Is Scientology a Religion?

Mike Rinder addressed the question of whether Scientology meets the accepted scholarly and legal standards of what constitutes a religion in a presentation to the Philosophical Society at Trinity College in Dublin Ireland this week.   While versions of this address have appeared in the comments section of this blog already, here is a version with better audio than those posted thus far.  I recommend that anyone interested in the subject of Scientology listen to the entire presentation.

For those whose intellectual curiosity has been piqued here is the Australian High Court decision of 1983 that Mike referred to, Australian High Court.

For those who want to study the evolution of the establishment of Scientology’s religiosity, Justice Skelly Wright’s, of the D.C. Federal Appellate Court, 1969 opinion in the Food and Drug Administration’s case against the e-meter is essential reading, Founding Church of Scientology vs United States (1969)

Since 1983 many other legal precedents were delivered that further established the religious bona fides of Scientology offering constitutional protection to the practice of Scientology in other contexts.

Each one of those precedents was hard won by a lot of determined Scientologists over the past six decades.  That David Miscavige has cynically used those protections to create a sort of immunity for his commercial, criminal operations cannot be allowed to wipe out that selfless work for humanity.  The only thing that stands between Corporate Scientology’s avarice and the ruination of those Constitutional protections is a community of sincere, ethical, independent practitioners continuing to grow and communicate.

Please continue to grow and communicate.

318 responses to “Is Scientology a Religion?

  1. Is Scientology a religion?
    Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

    • CP-You really are a poet!

    • Lady minn would not see it as a religion wereass others will.

      No matter in the end the law has prefereance.

      My therapist uses concepts like “being in Exchane”and such I do Yogha at work and I often call myself a Dutchologist with in mind that the basis of my country is religious and non-religious tolerance as has been put forward by William of Orang-Nassau our “Founding Father” if you will.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Silent
      “William I, Prince of Orange (24 April 1533 – 10 July 1584), also widely known as William the Silent (Dutch: Willem de Zwijger), or simply William of Orange (Dutch: Willem van Oranje), was the main leader of the Dutch revolt against the Spanish that set off the Eighty Years’ War and resulted in the formal independence of the United Provinces in 1648. He was born in the House of Nassau as Count of Nassau-Dillenburg. He became Prince of Orange in 1544 and is thereby the founder of the branch House of Orange-Nassau”

    • Sychophants R Us

      Is Scientology a religion?
      Does Miscavige deserve to be CoB?

      You see, Cowboy Poet, we can all use old adages to qualify our points, no matter what side we’re on. Don’t make it true though, does it?

      Scientology is as much a religion as a house brick is a fire eating monkey.

      • Article 1 [Equality]
        All persons on Earth shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

    • maurizio serafini

      I believe that this one ‘argument’ is possibly the best by the book example of the disastrous effect of the homonimic nature of the language on ARCU.
      there’s a fantastic definition of religion in an earlier post from either Tom M or Alex C that should resolve any differences. please Alex or Tom re-post here. let’s put us out of our misery!😉

      • I am gladly re-posting the definition of Religion, the only one I firmly believe in:

        RELIGARE:

        “Religare is the latin word for “to reconnect, to bind together” which gave origin to the word religion. Attempts to define religion are manifold and various, but for the time being we will just say that religion is at the heart of an ancient human longing for meaning and oneness, inspiring both the civil and spiritual life. This is indeed an ambitious project, to explore the human spiritual quest from the point of view of such different traditions as the path of the Goddess, the voice of Angels, the way of Yoga, the rigor of Zazen, the chants of the Sufi and so many others. We will try to “re-connect” to a wide diversity of traditions and explore the spiritual path by the approach of different disciplines: history, art, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, theology, sociology, etc… but, more than anything, by the medium of our passions.”

        “The philosophy of religion is the science which examines the value of religion, and investigates with careful scrutiny the grounds of theistic belief. It seeks to provide a rational account of God and the universe (not founded on convention and belief). In its method of procedure and choice of arguments, it shows considerable variation, due in large measure to the different theories of knowledge that obtain in the world of philosophers.
        Generally though in philosophy, God is refered to as the One thing that exists, infinite and eternal, that causes and connects the many things.

        Likewise, Religion, from Latin ‘RELIGARE’ meaning ‘to bind’, describes our connection to God as the One thing which exists. From this foundation a connection can be found between the sciences of philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and theology, as they are all founded on the Reality of One thing existing.”

        Alex

  2. Bravo Mike, very well done!

  3. It’s Doc Holiday, not Dco Holiday – so sorry.

  4. L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings if presented to a person unaltered clearly indicate they were never written or destined to be the misunderstood chaotic public controversy they have become as a result of the Church of Scientology’s chronic inappropriate use of them over many decades. Scientology is a religion. The Church of Scientology is a corrupt, perverted use of that religion.

    • “Scientology is a religion”. I can quote Hubbard where he says it is not.

      But nevertheless it’s a system of believes

      • You can quote Hubbard. So what?

        Scientology does not belong to Ron Hubbard who died and passed over more than 25 years ago. It belongs to us now, and if we say it our religion, it is.

        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

        • Funny you say that. That is what Phil Spickler said in somewhat other wording.

          • I mean that it existed before the life of Hubbard and will exist adfter the Life of Hubbrd.

            And you are right. We all have the right to our own spiritualism.

            • Nicely put, Cat Daddy, we all have the right to our own spiritualism. meant to post the following as a reply comment to Mike Hobson above, but it ended up at the end somehow, Pardon any redundancy

              Mike wrote: “It belongs to us now, and if we say it our religion, it is.”

              And that is exactly what was in L Ron Hubbard’s heart and his stated, and more importantly demonstrated intent. There is so much love and devotion in his work, and what were his statistics if not placing tools in people’s hands to use, to restore their self determinism and dance with Life, their true Nature, and the cosmos?

        • Just because LRH no longer has a physical form doesn’t deprive him of any rights to authorship or ownership of the subject. And Scientology doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to the people of earth.
          More to the point is that it does not belong to Miscavige – it was never his to alter, manipulate or control and anyone who believes otherwise never was and never will be a Scientologist.

        • Anything else you did try to steal, Hobson?

          • “Minerva”, is that you?

            You are a complete idiot, if you think you can successfully run PR ops against me here.

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist

          • How can you tell an OSA Black PR Ops? Easy. Creepy attempts to introvert, discredit and cave in but missing the mark by not understanding and perceiving differences. So, I ask similars of their own. Minerva/RecentlyBlown: . Are you participating in the stolen and hijacked trademarks and copyrights of Scientology, thereby supporting twisted application and nefarious other agendas? Are you perpetrating the unsacred abuse of the Auditor’s Code and Training Academy?

        • And that is exactly what was in L Ron Hubbard’s heart and his stated, and more importantly demonstrated intent. There is so much love and devotion in his work, and what were his statistics if not placing tools in people’s hands to use, to restore their self determinism and dance with Life, their true Nature, and the cosmos?

      • CD.
        Respectfully I disagree.
        The word ‘Scientology’ means the study of knowledge or ‘knowing how to know’. It has nothing to do with any system or belief.

        • (The word scientology can have many meanings to be precise.)

          Scientologists adhere a certain “believe” in the methods how this knowing how to know can be achieved.

          And you all differ by the way on definitions and wheter scientology is a religion, a science or a philosophy.

          Hence “Applied Religious Philosophy” was concieved.

          • “And you all differ by the way on definitions and whether Scientology is a religion, a science or a philosophy.”
            CD
            Are the three mutually exclusive? 🙂

          • CD,

            You make the same mistake as Korzybski regarding semantics. No, indeed Scientology means what it means and nothing else.

            • Because of the two words it combines it is not that clear because those both words have several meanings.

              But I know what it means for you. “knowing how to know”

              Or having the knowledge how to come to even greater knowledge if I am correct in what is ment.

              • Right, that is where it comes from and how it was defined by the founder. And because it is the study of knowing in the fullest sense of the word, it tends to increase awareness. But it’s not a theoretical study; everything you learn is tested and proven practically, contrary to the study of wisdom for the love of intellectual exercise. The practical part is referred to by “applied”, the love of knowledge or wisdom is referred to by “philosophy” and “religious” tells you that the knowledge comprises recognition of nonhuman, superhuman or spiritual existence like in any religion.

      • CD,
        I’m not near my tapes but, in the the first tape of the Congresses, I believe it is The Spirit of Man series, LRH goes into detail as to why Scientology is a religion. IMO, he often stated both sides of things to get us to look. If you take it literally sometimes, the point is missed. He’s very clear in that tape. I recommend it.🙂

        • I don’t doubt that. I am not denieing anyone their religious or spiritual belief. I jus like pointing out contradictions. And not because I want to be a pain in the butt but rather joggle things in a still civilized manner.

          religion= that what we bind ourself too

          • I hope I’m not out of line here but you’ve mentioned probably one of the most significant advances Scientology has made to understanding the human condition. The GPM is composed of opposites or contradictions.
            It may be quite the gradient to really understand that, let alone put it into practice. (the Briefing Course is a major commitment and it’s applicational environment was destroyed many years ago within the CofS). But what is humbling IMO is that when those contradictions are contacted or restimulated the true resolution is based upon what present time goals or use you have for such information. The banks of GPMs are simply full of ready made gaols just itching to be applied to what you’re doing.
            The GPM is a tricky devil in that it promotes thinking and further thinking rather than objective observtion and application (replacing it instead with fixed ideas, hidden standards etc). Hubbard beat the drum for a long long time telling us to look (don’t listen) and apply – this becomes extremely difficult if not impossible if one wallows around in contradictions. Misunderstood word technology seems to have fallen the route of many other lost technologies. MUs play the mischief with ideas and beingness.
            This is my opinion only and is my religious answer to any such problems presented as to what is Scientology. Scientology is not a life replacement system but a system in which to understand and apply life.

          • Ok, I get that. Thanks.

      • Scientology is in the quantum superposition ☺ it isn’t a dichotomy or polarity subject

        The definition has evolved through time.

        The Etymological definition is as follows (from Etymological Dictionary): religion
        circa 1200, “state of life bound by monastic vows,” also “conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,” from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from Old French, religion “religious community,” from Latin religionem “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,” in L.L. “monastic life” (5c.);

        According to Cicero, derived from relegare “go through again, read again,” from re- “again” + legere “read”. However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare “to bind fast”, via notion of “bond between humans and gods.” Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens. Meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from circa1300.

        Current Dictionary Definition of RELIGION
        1
        : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
        2
        : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
        3
        : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
        4
        : archaic : scrupulous conformity ◄ ← refers to politicalized religion, i.e. that became “Church” with which religion was usurped by the corrupt for the purpose of conquest and power.

        When personal beliefs become institutionalized, the institution can be called a church, but the moment such “Church” FAILS to practice and violates repeatedly the observances and beliefs of a religion, it is, by simple fact, something other than the religion.

        Scientology can be seen to be a religion if only one one fundamental, in that it is the practice and application of a system of actions toward spiritual awareness, relief and liberation from mass (Matter/Energy/SpaceTime). It is not a religion from the fundamental that it is an empirically-based (as opposed to blind belief) experience.

    • It seems to be agreed by most that scientology is a religious philosophy. With this statement scientology is defind as a philosophy with an adjective which describes its main direction or nature. I joined staff at a scientology org in 1961 and I definitely did not believe I was joining a religious group. I was studying a philosophy which was intended to free the spirit of man from past enturbulations (pain and emotional memories which suppressed the person in present time). That is the religious nature of the philosophy of scientology. Personally I now believe that scientology has every right to call itself a religion, as the end result of auditing is a free being whose intentions are no longer influence by irrational memories of the past. It’s also a psychology, even a psychiatry but more so because the psychs believe all is brain and that the spirit does not exist, and they do it just by assumption without proof.

      • Small correction not a psychiatry ,,,, they endorse drugs as a method of therapy, psychologists do not, they are just talk therapy.

      • Scientology is a religious philosophy that one chooses to follow in life or not. Behind every philosophy is it’s truths or beliefs – the information it is based on. Scientology as written by L. Ron Hubbard is the truth of Scientology. There is no other source of this information. There never was and most likely there never will be. Just as Sam mentioned earlier, by saying that just because L. Ron Hubbard is not any longer in a physical form, this does not relinquish his right to feel that this tech is not any longer of his authorship. It was not authored by anyone ever, other than L. Ron Hubbard. Let us not forget, that Scientology covers the subject of creating OT’s. The Church of Scientology {which is an organized religion in itself NOT a religious philosophy} it is a corrupt, criminal, preverted use of the name and the philosophy of Scientology.

  5. Excellent job, Mike, thank you very much.
    And thank you very much for the info, Marty.
    I feel the real Sea Org spirit is functioning here.

  6. great stuff mike, where is Tommy?, oh sorry Tommy? someone took your post you little pts weasel…

  7. Way to go Miky!

  8. Bravo Mike,
    It was a very intelligent and professional presentation. And, the applause was genuine admiration of the speaker… very well done!

  9. Theo Sismanides

    Mike I think this is in the VERY RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, now. This
    is the Scientology I have been dreaming of. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You are the Official Spokesman of Scientology now for the whole World. I do admire your speech. I have to watch it carefully.

  10. Very Well Done Mike!

    I’m going to use this video as an introduction to any Scientologists who are on the fence and are ‘observing’ the independents.

  11. Beautifully done Mike. Thank you for representing our religion with such dignity and grace.
    Thanks also to John Duignan, Anonymous and other representatives in attendance who care enough about the civil and human rights of others to speak out against the abuses of the church under the dictatorship of David Miscavige.
    Apparently RCS did consider sending a representative to speak at this event (at the last minute) but instead settled for sending a small posse of wailing banshees who handed out DVDs with forced smiles and were heard later to be screeching somewhere outside the building. This was after their hard work organizing an ambush of Mike Rinder at Dublin Airport and forwarding DMs black PR campaign on Mike and other prominent members of the Independent Church of Scientology.
    Special thanks should go out to Siobhan Ryan and Regina Doyle from the Dublin Org who headed up the Banshee contingency. Your contributions in distinguishing the difference between real Scientology and the Radical Cult of Miscavige could not have been more timely and was duly noted by the students at Dublin University.
    Independent Scientology is alive and strong in Dublin. And for sure LRH is smiling 🙂

  12. Well written, and superbly communicated. Thanks Mike…no one does it better!

  13. Really good stuff Mike.

  14. Communicate? Grow? Audit? Train? Get auditing? Done, done, doing, doing, doing. Just the other day I had one of those awareness increases where you walk out and say to yourself “who changed the world, I was only gone (in-session) for half an hour!!!”. Love it, live it!!!

