>>>No, not "just following orders". That is _your_
straw man. I stated that they had internalized the teachings of
Scientology, specifically the Introspection Rundown. They were acting morally and ethically, and applying the best treatment for mental illness that had ever been devised, in their
>>Then the responsibility still lies with the individuals, does
it not? If someone guns down a bunch of FBI agents because they've
"internalized" some wacked-out Aryan Nation militia junk, are they somehow
absolved of responsibility for those killings? No, they're not.
>You are the one who claimed that I was promoting a
"just following orders" defense. Now you claim that I absolve the
caretakers of Lisa MacPherson, or in the general case, any follower of a
wrong and immoral code of ethics.
Actually, no, I
didn't claim either of those things. I used the "just
following orders" analogy and you claimed that this wasn't
the individuals had "internalized" Scientology. So, I moved
on to the
analogy of militia members who have "internalized" a
teaches that killing FBI agents is a good idea. Is the
process different for Scientologists than it is for members of other
If so, how? And why? If it's *not* different, then it would seem that
analogy is a good one and I'd have to return to my question: Would the
militia guys be somehow absolved of personal responsibility for the
of FBI agents because they had "internalized" a violent
>The responsibility lies both with the
individuals _and_ with the organization/philosophy that promulgates
the values and incorrect ideas that the individuals use to make the
Hello? Hello? Isn't
that what I originally wrote? If you agree with me
that the individuals are at least as much to blame as the
exactly is it you're arguing with me about?
> As long as the recruiting/teaching/deploying
organization exists, more individuals will be taken in and make wrong
and immoral decisions.
People make wrong and
immoral decisions all the time. They make these
decisions regardless of the organizations to which they belong. The
is not in our stars (or our "applied religious
philosophies"), but in
ourselves. Eliminating Scientology isn't going to prevent wrong and
decisions from being made. Those who would have become vicious
Scientologists will instead become vicious Amway salesmen.
The individuals can be taken one by one and tried and convicted, but the
wrong-doing will continue. _That's_ the point you fail to grasp.
I do understand that you believe Scientology makes people who would
otherwise been perfectly normal into heartless killers. I disagree.
>>I'm available M-F, 9:30-5:00. ;-) Obviously, if they knew it
was a stupid choice in advance, they probably wouldn't do it. I don't think
we're obligated as a society or as individuals to protect every
other member of our species from making stupid choices for themselves. Making
such choices (I've done it myself!) and dealing with the consequences is a
valuable learning experience.
>Our society feels that it is very much in
it's interest to protect people from a great number of stupid choices, especially when those choices
affect not only themselves but those around them.
And that, of course,
is really the distinguishing factor. In the United
States we're permitted to make all sorts of silly choices for
long as those choices don't endanger others. The presumption is that
mentally sound adults are capable of making these choices for
like it that way.
>>>They were acting according to the teachings of
Scientology. Do you think that they sould have had some incorruptible moral guide within them? That is naive.
>>I don't think it's naive at all. The idea that each of us is
responsible for our behavior is something of a cornerstone of western
civilization and of our legal system.
>You are not responding to what I said. The
law holds individuals responsible after the fact, but what is supposed to tell those individuals not
to commit the deed, if their actions are correct _within the culture created by the
consciences, of course. Scientologists do not live in a vacuum
and neither, imo, are they brainwashed zombies who are unable to tell
from wrong. I think that almost every one of us reading a.r.s. right
now--Scientologist and critic alike--could come to agreement on most
big issues regarding right and wrong.
>It is this culture/organization/value
set/"church" that is ultimately the dangerous enemy. You seem to be
assuming that we all share some core set of values that tells us what
is right or wrong, independent of the culture around us. That _is_
I don't believe it is
naive. I think we *do* all share some core set of
values that tells us what is right or wrong. The people who frame our
also believe this. As I indicated in my answer the first time around,
presumption that we all know the difference between right and wrong is
foundation of our entire criminal law system. It works for me, too.
>>I have more empathy than you know.
>How could I know, when all I hear is your
"valuable lesson learned" cover up for Scientology mind-rape?
You'll just have to take my word for it, BP. You and I are still
things in a relatively civil fashion, aren't we? Do you think that
possible if I had no empathy?
>>>>And, BP? He just seems to want to join a Great Moral
>>>No, I am IN a great moral crusade. And YOU are on the
>>I fully understand your need to believe that. That's kind of
the same thing Scientology itself uses to attract members, isn't it?
>No, it's self-confidence that my assessment of Scientology is
correct. And I have the courage to oppose what I see as a dangerous and immoral organization, causing great harm.
In this particular
venue (a.r.s.) I think maybe it takes more courage to
express *my* point of view! ;-)
you keep right on apologizing for them and I will continue fighting
What you see as apology, I see as fairness.