Man killed by Scientology guard

[Perd Hapley]

Comment withdrawn, because it's not worth getting into.  You were claiming that it would be treated differently if it were another religion.  I was just responding to that.   

[ArfinGreebly]

I suppose, at some point, there's going to be a thread dedicated to this, but . . .

. . . pretending that the Scientologists should be regarded as a normal religion . . .

I will stipulate, here and now, as one who a) has more than a little up close and personal experience with them and with it, and who b) continues to support who they are, what they do, and what they stand for . . . it's not a "normal" religion.  Given that "normal" is whatever is most widely practiced.

If it were a "normal" religion, they would not have endured unrelenting attacks since the sixties -- in the media, by governments, and by the psych.* segment of the "medical" community.

I might raise this interesting point, though:  the same people who are dedicated to wiping them out are the same folks committed to eliminating guns and other weapons from our society.

The same ones.

The social engineers and squishy educators want to eliminate guns.  And the CofS.
The psych.* community wants to eliminate guns (by characterizing them as symptomatic of mental illness).  Same crew wants the CofS gone.
The left-leaning media have for decades demonized guns.  And the CofS.
The various government agencies that have attacked one have likewise attacked the other.

The amount of disinformation and misinformation widely available about CofS is equalled only by the amount of the same stuff regarding guns and RKBA.

I am always amused by the remarks of those who, on the one hand, point out how the government or the media or whoever is biased, unfair, anti-freedom, and so on because of their clearly idiotic and dishonest proclamations about weapons, self defense, and the like . . . and who yet believe that these same lying bastards are completely correct in supporting, or even originating, attacks on the CofS.

The lying bastards who want to control the lives of the population at large attack anything that threatens their control.  A gun-owning and gun-using population threatens their objectives.  So does something fundamental about the CofS.

People and organizations perceived to be harmless by aspiring tyrants are pretty much left alone.  It's the dangerous ones that get attacked, maligned, undermined, denigrated, and slandered.

Aspiring tyrants have seen the CofS as dangerous for more than forty years.

That should tell you something.


We return you now to your regularly scheduled thread on the armed defense of churches and communities.

[BrokenPaw]

Aspiring tyrants have seen the CofS as dangerous for more than forty years.

While I won't get into this debate, because it's not my ox to gore, you do realize that this statement is about as meaningful as "Dihydrogen Monoxide has been discovered in over 90% of fatal tumors."?

The fact that aspiring tyrants do a particular thing does not, in fact, imply that that thing is therefore intrinsically wrong.  I'd bet that at least half of them breathed oxygen, too.

Correlation != Causation. 

-BP

[ArfinGreebly]

Correlation != Causation.

Quite true.

We're not on the same plane as "all bacteria contain carbon, therefore carbon is bad."

If someone attacks me because, as a gun owner, I threaten some foundation principle to which they subscribe, I try to take the time to understand a) what principles they hold that are antithetical to mine, b) whom they support and with whom they are allied, and c) whom else they attack, and based on what principle.

When I find that this same someone openly opposes, denigrates, slanders, and otherwise attacks someone else, I make the effort to understand what opposing principles are at work.  I also take into account what I already know about the honesty and veracity of this someone, based on his attacks on me or my principles.

I have yet, anywhere, to find a group or agency that indulges in massively dishonest compaigning against the principles of freedom, which then goes on to openly and enthusiastically support some set of principles that I, too, can endorse.  It seems that the dishonesty and the antipathy toward freedom's principles infects the whole of the group or agency.

I further find that I often have principles in common with other entities attacked by these same organizations.  Even when I find that I don't have much in common with such a target (e.g. Waco), I find myself sympathetic to certain foundation principles that run counter to those who attack them.

In this case, because of my prior familiarity with their principles, I don't have to say, "gee, they're widely hated by groups I intensely detest, there must be something there worth seeing."

You see, carbon doesn't go out of its way to participate in toxins.  There's no volition involved.

Aspiring tyrants (I'm starting to like that term), on the other hand, do go out of their way to allign themselves with groups and agencies which actively work against the principles of freedom and liberty.  In this case, the association isn't accidental, or even incidental, it's a matter of intent and deliberation.

It's not my purpose here to proselytize, but rather to point out that, "hey, the guys that hate you hate these folks, too, and for the same reasons; maybe you should take note of that."

[gunsmith]

I have a brilliant idea!
Lets return to the topic, has anyone seen the videotape?

