Rebecca Hartong Ron Newman

20 Nov 98

Message-ID: <7348qn$356@enews3.newsguy.com>

Rebecca:
>> I don't believe Scientology is any more harmful than dozens of other rigidly heirarchical and expensive belief and/or marketing systems.

Ron Newman:
>Other hiearachical and expensive marketing systems don't engage in practices that are so directly harmful to the participant's health. I've never heard of anyone dying because of Amway, for instance.

I wrote *belief and/or* marketing systems.

But, at any rate... Surely, the vast majority of Scientologists do not suffer any apparent ill health that can be directly attributed to the practice of Scientology. The Lisa McPhersons of Scientology are, thank goodness, the exception rather than the rule. As such, I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute her death at least as much to the stupidity of the individuals who were responsible for caring for her as to the Introspection Rundown (and, by extension, Scientology) itself.

Rebecca Hartong BP

21 Nov 98

Message-ID: <736evf$7ae@enews1.newsguy.com>

BP:
>The "individuals who were responsible for caring for her" had no legal right to keep her locked up in a room without a court order of incompetence, which a mental hospict would have required! They were not "responsible", they were usurping kidnappers. She wanted to leave - they kept her against her will. They did that _because_ of the teachings of Hubbard, specifically  the Introspection Rundown. The Rundown _killed_ her. That said:

Just following orders, eh? Without invoking Godwin's Law, I think if you give a little thought to the historical precedents for that defense, you'll realize that it isn't usually successful. It is every individual's responsibility to disobey orders--even orders issued by "applied religious philosophies"--when those orders are unethical or otherwise harmful. When people fail to disobey stupid or dangerous orders the field of responsibility enlarges to include those people. I presume that you don't really misunderstand the meaning of "responsibility" when it's used in this context.

>At the Mesa org, a woman lost her leg because she believed that her OT8 training to "postulate" reality would cure the circulatory disease that she suffered from. Do you think this is an isolated case, or would you agree that it is _part and parcel_ of the Co$ belief system?

If it weren't an isolated case, we'd be seeing a lot more one-legged Scientologists than we do, don't you think? As I mentioned in a previous post, I strongly suspect that the practice of Christian Science has unnecessarily killed a lot more people than has the practice of Scientology. I think that's very sad, but I also think people (like the woman at the Mesa org) are entitled to make stupid choices if they want. People aren't, however, entitled to make stupid choices on behalf of those--like Lisa McPherson--who are incapacitated. It is for this reason that I believe the individuals who made those choices for Lisa are at least as much to blame for her death as is the practice of Scientology itself.

>Do you deny that the members of the cult have about the same incident of family or job problems that could be alleviated with standard medical intervention of counseling and support drugs?

About the same incident [incidence?] as whom? To whom are we comparing them? Assuming that the comparison is to the general non-Scientologist public, I'd say, yes, they probably have about the same incidence of family or job problems as non-Scientologists.

> What do you think the outcome will be in these instances, given the Co$ attititude to psychology?

Most would probably get better on their own-- with or without the help offered by Scientology *or* psychology. This is the basis for my oft-stated opinion that what Scientologists frequently offer up as "wins" are really just life changes that most of us go through naturally as a consequence of living and maturing. Believe me, I think psychology is a great thing, but the reality of it is that it's no magic bullet for eliminating everyday sorts of family and job problems.

Some people, though, may well get worse as a direct result of their involvement in Scientology. That's too bad, but I believe people do have a right to make stupid choices about how they're going to live their lives. As it turns out, most people who make the choice to become involved with Scientology do realize that they've made a mistake within a fairly short period of time and they quit.

>Scientology Kills, Hartong Apologizes.

If Scientology kills, it must not be very good at it. Considering the 50 or so years that Scientology's been around, you'd think there would be mountains of bodies piled up. No, Scientology doesn't kill. Stupid and/or cruel individuals kill.

Hartong just tries to see things fairly and realistically.

And, BP? He just seems to want to join a Great Moral Crusade.

Rebecca Hartong BP

22 Nov 98

Message-ID: <73adpk$5ni@enews2.newsguy.com>

>>BP:
>>>No, not "just following orders". That is _your_ straw man. I stated that they had internalized the teachings of Scientology, specifically the Introspection Rundown. They were acting morally and ethically, and applying the best treatment for mental illness that had ever been devised, in their opinion.

>Rebecca:
>>Then the responsibility still lies with the individuals, does it not? If someone guns down a bunch of FBI agents because they've "internalized" some wacked-out Aryan Nation militia junk, are they somehow absolved of responsibility for those killings? No, they're not.

BP:
>You are the one who claimed that I was promoting a "just following orders" defense. Now you claim that I absolve the caretakers of Lisa MacPherson, or in the general case, any follower of a wrong and immoral code of ethics.