  15. Very, very well done, Mike!!! This talk will be required watching for people studying Scientology for years if not decades to come. It is a milestone.

  16. Good job, presented at the reality level of the audience.

  17. Very Well Done.

    Concerning religion as a discipline, like 8-C (good control), where an individual reaches a native state of infinity from an apparent state of self imposed succumb, there is a good usefulness for its existence. Now there is a Hubbard writing, perhaps in a book, where he states that there will come a moment in the individual’s existence when he will no longer need the disicpline of Scientology. From my research, study and application, I refrerence this to a summation of Buddhism, perhaps Houston Smith, where one wants to cross a sea to another shore. The being boards the ship, crosses the sea and reaches shore. Does the person then take the ship and carry it with him through his journey ashore? Here we have the ship as Scientology. When we reach the shore of Total Freedom we no longer need the ship. Now here is the catch of self realization at that level.
    We cognite that all the disciplines (data and technique) of Scientology we always possessed to get out of any trap we create or agree to (the game that backfired by one’s own choice). In fact, if we take the totality of the being and listed its attributes and abilities, we get a codified group of knowledge called Scientology. We are, if we observe ourselves, Scientology. We can reference first, second, third and fourth postulates for the game, and the Factors as the mode of operation. There is an order of magnitude to this.
    Whereas, most religions developed by man over the millenia, have attempted to lift man from a degraded state by various rituals and disciplines, Scientology indicates, that although a being may have gone into a degraded state, what is underneath the rubble, is a being of goodness, splendor and power with the infinite level of ethical standards.
    In closing, if anyone here can locate the Hubbard data I mentioned earlier, reply and reference it here for me.
    Thank you in advance.

    Again, thank you Mike for presentation. As you know, many more will go free.

  18. Mike-You are brilliant and magnificent!!! I really learned alot from this. I must say I have always regarded Scientology as a religion. I am not a certificate kind of person-I much prefer people are impressed with results than what is on paper, but I have always had my ministers cert on the wall next to my auditing table. Just call me Rev.

    • Reverend Smith, it is indeed a pleasure to become acquainted with such a beautiful minister!🙂 Real results are always better than certs that say nothing!🙂

  19. BEAUTIFULLY stated. Unarguable. The perfect illustration. This lecture will be referred to forevermore. Thank you Mike. Thank you.

  20. The evolution of Scientology has been an amazing thing to watch over the past few years. We are watching history in the making.

  21. Very comforting Mike. We all know as Independants what truly is at stake here. It is difficult to seperate out the objectiveness and perceptions the public must have of the increasing hard core evidence of criminal greed and explotation the Church has committed under the vail of religion.
    What does it take to ask not to be painted with that brush and still call oneself a Scientologist? Religious intolerance is a malady that sweeps across many borders and languages. I ask for no more than what I am entitled, my right to think and behave on my own determinism without enforcing that on others or breaking any laws.
    Who or what has the right to tell me otherwise?
    Thanks Mike, wonderful presentation. The truth is out there, I hope people are listening.

  22. Mike, it sure is nice to have you back on post. Thanks so much.

  23. You can argue all you want over whether something is a religion or not. But you cannot prevent the use of a religion to force other people to do as someone wants them to do. It is in the “nature” of man as he is on this planet. I can recall many down through the history of “civilization” on this planet and every one of them has gone the same way. I thought this time it would be different but I was wrong. I will never again join an organized religion.

    • Lynne

      Whether something can be called a “religion” or not is pretty much a matter of which definitions of “religion” are being used. It does not change what the “philosophy,” spiritual quest”, or “system of beliefs” actually is, or what it may mean to its “adherents”.

      “Organized Religion”, enters in the concept of rules and restrictions made in the best interest of the “organization”. The very words “organized “, or “organization” imply the existence of group “policies”. “Churches” of various religions fall into this category. It is through these various policies that “organized religions” can tend to depart from the original philosophy upon which the “religion” is based.

      I can certainly understand your viewpoint when you say; “I will never again join an organized religion.” As you say, all seem to have departed, to a greater or lesser degree, from the original tenets of the Philosophy. It is often greed, or control, that initiates these changes, but often it is also accumulated misunderstandings of the original philosophy itself.

      It sounds to me like you are choosing to follow the basic core values of some personal philosophy, and reject any alterations and interpretations of others that you do not see as aligning with those values.

      I applaud you for “keeping your personal philosophy working”. It demonstrates a commitment to your trust in your own viewpoint. If one also has a “willingness to look” and to change, you could ask no more.

      Eric S

  24. It is a delight to listen to Mike Rinder in the interview on TV3´s Midweek! His lecture at the Trinity College is superb. Brilliance and professionalism are showing clearly – the best of the best!

    A genuine spokesperson for Scientology!

  25. top of the vale

    Mike’s presentation is excellent. He clearly demonstrates that he is willing to communicate to anyone on any subject. I find it a bit scary that there is NO ONE from the Co$. Clearly it is unwilling to communicate succinctly, unless it forwards its own agenda.

    Looking at the Co$ from the top down, it appears that those further down the org board tend to emulate that which is at the top of the org board. One finds that those actions are successful then to emulate that is the order of the day….every day 24/7.

    Per LRH’s Chart of Human Evaluation found in the back of his Science of Survival under section ‘L’ – Subjects Handling of Written or Spoken Comm when acting as a relay point, LRH says that the 1.1 Relays only malicious comm, cuts comm lines, won’t relay comm.

    Freedom Mag has recently been nothing but malicious and infantile in its written meanderings. Not what you would expect from a magazine promoting freedom. This is more of a malicious hate crime rag that ‘cuts comm lines and won’t or refuses to relay the truth. It forwards its own 1.1 agenda. Exactly what the top of the org board dramatizes. Its ‘Actual Worth to Society Compared to Apparent Worth” demonstrates that it is a Liability to society, possibly suicidal (as an organization) and careless of others…and society’s viewpoint as a whole. Thusly, it has trashed its PR with its witless attacks and inordinate reckless attention on those who have left instead of directing its attention on what the CoS was founded on, delivering Dianetics and Scientology and true spiritual freedom.

    The only thing that Independent Scientologists want is to practice LRH’s technology the way he wrote it because they certainly can within the Church they used to have.

    THE CO$ HAS LONG SURPASSED BETRAYAL….IT HAS FALLEN DEEPLY INTO THE MORASS OF CONFUSION AND IT WILL STAY THERE UNTIL ITS MEMBERS AS A WHOLE APPLY THAT CONDITION TO THE ORGANIZATION. See http://www.savescientology.com and educate yourselves on that what the Co$ doesn’t want you to see.

    • TOV,
      That savescientology.com website’s layout is what should have been done at the original event when LRH left, way back in 86. THAT is what he intended for the governance of Scientology’s churches.

      That DM and Broeker did not lay this out clearly is the outpoint. The omitted is telling.

      Today that omitted is remedied and the actual send off and LRH’s planning for the future is available to all as it should be.

  26. If I were DM watching this, I would feel so utterly ashamed that I would throw myself in the lake. Of course, DM is watching this from a universe that contains only one being.

  27. The audiences positive reception indicated to me that they understand that scientology is religious. That endorsement was made all the more possible for them when one acknowledges the fact that current church activites have corrupted the basis of the philosophy and how its been represented in the puclic eye.
    A very small percentage of folks are actually anti-scientology. Mike’s excellent presentation was well recieved for that reason. I think scientology’s biggest enemy has been its own zeal, overreactions and the many other organizational mis-steps we are all too familiar with.

  28. Wow, it’s impressive to see history in the making. Awesome !!!

  29. Well done Mike.

    Thanks to Marty for posting a version that was audible.

    Did anyone understand the codification of the ringing bells in the background while the speaker spoke? Cuz I didn’t.

  30. Mike has rare gifts. What a bright and shining light within the debris of this civil war. A solid inspiration. A true friend to Hubbard in every meaning of the word. A true Scientologist in every meaning if the word. Pure aesthetics and the gratitude following his statements from doubtful challengers was almost deafening. If power is getting others to listen to you, I ask, who has the power?

    • reference: “People keep saying, ‘How’d you get power?’ ” Miscavige said. “Nobody gives you power. I’ll tell you what power is. Power in my estimation is if people will listen to you. That’s it.”

      http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologyquotes.html

      I think the outpoint on this “power” definition is that omits mathematics. I can get my dogs to listen to me. WHO is listening and HOW many would play a considerable role in this “power”.

      David may have a small group of fanatics that will still listen to him.

      Mike is communicating to THE WORLD. And he is not excluding anyone.

      It may be more fair to define power (one defintion only) as the ability to communicate truth without exclusions? The mathematical elements would then bring that power to the table where is could be scientifically identified and measured. And a person’s integrity would become a part of that measurement. Since power without integrity is an overt product, generally built on lies and illusion and holding an audience blind.

      • “I’ll tell you what power is. Power in my estimation is if people will listen to you. That’s it.”
        Yet another clear and shining example of alter-is from Miscavige (skip the cramming and go straight to ethics Squirrel Dave).
        The LRH definition of power is: ‘The ability to maintain a position in space’ (PAB 131)
        Yep. Rinder trumps Miscavige in the ‘power’ department 😀

  31. Mike: Masterful.

    Thank you.

    Love,
    WH

  32. Bravo!! Nice job Mike.

    Imagine that!!! A Scientology spokesman that is IN COMMUNICATION!! Someone that willingly acknowledges the REAL failings of the church and eloquently differentiates the church from the religous philosophy. BRILLIANT!

    David Miscavige – YOU SUCK!

    Mike Rinder – YOU ROCK!

  33. Very nicely done, Mr. Rinder.
    It’s fascinating to me how much your perception of the tech as a religious study agrees with my own perception of it.

    The spiritual and religious aspects of the tech simply are not and cannot be practiced within the gold-plated walls of miscavige’s cult. The inquisitions and selling of indulgences has been tried and failed in the past. A civilization without insanity will never be created by the likes of dm.

    Thanks so much for publicly wearing the hat of differentiating between the cult and the tech.

    Les

  34. I think my opinion will be roundly scorned by some posters on this blog but not by a high percentage of its readers.
    First off, the presentation itself rates about a “C+” imo, due to the somewhat rushed tempo and poor handling of audience questions. I think it could have been done as well or better by a large number of professional Scientologists, many with professional auditor training and years of experience at handling origination’s, could have fielded the audience questions far smoother. Given time to write the speech, any number could also have presented the case for the Scientology religion quite well.
    Secondly, as a 40+ year Scientologist I am embarrassed that someone who has to admit they beat people, lied, covered up crimes and executed all manner of criminal, moral and ethical offenses while working in an official capacity for the “church”, gives this pretense to represent Scientology and the vast majority of Scientologists in a venue like this.
    Someone who failed to live up to bare minimum standards of common decency, legal, moral and ethical behavior while an executive of the “church”,.does not and should not represent and speak on behalf of Scientology or Scientologists imo. And even more importantly, someone who failed their most senior duty to protect and safeguard the Scientology religion and technology, is unqualified because the legacy of LRH should be held to a higher standard.

    I know there are many qualified Class VIII’s or professional Scientologists who could have done a great job presenting the religious nature of Scientology. People who don’t have the baggage of past corruption and failure in their fiduciary responsibilities and who have lived and demonstrated the precepts we hold dear.
    People we could be proud to represent the subject.

    Friends and supporters of Mike R will take this as a personal attack. It is not. It is an assertion that it is time for Scientology and Scientologists, Indie or otherwise, to clean house. ALL the failed management and representation, past and present, needs to be replaced. Not just Mike R.

    • I am not taking it as a personal attack. I am taking it as a wonderful expose of your utter state of delusion.

      • +1, Marty.

      • David L, your comment is not an opinion, it’s an attack — an attack on the only decent public representation of Scientology that has occurred in ages.

        You wrote this:

        And even more importantly, someone who [blah blah blah] is unqualified because the legacy of LRH should be held to a higher standard.

        Yet on your very own website you sycophanticly rant over the brilliance of a person who cobbled together rap performances motivating on being related to Hubbard; that’s right, the great grandson who dramatizes misemotion and ignorance, and you call that brilliant!

        How deeply do you uphold the standards of auditing delivery? Do you go by the book? By LRH’s research and discovery? Or have you taken to tweaking it the way you think it should go?

        There is such a things as Qual — Corrections. Good staff is not “replaced”, those persons are helped. Ethics is help. Qual is help.

        Your comment is a blatant attack, and a hypocritical one that you roll out under the pretense of defending the standards of Scientology, and yet in the next breath over on another website you (a little over the top me thinks) support persons who bash the Founder.

        Here’s the cogent point in answer to your tirade of indignation about all the other people who could’ve gotten up and represented Scientology better: they didn’t! Mike Rinder did.

        It’s the people who read this blog who are, either publicly or behind the scenes, putting truth on the line at the cost of being maligned and attacked by the trademark shilling parasitic business that has hijacked Scientology.

        Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun differ from you in one way — they had the guts to stand up and take responsibility. For you to oarade out their little transgressions WHILE NOT PUBLICLY TELLING THE WORLD YOUR OWN is unfair playing ground. It is a break in the auditor’s code for one thing. It is a violation of the basic fundamental premise and purpose of Scientology: that a person can change for the better, and AS IS the past.

        But more importantly, there is not a single human being who would withstand being magnified 1000X without trangressions. Who among decent people hasn’t felt regret or shame or remorse? Scientology is a way to get beyond that. It’s appalling that you, who profess to be an auditor, great in an arena to rehash the PAST!

        So what are you really so upset about, David L. That’s for you to answer, and as-is.

        Mike Rinder, THANK YOU so much for opening this vital discussion and debate.

    • David L
      I’m sure you could have made a much better argument.
      Please do inform us of the venue where you will speaking on our behalf in the future and I’ll be sure to book tickets.

    • David L

      Quote: “I know there are many qualified Class VIII’s or professional Scientologists who could have done a great job presenting the religious nature of Scientology.”

      Yes, I believe you are right. But I beg you to notice who was actually THERE when the “job” was presented?

      I feel, from your communication regarding Mike Rinder, that there are potentially three things in play.