[Perd Hapley]

The thread is on topic.  Read more carefully. 

If it were a "normal" religion, they would not have endured unrelenting attacks since the sixties -- in the media, by governments, and by the psych.* segment of the "medical" community.

Pretty much like conservative Christianity, then?  I'm sure we could share war stories all day long, but the point is that many religious groups have been persecuted.  That doesn't make Scientology any more or less normal, it just means it's not very popular. 

[Jamisjockey]

Whether or not Scientology is a normal religion, a good religion, or a bunch of nutjobs that like to give electroshock therapy or not.....matters not to the discussion at hand and only detracts from the topic.

[ArfinGreebly]

I agree with Jamis.

I'm sure that, another day, we can entertain ourselves with that topic.

Today, we see a church with the sense to provide for the security of its members and premises.

And I applaud them for that.

I would suggest that more churches give this some consideration.

[Perd Hapley]

Whether or not Scientology is a normal religion, a good religion, or a bunch of nutjobs that like to give electroshock therapy or not.....matters not to the discussion at hand and only detracts from the topic.

Tell that to the original poster, MicroBalrog.  Read the original post, then read Micro's second post, then eat crow. 

I'm sorry.  Let me be more conciliatory.  The way MB started things off, it sounded like he wanted to talk about bias against Scientology, as compared to other religious groups. 

When I read about that story earlier this morning, off Drudge, I didn't really think much of it. 

[ArfinGreebly]

Hey!

I'm not agreein' with Jamis if I hafta eat crow!

That's seriously tough, gamey bird, man.

[roo_ster]

I have some experience with the CoS, first-hand and otherwise.  Most acquired in & about Clearwater, Florida, which has a CoS infestation.

To say "I am not positively disposed toward CoS" would entail an humongous quantity of euphemism, difficult to express without resorting to scientific notation.

Which brings me to write that even conniving, controlling, disgusting cultists (whichever their preferred brand of kool-aid) ought to have the right of self-defense.

Given the evidence presented thus far and giving the guard the benefit of the doubt, I'd call it a good shoot on the Ginsu Master.

[gunsmith]

http://worshipbacon.com/wiki/Main_Page

 

hey Ned! thanks!

[MicroBalrog]

Look.

I say  what I said originally: People will crop up - in newspaper editorials, online forums, etc. - and will react to this shooting differently than they would have if the shooter was protecting a Christian or Muslim facility, because scientologists are involved.

That, in my mind, is not okay, because even if we agree that scientology is A Bad Thing [tm], still scientologists and their 'patients' have a right to live, and as such they have a right to shoot people who charge at them with sword. This should be basic maths.

As to the topic of scientology:

It is true a lot of the activities of Scientology are disturbing, and some are quite possibly immoral.

On the minus side, we have the association between Scientology and the attempts to stifle, through the courts, criticism of their belief system and actions. We also have the death of Lisa McPherson, which the Church has been accused of.  Frankly, though this is beyond disgusting, it is no worse than what the Jewish Orthodox community in Jerusalem has been accused of and did - like massive support of known child murderer Israel Weiss, and is probably less so.

On the plus side, the Scientology belief/myth system claims that any restrictions on freedom of religion, graduated income taxes and national identification schemes are the stuff of Satan - literally. Their Xenu myth explicitly says that Xenu used mandatory mental health screening and income taxes to initiate his scheme of the afterlife. They also oppose stuff like the terrible abuse that goes on in the Israeli mental health system - which is really horrible - and stuff like the Chelmsford clinic in Australia.

Are the Scientologists nice guys? No. I wouldn't want to be one of them, and I wouldn't want my child to join them.

But I feel that they aren't Hitler, either. I personally like them more than I like some 'mainstream' religions, because they at least sometimes endorse principles I agree with.

There are agencies, private and public, in America and world-wide, that are FAR more evil than CoS and raise no outrcry.

[stevelyn]

Right, but what I mean is:

If I walked into a church in, say, Virginia with a pair of bared katanas and looked vaguely menacing and waved them around, nobody would think twice about me being shot, right? I mean, should this be different because he was invading a scientologist center rather than a church?

It shouldn't be different and I hope it doesn't matter. A good shoot is a good shoot regardless of venue. Religion is religion regardless of who your invisible man is.

[De Selby]

I've been to the scientology "castle" and L. Ron Hubbard's old "mansion" in the UK.  Now that was a life experience, let me tell you.

