<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Why Scientologists are so Touchy</title>
		<description>Discuss Why Scientologists are so Touchy</description>
		<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:31:22 --600</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.scientology-cult.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/43/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Beliefs out of control (in general)</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-4622</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To be honest, I don't think Scientology is fit to be called a religion nor a cult. Rather, I'd like to see Scientology as more like an organisation to get people on their feet. I'm not a member and I despise that David Whatchamacallit. I went to the website and found that their beliefs and practices are better left to be a help organisation. To be honest, their teachings about resolving conflict, improving marriages, etc, etc, is common sense - at least that's what I think. Some of the stuff they say in the videos are primary points just putting it out there. Some people may need to learn it, but for it to be a 'religion' is a bit over the top. I don't think the members are all bad - some are very kind I think. But that leader has to go. Numerous fraud, the whole Ponzi scheme thing - ugh. Now THEY'RE people who need to learn what's right and wrong. It's ironic that he teaches human rights, but he doesn't follow his own rules. Pathetic.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bleh</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:25:05 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-4622</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The Fall of Scientology.</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-4611</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes, Scientology is run by a small statued Tyrant...Techs call him David Mischevious. He's about the size of the average 10 year old boy. You will learn more about his soon "forced" departure in a future St. Pete Times Article by two brave journalists: Joe Childs and Thomas Tobin]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Trina Sears</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:49:52 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-4611</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Granted</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-3979</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes you are correct, and probably most people know that more or less and anyone who doesn't is uninformed. But actually the situation was present in the '50s and '60s as well. Psychiatry called Dianetics a "cult" within about a month of Book One being published. And Scientology was consistently called a cult throughout it's whole lifetime. It was called a cult long before it was a cult; that is the bottom line. So really, the problem is as old as Scientology. However, to be fair, the situation was utterly and completely different in the '50s, '60s, '70s and even in the early '80s. The CoS and LRH were under severe and real attack by the government and this has been documented. Surely LRH could have handled it better. But is there anything any of us could not have handled better in one way or another? LRH was arrested. There were threats on his life. It's hard to be magnanimous when powerful organizations are trying to kill you and bury the tech. On the heels of a very hot war where millions of people were murdered, the cultural cold war was in full restim: it was a different world then. If you evaluate the current situation, you will find handlings which were somewhat appropriate -- or at least understandable in the past -- now being used in a situation that no longer demands that kind of treatment. As well, the world itself has changed. So what you really have is an organization that is utterly and totally out of PT, stuck in their own past engram and dramatizing LRH's mistakes continuously. It's like the TRs. When someone can't understand the simplicity of the TRs, what do they do? Mimic what they have seen other people do, which LRH says are invariably incorrect applications. What are they not doing? Being there comfortably and confronting. The Church is like that today. They don't understand one ounce of real Scientology; the fundamentals of the philosophy — how to apply ARC or the 8 dynamics or anything else. So what DO they do? They mimic executive actions LRH took in years gone by which may or may not have even been appropriate then! This is the idiocy we have today: someone in charge -- David Miscavige -- who is not himself a Scientologist, who cannot think for himself, who has no viewpoint on what Scientology, the philosophy, is all about. The TOTALITY of what he does -- honestly -- is look back on anything LRH ever did and mimic LRH on the basis of "if LRH did it = it must be okay." A = A = A. On that basis, David Miscavige could start wetting his pants because when LRH was 2 years old, I'm sure he did that too. You have a psychotic sociopath running Scientology. He's not thinking with the subject or applying principles. Actually he's applying only a single "principle" if you can call it that: unthinking robotic mimicry. And he's suppressing the living hell out of everyone. Count, can you imagine if, with no evaluation of importance, I simply started mimicking anything you had ever done in your whole life and forcing everyone to do that throughout the Church? I can't speak for you, but I've done plenty of stupid things in my life. Haven't we all? We could assume DM is just a total idiot, but in another sense, he's not. I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows it is easier to suppress people if you can justify your actions with something LRH did in the past. If you do that, then all the robots who have no integrity accept your actions and even stand up and applaud wildly. So that's what's really going on. We have an impostor pretending to apply LRH, when actually he's just finding justifications that support his designs to suppress the Church. And not particularly in defense of LRH, the truth is if one evaluates the whole scene, as I did in 2008, which included going back into the church as a Scientology public to see what it was like, you will find the majority of illogics (outpoints) fall to David Miscavige. Not