Opinion

Scientology tarnishes Cruise’s star power

December 1, 2015

author:

Scientology tarnishes Cruise’s star power

I’ve made a lot of questionable decisions in my lifetime. I am a 21-year-old man who goes to One Direction concerts. I sleep in a bed covered in orange dust from off-brand Cheetos puffs, and, last weekend, I had a conversation about lasagna-like vaginas with a famous drag queen. But all of that is just water under the bridge compared to the poor decisions I made while choosing my best friends.

Last week, two of my best friends in the entire world both asked for the same thing for Christmas. They both wanted a Blu-ray Disc copy of “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation,” the most recent film in Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible series.

I found this problematic for two reasons. One, my pretentious friends only watch critically acclaimed movies that are going to be nominated for multiple Oscars, so I’m sad they broke their “quality-movies-only” rule for a Mission Impossible flick. And two, I’m mad they’re asking me to financially support a Tom-Cruise-led feature.

Besides acting and jumping on couches, Cruise is best known for being the face of the Church of Scientology. And unfortunately, Scientology and its members are the scum of the earth. And because of his heavy involvement in the church, I refuse to watch or support anything with Tom Cruise in it.

Scientology isn’t a religion; it’s a cult. In order to be involved in the church, you have to give increasing amounts of money, and once you’re in, you’re turned into a prisoner. Members of the church aren’t allowed to leave or they face constant surveillance and harassment, according to the Huffington Post. The church also takes children away from their mothers and abuses its members.

“Going Clear,” a documentary that highlighted the immorality of Scientology and focused on Cruise’s involvement, premiered last March to rave reviews. The movie gave a comprehensive picture of what was wrong with Scientology.

Cruise was never asked questions about the film, even though he did a press tour for “Rouge Nation” a few months later. The headline-making documentary and his involvement with the church were universally ignored during his interviews.

I’m almost sure Tom Cruise has a cyanide pill hidden in his cheek during every interview just in case he is asked about Scientology. Instead of answering, he can just die so he doesn’t actually admit the truth.

It’ll probably never come to that though. I’m positive there’s someone on Cruise’s team that monitors every question and prohibits any talk about his religion, so I can’t really blame the interviewers. I can blame Cruise though. It’s cool if he wants to be involved in a violent cult – that’s his business. You do you. Be human garbage all you want. Just don’t ignore your involvement.

If Cruise wants to be a respected figure, he needs to come out with his position on the church, why he is involved in it and why he chooses to ignore the church’s abusive nature.

It’s not like Cruise is just one minor member of the church. He is the celebrity poster child for the church. Former Scientologist and “King of Queens” star Leah Remini said Cruise was a “pillar to the church” and she had to donate $1 million to the church just to meet Cruise. She also said the church members mistreated Cruise’s daughter Suri and that she was written up for misbehaving at his wedding and was forced to apologize to his then-wife, Katie Holmes.

Tom Cruise isn’t alone though. Immoral celebrities are everywhere; from Sean Penn to Chris Brown to Mark Wahlberg. I’m not saying Cruise is on the same level of trash as those men, but he’s still trash that needs to be avoided. Cruise is synonymous with Scientology, so if Cruise wants to keep being a public figure, he has to address the church’s poor behavior. He has no excuse to ignore its violent tendencies. So until he explains himself and leaves the church, my friends aren’t getting what they want for Christmas.

978 Comments
  1. Amy Forsythe

    Thank you for this article. The more the public is informed of this dangerous and criminal organization the better. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. In this country we are free to express our religious feelings however we like. You want to believe in Lord Xenu, more power to you. That is not what this is about. It's about child abuse, human right violations, extorting money from members, forced abortions, harrassment of critics, and the list goes on and on. Oh and one more thing you need to know about this organization. They lie. They lie continually about anything and everything.

    • Mary

      They lie because they think the church and david miscavige should be allowed to commit felony assault, extortion, tear apart families, etc; because it's "the greatest good" for all.

      • in fine fettle

        People who have witnessed criminal activities should report them to the appropriate authorities. People who have never witnessed such things cannot be expected to do so and therefore they cannot be rightly called liars.

        • Captain MustSavage

          What would happen to a scientologist who involved the police? How able are scientologists to take other scientologist to court? I believe there are policies about this. Please enlighten us.

          • elle

            Scientologists have taken other Scientologists to court, not that it is any of your business.

          • Captain MustSavage

            Really? What are the details so we can all check on your veracity?

          • elle

            Apparently you are ignorant of all policy. Plus, People are entitled to privacy. You are looking for people to hunt down and attack or try to lure into the bunker. Meh

          • Captain MustSavage

            You were pressuring Paulette Cooper Noble to supply evidence of her claims up thread, elle. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Pony up your evidence. And, BTW, who's the paranoid one now? "...looking for people to hunt down..." You taunted Mrs Noble about paranoia and scientologists "cackling at her door" and here you are all paranoid. Perhaps everything you accuse others of, you are yourself?

          • elle

            Just prove she ever participated in a Church service--not too much to ask since she used that lie, er, claim, to launch an agenda she had in place before her bogus claim to have done anything in the Church.

          • Bob Crouch

            Let's see YOU prove it!

          • Captain MustSavage

            What's your beef with her? Do you believe the church of Scientology had a right to frame her for bomb threats?

          • Bob Crouch

            For an interesting example of scientology "justice," just google "Carmen Llywelyn." It's an enlightening tale of how scientology tried to beat her into submission during her divorce from scientology B-list celebrity Jason Lee.

          • Bob Crouch

            The consequences are clear: Since we are talking about "sea org" members here, they may be imprisoned at their leadership's whim, for indefinite periods of time. They may, make that "will" be subjected to physical assaults and emotional abuse. No mystery there, as abundant evidence continues to show.

        • Bob Crouch

          Interestingly, the "Inch Wives" claimed on CNN/Anderson Cooper to have observed numerous assaults at Gold Base. However, they also admitted that they never reported a single one of them. Not even to Miscavige, let alone to the police. When Anderson Cooper found these to be rather strange work place conditions (in a "spiritual headquarters," one might add), they ran out of replies and went for the old scientology stand-by: self-righteous indignation. And so it would appear--from the mouths of scientologists in good standing, at the highest levels--that the scientology culture is definitely a "different" one. One where violent crimes do in fact go unreported.

          • elle

            Rinder was observed committing assaults. Everyone happy to see him dumped.

          • Ben Franklin

            If Rinder was observed committing assaults why wasn't he never arrested and put in jail? Could it be that you were lied to just to hate Mike Rinder? There are a lot of SPs in your Church lie constantly through their teeth in desperation to destroy someone's reputation just because he dared speak the truth about the abuses in Scientology at the highest level.

          • elle

            All the hideous accusations you hurl at the Church and why do not the gahzillions of accusers file gahzillions of charges?

          • Ben Franklin

            You act like the Church has never been sued before. How often have you have seen a Scientologist suing another Scientologist. Why do you think Scientologists don't sue each other or prefer not to involve the police when a church member has committed a crime? Why do cases of rape and Child molestation by church members get swept under the rug? When I think you know why, but of course you can not be honest and say the truth.

          • Ben Franklin

            Just remember many of the former members that you now hurl insults at were just big supporters of the Church like you. They only difference is that they have personally experienced the dark side of the Church and realized how cruel and deceitful it is. There a lot of people who dedicated many years of their lives to Scientology only to be disappointed in the end and left with a sour taste in their mouth. Clear is just a word, there are no real clears. There are no people on this planet with OT powers. Even LRH never had any OT powers, and that's a fact. LRH suffered every human problem you can imagine, from failed marriages, poor familial relationships, illnesses, debts, untruthfulness, anger issues. LRH Eventually died a lonely death in a small remote ranch like a small being with none of his family members at his side. That is your idol,and the person whom you model your life and behavior after. There is nothing in Scientology, it is just a big money making fraud hidden under the veil of spirituality. All the wins you have received in Scientology,you would have received anyway without Scientology. Today there are millions and millions of non-Scientologists living happily, creating, and thriving.

          • Bob Crouch

            You accused Mike Rinder of assault earlier--as usual, with no proof. Where are those charges? 11 scientologists went to prison--including the cult founder's wife--for crimes against the American people. Among the crimes discovered were the crimes against Ms. Cooper, the upstanding journalist that you so detest. That's a lot better than "charges." That's PROOF of how the cult operates.

          • sundaygirl

            There are currently several lawsuits in process against your organization and its front groups like Narconon. Not to mention what just happened in Belgium and Russia.

          • Bob Crouch

            Pretty funny. As your partner in cult shilling fettle points out: If it hasn't been reported it did not happen. So: 1. When was Rinder ever reported? 2. What does it say about the cult that they let this happen? Then again, while there is NOTHING but YOUR word for the Rinder assaults (and you lack the access anyway), there are scores of high-ranking scientologists who will attest to the fact that cult leader Miscavige abuses his executives verbally and physically (of course, only in the presence of goons as he is a coward with the build of a 6-th grade girl). NOT ONE of these former "church" execs has EVER implicated Rinder. Plus, your intentions become abundantly clear when you claim that Rinder was "dumped." That is PROVABLY a lie! You're revealing that you will say ANYTHING to lie for the cult!

  2. Avid Miskaridge

    Scientology's full-fledged hatred campaigns volleyed at pharmaceutical companies and physicians, specifically psychiatrists treating mental illnesses has revealed a very telling weakness. As with any cult, mind control is a central tenet in Scientology and the threat of its reversal is likely to register at the top of the fear scale for its established membership. No more control, spells trouble for funding this large machine. It has always been an ego-driven venture that has been allowed to fester into what we now see as the true face of Scientology--to keep the mind-control active and discourage free thinking for the soul purpose of money. Let's continue to expose the crimes against humanity that have been propagated and condoned by their cognitively dissonant, Stockholm syndrome affected members. People know the evils of Scientology which is why we have to continue to let the public know about their front groups; which are much like conglomerates that appear to have *no* connection to its larger umbrella organization but are controlled by their board. Scientology is a business, not a religion. The IRS does not have the power to anoint religions, even though it erred in doing so in 1993.

    • C.P. Garcia

      The controlling legal principle is that the people, not their government, have the jurisdiction to define the institutions by which religious activities are administered or carried out. However, the IRS is the only government body that sets to define what is religion for tax exempt purposes. This is set in the IRS manual, Section 7.26.2.2.4(4). There are 14 points of test to what is defined a religion. A group does NOT need to meet all 14, but needs a majority of them to reach the IRS definition. So. While the government (Congress) has not made laws that dictate how to define a religion or church, the IRS pretty much does it for us. So they really do have the power to to "anoint" religion. But really they only do so by groups hitting most of those 14 points. Scientology hits most/if not all of the 14 points. Some would be questionable though. The late 80s/early 90s were one of the strongest times for Scientology which I think helped them gain status ..before the Internet exposed many of their practices. Mormonism really started very similar to Scientology (some would say both started by con men) but over the years has "normalized" the existence of the Church. This is something I thought Scientology would do, but I think the Internet ruined that for them. The Mormons lucked out by a good 100 years.. lol

      • Mary

        Yes. I do believe he was the perfect candidate of an alter boy - oops, I mean celebrity - to be groomed by david miscavige.

        • C.P. Garcia

          I don't get what that has anything to do with what I wrote or why you replied to me..

      • One Human

        If you research the many restrictive and retaliatory tenets of the "religion", normalization is not in its DNA.

        • C.P. Garcia

          I very much know about the practices/beliefs/actions of Scientology.. Agreed in its current state.. yes.. "Normalization" is not really possible. Eliminations of most all HCOBs would be needed would be just one thing... People will point of the Sea Org has having to go.. but its comparisons to other "Religious Orders" make it passable .. Nuns give their "salary" back to the Church.. and in essence have no income. They do MANY jobs for the Church and work long hours for nothing (Just as the Sea Org does).....Nuns have been forced to have abortions, take birth control and been sexualy abused by Priests and missionaries without legal action ever taken place (admitted by the Vatican). So point being.. the "abuses" that occur in the Sea Org do happen within other religions and again don't "discredit" it any more then the rest of them....We often look at Scientology has being "strange", but its first 60 years are NOT that different then how many other "religions" started just all this occurred in "Modern" times.... Actually. A lot less death and destruction comparably. lol. I am not endorsing any of what they do.. just pointing out it doesn't make them not a "religion" by IRS or by basic comparisons to other small and large worldwide religions..

          • Captain MustSavage

            Abusive behaviors result from Scientology policies, written organisational policies. This means that the human rights abuses that occur in Scientology occur EVERYWHERE this organisation exists, not as a result of some bad people being in the job in some places. For example, Scientology has a POLICY once called 'fair game' that directs its members to harm others by any means possible and argued in a Texas courtroom THIS YEAR that its harassment behaviors were religious free speech. Take a look at the top commenter here. This lady was subject to the most horrific abuse by Scientology as a result of the fair game policy. Harassment of people who tell the truth about Scientology happened then and it's happening now. The SP handling policy also results in ongoing complete estrangement, which they call disconnection, of whole families merely because someone begins to have doubts or expresses concern about Scientology. There is audio online of a woman being declared an SP for watching Leah Remini on dancing with the Stars. She clearly says to the ethics officer 'you realise my husband will divorce me?' You may argue that shunning is a common practice of religions and that therefore this makes Scientology's behavior the same as all the others. The difference is that the religions that practised shunning did so in the Middle Ages and those who practise it now, like the Amish, still live as though they're back there. I have little tolerance for the 'all religions are the same' apologists for Scientology.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Which is why I said most of HCOBs would need to go.. as all those practices you spoke of..(Fair Game, Dead Agent, etc.) are in them..

          • One Human

            The Sea Org is but one facet, one which consistently and throughout its history, has kept members, including children, in inhumane, abusive, and prison like conditions. As to the IRS, aside from C of S not providing proof of tangible social betterment, C of S has used its tax free income to employ private investigators to stalk, harass, and intimidate former members and critics. Add to that the vexatious litigation that also has been a hallmark of the organization. The dangerous quackery that is done in the name of LRH Inc. should have been extinguished in the 1950s. To even suggest a kinder, gentler form of Scientology is possible, much less acceptable, is patently absurd.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Again.. I am very much aware of their practices.. Even in the 20th Century.. the Catholic Church and its members have done much worse(during WW2, Viatman, and Rawanda 94)... All that you speak of has never resulted in any action by the FBI.. After many investigations.. would would be the difference.. The actual practice of Scientology is often no more "quackery" then many other religions. Example.. "refusing medical attention because they can pray away sickness".. Say hello to "Jehovah's Witnesses" and blood transfusions.. I can point out other religions with MANY more members then Scientology that practice "quackery".. So again.. these things do NOT differentiate Scientology from the practices of MANY other religions.. small and large..

          • One Human

            Dianetics, the precursor to Scientology, was promoted as a mental health therapy that promised ludicrously unobtainable benefits, to the point the AMA expressed concerns. And while quackery EXISTS in other religions, this one is founded on it. There is a great series of articles at Tony Ortega DOT ORG related to the death of Lisa McPherson while under the care and direction of Scientology, a case that clearly illustrates the dangers of essentially practicing medicine without a license or training. As to Jehovah's Witnesses, they refuse actual blood transfusions, but have been instrumental in the development of blood alternatives. You claim to be "very much aware of their practices", yet seem compelled to minimize the harms that are evidenced by hundreds of personal accounts. Sorry C. P. Garcia, I have been rather polite up to now....you are full of $#!*.

          • C.P. Garcia

            What part of I know all about Scientology do you not understand?? I am not minimizing anything.. Where did I do that? Catholic Clergy were involved with the death of 300k-600k deaths in WW2.. Just again pointing out much LARGER atrocities committed by much LARGER religions.. This does not MINIMIZE anything.. Its called a point of comparison.. even in the 20th Century.. Catholics have been responsible for FAR more deaths then Scientology has members.. does this mean nothing to you? Not sure how I am full of shit.. when I am pointing out factual events.. and to say other Religions aren't founded on "quackery".. that is one of the funniest things I have heard all year... Christian Science even pre-dates Scientology.. who was founded on "sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone".. so yeah.. again.. just offering comparisons here.. not minimizing harm.. But the overwhelming majority of people who practice ANY of these religions do not come into "harm".. no matter how many "accounts" you have..

          • One Human

            I'll leave the Catholic history to those that are more versed in it, though I do also find those atrocities reprehensible. These indeed are but a few of the many evils in the world, but this one strikes a particular nerve for those that have been victimized by it, and those that can empathize with how their own life would have been directly impacted by it had circumstances been different. Your assertions strike me as odd given the article presented here. Do you do the same when FLDS, pedophiles, or other dangerous groups have articles written about them?

          • C.P. Garcia

            Huh? I started this conversation about pointing how how the IRS DOES have the legal authority and is the only "governing" body which defines what a Religion is in the USA. Then stated that the beginnings of many religions are FULL of dubious activities and treatment of their own faithful. This was a discussion on Religions.. and their actions.. so not sure how "pedophiles" and the like are even mentioned in the same topic. You said you didn't think Scientology could be normalized..I said there are ways it could be (a watering down of basic tenants has happened in many religions.), and other Religions have moved on from MUCH worse to become "normalized". I am not a FAN of any organized Religion, so when I see people try to act as if one is better then there other for this or that reason.. yes.. I will say something..

          • One Human

            I get your point, but I do believe this one is among the most dangerous.

          • elle

            IRS does not define a religion, it can only recognize one--or a church-- for tax exempt purposes.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Point being the ONLY defining factor in the USA of what is a religion.. is if the IRS recognizes them it as one.. Anyone can call their "thing" a religion. But they don't get the benefits of being one unless the IRS says they are one.. You didn't read what i wrote earlier I am guessing, cause I explained all this.

          • elle

            The First Amendment does not have a check list to qualify. And whether a religion gets government benefits or not does not change how the congregation defines itself.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Again. You did not read what I wrote.. I spoke of how the Government (congress etc.) has NO mad no laws defining what a religion is.. that the only "government" organization that HAS the power to decide what IS a religion, is IRS. You cannot deny this. They have 14 points that a religion MUST meet most of them to QUALIFY as a religion in the EYES of the American government.. It is NOT just tax exemption that is GIVEN to organizations that the IRS recognizes.. There are many other benefits that Religions can partake in once they are approved.. What a congregation defines itself as has nothing to do with what we were talking about.. The original comment by the person was that the " IRS does not have the power to anoint religions, even though it erred in doing so in 1993".. and I said.. IT DID and DOES have the power to ANOINT a group or church as a Religion.. and that is the one government body that does.. Again. this is fact.. and not up for "debate"..

          • elle

            There are more restrictions on religions than benefits. Before there was the IRS, there were religions. The IRS and Congress and Government cannot decide what is a religion, period.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Again.. What the hell are you talking about.. Nothing to do with what we were.. that's is for sure.. If it wasn't a big deal.. Why did David have a big show in 1993.. Saying "We Won". You know. that even they show EVERY year .. celebrating when the IRS recognized the,.. Anyone can call themselves and PRACTICE whatever religion they WANT.. no one is denying that... We were TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION.. The IRS DOES DEFINE what is a RELIGION in this country..

          • elle

            define yourself. Then I will do up a checklist and see if you are correct.

          • C.P. Garcia

            You're not helping Scientology's cause at all.. Let me tell you that.. lol

          • elle

            Just a prop for you--you are holding up well under the insane attacks of the trolls from the bunker. If you do not agree with them 110% and add your own venom, they will attack you savagely en masse. But you are giving as good as you get and not yielding ground.

          • Bob Crouch

            More restrictions than benefits? Not to someone scamming the system the way scientology is. Fair game, incarceration, labor laws, tax dodge. All "benefits."

          • elle

            "According to the IRS manual, Section 7.26.2.2.4(4), there is a 14 point test to determine if a religious organization can qualify as a “church”. Scientology fulfills all 14 points. The end.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Are you retarded!?! I SAID THIS EXACTLY IN MY ORIGINAL POST!!!!! I WAS POINTING OUT TO SOMEONE THAT SCIENTOLOGY DID MEET the IRS criteria and I LISTED THE SECTION and everything.. again.. YOU MIGHT WANT TO READ ALL THE COMMENTS before making yourself look like a fool..

          • elle

            I did not misunderstand you. Each time you posted, you wrote in such a way that any reader would think the IRS decides what is a religion, period. As in "the only "government" organization that HAS the power to decide what IS a religion, is IRS." You have degenerated into personal insults. That does not strengthen your assertions.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Yes you do misunderstand me.. Because again. What I said is 100% FACT AND TRUE.. Its not up for "debate". In the USA a Religion is only recognized so BY THE GOVERNMENT if the IRS declares it so. Again this is why Scientology CELEBRATED the 1993 decision.. It mattered.. and it STILL matters for ALL Religions to have this acceptance.. And again.. We are NOT talking about the WHAT the followers of the Religion care about. Anyone can practice ANY Faith or Religion they want.. they do NOT need the Government to TELL them it is a Religion. Religion is a PERSONAL and SPIRITUAL decision and practice.. But for those Religions who want to flourish, they NEED the acceptance of Governments worldwide to recognize it, so they can get the MANY benefits this entails (not just tax exemption).

          • elle

            You have not been clear at every point. You put too much power in the hands of governments. There is an ancient battle between governments and religions. The religion does not NEED the government acceptance. That is backward putting religion at effect of government. Religion must force governments to not persecute them, force them to codify that, then force them to abide by the code. I believe our Constitution was the first document that memorialized that concept. Government, good government, needs religion.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Again. . you go off on to tangents about things that aren't what we were even discussing. I don't give the government power. I didn't make the IRS guidlines or even support them. You are having this debate with the wrong person. I was not debating anything about Scientology or Religion. I was telling someone else that Scientology meets the IRS criteria and that they are the only Government body who makes the distinction of what they consider a religion. You then insereted yourself into the conversation with things that had nothing to do with what I said or in fact already i had already stated the exact things in Support of Religions and Scientology..

          • elle

            Don't know if you realize that you rephrase your position each time you present it. That causes your statements to read as a change in your position. A rephrase = change in your assertion.

          • C.P. Garcia

            I feel I have to rephrase it, because you don't seem to understand it. So I feel of I say it another way you might comprehend it. Apparently not. There has not been a change in positions as I have kept repeating the same exact postions over and over to no avail with you.. As you keep repeating back the same things I have already said with the guise of trying to educate me.

          • elle

            You also said this: "I started this conversation about pointing how how the IRS DOES have the legal authority and is the only "governing" body which defines what a Religion is in the USA." This is not what you have said in other places. When you rephrase, you are not saying the same thing.

          • C.P. Garcia

            This is what I have said every single time.. And have stated now several times that it is a fact that is not debatable. Facts aren't up for debate. It is the only Government agency that looks to define what is a Religion. And is the only one who can legally do so in the eyes of the Government... I don't understand why this is so confusing for you.

          • elle

            I posted this: According to the IRS manual, Section 7.26.2.2.4(4), there is a 14 point test to determine if a religious organization can qualify as a “church”. There is a difference between a religion and a CHURCH. And the IRS only makes a determination on a CHURCH for purposes of being tax exempt. A RELIGION can organize in such a way that it forms a CHURCH. THEN the church can made application to the IRS for recognition for purpose of tax exemption.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Actually. I was the one who posted the IRS manual listing before you even entered the conversation. But you are also confused as to how the IRS uses the term Church.. This might help you ... https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Organizations/Churches--Defined

          • elle

            From your link: The term church is found, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, .....The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church FOR FEDERAL TAX PURPOSES. That is what I have been saying. Don't know why you argue, then send me to a link that proves I have it correct and have been consistent about it.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Wow. You just don't get it..

