"Does Scientology deserve more scrutiny than other religions?"

No, it deserves the same scrutiny that all bullshit deserves: Maximum scrutiny.

Fuck bad logic in the ass with a carrot.

(October 31, 2016 at 10:59 am)abaris Wrote: Still no money trail and there has to be one. I'm surprised they managed to keep it that quiet over decades. That in itself should give anybody pause. And it certainly warrants to give the organisation more attention than other sects and denominations where it's pretty clear where the money goes.

But it's still pretty clear where the money goes if you do some research, and it seems to largely amount to building new churches in remote outposts that will barely be used if/when they're finished to maintain the illusion of them being the fastest growing religion in the world, paying private dicks to stalk Scientology's critics, lining Miscaviage's wallets, and maybe if there's anything left, feeding the Sea Org.

Putting aside the shadiness stuff, Scientology is no worse than, say, Catholicism when it comes to absurd doctrines and beliefs.

(October 31, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: But it's still pretty clear where the money goes if you do some research, and it seems to largely amount to building new churches in remote outposts that will barely be used if/when they're finished to maintain the illusion of them being the fastest growing religion in the world, paying private dicks to stalk Scientology's critics, lining Miscaviage's wallets, and maybe if there's anything left, feeding the Sea Org.

That's not what I mean. There has to be some group making a profit. Investing in spreading the cult doesn't count, since that's only a means to an end. And I refuse to believe the end is nothing more than spreading the cult. It would be the first altruistic cult in history.

(October 31, 2016 at 1:26 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: But it's still pretty clear where the money goes if you do some research, and it seems to largely amount to building new churches in remote outposts that will barely be used if/when they're finished to maintain the illusion of them being the fastest growing religion in the world, paying private dicks to stalk Scientology's critics, lining Miscaviage's wallets, and maybe if there's anything left, feeding the Sea Org.

That's not what I mean. There has to be some group making a profit. Investing in spreading the cult doesn't count, since that's only a means to an end. And I refuse to believe the end is nothing more than spreading the cult. It would be the first altruistic cult in history.

Does a virus need a group of ultra-rich Koch Brothers types to be allowed to run rampant? Honestly, the more I see it, it seems less of a case of some rich people promoting a group that pushes a nefarious agenda that benefits them and more a case of a group deciding to push themselves on the world and having the money (from the expensive coursework) to push their own nefarious (if incoherent) agenda.

(October 31, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Irrational Wrote: Putting aside the shadiness stuff, Scientology is no worse than, say, Catholicism when it comes to absurd doctrines and beliefs.

(October 31, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Honestly, the more I see it, it seems less of a case of some rich people promoting a group that pushes a nefarious agenda that benefits them and more a case of a group deciding to push themselves on the world and having the money (from the expensive coursework) to push their own nefarious (if incoherent) agenda.

Then it's a power trip. But I don't really see that as the only cause either. Every megachurch pastor running his own TV station would be more profit oriented than a highly organised cult such as Scientology then. I don't see that, or, I refuse to see that. Not with all the con seminaries and tests they created to get to the life savings of new members. They are all about money. Even their indoictrination is all about money. And when it's all about money, there's usually someone or some group making a profit.

(October 31, 2016 at 2:23 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Honestly, the more I see it, it seems less of a case of some rich people promoting a group that pushes a nefarious agenda that benefits them and more a case of a group deciding to push themselves on the world and having the money (from the expensive coursework) to push their own nefarious (if incoherent) agenda.

Then it's a power trip. But I don't really see that as the only cause either. Every megachurch pastor running his own TV station would be more profit oriented than a highly organised cult such as Scientology then. I don't see that, or, I refuse to see that. Not with all the con seminaries and tests they created to get to the life savings of new members. They are all about money. Even their indoictrination is all about money. And when it's all about money, there's usually someone or some group making a profit.

And why can it not be Miscaviage himself (or Hubbard when he was still alive)? That's what virtually all the evidence points to. And, after all I've read, it's sure as shit easy to believe that Hubbard, having some obvious mental problems, and Miscaviage, essentially being a shorter and even more deplorable version of Malcolm Tucker are both certainly capable of such a naked mix of a cult of personality and a long con.

I've watched a couple documentaries on Scientology. I find it intriguing, though in a very strange sort of way. John Travolta claims his Scientology beliefs helped him a lot with getting through some very difficult stuff involving his son. If it's therapeutic for some people, let them have it I suppose.