http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199121032995322.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
They have a business masquerading as a church with no Biblical reference whatsoever the Brethren [are] right where they want them.
-
Anonymous
UnregisteredHere are extracts from decisions worldwide against this cult:
http://www.antisectes.net/jugessay.htm
Love to all,
Mrs Murdstone
Post # 24704 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Anonymous
UnregisteredThe news in Le Figaro:
Hassenfratz
Post # 24706 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Anonymous
UnregisteredThe phrase «escroquerie en bande organisée» suits another cult to a tee. 'Crookery in an organised gang?' Or, is it simply 'organised crime?'
Post # 24707 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Anonymous
UnregisteredOr, is it simply 'organised crime?'
In Australia and some other countries psychological abuse is a crime. In most countries obtaining money by false pretences is a crime. Most cults are guilty of both in a systematic organized way, so it would not be stretching words very far to call them criminal organizations.
Post # 24709 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Ian
MemberThe Judicial verdicts cited by Mrs Murdstone above are well worth reading, based as they are on a mature and expert assessment of voluminous evidence. They will not suit all of our readers here because they have been translated into French.
This seems a good place to collect the original English transcripts of these verdicts. The main difference that I have noticed between this description of Scientology and our experience of Exclusive Brethrenism is that the Exclusive Brethren do not try to recruit from outside. I think their system is so unattractive that almost no one would buy into it unless they had been indoctrinated from childhood.
This quotation comes from http://cosmedia.freewinds.be/latey.html
The Latey Judgement
In 1984 a High Court Judge, hearing a custody battle between a Scientologist father and ex-Scientologist mother and step-father, gave a damning opinion of the Scientology organisation:
"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious.... In my judgement it is corrupt, sinister and dangerous.
It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has as its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard, his wife and those close to him at the top.
It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestioningly, and to those who criticise or oppose it.
It is dangerous because it is out to capture people, especially children and impressionable young people, and indoctrinate and brainwash them so that they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living and relationships with others." [emphasis added]
The judgement was based on extensive consideration of internal Scientology documents and testimony from past and present Scientologists. The point was to examine whether the boy and girl in the custody battle would be harmed by being brought up in Scientology:
"Discipline is ruthless and obedience has to be unquestioning."
"The auditing - the processing - begins at an early age. [...] In "The Second Dynamic" 1982 edition under the heading "Children's Confessional Ages 6 - 12" is a "processing check for use on children". It is a very long and vigorous interrogation. [...] I agree with Dr. Clark [an expert witness] that "Scientology training is training for slavery"."
Referring to the threats used by the Scientology's leaders to get missions producing money he said:
"it is grimly reminiscent of the ranting and bullying of Hitler and his henchmen"
Mr. Justice Latey addressed many different aspects of the Scientology: its origin and goals, the history of L. Ron Hubbard and the way the organisation deals with dissent and opposition. Here he addresses the alleged confidentiality of Scientology confessionals:
"Contrary to the assurance of confidentiality, all "auditing" files are available to Scientology's intelligence and enforcement bureau [the Office of Special Affairs] and are used, if necessary, to control and extort obedience from the person who was audited. If a person seeks to escape from Scientology his auditing files are taken by the intelligence bureau and used, if wished, to pressure him into silence. They are often so used and uncontraverted evidence of this has been given at this hearing."
About the Disconnection policy, Latey wrote that "Very many examples have been given and proved in evidence." As examples, he reproduced two disconnection letters. One is written by a Scientologist to his fiancée. In the other a man writes to his business partner and former friend, "What you are now doing in setting yourself against the Church is not only very suppressive but also non-survival for you, your family and any group you are associated with."
Post # 24712 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Ian
MemberActually, the English versions of these quotations have already been collected by someone else. See http://www.xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html These statements are well worth reading, because they are all made by well informed and influential people.
I will content myself by reproducing the comment of the UK Minister of Health, and wondering how long it will take him to come to the same conclusion about Exclusive Brethrenism.
The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a potential menace to the personality and well being of those so deluded as to become followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them... There is no power under existing law to prohibit the practice of Scientology; but the government has concluded that it is so objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its growth.
Post # 24714 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Anonymous
UnregisteredA very interesting legal principle was spelled out in California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)
Church practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees.
Well, would you say Exclusive Brethrenism is a coercive environment? If so, the constitutional right to freedom of religion apparently does not apply to it.
Post # 24715 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Anonymous
UnregisteredWell, would you say Exclusive Brethrenism is a coercive environment? If so, the constitutional right to freedom of religion apparently does not apply to it.
Yes indeed. Being born into a coercive environment and held there by state-sponsored cult indoctrination at public expense certainly qualifies as a totally coercive environment.
Post # 24727 - Posted 3 months ago LINK -
Anonymous
Unregistered"...but the government has concluded that it is so objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its growth."
This presents some problems for the exclusive brethren public relations representatives.
Post # 24745 - Posted 3 months ago LINK
Top of page | RSS feed for this topic