I realize that the scientologists have a thing about psychiatric care, but I think it's stretching the truth to say that the psychiatrict/psychological community "wants the CofS gone." 

I don't think they care about it, except insofar as CofS propaganda might possibly discourage someone with a genuine mental illness from getting the appropriate treatment.  Endless videos and an "e machine" are not a treatment for psychiatric disorders.

One issue that could turn out to be quite controversial with respect to this incident would be whether or not this was a person who exhibited warning signs of severe mental illness, and was encouraged to avoid psychiatric care by whomever he dealt with at the church of scientology.

Any thoughts on that possibility?

[ArfinGreebly]

Xenu myth?

*Sigh*

I guess this is "that thread" after all.

Teh Intarwebz.  Source of all knowledge and wisdom.

As a consequence of my having worked alongside Scientologists over several years, I have a number of books and related publications on my shelves.  Quite a few, actually.

The "Xenu myth" appears in precisely none of them.  All the mentions of it that I have seen have been on the web, and all the result of "leaked" or stolen "upper level" materials.  You know, secret stuff that your normal, everyday, practicing Scientologist would not encounter.  Does it exist at the "upper levels?"  Never seen any of that stuff, so I wouldn't know.

There are more than 100 titles, as I understand it, in their books, booklets, lecture tapes, and so on.  I've known more than a few members and read more than a few of their books.

This "popular myth" seems to be popular only on the web.  It's not in those 100+ titles.

You know what IS a recurring theme?  That Man is a spirit.  That the spirit is immortal.  That it is possible for Man to understand the conditions of Man.  This is stuff that is actually written in the actual books that they actually publish.

It's kind of hilarious, actually.  Most religions or belief systems are judged by what is actually published in their writings.  Islam, for example, is often (usually?) judged by what the Koran actually says as opposed to what people say about it.  Here, on the other hand, we have dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of actual published titles, but we judge them by the content of . . . leaked secrets?

I think it's stretching the truth to say that the psychiatrict/psychological community "wants the CofS gone."

And my experience leads me to believe rather differently.  You are free to think what you like.

You seem to be convinced of the validity of psychiatry.  I, on the other hand, have seen enough that I am convinced of its quackery.  Dangerous quackery at that.

I don't imagine either of us will be persuaded on this.

Simply put, my biggest bone to pick with psychiatry (actual practices notwithstanding) is that it "tolerates" religion, asserting that a belief in a "God" or a spiritual self is a delusion -- possibly harmless, but a delusion nonetheless.  On this foundation premise, they propose a "science" that seeks to explain the workings of the mind . . . in the explicit absence of a spirit.

I, on the other hand, have no doubt at all that Man is a spiritual entity.  I further have no doubt that the workings of the mind are inseparable from that fact.

Exactly what use would I have, then, for a "science" that begins with the denial of the spiritual component of Man?

Further, I find it extremely puzzling that people of any religious faith could buy into a "science" that holds their faith to be a delusion.

Perhaps this is not perceived as a conflict by others.

However, if I believe in a God -- for real, now -- not just on Sundays, and if my "doctor," in whose hands my health and well being are reposed, tells me that "it's okay if you believe in God, as that's a harmless delusion," do I really want that guy doing my "doctoring?"

If I kinda sorta think there might be a God, then I might kinda sorta think that the doctor kinda sorta maybe has a point, and my God is just kinda sorta my invisible friend.

If, on the other hand, I know there's a God, there's a very low risk that I will take advice from a doctor who thinks I'm nuts by virtue of that simple fact.  Or even "slightly" deluded.

Much like I would not seek the advice and care of a "doctor" who was convinced that my owning a gun was a symptom of "mental illness."

"Crazy by default" is not a good starting point for a relationship with your care provider.

I'd much rather seek the advice and assitance of a rabbi than a shrink.  And I have.

I will, 100% of the time, look to the clergy -- any clergy -- in preference to a "doctor" who thinks I don't exist, and that only the meat is real.

Your milage, as always, may vary.

[gunsmith]

my two biggest beef with scientology is the cultish behavior I've seen in SF.
Hard to put into words exactly, but I've seen it in Krishna's, rev moon folks too.

the 2nd beef is them stealing the name "narconon" to similar to "N.A's "narcotics anon" or narc anon for short.
N.A is free, and is basically for addicts -modeled on AA.

but i see your point on spirituality arf, addiction is a spiritual disease.

