Clamming Up (well and truly off-topic)
On Tue, 16 July 2002, Nick Waterman wrote
I DO like to attempt to understand all sides of the argument(s),
and I do like to try to illustrate them to other people too.
Devil's advocate kind of thing.Finding second-hand copies of "Dianetics" in Oxfam and other charity
shop book stands is easy. Reading it critically is not hard, either.
But it's a thick book, so you may not get to the end.
what to do about it. Religion is a difficult question, since one
man's "dodgy cult" is another man's "one true way". I was brought
up in a bigger church than Scientology (Catholic, as it happens)
and Rachael was brought up in a smaller one. Both of us are
about to break our religion's rules by marrying outside our
respective churches.
And I would say that both my and Rachael's churches come under
the heading "dodgy cult", if you cared to make the argument that
way. Both certainly indulge in considerable social pressure
to ensure conformity, as do most religions.
The only thing that makes this remotely on-topic, of course, is
the connection between Hubbard and SF. But even religions
started by SF authors is not a valid criterion for "dodgy cult":
I'd say (from what I've encountered) that the Church of All Worlds,
although far wierder than both of our home churches, is less
prone to brainwashing and conformity pressure than either.
And a lot less than Scientology.
And no, I'm not quite as serious as I sound, either. :-)
I do, however, object to stupidity taxes which are routinely
and frequently
used to silence critics - even the "little people", to occasionally
(accidentally or otherwise) kill people who are trying to
stop paying the
stupidity tax, and cover up the evidence.
By the way... I'm actually not as serious as I might sound... but and frequently
used to silence critics - even the "little people", to occasionally
(accidentally or otherwise) kill people who are trying to
stop paying the
stupidity tax, and cover up the evidence.
I DO like to attempt to understand all sides of the argument(s),
and I do like to try to illustrate them to other people too.
Devil's advocate kind of thing.
shop book stands is easy. Reading it critically is not hard, either.
But it's a thick book, so you may not get to the end.
I think the scientologists are probably far worse than just "stupidity
tax collectors for biofeedback therapy", but probably not as bad as
Clambake would imply. Darren's pointed out (hope he doesn't mind
me saying) that the BBC have a few far less sensationalistic, but
still quite negative, Scientology articles.
I'd certainly think they were worse. But one of the problems is tax collectors for biofeedback therapy", but probably not as bad as
Clambake would imply. Darren's pointed out (hope he doesn't mind
me saying) that the BBC have a few far less sensationalistic, but
still quite negative, Scientology articles.
what to do about it. Religion is a difficult question, since one
man's "dodgy cult" is another man's "one true way". I was brought
up in a bigger church than Scientology (Catholic, as it happens)
and Rachael was brought up in a smaller one. Both of us are
about to break our religion's rules by marrying outside our
respective churches.
And I would say that both my and Rachael's churches come under
the heading "dodgy cult", if you cared to make the argument that
way. Both certainly indulge in considerable social pressure
to ensure conformity, as do most religions.
The only thing that makes this remotely on-topic, of course, is
the connection between Hubbard and SF. But even religions
started by SF authors is not a valid criterion for "dodgy cult":
I'd say (from what I've encountered) that the Church of All Worlds,
although far wierder than both of our home churches, is less
prone to brainwashing and conformity pressure than either.
And a lot less than Scientology.
And no, I'm not quite as serious as I sound, either. :-)