      1. You do not seem to hold true the concept, and reality, that people can change.
      And…
      2. You appear to be carrying some personal charge relating to Mike Rinder.
      And…
      3. You also appear to have personally assigned him a condition of “enemy” or , at least, “liability”. Fair enough. Apparently Mike has not yet done enough for you to upgrade his condition, in your eyes. I ask, Would he EVER be able to “make up the damage” enough for you to consider that he has some value in the forwarding of Scientology and the philosophies of L. Ron Hubbard? You assigned the condition, it is up to you whether this moves forward for you or not.

      Personally I consider Mike worthy of my trust and my admiration. I would be honored to be included among his friends.

      Eric S

      • I disagree. It has nothing to do with anything Mike RInder has done. It has everything to do with what the natterer himself has done. Pure and simple.

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          marty,……”..what the natterer himself has done…”

          youv’e just come in WAY too close for comfort …{ too bad he’s not holding the cans ! }

          Li’ll bit

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Marty,

          At this juncture , doesn’t it just feel amazing to know that your collective efforts will bring ” MISCAVOLOGY ” ever closer to having its ” founder ” dragged out of his ” HOLE” a la Saddam where after he will be forced to endure unprecedented world scrutiny that will make Saddam’s trial look like a ” tea party”. Message for the ‘SICK DWARF’ —Let the nightmare continue.

          Luv & support, Li’ll bit

      • Eric. Bravo.
        As a dedicated Scientologist of over forty years David L has obviously forgotten “What Is Greatness?”. He also exhibits the arrogance and “rightness” that is pervasive in Miscavige’s church today. Words for him to clear to complete understanding: “forgiveness”, “redemption” and “responsibility” as they apply to himself and Mike Rinder. And also a question: In the 40 year span that you devoted to Scientology, what did you do to counter the abuses you obviously knew were going on? Mr.L, it appears you are a sham.

        • To me it is even more basic than forgiveness, redemption and responsibility. Mike Rinder did more for Scientology – and a lot of good people – than he ever did bad against bad people. I guarantee you that Mike Rinder at his lowest ebb was doing more for humanity than the critic has done at any of his apexes, should they exist.

        • How would I “obviously” know the abuses were going on? I was fed the same load of crap as you were. The minute I found out about it, I spoke out loud and clear. I even created the second highest ranked website (to Marty’s) (click on my name if you haven’t seen it). Other than that, I cleared people, trained people and helped hundreds do bridge steps and go OT.
          Unfortunately for those who don’t like my opinion, I’ve got some serious stats. Of course I understand in this cockeyed rabbit hole we’ve fallen into, that no amount of training others, auditing others, helping others go OT and now broadcasting the abuses in volume 24/7/365 worldwide or any other actions could measure up to anything done or uttered by any reformed Int. Exec.. Especially if I happen to be of the opinion that those who colluded and co-conspired with DM to destroy Scientology do not warrant my allegiance to them as a spokesperson for the subject.
          You Michael, would be one of many many people who I would love to see interviewed and represent the best of Scientology.

          • Just so nobody buys this guy’s bs, there is not a single shred of evidence for his alleged stats. This guy is Grade II bait.

            • You’re proud of your Alexa stats Marty. Check it out.
              And maybe use your secret pipeline to get stats from the Dir’s of Clearing at AOLA, FSO, CCI, ASHO during the period between November 1987 and 2000.
              They won’t take my call. lol

              • I just took a look at your stats and site. You did lie. And your site is full of lies. Congratulations: you’ve been relegated to the spam folder.

              • One more thing – how can you be so critical of Mike and accuse him of destroying Scientology, meanwhile your “website” is all about saving Heber. Wouldn’t Heber be just as guilty of the crimes you accuse Mike (and Heber has done nothing to expose the abuses he knows about)? Isn’t he also an evil man who has failed to stop Miscavige and can never be forgiven for his sins, as you have clearly labeled Mike? Or I guess you just pick and choose who YOU decide are the true evil Ex-Int execs based on your own crystal ball opinions. The point is you are non-sequitur and illogical and therefore clearly you have some other vested interest other than what you are stating.

          • David L,
            Back again I see. OK, this following may not be an obscure quote, but it does seem apropos.
            “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt.

    • Just curious…how many hours of auditing did you deliver last week?
      How many student completions?
      How many auditors have you personally trained (or has your independent field group trained) in the past year?
      And, again just out of curiosity, how many people have you enlightened on the value of the tech, and the difference between “the tech” and “david’s so-called church?”

    • Dear David L,

      I think the argument for Scientology’s religiosity is hampered by a 4 decades long mindset and inadequacy of the GO, and carried on by OSA.

      I’d say Mike unfortunately is pegged to the best that the GO and OSA and their lawyers and academics they chose to use.

      William James and Harriet Whitehead . Their writings are more psycho-analytically and psychologically slanted, which I think the GO thought LRH wouldn’t like have those arguments used in his corner of the religion label battle.

      But the biggest fact I’ve learned since leaving Scientology, is that Scientology IS a mental/spiritual psychotherapy, and within the “upper levels” is a great deal of all importantly delivered therapeutic exorcism.

      Despite LRH’s prejudices against psychiatry and psychology, James’ and Whitehead’s writings give way more legitimacy to Scientology’s spiritual therapy religion than the GO/OSA evolved arguments.

      James’ candid honest looks at what a religion is, are really all one needs to defend Scientology’s auditing as religious practice.

      I wouldn’t think that Class 8’s unfamiliar with how to translate Scientology back into honest language, will be effective.

      I think the discussion of the nuts and bolts of Scientology, especially discussing the “Bridge to Total Freedom” chart, in simple layman’s language, is the way to defend the spiritual therapy practice.

      But Whitehead gives why psychotherapy like mental transformations are absolutely religious activity also, so her book is a must read.

      Mike sounded a bit to me like the old Scientology spokesperson, drawing on the old GO/OSA tradition.

      I think Scientology as a whole has failed to do a professional looking and honest comparison of itself, and really help scholars.

      One major block has been the confidentiality of the “upper levels” which are simply a form of therapeutic exorcism, and exorcism is so much a religious activity, it’s a huge missed opportunity to even MORE make the case that Scientology religious practice is like traditional religious practice on other religions!!

      Were I there at this debate, I’d have given Mike my vote, but I think it will be up to others outside the self-instilled prejudices against psychotherapy who have the best chance of more fully defending Scientology’s religiosity of it’s auditing.

      And the auditing is how one gets to the top of the Bridge, no way around it.

      Mike’s points one for one, I’d vote his way. Agreed he should have taken up the counter arguments, but that’s his first debate. I’m sure anyone with a little practice could be a good debater.

      I liked the fast speaking final speaker, against Scientology, but I wouldn’t vote his way. His final arguments were based on the additional features of Scientology, the non religious aspects of it, which fine, those aspects are the things that COULD be reformed, longer range, if one brings up the details of how official Scientology WAS to function, like letting the Exec Strata do it’s job.

      Scientology’s defense needs a book length defence. I’m not in favor of OSA even continuing in existence.

      I’d be in favor of having a sub-unit of Exec Strata do religious studies.
      (I think the unit that needs MOST beefing up, and latitude and time to do their homework to reform Scientology, is the Exec Strata).

      The GO and OSA should have relied MORE on James and Whitehead, but Whitehead only wrote her book in 1987, but the GO should have been more forthcoming with their allies in the time period they were securing the initial religious “cover” support in the late 1960s and 1970s.

      They were hampered by the confidentiality of the “upper levels” not even being allowed to be admitted were a form of “exorcism” which would have been a great “go” button that the spiritual therapy of Scientology was in the religious tradition.

      • LRH recommended William James in at least one lecture I listened to.

        • I was directed to William James by LRH in the original listing of people to read that was in Science of Survival. He’s mentioned in several places in various tapes.

          The book was Varieties of Religious Experience as I recall. I read some, not all, of it.

    • David, you attempt to paint Mike as an unworthy spokesman and then deny your doing it. Your comments remind me of the expression about pissing in someones face while telling them its raining.
      No one is holding you or anyone else back from publicly having their say. Go for it. Feel free to step on out and ring up the media.
      And i find the timing suspect that with the Independent movement gaining traction and Mike emerging as a leading spokesman, you attempt to undermine his credibility.
      The fact is that in front of a live, well informed audience in Dublin, dealing with a subject which has received world-wide scorn, Mike Rinder hit a home run. The Irish have a pretty good built in bullshit detector, and all I heard was rousing applause. High marks indeed. I would say your grading is at the low end of the scale.

    • I remember back when I was involved in debates at the University it was considered bad form to interrupt a presention before the speaker had finished. It tends to derail the points that are being made, and lowers the quality of the activity. Questions come after the speakers have finished. I could see that Mike was thrown off momentarily by the unexpected and unwelcome intrusion, but he did exactly what LRH would do, he used TR4 and finished his cycle of action. Could it have been done smoother … sure … I suppose it can always be done smoother.

      As far as those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones attitude, there is some merit to that, but Mike is an authority and is trained to do exactly what he did, and he should continue to do so. If another stands up and is capable of carrying on that hat, great, because then we’ll have two spokesmen.

      Rather than cleaning house, I’d settle for a genuine ethics change, which is clearly the case for all who post on this blog, including you.

      And just to be clear, I”m not a Mike or Marty fan, I am a supporter of those who promote basic LRH tech for the common good. Mike and Marty, and countless others, are doing what they can because it is their duty to do so. They are supported by myself and others because it is our duty to do so.

      b

    • To be succinct, David L, you are an enormous IDIOT.

    • Tom Gallagher (my real name)

      “David L”,

      Are you Miscavige in drag? In other words, a coward?

      Have a nice life……….

    • 1. Public speaking is not auditing. This was a debate, not a session.
      2. Mike did a superb job of derailing the questions.
      3. Every SO member current and former is complicit in the overts of the SO. Same with any ex-staff member, and I include myself in that bucket. As a result, by being ashamed of Mike, you are ashamed of all SO and all Staff. Some Scientologist you are. What were YOU doing these last 40 years?
      Finally, Mike’s argument was spot-on. He is not a staff member now. He is not a member of the SO now. He is a private citizen who very eloquently stated our case, and that includes the case of Scientologists who are still in the Church. You seemed to have missed that point in you ad hominem post.

    • There was not a lot of explanation of how this debate was going to be executed other than Mike knew he had 10 minutes to give a presentation and that was it. So he prepared a 10 minute speech with exact points he wanted to cover. Every time he answered a question from somebody in the audience that took time off the clock. He had various points he wanted to make and had to decide whether to answer the questions, or finish the speech and cover the points within his 10 minutes. Afterwards he spent a lot of time with individuals one on one answering many more questions that he just couldn’t answer during the 10 minutes he was given. There were a total of about 8 speakers each with 10 minutes and the timing was very sharp and well controlled.

      Your lack of application of basic Scientology principles with regards to Mike shows that you seriously don’t know what you are talking about.

    • Indie-saurus-rex

      @ David L.

      It’s funny. I’d like to hear your take on Nelson Mandela. Clearly he was the wrong choice to represent, as President, the people of South Africa… you know, because he did some questionable things during the early days of the ANC.

      What about Gandhi? Didn’t he have a mistress? Scumbag. Burn him at the stake.

    • Your “opinion” is actually a ser fac. What were you doing your 40+ years?

      • P.S. You seem to have your attention in “the past”. Actually, “Mike’s past”. As a helpful aside “the past” is something you can address and handle all the way on the clearing course plantens. Highly beneficial!

    • I don’t even know who David L. is…
      but I DO know who Mike Rinder is.
      And I also know that this presentation he did, distinguishing between religion and the current “Church”, has made me feel better, and less embarrassed, about being able to call myself a Scientologist. Mr. Rinder did here what the current reps of Corporate Scientology could never do. He presented truth.

    • Ignoring the personal attacks, let’s focus on the period of time that has passed whilst these issues have gone un-checked.

      30 years yes 30 years.

      You have had 30 years to “clean house” and here is someone actually realising the “house” is not needed. Secondly this person is actually trying to do something about it and communicating.

    • What has Scientology missed on you?

    • I do not take your statement as a personal attack. To me it seems to be a statement saying “I do not knot that Scientology works. I have not found out, yet, that harmful acts can be handled to lose their grip on the person. I have not found out that people can change.”
      I knew an SP who told a Tour-registrar that a certain person should not be contacted for regging for OT levels because he “would have overts”. The reg answered “In our org we handle overts”.
      This reg knew that Scientology works.

    • David L
      Can only conclude from your post that a personal anguish and vendetta has taken an unworkable road to handle. Wrong target, David. And such post belongs to the natter boards, perhaps already there gaining acceptances you longed for. Disappointing…. to say the least.

    • You said, “I know there are many qualified Class VIII’s or professional Scientologists who could have done a great job presenting the religious nature of Scientology.”
      OK. Where were they? Why didn’t they show up? Why didn’t YOU arrange for them to be there?
      On your second point, in my opinion, it is quite an advantage for the spokesman NOT be a “skweeky clean” , “perfect individual”, “perfect Scientologist” (if there is such a thing). Mike Rinder is REAL. Mike Rinder has been around the block – several times. He comes across NATURALLY. You can have a conversation with him and he will acknowledge you and grant you BEINGNESS. Personally, I would love to sit down and have a beer with Mike Rinder. And I’d bet everyone in that conference room would like to do the same.
      Additionally, didn’t LRH put forth the postulate of as-isness? Does that apply only to “good Scientologists”? Is Mike Rinder allowed as-isness for his past deeds? Mike Rinder’s past transgressions are plastered all over the internet – are you now judge and jury . David, I don’t know you, but you surely come across as a shallow Scientologist.
      I appreciate some of your critique – there is room for improvement in us all. But, get off your high horse (40+ year Scientologist embarrassment with Mike Rinder) and GET REAL.

    • The difference between Mike and those “many qualified Class VIII’s or professional Scientologists” is that HE WAS THERE and got the job done, and they were not.
      So you go ahead and judge by the qualifications and potential, while I judge by the product and say Mike – is a Pro, he is taking responsibility for the post and gets the job done. He wears The Boots and he walks the path.
      Bravo, Mike!
      Shame on you, David L.

    • David L.
      Damn right, your views in this posting would get opposed!
      People CAN change. That is what Scientology is all about.
      If you feel so nattery go take a walk before posting. Maybe the missing piece, the source of your misemotion will pop up and set YOU free.
      Here we have another Indie reaching out internationally and tell the world where things are at, setting the record straight between scientologists in the Co$ and the Indie field and you can’t find ONE good thing to acknowledge about that.
      Tze, tze, tze…..Look in the mirror, man!
      Greta

    • I will say no more than what a stream of Judgments.
      Would not want to live in your head, even for a minute.

