27 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne would hope that we might form a better understanding of an organisation and its practices by some other means than observing people going about on the street. [...] Now one wonders what happens if its our usual practice to make comparisons between organisations on the basis of having observed people on the street. Do we take a more scholarly approach and research our subject prior to making an evaluation, perhaps by reading its published literature or do we observe them in the street or in shopping malls handing out literature and conclude they are similar?
Who is evaluating any organizations based on "observing people going about on the street" and observing them "in shopping malls handing out literature"? You referred to "having observed people on the street" - or words to that effect - three or four times. What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Mar 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do you think of this?
Do you think that societies should consider the psychological effect on a miscreant who fails after repeated attempts to help and rehabilitate the offender to adhere to its standards? Standards upon which a conscious decision was made to uphold? Do you think any political or municipal body would consider the psychological effect on someone who transg ...[text shortened]... entology because they practice expulsion for non repentent wrongdoers is quite simply ludicrous.
Edit to: Jehovahs witnesses are similar to Scientology in one way: they practice expulsion for non-repentant wrongdoers."
Originally posted by JS357The same as Native Americans are similar to Scientology in one way because they also practice expulsion or that governments are similar to Jehovahs Witnesses in one way because they practice the expulsion of diplomats and close embassies. What do I think? ,A rather ill concieved and clumsy comparison and entirely typical of the flimflan readers digest back of a cornflakes packet journalism so beloved by the OP.
What do you think of this?
"The idea that Jehovahs witnesses are similar to Scientology [b]in one way: they practice expulsion for non-repentant wrongdoers."[/b]
27 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you ever read any testimony by people who managed to extricate themselves from the Church of Scientology?
What do I think? ,A rather ill concieved and clumsy comparison and entirely typical of the flimflan readers digest back of a cornflakes packet journalism so beloved by the OP.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK. "IOW it's true of lots of organizations. So?"
The same as Native Americans are similar to Scientology in one way because they also practice expulsion or that governments are similar to Jehovahs Witnesses in one way because they practice the expulsion of diplomats and close embassies. What do I think? ,A rather ill concieved and clumsy comparison and entirely typical of the flimflan readers digest back of a cornflakes packet journalism so beloved by the OP.
Originally posted by twhiteheadShe knows about Scientology. There was no misunderstanding because she knew what point I was making. I don't see it as being an "imperfect analogy" ~ it is an analogy, pure and simple ~ it draws a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect. There was no attempt to disguise the fact that there are differences between Scientology and the JW organization..
Partly, you do not know what the person you are describing it to knows about Scientology, and most likely most of what he thinks he knows is wrong anyway.
Much better to simply describe the key points about what you know about the JW organization rather than using an imperfect analogy that will almost certainly lead to misunderstanding.
27 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo are you suggesting that I should have said something like this to my friend? 'JWs share many of the same beliefs as others who identify themselves as Christians, and they are involved in charitable work all around the world. As for how they enforce conformity and treat those leaving the group, the JW organization is comparable to Native Americans'. Would that work better for you?
The same as Native Americans are similar to Scientology in one way...
Originally posted by JS357The proviso 'in one way' was a vain attempt to patch up the ill concieved comparison that only made it look worse. One can almost compare anything 'in one way' so as to draw a comparison making it meaningless.
OK. "IOW it's true of lots of organizations. So?"
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo what other group's ex-members' experiences would you compare what we see in the testimony of people who left the Church of Scientology ~ in terms of psychological pressure, emotional blackmail, concerted ostracism and so on?
The proviso 'in one way' was a vain attempt to patch up the ill concieved comparison that only made it look worse. One can almost compare anything 'in one way' so as to draw a comparison.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
28 Mar 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOn page 24 of 71 (of the pdf) or page 107 of the book I cited at
To what other group's ex-members' experiences would you compare what we see in the testimony of people who left the Church of Scientology ~ in terms of psychological pressure, emotional blackmail, concerted ostracism and so on?
http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1715&context=law-review
there is a list of what Scientology was said to have done in one case.
