Until Scientology starts blowing up people like Wahabi fundamentalists, it
presents less of an intimidation situation than quashing the altar boy's
rape complaints from the Catholic church.
Scientology's beliefs in extraterrestrial beings isn't any more ridiculous
than the extraterrstrial beings that the majority of the world's theistic
religions believe in. The only difference is that the established religions
have had their sky gods for millenia - which gives them a sort of
legitimacy. Check out the Nation of Islam's story of biblical creation
(quite different from the official version).
Martin

>From: "ozarkheretic" <ozarkheretic@...>
>Reply-To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
>To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Re: Cruising Szasz by Jeffrey A. Schaler
>Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:28:35 -0000
>
>I read Schaler's comments about Scientology in the preceding message
>and based on those remarks, I would not characterize Schaler as
>being "fond of Scientology". He points out that the federal
>government recognizes Scientology as a religion. Scientology is
>another religion that some people say they believe in. As for the
>intimidation that you say Scientology believers practice, I am not
>familiar with that issue. Maybe you could say more about that.
>
>As for Narcanon, I am not sure I would agree that Scientology's
>urging people who use drugs to take the Narcannon treatment implies
>that Scientologists accept the idea of "mental illness". People use
>drugs and the drugs affect their bodies, e.g. their brains.
>Apparently some of these people want to stop using drugs but say
>they don't know how to stop using the drugs. Their desire for the
>drugs somehow is greater than their finding the will power to stop
>using the drugs. Or that is what they say or something to that
>effect. Somehow Narcannon apparently helps some of those people to
>acquire the will, or to engage in behavior, that helps them ween
>themselves off the drugs, or the drug users say, and the Narcanon
>practitioners say, that the treatment helps them in that regard.
>
>What I find astounding about the Scientologists is that I have heard
>that they say they believe something about beings from other worlds
>coming to the earth before human beings came into existence. Don't
>remember what that was.
>
>
>--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Ryley"
><KingoWellness@y...> wrote:
> > Scientology is recognized by
> > > our federal government as a religion and demands the same
>respect
> > > and tolerance we show any other religion. Instead of asking
>why
> > > Scientology endorses Thomas Szasz's ideas, we should be asking
> > > why other religions do not.
> >
> > I'd have to disagree with Schaler on this. Suffice it to say that
> > Scientology might deserve more respect if it stopped using various
> > sorts of intimidation tactics against critics.
> >
> > Scientologists conveniently agree with Szasz when he supports
>their
> > purposes, but their CCHR group (Citizens Commission on Human
>Rights)
> > has literature calling for the banning of psychiatric drugs and
> > treatments, which is in direct contradiction of what Thomas Szasz
> > has stated in his writings.
> >
> > The CCHR often calls psychiatrists "drug pushers" and uses the
> > hysteria over "dangerous drugs" as a club with which to beat
>mental
> > health professionals with. They certainly do not agree with Szasz
> > when he calls for ending the drug war, and abolishing prescription
> > laws.
> >
> > Finally, Scientology has a drug "treatment" program called
> > Narcanon. I would have to ask, as Schaler has asked others many
> > times: How can you have a "treatment" for a "mental illness" if
>you
> > don't believe in "mental illness" in the first place?
> >
> > I don't know why Schaler is so fond of Scientology, who promote
> > a "treatment" for the non-existent "disease" of addiction, and yet
> > is at times harshly critical of more reputable addiction critics
> > (Stanton Peele being one). He undermines his own credibility by
> > doing so.
>
>
>