Actually, no, I didn't claim either of those things. I used the "just following orders" analogy and you claimed that this wasn't correct because the individuals had "internalized" Scientology. So, I moved on to the analogy of militia members who have "internalized" a philosophy which teaches that killing FBI agents is a good idea. Is the "internalization" process different for Scientologists than it is for members of other groups? If so, how? And why? If it's *not* different, then it would seem that the analogy is a good one and I'd have to return to my question: Would the militia guys be somehow absolved of personal responsibility for the murder of FBI agents because they had "internalized" a violent philosophy?

>The responsibility lies both with the individuals _and_ with the organization/philosophy that promulgates the values and incorrect ideas that the individuals use to make the wrong decisions.

Hello? Hello? Isn't that what I originally wrote? If you agree with me that the individuals are at least as much to blame as the organization, what exactly is it you're arguing with me about?

> As long as the recruiting/teaching/deploying organization exists, more individuals will be taken in and make wrong and immoral decisions.

People make wrong and immoral decisions all the time. They make these decisions regardless of the organizations to which they belong. The fault is not in our stars (or our "applied religious philosophies"), but in ourselves. Eliminating Scientology isn't going to prevent wrong and immoral decisions from being made. Those who would have become vicious Scientologists will instead become vicious Amway salesmen.

> The individuals can be taken one by one and tried and convicted, but the wrong-doing will continue. _That's_ the point you fail to grasp.

I do understand that you believe Scientology makes people who would have otherwise been perfectly normal into heartless killers. I disagree.

Rebecca:
>>I'm available M-F, 9:30-5:00. ;-) Obviously, if they knew it was a stupid choice in advance, they probably wouldn't do it. I don't think we're obligated as a society or as individuals to protect every other member of our species from making stupid choices for themselves. Making such choices (I've done it myself!) and dealing with the consequences is a valuable learning experience.

>Our society feels that it is very much in it's interest to protect people from a great number of stupid choices, especially when those choices affect not only themselves but those around them.

And that, of course, is really the distinguishing factor. In the United States we're permitted to make all sorts of silly choices for ourselves as long as those choices don't endanger others. The presumption is that mentally sound adults are capable of making these choices for themselves. I like it that way.

BP:
>>>They were acting according to the teachings of Scientology. Do you think that they sould have had some incorruptible moral guide within them? That is naive.

Rebecca:
>>I don't think it's naive at all. The idea that each of us is responsible for our behavior is something of a cornerstone of western civilization and of our legal system.

>You are not responding to what I said. The law holds individuals responsible after the fact, but what is supposed to tell those individuals not to commit the deed, if their actions are correct _within the culture created by the Co$_?

Their own consciences, of course. Scientologists do not live in a vacuum and neither, imo, are they brainwashed zombies who are unable to tell right from wrong. I think that almost every one of us reading a.r.s. right now--Scientologist and critic alike--could come to agreement on most of the big issues regarding right and wrong.

>It is this culture/organization/value set/"church" that is ultimately the dangerous enemy. You seem to be assuming that we all share some core set of values that tells us what is right or wrong, independent of the culture around us. That _is_ naive.

I don't believe it is naive. I think we *do* all share some core set of values that tells us what is right or wrong. The people who frame our laws also believe this. As I indicated in my answer the first time around, the presumption that we all know the difference between right and wrong is the foundation of our entire criminal law system. It works for me, too.

Rebecca:
>>I have more empathy than you know.

>How could I know, when all I hear is your "valuable lesson learned" cover up for Scientology mind-rape?

You'll just have to take my word for it, BP. You and I are still discussing things in a relatively civil fashion, aren't we? Do you think that would be possible if I had no empathy?

Rebecca:
>>>>And, BP? He just seems to want to join a Great Moral Crusade.

Bruce Petty:
>>>No, I am IN a great moral crusade. And YOU are on the sidelines.

Rebecca:
>>I fully understand your need to believe that. That's kind of the same thing Scientology itself uses to attract members, isn't it?

>No, it's self-confidence that my assessment of Scientology is correct. And I have the courage to oppose what I see as a dangerous and immoral organization, causing great harm.

In this particular venue (a.r.s.) I think maybe it takes more courage to express *my* point of view! ;-)

>So you keep right on apologizing for them and I will continue fighting them.

What you see as apology, I see as fairness.

Rebecca Hartong Jeaux

24 Nov 98

Message-ID: <73fjar$a8j@enews4.newsguy.com>

Jeaux:
>She has her degree in Master of Denial!

Hey! That's "Mistress of 'de Nile" to you, buster.

>But she *does* still believe that we are responsible for our damages at the hands of Scientologists.

You might want to read my response to Jim Lippard's recent post for further clarification of what I mean by this.

>There is a likelihood that OSA might be interested in having Rebecca on the witness stand--as she is witness for the enemy. A likely Scientology sympathizer.

"The enemy," huh? Ah... so much is revealed in those two little sentences, David.