten, kicked and choked top members of the church. These are allegations the church aggressively denies, saying violence from inside came from those making the claim.

A week long series with such a title? Who'd a thunk it.
It will be stuff already known to people following scientology, but a nice venue for more people to hear about the issues.

 

[Accidental Martyr]

I hope Cooper is ready to be subjected to the wrath of Tom Cruise.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I hope Cooper is ready to be subjected to the wrath of Tom Cruise.

Sorta like being attacked by a toothless 4-month old baby?

 

[TraneWreck]

Do Scientologists ever defend their religion? I mean, we even had a nutty MLM cult member arguing in favor of Amway, but to my knowledge no one has come to these boards to extoll the virtues of L Ron's brainchild.

I just find that odd. Internally they're fanatics, and they obviously love to litigate, but I've never just had a casual conversation with someone where we discuss Xenu. Yet Jesus/Mohammed/Joeseph Smith...etc. are always at the tips of people's tongues.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Do Scientologists ever defend their religion? I mean, we even had a nutty MLM cult member arguing in favor of Amway, but to my knowledge no one has come to these boards to extoll the virtues of L Ron's brainchild.

I just find that odd. Internally they're fanatics, and they obviously love to litigate, but I've never just had a casual conversation with someone where we discuss Xenu. Yet Jesus/Mohammed/Joeseph Smith...etc. are always at the tips of people's tongues.

fredcarr is a scientologist, though when he is here, he seems (from the few posts I have read) to more often be defending the organisation, rather than talking about his beliefs.

 

[TraneWreck]

fredcarr

Ah, thanks. I'm going to check out the threads he posted on.

Edit: Having scanned through about 10-12 of those scientology threads, I reiterate my bafflement at that "religion." I have yet to see a case where fredcarr tried to defend the tenants of his faith. I don't want to generalize from his comments on a forum to all scientologists, but it's just odd to me that they never say, "yes, psychology is evil and here's why." It's just a lot of, "you need to read L Ron's books if you want an answer to that question."

Tom Cruise's little spats with Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer are the only instances I can think of (and in my experience) where someone tried to justify those teachings. It's just odd.

The YE creationists hop on these boards and toss around all manner of claims to support their position. I've just never seen a Scientologist do the same.

 

[!Kaggen]

This may be interesting to someone trying to understand what the heck is going on in Scientology circles.

The black magician, or the left-handed occultist, seeks to strengthen the power of egoism. When he succeeds in doing so, he experiences an increase in his separateness from his fellow creatures, from the rest of life. It is important, therefore, that he learns to desensitize himself from the inner experiences of others and thus acquires the capacity to ignore, or to take pleasure in, the sufferings of fellow creatures. By using advanced techniques for this purpose, the black magician may acquire tremendous power. This may culminate in a left-handed initiation which gives him clairvoyance.

One of the techniques utilized for this purpose, also mentioned by Steiner, consists of deliberately causing pain and suffering to another creature in a deliberate, conscious, and technically prescribed way. (This is pro 'tech', folks.) The practitioner experiences an increased isolation of his ego and a new inner strength parallell with a radical cooling of his feelings.

One of the best known methods in this kind of black magic consists of stabbing a sharp object like a knife into very special spots in the victim's body and combine such actions with certain exercises in breathing and concentration. In this way, the practitioner may acquire enormous power and extract deep secrets of esoteric knowledge.

from

http://uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html

 

[Calculon]

Ah, thanks. I'm going to check out the threads he posted on.

Edit: Having scanned through about 10-12 of those scientology threads, I reiterate my bafflement at that "religion." I have yet to see a case where fredcarr tried to defend the tenants of his faith. I don't want to generalize from his comments on a forum to all scientologists, but it's just odd to me that they never say, "yes, psychology is evil and here's why." It's just a lot of, "you need to read L Ron's books if you want an answer to that question."

Tom Cruise's little spats with Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer are the only instances I can think of (and in my experience) where someone tried to justify those teachings. It's just odd.

The YE creationists hop on these boards and toss around all manner of claims to support their position. I've just never seen a Scientologist do the same.