Edit: Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California
Originally quoted by robbie carrobieSo, let me get this straight. Should I tell my friend in Jakarta that the "intangible or emotional harms" suffered by Ms Paul and her parents (in the 1984 case you cited - and according to the web page you quoted from) ~ there being no physical assault or battery that occurred ~ were not legally actionable, at least in the U.S.? To be frank, I'm not sure this is as edifying a piece of argumentation as you may think it is.
The harms suffered by [Janice Paul, former JW member] as a result of her shunning by the Jehovah's Witnesses are clearly not of the type that would justify the imposition of tort liability for religious conduct. No physical assault or battery occurred. Intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church for its practices--or against its members.
If comparable "intangible or emotional harms" [without "physical assault or battery"] were caused by the shunning practices carried out by the Church of Scientology and its members, and if these practices also could not serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against them without abrogating the protection of religious differences mandated by the [U.S.] first amendment, as was the case with the complaint against the JW organization which you cited, do we then have some basis here for comparison of their shunning practices? [i.e. both legally permissible, both amount to 'protected freedoms', both involving only emotional harm and not physical harm etc.]
http://www.jehovah.to/gen/legal/state/paul.htm
28 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFI don't know personally anything about JW apostates but I do know about Scientology. A long time ago, I checked out Scientology when I lived near DC, there was an office or church there. They thought I was a good catch apparently, and took me under their wing for a while and I was able to see the inner workings in the upstairs offices.
Well I was referring to orchestrated psychological abuse as testified to by escapees from both organizations and not to possible theological similarities (as with Christianity & Judaism). I thought that was pretty clear in the OP. I stated that they were not really comparable in terms of their core beliefs or doctrine.
There, I saw a question posted to the almighty L. Ron Hubbard about apostates.
They talked about various persuasion techniques and his reply, which I read with my own 4 eyes: "Well, if none of that works, there is always the '45' solution" Unquote.
Those were what they called 'Rongrams' and since he was their god, anything he said carried death sentences. There were a lot of them and I can tell you from personal experience reading them, Hubbard was no saint, but arrogant in the extreme and in fact refused to pay taxes to the IRS and just before he was due in court, all of a sudden, he was a lover of the sea, specifically, international waters. And since by that time he was already worth a hundred mil, he got a nice yacht and started now what he called the "Sea org'' so he could continue to preach his brand of hatred till he died and now all that bullshyte is codified inside their fundamental doctrine.
08 Apr 16
Originally quoted by robbie carrobie[BUMP for robbie] So, let me get this straight. Should I tell my friend in Jakarta that the "intangible or emotional harms" suffered by Ms Paul and her parents (in the 1984 case you cited - and according to the web page you quoted from) ~ there being no physical assault or battery that occurred ~ were not legally actionable, at least in the U.S.? To be frank, I'm not sure this is as edifying a piece of argumentation as you may think it is.
The harms suffered by Paul as a result of her shunning by the Jehovah's Witnesses are clearly not of the type that would justify the imposition of tort liability for religious conduct. No physical assault or battery occurred. Intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church for its practices--or against its members.
If comparable "intangible or emotional harms" [without "physical assault or battery"] were caused by the shunning practices carried out by the Church of Scientology and its members, and if these practices also could not serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against them without abrogating the protection of religious differences mandated by the [U.S.] first amendment, as was the case with the complaint against the JW organization which you cited, do we then have some basis here for comparison of their shunning practices? [i.e. both legally permissible, both amount to 'protected freedoms', both involving only emotional harm and not physical harm etc.]
see: http://www.jehovah.to/gen/legal/state/paul.htm
08 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI have read Hubbards book, Dianetics, I found it in a laundry when I was a student. Its a kind of pseudo-psychological approach which attempts to reprogram the subconscious and free it from 'aberration'. I cannot say why anyone took it seriously.
I don't know personally anything about JW apostates but I do know about Scientology. A long time ago, I checked out Scientology when I lived near DC, there was an office or church there. They thought I was a good catch apparently, and took me under their wing for a while and I was able to see the inner workings in the upstairs offices.
There, I saw a qu ...[text shortened]... of hatred till he died and now all that bullshyte is codified inside their fundamental doctrine.