The addy of yduzitmatter@sympatico.ca <yduzitmatter@sympatico.ca>,
In article ID <3AE25968.1475490E@sympatico.ca>,
On or about Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:09:12 -0400,
In the group <alt.religion.scientology> that it was read from
yduzitmatter@sympatico.ca says...

SNIP >>> No one here is against the beliefs of scientology

>> Many people posting here are not.
>>
>> However, some are.
>>
>> <snip valid points>
>>
>> Hairsplittingly,
>I thought about that when I wrote it but was too lazy to
>change it actually. I know that some are against the beliefs
>I personally do not agree with them but I am not against anyone
>holding those beliefs - just the illegal,immoral,and unethical
>behaviours.
Well, it all depends on what belief you are talking about with me. I, for one, think that a Scn'gsts should be able to believe in the Xenu story, or that even the Earth is square and not round. The problem comes in when you mix those same beliefs with Hubbard's philosophy on attacking people who disagree with Scn'gy, or things such as management tech which does in fact enslave workers to a statistic.

Scn'gy has only a tiny amount of religious beliefs, even by their own admission. If you group all of Hubbard's words as sacred you are doing an injustice to mankind's ability to differentiate.

Hubbard has mixed and muddied science, belief, philosophy, management, reality, business and religion to such a degree that to call Scn'gy any one of the above would be wrong. Indeed that was Hubbard's intent; it was to be anything to anybody and something that can transform to anything that would advantage it for survival's sake.

However, to say that I would have to be "for," belief or otherwise, every part of Scn'gy is ridiculous. Saying I was "against," belief or otherwise, every part of Scn'gy is just as ridiculous. Certain Scn'gsts -- more accurately, Scn'gy -- indubitably wants to paint critics viewpoints with a broad brush.

If anyone is to blame for the confusion it would be Hubbard. He called it a science; I did not. He was the one who confused the issues of what Scn'gy is;

I did not. He was the one who made Scn'gy into anything for anybody; I did not. The best I can do is interpret what he meant it to be.

Innocent belief does not bother me. When that belief brings about destruction and harm to others; when followed that does bother me. Most Scn'gsts -- and as of yet I have not seen one copyrighted Scn'gst violate this assertion -- have the disadvantage of being able to debate if their viewpoints about Scn'gy are valid or not. I am not talking about things that can't be disproved, such as the Xenu story or the OT levels, which are subjective. I am talking about other writings of Hubbard's. One such being Hubbard's philosophy on destruction of the enemy. If that's religious in nature, and it's interpreted as sacred and untouchable, then we humans are doomed to enslavement by our ideals.

Hopefully, we will evolve beyond this just like we have evolved into an educated society where the norm can add 1+1, or indeed 0+1. In our not so distant past "zero" didn't even exist. It didn't even have a name. So too will concepts in the future be such the norm that to not know them will be unthinkable. One such belief I believe will be the containment of religion's sacredness. Scn'gy may very well play a part in that "evolvement."

Interesting: good coming from bad?

Go Back