That's the thing. Hubbard promoted attacking critics rather than defending scientology. I have no idea if Fred Carr was just a "public" acting on own, a troll, or what. But attacking rather than defending is standard. They have to defend more now, however. There is just so much out now with the internets. Tommy Davis (the current media spokesperson for scientology) when asked about things such as Xenu will fall back on saying it is sacred documents and it will not discuss it, or say it is nonsense. And when asked about the disonnection policy, will say that the Catholics have excommunication to divert attention, or say that the policy does not exist.

 

[Bikewer]

Years ago, I read a book titled "Cults Of Unreason" which included a chapter on Scientology which was just then starting to gain some prominence. Hubbard was still cruising around on his converted freighter as the "Sea Org.", and all manner of strange things were taking place.
Defectors were being threatened and attacked....

This book goes back to the very start of the "church". Pretty good read; covers other loonies like "T. Lobsang Rampa" (The Third Eye) and others.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I've just never seen a Scientologist do the same.

The trouble is that the rank and file scilons don't really know WHAT the beliefs of their hierarchical cult actually are. They haven't crossed the "wall of fire" in their trip across the "bridge to total freedom." All they know is they have to purge themselves of "engrams" and that L. Ron had the answer to everything.

Xenu and the space-borne DC-8s are for those who have been brainwashed enough to hand over hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to hear a lousy sci-fi story.

 

[hgc]

The trouble is that the rank and file scilons don't really know WHAT the beliefs of their hierarchical cult actually are. They haven't crossed the "wall of fire" in their trip across the "bridge to total freedom." All they know is they have to purge themselves of "engrams" and that L. Ron had the answer to everything.

Xenu and the space-borne DC-8s are for those who have been brainwashed enough to hand over hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to hear a lousy sci-fi story.

You know, when you think about it, the scam of Scientology is an amazing achievement, in its innovations, scope and durability. Actually, how durable is it?

 

[!Kaggen]

You know, when you think about it, the scam of Scientologythe modern world is an amazing achievement, in its innovations, scope and durability. Actually, how durable is it?

Just thought I would put Scientology as another modern invention into perspective.

 

[HarryKeogh]

You know, when you think about it, the scam of Scientology is an amazing achievement, in its innovations, scope and durability. Actually, how durable is it?

I'm hoping (really, really hoping) that it's on the fast-track to going away. In the NYTimes article I read a couple of weeks ago it mentioned a study that showed it's membership shrinking from 50,000 to 25,000 in the past ten years. I really think the Internet has been an amazing tool to get the facts out and put all the nonsense (I never heard of Xenu until it was on the web) out there for people to see for themselves.

But they have so much money! They're building all these amazing buildings but the bright spot is they seem to be empty. Sort of like that fancy hotel in North Korea. A showcase with no real use.

 

[TraneWreck]

The trouble is that the rank and file scilons don't really know WHAT the beliefs of their hierarchical cult actually are. They haven't crossed the "wall of fire" in their trip across the "bridge to total freedom." All they know is they have to purge themselves of "engrams" and that L. Ron had the answer to everything.

Xenu and the space-borne DC-8s are for those who have been brainwashed enough to hand over hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to hear a lousy sci-fi story.

That makes more sense to me than arguing that the rank and file members are somehow disciplined enough to keep those "secrets."

What I still find odd, however, is that there has to be some aspect of the religion that seduces people. Some construction of reality that makes people say, "boy, that sounds nice, sign me up."

For Christians it's the whole "died for your sins" mumbo-jumbo, and because it inspires members, it's the first thing out of their mouths when they talk to non-believers. They're excited about this "truth" and want to share it. All proselytizing religions function roughly the same way.

Hell, anything people get excited about works that way. We can't wait to share this info with others whether it's an AA meeting, a new video game, a new alt-med remedy, whatever. But Scientologists, who again are internally fanatic, never have much to say.

If they don't understand what to say, that would help explain it, but then you wonder why they like it in the first place. All other similar intitutions that promise long-term payout have some explanation of why you should stick with them until the end.

 

[hgc]

Just thought I would put Scientology as another modern invention into perspective.

Not sure I follow. The "scam of the modern world," without any context or explanation, is a meaningless phrase.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Am i the only one who totally misread the thread title as meaning: "The Church of Scientology has had a long-running history of being violent to Anderson Cooper" ?

