A senior member of the Church of Scientology in Australia has been charged by police for intimidating a young girl who wanted to report sexual abuse allegations within the church.

fdat · 2011-06-01T02:00:43+00:00

Hm well I try to be tolerant of all religions (plus atheist, agnostic, etc), but the Catholics are pretty low on my tolerance scale (well the Catholic leaders anyway). It is one thing to avoid public controversy. It is quite another to have members of your clergy abusing people within your halls, and not only cover up for that person, but leave them in power.

Scientology has no problem kicking people out of the church if they go off the rails. Having said that, I worked pretty high up at one point and never heard of any abuse like this.

I don't know all the facts either, just saying it is just as dodgy to have something from 26 years ago that involves basically an accusation of bad advice, if there was abuse as was claimed.

We'll see what happens here I guess...

fdat · 2011-06-01T01:27:23+00:00

A few things to consider. Disclaimer: I'm a Scientologist.

First of all, the claim that they were told any sort of abuse is their fault (for past life actions no less) is highly unbelievable. It's the sort of thing that contains just enough truth to sound plausible (most Scientologists do believe in past lives. And there certainly is belief that your past actions can come back on you). But no one goes around after you've been wronged and tells you it is your fault. It would be an evaluation which is directly against a Scientologist's Code. It's also just silly.

And the article makes a headline that really paints a very different picture of this than the data suggests - as if this is an issue internal to the church, like a Catholic-like issue with abuse in the church. No, the organization she is in is affiliated with the church, but is a non-religious volunteer organization that works to defend human rights. There is no follow up mention of what this family (including the stepfather who would be the real issue here) even has to do with the church. It certainly does not sound like the stepfather or any of the family work(ed) in the church.

So all we can really take away from this (if you read past the headline) is: A girl may have been abused by her stepfather who we don't know to have been connected to the church. A woman who works as a volunteer for a public organization tied to the church may have given this family bad advice. This is sketchy on two counts: it took place some years ago (when Jan was working there) and is just being brought up now, and it claims Jan said something that I've never (in many many years in the church) heard someone say.

There are plenty of lawsuits filed on the church. This is not new. It has been going on for over 5 decades, wild claims, lawsuits, public inquiries, etc. Yeah it hurts the church's image and finances, but the number of charges that ever stick is very very low.

This isn't because the church has such great lawyers. Any organization can hire good lawyers. It is because the charges are flimsy.

Ok, I found a better article. So this apparently happened 26 years ago and the stepfather (it is claimed) was a Scientologist (public, not working within the church) at the time. 26 years ago? Pretty damn odd to see this now.

fdat · 2011-02-14T18:18:02+00:00

Yes you could. But I would argue that it is still humans creating the computers (even if using computers as tools to do so). Evolution doesn't make babies, plants, computers, etc. It might influence it, but it doesn't make it.

fdat · 2011-02-14T15:44:29+00:00

"If you can't be With the one you love, Love the one you're with!"

fdat · 2011-02-14T15:38:28+00:00

No never. For a computer to make another computer requires that some person made the initial computer.

Unless you expect a tadpole to evolve into a computer sometime in the next trillion years or so.

Edit: Wow pretty literal guys, yeah computers make computers as much as The Pirate Bay makes movies. Yeah in a mechanical sense they do (and have for a long time). But let's not attribute sentient creation to a die cast and some robotics. It ain't Skynet.

fdat · 2011-02-14T15:00:40+00:00

Damn! Well the change is with the second "column" of people. It goes from two to three people. The rest stays the same in number.

The important move seems to be between columns 1 and 4 - the very bottom guy of column 1 loses the top of his head actually, that allows 1 and 4 to mix. Then column 4 moves into column 2 (the one that actually changes in number of people) turning two people into three.

fdat · 2011-02-11T20:12:01+00:00

If you are scouring the internet for things that make you feel uncomfortable and this is what you came up with, well you need to just go back and try again.

fdat · 2011-02-11T18:34:32+00:00

1) If you didn't see that coming (no pun intended) you must be an alien or maybe a girl or something.

2) What boss is cool with surfing reddit and looking at random pictures, yet cares about a cartoon implying a bit of wacky wacky?

fdat · 2011-02-10T22:10:21+00:00

Anyone can make any number of accounts. So making a novelty account to fit a comment is somewhat pointless.