          • elle

            I copied/pasted straight from the link you directed me to. I don't see what I don't get. But never mind. This has been a good exchange because the trolls and lurkers from the bunker have a good dose of facts instead of their completely false meme about IRS and religion/church. You have corrected them so thanks for that. Hope your next trip to the bunker isn't too bloodly.

          • Frodis73

            When dealing with elle, facts are VERY much up for debate. She worships LRH and scientology and believes that scientology is fact based.

          • C.P. Garcia

            What I didn't get is I was supporting most of what she was arguing with me about.. but she still wanted to argue.. lol

          • Frodis73

            Elle is a scientologist and will argue with you til you are blue in the face...

          • C.P. Garcia

            Since you don't read... here was MY original comment.. that was FIRST comment I made on this article.. --> "The controlling legal principle is that the people, not their government, have the jurisdiction to define the institutions by which religious activities are administered or carried out. However, the IRS is the only government body that sets to define what is religion for tax exempt purposes. This is set in the IRS manual, Section 7.26.2.2.4(4). There are 14 points of test to what is defined a religion. A group does NOT need to meet all 14, but needs a majority of them to reach the IRS definition. So. While the government (Congress) has not made laws that dictate how to define a religion or church, the IRS pretty much does it for us. So they really do have the power to to "anoint" religion. But really they only do so by groups hitting most of those 14 points. Scientology hits most/if not all of the 14 points."

          • elle

            I cannot find where the IRS defines what is religion for tax exempt purposes. I find where the IRS decides if a church qualifies for tax exemption. One criterion is "Regular religious services" so the religion would have to exist first. Also, the IRS does not decide what is a "church" other than for the tax exempt purposes if the church applies. You wrote "the only "government" organization that HAS the power to decide what IS a religion, is IRS." That is different from your original post. I cannot find that the IRS can decide what IS a religion for any reason, nor even a "church." exempt for their own tax exempt purpose--that is narrow.

          • C.P. Garcia

            You need to word clear "semantics" .. The point of this was WHAT the government defines as a Religion. The only BODY that makes this distinction of WHAT is a Religion is the IRS. Once a body is defined as a Religion or Church by the IRS, its benefits are MORE then just tax exemption. As I have now said SEVERAL times.. IT doesn't MATTER who the IRS or Government of ANY country calls a Religion. Any group of followers can start or be apart of WHATEVER Religion they want.. They do NOT need ANYONE'S approval to do so.. Why do you KEEP arguing with me on things I have ALREADY stated to be the SAME as your argument? Your comprehension skills are lacking. Time to brush up on your Study Technology..

          • elle

            But medical attention to injuries and illnesses is mandatory in Scientology. One is suspended from doing other services until medial treatment is completed successfully. Don't know what you heard, but looks like it was way wrong.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Really. I could give you about 1000 stories of the "medical" attention members of the Sea Org received.. Or how about when they put someone less then the age 15 in charge as "medical" personal and "administering" medical care.... Not way wrong here by any means. Where are the "medical" professionals at Narconon?. There are no nursers or doctors on STAFF at an Church buildings.. You seem to be confused, or at least.. mis-informed.

          • elle

            No one is "in charge" of medical and no one "administers" medical. That there is someone who liaises between patient and doctor--sets up appointments, picks up meds, checks to see that the patient is following doctor's instructions and improving, etc.--is not an unusual thing. Religious orders do that, and HR in big companies will track the employees needs and progress. When I go to my doctors--most are Scientologists but not all--I see S.O. members there, and sometimes the Med. Liaison Off. It is you who is grossly mis-informed.

          • C.P. Garcia

            You might want to read books written by members of your Church .. because they disagree with you.. One written by David Miscavige's niece. Sure you will say she is lying.. etc.. Medical attention has been an issue for decades with Scientology and reported in 100s of cases.. its not a "made up" story to discredit the Church..

          • elle

            She is lying because in many many issues of the Church the requirement for medical attention when needed is laid out clearly.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Again.. what about the 1000s of others that have said the same thing? All lying huh? Not even sure why you started with me here.. I was not the one bad mouthing Scientology.. like 90% of the people here.. Other people were listing ALL sorts of things "Scientology" has been known to do.. Don't see your comments under them..

          • elle

            1000 people claimed Rachel Dolazol to be a Black woman--she is not. So, yes, if 1000 people tell a lie, it's still a lie. Did I catch you mentioned that Scientology forbids blood transfusions? It seemed to be implied, at least. That is also a big fat lie. I've already had a chat with others here. They are boring and hysterical. I thought you were trying to be more even handed, even though you obviously do hate the Church. Just thought you needed some correction on a few things you are citing as facts that are not facts that apply to Scientology.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Zero people claimed she was a Black Woman.. She portrayed herself as one, so people assumed she was.. This is a bad example for you to use.. And no.. again. Your reading comprehension is lacking.. Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones who forbid it.. which is what I said.. I mentioned Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Science that use Religion to do what some or all of the "medical" field feels is their business.. Scientology's would be pertaining to Psychology.. and also.. Touch Assists.. Touch Assists are used to "heal or help" injuries or pain. You haven't corrected a SINGLE fact. I in fact DO NOT hate the Church.. you started attacking me.. I was being even handed and POINTED the similarities between Scientology and OTHER world Religions..

          • elle

            No, she was pointed to as a Black woman, the head of some NAACP, acknowledged as Black, treated as Black, invited to speak as a Black leader. It did not make it true. You can point out all the similarities you want between Scientology and any other religion. That does not change the errors you perpetuate. Psychology is not medicine. Touch assists are not the business of the medical field (as you claim) and they can do wonders. There are many religious practices that address the sick or injured: laying on of hands, prayer, anointing with oil, chants, brushing with leaves, etc. So what.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Psychology is part of the medical field. And Touch Assists do certainly do things that are the business of the medical field. Saying its not is completely and blatantly false. It says so right on Scientology.org .. Again you seem to think I am speaking against these practices. I was not. I was explaining to the person what you decided to "explain" to me. That other religions have the same sort of practices. Again you have not read my comments in full and are trying to argue with me in points I was arguing in the support of to others who were attacking Scientology.

          • elle

            Psychology is not a medical practice. It's totally subject and nothing standard about it. But I'll check your claim. No other religion has the practice of touch assists or anything like it. They do have practices. If you wish to "support" Scientology in any way, it is important to be accurate in your representations.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Psychology at least lends itself to peer-review, open discussion and scrutiny. It is you and Scientology that is missing objectivity. SCIENTOLOGY Auditing is by definition and practice purerly subjective. I don't support Scientology because I am privy to both sides of the story. When was the last time a psychologist, psychiatrist and a psychotherapist salvoed vicious attack-letters at people who disagreed with them? It is not a matter of bigotry, it is a matter of you not being allowed to think critically, you are simply being controlled by your beliefs, I get it (see my post?)--if you are a Scientologist, this is the most conversation I've seen from one in an open forum. If your argument is that everything negative said against Scientology is a lie then that's a lot of liars in this world. I think currently there are a lot more "liars" than Scientologists left in membership. Also, David Micavige's dad is writing a nice book about Scientology due out in 2016 and I can't wait to read what the father of your leader has to say.

          • elle

            Psychology is people guessing, inventing, constantly changing--nothing standard.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Go on, I would like to hear more about your psychology.

          • Frodis73

            Actually elle, if you would keep up with 21st century medical info (and not LRH's wrong info from the 1950's) you would learn that they are making excellent discoveries in the field of neurology regarding mental illness and how the brain works. Like somebody above pointed out they currently use peer reviewed and open discussions to further things unlike some idiot thinking he was gods gift to mankind and pulling things out of his rear end and thinking "research" on one person equals fact and science.

          • Captain MustSavage

            Yes, elle, change is what happens when your profession is based on scientific knowledge and evidence based research rather than on the 50 year old writings of a proven liar who forbade anyone from reading anything to the contrary.

          • elle

            Second reply. Sorry, I could not find that psychology is part of the medical field on the Scientology.org website. It is nowhere obvious and I won't search this huge site to find your claim there. I contend it is not there.

          • C.P. Garcia

            Again. Your reading comprehension skills need to improve. I said Touch Assists do things that are part of the medical business.. And that is stated on the website.

      • Frodis73

        Scientology also threw their weight around and filed thousands of lawsuits against the IRS to get that tax exemption in the first place. The courts were on the right side and ruled against them again and again. The IRS caved. The Co$ is also breaking the agreement they signed with the IRS back in 1993. They IRS has every right to launch an investigation into Co$ and it is long overdue. They owed the US $1B in 93. Just think what good that money could do if they were shut down and fined.

        • elle

          BS lies. And the IRS inspected Scientology for years before giving the tax exemptions to the Church and all it's charitable and church groups.

          • Frodis73

            No elle, it is not all bs and lies. Btw, so what is the deal with NarCONon these days? It seems the Sea Org took over...so is it secular or religious now?

      • Ella Raitch

        Great summary of the legal realities - thank you.

  3. Paulette Cooper Noble

    Thank you for this article and letting people know that seeing Tom Cruise's movies helps bring money to Scientology. Add John Travolta (Revolta) to the list. Although he isn't nearly as high in Scientology as Cruise, he too has done the world a great disservice by speaking up for Scientology and luring unsuspecting people in. Paulette Cooper, author of "The Scandal of Scientology"

    • One Human

      Bless you Paulette, you warned the world early on. Thank you for never giving up.

    • elle

      But you hear imaginary Scientologists cackling outside your door. And you claim they sneak into your home, and although you never see them and they don't take anything, they leave something behind, like a glove, to let you know they have been there. Really, now, don't you think that is a bit nutty? Or, maybe you will stoop to anything to manufacture "proof" that Scientologist give a hoot about you.

      • Paulette Cooper Noble

        Yes, indeed, Scientology does these type of things -- and much much worse. For decades. Against all enemies, which happily I am no longer. If you would quit the "Church" and open up your eyes -- read tonyortega.org each day -- you'd realize who's the nutty one. (And no they don't give a hoot about me any more; happily they have far more important things to worry about.)

        • Bob Crouch

          It's extremely generous of you to take the time to honor one of these hate-filled nameless cult shills with your reply. You are a class act and a heroine to many of us!

          • in fine fettle

            What are you, a medieval court jester?

          • Bob Crouch

            According to one of Hubbard's half-baked opinions, the fact that you think so must make it so.

          • in fine fettle

            So you agree with my characterization of you?

          • elle

            I agree with you. Like a court jester, he bounces all over the place, injects himself everywhere, garish, mugging and grimacing. I can really see it.

          • Bob Crouch

            Of course, you agree. You are the genius who came up with this brain storm. "What can I call him to confront and shatter him? Let's try jester." Hubbard would be proud of you--and laugh about you behind your back

          • in fine fettle

            Yes and picture lady blue-blood momentarily deigning to enter the scene and immediately getting heckled by the riff raff. Groucher immediately kneels (not quite a full kowtow) and positions himself before her ladyship, before ingratiating himself as follows: "It's extremely generous of you to take the time to honor one of these hate-filled nameless cult shills with your reply. You are a class act and a heroine to many of us!" This oration he delivers in full before again tipping his head to the floor and then scurrying back to his assigned position. There he quickly resumes his standard antics - including clumsy cartwheels off the wall and snorting while firebreathing.

          • elle

            And in the midst of all that, he tried to lick her to death.

          • in fine fettle

            I sincerely doubt that lady blue-blood would allow herself to be seen being licked by a court jester. Any public attempt of that kind on his part would have earned him a sound thrashing and maybe even a premature discharge.

          • Paulette Cooper Noble

            Thanks... I'm sure Scientology told Elle what to say ....It's sad. Perhaps one day she'll start thinking on her own -- and might then leave!

          • elle

            That's a problem with you. You are sure of so much that isn't true. Like the cackling outside your door.

          • Jack99

            Have you ever said anything you didn't read on scientologymyths or in statements by Pouw or the church? Have you ever contradicted anything the church has said?

          • Bob Crouch

            Well, your cackling is quite real and rather repetitive.

          • Captain MustSavage

            "You are so sure of so much that isn't true." This from someone who believes that gamma rays go through walls but not human bodies because human bodies resist radiation ( All About Radiation. LRon Hubbard); from someone who believes that the human jaw evolved from the hinges of a clam (A History of Man. L Ron Hubbard); and from someone who believes that space DC8's dropped frozen aliens into Hawaiian volcanoes that didn't exist at the time (OT III Wall of Fire). Just a tiny selection of non scientific nonsense that you buy into because you choose to believe without question every single thing 'Source', a comprehensively debunked fantasist, made up. Your're the one who is 'sure of so much that isn't true'. It's sad and creepy to see the cult mindset in action.

        • elle

          And yet you hear cackling outside your door? It behooves you to fabricate a Scientologist lurking in every shadow, and quiver in mock fright. No one has cared wit about you for a very very very long time.

          • in fine fettle

            Oh, poor elle. It looks as if you've been diagnosed by Ms.Noble as an empty vessel who channels the views of your superiors instead of "thinking on your own."

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Poor Elle is psychologically projecting herself onto others and continues with her cognitive dissonance. Her feelings of persecution are very real to her because she only knows how to attack; as she herself has likely been attacked and abused by her own cohort and others who don't share in her delusion. Elle appears to hold a lot of ideological opinions and likely demonstrates passive aggressive to full blown aggressive behavior when challenged.

          • in fine fettle

            psychobabble

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Lol guilty.

          • vicariousthrill

            Read Hubbard's "affirmations". You would be surprised.

          • in fine fettle

            Oh, so you believe that Avid Miskaridge was quoting LRH then?

          • Jack99

            If I had a nickel for every time elle did some thinking of her own, I'd have... no nickels. And Paulette has more class than elle has in her keyboard tapping little finger.

          • in fine fettle

            [If I had a nickel for every time elle did some thinking of her own, I'd have... no nickels. And Paulette has more class than elle has in her keyboard tapping little finger.] Okay, but not more class than elle has in two of her keyboard tapping little fingers.

          • Jack99

            Elle does a lot of keyboard tapping, that's true. I'm not sure what good she thinks she does. Is her goal to piss off scientology critics, or is it to be an ambassador for the church of scientology? If 1: Yes, she's not completely without talent. If 2: No way, Jose.

          • in fine fettle

            Wow, elle must really pack a punch with fingertips as loaded as all that. Not that surpassing the "class" level of Cooper in <2 of elle's dedos is really that big of a feat. But you still haven't picked up on the significance of your statement have you. I've been giving you so much credit for playing well with the cards you find yourself holding, but now I'm beginning to think the phrase "I've seen better heads on nickel tap beers" might be the best judgement of you after witnessing the latest jewels unearthed from your reactive mind.

          • Jack99

            My active mind is happy to disappoint you, iff. The question remains, though. If you think you and elle are doing a good job representing the church to people outside of your little bubble, well, good luck to the both of you.

          • in fine fettle

            I'm sorry that is still a question for you Jack99. Although it seems highly likely that you are not pleased with how things are being represented to you, you don't seem to be able to bring your thought process about that to a head. There isn't much more I can do to help you with that. It's on you and no one else can control such inward processes on your behalf. (P.S. No sweat, your active brain hasn't been a disappointment. Out of curiosity, have you or anyone else ever given it a proper name? On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate the action had by Mr. Active in the last week? Have you and he been happy?)

          • Jack99

            How about 7/10? That's probably laughable to you scientologists who are 10/10 24/7. The thing is, iff, you and elle are doing such a good job showing the true face of the church, that my presence here isn't really needed. I've enjoyed sparring with you, iff. Take care.

          • in fine fettle

            This particular version of a Scientologist is much more like 36-24-36. But since you've got to hit the road ________ let me first just say "thanks for the compliment" and "chau."

          • Bob Crouch

            Or the "Miscavige version:" 4'13''--2.5''

          • Ben Franklin

            Elle lives by Hubbard's rules. Elle Cannot say or do anything not approved by the church of Scientology and remain in good standing. That's a fact. She can't think on her own because she is totally brainwashed.

          • elle

            Bob, the court jester.

          • Ben Franklin

            You are not only dumb and deaf, you are blind too.

          • Bob Crouch

            What a wit you aren't!

          • in fine fettle

            You have invested a lot of energy into that belief - you repeat it often.

          • Ben Franklin

            Yes I do very often, for brainwashed folks like you.

          • elle

            Ben, you have no facts. You have been brainwashed by Ortega.

          • in fine fettle

            What is certain is that he has memorized an affirmation along the lines of, "everyone who disagrees with me has been brainwashed." He probably came up with it on his own but is attracted to Ortega for the validation. That's my conjecture. Wanna wager? I hear they have online dice now so we could score the possibilities using a die if we wanted.

          • elle

            I'll bet that you are correct :)

          • Ben Franklin

            It is so weird how you are obsessed with Ortega who is just a journalist who happens to report on the insanity and the fraud that is the Church of Scientology on a daily basis. You must be so afraid of Ortega that you make him into this larger than life personality. Ortega has zero powers over anybody's life and does not control anyone as you Scientologists cultist tend to think. Ortega is just a journalist who people tend to believe because he has built up credibility over the years. Unfortunately, from the Church of Scientology what we often see are denials and even more denials of everything and the mean spirited, childish recycled PR statements coming form Karin Pouw. In the world of CoS, only church members in good standing tell the truth about the church and anyone else outside the church is a liar.

          • Captain MustSavage

            You do realise the irony in a cult follower who is required to believe every single thing written by a proven liar and who is prohibited from reading anything that might supply evidence of this claiming to be able to think for themselves don't you?

          • in fine fettle

            Actually what I find far more ironic is the idea of a woman depicting other women as mentally passive receptacles of the inherently more powerful ideas of the "abusive men" who ostensibly control them. Although in today's world full of Western chauvinist hypocrisies, it doesn't come as the least bit of a surprise to me that women are commonly degraded in this way even while being told they should be thankful they aren't being stripped of their dignity at an even worse level than that.

          • Bob Crouch

            If the shoe fits...

          • Captain MustSavage

            Nice attempt at a straw man argument, fine fettle, are you hatted for fallacious arguments on the Internet? If so you'll have to make like new golden age of tech and re do it all.

          • in fine fettle

            It wasn't meant as an argument. I'm not sure what there is about what you said that could be argued over. I thought you were just asking a rhetorical question and took the fact as obvious. Anyway, yes I understand that you were expressing the fact that you find something ironic about the contrast between your beliefs and my statement that went, "Oh, poor elle. It looks as if you've been diagnosed by Ms.Noble as an empty vessel who channels the views of your superiors instead of 'thinking on your own.'"

          • Captain MustSavage

            Your reply to my original post is a textbook straw man response to Mrs Noble's comment to elle.

            "Actually what I find far more ironic is the idea of a woman depicting other women as mentally passive receptacles of the inherently more powerful ideas of the "abusive men" who ostensibly control them. Although in today's world full of Western chauvinist hypocrisies, it doesn't come as the least bit of a surprise to me that women are commonly degraded in this way even while being told they should be thankful they aren't being stripped of their dignity at an even worse level than that."
            What is particularly ironic is your impassioned defence of women when scientology has an atrocious record of degrading women and stripping them of their dignity, for example: handing out vile flyers at Paulette Cooper's apartment block claiming she was a prostitute who had sexual relations with a 2 year old child, sending sex toys to Monique Rathbun's workplace, pressuring women such as Laura de Crescenzo ( is currently suing scientology) to have abortions, pressuring a child and her mother into lying to police about child sexual abuse perpetrated by a scientologist. Perhaps you could comment on your feelings about the way in which these women were degraded and stripped of their dignity? I also notice that in response to me you've failed to deny: 1) that L Ron Hubbard is a proven liar 2) that scientologists are forbidden from reading or watching any information critical of L Ron Hubbard or scientology 3) that scientology is a scam 4) that scientologists believe in Xenu and being infested with millions of dead space alien souls 5) that the Hawaiian volacanoes Lafayette said Xenu dropped the frozen aliens in didn't in fact exist at the time 5) that scientology has a policy instructing scientologists to harm other people 6) that scientologists have acted on this policy to harm other people 7) that scientology engaged in criminal acts over many years to harm Paulette Cooper Noble 8) that scientology is currently being sued in Texas by Monique Rathbun -9) that the court of appeals rejected scientologys claim that their harassment activities fell within their first amendment rights. Are you able to refute any of these? If not, what does it mean about you that you know these statements are true and that you're still involved with an organisation that controls what information you're allowed to have and that actively engages in harming other human beings?

          • elle

            I refute all of it.

          • Captain MustSavage

            Well then, go on, refute it. I'll give you a hint - you need to supply evidence.

          • elle

            You have supplied no evidence for your bogus accusations. The burden is on the accuser. You lose.

          • Captain MustSavage

            Nope, the burden is on the person who said they could refute. You made that claim and then crumbled, providing exactly nothing in support. Readers can google the points I made and check for themselves, you gave them squat. Everyone reading this knows who 'lost'. Perhaps have a think about why you've been unable to give any evidence that my statements were false.

          • elle

            You supply no evidence.

          • Captain MustSavage

            A reply but still no evidence after that brave little statement that you could refute everything? You've made zero attempt to refute anything. That's just pathetic. As for mine, Google away, elle, as I said. Shouldn't be too hard for someone who claimed in other discussions to have sought out hard copies of court documents in different jurisdictions. Yep, we all remember what you say. Do you?

          • elle

            I said I refute all of it. I do so with a better claims to knowledge than you have in making the accusations.

          • Bob Crouch

            Sure, your favorite ruse: "better claims to knowledge." This should really read: "claims to better knowledge." Since you NEVER substantiate your claims, they can't be "better." Better than what? So you keep claiming superior knowledge. Why? Because you read the cult's hate sites? You watched their attack videos? Guess what: So have I! And then I went on and read all of those things that you are not allowed to read. So, if we must whip out and measure our knowledge, I'm miles ahead of you! As are many others!

          • Captain MustSavage

            Saying "I refute it" is the intellectual equivalent of stamping your little foot and saying 'but Santa does exist!' Prove any of what you say, including having "better claims to knowledge than I have in making accusations."

          • Ben Franklin

            Elle never provides any evidence on her own. All of elle's so called just comes directly from Church of Scientology PR statements, and church propaganda magazines and publications. Once I read Karen Pouw's public statement any any issues, I don't even waste my time listening to anything elle is bubbling about, because it is always the same crap contained in the Church's Public statements. Scientologists don't think, they repeat.

          • Captain MustSavage

            elle really does just make a bunch of claims and then folds when asked to back it up. I'm really interested to know why OSA continues to allow her to operate. I can only speculate that her online presence in and of itself has a purpose. Public relations management can't be the reason because she's woeful at simulating a reasonable person. Perhaps her presence here is a warning sign to UTR's that OSA is present?

          • Ben Franklin

            elle has a checkered past as a Scientologist, all of this crap you see here is elle doing her amends trying to prove that she is loyal to Miscavige and the church. She has to confront and shutter an SP, which will never happen. Scientology is a lost cause and I don't know why she keeps embarrassing herself.

          • Captain MustSavage

            Do you know that for sure or is that just speculation?

          • in fine fettle

            The burden of proof is on the person who said they could refute?!!!!!!!!!!! You directly mirror the likes of Judge Dr. Wilhelm Bürger! Look it up neanderthal.

          • Bob Crouch

            I have to give the Captain his due. I googled his charges. They checked out! Every single one of them!

          • Captain MustSavage

            So does your use of punctuation tech somehow represent an argument?

          • in fine fettle

            If you want me to represent an argument you have to make me.