  35. Michael Fairman

    Mike
    Thank you for a cogent, point by point presentation of Scientology as a religion. A religion one should be free to practice, or not, as one sees fit, without attack or interference from any quarter. Your closing remarks give absolute validity to “what is true for you, is true for you”. And that, seems to me, to be unassailable.

  36. top of the vale

    Sorry, a typo in my text above corrected below.

    “The only thing that Independent Scientologists want is to practice LRH’s technology the way he wrote it because they certainly can(can’t – correct) – [typo] within the Church they used to have.

  37. Wow Mike! I am just in tears of joy over your words.

  38. Chad Braunersrither

    Mike did a wonderful job. I don’t think many of us doubted that he would mess up this opportunity. He’s been representing the church for years and now independent Scientology and has done a good job and has a great presence about him.

    I don’t feel like I heard anything new from what Mike presented. Anyone who’s been around Scientology for any amount of time has heard the arguments presented by Mike. With that being said, I wish someone would post the responses to Mike’s speech. I’m sure they’re some brilliant minds there that may have a different viewpoint or maybe they agree but I would love to hear from the other side. I feel like we tend to hear enough from believers or ex believers. Like my dad use to say “Let’s hear from someone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight.”

    My 2 cents.

    • Chris,
      One piece of feedback was that usually the students come into these debates with fixed ideas that tend not to change.
      At the end of the evening some of the students originated that their ideas about Scientology had changed which was considered to be an interesting development of this particular debate.
      There were many personal discussions after the debate and the opinions were varied.
      The general consensus from all sides was that people have a right to their own personal beliefs when it comes to religion as separate from the issue of the human rights abuses that occur in RCS. That coming from both those who did and did and did not have a dog in the fight.

  39. Li'll bit of stuff

    Gunner {…. V W D….} Yes indeed, Mike pulled it off at Trinity. Great to see him taking on the” Courtroom Jury “.where he says he felt ” like the sacrificial lamb here”.Don’t worry Mike,we KNOW it was nervousness from rustiness but [WHEW!!] now THAT one’s out the way, we know it gets easier! like the wonderful Collette Interview,previously. Thank you, VWD !!!

    Gunner , brilliant post and imagery, I’m sure you’ve read the great Khalil Gibran’s ” THE PROPHET ” , where he makes similar refs. Although, like you, the LRH ref. escapes me, here’s one that’s with me forever; captured for posterity on L.RON HUBBARD’s Clearing Congress video/dvd –” THE FACT OF CLEARING.”The Ol’ Man talks of….”the number of struggles we have had, to find out the few things we have to know…..went through eight miles of jungle and swamp…..and found out { It all comes down to }…DUPLICATION! ” We behold LRH’s brilliant AXIOMS on DUPLICATION { in o-8 } and by simply “GETTING” these,{duplicating} we achieve pure UNDERSTANDING { of anything we choose !}……… Brilliant hey ?

    Lots’a luv Li’ll bit

  40. Tom Gallagher (1/4 proud Irish)

    Thanks Mike. Simply impressive. The sound of the applause following your presentation sums it up quite nicely.

    Oh, and the sweet irony that, you, an ‘Independent’ made the case for the nature of this applied religious philosophy.

    The ‘church’ is dead. Long live Scientology.

  41. “accepted scholarly and legal standards”….
    Well that’s the problem isn’t it, they refer to different things. Scientology (the set of beliefs) isn’t the Church of Scientology (the organisation). Lawyers cannot decide on the former, theologians cannot decide on the latter.
    Nevertheless they attempt to do so, aided and abetted by the Church which maintains that it IS Scientology and that non-members are not, by definition, Scientologists. Oh, and also by some critics who don’t want the words ‘scientology’ and ‘religion’ associated under ANY circumstances. All the Church’s silly ‘bona fides’ documents they obtained from ‘religious experts’ at the time of the IRS Big Win were used to support that false premise, the IRS grasped at the straw and waived the Church through.
    The trick is not to confuse the two and keep the two questions seperate.

    • I’ve long appreciated your thoughts Hartley, for years on alt.religion.scientology, I learned a lot from your postings.

      Two scholars NOT even used by Scientologists, who better than the scholars Scientology has used, to support Scientology’s religiosity are William James and Harriet Whitehead.

      The dead famous and very relevant American scholar, William James, absolutely, his “The Varieties of Religious Experience”, if one reads that first, and then reads Harriet Whitehead’s “Renunciation and Reformulation” second, a practicing Scientologist today, would see even better than the last 4 decades of GO/OSA legalistic arguments (GO/OSA just want to win the label in court), the GO and OSA PR people haven’t even tried use James’ and Whitehead’s supportive writings that I think provide a better winning argument the public would accept, were it simply laid out.

      William James’ “The Varieties of Religious Experience”, and Whitehead’s “Renuciation and Reformulation” ought be required reading for Scientologists, especially for the Watchdog Committee, and the Exec Strata. Or better send WDC and Exec Strata to college, and have them ALL minor in religious studies.

      One area Scientology is truly NOT professional, is in the area of religion study internally.

      Int Base staff study quite a bit of outside world tech relating to their “production lines” at the Int Base, but the “think tank” of the movement, the Exec Strata, doesn’t study as widely as it should.

    • PS. Tut tut Marty. It wasn’t a presentation or an address, he was guest proposer in a debate. No need to spin that to make it sound better. There were other speakers you don’t mention.

      • Harley,
        You didn’t mention the absence of semi-colons in Marty’s opening piece. Tut tut, missed that eh?

      • HP
        and, your point is..???

        Mike,
        Thank you for willingly taking on a very difficult job. One that was noticeably absent of any current staff in OSA whose primary purpose for being in OSA is supposed to be the protection of LRH and the subject of Scientology, along with its organizations. You are still the best spokesman for Scientology and that was very obviously proven by your presentation and its response.

        ML, Eileen

  42. And with that fine presentation, the seed has been planted in another mind of a high level exec within DM’s Wehrmacht, to leave and find freedom to practice what has been denied them.

    Come on, I can just feel it. Just walk out the door. Give it a try. If you find it worse than before, just go back in. There is no OSA in the independent field that will stop you from being free.

  43. Mike, you are one of the most dignified, poised and courageous “sacrificial lambs” I have ever encountered😉. Brilliant delivery of speech!!! And by the way, you should have offered your counterpart debaters a TR course, especially the Atheist gentleman…😉

  44. Seeing Mike in action today reminded me of earlier times when Scientology was discussed openly and honestly.

    When I first got into Scientology there was free flow communication. People were encouraged to look, ask questions and expand their viewpoints. Gradually these lines have been cut by the church to the point that on lines public are “careful of” when discussing the subject Scientology. How do I know this? I was a Div 6 Reg. The public often worried about their selectees and this worsened as the Ideal Org and IAS campaigns grew. Even those selectees who trusted the staff to care for their public knew they could not control the organizations greedy tentacles during one of the “mandatory” events and the result is almost no dissemination is occuring inside the church, witness the dwindling orgs.

    Over the past couple of years, the Independant Field is reversing all of those cut comm lines. Firstly, the Scientologists was addressed through blogs and websites and even fireside chats with Marty and Mike.

    Then their was the greater public outreach such as Marty’s recent trip to Germany and Mike’s to Ireland as well as all of the interview and talk shows over the past two years not only opening up those comm lines again, but stripping off the false data created by the church.

    Mike communicates in such an unforceful manner and in a way that the public can understand him, which makes his communication so easy to have. It is an invitation to look. When was the last time you had an invitation from the church that wasn’t laced with threats of loss, fear or degradation? Had you been given quotas to get new people in? When was the last time the church allowed you to think for yourself? What Mike is demonstrating here is what I call natural dissemination. I’d take odds that some in that group shifted their viewpoint in regards to Scientology and some might even look a bit more closely at it, for themselves. Once again, we are experiencing a renaissance of free communication…now that is Scientology!

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Karen B

      THANK YOU for your sagely insight and R- Factor in sharing your earlier times with us. Yes, there WAS open communication, lots of FUN and genuine heart- felt LAUGHTER, simply because we were free to ENJOY Scientology. We SHALL AGAIN SOON !!!

      much luv, Li”ll bit

    • Yes, Karen B. It reminded me of that also. Ever since last night, when I saw the video of Mike Rinder’s interview on Irish TV, I have felt so much hope and joy for the future.

      Mike Rinder and all supporting and creating this action are safe-pointing discussion and application and curiosity in Scientology.

      The greatest differentiation this society needed was spearheaded by Marty Rathbun’s blog — this is where it began, the public conversation of DIFFERENTIATION between Scientology compared to the travesty $hamtology shilling the trademarks for vested agenda and contrary purposes and parading out one baboon thug after another as a so-called “spokesperson.”

      I know what a PPRO looks like and has at heart. Anyone WINNING from a well-delivered session (and there are reasons for standards, it’s simply called workability and knowing WHY and HOW something is working) is essentially a PRO, a shining example.

      A person whose talents are to present and communicate about a subject or person with the public, eloquently, fairly, genuinely, devotedly, with sincere passion and savvy of fielding the crocodiles in the waters acts in the capacity of an LRH PPRO.

      Mike Rinder, standing ovation!!!

  45. Eloquent, confident, sincere, and knowlegable. Yup, the hat fits!
    The speech made me tingle with pride!
    Well done, Mike.

  46. As an atheist ex Scientologist, who does not even believe the soul is a real thing, I have always considered Scientology’s claim to be a religion or religious practice is valid.

    I urge people wanting some detailed discussion of religion, and the label fitting or not, to Scientology: :

    1) William James “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (free online)
    2) Harriet Whitehead’s “Renunciation and Reformulation” (cheap on Amazon)
    3) “Cults and New Religions” by Cowan and Bromley 2008

    Most important, to me, is William James’ lectures turned into the book “The Varieties of Religious Experience”. To me, THAT should be required reading for all Sea Org members, and Briefing Course students.

  47. Kudos, Mike. It is really a shame that Cof$ has to be bypassed to make presentations like this. Marty, thank you for validating all the dedicated Scientologists who worked so hard to get Scientology appropriately recognized as a religion. It is a huge crime that POB now uses the fruit of this labor of love to hide his crimes behind – especially when he did nothing himself to create the legal precedents and recognitions but not only hides his crimes behind them, but also has taken the credit for the recognitions achieved during his dictatorship.

  48. Wow Mike, incredibly clear, easy to understand, compelling presentation. A hell of a lot better than the over the top SFX presentations put out by the “church” to overwhelm the viewer and “annihilate the credibility of the SPs” (some of Miscavige’s favorite words).

    I noticed that the audience was “with you” and they could receive your comm and didn’t ridge. You are a real person, you don’t try to make the subject appear perfect (one of the things that ARC break the public to no end) and lo and behold: suddenly there is real communication.

    Congratulations – you ARE the new spokesperson of the Scientology religion.

  49. I have to add, because this is SO important:

    There are a lot of people out there who would be interested in Scientology (or be more friendly towards it at least) but repelled by the way it is presented to the world by the “church”: perfect, the only necessary and final solution to everything in all known universes, looking down to non-Scientologists, trying to appear 100% right 100% of the time and 100% correct in their actions.

    Such person, group or organization doesn’t exists, and this is why anyone with an IQ over 55 will IMMEDIATELY reject someone who states they are perfect at that level… it is an ARC break. LRH never said he was perfect or Scientology was perfect. The fact that Miscavige tries to make LRH and Scientology appear so gets the exact opposite effect – people instinctively try to prove it wrong because it sounds illogical, and you know from the Data Series what people do with outpoints – they REACT. And I wouldn’t be surprised if this unreal presentation of LRH and Scientology was in fact INTENTIONAL on the part of Miscavige.

  50. A wonderful example of free and effortless communication of truth. Thank you Mike for what you are doing. In your wake auditing and training are occurring.

  51. Mike Rinder
    ★★★★★ TEN STARS ★★★★★
    This was indeed a stellar presentation.
    Probably one of the biggest fallacies Miscavige perpetrates is that whistle blowing on the “Church’s” corruption, criminality and abuse is attacking the Religion and Philosophy of Scientology.
    You separated out the “Church” from the works of L Ron Hubbard
    clearly and articulately.
    This is the ultimate LIE.
    That the “Church” of Scientology is the same as the philosophy, works, and doctrines.
    Superb job on differentiating.

  52. Very Well Done, Mr. Rinder!

    “Giving is the beginning and the end of the religious life”
    Venerable Vajiro, Thai Buddhist monk

    Mr. Miscavige takes and takes and takes.
    The Independent Movement gives and gives and gives.

    GMW

  53. I’ve always said that scientology is a religion under the far wider definition of religion that exists today. It would fail under older definitions which were largely influenced by established religions.

    In the UK the point is moot thankfully in so far as religions are not automatically conferred tax exemptions and charity status. Indeed the church of scientology organisation is case in point when all such matters are raised.

    The USA appears ham strung by its constitution but this is only because of the power of the established religions who see having taxes imposed as a violation of religious freedom. This is not what was intended. All that was intended was that the state could not outlaw a religion.

    The UK model works because they have a benefits test that needs to be met before an organisation meets the criteria for charitable status. This is applied equally to all organisations whether religious or not.

    The same system should work in the USA but there you get hung up on religious persecution too easily.

    Under a benefits test system it would be possible for a real charitavle endevour by independent scientologists to be granted charity status while the cynical attempts to claim doing good is helping the church of scientology by said churcb would not. Note the preponderance of your work has to really help, no strings attached, none scientologists.

    The puritans left England to get away from religious freedom in order to set up a country that was run to puritanical values.

    The founding fathers were a mixed bunch, including atheists, who wanted a country of tolerance. The result is the USA of today where religion is the focus of most of the issues and the issues mostly arise from intolerance. The founding fathers failed as of the 1950’s when the religious right wing decided to get political and all that “in god we trust” and “one nation under god” nonsense crept in to what should be a none denominational country.

    As independent scientologists you mostly seemed to have worked out that independent means free thinking and that you don’t need a church to tell you how to interpret what you believe; and Hubbard said what is true for you is true for you so it really is an individual voyage.

