Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


Kymus


Kymus takes a critical stand at both the CoS and its critics.

ARS
The RPF
What judge say
Dealing with law enforcement agencies
Tax Exemption

ARS

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: WELCOME SLASHDOTTERS!

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)

18 Mar 2001 08:17:40 GMT

Message-ID: <20010318031740.19101.00001921@ng-co1.aol.com>

>From: John Gilman io@eieio.org

>For in-depth information on the destructive and malicious belief system of scientology, check out

And for in-depth information on the destructive and malicious state of mind you eventually acquire from associating with a.r.s. critics on a long term basis, simply review the history of this newsgroup through a historical search.

A.r.s. is 75% cathartic venting by people who either started out demented or learned to express their dementia by becoming a.r.s. regulars and who largely are not disciplined by a *critical* community that demands much more than the nastiest way to express negative views. Another 20% is Scientology propoganda lobbed over the transom with no real opportunity for conversation and little real reply to issues raised by the a.r.s. critics. (But then there tends to be little reply to the issues Scientologists want addressed either. It's a two way street.) On the best day it has ever lived a.r.s. has had a max of 1% useful tidbits of information, but usually the remaining 4% taken up by cross-posted stuff from other newsgroups swells to a full 5%.

This ain't a newsgroup so much as an encounter group. Welcome to the theater of hate, where the best drama queen reigns.

The RPF

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source:  $cientology's "RPF" Slave Labor Camps

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)

18 Mar 2001 16:17:33 GMT

Message-ID: <20010318111733.07138.00001524@ng-cp1.aol.com>

>From: "Kevin Brady" rockslam@hotmail.com

>Kymus-

>please. The above working conditions you describe were SOUGHT OUT by the people you describe. Not forced upon them as punitive justice. The course work you describe is not typically the material a scientologist wants to study, but KSW materials, Command Chain materials, and Ethics issues. They are subjected to Sec Checking under duress. They CANNOT LEAVE.

What you describe might be true of some people's RPF experience, and I have heard a few credible stories of people being actively physically detained in the RPF - Stacy Brooks for instance. I believe the bulk of RPF staff have remained due to moral constraints and not physical restraint. They are in the first place Sea Org members, a status they sought out with an understanding that it would become central to who they are and how they spend all their available time, indicating a preexisting high level of commitment to their faith and to enduring harsh conditions and meager rewards to promote it. They are in the second place able to avoid the RPF by leaving the Sea Org, and at least grudgingly acquiesce to RPF membership. You forget that few Scientology facilities are located outside urban areas, the RPF is working on grounds of major Sea Org facilities and can easily leave the grounds if that is what they choose, though they would face punitive treatment if they left and tried to come back. There appears to be some exception regarding the Gold base, though even there it is hardly a prison camp, just slightly more rural and subject to temptations to commit acts of detention or intimidation.

>Surely you can see that this is a human rights violation? If not slavery, it is imprisonment and psychological torture, accompanied by total disconnection from their families and friends.

No, I don't see that. Staff membership in the Sea Organization is founded on consensual relationships that terminate when the person wishing to terminate it decides. Consent eliminates violation.

RPFers have family time like other staff, are not imprisoned, and are not psycholoigcally tortured by RPF activities to any greater extent than they are psychologically tortured by the fact of existing in an apparently pointless universe filled with suffering, i.e. suffer the common human condition, or by undergoing counseling which exposes one's flaws and penetrates and defeats one's illadaptive defenses, in the manner some psychotherapy does. If reality therapy, gestalt, psychoanalysis, etc. are all torture then I'd accept that the RPF is too. Since their Sea Org membership, a necessary precondition to RPF membership, is their own chosen response to the uncomfortable fact of being alive, in an effort to make living in it not hopeless and needlessly painful, I don't see how it should be described as torture.

>Almost enough to induce first circuit shock, sometimes actually passing that threshhold. Would you condone this?

Why are you trying to argue to deprive some people's capacity to choose their religion and manner of affiliation with it based on a psychobabble accusation that lacks good evidence, being based on a biased take on a nonrepresentative sample of a subculture? That's a Scientology tactic to take an instance without questioning if it is representative and fashion a specious theory about it and call all that proof of something. Why are you coming up with your own variation on it?

There are distinctly specific instances where RPF members have been abused. I have seen or been subject to the same abuses or worse in public schools, health care institutions, workplaces, etc. In each case the remedy is particular to the case rather than being in a campaign to simply label the entire institution with Nazi-laden imagery.