          • Captain MustSavage

            "Make me"? Really? That's all ya got? Your journey back to adolescence is complete. It's fascinating to see someone who articulated an argument around "women as mentally passive receptacles of the inherently more powerful ideas of the "abusive men"" and "Western chauvinist hypocrisies" reduced to such a juvenile response as a result of pointing out a problem in their position. Fine Fettle, what does is say about you that you support an organisation that has a policy directing its members to harm other human beings?

          • in fine fettle

            Big man called my bluff and that's all I got. Thank goodness we have the right to bear arms in America.

          • Captain MustSavage

            What does it say about you that you support an organisation that has a policy directing its members to harm other human beings?

          • elle

            strawman--that's all you got. That is all any of you gots.

          • Captain MustSavage

            What does it say about you that you support an organisation that directs its members to harm other human beings, elle?

          • sundaygirl

            You've refuted nothing. As I'm sure you know, having looked in a dictionary to find the meaning of the word, to refute something is to disprove it. All you've done is denied. Big difference.

          • in fine fettle

            Why would I address Mrs. Noble's comment to you a second time after I had already done so earlier? You're not making any sense.

          • Captain MustSavage

            I wasn't asking your to address Mrs Noble's comment, I merely pointed out the irony of your defence given scientologys rancid history of the abuse and degradation of women. Yes, ff, defending scientology by taking a position of outrage based on claims that others are degrading women is awfully ironic given scientology's history. Would you like to discuss that point? I'd really like to see you try. You haven't been backward in expressing your views about the way that women are degraded by "western chauvinist hypocrisies", lets hear what they are in relation to scientologys role in this. Also noting that you're still not refuting any of points 1 - 9 in my post above. What does it say about you that you support an organisation that has a policy of harming other people?

          • in fine fettle

            It was a rhetorical question (obviously.)

          • Captain MustSavage

            Once again you fail to address any of my points. Are you unable to? Please let us know what your views are on scientologys role in "degrading and stripping women of their dignity". You were fired up about others doing that to women. Fine Fettle, in relation to your comments about the treatment of women you are, as the saying goes, without a leg to stand on. That is why you refuse to address the issue. Face it, you've been hoist on your own straw man argument petard. The rational response to this would be to acknowledge it. You haven't, which leads me to suspect that you're either too stupid to realise it, too stubborn to acknowledge it or too afraid of being sent to the RPF if you did. Have the cojones to address the issue.

          • in fine fettle

            I don't have cajones you mf a hole. Thanks for proving my point to a T.

          • Captain MustSavage

            What point is that? Oh and employing cuss tech now? Classy. Still noticing your failure to address the issues I've raised with you. What does it say about YOU that you support an organisation that directs its members to HARM other human beings?

          • Bob Crouch

            Oh boy, you've done done it now! You've reduced fettle to a red-faced screaming dwarf not unlike Miscavige. Asking pertinent questions will do that to them--every time! How Pavlovian...

          • Bob Crouch

            Forgive my dear friend fettle. She just discovered the concept of "rhetorical questions" and is a bit stuck on the concept. She tends to fixate; it'll pass.

          • Bob Crouch

            The "aggrieved woman" card only comes out of the deck whenever convenient. A few of my favorite examples of how scientology treats women (other than the ones you mentioned already): 1. A fake navy where women are addressed as "sir." Maybe it's the butch little outfits? 2. A culture where the leader can disappear his wife, acting like a displeased medieval pasha. 3. A cult where (presumably female) shills get to characterize Leah Remini as an adulteress while excusing the same behavior (and worse) in Cruise, Travolta, Hubbard, Miscavige and Tommy Davis.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Write us a book Elle, please enlighten us about how free-thinking you are and how you can't be wrong about the world and Scientology. Point me to a published book written by a current satisfied member of Scientology. I am curious as to what your definition of a cult is?

          • Frodis73

            Elle used the old definition of cult and it means to care. Snort.

          • Jack99

            "No one has cared wit about you..." Hmm... over 30 upvotes for Paulette Cooper, just 1 for elle.

          • in fine fettle

            There. I just upvoted you since now I know how much a click of a button means to you. ;-)

          • Jack99

            Gee whiz golly, iff, thanks a bunch! I was just pointing out an obvious, visible fault in elle's statement, but you know, Disqus probably has an agenda...

          • elle

            None by Scientologists. That's who she thinks care about her soooooo much they cackle outside her door, slip into her home though never seen, peek from every shadow to watch her every move. And the bunkerbutts ran right over here to vote her up only because I said no one gives a wit about her? We had been talking about Scientologists and none do care.

          • Jack99

            Ah, elle who says she is no one important believes Paulette only got upvotes because elle said no one cares about her. The upvotes couldn't possibly be because of Paulette's statement, could they? You might want to check the size of your ego, elle.

          • elle

            Of course not. You and your comrades have posted much better and posted by the hundreds. You think she shows up once, drops a couple lines and has made the rest of you look like amateurs? Nah. But you do hope to catch her attention hoping her great fame and glory will bleed onto you just a little and make you less of a nobody.

          • Jack99

            Ha ha, sure. Are you saying you're not writing elle miscavige over and over in your notebook?

          • Bob Crouch

            Ironically, elle cares so much that she is obsessed with repeating herself about "cackling" ad nauseam. And so at least Elle's cackling is undeniably real. Which lends all the more credence to Paulette's cackling account. Funny how that works!

          • Captain MustSavage

            Right, because scientolgists have never ever like ever harassed Paulette Cooper, have they? I mean those claims of hers are just total outlandish lies, aren't they? Scientology would never harm another human being, right? Hubbard never ever wrote a policy where he instructed his cult followers to lie, cheat , destroy, ruin utterly etc any other human beings, right? What's that you say? Sorry, I can't hear you, elle...

          • Bob Crouch

            The cult cared enough to sue and harass her for a very long time. Ironic?

          • elle

            The "problem" was narrow and handled long long long long long ago. Suck it up.

          • Bob Crouch

            "The 'problem' was narrow and handled long long long long long ago." If your "problem" refers to a journalist doing her job and accurately reporting on the illegal and immoral practices of a criminal organization, I would have to disagree with you. Since the original 1971 publication of Ms. Cooper's book and the terror activities visited upon her by that cult, many more journalists as well as former "church" members have done likewise--undaunted by litigation as well as outright dirty tricks. Several biographies and scholarly works have debunked--with ample documentation--Hubbard's grandiose and fraudulent claims about himself. Even though Ms. Cooper's book continues to be read and admired as a pioneering work of journalism, its content pales in comparison to all the other details that have since then come to light. 44 years later, 5.5 million Americans watched the overwhelmingly critically acclaimed and awarded "Going Clear" documentary during its original HBO run alone. Many more, in the US and abroad, have done so since. Leah Remini's memoir went straight to #1 on the NYT bestseller list and has remained there since. Judging by the book's reviews, its readers are very happy with their purchasing decision. Meanwhile, independent polls and research indicate a precipitous decline in the "church" membership globally. (Even the Hubbard and Miscavige families have fled in droves). Several European countries have had enough of it and taken steps to curb fraudulent practices or dismantle scientology entirely. Scientology has taken to advertising its "courses" on the internet anonymously and deceptively--not exactly what an organization proud of its brand name would do! 2016 is expected to see Ron Miscavige's and Jesse Prince's memoirs, Louis Theroux's scientology film released in the US (the Brits already had the pleasure), perhaps even Mark Bunker's long anticipated "Truth Rundown" documentary. And who knows, Alex Gibney is discussing a sequel to his "Going Clear" documentary. He may even get yet another Oscar for the first one as "church" efforts at interfering with that process apparently have borne no fruit. As usual, more shall be revealed as several key lawsuits will be progressing here (Laura DeCrescenzo, Monique Rathbun, and undoubtedly a few more for Narconon alone) and abroad (most notably, in Belgium and Russia). Of course, if the past is any indication, your "church leadership" will be all too eager to make a few more problems for itself as well. Who knows, maybe scientology spokes-himbo Cruise will speak up again--I hope he does. As always, a new year, a few surprises...

          • Captain MustSavage

            You'd like to believe that was true. The media has been very interested in speaking with Paulette in relation to the criminal harassment she experienced at the hands of your organisation. Paulette is brave enough to speak to the media. David Miscavige hasnt dared do this. Tom Cruise has journalists banned from asking questions he's afraid to face. Where are your spokespeople? Why did Tommy Davis blow? Why hasn't Karen Pouw presented herself for interviews? Why does Scientology hide behind written statements? That's pretty cowardly behavior from people who consider themselves to be dauntless defiant and resolute isn't it?

          • vicariousthrill

            Elle, if you ever meet Ms. Cooper, you will feel ashamed of what you have said about her. She is not what you think or what you have been told. Just please consider that there are two (or more!) sides to every story, there's a possibility you are wrong. I wish you the best.

          • elle

            She was never in Scientology. She started with an anti-Church agenda and carried that on with a vengeance.

          • Bob Crouch

            As usual, you are not addressing any of vic's points. However, as to your great "revelations." Ms. Cooper NEVER claimed to have been in scientology. She went once and fled before the regges go to her, got her personal information and would call her for money several times a day (or night). Of course, eventually they got her personal information and did a lot worse than that. She started out neither with an anti-"church" agenda nor with that vengeance that you are imagining. She started out with journalistic interest after encountering the number that scientology had done on the mental health of a professional associate. Her book offers a very restrained and journalistically responsible account. Still, she turned over one rock too many for an organization that has a zero tolerance for exposure that it does not carefully control! You'd know that, had you read the book. Of course, then you'd have the cult coming after you too...

      • Frodis73

        Well, I guess I should have read down a little further. You actually did "go there" with Paulette. You are a hateful bigot elle. I really hope you wake up someday and look at the multiple independent sources that the rest of the world has access to that proves LRH was nothing but a mentally ill con artist.

        • elle

          A lie told by 1,000 people is still a lie.

          • Bob Crouch

            But it takes only one person to tell 1,000 lies. LRH proved that!

      • madame duran

        Both you and your Scientology cult must take great pride in attacking/mocking a Holocaust survivor. Paulette Cooper, you have my admiration for withstanding such a vile, mafia-like corporation posing as a religion.

    • in fine fettle

      Paying to look at Tom Cruise movies doesn't helps bring money to Scientology that I can see. He already has enough money to thrive off of for the rest of his life and to donate to anybody and anything he wants to donate to. Let's imagine that a failure of his career could be achieved through a boycott of his films. Even this scenario would not impact the amount of money brought by him to the Church.

      • elle

        I love how they think boycotting his movies will make any impact of any kind. I love how this camp claims Cruise's movies are successful because Scientologists are forced to go to them--like that is even possible. They also claim there are only 327 Scientologists in the whole world left. So let's say that Scientologists are forced to go. It would take hundreds of millions of members to make the financial success of his movies. We know the 327 members can't do that because we are all dirt poor and in debt (so they tell us). So how do they make their numbers add up? Bunker math. Here's how we use that boycot: Folks, here is the movie Pee Cooper doesn't want you to see. What is she afraid of. Oh, yeah, everything, but help her face her fears and see this great Cruise movie and take a date.

        • Ben Franklin

          You generalize too much. You do know what Hubbard thinks of people who generalize too much, don't you?

        • Ben Franklin

          Calling someone Pee is so Juvenile. What are you? A 10 year old kid. Is this what Scientology teaches you? So Embarrassing to say the least.

          • elle

            She is so revolta, I mean, revolting.

          • Ben Franklin

            You are an old woman an IQ of a 10 year old kid

          • elle

            What? I'm just matching Pee Cooper on this playground. She came up with "Ravolta" for my man John. And that's fine with you. Double standard much?

          • Ben Franklin

            You assume a lot of things. Never act or react based on assumptions, otherwise, you will just end up looking like a fool.

          • Bob Crouch

            You're not matching anybody. You were using this rather childish naming long before Ms. Cooper allegedly gave you a pretext. That's how you cult shills do. Lie much?

          • daytoncapri

            elle ... I suggest that you keep your dignity, not let others affect your language.

          • in fine fettle

            Once a long time ago I heard or read him tell some story about less than positive experiences in grade school or junior high or some such, in which he revealed that some boy used to try to tease him by twisting his name into "revolta." So Cooper didn't come up with it, she just copped it from some errant schoolboy far more entitled to credit than she.

          • Bob Crouch

            And you and elle would be well advised NOT to take credit for Pee, Wrathbun, Glibney and many others. Considering how plentiful inspiration for such great feats of imagination can be found on the "church" hate videos which you so slavishly try to imitate.

          • elle

            That would be "Wrathbuns" plural. He's the real leader of the real scientology who is going to save the world. Thought he was the pied piper to lead all the faithful away into his lair. He turned around to find that rats were following him.

          • Bob Crouch

            You're operating on outdated information. After escaping from the scientology compound, Mr. Rathbun was indeed hopeful that scientology "teachings" may be of value if practiced outside of the cult. However, he has since then seen the error of his ways and renounced scientology in its entirety. It appears that his recovery from scientology mind control is progressing splendidly. You may want to use more current resources than the "church" hate videos.

          • elle

            He became disillusioned when he saw no one was going to make him rich. Then he decided the way to make money is to involve himself in big lawsuits and give perjured testimony. That didn't work for him either. Do you donate to his blog? He has a donate button, right?

          • Bob Crouch

            This is hilarious. This is Katie Holmes, over again. These people flee your cult. And YOU of all people feel that you should interpret their life choices for them. Just for the record, there are quite a few "independent scientologists." And these people are already "church-" conditioned to expect being financially fleeced for "auditing services." Marty as a highly qualified "auditor" and the former scientology #2 could undoubtedly parlay this into a significant financial windfall for himself. All he would have to do is follow the unscrupulous, rapacious financial practices the "church" have taught him. He'd get rich--even at a big discount. As to "perjured testimony," now your despair is truly showing! Perjury is a crime; name Marty's perjury conviction! Before you make up any more lies, and make even more of a fool of yourself.

          • elle

            Maybe that accounts for why my first thought when reading her first post was that she was a childish playground troublemaker, the kind that provokes someone to smack her then she whines that she is the victim.

          • Bob Crouch

            Haters will hate. They can't help themselves--even if it shows the cult's true face

          • Ben Franklin

            The scary thing is there is a whole bunch of the Scientology cultists out here who did not even finish high school, and somehow deluded that are the smartest people on the planet, going around bad mouthing people everywhere.

          • Bob Crouch

            Given how uneducated and ignorant both Hubbard and Miscavige were/are, this is obviously a point of pride. Of course, the Hubbster tried to vigorously lie about it by making up all those titles, accomplishments and all that fictitious "research."

          • in fine fettle

            True, like by trying to blacklist Travolta for walking his talk and speaking the truth about his convictions. Glad I'm not immersed in that kind of culture.

          • Bob Crouch

            Blacklisting Travolta? Who exactly is doing that, or even "trying?" On the other hand, should you really be that put off by this practice? The disconnection that the "church" mandates on dissident former members includes blacklisting, i.e. a concerted effort to isolate a person from even their closest family, and ruin them professionally as well as personally. These are NOT aberrations or occasional excesses but the words of the Chairman Ron! "Scripture," in the perverted, twisted scientology lingo sense of the word of it.

          • in fine fettle

            • Edit • Reply • Share › Paulette Cooper Noble • 8 minutes ago Thank you for this article and letting people know that seeing Tom Cruise's movies helps bring money to Scientology. Add John Travolta (Revolta) to the list. Although he isn't nearly as high in Scientology as Cruise, he too has done the world a great disservice by speaking up for Scientology and luring unsuspecting people in. Paulette Cooper, author of "The Scandal of Scientology"

          • Bob Crouch

            I saw that. So what? This is agreeing to a simple fact (which she did not even bring up in the first place--this article did): You give money to JT/TC, some of that money ends up in scientology's hands. An undeniably true statement. In fact, I'll take it a step further: You patronize their movies, you add to the credibility and notoriety which they use to promote scientology. This is common sense; hardly the sharing of a deep secret! Everyone can make up their own mind after that. NOWHERE does she say: "We have to stand together and stay away from TC/JT movies." Or: "Write to the major Hollywood studios/producers and tell them not to employ these two." "Boycott" or "blacklist" is not even hinted at. You are making that up from whole cloth! Unlike in scientology, where failure to disconnect--even from your spouse, parent or child--will result in your own disconnection. Where Hubbard MANDATES ruining those who are opposed to scientology.

          • in fine fettle

            "Blacklist" is just a common figure of speech. I see that it sure did strike a nerve with you though. You are so easily set off by the tiniest things - it's like you're always on a hair trigger ready to go off at the mouth on a moment's notice. You rarely seem to think before you speak.

          • Bob Crouch

            Actually, it's not "a common figure of speech." It brings to mind McCarthyism and repression. Of course, in scientology, repression is certainly "common," and where "needed" not just encouraged but even mandated. So I can see where YOU may not think of it as a big deal. But trust me on this: outside of the cult bubble, it is!

          • in fine fettle

            That is one of the events it may bring to mind depending on your knowledge. Bob, you need to get out of the past, not to mention the narrow confines of purely American history. Sheesh even a perusal of as poor and watered down a source as Wikipedia could improve your knowledge bank on this term from the sound of it. And yes I meant that the comments made by Cooper about Travolta here were hateful. They were not even superficially softened down to the level of such things as predictions and speculations as were the comments in the article about Tom Cruise. The comments about Travolta were just downright hate-filled.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Downright hate-filled?" You are being a drama queen now! What did she say that would fit that criteria? You spend your days quoting scientology "church" hate videos. Rather than addressing criticisms, you resort to personal attacks. How many names have you mangled? How many utterancfes have you taken out of context (not even mentioning Cooper's right here). Are you going soft now?

          • elle

            Exactly. Pee Cooper is totally classless and venomous. She is hate-filled across the boards. She was performing for the bunkerbutts. She takes every pot shot she can. She is so Narcissist she think Scientology is preoccupied with her to the point (she believes) they sent me here to find you the false name she used when she alleged went into a church a started a course. She can't even prove she ever set foot in a door. She hated the Church from the get-go. She is unable to be objective. She discredits herself and all her claims.

          • Bob Crouch

            "She discredits herself and all her claims." You'd have a point--if only anyone (other than fettle) were to believe you. It's a cruel world, when all the evidence is against you...

          • Ben Franklin

            Thinking people read about Paulette Cooper and Understand who she is. Mindless people like you insult her at your own detriment because it makes even more people hate Scientology and everything it stands for the just based on the juvenile, crude, and embarrassing behavior exhibited here by you as a Scientologist.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Good ol' fine fiddle at it again. Has he/she even read the book she calls lies or anything even close to finishing a chapter of any other book other than LRH-goldleaf leatherbound turds? No one has yet to point me to a Scientology member written and published book that paints the Lafayettes in a good light? Scientology Books from happy members: 0

          • in fine fettle

            Thanks for the comic relief on that one. It helped me let off some steam so for the time being I'm no longer feeling the need to scratch her eyes out. ;-/

          • elle

            hahaa Do I have some special high status now that she has replied to me more than she has ever replied to anyone apparently? Take that, bunker Brown Shirts.

          • Supper Powers

            What's a bunker Brown Shirt?

          • Bob Crouch

            Classy--not!

        • Jack99

          I love how elle thinks misrepresenting arguments by scientology critics will make any impact of any kind.

        • Bob Crouch

          I have NEVER seen the claim that Cruise movies are successful because of scilons being forced to see them--even the cult is not that cruel. Nor have I ever seen claims for your other straw man, that there are only 327 scilons. Although there is no doubt that 327 is a lot closer (by orders of magnitude) to the actual number of cult members than the 12 million that was claimed so much (albeit not lately; the claims have become a lot more vague since proven as the lies that they are).

          • in fine fettle

            You are such a wet blanket. Too bad you don't even realize that kind of thing only has an effect on those who actually expect you to get a joke.

          • Bob Crouch

            This may be humorous unless it comes from someone with no sense who routinely distorts or makes up arguments.

          • elle

            Bob, you are such a wet blanket.

          • Bob Crouch

            It's been painfully obvious that you don't write your own materials. But THIS? Really?

          • Frodis73

            Speaking of obviously not writing her own stuff, get a load of the two long replies down below to Paulette...I have never seen her write so much and I don't think it is her. Though it does include some wackiness about psychology. It does however, prove the church is just as obsessed with Paulette as ever though.

          • Bob Crouch

            Of course they are. Mentioning her name is enough to guarantee a vitriolic response. Throw in Lisa McPherson and the yapping becomes unstoppable.

          • daytoncapri

            Actually, I chuckled when I read Bob's words "even the cult is not that cruel." I guess humor, like art, is in the eye if the beholder. To each his own...

          • in fine fettle

            Did you think I meant Bob was using a wet blanket to douse his own sentiments? How novel. Actually, now that you mention it I wouldn't put it past him. And you'd be right there telling him that was a fine way to express his individuality. (P.S. It would be a lonely world if either art or any of its subbranches were in the eye of the beholder.)

          • Bob Crouch

            You caught me there! I saw the picture, and got caught up in the enthusiasm of it all. While I can't quite bring myself to give Tom the lust-filled looks that Miscavige does, I felt myself slipping into feeling something for a man who claims to have all the answers. And yet, with all the "tech" and his "OT" status, here he is, three divorces and disconnected families later (following faithfully in LRH's foot steps, ironically). So, before I would be too filled with pity for a "big being" who allows himself to be the spokesperson for a cult that destroys lives and families, I had to do something. So, out came the wet blanket. Again, you have figured me out. The psychs have nothing on you!

          • in fine fettle

            Wow, you guys are REALLY trying to sell me on this picture! That's it, I've decided - I'm DEFINITELY going to see it now. I hear it comes out on Blu-ray and DVD soon anyway. Or maybe I can still find it in theaters. Maybe I'll go tonight. Was it that part with Cruise hanging off the side of the airplane that threw you into so much turmoil about your sexuality? (I've seen that on the previews.) Or was it some other part? Actually, upon reflection I realize I don't really want to hear more about your experience. I'll just go have one of my own.

          • Bob Crouch

            Yes, you should definitely go and enjoy the picture. I'm surprised you haven't yet. You may want to go quickly before it comes up in a sec check! Might as well go with it; one way or another, your money will wind up in the hands of scientologists anyway. So Tom's hanging off a plane? Gee, I hope he's OK now. After all the damage that couch jumping did to his career, this sounds like an even more alarming stunt. Good thing, he has his "OT powers" to help him out.

          • in fine fettle

            [So Tom's hanging off a plane?] I take it that's your inflated way of making fun of me for not already knowing what happens in a picture you already know I haven't watched.

          • Bob Crouch

            That makes two of us. Tom hanging off a plane or a sofa or some such thing was news to me--until you told me. After this spoiler, there's REALLY no need to see it now. I saw Bond do that (plane, not sofa) decades ago; been there, done that...

          • in fine fettle

            I thought spoiler meant giving away the climax or some other important plot development. I doubt the segment of a preview out of the corner of my eye I saw one day a couple months ago is a spoiler. So are you now saying that you didn't see the picture even though earlier you said you saw it? [You caught me there! I saw the picture, and got caught up in the enthusiasm of it all. While I can't quite bring myself to give Tom the lust-filled looks that Miscavige does, I felt myself slipping into feeling something for a man who claims to have all the answers. And yet, with all the "tech" and his "OT" status, here he is, three divorces and disconnected families later (following faithfully in LRH's foot steps, ironically). So, before I would be too filled with pity for a "big being" who allows himself to be the spokesperson for a cult that destroys lives and families, I had to do something. So, out came the wet blanket.]