  54. Here’s the thing an organisation should not be assumed to be beneficial to society just because it is built around a religion. The church of scientology is corrupt, corrupting and dangerous in its current form; remember anonymous said they would destroy it in its current form. Such organisations cannot be allowed to exist.

  55. Chad–As a Christian without a “dog in the (Scientology) fight”, I find Mike Rinder’s comments very valid in the argument that Scientology is indeed a religion–something I’ve doubted prior to listening to his presentation. What I think he should have done was make a better case against the Church of Scientology as a religion. Just my opinion.

  56. As an addendum to the above, I do have a Master’s degree but I do not consider myself a scholarly person except in my field. My strenth is in Management.

  57. Excellent TR’s and presentation, Mike.

    Let alone the well-reasoned subject matter in the content of your presentation, your voice (when compared to the other speakers in the debate) was clear and understandable, cutting through the ambient noise, audience noise and equipment/acoustic deficiencies in the space.

    Now that’s what I call well executed public speaking.

  58. To all who have commented on this and the last post, thankyou for your acknowledgements and appreciation.

    Christie and I just arrived home from Dublin, and are finally able to access the internet (it was not impossible in Ireland, just difficult due to poor connections in the hotel and then we have been on the go pretty much for 24 hours).

    The debate was a different experience, unfortunately I was unable to discuss any of the content of the others involved beforehand, and found out the “rules” about 20 minutes before the debagte began. For those who wondered about the significance of the bells, the first minute and last minute of the presentation are free from questions (signified by the bells). I realized after the first question that if I spent any time at all on responding to questions I would not get to the end and what I considered the most important point to make. Should I participate in another debate, I would approach it a little differently.

    But the organizers of the debate were extremely pleased and said that the main guest speakers they want to present the information they have, rather than engage on oratory. There was much lively discussion after the debate itself that was very interesting and I do believe that quite a number of people saw things in a different light after the presentation.

    I think perhaps the most significant thing about this whole trip was the fact that all the RCS could do was “protest” and drop off “D/A” materials that the media people called “bumph.” They are doing NOTHING to actually dissemiante Scientology. The PRUK (Graeme WIlson) was even in Dublin for the time I was there — but he didnt appear in the public. Several people from the Dublin Mission came to the debate and informed us they are “independent Scientologists”…

    Again, thanks to one and all for your comments.

    And I look forward to more opportunities for people on this blog to get the word out. Maybe even David L will show up somewhere and show us all how its really done right🙂

    • Great presentation Mike. You got the major points included. Great intention by you in getting that done.

    • Mike,
      I thought you did an excellent job, constraints and limited experience with the forum all considered. You addressed elegantly the academic audience to hand, and your articulated succinctly the essential philosophical and legal arguments for the religious nature of the subject of Scientology. I loved the reference to the factors. I am grateful that you dared take up the debate and speak out for Scientology.
      Leonore

    • Mike,
      This quote from the beginning of your talk says it all, “Jihadists act in the name of religion; they do not define Islam. The abuses of zealots in the Church of Scn no more defines the religion of Scn.”
      Great analogy. And brilliant positioning: DM & Jihadists. So true!

      You were great.
      Pat

    • Mike,

      Considering your history it must feel especially liberating to speak YOUR mind regarding religion. Never again will you need prior POB approval and or have to be concerned over a POB “performance rebuke”.

      It was passionate, genuine and asked people to try to differentiat human error from religious efficacy. A religion is not the sum total of all errors made by its members: I believe that is an important point that is going to have to be made over and over. Great Job!

      Don

    • Martin Padfield

      Mike, that you would take a week out of your busy life to do this on behalf of free-thinking people everywhere speaks volumes about you, and the hysterical reaction from RCS only underscored the very point you were making; that radical “Churches” are not religious; and that it is anyone’s inalienable right to practice his religion or faith howsoever and wheresoever he/she wishes. Thank you for your fine work. The next Guinness is on me.

      • “Several people from the Dublin Mission came to the debate and informed us they are “independent Scientologists”…”

        I like this ^^^ I wonder if there are more indies than actual dear “members” in Ireland now?

        And stop talking about Guinness.🙂

    • You hit it out of the park.

  59. Mike,
    Incredible presentation, your points were concise and well communicated, separating RCS from LRH’s Scn. Nothing else – delusional opinions not shared by many need any response!

  60. Tom Gallagher (my real name)

    As a little bit of a reminder, here’s a video clip of David Miscavige’s version of his “Success Through Communication Course” graduates.

    They’re the ones in the blue capes.

    Apparently, there was a similar troop outside the Dublin presentation delivering “effective” blows against the enemies of his Radical Corporate Scientology. The church is dead.

    In a minor way, POB’s cult exists, although, as a sick joke.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/sthtexlensman#p/u/16/ORdz_Wr755Y

  61. THANK YOU MIKE, MANY TIMES OVER. BRILLIANT PRESENTATION.

  62. Indie-saurus-rex

    From my point of view, you effin’ nailed it Mike!

  63. Mike, very well presented. I completely enjoyed listening to your certainty, calmness, and right on point presentation. It would make me want to know more about the subject!

  64. Thank you, Mike!! Great job speaking for us all. You are the real Pro. Welcome back on post! 🙂

  65. There is something about Mike Rinder that is just so pleasant.

    Congrats Mike. I watch this video- you are embodiment of the archetype “The phoenix rising from the ashes”

    Imagine that day when you walked from the Sea Org–. I read interview when you described the hopelessness and despair that day as you walked around London. …… And everything you have been through since– losing your family, starting over in the ‘real world’, the smear and harassment campaign you had to endure, “the road of trials”

    And now speaking at the Philosophical Society at Trinity.

    You are living the Hero’s Journey as described by the great Joseph Campbell.

    What a great example you leave for so many, including myself.

    Love,

    Brian

  66. “Religion” began universes ago as a big alter-is designed to form groups and control beings. It was a trick to handle bigger beings who couldn’t be controlled otherwise. Develop a big mystery that no one could explain, then explain it with a big lie that required acceptance for membership. The purpose was control and dominance and power.

    For the most part, religion gets used to suppress understanding and spiritual freedom. I wonder of the need to be considered a religion. Considering the invidious past of religion.

    I hear of the benefit of religion. You get a bunch of beings in a trap, completely reduced to total ignorance, and then speak of how religion helps one find enlightenment and a path to spiritual freedom.

    Hmmmm.

    In yoga class, I watch students get a “yoga high.” It’s sort of a detached la-la state. And I watch individuals speak of various aspects of their religion with a similar “high” steeped in the pleasure of a higher awareness–much like intellectuals sometimes get this exaggerated sense of pleasure (a high) massaging esoteric ideas which most of us can’t grasp. The high disguises a lot of underlying condition that really should be addressed.

    Yet, talking about how so and so knew such and such and said this and that certainly adds an anchor point or two to help quell the confusion and mystery. Though how what some great mystic/enlightened soul/guru/master knew helps anyone is beyond me if the individual doesn’t take the responsibility to know regardless is beyond my meager grasp.

    Groups are super resistant to outside knowledge. You get group agreement on how right the ideas are and how pleasurable the concepts are and how necessary they are to gaining that final state of truth. Consequently, what needs to be addressed seldom is.

    Good thing knowing is a gradient scale. Too bad it’s so easy to stop where the ice cream tastes too good to move on.

  67. An absolutely smashing Lecture, Mike.

  68. Mike Rinder, brilliant talking points on essential common features of religions. Excellent debate.

    I have been jumping with joy to see a sane, intelligent presentation about Scientology. There has been nothing but shifty-eyed, psychotic, ranting, manipulating, massy impostors!

    Thank you for making the clear distinction between the practices of the “Church” of $cientology under the current leader fall under the subject of religion. Miscavige’s orders and his puppet Robots violate the very Auditor’s Code (the means of salvation) and abuse / twist the policies for arbitrary corrupt operation!

    Mike Rinder, brilliant, compelling presentation. Loved the factors.

    Your presentation of the qualifying elements of various religions was excellent.

    Brilliant fielding when you replied to a student’s question– plain and simply and actually — that the hooplah / outrage out there about the supposed ethics codes is a “misinterpretation” (and we know, is an abuse & corruption) of the actual codes of Scientology,

    There should a transcription made of this presentation — is someone transcribing it? I would love to see it reprinted in magazines. Rinder covered an immense topic succinctly, with every cogent, relevant point to comparative religions!

    Thank you for your decorum, your intelligence, your respect, your understanding. JUMPING HAPPY …. big big joy in many universes! Justice for Hubbard, and me, and those betrayed.

    In service always! THANK YOU beyond words.

    • Dolphin Play

      You said: “I have been jumping with joy to see a sane, intelligent presentation about Scientology. There has been nothing but shifty-eyed, psychotic, ranting, manipulating, massy impostors!”

      I am pretty sure that you didn’t mean to, but by that statement you have verbally invalidated a goodly number of people who visit this blog. I would start the list off with Marty and Amy Scobie and the Headleys, and Karen De la Carrier, and, and.. . I think you get the point.

      Eric S

      • Oh NO! Thank you!! I see my communication didn’t arrive…BECAUSE, to be more precise, I should have added to that sentence: “I have been jumping with joy to see a sane, intelligent presentation about Scientology. There has been nothing but shifty-eyed, psychotic, ranting, manipulating, massy impostors sent out as purported Scientology “representatives” by the so-called “Church.

        Thanks for letting me know that my communication didn’t arrive as intended!

        • Add to that: my comment is specifically about Mike Rinder stepping up in an officiating type of situation by invitation of a University in a discourse very needed for decades, relegating Scientology to the setting and tone, decorum and dignity it deserves.

          I fully recognize the evolution that Marty Rathbun’s blog has sparked in the conversation with the world. This conversation, by this blog, and that means so many who participate in genuine discussion with a desire for truth, began to unravel the knotted, twisted mishmash in the public. For the first time, the public is differentiating between the subject of Scientology as an integrated philosophy (not just soundbites bandied for personal agenda) vs. its takeover and abuse.

          Then there is the practice and delivery. Rathbun and others are delivering shining results, and again, examples of radiant, beaming products. I mean, is an INDICATOR and INDICATOR for nothings? VVVVGGIs vs. Massy shifty eyed noncommunicative zealobots?!

          I am out of my skin exhilarated and JOY JUMPING for and ABOUT US ALL!

          THE STAND UP shining representation of Truth in action.

          • Dolphin Play

            Yes… As I had expected. Thanks for the clarification.

            You really do sound super exuberant. It is wonderful to experience your tone through your communication.

            And yes, I heartily agree with your viewpoint.

            Eric S

  69. Clarifying: .I meant to say at the top …Thank you for making the clear distinction between the practices of the “Church” of $cientology under the current leader fall under the subject of CHURCH as opposed to religion.

  70. Floating Needle

    BOTTOM LINE:

    THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON WE ARE ALL HERE…

    IS TO HELP ONE ANOTHER

    THAT IS THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE HERE — GOT IT?

    Mr, Rinder just helped a whole lot of people (including current “church” Scientologists) to see the truth between faith and reality and what is a religion.

    While I peek into the future, I see Mike’s speech here at Trinity being used to define what a religion is and more importantly, your personal right to practice what you believe.

    Thank you Mike. LRH is standing proud today because of your words at Trinity… but then again, you have a long history of saying the just right thing when it comes to that sort of thing.

    Well done sir.

    FN

  71. Tony DePhillips

    You’re a Man amongst men Mike.

    A shining example of what a person can become. Integrity, intelligence, wit and humor, you’ve got the whole package dude.

  72. It was a pleasure to meet Mike and Sam and others in Dublin. We had a wonderful breakfast and I found the exchange of ideas very refreshing. Sigh, if only they were all like you guys… hello to Jan and Dave too!

  73. Very good and clear demonstration. It also demonstrate that independants scientologists are scientologists and not kind of “ennemies”. We want scientology to win, it is a religion, and we just don’t want it to be corrupted by an authoritarian dictator.

  74. Trust me when I tell you, it brings me no comfort to pass this along, But I think it is important to direct you to this link :

    http://www.audible.com

    And buy the book called Helter Skelter.

    I agree it is not a pleasure moment to confront evil.

    It is just an inconvenient truth. DM, for whatever sick reason, has become the Charles Mansion of our own group.

    I can get over this. I hope you can too.

    T.O.

    • The inability to confront evil is clearly confronted here. And yes, I know how uncomfortable this can be. And you will understand it all too well.

    • Sorry but I find this unnecessary. EVERYTHING doesn’t have to be communicated. In fact, wisdom is the ability to know what SHOULDN’T be communicated even IF true because communicating it would do more harm.

      I read Helter Skelter when I was STILL in the SO (read in1975)– I saw the similarities then and found Mansons mind set rather horrifying, to say the least.

      Reading it did not enable me to confront evil per se. It just turned my mind towards a terribly horrible set of circumstances that by the grace of god I didn’t find myself smack dab in the center of his commune back in my own hippie days.

      It’s important at ALL COSTS — not to become a fundamentalist in ANYTHING we believe in.

      Doing so doesn’t allow one to swim IN THE MIDDLE of the river — instead AS a fundamentalist we then CLING to a side of the shore (pick a side — theety-weetie — SUPREME confront of evil — good — bad etc) and by clinging to the shore AS the river rushes forward — one gets torn violently torn apart.

      It’s the middle where the energy of life is.

      Love,
      Windhorse

      • No, you did not read this Helter Skelter. This is a new book release and goes mainly into detail about how the invesigators botched the investigation and had many people tell them over and over who was behind these crimes and they would not accept the truth because they could not believe a “bunch of hippies” were behind it and were looking for mafia / drug related people as suspects. This one is written by the prosecuting attorney on the case. This is not the paperback you read way back when and this book completely defines the inability of people to confront the situation and the suspects. Also the command control Manson had over his followers. So I find your reprimand unnecessary.

        • By Vincent Bugliosi, Curt Gentry
          Narrated by Scott Brick
          Length:26 hrs and 33 mins
          Release Date:09-13-11
          4.50 (133 ratings)

          • And the book rating is 4.50 out of a possible 5 between 133 people who reviewed it so far. Your rating is from a book I never read or even knew about. Since this was released in September of this year, I do not think you were in the Sea Org at that time. If you had bothered to click on the link I provided, you could have saved yourself the misery of slapping me down and making nothing of my post.