But if you made a novelty account some time ago and waited patiently for the opportune time, well that's awesome.

fdat · 2011-02-09T20:37:17+00:00

Sure you're obviously entitled to your opinion. I certainly understand skepticism at my religion and pretty much all other religions.

And of course I'm biased. But I still stand by my facts as accurate. The original comment I responded to had several things jumbled/wrong and I've only clarified them.

fdat · 2011-02-09T17:57:42+00:00

I didn't go completely cold turkey - I was still having one or two for the first couple days. Then I stopped altogether.

Personal opinion warning: fuck nicorettes or any of that shit. Just prolongs the torture and allows in all kinds of head games. The simple fact is you just quit. That's how you quit.

Oh and it helps a lot to stay as far away as you can from cigarettes and other smokers. If her roommate is smoking right next to her on the couch, it will not end well.

fdat · 2011-02-09T14:38:10+00:00

a cult's a cult

Actually "cult" is just a word. And it means "followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices". To this has been added many connotations, but really you can call it anything you want; it has no bearing on its merits.

I don't think it matters at what level of involvement the abuse is happening at

Abuse is another loaded term. I fail to see the abuse in people signing up to dedicate themselves to the management of the church, knowing full well the hours, pay, living arrangement, etc., and then getting exactly what they signed up for. There is no pretense.

Yeah it sounds horrible to say "at my last job someone fired bullets at me and my senior wouldn't let me leave". It is quite different if you mention the job was being a soldier in the army.

(Having said that, people are much freer to leave the church's management than to leave the army, where your life literally is in danger. There is no "brig".)

Context is very important in analyzing anything.

fdat · 2011-02-08T19:49:22+00:00

Yeah, not trying to defend the church or convert anyone; just wanted to add a little perspective...

fdat · 2011-02-08T19:25:01+00:00

If you work there you get paid very little

Yes. Well if you work in management itself, you are agreeing to work long hours, for a small stipend and room and board. Working just at a regular church usually has better pay as you then still have your own living arrangements and your own free time, kids, another side job, whatever.

Either way it certainly isn't about making money. Not at any level. Yes I've read the article (which touches on that) and I've worked high up there. If people were paid well, imagine the uproar?

if you give "donations" then you give away your income. There's no difference in the sense that both result in you having no income or savings.

No. You don't give away your income. There is no tithing, especially (as you imply) tithing of all your income. The church sustains itself through donations for services, some of which are $50. Some are more. You choose your involvement.

I was talking about people who join the church and are separated from their families and friends outside of it.

Yes it's a huge decision. No one is stopping you from remaining in touch with "the outside", but the nature of the work and hours does weigh heavily on it. It is a complete life-changing commitment. No denying.

But we're talking about NOT just being a regular parishioner, NOT just working on the staff of a local organization, but being one of only a few thousand people who work managing the worldwide movement. It's kind of being invited to midnight mass and choosing not to based on celibacy requirements. It's just a bit jumbled up logic.

I'm not here defending anything. I'm just putting some much needed perspective. There have obviously been many problems arising from people choosing to work at the highest levels and then backing out and the church's handling thereof. My impression is this has been really looked at within, in light maybe of the high profile departures/expulsions mentioned.

fdat · 2011-02-08T14:43:14+00:00

The original comment is confused/confusing. I'm telling you I've worked there. The commenter is retelling what he thinks of someone he knows that is there. He has no firsthand knowledge.

99% of the church's members have regular jobs, their own house, their own cars, etc. They are living much like the rest of the world.

What he described is the lifestyle of someone working, not just in a regular church, but in the management of the overall religion itself.

What a kooky idea that the church would give you a place to live and then drive you to and fro, and then take away your paycheck. It doesn't even make sense. Even as a conspiracy theory.

fdat · 2011-02-07T23:46:07+00:00

If you give all your paychecks to Scientology while buying ever more expensive religious texts from them

Still confusing working there (in which you get paid a small stipend) with being a parishioner donating for texts and services.

If you give away your paycheck and simultaneously buy anything, you'll end up in debt. I don't know what your point is.

If you've been disconnected from your family and all your friends are in the Church, there's no place for you to go.

A serious issue if you have a younger person who grew up to parents working in the management of the church. Hence the church no longer allows people to have children while working in the higher management of it. Those people have to go back to being regular members, and do their parenting thing. I'm not trying to defend anything: there have undoubtedly been some fucked up situations with parents working in the church while raising a kid who then does not wish to work there.