Granted, I have never been on the RPF but I've known those who have and seen it up close. There is no representative depiction of the RPF as "slave labor camps" that is founded on anything but hysteria and venom. I agree that it is tragic that some people have had wrongful acts committed against them in the RPF and believe these specific instances merit legal redress.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source:  $cientology's "RPF" Slave Labor Camps

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)

18 Mar 2001 20:09:05 GMT

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Message-ID: <20010318150905.03985.00000414@ng-ms1.aol.com >

>From: "Kevin Brady" rockslam@hotmail.com

>> >are subjected to Sec Checking under duress. They CANNOT LEAVE.

>> Kymus-
>> What you describe might be true of some people's RPF experience, (...) I believe the bulk of RPF staff have  remained due to moral constraints and not physical restraint

>Where would these people go?

The police, if necessary, who can assist them on a timely basis in reclaiming any property they have in the custody of the church facility where they berth . You know the police are always being called in to handle "domestic disputes" where one of the parties is facing a "where do I go to live" problem, has to retrieve some personal property from the residence, etc. THOSE people mostly somehow make out, and there are tons and tons of domestic dispute cases like this all the time. RPF leaving isn't harder than this at worst.

>They have no money, no clothes, no food, and all of their friends are organization members.

Modernly many Sea Org members are increasingly woven into a matrix of social resources that might be dominated by other Scientologists, so some of them might have only organization friends or friends loyal to the organization. Many others have the traditional Scientologist's relationship with family and friends which can be anti-Scientological or turn so in a heartbeat. Most SO leavers I've talked to had resources for departure not only among antiScieno friends or family but *within* the ranks of Scientologists in good standing, including within fellow SO staff member ranks. The pravda that no SO staff person would help another SO staff person depart hastily or fund/assist them for this purpose is just that: pravda. The image of the robot zombies over on the other side is largely that: image. There are probably examples of both indifference or cruel treatment by the remaining staff to the leaver as well as generosity in a complete survey of the leaving process.

This lack of resources is a problem for departure, but not something that keeps a person in "slave labor camp" conditions!!! Properly assessed, an RPF based at a Sea Org facility might have some members who lack resources that would be desirable to start fresh if they simply walk away, but that doesn't explain why they continue to live in "slave labor camps", as the a.r.s. pravda repeatedly puts it. The rest of the RPF members have the resources on the outside to leave and resume a new life, if they are committed to that.

>The SO specializes in hard-selling the idealist which volunteer for service, totally unwitting about the deception and fraud they are subjecting themselves to.

Agree, except that what constitutes deception and fraud is partially a subjective matter in many cases.

>I have never heard of gang-bang sec-checks on Class IV

Hells bells I was *gang banged* in a mere mission early on in my Scientology affiliation.

Generally I see religious groups that are dogmatic and high-demand, and even mere therapy groups in some instances, using multiple confronting parties and demands for confession. The difference between some AA meetings and Scientology gang bang sec checking is a matter of topic and degree. The Bible says you go with several other Christians to confront the wayward one, e.g. People who view matters as being religious, as of ultimate importance, generally "gang up" on other members they consider wayward and put the fault and choice to be made by the wayward member to them bluntly. It's a question of whether you truly believe the religion or not that has to be decided, and if so how belief must manifest.

Gang banging is a gift in disguise. You get to examine, by being put under great pressure, just how valuable this belief structure and affiliation is to you, something that an easy going demand for internal loyalty might omit. If you decide to stay you do so with possible impediments removed from participation and commitment as you have less to hide afterwards, but if you decide to leave you have something to resent deeply and fuel that departure planning.

Gang banging ain't fun to be subject to, but it isn't what made me eventually leave and being subject to it surely didn't reduce my ability to assess where I wanted to go, where the Church seemed to be going, and act rationally based on the yawning gap between these when the time came.

I'm joining the <<yawn>> conspiracy, you see, here.

>>Consent eliminates violation.

>Consent given under fraudulent claims and misrepresentation of the actual situation?

It becomes rapidly apparent to the SO member when they enlist what the situation they will live and work in is like. Unless we are confining ourselves to people who route onto the RPF before finishing the EPF (do such people even exist???) this isn't really an effective vitiation of consent.