            • On the brighter side, Vincent Bugliosi a prosecuting attorney has written several great books and all of them deal with the mystery behind people’s inability to confront evil and how this actually contributes to injustice. He is an inspector general in every meaning of the word with a very keen insight into culture and fixed ideas and his is a marvel.

              • And I am beginning to think Vincent could be very helpful to us on some level.

                • Both Helter Skelter and Vincent Bugliosi’s subsequent Till Death Us Do Part won Edgar Allan Poe Awards for best true-crime book of the year.

                  • Theoracle: Your link went to the home page of audible.com and did not link directly to Helter Skelter.

                    HOWEVER, if you take a deep breath rather than assume I don’t know what I’ve talking about because it does not jive with your world you will learn the following:

                    “Helter Skelter is a true crime book by Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry. The subject of the book is the 1969 Manson Family murders and Bugliosi’s own prosecution of Charles Manson and his followers.
                    Helter Skelter was first published in the United States in 1974 and became a bestseller. The book takes its title from the song by The Beatles, with which Manson was obsessed. Manson used the phrase for an anticipated race war. Helter Skelter won a 1975 Edgar Award for Best Fact Crime book and was the basis for two television films, released in 1976 and 2004.”

                    So — I very definitely read it in 1975.

                    I’m sorry if you took offense at my post. I simply don’t believe that reading Bugliosi will necessarily raise someone’s confront of evil.

                    And thus I too am free to express my opinion.

                    I didn’t mean to dismiss your post, simply that the premise to me was not really real.

                    I know you are extremely passionate about the independent movement and enjoy reading your posts and find them very interesting.

                    Even this one about Bugliosi — I just don’t agree🙂

                    WH

                    • Before I read this book I only saw differences between Miscavige and Manson. Now, I am seeing similarities.

                      A. They both umberella’d themselves in the background behind an innocent looking group.

                      B. They sent others out to do their dirty work but they gave the orders.

                      C. They both hid deep in the desert.

                      D. They both demanded blind devotion.

                      E. They both demanded instant and unquestioning compliance to any orders given.

                      F. They both killed off anyone around them that questioned them within their own group.

                      G. They both considered themselves superior to all people outside of their group and inside of their group.

                      H. They are both into weapons.

                      I. They both sucked up to celebrities.

                      J. They are both pimps.

                      K. They are both criminals.

                      L. They both posed as innocents while setting others up for the falls.

                      M. They both lent out their staff and followers for free labor to people they were courting as if they owned slaves.

                      N. They both engaged in overt and violent extortion.

                      O. The people around them were too afraid to fight back when challenged.

                      P. They both never admitted any responsibility or wrong doing even though they pulled the strings.

                      Q. They both demanded the people they commanded cut ties and communications with the outside world.

                      R. They both cast passion in others with the “me and you against the world” glue.

                      S. They both had no regard for other people’s lives, feelings or well being.

                      T. They both threatened and terrorized people while safe with the pack.

                      U. They both ensnared their slaves and profit with religion.

                      V. They both committed crimes while anyone failed to investigate or prosecute because people became confused with the facade against the crimes.

                      W. They both held out the promise of eternity and immortality in exchange for support while destroying the lives of people around them.

                      X. They both managed to get away with crime after crime unquestioned although people were looking right at it.

                      Y. They both presented themselves as saviors while the did immense damage.

                      Z. They both thought they were above the law and would never get caught.

                    • Theoracle: There are no more “reply” buttons thus I’m replying on my own comment —

                      But thank you for the ack and noticing your mistake. I do understand why you probably felt upset by my post and thus didn’t really check to see the original copyright date and fired off your email to me.

                      In any case, I think everything we can read that increases our confront of evil is actually great — I just happen to be squeamish about true crime (murders) and this one especially. I remember only too well reading that book under the covers while in the SO. One of those forbidden type books as it mentioned scientology in there somewhere.

                      Your mention of Helter Skelter just triggered a forgotten memory and I reacted.

                      Keep up the reading and reporting and nominating Marty for plenty of book awards!!

                      Love,
                      WH

                    • WH, I too have run out of reply buttons. Don’t know where this post will land. I appreciate every challenge. Thank you. I am just the kind of person that would rather be sorry for something I did, than for something I didn’t do. You made me sorry for something I did. I appreciate the acknowledgement.

                  • Why shouldn’t Marty win that award when he publishes his true crime book about David Miscavige?

                    • Your A-Z covers sociopaths.

                      Which has been covered and agreed on this blog about Miscavige, numerous times. I find “true crime” stories typically gruesome and without much inherent value. I do appreciate how you found similarities with Miscavige and Manson.

                      I read the book in 1975, only 7 years after the murders. It was still very raw in the minds of those of us in LA … perhaps I would find it a different book in flavor today.

                      While I stated I was sorry I upset you — you’ve failed to acknowledge that the book I read in 1975 WAS the EXACT same book you felt it necessary to let me know I COULD NOT HAVE READ.

                      The river is a metaphor – duh – and clinging to the sides are clinging to our own rightness.

                      I do that plenty of times — and usually have to step back and SEE how fixed I am to my perceptions.

                      WH

                    • Please forgive my failed acknowledgement.
                      You are right, I was wrong about that.
                      I took the heading “new release” in the description literally.
                      My bad on the false report and wrong indication.

      • Lastly, I’m not feeling myself as in a river. I feel myself as in the middle of a crime scene investigation and my fingerprints, and yours too, and all of us here, are all over the place.

        If that makes me an ignorant fundamentalist who poses a danger with me think, I’ll own it.

        • “I feel myself as in the middle of a crime scene investigation and my fingerprints, and yours too, and all of us here, are all over the place.”

          This is a great analogy Theoroacle. I feel the same way. Let me add to it that it’s one of those investigations where despite the elaborate even admirable extreme to not only shift the attention away from themselves but to deflect and re-direct that attention the pieces are falling in to place.

          Let me add this to the scene: “With a Cuban in one hand and a splashing glass of scotch in the other he was unable to wipe the foaming slobber from his chin as his arms waved wildly midst telling his latest version of an old tale of ‘smacking Marty down and putting Mike in his place’. His captive audience dutifully bobbed their heads up and down and back and forth while two more discretely plot their escapes from the madness and map their possible exits”

          Balance from the confusion such evil cob creates in my world is restored when I realize that life for such an evil doer is a self-constructed prison.

          When I try to look at things from cob’s point of view I find that the impact of the independent movement and especially Mike and Marty not only refusing to indulge his compulsive need for audience validation but escape and blow the whistle on him to be THE single, most powerful source of his undoing. Every day, day in and day out, cob no doubt tracks Mike and Marty’s actions that are telling this lunatic “NO”. Cob’s rage is fixated on this fact and on them like an injured, cornered hyena’s on it’s attacker.

          The jig is up and cob knows it. The truth will prevail, does prevail, is prevailing – eventually more will come to understand what is already known here by most – cob has attempted to re-write LRH tech and policy – he’s attempted to position himself above the stable datums LRH tech and policy provided us all, to position himself above LRH. He’s caused untold damage to the expansion of Scientology through such alterations, lied through his teeth, coerced through force, domination and invalidation and destroyed the lives of thousands if not tens of thousands of good peoples lives directly and indirectly and tried to get away with it. He isn’t.

          The TA is moving = continue the process.

          • Thanks for the kind acknowledgment.

          • The whole Manson flap was before my time. And I was far away from it. I’d heard something about it some time when someone bought it up after I moved to the West Coast in the 90’s ,but I walked away from the explanation somehow thinking Manson had an injustice, since he was not at the crime scene. That’s all I knew about it. I had an altercation with a neighbor recently and I caught a distant relative leaving his property and asked him about the guy. He said, “He’s been like this since he spent some years with the Manson family.” Curious, I went net and ended up buying Helter Skelter in an effort to understand my neighhbor better. Up until now I knew DM was a liability but I thought of him as being ignorant, a loose cannon, and a flim flam man. To my horror, as I went through the book Helter Skelter, I found myself not thinking about Manson Family but having an eye opening moment as regards DM’s true nature and the potential of the people surrounding him and effected by him. I’m probably running 30 years behind times on the Manson flap. But I have totally been underestimating David Miscavige and the condition and potential of the people in his immediate environment. I guess it spooked me, but after all, it is Halloween. Time for some “BOO!” XXOO

            • Charles Manson was 5’2″. His group was held together through fear, they all feared what the others would do to them if they stepped out of line.

  75. The real point is that DM has nothing to do with scientology. He misrepresents the subject. Even the beingness of the scientologists as scientologists is false, a kind of “cultish american”, copied on other cults (there are so many in the US), hip hip hurray type of robot.
    Scientology is a wisdom, an ability to find charge, to listen. Now, it’s like a cult, it’s out of valence. Manipulated by this little guy who looks like Goebbels (kind of earlier/similar).
    Auditing on upper OT level is a religious activity, 7th Dyn, freeing beings. And in the Miscavige’s organisation, all kind of stops are created that it becomes very difficult to have access to this practice : incredible prices, lenghty set ups, “I’m not auditing you” elligibilities to make sure you are on the party line.
    Really, it looks more like a totalitarian group than scientology. There is only one message : please fire DM and scientology has a chance to go back in valence.
    Mike Rinder represent real scientology.

  76. Marty and Rinder are delusional if they think they can provide a de-fanged version of Scientology since day one the L. Ron Hubbard version of Scientology always had fangs. They really need to think outside the cult.

    • de-fanged version of Scientology

      The Fangs likely came about because of uninformed babbling idiots erroneously labeling some of it’s members “delusional”. You wanna throw mud, but then we find a little girl crying on the floor when some Teeth are shown. KF this Clown too.

    • Terry,
      “Fangs”, what an evocative word. Calls forth the serpent. A catholic/universal image of danger. Forked tails, red-skin, goat-eyes and that speary thingy.

      Imagine the word with a different vowel. Fings, fongs, fengs. Takes on a whole new image. Fings, “the ovah day I pick’d op some fings from Mum’s”. Fongs, “my fongs are in the wash, I’ll go ‘commando'”. Fengs, “I’ve re-done the garden using feng and all the snails are so much happier”.

      “De-fanged”? Hardly. Personally, I’m even more dangerous than I was when I simply was “insubordinate”.

      BOO!!! I mean hsssssssss, blurp. (Sorry, cucumbers give me gas.)

    • Every (new) religion has had to fight for its existence and Scientology happens to be the only one surviving without ever using guns and bombs. Go look how many people are shot and shelled today in the name of religion. The murderous schemes of Davey are not Scientology and even he doesn’t use guns. Scientology is so very unfanged that even its worst abuses and perversions are insignificant compared to abuses of Islam and Christianity.

  77. L. Ron Hubbard and Marty and Mike are all fraunds because they are selling LRH’s false reality of “Clears and OTs”. These states simply don’t exist and no has demonstrated them. Tip hats over 40 yeards? Yeah right.

  78. i haven’t had a chance to watch the videos yet, will next week. I’ll just say that there’s no doubt that Scientology is a religion. There’s more than one definition of “religion” of course. LRH used one in the 50s that was something like “a search for and explanation of the ultimate spiritual nature of life”, which Scientology certainly is, as much or more than any other religion. Karen #1 will often use quotation marks around “church” when discussing the COS (and I understand why she does) but the Church of Scientology is also as much a church as many others. The abuses we now see in the COS, those of worshipping MEST, using force and duress to control its members, insisting on only one way of thinking about life, using expulsion and disconnection as forms of threat and punishment, etc have also been elements of various forms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It would be VERY nice to see Miscavige take the big fall (and he will of course eventually be displaced or just die), but the real solution to Scientology’s current situation is to continue to promote and deliver the religion free of any central church’s control and abuse.

    • …the real solution to Scientology’s current situation is to continue to promote and deliver the religion free of any central church’s control and abuse.

      My sentiments exactly.

  79. Is Scientology a religion?

    In my opinion, Buddhism is a practice and a methodology and thus does not qualify as a religion. It became a religion when the community of monks was established 2,600 years ago. The community of monks is supported, as the Buddha pointed out, only because they “give” more to the public than they take. Therefore, I do not consider myself religious because I am not a monk and I spend most of my available time in meditation.
    I disagree with the Australian or any other definition of religion which is based on God, the spirit, salvation, or community.
    Based on voluntary donations, Catholics give back more than they take and thus qualify as religion.
    Mormons use a fixed percentage of income and thus qualify as a religion.
    Corporate Scientology uses the capitalistic pricing mechanism and thus does not qualify as a religion. It is a business. In addition, the doctrine of Scientology is not in the public domain as compared to most other religions.
    Since the doctrine is secret, it can only be defined as mystical thus further disqualifying it as a religion.
    There are numerous examples of religions which were formed for the personal gain of a few ‘pastors’. Scientology does not fall into this category and thus convinced the IRS to grant exemption. However, Mr. Miscavige’s finances should be investigated.
    To say that Scientology gives or controls eternal life as a spirit is not part of the definition of a religion.
    Independent Scientology uses a vouluntary donation system and thus qualifies as a new religion for the 21st century. Independents give more than they take.

    As a taxpayer, my opinion is that Corporate Scientology should have the following choice:

    If Scientology uses the capitalistic pricing mechanism, it is a business and thus subject to taxation.
    For tax-exempt status, donations should be made voluntary or based on a fixed percentage of income.

    GMW

    • George: I think there is a boat or two here that is missed.

      The buddha taught not JUST to the monks but to the householder. He considered them equally important I believe otherwise why would he have wasted his previous time teaching to the householder.

      The concept of giving more therefore it’s a religion and the monks should be supported I don’t believe you can find in the suttas or dhammapada. I might be wrong. That’s now WHY they were taught to be monks — not because they gave more but to “remove” them from the world of the senses per se, clinging, averson etc

      Furthermore — today nearly ALL buddhists organizations are categorized AS religions although many do NOT have ALL their liturgies in the public domain and many charge for programs. It’s impossible to offer programs to the many without something paying for the building, the teacher, the lights etc.

      OF COURSE attending a program is voluntary and there are a multitude of REAL scholarships available in my community but MOREOEVER anyone who works a bit above minimum wage can afford the programs.

      Corporate Scientology is priced beyond what ANYONE I know can believe.

      It’s important not to try to make a this is this and that is that analogies I believe. There are a multitude beyond my grasp of causes and conditions that bring us to where we are — and making too tight of case about religion can be dangerous indeed.