          • Bob Crouch

            No, I never claimed that I saw it. And I'm fairly certain that I never will. Watching middle-aged men hanging off of sofas or planes, for that matter. Not really my thing. But you said, you'll see it tonight. I'm sure it'll have a happy ending (not the Travolta kind, of course). After all, they have to save Tom for the sequel.

          • in fine fettle

            You're supposed to say "my bad" when you make a mistake like that. (This is not the thread in which I posted a picture of Tom Cruise and nobody can read your mind.)

          • Bob Crouch

            Really, do you say "my bad" every time you repeat one of Miscavige's or Hubbard's lies? Or every time you call someone a name in order to distract from having been caught out in one of those lies? You have my word. If I EVER tell something that turns out NOT to be true--inadvertently or not--you'll get "my bad."

          • in fine fettle

            I'm waiting (on the current subject of the film that is.)

          • elle

            I caught him in many untruths but have yet got his My Bad. He twists it into something else and blames me in some convoluted logic.

          • Bob Crouch

            Sure you have--in your wildest dreams. But not to worry, I am not "blaming you." Thought-stopping cults produce lots of folks just like you. I blame the cult!

          • Bob Crouch

            OK, your bad! I really did not mean to gloat about your inability to make out simple context. But, you insisted...

          • in fine fettle

            Hilarious. Don't worry though. Your secret's safe with me. I will never tell anyone and they will never know because they have no way of viewing the landscape. Wink wink.

          • daytoncapri

            Wow. I sit in quiet admiration of the strange and beautiful relationship that you and Bob have with each other.

          • in fine fettle

            hahaha

          • daytoncapri

            Chuckles for everyone 😊

          • Bob Crouch

            You have to give fettle a break. She really "likes" me. Not having matured emotionally all that much since kindergarten (cults will do that to you), she is terrified of her own feelings. She's daydreaming I'll whisk her away from the only cult she's' ever known, and we will move into a free-thinker commune in Wyoming where we'll shed all our clothes and live off the land. She also gets jealous easily. Whenever I talk to someone else (particularly elle), she has to butt in. Or talk to them about me, in hopes of making me jealous. So she covers up, using the only defense she knows. Since she can't physically blush at my sight and rap me in the shoulder, name-calling is the only resort she has. And as a lesser stand-in, Tom Cruise will just have to do for the time being. But I know that somewhere deep within (in a place even she can't see right now), she is beautiful, strong and kind. Without the cult holding her back, she'll be alright--eventually.

        • Bob Crouch

          Agreed. The idea of somehow making a Cruise movie flop through a boycott is probably absurd. Then again, I applaud people principled enough to not give their money to someone who stands for reprehensible things. Regardless of this outcome, their integrity counts. And sometimes an effect is achieved: Cruise paid severely for his couch/anti-psych rant antics. Obviously, he's dialed his crazy back quite a bit.

          • elle

            Everyone loved his couch jumping. And more people than you will admit agreed with him about psychs. As for giving money to people who do reprehensible things, I would never donate to Wrathbuns, or Rinder, or Ortega--which have that donate button? All? Like Wrathbuns' Real Scientology group in TX--how much is he making on that? Did anyone take him up on the free remedy auditing he offered where you could pay what you wanted to after it was over.He even had a payment plan. How much did he make on that?

          • Ben Franklin

            "Everyone loved his couch jumping." Where is the proof? You lie way way too much.

          • in fine fettle

            No matter how many women would have loved to prove their love of it, they know the laws against that kind of thing are there for good reason.

          • Frodis73

            For the millionth time, there is no 'real scientology group' being run by Marty in Texas or anywhere else. He has woken up and realized that LRH and scientology is scam. You have made so many nasty accusations against Paulette online but you seemed to either have the decency to keep them to yourself or were too afraid to confront her directly...I'm not sure which. Calling her petty names though...seriously? How old are you elle? Again, you (and fine fettle) show your true colors for the world to see what fine examples you are of fine, upstanding, compassionate, caring and wonderful scientologists. Lastly, as for everybody loving Tom Cruise jumping on a couch...yeah, right. That moment is when the world at large began to question his sanity. From that point on it has been all down hill as he made an a** of himself with Matt Laurer and then that sci video was leaked to the net where he is manic and spouting sci speak. His fan base has done nothing but shrink in the past decade. eta-typos

          • elle

            Why not? He was going to make millions of OTs and that would force the Church to reform. So when he was not flooded with people throwing money at him, he had an epiphany--no one wanted his knock-off junk. Obvious to all, he was trying to scam people.

          • sundaygirl

            No, it was just that no one outside the organization really believes in the gobbledygook Hubbard wrote. His "tech" is bunk.

          • Waterhorse

            Your "No one outside the organization" is a fabrication of your own limited awareness. Wishful thinking perhaps but absolute balderdash. "Bunk" as you would put it. It's a fictional statement because a heck of a lot of very smart people including some people in government DO realize Scientology is very much a reality. Your statements reek of small minded peevish prejudice. New ideas are always resisted by vested interests including the media but eventually they take hold.

          • sundaygirl

            Gosh, you guys are dense. Sure, there might be a handful of people outside your organization that will pick up a Hubbard book and find the bunk in it interesting. But your organization's miniscule membership numbers are really where the importance is. Scientology is very much a reality, you are correct, for the 25,000 or so people who bought in. The other couple billion, not so much.

          • Waterhorse

            Relatively small numbers of early adopters usually see the benefit of something prior to mass acceptance of it. New ideas are valuable and history is strewn with examples of new innovations being opposed for decades then suddenly it's all good - and the general populace rubs their eyes and sees what's really going on. Scientology is a major innovation which makes the I-phone look like a gob-stopper.

          • sundaygirl

            How do you explain that religious surveys have shown a steady decline in your membership over the years? (More people consider themselves Jedis than Scientologists. This is a powerful statistic.) Your "scripture" is available on-line for anyone to view. It is not bringing people to you, however; it seems to be pushing them away. If the material was so gob-smacking and brilliant, wouldn't your orgs be packed to the ceilings? Wouldn't there be more Scientologists than Jedis?

          • Waterhorse

            There are millions of scientologists out there. They just haven't realized it - yet. Once things are better aligned it will start to become apparent what the real numbers will look like. New things take time and effort to catch on.

          • sundaygirl

            What do you mean "better aligned"? And, again, what about all the people who've either left your organization or read the materials and weren't impressed? What can your organization do now to convince them they should return or join up? The current system of pushing personality tests on unsuspecting or naive passers-by isn't bringing them in, that's for sure.

          • Bob Crouch

            If millions are awaiting their great scientology awakening, why is the "church" claiming to have more than 12 million adherents NOW? Surely, such bald-faced lies do nothing to make this a more attractive endeavor? What else are they lying about?

          • Waterhorse

            I don't know the numbers but regardless if it's one million or 12 million - that's still a small percentage of the world population. I mean there's 200 million people unemployed in the world right now. (Maybe you could put your untapped genius to work in trying to solve that problem instead of inventing non-existent ones on discussions like this.) But also - it's a number that will rise as sure as the sun rises and sets and government officials screw with our tax money. You can quote me on that.

          • Bob Crouch

            Why don't you know the numbers? Your "church" keeps trumpeting 12 million--all you need to do is listen to your "leaders." I know the numbers, many others do, and YOU don't? I would not consider it an "invented non-existent" problem when a "church" takes such liberties with the truth. All indicators point to the fact that there are less than 50k scientologists world-wide. Now even ONE million would still be a MIGHTY BIG LIE! Furthermore, there is NO reason to believe that this number is headed anywhere but down. That's certainly what INDEPENDENT religious surveys say (which is to say nothing of others in the know whose impartiality you may question).

          • Ben Franklin

            Just ask yourself one simple question, how many Scientologists attend important church events? Less than 5,000 people, and I am being very generous here because it is usually somewhere around 2000 people (just enough to fit in a theater or auditorium). If there are 12 million Scientologist worldwide, this would be the worst attendance record for any religion in the world. The truth is, there are less that 50,000 Scientologists worldwide and some of them are not even active members anymore. Google "number of Scientologists worldwide"

          • Waterhorse

            Throughout history, small groups and determined individuals have been the only makers of space in which man can walk free. Think about it. The numbers will rise as sure as the sun rises. It's just a matter of time.

          • Bob Crouch

            The odds of the sun rising are pretty good. But if you follow the already ongoing decline in scientology's numbers, and you factor in that the cult's mendacity, greed and simple pointlessness is becoming more and more public knowledge, I'm afraid that your optimism is about as well-placed as any faith in the idea that Hubbard only SAID he was a con man (he freely admitted it) and actually wasn't.

          • Ben Franklin

            Any minute now the millions out there will get it. Just one minor detail, Scientology has been at it since the late 1950s and yet no progress has been made. Here is a good book for you to read to find out why. http://anonireland.com/content/wppdfcontent/books/russell_miller_bare_faced_messiah.pdf

          • Waterhorse

            Don't be silly. It's been developing for over 50 years. How long did it take for Christianity to become accepted in the Roman Empire? But look at what happened when people finally adopted it. It requires a paradigm shift in peoples thinking. It requires that old ideologies debunk themselves and slowly atrophy. It's not like a new carbon fiber golf club or a weight loss system. Learn patience if nothing else out of all of this and you'll get further.

          • Ben Franklin

            Scientology will never become like the Catholic Church because it is charges money for everything and it is built on a foundation of lies. Ask yourself, how many wives did Hubbard have. Was Hubbard ever a great husband or father?

          • Waterhorse

            What are you smoking? Do you realize how much money the Catholic Church pulled in from tithes and other systems? It controlled the economy of Europe for hundreds of years. Their holdings are in the hundreds of billions of dollars even now. Your arguments don't hold water and attacks on Hubbard are old hat and ineffective.

          • Ben Franklin

            Something called truth and a dose of reality. Come back to me when Scientology clears they City of Clearwater if you are still alive by then, then we can talk about how it will clear Florida. Forget about the rest of the world. It will never happen, it is all imaginary. You have wasted your entire life doing nothing. Everything you have gained in Scientology you could have gained without Scientology. How many non Scientologists do you see out here who are very successful and prospering without Scientology?

          • Waterhorse

            It's ALL BAD!

          • Ben Franklin

            What is bad?

          • Waterhorse

            Just read your comments - it's all bad - may as well give up and go watch TV till the world ends. That kind of attitude is not going to improve anything.

          • Ben Franklin

            I am just telling you the truth. Scientology cannot and will never be able to clear the planet because it is physically and practically impossible. How many times have you heard the words "this is it, planetary clearing is now a reality or within grasp" Since the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, not much has changed, we still live in a world full of wars, insanity, and criminality. Hubbard was a fiction writer, he came up with some very believable fictions, unfortunately people like you believe in his fictions. Do you think Scientology is making any progress in the middle east? Read the truth about LRH's navy record here and open up your eyes. http://www.businessinsider.com/l-ron-hubbard-military-records-2015-4

          • Waterhorse

            Wrong but you misunderstand the concept of clearing a planet. As an idea of the depth of inanity in this society- the DEA got $8 billion prior to 2012 to fix the opium problem in Afghanistan. In 2013 the crop was highest ever by far. Holy crap for 8 billion you could irrigate the whole country and decimate the opium production permanently. But no - it's the status quo that rules the roost. A small amount of sanity goes an awful long way these days. It's amazing what lurks at the end of the money chains. I wonder who is financially prospering from the Middle East conflict? Lots of money in destruction.

          • Ben Franklin

            Are you a volunteer Minister?

          • Ben Franklin

            My goodness, Waterhorse. These people have you running around the hamster wheel thinking you are actually doing something that is changing the world. Scientology is not even making a small dent in creating a civilization without war, criminals, or insanity. If anything it is getting even worse. All you have to do is look around you. Scientology is a Total failure. A fraud of a religion only interested in milking money from the able.

          • Waterhorse

            "Milking money from the able"? Of course these "able" are so stupid and gullible that they just give their money to anything - that's how they became so able? Silly. Also you have no alternative solutions to these earth shaking problems so I guess you should stay reclined in your armchair critic's La-z-boy and shout out some more profound truths to the public at large if it makes you feel worthy.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Alternative solutions" implies that scientology actually HAS solutions. Hubbard has been widely unmasked as a fraud. There are no "clears" let alone "OT's" Scientology is nothing but a money-grubbing scheme There are more people who have turned there back on its alleged benefits than members remaining Alternative to THIS?

          • elle

            Long ago I asked you this question, a question you dodged and skirted: What you think is meant by "clearing" the planet?

          • Ben Franklin

            If I didn't answer, it is because it is a stupid question. You tend to ask from time to time.

          • Bob Crouch

            What are you going on about. Ben stated--correctly--"Scientology will never become like the Catholic Church because it is charges money for everything and it is built on a foundation of lies." What does that have to do with tithes? RCC lets people VOLUNTARILY give a part of their income. But they're not like scientology where you get NOTHING unless yo pay exorbitant fees--regardless of your income. In scientology, it would be "sorry, no communion for you. Communion needs to be prepaid, no refunds." Hubbard's lies and lack of qualifications are well established. You may prefer "old hat," but I am glad that we both agree on that. That does not diminish their importance or give him credibility just because his lies are a few years old!

          • Waterhorse

            NO - you need to study history in the middle ages. You have it all wrong. Also - Jesus was just a carpenter - uneducated. Don't hold that against him please!

          • Bob Crouch

            Medieval history justifies the culture of fraud and greed of the scientology "church" in 20/21 century modern democracies? Sure it does... As to Jesus, we don't really know anything about his education. Certainly his discourses give the appearance that he knew quite a lot about the things he talked about. With educational drop-outs like Hubbard and Miscavige, the opposite is readily apparent!

          • elle

            Ask yourself if you have ever known anything about anything you have ever blathered about. The answer is no.

          • Bob Crouch

            It also requires wanting to be part of an abusive, authoritarian, pseudo-military cult organization steeped in a 50s Cold War mindset and unable to reform as "source" is source! That does not sound like some "let the old go, catch the new wave" deal to me. It sounds positively regressive!

          • Waterhorse

            Out with the old and in with the new. Or out with the outmoded I should say and in with the new and improved. Progress can be chaotic but it is needed - sorely needed.

          • Bob Crouch

            Progress? As in immersing oneself in a doctrinaire and repressive Cold War environment? Where is the progress in a culture that is committed to statically eating up and obeying the gibberish of a long gone dilettante. Is this "Back to the Future" or "Forward to the past?"

          • Waterhorse

            Psychiatry is a moldy outmoded relic of 19th century ignorance and warmongering. It is time for a change of the guard - and ignorance must fall by the wayside to make way for real knowledge.

          • Bob Crouch

            Your broad and unsubstantiated statement about an entire science does not reveal any knowledge or intelligence on your part. It simply reveals your dogmatism and ignorance. But, leaving that aside, it is ironic that the "new" that you are calling for is (a) a ripoff from Freudian psychiatry, (b) a rather outmoded 1950's variety, and (c) cobbled together by an individual who had NO background in what he was writing about. He was simply cribbing from a popular psychology text. So, "psychiatry" is bad, but the whole world should adopt Hubbard's "amateur psychiatry?" Are you nuts?

          • Waterhorse

            Psychiatry has attacked Scientology from day one. Only because they THINK they are threatened. Even though Scn never was intended to address the insane directly. It was directed to more rational individuals who wanted mental improvement. So psychiatry could be said to be "severely paranoid" to use their own nomenclature.

          • Bob Crouch

            Huh? Psychiatry has largely IGNORED scientology. You are vastly over-imagining scientology's impact on ANYTHING. When dianetics first came out, it was widely panned in the scientific community. That was not some "psych attack." That was simply common sense as dianetics was/is purely undadulterated quackery. It has NO scientific basis at all and has NEVER produced ANY results. (Hubbard tried to present "clears" to miserable failure). Other than that, the psychiatric/psychological professions have not had much interest in scientology at all. It scientology that is fixated on it and fighting imaginary battles with it. It would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic!

          • Sergeant Pepper

            Psychiatry doesn't even know or care that scientology exists.

          • Waterhorse

            Psychiatry doesn't know much - but they know about Scientology and have spent millions trying to black PR the church.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Psychiatry ... have spent millions trying to black PR the church." This is a widespread tinfoil hat conspiracy theory within scientology. For an unbiased observer, it appears that psychiatry has largely ignored scientology. It is true that when dianetics was first released in 1950, it was reviewed by people who were, unlike Hubbard, qualified mental health professionals. They came to the inevitable conclusion: That dianetics had no empirical basis, was full of grand claims and did not deserve to be taken seriously. This conclusion did not require a medical degree or membership in the APA; common sense sufficed! Other than that, the psychiatric profession and the pharma industry have simply ignored scientology. You claim, however, that they have "spent millions" to black PR scientology. While I can find evidence of scientology having spent millions to smear psychiatry (such as that silly museum in Hollywood), I find NO evidence that psychiatry has done anything similar. Can you please provide evidence of these alleged attacks on scientology? I'd be very interested in reviewing them.

          • Waterhorse

            I must conclude that Scientology is beyond your range of awareness or understanding and you should definitely NOT partake in it at this time.

          • Bob Crouch

            Sure, YOU make the paranoid and idiotic comment. And the problem is that there's something wrong with ME, because I see it for the ruse that it is? So before you wax on about "beyond your range," let's consider a simple fact: How much "range of awareness" can it take? Hubbard pulled it out of his xxx, and you're eating it up.

          • Bob Crouch

            Remember your claim: "Psychiatry doesn't know much - but they know about Scientology and have spent millions trying to black PR the church." I asked you for EVIDENCE, and the best you can come up with is a response that I probably would not make a good scientology convert. How did you figure that out? Is it that my BS meter is too sensitive to make it in your cult? Speaking of BS: So where's the evidence that the "psychs" expend ANY thoughts on the cult, let alone find it necessary to black PR it? You made the claim; now back it up!

          • Sergeant Pepper

            Scientology black PR's itself, psychiatry has nothing to do with it. Were you one of these scientologists back in the cult's golden years? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c97ed5c2ee265954c47769e9e43584fc180f0647ba6d492b2a10e0b5b172d927.jpg

          • Waterhorse

            Golden years are about to occur - they are not in the past. Those were formative years.

          • Bob Crouch

            The golden years are already on. Just look at how fast the cult is shrinking. At least 6 millions (probably a lot more by now) have just learned the truth through watching "Going Clear." Courts and communities are taking an interest at the scam in their midst. Gol-den!

          • Bob Crouch

            Scientology is an outmoded relic of 1950's ignorance and cold-warmongering. It is time for a change of the guard - and fraud must fall by the wayside to make way for real knowledge.

          • Waterhorse

            You have too limited a view on society. Look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church as a comparison. Look at the time it took to get accepted and the effect and influence it had on huge numbers of people - not all good influences but still a great influence. Look at the art and civilizations that were propelled forward at that time and how it's membership rose and fell over many centuries. Religion is a powerful influence matched only by art in it's power to transform society. Open thine eyes and have an epiphany!

          • Bob Crouch

            Comparing the scientology cult to the RCC. Please, that's like comparing Madonna to Marlon Brando--after all they're both actors...

          • Waterhorse

            But Madonna can sing - sort of. So she's a sort of singing performing pseudo religious figure with sexual undertones. Big Deal. The RCC has been reviled soundly for many things and has been forced to reform and recant a number of times. It is big and powerful and very wealthy. It professes a virgin birth which has not been authenticated and other miracles which may be true but are impossible to prove. Is that a big deal? Not really. Stop the silliness right now!

          • Bob Crouch

            And none of this gives any credence to the desperate quest of a minor me-too cult to be compared to "legitimate" religions... Sorry, but Madonna won't help you there.

          • sundaygirl

            Over the years, the RCC has owned up to many of its (past and present) bad actions. It may not have happened easily and it may not have been pretty, but it has taken at least some responsibility (indulgences, molestation, etc). Scientology can't even decide if its "clergy" actually exists (the Sea Org does exist in some cases, doesn't exist in others - look up Scientology lawyers using both arguments in different cases), not to mention that it tries to keep its "scriptures" secret from the world, charges people exorbitant fees for the "privilege" of being a member, etc. Scientology has taken no responsibility for any of its actions. In fact, it sues the very people it has already treated terribly. It hides behind front groups such as Narconon to lure people in. Once Scientology stops trying to trick the public into thinking it is something its not, then I'll maybe buy the comparison to the RCC.

          • Waterhorse

            The argument about keeping scriptures secret is not valid. Go to any large company or government and try to get at all their confidential documents - they's sue you or throw you in jail. It's a common situation where information is inappropriate for general distribution for many reasons including security and proprietary information.

          • sundaygirl

            That makes your organization a money-making company, a self-help business, not a religion. Major religions of the world do not try to hide their scriptures.

          • Waterhorse

            It's not hidden it's kept form general circulation until the person is at a level where it can be understood. Plus governments have all kinds of confidential info and they are not profit making groups. They LOSE money wholesale - that's our money they lose too!

          • Bob Crouch

            Hubbard promised that people who would find out about OT 3 before they "got there" would get sick and die. I read it. I thought it was a sick joke. Didn't get pneumonia--not even a cold. Happily alive and calling him a liar. Now I've heard of a few suffering death from applying Hubbard properly. Cat White and Lisa McPherson come to mind. But tell me this: With all the thousands that have seen OT 3 and the rest of Hubbard's dreck out of turn, have you EVER heard of EVEN ONE person suffering death? I think the ever mercenary Hubbard simply did not want people to get a FREE peek, let alone conclude that this is all BS not worth paying for. Since Hubbard could NOT possibly be wrong about such a serious point, any fatalities you know of?

          • Bob Crouch

            So you admit that scientology is just another corporation? I agree. Religion is free. Scientology is neither.

          • elle

            In modern times, the RCC authenticates miracles in order for them to be called miracles officially. Has to be before and after scientific evidence. There is not high volume official miracles. However, among the rank and file parishioners, there are many--in the millions over the years. A family from my old neighborhood had a child diagnosed by two medical doctors with leukemia. The mother made a Novena. Next trip to the doc, the leukemia disappeared. Of course, the miscreants here would ridicule this, but the family knows it was a miracle.

          • Waterhorse

            Miracles do occur in various ways all the time as far as I can see. Just because it's hard to prove means very little as miracles by definition are outside the realms of known science. Science doesn't cover spiritual knowledge to a great degree.

          • elle

            True. Even when tested, like praying for people (or plants) and having measurable improvements, the doubters will doubt or rage. But the purpose has never been to convince them of miracles, or of wins. That is something for the individual to experience and decide.

          • Bob Crouch

            Quit pretending like you are a "church" like other legitimate ones, or trying to win the sympathies of uninformed others. Fact: Scientologists don't pray. And pray for others--are you kidding me! The most important sacrament of scientology is to suck others dry of their money and labor--and do it for "Ron the Con." So your whole example here is really null and void. It may apply to real churches whose respectability you're so desperately trying to leech off of. In scientology terms, it does not compute!

          • sundaygirl

            Don't forget to pray for the fishies!

          • Bob Crouch

            Scientologists don't pray--certainly not for others! Stop trying to conflate scientology with respectable, credible religions who actually exercise benevolence!

          • Bob Crouch

            Being "outside the realms of known science" is hardly sufficient to qualify as a "miracle." So today's miracle is tomorrow's science? Scientology does not deal in "miracles." If offers "science" and "tech." If you pay big bucks to the cult and they allow you to learn that "tech," results are promised to follow that may seem miraculous, such as physical disabilities disappearing or a rising IQ. If those results fail to manifest (as they inevitably will), you'll pay for the next set of "tech" and hope it will happen there. If that still fails, you blame yourself (as Ron can't be wrong), or pay even more money. Or re-purchase some past products as they were "off source." And the racket continues.