[Jamisjockey]

One issue that could turn out to be quite controversial with respect to this incident would be whether or not this was a person who exhibited warning signs of severe mental illness, and was encouraged to avoid psychiatric care by whomever he dealt with at the church of scientology.

Any thoughts on that possibility?

That's deep speculation.  Sure you're not a prime-time news anchor? 

[De Selby]

Arfin,

I definitely support questioning the role and nature of psychiatric and psychological treatments.  But I think we might have different definitions of just what the field constitutes, based on your post.

Simply put, my biggest bone to pick with psychiatry (actual practices notwithstanding) is that it "tolerates" religion, asserting that a belief in a "God" or a spiritual self is a delusion -- possibly harmless, but a delusion nonetheless.  On this foundation premise, they propose a "science" that seeks to explain the workings of the mind . . . in the explicit absence of a spirit.

In my contact with the psychiatry/psychology world (minor in neuroscience-not exactly an advanced degree but enough to pick through the news), this would have been a completely irrelevant issue.  Explaining the workings of the mind is certainly the idea, but it does not consider whether or not there is a spirit-the aim of the scientists who work in this field is to understand how the mind processes information, and with neuroscience in particular, to understand how the organs of the brain operate to sustain cognition.

There really was no discussion of God or spirit on the clinical side, although in the Philosophy department (philosophers are still relevant to psychology in a way that they are not to engineering) discussion of the spirit/soul/metaphysical potential of consciousness is entirely within bounds and not presumed to not exist.

In other words, where the question arises in the discipline, it is simply not true to say that there is a "general presumption" that there is no spirit.  It's just that in terms of studying cognitive function, disorders, and the functions of the brain, that issue is not relevant.  No amount of discussing the soul will explain how the brain gathers data from the retina, nor will it explain why lesions on the rearmost portion of the brain tend to cause blindness.  Yet those questions occupy the entire field of neuroscience, which is where psychiatric care has its foundations.

Based on my experience, your odds are high of encountering professionals in the field who are in fact themselves religious.  Like any other science, however, their work has to concern measurable data, or else it will simply be opinion/religious material of its own accord. 

Just like there's no need to doubt God in order to measure gravity, there's no need to consider the question of whether or not there's a spirit to measure damage to a person's memory/attention/language functions.  You do it and see what you can learn, and leave the spiritualism for someone else.

Why does that matter?  Because while spiritualism and religious thought are important, they do not heal broken bones (at least, not normally) or repair torn arteries.  Similarly, they do not restore the ability to remember new facts to someone whose hippocampus has been removed.  For that, you need to actually use your God given senses to study creation and to learn from it, as with any other medicine.

[Harold Tuttle]

Scientology/Seaorg
The Thetan clearing church with a Navy

[ArfinGreebly]

In my contact with the psychiatry/psychology world (minor in neuroscience-not exactly an advanced degree but enough to pick through the news), this would have been a completely irrelevant issue.  Explaining the workings of the mind is certainly the idea, but it does not consider whether or not there is a spirit-the aim of the scientists who work in this field is to understand how the mind processes information, and with neuroscience in particular, to understand how the organs of the brain operate to sustain cognition.

While I have no doubt that the brain is involved in this process we call "thinking," I am certain that's not where thought begins.

Confining one's research to the "wiring only" model sort of overlooks the whole business of "there's actually someone home" and that this "someone" is doing the thinking and dreaming.

It's not hard to see how failing to factor the "someone home" element into things would lead one into "modifying thought" through the use of surgery and chemicals.

There really was no discussion of God or spirit on the clinical side, although in the Philosophy department (philosophers are still relevant to psychology in a way that they are not to engineering) discussion of the spirit/soul/metaphysical potential of consciousness is entirely within bounds and not presumed to not exist.

Potential?  "Not presumed to not exist?"  Wow.  That's certainly an affirmation.  You know, if there is a human spirit, and if humans think, and if the human spirit is involved in -- and actually causing -- that thinking, wouldn't that kind of be . . . important?

In other words, where the question arises in the discipline, it is simply not true to say that there is a "general presumption" that there is no spirit.  It's just that in terms of studying cognitive function, disorders, and the functions of the brain, that issue is not relevant.  No amount of discussing the soul will explain how the brain gathers data from the retina, nor will it explain why lesions on the rearmost portion of the brain tend to cause blindness.  Yet those questions occupy the entire field of neuroscience, which is where psychiatric care has its foundations.