      Love,
      Windhorse

      • Sorry – type — third paragraph — “that’s NOT why that were taught to be monks” (rather than “that’s now why …)

      • windhorse,
        Thank you for your comments. I was looking forward to your feedback.
        First of all, I probably should not have spoken for “Buddhists” because I lost sight of the other traditions besides Theravada. I have been on the blog and I guess it was implied. By the way, the last blog thread in which you and Kassapa and vajcutter participated sent me to the dictionary
        many times. I really enjoyed it. I don’t have any problem with the criticism that Theravada is first dynamic oriented or that the Pali Canon is distorted. I have settled these long ago.
        This is my PERSONAL opinion in regard to the issue of religion , as I stated in the first sentence.
        I am aware of organizations which charge for services but they are rare in the Theravada tradition. In truth, I consider my viewpoint just one ‘vote’ in the overall picture. I have read Hugh Urban’s book on Scientology and he, as a scholar, convinced me of the difficulty of defining religion. I don’t want to ‘sell’ my ideas.
        In the Thervada tradition, the monks only survive if they teach and give more to the community. It is part of the tradition and I have heard it many times.
        I agree. Corporate Scientology is priced way in excess of the value that they deliver. However, I think that the independent movement is really excellent in its delivery. I see the great success stories on this blog.
        The main point in my personal opinion is that spirit, God or salvation are such ‘wired subjects’, and can be used in so many ways. Witness the many evangelists who have received jail time. I was trying to undercut the definition of religion so that it could be of value.
        I paid a lot of money for Scientology and found that it did have value. However, the internal problems since Mr. Miscavige created an
        organization which just cannot deliver. In addition, it has become ‘retread’ and ‘re-train’ university. Can’t describe how stunned I was when I watched Mr. Miscavige for about two hours explain how the transcriptionists were responsible for all failures in Scientology. Then, he flashed up LRH quotes which were out of context to his delivery.
        I can’t see him as a religious leader. He needs to know that he is only riding on the backs of other people.

        Much Metta(loving-lindness)
        GMW

        • Hi George — I appreciate your comments as well. And I realize you have opinions just like we all do — what I guess I wanted to make clear is that the buddha spoke not just to monks but the laypersons (householder) and his teachings were different for the two publics.

          I don’t hold to a belief that Theravadin is first dynamically oriented and thus flawed or lesser or something. It is what we Tibertan call the hinayana and as such IS the basis for the other two “turnings of the wheel”

          And needless to say we definitely agree that dm has perverted the relion of scientology into a quagmire of I can’t even describe🙂

          Stay well and happy,
          Windhorse

          • windhorse,
            You may or may know this but the term hinayana is pejorative to a Theravadin. This is because ‘hiayana’ means lesser vehicle. We prefer the term Theravada which literally means “teachings of the elders”.
            You can still use hinayana if you wish; it does not in the end really have a negative effect.
            I agree the Buddha did speak to monks and householders. I am in very close contact daily with monks and so I tend to forget.
            May all beings stay well and happy,
            GMW

            • Hi there George —

              Yes, I know it means lesser vehicle but I know enough I believe of the teachings to know that it doesn’t mean lesser in a linear way … as the lower or less affective.

              At least that is not how I was taught and what I read. Just like the Theravadins always say — ours teachings are the words of the buddha — everything else isn’t — ours is source, the rest isn’t.

              That too can seem pejorative to Vajrayana practitioners AS IF a Theravadin is saying — “what you believe was made up by someone and isn’t what the buddha said”

              What is fascinating when dealing with buddhists is generally you can’t find two buddhists to agree — especially when you jump lineages, sects, areas🙂

              But seriously does it matter in the end?

              It has to do with heart — what does someone connect to. I have dear friends who have different teachers because they don’t connect at a heart level with my teacher for example.

              The journey is the path🙂

              Love,
              WH

              • windhorse,
                In the end it does not matter. I appreciate your comments about the potential conceit in the Theravadin view. Good to know.
                After the previous blog thread in regard to the different traditions, I am super ready for my next presentation to college students. They are going to be very surpised when I bring in more about the other traditions.

                One of my next projects is to research Jamgon Mipham who you mentioned.

                Much Metta,
                GMW

  80. This discussion is healthy, whether you agree or disagree with any of the postings, the point is we are communicating and exchanging ideas and that is wholly positive.
    We also all have one thing in common, we would like to see a criminal, rather on the short side, brought to justice.
    I will support the Independent movement’s right to exist from here on in.

  81. Mike,
    Thanks so much for doing this! You have really done Scientology a service. I especially loved your “in conclusion”. Exactly! That was perfect!

  82. BelieverNonBelieving

    To me, it doesn’t matter whether scientological processes are thought of as a religion, or not. In fact, I don’t tend to think of them that way.

    In fact, David Miscavige’s ‘deal with the devil’ to get “Scientology” recognized as a religion by the IRS was done specifically to suppress scientology. Not help it.

    We’d be better off just calling it ‘counseling.

  83. We just returned from an amazing trip to the UK and Ireland, perfect weather the entire time. Mike there to defend the rights of Scientology and the church.

    I had first hand glimpse of what really happened while Mike, Christie, Sam and I as we treked through these two countries. We arrive in UK with a camera man there to take our picture at the airport and follow us out to get a rental car, oh what a huge crime there that had to be documented. Then off to Sam’s place to be photographed again as we arrive another huge crime of hugs and kisses from all. The entire time the two photo nuts hid in the bushes at Sams’ to get pics not to mention all the picketers outside Sam’s house with these huge rediculous signs.

    We went to St Hill; I had never been in England and wanted to see something that was very near and dear to my heart; we get chased down by goons like we were criminals on ATVs and cameras, we weren’t even on church property. Are you kidding me!
    Another day we go to see the changing of the guard as Mike & I get off the train there is the idiot with the camera to follow us to Buckingham Palace to take our picture while we watch this spectacular event happen. We lost him intentionally later and the rest of the day to walk around London; meet with friends, etc.
    The day we arrived in Ireland at the airport there was a swarm of these psychotic nuts that sorrounded Mike as we went to catch a taxi; yelling you are “not ” welcome in Ireland. I never realized that the church represented the entire country of Ireland! The natives were completely embarrassed as to this spectacle of nutty behavior and was the talk at the University by the students how the babbling idiots acted at the airport. They were screaming outside the hall of the debate because they were not allowed inside; another ridiculous spectacle of church members.
    Mike was there defending the right of the Church as a religion! Is that not what every Scientologist on this planet wants? What Mike did in the interview at TV3 (tree, inside joke) and the University was nothing less than SPECTACULAR.

    The psychotic behavior from these church goon is soooo absolutely crazy. They need to look at the interview and the debate then go look at themselves in the mirror and decide if what they did was in fact truely forwarding the truth and LRH? Are you so afraid to look at what you are doing is forwarding the true facts? The true facts ARE NOT those horrible booklets you passed out or the signs you carried.

    You do not need to be afraid anymore of losing everything; the independents are out here, you just need to look and you will find many with the same views. I spoke to a couple of guys at the debate who want just that for Ireland Independents.

    Those on the fence who are reading this blog; need to take a real look at what your hard earned $s are paying for. Your $s are being used to stalk, harrass, photograph nothingness. It is literally psychotic behavior of a madman.

    I am proud to have been with Mike, Christie and Sam representing the truth. Thank you for letting me be a part of this. Love, Jan

    • Jan — thanks for taking the time to accompany us. It’s always nice to experience things with friends, and you and Sam are definitely valued friends! Your perspective is very valuable. Sorry you had to be inconvenienced by the babbling idiots, but on balance I would say the pleasure moments, laughter, wonderful experiences and great company outdid the babbling by about a million to one…. M & C

      • Yes we did experience many wonderful sites, friends, ate authentic foods, drank many cups of tea and many, many, many laughs while on this trip. The babbling idiots were just a few very minor experiences on this trip. We couldn’t have had any better weather there, sunshine and a few very brisk walks through London and Dublin.

      • absolutely agree!

      • It is unfortunate that in this day and age the subject of one’s “religion” still requires debate. Religion is such a personal thing. It is something that should be decided by the individual, not by government nor by society. But Mike Rinder, you did a great job of defending your religion. You continue to be a sign on the horizon that there is tremendous hope for those “babbling idiots” out there who have succumbed to the mindfuck. Keep talking, brother. Keep talking.

      • +1
        I laughed until my sides ached so many times 🙂
        And we made wonderful new friends along the way.
        Even my girls said that this experience had become a part of wonderful childhood memories for them to treasure.
        Thank you Mike, Christie, Jan and Dart Assassin for bringing the fun and joy back into being a Scientologists – that’s what it’s all about.
        xxx ♥♥♥

    • Your post gave me a thought. LRH used to talk about the merchants of chaos and how the media loved to create a dangerous environment and even recommended as a test to stop reading the paper for a few weeks and see if one felt better.

      Today, the merchant of chaos is the church. It is the church that is creating the dangerous environment (most likely fodder to extract even more money) and I’d bet if those still “in” STOPPED listening to the church for a few weeks, they’d feel a lot better off! They might even get enough space to step away from the chaos completely!

    • Jan,
      Sooo well written and funny. Thanks
      GMW

  84. Incredible job Mike! Thank you, thank you!

  85. Mike has a stabilizing effect. He is Fantastic!

  86. Go Mike! The very Last Telex I saw from LRH in 1982 was about the income of the Flag Land Base (I paraphrase from the best of my memory)
    “When are you guys going to get it? We are trying to build a religious movement here, not sell lawnmowers” He went on to talk about how we do not want a few millionaires holding up the boat, he wanted a “Religious Movement”. It brings me such joy to see it beginning to breathe and expand.

    • Very important memory. Thankyou Nancy!!!!!

      The traffic from LRH spread out to the various “sectors”, Flag Land Base/FSO being it’s own sector, is SO important to have people, like you AT LEAST publicly paraphrase what you recall.

      It’s not going to be likely that Scientology officially issues all of LRH’s private despatch traffic. A reading of that traffic, is so important for so many reasons historically.

      The best we can do is people who have good recall, please share their important memories of the LRH traffic. (I so wished Ken Urquhart wrote more, he filtered so much; and all the final years of CMO Messengers “on duty”—wish a whole seperate book/chapter on the final 10 years of LRH traffic to all sectors somehow was done from people’s memories.)

      Thankyou Nancy. (former Commodore’s Staff Aide division 6, later CO or President CC Int, and earlier Boston staffer vet during the supposedly heyday at Boston, when I think they were relying to a substantial degree on a couple of “sugar daddy’s” ), You’re lived through a lot Nancy!

      To me I’ve so wished former leaders (“failed”, ousted, efjected, blown) would pipe up, and share their thoughts as their memories percolate up. Please, those out there listening, when you get your memories, jot them down, and I’ll gladly get them into the public domain somehow!

      chuckbeatty77@aol.com

      • Thank you Chuck. the Scientology Experience contains Multiple points of view, and multiple point from which to view (Post, Time period, the International scene at the time). I wish more people would write their points of view. It is so invaluable for the years to come.
        nancy

    • +1 — Love, WH

    • nancy,
      And the fact that those guys STILL don’t get it evidenced by the lawnmower sales promo issued relentlessly, and the entire image propogandized by DM with MEST, MEST, MEST.

      “An auditor is wasted on a routine job—his time is lost. He is also wasted
      processing nothing but movie stars and millionaires—if he forgets that these can only buy him the luxury of charity in the backwaters of the world.”LRH 1954, Hubbard Professional College Announcement.

      • If anyone has studied and worked with the LRH Admin Policies about how to run a business they would clearly see that the direction that DM has been going is the complete opposite. 180. Also LRH had plenty of opportunity to live large and spend freely. He never did. He was always better off than the rest of us, but not in an ostentasious, gaudy sort of way. And not with the difference of the 99% vs the 1% that we now have.
        Tommy (cofs spokesperson) even stated that Scn was a “Religion for the Rich”!!! Did anyone else get that? Cause it is. But it doesn’t have to be.

        I doubt any of us joined Scientology for the “Fangs” so to speak, and almost all of us have experienced the true ARC and friendship, that is also entwined in all of this.

        Who says we can’t simply take the basic truths and apply them for the good of mankind, as opposed to catering to the 1%??

        There is no Monopoly on the Truth.

        nance

  87. Yes, per the definition it’s a religion. But get this…The other day I got an email from a CoS in the midwest wanting money from me so they could get into their new “Ideal Building” there wasn’t one mention of the bridge, only donors names and who donated more (their names were in big bold letters) and at the end of the promo it said “raise your status” Now I look at this and say “this is like Obama with his class warfare”.Only with him you’re a down stat if you HAVE money. This is what this church is all about now, raising your “status” Its now about the have’s and the have-nots. It sucks and I’m sooooooooo grateful I’m out and gone.

    • Michael Fairman

      Hi SW
      Sorry, but I can’t let your remark about Obama’s “class warfare” go by. Evidently you’ve bought the right wing BS. His consideration, along with tens of millions of others is that policy, driven by corporate interests has massively shifted the wealth of the country to a top one percent. And generally what these people actually produce is money by financial manipulation. In that sense THEY are the “downstats. The people who actually produce – the workers, middle class and small businesses – are the ones getting the shaft. What Obama, the “99 percenters”, even some of the super rich like Warren Buffet, and millions of others want, is for the top one percent to pay their fair share of taxes, There is no class warfare. That’s the Right’s mantra to keep doing what they been doing, so their decades old dream of a corporate dictatorship is reached. If there is any “class” warfare it is being promulgated by the ultra rich.
      The rest of your comment is right on the button

      • Michael, I can’t let your comment go by uncommented upon either. The result of what’s going on with this “top 1% bad guys” thing will be what always happens: something will be done to handle this but it will be shifted magically into another burden on the next levels down, those who ARE producing and being paid well. My best friend is telling me how awful businesses are and of course that includes me as a business owner. Same old bullshit, new name.

        • And believe me, as a small business owner, every time a big business does something bad and it’s “handled,” I end up with reams of paperwork to fill out to prove that I’m not doing the thing they did. The corrective burden is aimed high but it always rolls downhill.

        • Obama is doing his all to prevent class warfare, warfare that is inevitable should the coporatocracy succeed in labelling his efforts to prevent class warfare as “class warfare.”

      • Right on Michael !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • What about the 45% who pay NO taxes at all? I’m not following right wing BS. Its a fact that 45 to 50% of this country pay no tax at all. Dividing our country into right and left is the surest way to screw up everything. And you Mr. Fairman are helping to keep us divided with your rant.