          • sundaygirl

            Your comparison doesn't work, for many reasons. (For one, Catholicism started during a time when people didn't have access to computers, research materials, phones or periodicals. We have knowledge, information and technology today to guide us. We can, with the click of a button, find out about the abuses your organization perpetrates and perpetuates. See, this is why Dianetics and Scientology were most popular in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s - before the Internet.) Not all religions are equal, and Catholicism's modern numbers have never dipped quite as low as has your current membership. Flunk.

          • Waterhorse

            Stop the cheesy rhetoric. It isn't working. EVERYONE knew about the abuses of the RCC. People were actually very well connected then - and many were smarter than people are today. They had a sophisticated communication system but the only difference was it was slower - so what! There was lots of time then and no traffic to fight. You don't think burning people alive and putting ice around them to keep them alive for longer isn't a human rights abuse? But there were many things about the RCC which were good and that kept the society from fighting amongst itself and destroying itself. So every angel has two faces. Which one is dominant is what you need to figure out. You are missing the importances of this area of religion entirely. Bone up!

          • sundaygirl

            You claim people were smarter thousands of years ago and had better communications systems? (Let me guess, you know this because, during auditing, you discovered in one of your past lives you were an Egyptian letter carrier or something.) Back then, people listened to others talk, and then told others what they heard. Ever play that game Telephone when you were little? It's not like people were recording sermons and uploading them onto the Internet for everyone around the world to view at their leisure. I'm afraid you have sunk too much of your time and money into LRH.

          • Waterhorse

            You've outdone your earlier misevaluations AGAIN! Ever hear of the printing press?? They had newspapers. Even prior to 1400 they used writing and couriers and posted things on public boards. Plus people actually communicated directly to each other then - more than today if you really look at it. Why do you think they had the Reformation in Europe?

          • sundaygirl

            Thick as a brick, you are. You and I are clearly talking about different times. Christianity and Catholicism was over a thousand years old by the 1400s, so, I think it was already pretty well established. To apply this daft logic to Scientology, we'd have to see if it is still around in 2950 or so. As it stands, with the dwindling membership, you will be lucky to make it to 2050.

          • Waterhorse

            I talk about the MIDDLE AGES silly! Christianity came out of Catholicism as a result of dissatisfaction - much of it in the 1400's and 1500's. This was also the period of the Inquisition. That's when the abuses were magnified and revolt was occurring. They had printing and distribution occurring then. What do you think the Reformation was all about? That's the period of change i was talking about not the inception period. So people didn't communicate about things in the 60's and seventies?? Ever hear about a telephone - or the MAIL? Or a newspaper? Go Fish. Your arguments are as substantial as turtle soup.

          • Bob Crouch

            Substantial as turtle soup? I can tell, you really ARE writing your own materials! Seriously though, you may not want to bring up a topics such as "substantial." You spend your posts hand-waving about the RCC and the 15th century, and then you are trying to use that as the "substance" for shilling for the vilest present day cult? That trick only works on the really gullible ones. And I don't think that convincing them is your real problem here. Miscavige is already taking care of them.

          • Waterhorse

            You have to temper your awareness with understanding what has gone on in earlier times. History repeats itself endlessly but only if you view the bigger picture. At one time - or many times the RCC was regarded as a ragtag bunch of weirdos and later as a large corrupt bunch of authoritarians. Then they came back into favor - now they are still very popular for many reasons. Scientology will face a similar destiny - like it or not.

          • Bob Crouch

            Keep dreaming, cult boy!

          • sundaygirl

            You can continue to downplay the influence the Internet and mobile phones and even cable television have in today's society, but it doesn't make your argument. There is a big difference between getting someone's second/third/fourthhand retelling of a story and clicking a button to instantly read the actual story. Look, I get that you are really jazzed about Scientology and you want to think that LRH had the answers to the universe. You can think you are infested with alien spirits that only auditing can rid you of. You can spend every last dime you have buying multiple copies of LRH's books. What you can't do, however, is get most other people to buy it by making up comparisons and statistics. Even though your dear leader sold it to you, it doesn't make it real just because you want it to be real for you.

          • sundaygirl

            Fighting with you about what is the best method of communication and when communication was at its height is pointless. Christianity counts 2.2 billion members today. The RCC's 1.25 billion current members factor into that total. According to a 2012 study, the RCC gained 15 million members in the 2011 calendar year. (Now, I don't know if those numbers are accurate; in fact, I'm sure they are probably inflated to some extent.) Is Scientology growing at that rate? (Remember, Scientology's current membership numbers run between 25,000 to 40,000 in a world of billions according to several studies (again, probably inflated somewhat)). Do you really believe your organization will ever see a year of growth like that? (Also, please remember that your main recruitment tools are faux rehab facilities and rigged personality tests, and the biggest goals of your organization are badmouthing psychiatrists and buying buildings.)

          • Waterhorse

            Small groups and determined individuals created the RCC. Small groups and determined individuals created Scientology. Basically people know they are spiritual beings and support that concept. Although they try to avoid the subject as it doesn't conform to scientific practice. Psychiatry is a washed up pseudo science that's putting hundreds of millions of people on heavy drugs. it just doesn't make the grade in this enlightened day and age. It must reform totally or face extinction.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Psychiatry is a washed up pseudo science that's putting hundreds of millions of people on heavy drugs. it just doesn't make the grade in this enlightened day and age." Not that you offer any evidence. But even if you WERE right, you should really tell your whole story. Namely that psychiatry ought to be replaced with scientology. Of course, as we all know scientology does not even qualify as a "pseudo-science." So what good would THAT do? Do you really want more Lisa McPherson, Cat White and similar cases? Think of all the people who have died from scientology quackery in Narconon alone.

          • Waterhorse

            Psychiatry must reform and get real or it will face extinction. Just a matter of time.

          • Bob Crouch

            You keep repeating this with the zeal of the true believer. All because your head has been filled with all the scientology cult nonsense. Of course, you are not really telling the truth here. Scientology does NOT believe that psychiatry must reform. Instead, it believes that psychiatry must be replaced with the teachings of L Ron Hubbard. Now think about the INSANITY of that statement! 1. Hubbard was unable to pass one single basic science class. He flunked out after his freshman year 2. Hubbard was an impostor who would refer to himself by all kinds of academic titles--none of which he ever earned 3. Hubbard was not conducting any scientific study on which he based his "teachings." He simply pulled it out of his xxx 4. Demonstrably, he copied from Freud, although he clearly did not understand him very well and plagiarized ideas that Freud had already abandoned. So psychiatry is "evil" but "psychiatry light" by a complete dilettante is "the ultimate?" Huh? 5. Hubbard's "research" has NEVER been peer reviewed. Which is understandable. After all, who exactly would be "peer" to an amateur fantasist like this? With this crud informing your "thinking" on the subject of psychiatry, please forgive me for not taking you seriously when you're spouting such sweeping statements.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            The reason why all you culties are having a very difficult time with the world is that Hubbard never predicted the shit storm that the internet would unleash on collective cult mind that is Scientology. You as a Scientologist fight every battle with an insidious and chronic case of glaucoma. It is almost unfair to argue with you as you will always be at a disadvantage. It would be akin to a farmer (me) telling a pig (you) its breath smells like shit. Scientology seems to be one of the leading causes of blindness and cognitive dissonance. Perhaps it is time to start working on your public relations.

          • Waterhorse

            It's one thing to be vision impaired - quite another to be stone blind and think you have 20/20 vision in 360 degrees. This is the problem that we as Scientologists face in many instances of this type. It's like talking to a blind man who thinks he actually sees the big picture. Frustrating till you understand the level of awareness you are dealing with.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            The problem that 'you' as Scientologist face, is that your blindness is caused by having your head stuck right up your asses while Miscavige robs you. My level of awareness includes knowing that whatever you have to offer---no one in their right mind is buying anymore.

          • Bob Crouch

            Or perhaps it's more like a Kool Aid drinker trying to convince others to take a sip! I don't doubt that scientology makes sense to 30-40,000 people world-wide inside the bubble. To the other 7 billion of us? Not so much!

          • elle

            You have hit on why we had the crucial and long project of locating, verifying, restoring, and preserving the precise writings of LRH, and then storing it securely. It is a very good and comforting thing.

          • Ben Franklin

            Just a whole bunch of Squirrels led by Chief Squirrel David Miscavige himself

          • Bob Crouch

            You're going on about the RCC in the middle ages--as if that explains or justifies the atrocities committed by the scientology cult TODAY. Huh?

          • elle

            On a tape, LRH credits the Catholic Church with civilizing Europe. He also speaks well of AA in two places. Cool, huh?

          • Bob Crouch

            LRH also claims that there is "no Christ," that Jesus was an "implant" and that Jesus was a homosexual pedophile. Still cool?

          • Waterhorse

            Yes. Exactly the point. People got tired of immorality running the society down and messing up the culture so they gladly embraced something that held a few standards. Pretty good standards too as they hold up even today to a large degree judging by the popularity of the RCC. Just curious - who is AA?

          • elle

            Alcoholics Anonymous. The original program as found in the the Big Book (Alcoholics Anonymous is the title) is excellent. It has been ripped off by psychs who altered and spun it. But the more purely the book is followed, the more perfectly you can make it work for you. As for standards, yes, the 10 Commandments alone is worth the effort.

          • Bob Crouch

            Touching! So AA is ok--as long as you keep "psychs" out of it. Why? Because Ron hates psychs. Why? Because psychs called his "research" a fraud--as if that should be a surprise to ANYBODY. But Ron lifted a bunch of stuff from Freud (granted, without understanding him all that well) and even acknowledged him before becoming "source." Shut up and hate the psychs! It's in the 'scriptures!'

          • Waterhorse

            Ron isn't the only one to hate the psychs. Google Psychiatric Survivors and many other groups to find the level of hatred involved towards these fakers from people who've actually suffered their "treatments". They have almost NO real public support. 90% oft their support is bought at a premium from the government and lobby groups. Billions of dollars required to keep their scam going strong.

          • Bob Crouch

            Your post really demonstrates nothing but bigotry. You hate them, you call them names, you judge them and yet this is clearly based on no information. I wonder how you talk about blacks, gays or Catholics. Actually, no need to embarrass yourself by telling me; I have a pretty good idea. BTW, you're walking on thin ice when mentioning "Ron" and "faker" in such proximity of each other. Then again, it's probably ok since most folks have already been making that connection without your help for decades.

          • Waterhorse

            Bigotry? I think the pot is calling the kettle black there. You're not exactly the paragon of unbiased virtue that your posts try to imply. Look at the facts and you'll see that psychiatry has no public support and is living on borrowed time and other peoples money. Pathetic.

          • Bob Crouch

            YOU were the one to bring up the term "bigotry." I merely pointed out how well this term applied to your own fact-free rant! So it's a "fact" that psychiatry is "living on borrowed time?" Can you substantiate that "fact?" There are plenty of facts pointing to the dwindling membership and popularity of scientology. Facts put forth by unbiased authorities conducting "religious" surveys, to name just one. 65 years after dianetics, there are still NO "facts" to support that Hubbard knew what he was talking about. In fact, with every passing year he is becoming MORE discredited as a person as well as an "authority" on ANYTHING. However, there are no "facts" to support that all of a sudden less qualified medical professionals are embracing psychiatry as a legitimate means of helping patients. There are no facts to support that governments are backing off supporting psychiatry, regulating the profession for abuses or malpractice or anything else along those lines--in not even ONE developed country. There are no "facts" to support that universities are backing off their research and education. No facts, that there is a dwindling number of medical professionals entering that profession. So what facts do YOU have? As to "other people's money," you ought to tread carefully there. There is rapidly growing discontent among tax payers who wish to no longer financially support a rapaciously greedy and exploitative cult such as scientology. You won't have to google far to find evidence of that. However, I have yet to find petitions to de-fund psychiatry or public outrage that our tax dollars support psychiatric research. Outside of the cult's quixotic efforts that no one notices anyway. Not even the psychiatric profession itself finds it necessary to defend itself against scientology's wild-eyed and fact-free allegations. Because outside of the cult bubble, NO ONE notices! Remember Cruise's rant on the Matt Lauer show. Did that lead to a public outcry that psychiatry needs to stop. Or did that lead to a PR disaster for Tom? I think we all know the answer to that one. His own studio bosses dumped him in embarrassment!

          • Waterhorse

            Here's one about the psychs: http://www.tldp.com/issue/162/162psych.htm

          • Bob Crouch

            Like every science, psychiatry is imperfect and evolving. On that count, scientology's got it beat. It's perfect and resistant to any kind of evolution. It offers perfect certainty. As long as you can get behind the idea that the planet's problems are caused by the thetans Xenu vaporized, and that the path to mental health is one long exorcism. As well as the idea that all answers lie with one guy only and must be obtained at extortionate prices. Curiously, from an organization that claims to want to save the planet but which seems seems to be a lot more about looting the wallets of the planet.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Was this article aimed at discrediting psychiatry? If so, once again--major fail. An article published in a Naturopathic newsletter fails to meet any credible reference standards. You'd get an "F" on your dissertation. Are you familiar with academic standards? 1.) The author Gary Null "PhD" is a well documented quack with very questionable credentials. His PhD: The Union Institute's Ph.D. program came under scrutiny by the Ohio Board of Regents in the late 1990s, early 2000s which culminated in its 2002 Reauthorization Report. The report was critical of the Union Institute's Ph.D. program, noting in particular that " ... expectations for student scholarship at the doctoral level were not as rigorous as is common for doctoral work ... " (OBR 2002 Reauthorization Report, page 13) As a result, The Union was put on probation, the Union Graduate School was dissolved and the Ph.D. program was restructured.[1] 2.) Much like Jenna Elfman, Gary Null is an AIDS denialist, pretty sure he also thinks fluoride, vaccines are the boogeyman. 3.) http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html So do you see above? That's how you provide factual evidence. I think you do have a serious case of denial.

          • Waterhorse

            Interesting you attack Gary Null's credentials but say nothing about the article itself which is 100% documented truth from start to finish and totally exposes the psychs for who they really are. The article is totally accurate.and quite comprehensive. I could care less where he got his PhD from frankly. A newspaper reporter exposing the psychs doesn't need any degrees to be on point. A fact is a fact and you really don't even need a high school diploma to figure that out. Psychs are on borrowed time at this point.

          • Bob Crouch

            You are so gullible! Where is the 100% documentation, and "truth from start to finish?" 5 minutes with google tells you what Null's reputation is. So you got one guy who agrees with some of the insanity of scientology's ideas--and he's a quack. So you don't care where he got his PhD? You'd probably say you don't care where Dr. Hubbard got his either? Let me assure you, it matters! Why would a guy who did not even make it through his first semester without failing across the board later pretend that he had achieved several academic qualifications. Because Hubbard's a fraud through and through! Now maybe Null isn't quite that bad. However, it says a lot about a person's character, integrity and agenda if they try to pad their credentials (Null) or lie about them outright (Hubbard). Once you know that, you can't believe anything else they say either.

          • Waterhorse

            Narrow mindedness is all for you. Just because Steve Jobs didn't have a degree doesn't mean I should not buy an I phone - or a couple of them if I recognize they are good. I'm sure people with degrees bought I phones as well. We shouldn't shelve our own observations and only follow those with degrees or uniforms. That is preposterous.

          • Bob Crouch

            Steve Jobs never lied and claimed that we should listen to him because he has a degree. Nor did he ever pretend that he alone had engineered the iPhone. Null uses questionable degrees to pretend that he has credibility that he does not possess. Hubbard LIED about degrees (he barely made it through high school and flunked out BIG after his freshman year). I did NOT say that people without degrees have nothing to contribute. However, it is quite clear that people who LIE and PRETEND that they have certain qualifications should NOT be trusted under ANY circumstances! Are you meaning to tell me that next time you go to a doctor or dentist, you don't care whether s/he has a proper medical degree?

          • Waterhorse

            The whole destructive pseudo-science called psychiatry is a lie. A lie that has undermined education, health care, the legal system, and drug rehab for decades. It must recant and eat crow.

          • Bob Crouch

            I know there are a few tinfoilers in the scientology cult who think that. But I have to inform you, this puts you way off to the edges of even the lunatic fringe. And it does not help that you offer NO arguments that would make a person want to re-consider whether you're on to something. Even after Cathriona White and Lisa McPherson (and numerous other victims of scientology quackery of less known names), you really want to go THERE?

          • elle

            Blob Grinch, you can't stop lying. Jobs did not have a degree: " Jobs briefly attended Reed College in 1972 before dropping out, deciding to travel through India in 1974 and study Buddhism." I believe he attended only a few months. So you just make up stuff, you always have. It's been shown over and over and over and over. Waterhorse gives you the straight scoop, and you come back with lies.

          • Bob Crouch

            Speaking of lies: Since reading and comprehension is clearly not your strong suit (what is it with extremist cults and their aversion to education anyway?), let's recap what I already said once. 1. Jobs never completed his college education. 2. Unlike Hubbard, he never lied, and pretended that he had acquired all kinds of imaginary degrees. 3. This is not a bit different from what I previously stated. 4. If our roles were reversed, I would now accuse you of willful lying and lecture you about how you always do. Not wanting to sink to the cult m. o., I will skip that step. The degree of your credibility and the intelligence of your posts (or absence thereof) speak for themselves.

          • Bob Crouch

            Now this is fun: This is what fellow cult guy keeponlearning had to say about name-mangling: "Seriously? Name insults are really second-grade intellect." Hypocritically, you up-voted his statement! What were you thinking?

          • Ben Franklin

            L Ron Hubbard did not have a college degree either except the ones from his own bogus college. L Ron's Transcript from George Washington University Illustrates just how bad of a student Hubbard was despite the grandiose claims of being a nuclear physicist. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/754fde4c8851fcb88a1d7c2c65cc59f0463f4a21607641ee160072260b84dc37.jpg

          • Bob Crouch

            Well, who's the liar now? Time for you to correct your post as all it does is demonstrate that you are incapable of reading fairly straightforward posts and NOT lie about them. Pretty pathetic, coming from a cult that brags about its communications courses!

          • Bob Crouch

            "Dr" Null is not a newspaper reporter. He is a guy of extremely murky qualifications. It appears that he obtained both a "PhD" and a BS from diploma mills. For variety's sake, he sometimes credits himself as an MS as well, although there's no evidence he ever earned one. He did, however, manage to obtain what appears to be a legitimate associate's degree from a state junior college in, well, West Virginia. A bit like Hubbard when it comes to titles (although the Hubb was far less qualified). He bills himself as a nutritionist and has sold all kinds of dubious supplements over the years--not an area famous for its great ethics and firm grip on science. He is on the radar of various organizations such as "quackwatch." He is also a radio talk show host with a bent for conspiracy theories. So a conspiracy nut with a questionable "PhD" in nutrition (but a bona fide assoicates degree in business ) is the "expert witness" against the "psychs." So much so that you make him out as a definitive authority whose voice should be heard over anyone else's. Are you truly THAT gullible? If nothing else, this shows how desperate scientologists are when it comes to defending their quacky views!

          • Waterhorse

            Like I say - You don't need a degree to spot a serpent in your living room. Or a nest of serpents like the psychs draining funds to pursue their nefarious goals and creating a drug dependent society as they've been doing for decades.

          • Bob Crouch

            You really sound like one of those folks living in their mom's basement with a big bong and a head full of conspiracy theories underneath the old tinfoil hat. Sorry, but do you REALLY want to talk about "draining funds?" Scientology was founded by a guy who was already a small-time con man, L Ron Hubbard, for one purpose only, to make money for himself. He made that perfectly clear in conversations with numerous individuals. No wonder that scientology is so ruthlessly robbing people of their entire financial possessions! Imagine going to a real "church" such as the RCC, and having to make a large advance payment before you are allowed to take communion. Or give confession. Imagine them secretly taping inside the confession booth and distributing a tape to others, or making it public if you decide to leave the church. Speaking of leaving: If you do, your spouse will be ordered to divorce you and your closest family will be required to break off contact. That's a "religion?" So glad you mentioned "nefarious goals!" Good topic!

          • Avid Miskaridge

            What do you know about chemtrails?

          • Waterhorse

            Who needs chemtrails when you have a whole population of psychs feeding over 100 million people dangerous antidepressants for diseases they don't have. Lets get all the 8 year olds on Ritalin and other class 2 narcotics and ADHD drugs for a theoretical disease. Why spray it in the air when you can just convince the parents to shove it down their throats?

          • Avid Miskaridge

            My suggestion is you will likely need a psychogeriatric consult in the very near future as your delusions progress into dementia. I hope you at least have medical coverage via Scientology. How can you be against psychiatric abuses but not against the physical abuses/human rights violations/theft of Scientology? Abuse is abuse, whether you are an incompetent psychiatrist or ignorant scientologist. I will fight both.

          • Waterhorse

            Did you know that there was a "mental illness" called "Mathematics Disorder" in the DSM? (psychiatry's diagnostic bible) for people having trouble learning math? There's a Big pharma drug to go with too! There's also a "Caffeine Related Disorder" if you go to Starbucks too often. Every year they add a new profit centre to their toolkit. Abysmal.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            I often Imagine a group of individuals being coerced into taking all these very expensive big pharma courses and buying all these big pharma textbooks in the hopes of furthering themselves. They're not in themselves bad people just employees of Big Pharma trying to do good. The catch though, is that the Big Pharma company they have been recruited into and now work for, charges all its employees for the courses/textbooks/training requisite to do its paid work. In addition, the well funded Big Pharma company proceeds to take money from their employees' paycheck with every opportunity under the guise of expanding Big Pharma treatment facilities across the world. This is a good thing, employees are told--"We must eradicate the world of mental illness and wage war against all the Naturopaths or the NATS". The Big Pharma company then creates an elite organization reserved only for the most compliant employees to do work across the world. This is a volunteer organization within Big Pharma though; members are not paid. Big Pharma sets up and buys buildings all over the world from which to offer its expensive courses and continue to dole out medication at all costs. If the building employees are working in, falls into disrepair, it is up to the employees to pool together and raise money to repair it; often paying out of their own pockets. Big Pharma applauds efforts of its organizations by asking them to raise even more money to increase the rate of expansion across the world. The more money that is raised, the better the particular organization appears to be functioning in the eyes of the Big Pharma leader. Local businesses are targeted for money, under Big Pharma's guise to eradicate the ills of the world by its humanitarian force and front groups using their instructional doctrine. Big Pharma leader, tells its employees that they need to do more to spread the Big Pharma message across the universe and must now re-do some the courses. Courses, of course are paid for by the employee. Big pharma then recruits members into its organization by attending large gatherings and sitting outside in public handing out big pharma information. The public is then psychoanalized and told that their problems could better be solved by taking a very inexpensive pharma course. Try it if you like it, sort of thing. Big pharma then tells an interested member of the pubic that they need to continue taking courses only offered by them in order to be a good citizen. At some point, Big Pharma's courses get more expensive and if you want to progress you must buy them. Fear not though because Big Pharma has a way you can pay these courses off, you can work for Big Pharma. You enthusiastically enlist. The other thing Big Pharma forces its employees to do is buy textbooks only published by its own presses. Books authored by only one person, no other author is allowed or used as this is contrary to Big Pharma's message. It must remain the only published source of information for all its employees, no questions asked. The terminology contained in its material is made up and comprises the majority of Big Pharma's manual called the DMS-V codes. Employees can not contest the information in those textbooks, worse if they are caught criticizing it, they're interrogated to see if they have something against big pharma and its leader. Faithfulness to big pharma's doctrine is tested often to ensure compliance of its employees. If the leader of Big Pharma doesn't like you, or you do something to harm its reputation you are sent off for retraining. Throughout its history, Big Pharma has many former employees speak out against it and many news stories are reported that shine a big light on Big Pharma's abuses against its employees. Many of those employees go on to write about Big Pharma's abuses. Big Pharma spends millions of dollars of its employees wages to combat allegations against it. The company is taken to court on many occasions and a lot of its secretive doctrine is leaked to the public via court documents. In efforts to control its employees, Big pharma's instruction is to avoid any negative information published against it. Attack any individual speaking out against it. It responds by training its employees on how to treat threats against its doctrine/agenda by putting its employees through courses paid out of their own pocket. The employees are told to avoid this information and critics talking bad against it because this negative information is harmful and will push you back in Big Pharma training . You have to repeat courses again until you get it right, at your own cost. Big Pharma's treatment of people who disagree with it however is not in congruence with the supposed good they portray in public. It tells its employees that if their families are not in agreement of their doctrine that they should no longer be part of their life. If their family disagrees with the Big Pharma's doctrine and all the medication prescriptions it writes, they are told to never speak to them. Even if a friend speaks out about supposed psychiatric abuses, the friend is no longer spoken to and ties are cut off as well. The employee must report all of this to big pharma's head office and the employee is then themselves then questioned to ascertain if allegiance to Big Pharma remains intact. If an employee is found to be Out-Pharma Ethics, Big pharma then responds by questioning the employee until they break down. I will join you in the fight against Big Pharma!

