ozarkheretic wrote:
Except that the people who started
Scientology are more or less contemporary to our times and they have
had the benefit of the scientific enlightment. So for them to
launch into a recitation about (presumably) a new group of
extraterristrial beings seems strange. The other religions began
before the advent of science.

Remember that Hubbard was a science fiction writer - so extra terestrials
might go well with his brand of religion. As far as scientific
enlightenment goes, consider the current pseudo debate between Darwinian
evolution and "intelligent design" or previously called "scientific
creationism" where extra terestrials are proposed to have "designed" us.
Considering all of the advanced degrees of the people supporting
"intelligent design" they must have religion.

Regarding your second question about intimidation by Scientology, while I'm
not a member of any religious group (previously Jewish), I would believe the
claims are more for smearing the reputation of Scientology anything
concrete.

One of the things that Scientology does that among many other things, they
administer "personality" tests to (in my opinion) demonstrate your need for
their Dianetics program.
As Szasz has said in one of his aphorisms:

Projective tests: hocus-pocus used by psychologists to prove that they are
normal and their clients are crazy. The popular acceptance of these tests
suggests that this claim may not be without foundation.

With very few exceptions, most Scientologists are completely unaware of Dr.
Szasz.

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 20:06:09 -0000
>
>I think you are right that the beliefs of the Scientologists about
>extraterristrial beings are not any more ridiculous than similar
>beliefs in other religions. Except that the people who started
>Scientology are more or less contemporary to our times and they have
>had the benefit of the scientific enlightment. So for them to
>launch into a recitation about (presumably) a new group of
>extraterristrial beings seems strange. The other religions began
>before the advent of science. Can you say anything about the
>allegations that Scientologists are guilty about intimidating
>people? How are they supposed to intimidate people?
>
>Over the weekend I saw an interesting movie on tv called "K-PAX",
>got into it in the middle. Guy in a mental hospital claims he is an
>extraterestrial. Tells the psychiatrist he befriended an earth man
>several years before. The psychiatrist uses a few pieces of
>informtion the ET tells him and apparently discovers that about five
>years earlier the guy came home from work (at a slaugther house) to
>find that his wife and child had been killed and that the killer was
>still in the house. The man kills the intruder and then walks to a
>river, disrobes, and apparently jumps into the river. The body of
>the man was never found. Apparently the guy developed amnesia and
>created the story of his being an alien from the planet K-PAX. If
>you get a chance, take a look. Provokes some initeresting thinking.
>
>--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Kessler"
><titaniummdk@h...> wrote:
> > 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@y...>
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>