And I would submit that the presence and involvement of the spirit is entirely relevant.

Based on my experience, your odds are high of encountering professionals in the field who are in fact themselves religious.  Like any other science, however, their work has to concern measurable data, or else it will simply be opinion/religious material of its own accord.

You know, the whole "measurable" thing may be one of our sticking points.  The spirit exists.  It is involved.  Thinking comes from there.  An inability to measure it using conventional technology might well lead to the presumption that it's "not relevant" or not a factor, since we can "measure" all this other stuff.  This isn't just a minor point.  I might mention, in passing here, that you very likely won't get any measurements of God, either.  Which would mean He isn't relevant.

And I submit that such a line of reasoning leads over a cliff.

Just like there's no need to doubt God in order to measure gravity, there's no need to consider the question of whether or not there's a spirit to measure damage to a person's memory/attention/language functions.  You do it and see what you can learn, and leave the spiritualism for someone else.

Because, what do we care who's actually doing the thinking and remembering?  Spiritualism.  Which must be something like astrology.  No need to take it seriously, 'cuz we have a neat dismissive name for it.

Why does that matter?  Because while spiritualism and religious thought are important, they do not heal broken bones (at least, not normally) or repair torn arteries.  Similarly, they do not restore the ability to remember new facts to someone whose hippocampus has been removed.  For that, you need to actually use your God given senses to study creation and to learn from it, as with any other medicine.

It matters because psychiatry does not claim to mend bones, fix arteries, or otherwise repair the plumbing of the human body.  It claims to understand thought and the working of the mind.

Without any contemplation of the spirit.  Without any acknowledgement that SOMEBODY is doing the thinking, dreaming, remembering, planning, and so on.

Because the spirit is irrelevant.  Oh, we'll entertain the possibility of a "spirit" and maybe even a "god" of some kind but, hey, we're scientists here:  we don't let all that hocus-pocus spirit stuff interfere with our research.

I submit that God matters, and that the human spirit matters.  I further submit that a failure to consider the involvement of the spirit in the processes of thinking and emotion is an egregious error.  The development of a science of the mind that omits these factors cannot but result in wrong answers and treatments that are ultimately harmful.

[ArfinGreebly]

the 2nd beef is them stealing the name "narconon" to similar to "N.A's "narcotics anon" or narc anon for short.
N.A is free, and is basically for addicts -modeled on AA.

Narconon wasn't started by the CofS.  It was founded by a convicted felon in the mid-sixties.  The guy was serving time in Arizona.  He ran across some of Hubbard's work and decided he could use it to break the addiction cycle.

The CofS affiliation happened later, though when, I'm not sure.

The choice of a name was made by the founder, not CofS.  Yes, it's been a source of confusion, and I, myself, was originally confused by it.  I worked with some of those guys in the seventies in Europe.

Some of the downright toughest SOBs I've ever met.  I think they invented the concept of "no whining."  Seriously.  Every one of them had been through Hell, and they'd heard every stinking excuse there is.

Good guys.  Hard as nails. 

In 1999 the guy I was working for paid to have his ex-wife go through their program.  She was hooked on bad stuff and nothing else was working.  Asked why he picked Narconon?  "I don't have time for stuff that doesn't work.  Their stuff works.  That's all I need to know."  She made it.  She's been off the stuff every since.

Me?  If he had asked me, that's what I would have recommended.  I was impressed that he chose them based on his own research.

Anyway.

I'm sure their history is available online.

If I remember right, Narconon's founder wound up working within the correctional system himself.

If he's still alive, he'd be in his seventies, I think.

- - - - -

EDIT TO ADD:

Evidently, he's not still alive:

Today, the Narconon program has spread from that one program in Arizona State Prison to include community programs in many states and countries such as Denmark, Italy, Holland, Germany, France, Sweden, Spain, Canada, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Colombia, Switzerland, New Zealand, South Africa, Ghana, the United Kingdom, Australia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Argentina and Brazil.

Until he died from a sudden illness in 1999, Mr. Benitez was a Hearing Officer with the Arizona Department of Corrections, the same system which once kept him under lock and key.

[Perd Hapley]

As a former Thetus, I oppose Scientology. 

I don't know if that makes any sense, but it seemed funny. 

[ArfinGreebly]

Eh?

Okay, at least that made me squint.

 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

synanon was my favorite cult   way way out there