  88. Beautiful simple succinct presentation.
    I was wondering if CO$ would be dumb enough to protest at TCD.

    As the subject of bells came up I was reminded of this:-

    “Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls,
    It tolls for thee.”

    In particular for CO$ spokespersons. They’re out of a job now.

    I’m curious as to why Marty was asked to present. An inspiration
    or had the “Church” refused to participate?

  89. maurizio serafini

    VWD Mike!
    It seem they loved it.

  90. What does this blog mean to me?

    She sums it up nicely — why so important because thanks to this blog I’ve reunited with old friends, made new friends and deepened my own understanding of scientology AND my buddhist path:

    (sorry — still can’t embed this darn thing correctly)

  91. It was only today that I could grab some quiet time and reflect on last week’s proceedings. A couple of things:

    1) The motion of debate was “This house believes that Scientology is as legitimate as any other religion”. There is a bit of ambiguity over what ‘religion’ refers to. Myself and John took the view that ‘religion’ referred to religious groups and presented argumentation towards that. The proposition took ‘religion’ to mean beliefs. There was a lot of crawling around that ambiguity by both sides during the debate.

    2) The response from the Scientology organisation was utterly totally completely thoroughly and entirely fail on so many levels. Greeting them outside the debate venue was almost a drain on the soul. “I’m not a bad person. Want a hug?” was greeted with blank stares and bewilderment. Definitely not succeeding in intimidating, but certainly succeeding in making the group look cuckoo.

    Special exemption from the above criticism goes to Bernard Duffy who behaved like a human being. He has always spoke to us and been friendly, and I want that acknowledged.

    3) Two Scientologists who, afaik, are still in good standing with the local mission were invited inside to watch the debate. We took a risk and vouched for them, but it certainly seemed to have been the right decision. Talking to them both before and after certainly seemed to strengthen what Mike said about the most important thing for current Scientologists to know is that they can get tech outside the organisation.

    4) I’ve been mulling over the conflation of ‘beliefs’ with ‘groups’ that I mentioned in point 1 above, and I think there is an underlying point here worth emphasising. Even on this very thread there have been many who have expressed support for Mike defending the ‘legitimacy’ of their religion. Imo arguing that a set of beliefs grants a basis for legitimacy is silly (for all the reasons mentioned by Mike’s fellow proposition speakers). But, if you think about it, this is precisely what Mike and many of this thread have been doing when they cite court decisions and scholars.

    Maybe it is my inner secularist, but shouldn’t your (where ‘your’ is left deliberately vague and broad) claim to legitimacy be based on a group action? Fundamentally the Independent Scientologists is a group. Now if that group, being free from abuses, demonstrates transparency, openness and public benefit through its operations and actions – wouldn’t that be a solid irrevocable foundation for laying claim to legitimacy and really challenging the CoS? Just throwing this out there more for the concept rather than anything actually concrete.

    • themadhair

      Thank you for your post. You have provided some interesting viewpoints and “food for thought”.

      Point # 1 is of particular interest. In it you stated: “There is a bit of ambiguity over what ‘religion’ refers to.” Without this point having been clarified at the start, I would expect no less than “a lot of crawling around that ambiguity by both sides during the debate.”

      The way I see it, is that one could “debate” or “argue” or “defend” or “promote”, or whatnot, something “being a religion” or not, until the cows come home. The entire basis of any statement, of any kind, is in the definitions that are being used for the various words by the various people involved. Until AGREEMENT upon the uses of the various terms is accomplished, there will be NO AGREEMENT on the issue at hand.

      In this case, any “debate” over whether “Scientology” is a “religion” or not, is really mostly a clash of “meanings” being used for the terms “Scientology” and Religion”. (and other supporting definitions) Clarify the definitions and more understanding will ensue.

      Anyway, just an observation…

      Eric S

    • Monsieur Hair,
      Thank you for your considered approach to the debate and this discussion on the present thread.

      The whole idea of “legitimacy” in the discussion is based on the idea of criteria that the broader culture can come to terms with to evaluate various and sundry groups who make claim to being a “religion”, again, to be adjudged on some sort of criteria.

      The criteria largely accepted aside from expert opinion of what “religion” means, are the legal thresholds set and attained.

      In the culture we live, the experts at law have determined that “Scientology” is a bona fide religion, meeting their criteria, gleaned in turn from religious expert opinion.

      • … are the legal thresholds set and attained.

        These vary greatly from country to country, with Ireland and the UK being two good examples of employing sensible criteria. Dean Fox mentioned the UK’s Charities Commission and how, in order to receive a tax benefit, the organisation in question must be able to demonstrate a public benefit. Note that whether or not an organisation is religious is irrelevant here, tax status is entirely determine by the actions and operations of the organisation.

        In Ireland our 2006 Charities Act contains the following exemption:

        (10) For the purposes of this section, a gift is not a gift for the advancement of religion if it is made to or for the benefit of an organisation or cult—
        (a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
        (b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
        (i) of its followers, or
        (ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers

        Note that no reference is made whether or not the group is or is not a religion, the exemption solely applies to how the organisation acts.

        This distinction, between beliefs and the group professing those beliefs, is important. When you, as part of the FreeZone, cite examples to show the ‘legitimacy’ of Scientology as a religion, and those examples are fundamentally group-based, then it undermines your claims against the Scientology organisation. Religious scholars (some of whom were paid muppets, but that’s a discussion for another day) did not study the Scientology beliefs – they studied the Scientology organisation. The 1969 case cited in the post is based fundamentally on the organisation (eg:”Finally, we come to the vexing question: is Scientology a religion? On the record as a whole, we find that appellants have made out a prima facie case that the Founding Church of Scientology is a religion.”).

        To put the above another way – trying to argue that ‘Scientology’ the beliefs is separate from ‘Scientology’ the organisation is undermined when you cite materials that explicitly make that conflation. And this conflation has been, and continues to be, the shield behind which the organisation hides its abuses.

  92. Li'll bit of stuff

    Marty,

    ” What a wonderful world “{ to refrains of the late Louis Armstrong} Just like to thank YOU sincerely, for creating your blog ” Moving on up a little higher “. Are you surprised at how well it has been received and embraced as THE SCIENTOLOGY FORUM across the ENTIRE PLANET ???

    Lots’a luv and respect , Li’ll bit

  93. Hi all;

    One of the first awakenings that set me free from the CofS box I was in was with a comm cycle I had with a friend of mine who had shifted over to David Mayo. My friend, Lee L, was being available to me to ask any questions I had on the scene, and I had many, and he answered them.

    After these comm cycles, it dawned on me that Scientology was not the same as the Church of Scientology. That was not a small cognition, it was a very major shift of viewpoint. Within a year or two I had withdrawn my support of the CofS, and it was this cog that opened the door.

    That is one of the reasons I am glad that Mike covered that point in the debates, because I thnk many lurkers need to have that same cognition.
    Personally, I think that video should be first in line for anyone who has any CofSer friends who asking questions. I have two comm cycles coming up in the next week with CofSers who have contacted me for the first time in decades, literally decades, and want to talk. Guess what I am going to show them!

    b

    • Anyone know how I can download the video?

    • Some very good posts in this thread.

      “I have two comm cycles coming up in the next week with CofSers who have contacted me for the first time in decades, literally decades, and want to talk. Guess what I am going to show them!”

      This is good to hear and the key to it is, people communicating and knowing support is there if people wish to study thier beliefs peacefully and without harm.

      One thing that I would like to highlight is the issue of “attacking” those who do not study a belief or do not believe in it themselves. This is where it really hits the mark, especially when it involves family, friends, loved ones or complete strangers.

      This has gone on for decades now and it is why the line between belief and an organisation has become blurred. As mentioned to everyone I speak to it is a long process of education and understanding. From then on accepting the truth, no matter how horrible it may seem and building upon that foundation.

      As said to you Mike and others over the last 2 years+ it is time to make a stand, as the responsilbility lies clearly on those who wish to help. It’s easy to walk away quietly, but you know that this endemic culture would continue unchecked.

      Thanks madhair for the debate and well done Mike and John for making your voices heard.

    • bobo,
      Just a suggestion, but you can show them LRH’s clear distinction between Scientology and Church(es) of Scientology as described in his Estate Planning and the Articles and Bylaws of Incorporation laid out on savescientology.com.

      LRH made the distinction in bold letters of legal instruments, aside from any others made repeatedly in lectures, bulletins, writings et al.

  94. Mike,
    Just a big thank you from my heart for BEING THERE and COMMUNICATING.
    Greta

  95. The way Mike stated that there’s a growing independent movement was rock solid….in a very good way.

    He stated it as fact. Which it is. And it kind of brought me up to p/t on said fact.

    Mike, you are a pro. Thanks for the time and effort you put into this.

  96. Mike, that was a thing of beauty to watch. You are the master!

  97. An excellent job, really well done! I thought Mike’s arguments were cogent, well-developped and clearly delivered. Judging by the applause of the audience at the end, it sounded like they were glad to finally have some sanity and understanding about the subject.

    That being said, I personally wonder if it is really important that Scientology be considered a religion, not simply a spiritual practice or association. I understand the constitutional protection issue, the concern about the government requiring psych accreditation in order to practice, and the tax exemption benefit, but in terms of disseminating and growing, I wonder if the religion aspect hasn’t turned off more people than it has attracted; in my experience, it has.

    Additionally, Ron spoke of Scientology being “the religion of religions” (filmed interview, 1960s), but I think most religions view Scientology, because it calls itself a religion, as a competitor or even a threat (though this might be because of their perception of DM’s organization). As far as dialogue with Christians, I think it did not help for Ron to take a Christian cross he found, completely change its meaning, and use it as a symbol for the CoS. This makes it difficult to make Dianetics and Scientology attractive as a replacement for the psychotherapy in which priests and ministers are generally trained or to which they refer their parishioners, There are over 1 billion Catholics in the world alone, plus all the other denominations, and I wonder how Scientology can be presented to them in a respectful and non-threatening manner.

    I guess many would say the most important thing now is ensuring the freedom to practice Scientology, which I could not deny, but these are just some questions I’ve pondered for the future. Thanks, Marty, for providing a space where at least one can actually have freedom of speech.

  98. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

    “we petition the obama administration to:
    Actually take these petitions seriously instead of just using them as an excuse to pretend you are listening

    Although the ability to submit petitions directly to the White House is a noble and welcome new feature of the current administration, the first round of responses makes blatantly clear the White House intends to just support its current stances and explain them with responses everyone who has done any research already knows.

    An online petition is not meant as a replacement for using a search box in a web browser. We the People, those who grant you the power to govern in the first place, are requesting changes in policy directly, circumventing legislators who already do not listen to us. We the People request you govern FOR us, which means actually listening to us and actually acting in our interests instead of special interests.

    You are not above us. You ARE us. Govern accordingly.
    Created: Oct 28, 2011
    Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Government Reform, Human Rights”

  99. Whiskyface was mumbling some blabber again recently.

  100. Marty and Mike,

    I’m starving for some raw meat video of the POB cultists.

    Can you please provide some contemporaneous stuff that further documents the official POB psychopathy?

    It is after all entertaining as well as enlightening for the uninitiated as well as fun for us stalwarts.

    Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. And of course I’m sincerely yours.

    Tom

    • By the way, 5,849 folks have signed “The Petition” as of 8:30 pm EST Sunday.

      There’s a continuing outrage about these human rights abuses.

      David Miscarriage, the Caligula of our age, is a sociopath.

  101. Hi Mike,

    Just a short note to say thanks for being there and thanks for the support to Scientology (the religion, not the church). Your presentation and logic was excellent and listening to you reminded me of an event where Diana Hubbard spoke. It too was thetaful! Cheers!

    (P.S. As a Class VIII C/S, I don’t know if I could have done a better job. I think you have the experience and you definitely have the cajones to be there; essentially, you still wear the hat.)

  102. Just had a chance to listen to your talk. I loved it!

    Thanks for being such an incredible representative.

    Marie-Joe

  103. I recently did research on Scientology and blogged about it. It is clearly not a religion. It is a cult. It’s a money making business. The only reason it is regarded as a religion is to get tax exemptions.

  104. I have yet to read everyone’s response yet, but I wanted to respond for myself before I got to all of your other comments. I have been in positions, both within the Sea Org and out, were I was able to view and evaluate (with full access to Data Files, confidential Hubbard “advices”, as well as personal tapes of meetings between he and Diana. Scientology from Day one for me has always held onto the ability to move in either direction, Church or Business. I wrote in my book, that there had to be a choice cause it could not continue to practice both. As some reporters have commented “A business cloaked in a Religion”. I can never deny that I left Scientology with a great experience in Business, and Management and Evals. But I also left with the experience of the closest I ever saw to a pure Scientology religion — and that was the Mission Network. I hope more “Old Timers” join in here and share the simple, very simple successful actions that made the Missions more of a “church” than the Sea Organization and the Sea Organizations influence. The succesful action of separating out the New people form the Bull baiting people is brilliant.
    The family atmosphere was deep and natural. There was a care for each other attitude, and I don’t think any missions ever “declared” or separated from family or an individuals not thinking like minded thoughts.

    While in the Orgs, I have seen people fall into personal troubles or illness (sometimes severe things like cancer), and seen a distancing of the group from that individual and much speculation of “what did they do to pull that in”. (Luckily there usually one or two people who will simply offer kindness, compassion, foot massages and touch assists – whatever that person needs to help them recover. People need LOVE not disconnection.

    I have studied a lot of “religions”, and the true community of a Church, has services. When a member is ill, there is a team of members that pitch in to help with cooking, laundry child care, whatever that individual needs.
    I hope the majority of your have experienced that feeling of care and family within a group. That is what a “Religious Movement” should contain.

    And the clearest I have ever seen it, was back in the Mission Networks expansion. Since this was the first area that DM killed, it makes sense that it should be the first to be brought back to life.

    And, you know what, If someone just does one course or life repair, and feels so much better and wants to put into practice what they just learned, let them. Don’t push. Let Them Be. If you love and care for your public, they will not desert you, because even if they are not “on services”, they are still a part of the group, in their own individual ways.

    Ok, enough for my soapbox. It does my heart good to see the glimmers and sparks of that area’s rebirth.
    nancy

  105. Pingback: …THE ISSUE IS MONKEY

  106. Hello Marty or Administrator, FYI,
    the YouTube link in this Blog Post is broken.
    I found a new version of the same video, if you like to replace it:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s