 

[Accidental Martyr]

Sorta like being attacked by a toothless 4-month old baby?

He might jump up and down on Cooper's couch.

 

[fredcarr]

Since my name was brought up thought I should chime in.

I don't bother defending my religion as what would the point be?

If someone really wants to know something about my religion then I'm happy to point them to a book or two that would be a good place to start to learn some of the fundamentals.

I am not a troll but just a public Scientologist. (At least I hope I don't come across like a troll.) I don't have enough time in the day to act like a troll. Again what would be the point?

I very rarely see tenet's of my religion even being discussed/criticized online. Not particularly surprising seeing that it takes a fair amount of work to learn the fundamentals upon which the entire religion is based. (A handful of books and a couple hundred hours of lectures need to be studied to get the full picture of these fundamentals.)

However, I do love talking about my religion to those who are interested in it. But if someone merely wants to bash it then again why waste my time? If someone really wants to find out what it has to offer then it's typical to tell them to "read a book." (We're gradually getting more and more audio-visual mediums so its becoming easier to say "Watch this." Case in point: The new 4.5 hour Dianetics DVDs.)

This is more because I don't have endless hours to explain everything than a lack of desire to do so. One should keep in mind there are a lot of works available on the subject. We have over 2000 lectures that are now available to anyone that covers 99.9% of the religious philosophy of Scientology as developed and/or discovered by Mr. Hubbard. At an average hour per lecture that's a lot of listening. Add to this 15 or so books and thousands of written issues makes for a bit of work to become completely educated in the religion.

Of course there are books that are more suited for a beginner which is what I usually suggest a person read to get acquainted with how the applied religious philosophy that is Scientology can be used to help oneself or others. (I hate rewriting whats already been written which is another reason I just tell a person to "read a book". Guess I'm lazy that way!)

Of course there is a lot of material available on the web at my church's website which one can go to learn some things as well. But the bulk of it is in books and lectures.

 

[Sledge]

So what drew you to Scientology in the first place?

 

[Region Rat]

Since my name was brought up thought I should chime in.

I don't bother defending my religion as what would the point be?

If someone really wants to know something about my religion then I'm happy to point them to a book or two that would be a good place to start to learn some of the fundamentals.

I am not a troll but just a public Scientologist. (At least I hope I don't come across like a troll.) I don't have enough time in the day to act like a troll. Again what would be the point?

I very rarely see tenet's of my religion even being discussed/criticized online. Not particularly surprising seeing that it takes a fair amount of work to learn the fundamentals upon which the entire religion is based. (A handful of books and a couple hundred hours of lectures need to be studied to get the full picture of these fundamentals.)

However, I do love talking about my religion to those who are interested in it. But if someone merely wants to bash it then again why waste my time? If someone really wants to find out what it has to offer then it's typical to tell them to "read a book." (We're gradually getting more and more audio-visual mediums so its becoming easier to say "Watch this." Case in point: The new 4.5 hour Dianetics DVDs.)

This is more because I don't have endless hours to explain everything than a lack of desire to do so. One should keep in mind there are a lot of works available on the subject. We have over 2000 lectures that are now available to anyone that covers 99.9% of the religious philosophy of Scientology as developed and/or discovered by Mr. Hubbard. At an average hour per lecture that's a lot of listening. Add to this 15 or so books and thousands of written issues makes for a bit of work to become completely educated in the religion.

Of course there are books that are more suited for a beginner which is what I usually suggest a person read to get acquainted with how the applied religious philosophy that is Scientology can be used to help oneself or others. (I hate rewriting whats already been written which is another reason I just tell a person to "read a book". Guess I'm lazy that way!)

Of course there is a lot of material available on the web at my church's website which one can go to learn some things as well. But the bulk of it is in books and lectures.

Fredcarr, Ive just got to ask about these fundamentals. What difference does whatever the fundamentals or tenets of your religion say make if the bottom line of the whole kaboodle is space aliens?

Simple question: Do you believe in the space alien story? That's pretty much what non-believers want to know from believers. Not books and readings and long discussions. The main issue is- nobody actually defends the space alien story. Would you, if you had the time and inclination? Not will you right now, but do you believe it in your heart. Yes or no?