Woah… kind of surreal seeing a video I made show up in my own rss feed. Hahaha… thanks for putting this up Mark. I might do 1 or 2 more excerpts from the book. so stay tuned. I am so glad I bought it and I hope everyone who can gets their own copy of it.
Tom Newton: “Scientology is noy anymore against gays anymore than X-tianity is.”
Sorry to state the obvious:
– The bible was written about 2’000 years ago; LRH’s book about or less than 50 years ago. Small difference…
– The various christian churches around the world differ in their approach of homosexuality and discuss the matter; scientology follows LRH’s views – as in any other topic except when DM squirrels the source – as a monolith. Small difference…
Your comparison is fraudulent, as usual. Lurk moar.
“Sorry to state the obvious:
– The bible was written about 2′000 years ago; LRH’s book about or less than 50 years ago. Small difference…”
A difference indeed, because in fact most ancient cultures 2000 years ago were much more tolerant towards homo- and bisexuality than american society in the 40’s and 50’s, when Dianetics was written. It was CHRISTIANITY who changed this liberal attitude with their moral imperialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
“With the arrival of Christianity, all kinds of same-sex love became increasingly taboo. In 390, the first law banning same-sex love was enacted, making it punishable by death.”
Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness by the psychs in the 50’s.
It’s just ridiculous and hypocritical how you use a single quote of Dianetics out of context in order to agitate the Gay/Lesbian movement for your cause, although there has never been a single case of discrimination against homosexuals from Scientology.
Same goes for your idiotic allegations that Scientology would be racist, although there are Scientology Churches in south africa and also many black Scientologists in america.
Homosexuals are 1.1 on Hubbard’s tone scale. You can read about that in Science of Survival. 1.1 is covert hostility so.. its not exactly a kind and gentle attitude toward homosexuality, Tom. (I’m assuming you’re Tom because you’re really about the only person who bothers to defend Scientology these days.)
Well, first of all the purpose of the tone scale is not to morally judge someone. Its purpose is to understand and predict human behaviour. Being low on the tone scale is not a sin in the christian sense. The tone scale can be used as a tool to improve your relations and communications with other people and also to recognize your own tone and try to improve it.
Ron classified homosexuals as 1.1 on the tone scale, but you have to take into consideration the circumstances, to understand this classification and why it made sense under these circumstances.
In the 50’s homosexuals could not openly live their sexuality, they had to hide their sexual preference from society, because the society did not acknowledge it and they would be socially outlawed, when they admitted it. It is comparable to pedophilia in todays society. Pedophiles have to hide their sexual preference from todays society, not only because it is illegal, but also, because pedophilia is socially unacceptable.
Now if someone has to constantly hide his true feelings about something, then this influences his tone. He will have to lie at many occasions, he will have to constantly pretend things and so on.
This is however not valid anymore under todays circumstances, where people are more tolerant towards homosexuality.
Homosexuals can be high on the tone scale, because their sexual preference is not an issue anymore for most people.
Finally, a Scientologist/anti-Anonymous (for whatever reason you are) who knows how to give logical arguments and is open for a REAL debate.
Please tell Tom Newton we want you to stay and him to go.
You do make a logical argument:
Indeed, in 2002 the American Church of Scientology published a press release on its website quoting gay activist Keith Relkin as saying, “Over the years I have worked with the Church of Scientology for greater inclusion of gay people like me, and today represents a milestone in that progress.” They’d be destroying huge customer base if they were actively (or even passively) anti-gay.
However, good PR from Co$ and the removal of homosexuality from psychopathology by the American Psychology Association in the 1970s, does not rescind anti-gay sentiments.
A 2004 article in the St. Petersburg Times reported that the Church defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. It may not be good PR to adopt an anti-gay disposition, however, actions speak louder than words.
It is one thing to look at what the texts say and another to do what you feel is right. If you follow LRH tech just because it’s LRH tech or if you read it, think about it but decide it’s not right, you may still be in line with what is true to your own self and humanity in general.
I was an SO member and worked in the Ethics dept and with “OSA”. A gay person would be allowed to do courses and receive “auditing” but all with the aim to rid him of the “aberrations” so he becomes straight. ur taught that gays ARE perverted. They are discriminated against. No gay person can work in the Church.
I know gay and lesbians who were RPFed for simple gay activities, not even for violating their stupid ass “2D rules” (no sex or heavy petting unless married).