          • Waterhorse

            I think I have "Mathematics Disorder" as calculus is quite challenging for me. Perhaps a boatload of class 2 narcotics and a few types of anti-depressants will get me through the Christmas holidays in fine fettle! Happy Holidays!

          • Bob Crouch

            Cult disorder, more likely. No narcotics for that.

          • elle

            I must have psychiatric disorder because psychiatry makes no sense to me. Check my comments in my profile. There are a couple you might find interesting although they are addressed to Blob Grinch and gang.

          • Bob Crouch

            Actually, it's your comments that make little or no sense. Other than their childishness, you reply to comments that people never made. As if being in a cult doesn't make you appear dim enough, you just have to amass further proof. Your prerogative, of course. After all, outside of your cult, it's a free country

          • Bob Crouch

            This is what fellow cult guy keeponlearning had to say about name-mangling: "Seriously? Name insults are really second-grade intellect." Hypocritically, you up-voted his statement!

          • Ben Franklin

            There is a reason why you don't understand or hate psychiatry. It is not your fault https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPtYWwHJas4

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Enjoy your narcotics and psychotropics dear Waterhorse. Don't let anyone, specially Big Pharma take you away from your family--they're known to do that. Down with Big Pharma eh?

          • Bob Crouch

            And this somehow supports that ALL of psychiatry is bogus? Even more unlikely: How does this demonstrate that a clueless dilettante like Hubbard had ALL the insights about the human mind?

          • Bob Crouch

            Diseases they don't have? How do you know that? Do you have ANY medical or public health qualification? Or are you just saying this because the scientology cult tells you to? You DO know that Hubbard did not have ANY qualifications at all, right? You are aware that when he was calling himself "doctor," "engineer," "nuclear physicist," or even "commodore," he was lying. You know that, right?

          • Waterhorse

            Who needs chemtrails when you have a whole population of psychs feeding over 100 million people dangerous antidepressants for diseases they don't have. Lets get all the 8 year olds on Ritalin and other class 2 narcotics and ADHD drugs for a theoretical disease. Why spray it in the air when you can just shove it down their throats?

          • Bob Crouch

            This web site is known as the Townsend Letter, for alternative "medicine," circulation 6000. Wow, they're even smaller than scientology! It's telling that they themselves find it necessary to post the following disclaimer: "We encourage reports which frequently are not data-based but are anecdotal. Hence, information presented may not be proven or factually correct." Again, this is THEIR OWN view of themselves! Confidence inspiring? It should come as no surprise that the Townsend Letter is listed as a "nonrecommended periodical" by the website Quackwatch. Also on the quackwatch watchlist is Mr. Null, the author of the article you reference. He lists himself as PhD. However, a bit more research will quickly show that his degree is almost as questionable as Hubbard's "degrees" were. Now, I am not saying that it necessarily requires a PhD to be able to disseminate useful information. However, someone who inflates their academic achievements--in other words deceives--says a lot about their character and nullifies their credibility. You wonder what such a person--such as Hubbard or Null--is trying to hide!

          • Waterhorse

            This Just In... A NEW wonder drug that handles Mathematics Disorder" in your child. Your child will ROMP through math class with a good dose of this dangerous SSRI combined with a NEW class 2 narcotic. ALL THE EXPERTS agree! THIS is it! Published in every medical journal from coast to coast and advertised on TV! (Just remember to read the 30 lines of side effects and a few that aren't mentioned before gulping it down as it may well rot your liver and/or kill you). Back to class kids.

          • Bob Crouch

            And your point? You're trying to spread hatred against an entire branch of the medical profession. Why? Because your cult leader told you to. Why would he do that, even though he "borrowed" so much from that profession? Because he has been the laughing stock of every serious professional since he claimed to be the first and only one to understand the human mind. So you keep raging. Not because you have a clue what you're talking about but because that's what people in cults do. And you offer no alternative. Scientoloy does nothing to help people with disabilities, other than relieve them of the burden of their bank account. It's fraud--pure and simple. You sound like a racist collecting newspaper clips of happenings in the blighted parts of town, telling me triumphantly: "See, I told you "they" are genetically inferior.

          • Bob Crouch

            Of course, we also know that a common side effect of scientology "treatment" is death. Lisa McPherson, Cathriona White, and many others attest to that.

          • Bob Crouch

            OK, I bit, and did my own research on this alarming "new" disorder. First off, there is nothing new about it. The recognition and research of dyscalculia goes back to 1949. It is simply one of many specific forms of learning disorders thought to be present in 3-6% of the general population. Before the discovery of specific learning disabilities, children (or adults) who were afflicted by them were generally thought to be "dumb" and written off as being a waste of educators' time as they would not respond to "one size fits all" educational approaches. Consequently, their prospects in life were limited, and society at large would pay the cost for these "underachievers." I fail to see where you could find fault with discovering specific learning disabilities and why you would prefer a less enlightened approach and its considerable cost to the individuals and to all of us. Second, you make it sound as if the remedy to dyscalculia is the automatic and thoughtless drugging of the sufferer. This is FAR from the truth! Many web sites outline a long list of remedies, none of which include drugging. The preferred treatment methods are typically behavioral; they involve special education methods to address such a learning deficit. Again, I fail to see where customizing education methods to special needs is anything but positive. Which brings us to the question of "alternatives." What do you have in mind to address this learning disability? Do you really believe scientology, the fantasy product of a pulp sci-fi writer who was unable to pass a single math class and yet made wild and unfounded claims about his own educational achievements ("Dr," "MDiv," "scientist," "nuclear physicist," "commodore," "civil engineer," to name but a few) offers such alternatives? Hubbard was given to great claims, such as being able to raise people's IQ--as long as they paid up lots and in advance. Yet, NONE of these claims has EVER been demonstrated in ANY way, shape or form as even marginally valid. Other than being extremely adept at "clearing" people's bank accounts and enslaving them in the confines of a "religious" cult, his methods have failed. So where is his answer to mathematical learning disabilities? Scientology's virulent hatred toward the medical and psychological professions does NOTHING to empower those whose disabilities need to be diagnosed and addressed--most often WITHOUT the use of drugs!

          • Waterhorse

            Unfortunately the psychs had already insinuated themselves as education experts prior to 1949 and had started their own "education reforms" in the system which have so enriched all of our lives. Any education system that doesn't know how to handle problem kids without pumping kids full of drugs is a system that needs a swift kick in the gluteus maximus. That's what it's there for. PS - Here's an excellent article on the brain boys and their miracle cures, wonder drugs and Hallelujha snake oils. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/06/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

          • Bob Crouch

            Why are we even having this discussion? Let's get honest here for once. You are hating an entire profession because Hubbard told you to. Even the bigoted terminology makes that clear; some hate the nigs, some hate the slopes, some hate the f*gs. And you hate the "psychs." Just like all other bigotry, you do so without any real reason. And without really knowing any of them. You do so indiscriminately and obediently. Fine, knock yourself out! But know this: The moment someone asks you any questions about your beliefs, you will always be revealed as a bigoted, ignorant mouth breather. Hubbard (the cult founder, El Con Hubbard) hated "psychs" because they laughed when he presented his "research"--as well they should have. Miscavige (the current cult leader) explained to Koppel that scientology hates "psychs" because of "Siberia USA." This project was initiated a few decades ago as a conspiracy of "psychs" to gain control over our society. But scientology initiative led to its defeat in House and Senate. Miscavige offered proof. Of course, he never delivered it! Why? Because he lied about the whole thing! Cruise delivers a rant on Lauer's show claiming that only scientologists know the history of scientology. Then Dr. Cruise gives women health advice for a female affliction! What an arrogant little d*ck! Is joining this club of ignorance, bigotry, fear and hatred truly the best you can do? Your posts make it abundantly clear that when it comes to this subject, you do not have even the faintest idea what you are talking about. Yet just like those folks with the pointy white hats and robes, you blindly spew whatever you're told to! Come on, you are surely better than that!

          • Waterhorse

            Aren't the people in the pointy white hats and robes psychiatrists on a weekend pass? I actually don't hate psychiatrists as I know they are only suffering from their own actions. But the facts remain that they are a destructive and purposeless pseudo science on the way out. Out with the old and in with the new. The price of progress.

          • Bob Crouch

            You're giving yourself too little credit. Of course, you are directing IRRATIONAL hatred against an entire profession. Just like El Con Hubbard wanted you to. I am saying this for two reasons: 1. Other than platitudes and judgmental characterizations, you are entirely unable to establish even a SHRED of an argument why one should be so dismissive of psychiatry. Other than "El Con told me so." Well, El Con was a bad judge of things scientific. The dude couldn't even make it through freshman science. Quite pathetic! 2. "In with the new?" What would THAT be. You NEVER say. Why? Because you know if you did, you'd be laughed out of this forum in two seconds flat! Of course, your alternative is scientology. Speaking of "out with the old." Dianetics and scientology have been around for 65 years. During that time, they have failed to establish even the least credibility. They are universally understood to be quackery. Which is one of the reasons why the "church" of scientology claims that its "teachings" are a "religion." So you want to replace a branch of the medical science with a "religion?" Keep drinking the Kool Aid. But be aware that outside of the cult bubble, the rest of us isn't buying it! Why do you think the cult is shrinking and becoming more odious to the rest of the world year after year?

          • Waterhorse

            You need to fully research psychiatry. Just don't ever go into one of their institutions for "treatment". That would be putting yourself at extreme risk.

          • Bob Crouch

            Do I? Maybe YOU need to do some research instead of letting a cult do the thinking for you. Don't you know that Hubbard had ZERO credibility on this subject.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            I think you've mistaken psychiatry with Scientology's story--you've lost the war with psychiatry because as a practice it is not pretending to be a religion. As with other sciences, it is not perfect at all, it is riddled with flaws. That is how science and the scientific process work. At the very least, science welcomes criticism and is open to heated debates. The fight against this supposed evil psychiatry villain is the carrot that LRH and now Miscavige has put in front of you, so as to "keep Scientology working" or as a business, keep generating money. You likely identify more with the fight against "evil" psychiatry than you do with what Scientology stands for. I get it, you may have a dog in that fight--perhaps a son or another family member who is struggling with mental health issues who are quite real to them but to you are made-up constructs of "psychs". https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3ee78c1ea3426c3ac6d993c81b3fa9f6fcaf2a532cad7e13dfcb81915dab873d.jpg I personally don't care that you waste your money, it's yours--but at least acknowledge that separating families and disconnecting them from one another is abuse. Imagine being told by the government, that you were no longer able to talk to or associate with your young children as they have been declared enemies of the state. Absurd right? No government, religion or set of beliefs should be able to break the bonds between family members or friends. The next time you decide to sit in front of a keyboard and hunt-and-peck at a response, please ensure that it has some credible evidence attached to it, otherwise you've demonstrated that the superior communication skills Scientology has afforded you over the last decade that you've spent inside the bubble, has failed you miserably. Moreover, please point me to an independent peer-reviewed academic study that demonstrates the splendor and omnipotence that is Scientology in helping anyone physically or mentally (key words are independent and academic). I don't care about any other religions, I am asking for specific Scientology examples. So let's have it, master of communication.

          • Waterhorse

            The fact that the disconnection policy has been abused in Scientology in some instances does not validate psychiatry's abysmal human rights record. Go to Psychiatric Survivors or any number of anti-psych sites that have no connection with Scn. to see that. They've got a well deserved reputation as amoral butchers. Look at the Wiki Quotes from ex WFMH leader G Brock Chisolm to see where this guy was coming from - totally oppressive and fascistic. Here's one of those quotes for you: "What basic psychological distortion can be found in every civilization of which we know anything? The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality - the concept of right and wrong." "The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong are the belated objectives of nearly all of psychotherapy." Totally Insane. Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1181196 By the way - disconnection means that the person's family cannot associate with them IF they are active in the Church. If the family members were put out by the disconnection or disagreed with it - they could simply exit from the Scientology group until they were satisfied the situation was repaired to their satisfaction. That way they would be able to freely associate with the excluded family member but would not be able to be active in the Church during that time. So if the family members remained in the Church it would mean that they agreed with the decision and they are free to make that decision themselves. Many Churches AND Governments have used excommunication or expulsion to keep their group together in the past. It is a valid group strategy in certain instances.

          • Bob Crouch

            Coming from a guy who believes that the path to mental health is the surrender of one's will and nest egg to a cult, followed by the exorcism of body thetans which we are all infested with due to a galactic overlord... I guess I should not be too surprised about your outlook from underneath the tinfoil hat.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Thank you for spending the time to respond to my requests.

          • Waterhorse

            G Brock Chisolm was an infamous fascistic goon and deserves all the ridicule I can level at him - and then some! A white coat and a degree on the wall doesn't mean much when you have a lunatic sporting them! I don't need a reference or a degree or even very good eyesight to recognize an Orangutan when I see one and neither should you.

          • Bob Crouch

            OK, so you got this one guy? And that proves that his entire profession is bad? That's like saying the entire military is bad because of "captain" Miscavige and "commodore" Hubbard. Well, except that those two were/are of course impostors and an insult to anybody who ever served this country.

          • Waterhorse

            Brock Chisolm was instrumental in laying down fundamental policy in the field of mental health in the 20th century. He formulated - or at least forwarded a very explicit agenda for influencing major world governments, education and other fields. A fascist bonehead was allowed into our kitchens to salt the food. SHAME on him! And shame on us for letting it happen! Dunce caps are severely in order here.

          • Bob Crouch

            Your cult mentality is getting in your way again. Medical organizations don't work like scientology where one guy--let's say a school dropout like Hubbard or Miscavige--makes all the policies and everybody else has to go along... But all of your conspiracy ideas notwithstanding, ALL of your "argument" is based on a single little quote that you took out of context. You got NOTHING but the paranoid and falsified garbage the cult feeds you. Wise up: Everybody is laughing about you and your cult! No need to make that any worse, as you insist on doing!

          • Bob Crouch

            Colorful stuff although in no way supported by facts. Looks like they let a "bonehead" in on this discussion. You will obviously believe EVERYTHING the cult asks you to. But of course,feeding false information to its constituency and ordering them to believe it, that's one of the major things that makes it a cult in the first place...

          • Bob Crouch

            Yet again, your cult mindset is getting in your way. While scientology is based on the ludicrous claims of one con man who can never be wrong, nothing else in the real world works that way. The world's mental health policies are NOT run by a single person, let alone Chisholm. Given the simplicity and ignorance of your argument, I concur: "A Dunce cap is severely in order here."

          • Waterhorse

            Common sense eludes you. "Brock Chisolm was instrumental in laying down fundamental policy..." doesn't mean he's the only one involved. As the head of the WFMH he had a lot of influence and did influence and originate policies and guidelines for action as any CEO of any group would. A no brainer for anyone with a pair of eyes and just a modicum of common sense.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Common sense eludes you." I like to see you claiming that. You cut and paste that same one every three or four replies. It demonstrates how little you have to offer by way of actual argument. Even in your attempts at disqualifying others by mere say-so, you lack even minimal originality. But, please don't take this personally. This is actually TYPICAL for scientology cult shills. Just ask elle, fettle, keeponlearning (how ironic a moniker). They'll tell you the same thing about their own posts: Claim--rinse--repeat.

          • Waterhorse

            Common sense eludes you! LOL!

          • Bob Crouch

            LOL? Little things amuse little minds!

          • Bob Crouch

            A medical degree doesn't mean much? Then why did dropout Hubbard pretend he had one? It's easy to discount accomplishments others have achieved and you have not.

          • Bob Crouch

            You are obviously obfuscating the whole disconnection issue! Disconnection has NOTHING to do with excommunication. Almost any organization has a mechanism by which they may exclude members for various reasons. You flagrantly violate an organization's standards--they kick you out. Even your employer will do so if you don't do your job or steal the petty cash. However, if someone is excommunicated, for example from the RCC, NO ONE will make you not talk to your spouse (let alone pressure you to divorce them), your children or your parents as a CONDITION of not getting excommunicated yourself. Nor is the problem if a member of a group--any group--decides that they don't want anything to do with individuals who deride their beliefs, politics or whatever else may be dear to them. The problem is when an organization FORCES people to disconnect from their own family as a prerequisite for staying in a group! When they have to choose between the group and their marriage. Or when they have to choose whether to associate with one of their children who's in the group or another who's out. The problem is that disconnection is FORCED on people. And disconnection is being policed; the "church" will go to lengths to interrogate people to make sure that they abide by the disconnection policy--even if it involves their own flesh and blood. That is CULT behavior! Healthy groups do NO SUCH THING!

          • Waterhorse

            Unfortunately there aren't a lot of "helathy" groups around on this planet. Most are quite the reverse for reasons outlined in Scientology. The larger the group gets the more likely it is get really sick and/or attacked by outside influences. I give you the RCC as an example in history and the extreme measures they took to fix this problem. Any government large or small could be used as an example of this as well. The problems of groups have never been successfully dealt with and the way it's headed - nothing seems to have changed. In fact it's moving fast towards a global pol;ice state which is the last thing on earth people need. Maybe disconnection is just the lesser of many evils in certain cases.

          • Bob Crouch

            A lot of times, abused people lose their sense of "healthy." As a person in a cult, I can understand that you are having trouble with that. But let me assure you: The mind control, manipulation and suppression that happens in the "church" of scientology is NOT normal. You may find it (probably in a less extreme form than "c"os) in the likes of Westborough Baptist Church. But your typical church or group does NOT operate like this. NOT EVEN CLOSE! Once again, you are making no sense at all: We're moving toward a police state. And disconnection is the lesser evil? How is living in a cult modeled after a police state the answer to anything?

          • Bob Crouch

            It's funny that you should use this quote! First off, the guy who said this, Brock Chisholm, was NOT even a psychiatrist. Second, you took his words out of context. But, leaving all of this aside, your selective quote excerpt makes it sound as if it's the purpose of psychiatry to do away with ethics and abandon the idea of ethical imperatives. So one non-psychiatrist's view, taken out of context no less, is sufficient to discredit an entire branch of the medical profession? What a simplistic world you live in! But it's interesting to note that Hubbard did EXACTLY what this guy allegedly advocated. Hubbard re-defined "ethics" to suit HIS purposes. Being "source," he took himself the liberty to be the foundation of "ethics" in the form of his 8 Dynamics (not to mention his silly little "Way to Happiness" tract). And now, it's scientology's purpose to get Hubbard's arbitrary ethics in on this planet! By Hubbard's reckoning, scientologists are the "most ethical people on the planet," a concept so laughable that it does not even deserve any serious consideration. But Hubbard's own ethics certainly did not present a particular honest man, a man who honored his commitment to his wife (or 3 of them, for that matter), his children, people who had loaned him money, etc. Maybe in his own mind he could justify that. To the rest of the world, he was a classical case of a sociopathic crook. So Hubbard was in no way prepared to get on an ethical high horse, and neither is the organization itself. Yet, the "psychs" are out there trying to undermine all that is good and noble? Get serious!

          • Waterhorse

            Brock Chisolm was the Head of the World Federation for Mental Health. Regardless of his diplomas, he was the top psych in the world making policies for Mental Health and influencing government policy. A complete fascist goon on steroids and the quotes are totally valid. They actually understate his inanity .

          • Bob Crouch

            It's funny you should bring up "inanity." That's the word that immediately popped in my head when I read your reply. Even with a quote that you took out of context and most likely are intellectually ill-equipped to understand in the first place, let's assume Chisholm was right. That would mean that Hubbard was a "psych." As I pointed out in my post, Hubbard did EXACTLY what Chisholm was talking about. He re-defined ethics, in a way where: * lying may be OK * stealing can be OK *violence and illegal attacks on others may be called for * imprisoning others may be necessary * breaking up families and ordering divorces may be required Hubbard created a system of ethics where right was wrong and wrong was right--as long as HE said so and it "kept scientology working." According to the quote you posted and the logic you are applying, we can safely conclude: HUBBARD WAS A PSYCH! MISCAVIGE IS A PSYCH!

          • Waterhorse

            You have symptoms of disassociation. Perhaps you should restrain from the licking of toads and you'll see things from a slightly clearer perspective. Anyone publicly stating the value of eradication of the difference between right and wrong must be completely delusional. OR maybe simply has an agenda - OR perhaps BOTH.

          • Bob Crouch

            "You have symptoms of disassociation." Careful with the big words, little man, you'll hurt yourself. And in fact, you have! Are you sure that a person who doesn't know the difference between disassociation and dissociation is mentally prepared to lecture the rest of the world on psychiatry? It's sort of like claiming to be an expert outdoorsman, and yet not knowing the difference between a beer and a bear. You remind me of Tom Cruise on Matt Lauer, delivering his anti-psychiatry rant. Big on cult-inspired passion, yet oh so short on facts. Even as someone who classifies scientology as an odious cult, I felt sorry for Tom that day. Thinking himself to be such a "big being," he revealed himself as such a dimwitted little blowhard.

          • Bob Crouch

            But back to "ethics:" I asked you this before, and you failed to offer an explanation (sorry, rants don't count): If you are so concerned about ethical absolutes (as well you should be), why did Hubbard DO the exact thing that you are accusing Chisholm of WANTING to do, namely re-define right and wrong according to his personal whims and convenience?

          • Bob Crouch

            Did you know that Chisholm, unlike the fake "commodore" was a much decorated war hero? Unlike Hubbard, he didn't have to lie about it. He saw combat and distinguished himself. Unlike cult leader Miscavige, he EARNED the rank of "captain." Unlike both of them, he actually had academic credibility and medical experience. Are you attacking him just to defend those two know-nothing's?

          • Waterhorse

            Chisolm must have taken a bullet to the head in combat judging by his subsequent antics. He should have sought help and taken a veteren's pension instead of carrying on with this inane scheme! Common sense eluded him.

          • Bob Crouch

            If common sense really were your thing, you'd realize that making big claims means NOTHING if you cannot provide evidence--even a little. You just go on with the name-calling instead and convince yourself you made a point--well you didn't! Btw, if being a war hero is such a despicable thing that you ought to make fun of it, why did Hubbard lie and pretend that he was one too? The cult repeats that lie to this day. Why would they do that? Want to make fun of Hubbard's false military resume too?