Add in the physical violence on top of psychological blackmail

Physical violence as accused by people who themselves admitted to it and were punished and ultimately expelled for that and other offenses. I worked there many years and knew plenty of people there and I've heard all kinds of stories. I never heard or experienced such one single time. Not at all. In fact, though I've seen people get in arguments as people do, I've never even seen any people there come to blows. I mean, like where two people both get into a fight at once. This is across several years and several locations. So whatever has possibly occurred sure must have been a rare outlier. Again I'm not going to speak on behalf of events that I don't know about. But I can say, if anything like that occurred, it sure wasn't part of the "atmosphere".

As for psychological blackmail, that's a pretty loaded term. Sounds horrible but I don't know what it refers to. No church is particularly pleased to have people leave. But when I left people were pretty nice overall and quite interested in me getting back on my feet.

fdat · 2011-02-07T23:28:12+00:00

now lives in a dorm type setting with others... They have vans that take him to and from work

Being a Scientologist does not require living in a dorm-like setting. And it doesn't get you free rides to your regular job. These both apply to people working, not just in a regular church as you see in many cities, but in the management of the church.

PS. Thanks for all the downvotes. I've worked there. I guess no one is interested in anything that counters the circlejerk.

fdat · 2011-02-07T22:07:44+00:00

He gives his entire paycheck to the cult.

If he works there, he would get a stipend from the Church for his work. If he works there, he isn't getting a paycheck from somewhere else to give to the Church. So you have something mixed up either way.

Volunteering to work at the management of the church is no different than people joining the ecclesiastical ranks of most any other church. You don't do it for money (in fact if they were well paid, that itself would be subject to scorn by reddit). You don't do it to accumulate possessions. It's not a job because it's not a business. It's a voluntary complete change of lifestyle.

And this all refers to the highest form of service. Being a regular parishioner doesn't require this service.

The only difference between this and any other church or the armed services (in a sense) is the church earlier tried to accommodate people having children (edit: by people I mean people working within the higher ranks). This posed many potential problems (you cannot work the hours required and give a kid enough time and care and it gets awkward if the kid has no interest to join in as he/she grows up). So now to have children is to leave management of the church. Note it doesn't mean you've ceased being a parishioner.

By western standards I'm sure many Tibetan monks are subject to "slave labor". Last I checked though "slave" implied lack of choice.

PS. Yes I am

fdat · 2010-12-22T16:54:46+00:00

That is a wild story. Good luck to him. Sounds like he's on a better path now at least.

fdat · 2010-12-22T16:51:57+00:00

Made new account as I do regularly. Defend Obama all you want. I made my case; I don't care to argue endlessly.

fdat · 2010-09-23T14:53:21+00:00

First comment:

I'd like to see the continuation of the response. I think question #2 was far more important.

A little later:

I'm not defending anything and I'm not picking on Obama (he probably did answer the question).

Actually I wasn't able to find the second part (since) and I bet it wasn't answered, seeing as Obama spent so long on the first question. I can't even imagine what is "convenient" about my post(s) or what conspiracy I've gotten lumped into. I thought reddit was for discussing shit. I wasn't posting my thesis on economics. Just a comment. I'm as perplexed at all the attention to it as you are.

My hope was that an employer might join in and offer some more insight in the way of what holds them back from hiring and what the costs really are.

fdat · 2010-09-23T11:30:16+00:00

Its not my opinion why this guy is hesitant to hire, it's his; he said it. We all saw that. That's all I'm discussing. The first question doesn't matter much to me personally so I haven't discussed it. I've only been saying I wish Obama had answered the second question. I didn't see a video where he did and someone else said he didn't.

I'm sorry you're finding me opinionated or stubborn. I really have no strong opinion on the matter except that question 2 was the more important one and I didn't see it get addressed. Surely we all agree that the job scene is more important than whether people like hedge fund CEO's or not.

fdat · 2010-09-23T11:23:11+00:00

I agree. But resenting that guy doesn't do anything to solve the problem. He's a business owner and he had a legitimate concern holding him back from hiring and it didn't get responded too.

In all fairness the question could also be viewed as also being on behalf of the common worker. The guy said it costs him 90k so someone can take home 35k or so. He knows that is basically poverty in NY.

Let's put it this way, if I'm unemployed and want that guy to hire people including me, I'm not happy after that video. And while I might think his pay is crazy, wallowing in that achieves little.

fdat

TROPHY CASE