LRH. Therefore DM is the area of the Why, okay. That's why myself and others are focused on David Miscavige. LRH had his faults. He made mistakes. He was human -- just like you and me and everyone else. The miraculous thing is he developed auditing technology and so much more -- workable technology that addresses and handles things nothing else can fix. LRH had his faults -- I grant that. But he also had pluspoints. And the pluspoints FAR outweigh the bad. Being able to confront the duel nature of the universe is part and parcel of being able to confront life as it is. There is good and bad in everything. You like kittens? They eat birds. You like birds? They eat their young. When one looks around everything in this universe is a mixture of good and bad qualities. You like the sun? It causes cancer. You like LRH? Well, he had his faults too, just like you and me. But LRH was not a sociopath. Anyway I wanted to acknowledge what you wrote, because it is correct but also I wanted to add some context. LRH stomped out anyone criticizing Scientology back then because there was a real war going on and Scientology was struggling for survival. LRH viewed criticism as an enemy act. Perhaps that was right; perhaps that was wrong. But regardless, times have changed! If you listen to lectures from the 1950s, they are full of names of people who were later branded "squirrels." Wing and Smokey Angle, the Parkhouses, etc. Who were all these people? I don't know. Perhaps some of them were mislabeled. Times were a bit tougher then, and the organization was under real attack with real lies being published it. Yet the Church today is a stranger to PT (present time); they are firmly stuck in the past fighting the same old battle. Today, criticism is healthy. And it would be healthy for the Church if only they could stop acting psychotic and come up to PT and take a look at their actions. That's my opinion. Thanks for your comment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Thoughtful</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:57:00 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-3979</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RE: Why Scientologists are so Touchy</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-3977</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dear Thoughtful, You make excellent points. However, criticism of Scientology was no different when LRH was around. Long before DM became COB. Psychiatry and the media started calling it a cult way back in the 70's. YES, DM has made it worse...no question about that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The Count</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:19:00 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-3977</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>forced abortions</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-379</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Oh Wow! Eldon Braun! My very first PC at CCSF 1972. Like all auditors I love all my PCs. OK, the reports of forced abortions is the straw that buckles the knees of my camel. CoS has time and time again proclaimed itself "the most ethical group on the planet." Well I do not know of any other church with women alleging forced abortions. "Auditors Unite! You have nothing to lose but your certs" LRH. Lets Roll!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>william burdwood</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:59:30 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-379</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Thank you, Thoughtful</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-333</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you very much. These blogs and forums are new to me, and I am glad to have safe places to express my thoughts about it all. I have recently posted on Marty's blog under the name of Valkov, and I believe I will use that name here, too. Thanks again for the validation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:28:06 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-333</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Thoughtful says:</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-321</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you Observer. You are living up to all the inherent powers in your name!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Thoughtful</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:28:26 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-321</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Latford says:</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-314</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you for your kind answer, and thank you to the moderator for approving my comment. Let me quote there, what Hubbard said in the lecture "Future Org Trends" from January 9th 1962: "You want to know what happens when you clear everybody in that neighbourhood, the only thing that center can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've done all this, you are the government. [...] Once the world is Clear - a nation, a state, a city or a village - the Scientology-organization in the area becomes its government! And once this has taken place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology policy." You say law trumps policy, but this is only valid as long as Scientology is not the law. The policy does not permit free discourse about the workability and validity of the tech. There is no free scientific discourse permitted as to the tech. The tech must be unchanged, and adhered to 100% as is mandated by the KSW series. However, that very same tech did permit a cruel leader taking power of Scientology. That very same tech permitted excesses like Operation Freakout to occur. That very same tech produced defectors with many of the same allegations you hear today. "As a comparative, look at the Bible. There are justifications for everything in there: murder, incest, stoning women, slavery, you name it. But I don't see any Christian leaders standing on the Bible and going ahead to break any and all laws because 'the Bible says so'!" Yes that is true, and that is also a very good point that you are making here. It boils down to this: Any dogma, of any kind, is bad. I give you the pope as an example. He is not preaching that people should write knowledge