>The real reason an SO member doesn't leave isn't because he is necessarily afraid of reprisal, but because he is afraid he would have to admit that he had slid down a slippery slope of increasingly betraying his own internal compass, and mortgaged his awareness to the "greater good" of scientology INTERNATIONAL, which he is continually lied to about.

I agree. As this description indicates there is no brainwashing going on, as people retain their ability to assess this sort of thing and act independently and rationally according to their own, indwelling values. Before they reach that decision to leave they sort through a certain amount of deception and false claims that may form part of the basis of their prior commitment, and weigh just how important it is to them to compromise on some points to prevail in a common struggle to win on others. Exactly what those deceptions and false claims are may well be very very different for different people, subjectively though, and exactly how much sleaziness by one's own side is going to be tolerated is also idiosyncratic too often enough.

>I am sorry if I seem impatient. There is more to this story, for me (can you smell the bypassed charge?)

Been there, mostly. But for those I left behind, and they are not trivial in number, I marvel that they still remain committed to what they are committed to despite adversity. Is there more to their story? They have made hard choices, and perhaps I feel they choose the wrong side of things, but it was their choice to make. I believe nonsense about calling SO RPFs "slave labor camps" is part of a campaign to deny these people their chosen way of life, which is why I am in this thread. I personally do not think highly of that as a way of life, but do not see it as my role to join in efforts to deprive them of it through societal pressure born of smear campaigns.

We can never, any of us, completely walk in someone elses shoes. They have to decide their own religious destiny, even if we think it is a stupid one, and confine ourselves to protesting actual harms inflicted on others not choosing that way of life. The a.r.s. set too often wishes to deny the power of choice to others with its overblown rhetoric about "slave labor camps", ":brainwashing", and other such nonsense.

What judges say

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source:  $cientology's "RPF" Slave Labor Camps

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)

18 Mar 2001 16:30:37 GMT

Message-ID: <20010318113037.07138.00001525@ng-cp1.aol.com>

>From: ptsc ptscAT nym DOT alias DOT net

I take it you are being on such good behavior in your posts because of all the newcomers.

>Yes, one of which resulted in a multi-million dollar judgment against them. The treatment doled out in the RPF was found to be more than "rude."

If you are trying to get me to credit the testimony of the case you cited to evidence the activities complained of, you may have an uphill battle. Most of the punitive damages in that case can be probably be attributed to nonRPF events to the extent they were legitimate punitive damages. The plaintiff was no angel, either.

>Brainwashing in the RPF is simply illegal,  not constitutionally protected, does not constitute "voluntary religious expression" and in many cases does not constitute "religious expression" AT ALL.

Only expression constitutes expression, of course, but the amount of slack you get on that has a lot to do with how favorably society regards your religion.

If you are claiming there was a finding of "brainwashing" in the case you cite, I wish you'd to point it out.

And anyway, I just *love* the way people around here cite judges as if judges are fantastic experts on matters psychological. Apparently they get some kind of condensed course in psychological diagnosis in judge school that allows them to toss around loaded language of diagnosis and intuit which are true psychological theories, etc. Hey, here's an idea: shitcan all the psychology departments of universities because judges have it figured out which of the psychobabble theories are true.

The way I see it, when a judge foams at the mouth using loaded psychobabble language to condemn some activity or person it indicates bias on the part of the judge and lack of a solid case that can be put in plain language. These are deficits in flaming bigots of the bench a.r.s. critics love to cite, not virtues.

What did that case you cite have to do with brainwashing? Brainwashing, being a specious psychobabble theory method of labelling education of people that you disapprove of the contents or results of, may or may not exist, but what did that case have to do with it???

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: Anderson Report Beginning: sums up Scientology perfectly

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)

18 Mar 2001 16:40:39 GMT

Message-ID: <20010318114039.07138.00001526@ng-cp1.aol.com>

>From: JBLingerman@tella.de (JB Lingerman)

>The Anderson Report

>PREFATORY NOTE

>Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill.

Buddha statutes are idoltrous, made by idoltorors for idoltry. Buddha statues are evil, their presence evil and a serious threat to humanity, and those who worship Buddha statues are sadly deluded and not in harmony with Allah.

Isn't it FUN how many people can play at the game of parading around their value judgments on fundamental questions as though they are simply facts of existence everyone is bound to acknowledge, and acknowledge in the fashion most favorable to the value judgments of the bigot making the pronouncement?