          • Bob Crouch

            So you would actually stoop THIS low? Disparaging a veteran for his service to his country? Good thing he's Caucasian and not gay. Who knows where else your bigotry would take you next. Btw, do you even know what "antics" you're referring to?

          • elle

            "Chisholm developed his strong Marxist view that children should be raised in an "as intellectually free environment" as possible, independent of the prejudices and biases (political, moral and religious) of their parents." "While Chisholm was Director General of the WHO from 1948 to 1953, he was quoted as saying, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." I think Waterhorse stumbled on the truth--the guy took a bullet to the head.

          • Bob Crouch

            Speaking of bullet to the head: He also somehow concluded that he could use Chisholm to justify his bigoted and ignorant hatred of an entire branch of the medical profession. What's next? Einstein was an atheist; therefore, let's throw away physics? Yet this same guy shows incredible credulity when it comes to a dilletant like Hubbard making claims to science regardless of how widely debunked the latter is.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Hubbard developed his strong scientologist view that children should be raised in an "as intellectually controlling environment" as possible, entirely dependent on the prejudices and biases (political, moral and religious) of their cult fuehrer." Or ideally, working 100 hour weeks to profit Hubbard personally, for almost no money behind a guarded barbed wire fence. For good masure, under a billion year contract, as well as multiple non-disclosure agreements and the threat of freeloaders' debt.

          • Bob Crouch

            Google Lisa McPherson, Cathriona White and Narconon deaths. All victims of Hubbard's quack methods. And there are plenty of others.

          • elle

            Psychs failed utterly to "cure" alcoholism. Really get that. Psychs failed and even made the addicts worse. But AA, a spiritual program with morals and ethics to follow can rehabilitate the alcoholic. Psychs are not only failures, they are harmful.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Psychs" NEVER made the claim that they had "cured" alcoholism. Hubbard, however, DID make that claim--as usual, with ZERO evidence! The poor deluded fool figured he's get thee Nobel prize for his great discoveries too. Narconon, the scientology front, claims a 75-78% recovery rate--a claim they KNOW is false! AA is a program based on "rigorous honesty." Scientology has a Training Routine to teach people how to lie! AA makes its program available for free to all comers. It refuses monetary donations over $200. Scientology will suck all the money it can out of its "parishioners." You can NOT avail yourself of any of its services unless you pay a significant amount upfront--no refunds. And if you don't have $30k, Narconon will turn you away as well. AA holds to a generally accepted system of "ethics and morals." Scientology re-defines the meaning of "ethics" for the benefit of its organization. AA is a free, loose and voluntary association. It's a grassroots movement where the organization answers to the members. Scientology is a hierarchical top-down organization. What's more, it has built into it the control mechanisms of a cult. The ideology of AA (its "dogma," if you will) is spelled out in its entirety upfront. Prospective members can consult a web site before they even go a meeting (no Xenu surprises!). Scientology reveals its "dogma" in bits and pieces--as long as you pay up. There is no organizationally mandated disconnection in AA. If you criticize or leave AA, you do not have to fear any repercussions. In fact, you're free to return if you have a change of heart (without having to buy your way back in with costly amends projects that you may be unable to afford or unwilling to perform). Not so in scientology! AA allows any interested party to use its discoveries and methods in books, other organizations and treatment centers. In scientology, that's called "squirreling." It's suppressed by legal means and many others of the extra-legal and even illegal variety. I could go on. But one thing is abundantly clear: The two could not be more different from each other!

          • Avid Miskaridge

            Oh here we go elle, talking about something you have very little knowledge about. I wish I knew what you did for a living aside from spew uneducated rhetoric. How far up the bridge are you?

          • Bob Crouch

            See, but we're a respectable cult. We even dig the 10 Commandments. No you don't! First of all, "Ron" didn't. He had to be "source" of all ethics. Second, if it's in the perceived interest of the cult, all considerations for the Ten fly out the window. Examples for that abound.

          • Waterhorse

            Yes. AA does work as I've known people that have used it and found it very helpful. It gets people together with other people that want to improve so that really helps as well to be in a group that has a common goal of keeping sober etc. Compare that to things like methadone drug programs and those psych based methadone programs look like some kind of sick joke. Which they are.

          • Bob Crouch

            You sound like a bigoted fool. A lot more people have died from scientoloy front scheme Narconon than in methadone programs. You know nothing about them; you just regurgitate what other ignoramuses like Cruise or Miscavige feed you.

          • elle

            The 12 Steps of AA do it. Before that is "rigorous honesty." This statement is made (all in chapter 5, I believe it is): We thought we could find an easier softer way, but we could not. Half measures availed us nothing. If you want what we have and are willing to go to any lengths to get it, these are the steps we took. Very powerful, very simple, but not easy.

          • Bob Crouch

            You can do it without bankrupting yourself and getting into a cult or enduring life-threatening Narconon quackery for $30k.

          • elle

            So a well known talk show host said he was addicted deeply to cocaine (and other stuff) and went into rehab that cost $20,000 30 years ago. You really are living in a totally hallucinated universe.

          • Avid Miskaridge

            You don't seem to be the least bit qualified to understand or talk about chemical addiction in soceity. The mere fact that you believe Narcon offers a sound rehabilitation program disqualifies your opinion on anything else relating to addiction. I hope that you are not employed in any caring profession or anywhere near other vulnerable people.

          • Bob Crouch

            I'm sure there are celebrity rehabs for $100k. At least, they don't provide Hubbard's quackery, a bunch of counselors who have fly-by-night certificates, prostitution for drugs and intro scientology training. In fact, you may even get out alive!

          • Bob Crouch

            The twelve steps have rigorous honesty, scientology has Training Routine--Lying. The steps are free, scientoloy costs a fortune. Different strokes for different folks.

          • Waterhorse

            Scientology is non-denominational. All other religions are welcome in it's ranks, including the Jedis.

          • Bob Crouch

            Untrue. Unless you worship Hubbard and give up all "other gods," you are NOT practicing scientology. Of course, they'll still take your money anyway.

          • sundaygirl

            What happens after a person pays his or her way to OT8, where he or she learns that Jesus is an implant and was also a pedophile (LRH's words, not mine)?

          • Waterhorse

            Many people these days have money or some material object as their God anyway so I think it's quite safe ground. If you haven't done the OT levels yourself how come you act like such an expert? You are obviously not an expert on these levels and would not do them regardless of cause.

          • sundaygirl

            What is distressing is that you don't see that your source and your current leader had/have money (and real estate) as their God. (You do know that people can be Catholic without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege, right?) Whether I've done the OT levels or not is immaterial. I have actually used the technology - maybe a bad choice of words - at my disposal to study your organization and its "scripture". I don't have to be a Catholic to know what the Bible is all about and I don't have to be a Scientologist to know what LRH wrote.

          • Waterhorse

            Whether you have done the OT levels is ENTIRELY the point. It makes a huge difference in understanding the whole concept. You cant understand them without doing them - that is what is unique about them and why they are limited distribution - or were.

          • Bob Crouch

            So it requires indoctrination and a controlling cult to think freely and objectively?

          • sundaygirl

            You need someone to tell you what LRH meant when he wrote that Jesus was an implanted pedophile? You need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to figure those words out? I've read what your source wrote. Although it is sci-fi claptrap, it's really not that difficult to understand.

          • Waterhorse

            Space flight and submarines were sci fi claptrap too but heralded a new age of innovation and progress as well as dangers. You'd be surprised how much Science fiction predicts the future. Ask Isaac Asimov. I wonder why Star Wars is so damned popular? Actually I don't wonder but some people might.

          • Bob Crouch

            Star Wars is indeed popular--even in the area of novelty spirituality. Did you know that there are now more Jedis than scientologists?

          • Waterhorse

            One small organized group of Jedi Knights could take out psychiatry in one fell swoop! May the force be with them!

          • Bob Crouch

            And why would you want to do that? Surely, Hubard's quackery wouldn't be prepared to take psychiatry's place

          • Bob Crouch

            Space flight and submarines have actually happened. But 65 years have passed, and still no "clears?" Not even one?

          • Waterhorse

            Misinformed and biased to the hilt.

          • Bob Crouch

            And you molest rabbits. See how easy it is to make a claim, but you offer NOTHING to back it up.

          • IASREG

            Sure you can. Tilting at Body Thetans is obviously ridiculous foolishness. It is far better to know what the OT levels are about way before hand so that you won't fall for that nonsense.

          • Bob Crouch

            Early adopters? After 65 years? And even those paltry numbers are dwindling. As is Hubbard's personal credibility along with his debunked "science" claims.

          • IASREG

            Tilting at imaginary Body Thetans is an idea and innovation which makes the iPhone look like a "gob-stopper"? What a belly laugher! Hubbard junk psuedoscience isn't even new, it is a tired and thoroughly debunked pile of crackpot nonsense. Even an original iPhone is far more valuable than the entirety of Hubbard's dreck.

          • Waterhorse

            I phones are valuable for sure. The ability to communicate is great. It's just that higher states of being are much MORE valuable to us now that we have all this technology. Enough technology is enough. Lets get to a higher state before we wreck the planet and there's no one left to text. Common sense is a lost art I fear in this day of technological wonders.

          • Bob Crouch

            There is no evidence that scientoloy has ever advanced anybody to that higher state you're fantasizing about. Plenty of evidence to the contrary that this cult has never done anything, except for those at the top of the pyramid scheme.

          • Bob Crouch

            65 years have done nothing but debunked scientology and unmasked its "founder" as a garden-variety scammer.

          • Waterhorse

            Small potatoes. Socrates was given poison. Jesus was crucified. Opposition is a sign of a new idea breaking new ground and a few heads! Rock on.

          • Bob Crouch

            You didn't! Hubbard compared to Socrates and Jesus? Please! Regardless, I have news for you: "Breaking heads" in the name of religion may be considered standard procedure for ISIS. In our society? Not so much! Which may help you understand why most of us are neutral toward cults in general; yet scientology has become so reviled that they use deceptive advertisement without revealing their name to lure people in. What quality brand would do such a thing? Can you imagine IBM, Mercedes or Coke selling their products with covered-up logos?

          • Waterhorse

            Wild generalizations and over-reaction don't work but I am not surprised that you resort to them to look like an expert

          • Bob Crouch

            You seem to think that you made a valid comparison (generalization). And if you think I "over-reacted" to your justification for "breaking heads" because somehow it's OK for your cult to do so, I'll have no trouble living with that.

          • elle

            You are such a liar. What is that religion you belong to again?

          • Bob Crouch

            What was I lying about again? The justification for "breaking heads?" Read the thread, you'll see. The absurdity of comparing Hubbard to Jesus and Socrates? Speaks for itself. Nobody in their right mind would risk embarrassing themselves with such a comparison! Scientology trying to draw people into its courses without revealing its badly damaged name brand? Scan through Craigslist! You'll see HUNDREDS of examples. So where were those "lies" again?

          • Bob Crouch

            Obvious to all, dianetics/scientology has been trying to scam people for 65 years. Junk or "knock-off" junk. It's all the same!

          • Captain MustSavage

            elle, if Marty was providing emeter auditing (the same thing that Scientology is) and what Marty was doing was a "scam", logically that makes what Scientology is doing a scam.

          • Waterhorse

            Marty is a scam artist - that's why he blew Scientology and started his own "brand" of it with his own silly website - which got him absolutely nowhere!

          • Captain MustSavage

            What exactly is Marty doing that's a scam? I understand that in the past at least, not sure what he's doing now because i don't read his blog, that Marty audited independent scientologists using an e meter. Scientology audits using an e meter. Therefore if Marty using an emeter to audit is scamming, then scientology is also perpetrating a scam. You can't have it both ways.

          • Waterhorse

            An emeter is a tool like a stethoscope or similar device to help find things. It depends for its effectiveness of the person using it. If you give a stethoscope to a lawyer he would not be able to detect any illness as he's not versed in how it is used. A trained auditor using an emeter is very effective if he applies the correct methods. Marty knows this but seems incapable of seeing the broader picture and has lost his way utterly - therefore no one with any sense would allow him to audit them.

          • Captain MustSavage

            What sort of illness can the emeter detect?

          • Waterhorse

            Don't be silly. It doesn't detect illness. I was using the stethoscope as an illustration of how a piece of equipment is useless without a trained operator. Put the bong down and forge ahead.

          • Bob Crouch

            Of course, ANY equipment is "useless without a trained operator." But useless or non-functioning "equipment" is useless in any event--regardless of the operator. A stethoscope is a sound piece of medical equipment. An emeter, despite its $5000 price tag for a few bucks of relatively simple electronics, is of NO demonstrable scientific value whatsoever. Unless you believe, like Hubbard, that thoughts have "mass," which is beyond even junk science. Ever wonder why the "church" agreed to the FDA stipulation to put a sticker on the emeter that explains that the emeter does--nothing!

          • Waterhorse

            Your thoughts have so much mass in them I'm surprised you can get off the couch! Also - You can buy an e meter used for much less than the new price. Same with a stethoscope if you're interested.

          • Bob Crouch

            And why again is the cult gouging people for their emeters? Or all the various "Ron" emissions that people are desperate to give away for pennies on the Dollar?

          • elle

            So haven't the independents invented an emeter for themselves if it's so simple. They have to buy other peoples' emeters and they cannot maintain them. Sorry, your arguments are bogus.

          • Bob Crouch

            My arguments had nothing whatsoever to do with the "independents." But it is ironic that you would take a group so hated by the money-grubbing cult for competing with them to try to make your "argument."

          • Bob Crouch

            A stethoscope is a scientific tool. An emeter is based on the idea that thoughts have "mass." Obviously, that's junk "science." Unlike a stethoscope, an emeter is under FDA mandate to carry a disclaimer sticker that it does--nothing.

          • Waterhorse

            And I guess that Prozac cures people of depression right? The FDA approved it so it must be good for people right? Just like Bovine Growth Hormone was approved by the FDA for milk in the US. Why was it banned in other countries? It sucks. Don't be a chump.

          • Bob Crouch

            Medicine (incl. psychiatry) is an evolving science. It does not claim to have all the answers. Science NEVER does. Scientology claims to have ALL the answers now. It claims that "source," a dilettante who could not even make it through his freshman year without getting washed out, has ALL the right answers NOW. It calims itself to be "science" and yet to this day has never stood up to any scientific criteria or method. And it never will! So a failed pulp sci-fi writer who didn't want to work for a penny a word any longer and thus invented a "religion" has ALL the DEFINITIVE answers. At least you have one absolutely correct suggestion--one more than he does: "Don't be a chump."

          • Waterhorse

            If you drink too much milk you may grow breasts. No joke! Caitlin Jenner look out!

          • Bob Crouch

            Is that how Hubbard came by his man boobs? Well, at least this saved you from having to address anything of substance. Same old...

          • Waterhorse

            It's not a joke. BGH and other hormones are doing this thanks to the wonderful watchdog for hire - the FDA (Freaking Dull and Amorphous)

          • Bob Crouch

            Freaking what? Oh, you are so original! What are you hating on the FDA for? They were just trying to protect the public from scammers selling "emeters," a few dollars worth of electronics, for $5000 and more. Particularly since that device does nothing of particular use. If the FDA really had teeth, these scammers would be in prison, where they belong!

          • Waterhorse

            Drink your BGH milk and eat your GMO cornflakes. You'll grow fuzzy hair in all kinds of interesing places.

          • Bob Crouch

            Cornflakes aside, as I was pointing out: What are you hating on the FDA for? They were just trying to protect the public from scammers selling "emeters," a few dollars worth of electronics, for $5000 and more. Particularly since that device does nothing of particular use. If the FDA really had teeth, these scammers would be in prison, where they belong! How about that?

          • Waterhorse

            Just look at the history of the FDA. It's an organization for hire. It would be fine just doing it's job but it doesn't. Again - it needs to reform or face extinction - or at best replacement with something that does protect the public as stated. All the BGH in the milk is affecting your judgement I fear.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Just look at the history of the FDA. It's an organization for hire. It would be fine just doing it's job but it doesn't." I could say the same about scientology and its failed "science" claims. And it would be exactly what you provided: a generality that no one should take seriously. In fact, this sounds a lot like Tom Cruise's embarrassing rant on Matt Lauer's show about "I know the history of psychiatry; you don't." Please provide specific evidence for your claims about the "history of the FDA."

          • Waterhorse

            Do your own research. It's easy to find out about the FDA.

          • Bob Crouch

            So YOU get to make the sweeping tin-foil hat conspiracy claims! And then it's MY job to prove YOUR "points?" Even the REALLY unsustainable ones? I have a better idea: YOU need to put up or shut up. In my experience, cult shills lack the class to do either...

          • Waterhorse

            It's your job to determine the truth for yourself. Be your own bitch and work it out for yourself.

          • Bob Crouch

            Lame! You make false claims, and then want me to prove them for you? Remember you're the fool who fell for the most odious cult on the block. You're the gullible one, not me. So put up or shut up.

          • elle

            Even the psychs are admitting they aren't "medicine" and that they are messing up.

          • Bob Crouch

            As usual, you are making blanket statements without ANY evidence whatsoever. So psychiatrists submit to the rigors of medical training, and then are admitting they are NOT part of the field of medicine? And they claim they are "messing up," to boot? Where did you get that information? As I said before, there is NO such thing as "perfect science." Science is by its very nature a thing in progress. A few months ago, a friend of mine was completely healed of Hepatitis C by using a drug--I can only imagine your shock. A couple of years ago, this would have been impossible--the best a treatment could offer was "remission," and even that often did not last. A couple of decades ago, it would have been impossible to even diagnose this disease. Psych drugs are even more difficult. They don't work the same way for everybody. For a few people, they don't work at all. Nevertheless, they have also given countless people their lives back. There's a good chance that Cathriona White and Lisa McPherson would be alive today, had they received proper treatment instead of fatal quackery. So while scientists struggle to heal or at least ameliorate serious physical and mental diseases, your cult claims to have all the answers already. Why? Because Hubbard picked up a popular text on Freud and wrote dianetics? With no research evidence. And with no evidence that it even works. In fact, his failures were quite spectacular. When he actually presented a "clear," he was laughed out of the auditorium. He never presented another "clear." Ever wonder why? So you claim that "psychs" know nothing, are evil, and "mess up." But a pulp fiction writer with no knowledge or experience in the applicable disciplines--who had DEMONSTRATED that he was incapable of conducting meaningful research--had all the answers? Despite complete lack of evidence, he got ALL of it right decades ago? While everyone else is still in the dark? So all we have to do is take his word for it--the word of a guy who was demonstrably a compulsive liar, fraud and thief! It's ironic that a guy like that would offer us "to buy a bridge." Sounds like a great deal--NOT!

          • elle

            False Dichotomy. You lose.

          • Captain MustSavage

            Why do you support an organisation that has a policy directing you to harm other human beings? Is that really what you joined up for? Why do you think it's okay to harm other people?

          • Bob Crouch

            Hubbard claimed--and the "church" still does in its ridiculous TV commercials--a "scientific" character to his "religious" scam. If that were so, a highly trained auditor like Mr. Rathbun using "official" editions of the emeter should be able to bring about the same results as someone in a "church" building. So if one is "scamming" and the other one isn't, what gives? Are they both scamming? Is neither? Is the "scientific" label a lie? Or is Mr. Rathbun wrong when--with the benefit of enough soul searching--he has decided that "auditing" is a scam to begin with and has abandoned all practice of scientology?

          • Bob Crouch

            Marty has recognized Hubbard as the "scam artist" and renounced scientology. His "own brand" is a fiction; it exists only on "church" hate videos.

          • Captain MustSavage

            Scientology spent an awful lot of money on someone pretty trivial then. Church of Scientology International admitted to funding extensive harassment of the Rathbuns in court. Why did they spend so much money on someone so trivial? Is this really how Scientology spends its tax exempt dollars? Why should we keep subsidising an organisation who considers the squirrel busters money well spent?

          • elle

            if if if. If your Aunt was a man, she would be your uncle. Marty never did do emeter auditing like the Church. He did his own thing and no one wanted it.

          • Captain MustSavage

            So your argument is that if Marty provides emeter auditing it's a scam, but if Scientology provides emeter auditing that's not a scam, is that correct? Marty was Tom Cruises auditor which means he was one of the best Scientology had meaning that he knew what he was doing. Any auditing he did outside would have been the exact same thing he did while in Scientology. Can you see the logic? If Marty is providing the exact same thing scientology does then they are either BOTH perpetrating a scam or neither is. You can't have it both ways. What evidence do you have that Marty never did emeter auditing like Scientology? Your claims are useless without evidence and the only people privy to any information about Marty post his defection from scientology are lackeys of the Office of Special Affairs. Are you outing yourself as an evil agent of OSA? As for your final comment, if no one wanted what Marty was offering why did the Church of Scientology International fund half a dozen people to harass him and his wife by laying siege to his home for six months? CSI admitted to this in court in the Rathbun case. For those who are interested, Google 'squirrel busters'. It's hilarious and frightening. Scientology claimed this harassment was their religious right. People can also find video of your senior executives harassing Marty at an airport on YouTube. Very sobering viewing considering these people represent your organisation, a so called church.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Marty never did do emeter auditing like the Church." This is a totally unverifiable claim. You weren't there. You don't know. If these processes are "objective" and "scientific" as claimed, there is no reason to believe that a highly trained auditor should not be able to do this. Of course, that does not mean that these processes are of any value whatsoever to begin with. "No one wanted it?" Again, you weren't there. You're making this up. However, given the extortionate rates charged for auditing, the significant number of independents, and the respect Mr. Rathbun enjoys among independents, there is no reason that he could not have made a tremendously profitable practice out of it. As the saying goes, "there's one sucker born every minute." So if Hubbard was able to exploit that, others could too. It's to their credit if they choose not to!

          • Ben Franklin

            Hubbard scammed all Scientologists. As long as you continue receiving auditing you will never understand because you are stuck in a state of hypnotic trance. You are hypnotized, you never woke up no matter how normal you think you are, you are still in hypnosis that is why are not able to realize that you have been duped and taken for a ride. People who wake up from Hubbard's hypnosis leave Scientology all together. There is nothing special in Scientology.

          • Bob Crouch

            "Everyone" loved it? His studio boss invited him to take his production company elsewhere. The most commonly used term about Cruise in the media at the time became "overexposed." "Weirdo" became a common staple, and the term "cult" became a mainstay. So "everyone?"'Not so much! The Lauer episode was worse. First off, it demonstrated that Cruise had no idea what he was talking about, but he was also appallingly arrogant about it. Not to mention insensitive and patronizing in an extremely sexist manner. These two meltdowns, while dutifully applauded within the cult, are not remembered as "great moments in dissemination--" except for among the entirely deluded. But don't just take my word for it. It's quite obvious that Cruise took a 180 degree turn right after these incidents. While there is no doubt that he remains any bit as ill-informed and every bit the same arrogant blow hard, he has chosen to keep this charming side of himself away from the public. So much so that he tried to fight the dissemination of his "maniacal laughter" clip. Albeit to yet another backlash. And scientology questions are now strictly verboten as he makes his media rounds. These policies make it quite clear that neither Tom nor his scilon sister--PR agent care to go down that road again.

          • daytoncapri

            elle...Wrathbun? I don't think you have the spelling quite right. You are referring to the guy who writes the "Moving on up a little higher" blog, am I correct?