reports on each other or that the only ethical being is the upstat being. But the dogma is creating much suffering in other ways: The catholic prohibition of contraceptives is one of the main causes for child prostitution and poverty in the Philippines and other 3rd world countries. "Everyone knows the tech is not perfect. Neither is the Bible. Neither is the Torah. Neither is the Koran. Nothing anywhere in any direction is perfect. Yet religions have a right to exist." You are doing the very same thing here you were charging me with in the first place: In fact, the bold statement is not even true. I think, a whole lot of Scientologists would disagree about the tech not being perfect. I have no problem with a Scientology that does not hold the tech as written by Hubbard letter for letter perfect and the truth, or a Scientology that does not try to force its beliefs on others. I have a problem with Scientology as it currently exists with its human rights abuse and its dogmatic belief in Hubbard policies. Personally, I don't think very high of the contents of Dianetics. That is my personal choice, I have read it and I have found the contents of the book incompatible with the current scientific data that I have collected through my college years as well as my personal experience. Regarding the human rights campaign as launched by CSI itself, I am free to state this belief. I am not free forcing this belief on others, and that is a good thing. I would lose that freedom if Scientology took power over the world. The goal, "a cleared planet", where only the unaberrated (which is a Scientology-definition and belief, a belief that I choose not to share) should be able to attain to the rights and benefits of citizenship is diametrically opposed to the human rights, is opposed to my freedom to not believe in the Scientology religion as I would directly experience disadvantages.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Latford</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:05:53 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-314</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-315</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Quote: "Family disconnection, unaffordably high prices, cult-like behaviour, these allegations are not new and they certainly existed since long before Miscavige even took power. You're saying "disconnection was cancelled by Hubbard later on while Miscavige reinstituted it". But the Fair Game order was cancelled by Hubbard, too and de facto is still in effect until today as many of you reading this can certainly attest to." That's my point exactly, in fact the point of this website. Those things are suppressive perversions of LRH's intent. They are anti-Tech, anti-Life,and contra-survival. And expressly against LRH's stated wishes and directives. The things the current leadership has been doing are against the Tech. They are not the Tech. You might try reading the articles/posts on this site before you come charging in on a crusade. Let me point out that they are all agreeing with you - the actions you point out as suppressive ARE suppressive, and the church, which should have been a blessing to all by this time, has been turned into a suppressive organization. All the original benign leaders have been purged over the years and the Church has been degraded. It is not now what it was intended to be by LRH and the many good people who helped found it. That is what this website is all about. There is nothing wrong with the Tech itself. It can make anyone who actually uses it happier, brighter, more able and more social. But, there is a great deal wrong with the current church organization itself, as you correctly point out. The current leadership is actually preventing the Tech from being taught and used. That's the problem. Please read the articles on this website, and you will have a better understanding of what the issues here are.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:58:29 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-315</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Magnus says:</title>
			<link>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-308</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think if I understand you correctly, that you are generalizing the problem. Disconnection and Operation Freakout are criminal acts unjustified by any Policy. Laws trumps Policy. As a comparative, look at the Bible. There are justifications for everything in there: murder, incest, stoning women, slavery, you name it. But I don't see any Christian leaders standing on the Bible and going ahead to break any and all laws because "the Bible says so"! Occasionally, some freaknut does it, but the answer is not to burn the Christian church and all Bibles. The point is to hold the perpetrator responsible. That sends a clear message to everyone, "Duh...I better not do that!" Whereas in Miscavige you have a common criminal who does exactly that: stands firmly on LRH policy as the justification for any sort of crime he wants to commit freely. I read Paulette's book. And she made a big mistake. She generalized and attacked the entire religion (in a country founded on freedom of religion) instead of simply attacking the criminality which would have been the correct target. Operation Freakout was vile and the perpetrators should have gone to jail for it. Unfortunately, it's too late for them. But it's not too late for the current *mis*leader. We need to hold him solely and completely RESPONSIBLE for his actions. Everyone knows the tech is not perfect. Neither is the Bible. Neither is the Torah. Neither is the Koran. Nothing anywhere in any direction is perfect. Yet religions have a right to exist. Above I mentioned that laws trumph policy. Laws also trump the Bible and 99% of Christians know that; they know that unlike Abraham, if they murder their son, it's at least life in prison. But some Scientologists think policy trumps law. Well, there's a simple solution for that: let them rot in jail. Once the bars close on their sorry asses, I think they will have time to figure out it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Magnus</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:47:34 --600</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scientology-cult.com/criticism.html#comment-308</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