The Church of Scientology's ludicrious smears of the entire psychiatric industry and the Anderson Reports mean spirited smear of Scientology are mirror images of opposite sides.

It impresses me how often the opponents of Scientology in fighting it have so little compunction about using the same underhanded tactics Scientology uses. Now THAT statement is an excellent summary and introduction to the Anderson Report.

Dealing with law inforcement agencies

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: How to beat the $cientology fuckers.

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)

18 Mar 2001 17:08:00 GMT

Message-ID: <20010318120800.07138.00001532@ng-cp1.aol.com>

>From: "Public Anonymous_Account " <remailer@anon.xg.nu>

>1. Contact your legislators and get the copyright period reduced to 50 years. Not only will this destroy $cientology, but it will also prevent another cult like this from surviving for more than 50 years.

I not only will it NOT destroy Scientology NOR prevent any sort of religious group from arising, it will reduce the $ completely legitimate authors can get for selling their works to publishers. This reduces incentive to invest funds in crafting good works or reduces the monetary yeild obtainable whatever the incentive, thus making it harder for writers to do good work in the future. Do you really want people like Russel Miller fucked alongside the CST? Why?

>2. Report every illegal, unethical activity, and harassment by $cientology lawyers to the BAR association in the U.S and the BAR equivalent in other countries.

Ever hear about the boy who cried wolf? Be REAL SURE it is illegal and unethical activity and not just a.r.s. defined "illegal and unethical". This newsgroup does so much talking to its own navel that it is easy to get carried away on things like this.

>3. Contact the media/IRS/FBI and other relevant agency about every illegal, unethical and racketeering action by the cult.

B.W.C.W. caution (Boy Who Cried Wolf) as above.

>4. Familiarize yourself with THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO) ACT (http://www.ricoact.com/)

Indeed. And be aware that RICO is a double edged sword, usable against activists as well as their rivals on the onther side. Know what conspiracy and solicitation mean, and not just what a.r.s. crticis think it ought to.

>5. Contact our President and Attorney General and tell them what is really going on with this cult.

BWCW caution. You don't win many points by convincing the US Govt you are a bigot to be pandered to by squashing a minority religion. Keep it factual and nonhysterical.

Tax Exemption

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: WELCOME SLASHDOTTERS!

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)

16 Mar 2001 13:38:31 -0800

Message-ID: <98u14n0dq9@drn.newsguy.com>

In article <98tu5s$38inf$1@ID-17251.news.dfncis.de>, Allen says...

>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in the US?

Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court, which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption. But the IRS caved in after 2000 lawsuits were filed against the IRS and individual IRS employees. One of the conditions of granting tax-exempt status was that the lawsuits were all withdrawn.

From: frice@SPAMNOTlinkline.com (Rev Fredric L. Rice)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:08:14 GMT
Message-ID: <tba2e5dne74u76@corp.supernews.com>

kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote:

>>From: Jim Byrd byrd@NOSPAM.acm.org

>>Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court, which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.

>No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme Court said.

If you bothered to read it you would find that the crime syndicate _lost_ and was ordered to disband their criminal network called WISE in order to qualify for tax exemption status. The crime syndicate still maintains their criminal network, however.

From: kymus2468@aol.comnospam (Kymus)
Date: 18 Mar 2001 23:48:37 GMT
Message-ID: <20010318184837.03985.00000449@ng-ms1.aol.com>

>From: frice@SPAMNOTlinkline.com

>If you bothered to read it you would find that the crime syndicate _lost_

Bothered to read it??? Bothered to read it??? Genius, I've ARGUED that case's authority and WON my points using it as precedent!!! I haven't simply "read" it you know-it-all, but had my understanding of it vindicated by other actual legally trained minds, which is something you obviously are not.

The Supreme Court handed down an opinion as to how the case was to be handled according to clarifications of law made by the Supreme Court. The Scientologists changed their approach to the actions below to take advantage of the opinion. They neither "won" nor "lost" in the Supreme Court, rather they had the law declared as between them and the IRS.

>and was ordered to disband their criminal network called WISE in order to qualify for tax exemption status.

What criminal network is this? What charges were filed against that association of people? None, of course. You just can't argue without namecalling.

> The crime syndicate still maintains their criminal network, however.

I understand WISE maintains WISE. It is your invention that any association of Scientologists is therefore part of the corporate structure of the church and you don't back it up with anything but your own venom for anyone who isn't as rabidly anti-Scientology as yourself.

 



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless