Scientology links

[exit_and_how]

front groups - i think religioustolerance.org is a front group because it leads a person to believe that all religions are treated equally and with tolerance - when in fact it's just a $cientology portal that says, "see? we're very tolerant of religions, so you must now be tolerant of us since the IRS has stated we are a religion now."

in short, i'm all for religious tolerance, but i'd have to actually acknowledge the group as a religion first - and clandestine, sneaky tactics doesn't bring that group any closer.
The Cult Awareness Network is a perfect example of those tactics. It seems to me that a very clever group that has been called a cult for a long time would want to infiltrate a cult awareness group, take it over and then tell the world, "see? $cientology isn't a cult - now everyone must grant us their seal of approval."

how many other front groups are out there that an innocent, non-suspecting public DOESN'T know about?

 

[doppelganger]

Here's what Wiki says about Scientology and Religioustolerance.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Consultants_on_Religious_Tolerance

On the subject of Scientology, almost all of the pages are authored or co-authored by Al Buttnor, who is the Director of Special Affairs for the Church of Scientology Toronto. In comparing the Scientology articles on the site with the articles devoted to controversial aspects of other faiths such as Mormonism, there is a noticeable lack of information on the more controversial beliefs, practices and history of the Church of Scientology. In addition, the site is currently blocking the Wayback Machine of Internet Archive from showing previous versions of the pages for comparison.

I will say, quite apart from having any criticism of the beliefs or practices of Scientology (which I really don't have), I do have a major problem with CofS mis-using the courts and legal process to undermine free speech and the free flow and exchange of information and ideas and to harrass people.

 

[MaddLlama]

front groups - i think religioustolerance.org is a front group because it leads a person to believe that all religions are treated equally and with tolerance - when in fact it's just a Scientology portal that says, "see? we're very tolerant of religions, so you must now be tolerant of us since the IRS has stated we are a religion now."

in short, i'm all for religious tolerance, but i'd have to actually acknowledge the group as a religion first - and clandestine, sneaky tactics doesn't bring that group any closer.
The Cult Awareness Network is a perfect example of those tactics. It seems to me that a very clever group that has been called a cult for a long time would want to infiltrate a cult awareness group, take it over and then tell the world, "see? Scientology isn't a cult - now everyone must grant us their seal of approval."

how many other front groups are out there that an innocent, non-suspecting public DOESN'T know about?

Really? Religious Tolerance is run by Scientologists?

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]OCRT Statement of Belief:[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]We are a multi-faith group. As of 2006-JAN, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters: belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists and what form it takes, etc.[/FONT]

I don't see any scientologists running the website. There's nothing wrong with religious tolerance at all, it's a good ideal to strive for. The website itself simply presents unbiased information and summaries for various religions. It's a great site with great information.

If you want to continue to insist that it is run by scientology, then I suppose I'll just have to cut my losses and label you a conspiracy theorist.

Speaking of which....why is it that all the conspiracy nuts on this site focus on scientology? Hmm...maybe they're all the same person!

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, I haven't read thier article on scientology, but maybe thier treatment of it could be because they fear legal troubles? The church seems to have a bad habit of suing anybody who mocks thier religion, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's what they're trying to avoid. Or, maybe they simply don't know enough about it to feel comfortable printing all the critical information out there?
What about this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol4.htm I would think that's a good explanation.
Besides, the only religion that the site has critical information for is Christianity, and then they only present the objection to many intolerant fundamentalist beliefs. I wouldn't expect them to post reasons why other people are critical of it, that's not the purpose of the site.

Besides, would it make sense to run CAM and religious tolerance? CAM is essentially like one of those Christian sites that says all these religons are wrong, and we're right. Would it make sense to run a site with the exact opposite purpose?

If people are so concerned that they're leaving out the controversy surrounding Scientology, did anyone think to e-mail and ask them before jumping to conclusions?

 

[Booko]

I did find an few errors in the Baha'i section, though. I sent them a note telling them how to confirm the info I gave them, so they could make corrections.

 

[Katzpur]

I did find an few errors in the Baha'i section, though. I sent them a note telling them how to confirm the info I gave them, so they could make corrections.

Good luck. I did the same thing a long time ago concerning some issues on Mormonism, and they didn't change a thing. I have to give them credit, though. I find their information to be quite a bit more accurate than most non-LDS, non-official sites are.

 

[Booko]

Good luck. I did the same thing a long time ago concerning some issues on Mormonism, and they didn't change a thing. I have to give them credit, though. I find their information to be quite a bit more accurate than most non-LDS, non-official sites are.

Well, they do try to be "fair & balanced."

The thing is, they probably have no understanding that if someone calls themselves a Baha'i, it doesn't mean they actually are, so when they include some info from a dubious source, they don't really have any way to know that's what it is.

 

[exit_and_how]

If people are so concerned that they're leaving out the controversy surrounding Scientology, did anyone think to e-mail and ask them before jumping to conclusions?

please do - but i wouldn't expect a straight answer...

 

[MaddLlama]

please do - but i wouldn't expect a straight answer...

Personally, I don't really care. But, if you do, then you can e-mail them yourself.

 

[exit_and_how]

here's another site:

www.lermanet.com

by Arnaldo Lerma - a longtime $cientologist, now ex-$cientologist.
a lot of info...

there is even a radio program that was recorded and you can listen
to this man talk...

 

[exit_and_how]

i'd also like to find out anything about education efforts that $cientology had been trying to push. i think it was "Delphi" or similar - would like to know any kind of stories about it - are the students confined in any way? any posts and/or links would be appreciated...

 

[Booko]

here's another site:

www.lermanet.com

by Arnaldo Lerma - a longtime Scientologist, now ex-Scientologist.
a lot of info...

there is even a radio program that was recorded and you can listen
to this man talk...

Why do you keep posting anti-Scientology websites, Exit?

If you want to see if any other users here have had experiences with Scientology, you could just ask. At least one user had a brief meeting with their organization. Go compare notes if you like. People do that here all the time.

If you want to talk about your personal experience, that's fine. It could make interesting reading.

But if your intent is to warn us, I seriously doubt any of us need the warning. :areyoucra

And as MaddLlama suggested, if you have a beef with them, you should probably take it up with them, not us.

 

[exit_and_how]

alright i'll ask - who wants to share bad experiences with $cientology?

next, who is that user who had some meeting?

last, "we" and "us" - speaking for yourself in plural?

 

[Mike182]

alright i'll ask - who wants to share bad experiences with Scientology?

just a quick note, while we don't discourage people from posting openly here, we do encourage respectful posting - any members who want to speak of bad experiences in scientology may do so, but i'd remind people to do so in a respectful manor.

(and that's me talking as a forum mod, on behalf of the forum staff.)

 

[exit_and_how]

what if there is a discrepancy between what one person finds
respectful and what another one does?

Also, if a website has existed against possible lawsuits, how can
the contents of that website be deemed untruthful?

 

[Booko]

next, who is that user who had some meeting?

YmirGF

last, "we" and "us" - speaking for yourself in plural?

I've been around long enough to know the usual reactions from my fellow users and mods, yeah.

 

[Booko]

what if there is a discrepancy between what one person finds respectful and what another one does?

The mod team is the referee where there's a question, and we consult and make decisions by consensus. It's never just one person's opinion.

 

[jkdenm]

just because that lermanet website still exists, doesn't mean it hasn't been through litigation...

and its existence could change at any moment depending on what gets posted (i would think).

 

[lilithu]

Actually, now that I took a further look at the site, I am a little bit surprised about how Religious Tolerance handled the Scientology section. While I don't think by any means that they are a front for Scientology, they didn't discuss anywhere on the website any of the numerous controversies that have revolved around the Church of Scientology throughout the years. This really surprises me, especially since they were more than willing to discuss (with a reasonable degree of impartiality I might add) the controversies that surounded the Baha'i Faith in the Baha'i section. In fact, it even seems to paint the church in a very favorable light. Could it be that they're afraid of a lawsuit from the church of Scientology?

I agree. I don't think that religioustolerance.org is a front for scientology, but their section on scientology is suspiciously lacking in the mention of any of the controversies. For example, that scientology's founder was convicted in Italian courts of fraud for making false claims on what his "religion" can deliver.

 

[exit_and_how]

can you describe this court case? i think i never came across it.

 

[exit_and_how]

In the past, i got slammed for posting only links that were critical of Scientology.
Here's one - a link to beliefnet - that is the message board for it. To date, some 298
topics have been posted. You could compare that website to this i suppose, but i thought it might give someone a fair view of the issues involved and the controversies...

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion_list.asp?boardID=19945