          • madame duran

            Everyone loved his couch jumping.
            Just like how everyone enjoyed all three of Tom Cruise's divorces (enjoyed because each wife managed to escape the crazy ALIVE).

          • madame duran

            You do realize that Monique Rathbun--wife of Marty Rathbun--was NEVER a Scientologist but was nevertheless subjected to cult harassment and surveillance, right? She initiated a lawsuit where she's suing the church for their crimes against her and wants to depose David Miscavige as he was the overseer of the project. May 2016 bring about Scientology being raked over the hot, burning coals in this court case (and in Laura DeCrescenzo's lawsuit too!). I hope you have your popcorn ready, elle.

        • daytoncapri

          Oh elle, boycotting someone or something can be a personal decision as a matter of principle. For example, tell us about your views about seeing the Going Clear movie. You personally will or won't see it for your own personal reasons, right?

        • vicariousthrill

          You poor thing.

        • anoni81b4u

          Oh elle ... We know the numbers ... because we don't listen to lying cult leaders

      • madame duran

        Paying to look at Tom Cruise movies doesn't help bring money to Scientology that I can see.
        (bold emphasis mine) Well, there's proof that you're blind. And dumb.
        He already has enough money to thrive off of for the rest of his life and to donate to anybody and anything he wants to donate to. Let's imagine that a failure of his career could be achieved through a boycott of his films. Even this scenario would not impact the amount of money brought by him to the Church.
        Cruise, being a noted Scientologist, WILL donate to Scientology organizations. Thank you for acknowledging that Cruise brings in money to the Scientology "church" through his income (despite previously claiming that TC's movies doesn't help bring money to Scientology. I can tell that logic isn't your strength). Question for the movie-going public is this: are you OK with indirectly contributing to that financial support, knowing the harm the Scientology cult inflicts on people all over the world? Both Hollywood and Scientology thrive on the bottom line. A downturn in popularity or ticket sales WILL affect a star's status. Consistent failure means he will earn LESS (or be stuck doing "Mission: Impossible" films until he's 85 years old). True, Cruise is very wealthy and continues to earn money even if he were to drop out of acting altogether. I'd much rather have the ravenous Scientology cult bilk his existing cash flow than for me to contribute MORE to his stash. Knowing how much of a fool Tom is, he'd likely be grinning and flashing his IAS Freedom Medal of Valor while his "friend" David Miscavige ruins his life and fortune. I've said this many times before: I have no problem with anyone--including myself--watching Cruise's films for entertainment. It's a matter of personal taste (or mental endurance...take your pick). I, however, have resolved to NEVER PAY for the privilege (yes, there are LEGAL ways to do this). I will not buy the DVDs nor download the mp4/.mov files. I will not use my paid Netflix subscription to stream his films. I will not go to see him or other Scientologists in theatres, even if they co-star with actors whom I personally admire. I'm only one person among millions but I've decided to put my consumer power into action. If enough people do the same and ALSO WORK TOWARDS HAVING SCIENTOLOGY'S TAX-EXEMPTION REVOKED, we can affect change. That is my hope.

        • in fine fettle

          That was a meandering and tortured diatribe that led straight to nowhere. Nevertheless, thanks for the indirect agreement that even if you don't pay a penny for the "privilege" of viewing another Tom Cruise film your decision WILL (lol) have zero impact on how much money he gives to the Church of Scientology. When it comes to decisions about how to spend his own money he is answerable to himself alone. Unlike the little boys that hang around here whining about being done wrong by the Church of Scientology, he's evidently got the cajones to live up to his own commitments without shrugging them off onto somebody else.

          • madame duran

            Nevertheless, thanks for the indirect agreement that even if you don't pay a penny for the "privilege" of viewing another Tom Cruise film your decision WILL (lol) have zero impact on how much money he gives to the Church of Scientology.
            The goal is not to get him to stop contributing to Scientology (although if that were to happen, it would be a nice outcome that I'd gladly accept. But being the blind dolt that he is, I really don't expect him to change anytime soon). The goal is for ME to stop contributing MY DOLLARS to funding his cult and supporting his films. I can't prevent Cruise from wasting his money on Scientology just as I can't prevent celebrity addicts from buying illicit drugs. I'm only responsible for MY decisions, not Tom's. I choose to follow through with my convictions. Apparently, Tom is unwilling to be responsible for his own statements and actions regarding Scientology because he keeps AVOIDING people who wish to hold him accountable. A true coward. A rich coward...but a coward, nevertheless.

          • in fine fettle

            I support your decision to be answerable only to yourself about how you spend your money. Other than the government and somebody pointing a gun at you, nobody can take it from you by force. And nobody but government officials are accountable to you for how they spend the money held in their name either.

          • madame duran

            Other than the government and somebody pointing a gun at you, nobody can take it [money] from you by force.
            Scientologists, Please remember the above quote the next time you're being mercilessly, repeatedly and endlessly regged to donate more of your funds to a Scientology cause. Feel NO GUILT when choosing to put the cash towards something useful like a fun vacation, a college degree, a home mortgage or retirement savings...and don't let the "church" persuade you otherwise. Scientology becomes a gun or a government only if you allow it to be so in your mind.

          • in fine fettle

            Although I don't share your individual standards about what is useful or not useful spending or what is offensive or appropriate follow-up with contacts, I do agree wholeheartedly with the rest of what you wrote. Especially the last sentence. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE people, grow up, take responsibility for YOUR OWN curiosity and decisions, and stop trying to blame other people!

          • madame duran

            Mentality of a Scientologist: Hubbard (Miscavige) was/(is) a genius. The tech is great. Scientology is awesome and can never be wrong. Therefore, anyone who expresses disapproval of Scientology is always at fault and will blame it for his/her own failures. This mentality is what I don't share with you, "in fine kettle"...and for that, I'm thankful. Criticizing Scientology for its FRAUDULENCE isn't "blaming". Being DELIBERATELY LIED TO or CHEATED is not the former member's fault. People have the right to take a stand against injustice and publicly state the wrongs that were committed against them. Every former Scientologist should get their money back AS PROMISED IN WRITING when Scientology failed to deliver to their satisfaction. Cultists such as yourself like to tell others to "take responsibility for your decisions/actions" but self-responsibility is only one type of accountability. There's also RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS OTHERS. You never emphasize that part. You never demand that the Scientology organization be held to the standard of having responsibility towards others (both members and non-members alike). As it is, the cult only seeks to selfishly take care of itself and demands that its members protect it at all costs (KSW) but it doesn't care for the well-being of anyone/anything else. What a loathsome "church". To the lurkers: DO NOT GIVE ONE CENT TO SCIENTOLOGY!! It does not need any more money because it has stockpiled 2-3 billion dollars in assets (documented in revenue reports). It is not a poor organization. If it was truly a "theta" group filled with superpowered "OTs", it wouldn't even need physical materials like money to accomplish its spiritual goals. RESOLVE TO STOP PAYING FOR RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE (it should be free)!!! Take time to research the money scam then WALK AWAY FROM SCIENTOLOGY FOREVER!!! Life can be fully enjoyed WITHOUT Scientology!!!

            Although I don't share your individual standards about what is useful or not useful spending or what is offensive or appropriate follow-up with contacts,
            So...you consider spending money on a vacation, a college education, a home and/or retirement savings isn't "useful"? Do you consider STALKING and DAILY HARASSMENT as an "appropriate" means to follow-up with contacts? I'm curious to know.

          • in fine fettle

            Yes, there is responsibility towards others. Try it some time and then you'll have the right to get up on your bully pulpit.

          • madame duran

            I will repeat the glaring truth that you're trying to avoid: Scientology takes no responsibility for its criminal actions and it does not care for anyone or anything beyond itself ("itself" = David Miscavige/COB of RTC/Captain of the Sea Org/present leader of Scientology, husband of the mysteriously absent Shelly Miscavige). Oh...am I to take it that you find my message which encourages others to stop contributing money to Scientology as "bullying"? I don't see how it affects you. You and Tom Cruise can take on the full cost of supporting Scientology because...well, it's your choice to spend your eternity re-doing courses and getting nowhere (except making Miscavige filthy rich). However, if others don't feel compelled to give or have other financial interests to support, then they should be free NOT to give to Scientology, correct? I thought we were in agreement that one's spending decisions should be under one's own control and not answerable to anyone else? Have you changed your mind? Remember, lurkers... Scientology is NOT the government; it should NOT be used as a gun. Religious donations are NEVER a requirement (voluntary gifts vs. enforced fees--there is a difference! Look up the dictionary definition for "donation"). The choice NOT to donate money to Scientology is a valid option you can take. If the pressure of donating is hurting you, you have the choice, the freedom, the self-appointed permission to STOP GIVING. That's a part of self-determinism.

    • MaxSpaceman

      And "The Unbreakable Miss Lovely" by Tony Ortega, from Silvertail Books. The riveting and compelling story of Paulette Cooper.

  4. PRenaud

    That guy has a "ENORMOUS" personality problem to take care of, he will have to step down that ladder where he thinks he's "king shit of turd island" and realize he's nothing more than any other human being. Most of my family, my friends, my neighbors, my colleagues at work have decided that they are not longer supporting that nitwit's acting career.

  5. Mary

    Thank you. You are right. Cruise should be held accountable. He knows a good part about the abuses first hand. I lost my son because I made it my business to find out the truth about the church of scientology and its leader david miscavige.

  6. TheHoleDoesNotExist

    Tom Cruise has supported an organization that acts like a mixture of the mafia, North Korea and Scams R' Us. No one joins an abusive cult. People get suckered in by false and misleading blah blah that scientology's golden boy, Cruise, spits out for decades now. And yet he takes no responsibility whatsoever for luring them in. Tens of thousands of former members, myself included, escaped before the worst that could happen happened. I lived to talk about it, to warn others. Tom never asks where did 90% of the scientologists go? Tom never cares. Scientology routinely breaks human beings down, slowly, piece by piece, financially, physically, mentally, and in every other way that you can possible destroy another person's life. Paulette Cooper mentioned John Travolta. He currently promotes Narconon, Scientology's faux drug rehab scam. I've lost count of the lawsuits piling up over the last 3 years or the number of mothers and fathers who cry themselves to sleep after their son or daughter died in one of them. John does not weep for them or ask about them either. There is no more excuse of "I didn't know" or "just following orders". All you have to do is ask Google and the truth pops up in 5 seconds. Thousands now have told their stories of unbelievable horror. Thousands ask how this can still happen in the USA. But not Tom or Cruise. In over 40 years, they haven't asked about a single one of "Scientology Disappered".

    • pluvo

      When one googles "Former_Church_of_Scientology_members_who_have_spoken_out" there is a list with over 2600 ex members of the Church of Scientology who have spoken out (with there real names). They have been (devoted) members for many years and even decades.

      • Captain MustSavage

        That figure makes a complete farce of scientologys claim that there are only a handful of critics out there.

  7. Liberated

    Loved the cyanide in the cheek part. Great article!

  8. Frodis73

    Great article! All sci celebs should be boycotted...the list isn't as long as it used to be, but there are many. Laura Prepon, Danny and Chris Masterson, Jenna Elfman, Kirstie Alley, John Travoltra, Greta Van Sustern, Nancy Cartwright, Beck, Erika Christianson, Elizabeth Moss...I know I am forgetting some, but boycott all of them for supporting child abuse, child labor, forced abortions, disconnection, forced labor, etc.

  9. in fine fettle

    Tom Cruise is already a respected star so your advice is as overdrawn as it is misplaced. Oh well - "You do you" so stop ignoring your involvement in what you and you do.

  10. elle

    I see you are compensating, over compensating, for your short comings. Cruise is an international mega star--did you miss that? Even your 2 friends who want his MI 5 movie get it. You should dump them as friends as they don't see eye to eye with you. Fact--nothing tarnishes Cruise's star power. And he credits Scientology for his success.

    • One Human

      But his star power is fading, and he will likely never become renowned for his acting ability.

      • in fine fettle

        Your predictions about the future are baseless and he is already renowned for his acting ability. Here's a list of awards he's either won or "only" been nominated for. http://www.famousfix.com/topic/tom-cruise/awards

        • elle

          I had no idea. Incredible! Add to that the stats on highest paid, world famous and all that--he can't be beat.

          • Bob Crouch

            I'm sure the high pay comes in handy when joining a cult known for its unvarnished greed in taking advantage of its steeple. Hubbard made it abundantly clear that it was about nothing but the money. Too bad for him that his career and reputation take a hit every time he brings up the cult. Seems like he finally learned his lesson. Miscavige is afraid of the press, Cruise prohibits them from mentioning the cult and the ways its true face has been exposed. The price of drinking the Kool Aide.

        • One Human

          Among the list, the long ago Academy Award and BAFTA nominations are notable, but the rest are mostly for popularity, which he has enjoyed for a long time. I simply find it unlikely that he will be considered exceptional for his ability to be versatile or to really absorb a role with depth. Meryl Streep, John Hurt, Ben Kingsley, and many more from the last century, are in an entirely higher caliber of performances.

          • in fine fettle

            I will agree with your idea of creating a comparison between Cruise's prize portfolio and that of the other prospective gold medalists. But it is by fiat that only one can win a single trophy at a time. It seems like you have built a mental hierarchy (metaphorically speaking), where the upper echelons win recognition and below that level there are no calibration marks. As a result you are overlooking all but a few aspects of the craft and contriving that a three-time Academy Award nominee is circa zero in terms of his brilliance.

          • One Human

            No mental hierarchy necessary, I simply can't stand Tom Cruise, and will express my opinions as respectfully as possible. I'll add, his brilliance is quickly fading.

          • in fine fettle

            Gotcha. Now that's what I like - putting it straight instead of blending one's feelings about an individual with attempts at objective judgement of their performance. But what I still don't get is that if you can't stand him then why do you agree to assign the quality of brilliance to him in the first place?

          • One Human

            I can respect a person's work and dislike their off-screen personality. I was never impressed with his early works, but did enjoy 'Rain Man' and 'Born On The Fourth of July'.

          • in fine fettle

            By all means. Feel free and don't sell yourself short. So even some of his biggest detractors such as yourself have been known, on more than one occassion, to credit him with a great performance as an actor. That's pretty impressive. The main reason I have avoided the vast majority of his movies is that they never seem to touch on themes that interest me. The only one that I know of that did was "The Outsiders" which was based on a book I absolutely loved as a child. The more I hear what you have to say though, the more I am convinced I need to give some more of his movies a try despite my not really being a member of the target audience.

          • One Human

            That's just it for me, most of the "popular" movies just don't interest me ( 'Fast & Furious, 'Transformers', etc.). Agreed, S. E. Hinton books were great! I am a huge movie junkie. Classics, offbeat, documentaries...I'm always finding something unexpectedly interesting.

          • elle

            Edge of Tomorrow turned out to be a fan favorite. It didn't get a great start as I (and others) thought it was a Sci Fi Ground Hog Day. meh. But my husband likes the genre, and likes the sub-genre. I ended up enjoying it greatly. That seems to be what happened with many viewers and so word of mouth carried it to an ever bigger audience that found it very entertaining. It now has a bit of a cult status among Cruise fans. I got a kick out of War of the Worlds. Nice effects. Thought Cruise did a great job. It also shows a father redeeming himself, a son who ... never mind, don't want to spoil that little piece. I thought it was a pretty good family show.

          • in fine fettle

            Great. As an indirect result of this article I am becoming much more "open minded" (excuse me while I clear my throat) about Tom Cruise movies. I'll put War of the Worlds near the top of my "to watch" list now too- primarily because I want to be more like you. ;-)

          • elle

            hahaha--I will admit that because I enjoy Cruise on screen, it makes the movie more enjoyable. Some other star may not have made the movie as good as he can make it. But it that genre is not your cup of tea, skip it. Of course, then you will never be like me ;)

          • in fine fettle

            lol, Actually, it was your description made it sound like a candidate for my list. But you know me. Like you, my brain is washed and so I can't respect or listen to "my own thoughts" before taking the path of an apostate.

          • Bob Crouch

            Or like the Academy who has skipped all of his genres for his entire career.

          • Robert Eckert

            The effects in War of the Worlds were due to Spielberg. I liked a lot about that movie, but not Cruise particularly. Tim Robbins in a brief role and the relatively unknown Justin Chatwin as the son both outacted Tommy.

          • Bob Crouch

            There are artists, like the ones you mentioned, and then there are commercially highly successful entertainers. Few people would be confused as to which category Cruise belongs in. And if they are, no amount of explanation will help.

          • in fine fettle

            So much for your claim that the Academy Award business means something to you.

    • Bob Crouch

      Dump them? Why communicate (the "universal solvent" according to your cult founder), if you can "disconnect" instead.

    • Avid Miskaridge

      Yes Elle, compensation, overcompensation and undercompensation are all psychological constructs used by individuals to shelter themselves. Your use of psychology concepts to aid your point of view is commendable.

  11. Bob Crouch

    It's not like Cruise is exactly a "respected figure." He is extremely bankable when it comes to light-weight entertainment. When it comes to actors of known intelligence, his name never comes up. In 30+ years, his name hasn't been on the Academy's radar. Whenever he decided to make himself his cult's spokesman, his career and PR took a dive. Which is why he refuses to discuss his insane and odious cult now. Since your friends appreciate high-quality movies, perhaps the highly acclaimed "Going Clear" would make a great gift. They'll learn why you can't support the Cruise money machine in good conscience any more than a Michael Jackson sleep-over.

    • in fine fettle

      Who else acknowledges these groups of "actors of known intelligence" to which you refer? That is certainly at the Academy Awards or the Screen Actor's Guild or any other even semi-related organization that I can think of. It sounds like something that is not on anyone's radar but your own.

      • Bob Crouch

        No, it is certainly NOT an AA category. However, there are some actors who are often mentioned as being smart, insightful, astute, and other things along those lines. The simply have that kind of "reputation." Sometimes, the kind of work they take on gives them that as well. I have yet to hear Cruise's name being mentioned in such a context--anywhere. You don't listen to the guy being interviewed and go, "Wow, what a brilliant man. How smart and well-informed." My point is that just because an actor is very bankable, that does not make them particularly expert at anything, other than pulling in money. Their choice of cult may still be PLAIN DUMB! It certainly shouldn't be imitated.

        • in fine fettle

          Name an actor who is often mentioned as being smart, insightful or astute. Then clarify where this occurred and who the commentator was. You are again trying to pass off your personal opinion as well-thought-of by others and therefore worth more than it's worth. It's all well and good to believe that Cruise isn't "expert" at his profession, but to try to pass that off as a consensus opinion is ludicrous.

          • Robert Eckert

            Daniel Day-Lewis. Benedict Cumberbatch. George Clooney. Matt Damon. Tom Hanks.

          • in fine fettle

            Seems like you're struggling to remember a story about somebody saying something about these people you've mentioned. Here's a popular technique. Ask yourself "Who? What? When? Where? Why?" and then maybe the flow will come back to you.

          • Robert Eckert

            You could look for yourself to see what thoughts those actors have expressed and how others have engaged with them.

          • in fine fettle

            Seven random projects chosen by Robert Eckert. Sure, why not? I'll put that on my bucket list.

          • Robert Eckert

            You asked for actors who are considered more intelligent than Tom Cruise. I listed some just off the top of my head. I have heard all of those speak on serious subjects. I have never heard Tom Cruise speak on any serious topic except to make an ass of himself, as in the Matt Lauer interview or the turtleneck sweater video.

          • in fine fettle

            So the identity of the person who thinks Cruise is unintelligent is YOU. Thank you for finally making your point in answer to my inquiry.

          • Robert Eckert

            Not me only: if you had more of a capacity to read for comprehension you would find that I said nothing of the kind. If you wish to find examples of statements they have made and other people reacting to them, you are welcome to Google. You think that I have some obligation to spoon-feed you, which only serves to show the limits of your own intelligence.

          • in fine fettle

            I don't think you even know what it is you want me to eat much less would you be able to motive me to try harder on your behalf to find out. Nevertheless this little tangential exchange has been quite amusing. Chau.

          • Robert Eckert

            "I don't think you even know what it is you want me to eat" WTF??? I don't actually have any concern about what you do or do not eat. Like some of your other strange utterances, this one leaves me wondering what in the world you think you read in my post and what thought processes happen in your head. "much less would you be able to motive me to try harder on your behalf to find out" This clause does not even parse. Unlike the beginning of the sentence, which at least said something even if that was puzzling, this word salad fails even to say something. "Chau" You probably mean "ciao", an Italian greeting used either for hello or goodbye. Spelling, like clarity of thought, is something Scientologists fail to learn in their "communications" courses.

          • in fine fettle

            You are TOO amusing! Keep 'em coming. When I've got the time I will certainly read...although just now I think I'll go get myself a cup of tea with a spoonful of sugar in it.

          • Bob Crouch

            It is pretty difficult to watch Cruise's exchange with Matt Lauer or his maniacal scientology promo (claiming that only scientologists are prepared to help at the scene of an accident) and conclude that this guy has all the fries it takes for a happy meal! Those utterances go a long ways toward casting doubts on Cruise's intelligence!

        • in fine fettle

          Wow that's a radical revision of your original comment. You must have read my reply and taken it to heart somewhat. Incidentally, my personal impression based on my own experience and that of friends and colleagues doesn't jive with the idea that people imitate famous people based on the model's IQ. I think that what inspires people to imitate others is much more varied than that and tends to center on things like "charisma" and other aspects of the person's lifestyle. (P.S. I have no idea what Cruise's IQ is, nor do I care.)

          • Bob Crouch

            No it's not. Maybe you just didn't read my first post or are just beginning to catch on. No real difference between the two posts

          • in fine fettle

            Right, that's exactly what happened. Wink, wink.

          • Bob Crouch

            I agree with you there. Like Cruise or not. Think of him as charismatic or not. But none of that is a reason to think of him as an expert at anything, other than filling cinema seats. I certainly wouldn't want to take marital, political, medical, religious or "religious" advice from him.

          • in fine fettle

            Yeah, I didn't say any of those things so it's hard to imagine you agreeing with me about them. But I do definitely agree with what I take to be your basic sentiment that people shouldn't substitute their desire to emulate others for decisions based on what works for them.

  12. Paulette Cooper Noble

    Hey Elle, how's the cackling inside your head going? You know, that little voice that tells you that you don't really feel good/better despite those success story you wrote up (in fact you feel worse after your latest step up the Scientology ladder)... and that little voice in your head that tries to blot out their constant regging, demanding more and more money from you, and that little voice that asks why all the orgs (and ideal orgs) are half-empty and closing when they tell you Scientology is expanding, and that little voice in your head that says that maybe you ought to go to the Internet and read some entheta (try tonyortega.org each day) because it isn't right that someone is telling you that you can't think for yourself. This is my last post to you because you, like Scientology courses, are a waste of time. One day you'll get out (if you're lucky) and realize the whole world was right and you were wrong. Hopefully, it won't be too late by then. And oh yes, drop an e-mail to magoo44@charter.net; she's good at getting deluded Scientology shills out. You can ask her questions -- unlike what you can do with Scientology -- and she'll give you honest answers -- unlike what Scientology will do to you.

    • elle

      Tory McPoo offeres nothing. Shrill lunatic. Another problem you have is telling me that I can't believe my own eyes, or my own experiences. Your extreme bias and how it benefits you is the prism through which you see everything. Par for the course, you insult and ridicule me, my life, my wins. If you think your camp offers anything attractive, uplifting, upbeat to me, you are dead wrong. You deal with you immortal soul the way you want, and I'll deal with mine. PS That psych inval and eval is wasted on me because it's evil.

      • Ben Franklin

        You live in a bubble and the only things