And yet you go on with it.

Dan said “I’m not trying to defend what is indefensible, but it will simply be incorrect to dismiss everything that they do and practice.”.

Maybe not everything, but certainly the vast majority of it.

As I mentioned in other threads, there is MUCH that I disagree with Scientology, but there is also much that I agree with.

Also as I mentioned in other threads my experience with them (about 15 or so years ago) has been very positive and my sexuality has not been an issue for anyone that I personally dealt with. And by that I mean that my partner was always invited.

I’m not trying to defend what is indefensible, but it will simply be incorrect to dismiss everything that they do and practice. That’s really all I have to say.

I apologize if my latest responses have not been properly crafted. My intention was not to suggest that. I too have lost interest in this discussion.

Answer: He said, “They should be disposed of quietly and without sorrow.”

As a person Hubbard deemed to be 1.1 on the tone scale (by virtue of being a homosexual “pervert”), I hope you may understand why the LGBT community might take issue with Scientology’s doctrine.

Until a Scientology spokeshole like Tommy Davis comes out and says this crap has been removed from their teachings — rather than playing lip service when there has been a PR disaster… I’m not going to believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

Thank you for the lecture and the implication that I am not intelligent.

Your ongoing responses are less and less credible. It would appear that there is nothing that you will not excuse or defend with regard to Scientology. I have a very hard time believing that you are not currently associated with Scientology.

I will not make any further comments in this thread. Not because I am “offended” by your implication that I am unintelligent, but due to my complete lack of interest in continuing this pointless exchange.

What do you think of the following quotations from L. Ron Hubbard’s “scripture?”

These are quotes from Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and from Science of Survival.

From DMSMH:

“The sexual pervert (and by this term
Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all
forms of deviation in dynamic two such as
homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism,
etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and
Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill
physically.”

The Second Dynamic in Scientology has to do with Hubbard’s Dynamics of Existence. Each are “urges” toward survival in life. The 1st Dynamic would be “self,” the second dynamic being the family or sex, including the act of sex itself. In this posting, the 2nd dynamic will only be focused on.

After DMSMH, Hubbard wrote the book Science of Survival, which includes what is called the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation. The chart follows Hubbard’s tone scale, and describes various traits that someone would have at each given point on the scale. The following quotes all deal with one at the level of 1.1 Covert Hostility. The “sexual pervert” including homosexuality is charted at the 1.1 band:

Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 1:

“At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the
area of the most vicious reversal of the
second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity,
perversion, sadism, and irregular practices.”

Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 8:

“The person may claim to love others and to
have the good of others as his foremost
interest; yet, at the same moment, he works,
unconsciously or otherwise, to injure or
destroy the lives and reputations of people
and also to destroy property.”

Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 13:

“The only answers would seem to be the
permanent quarantine of such persons from
society to avoid the contagion of their
insanities and the general turbulence which
they bring to any order, thus forcing it
lower on the scale, or processing such
persons until they have attained a level on
the tone scale which gives them value.”

Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 13:

“Such people should be taken from the
society as rapidly as possible and uniformly
institutionalized; for here is the level of
the contagion of immorality, and the
destruction of ethics.”

Science of Survival, Book One, Chapt. 18:

“People on this level on the second
dynamic are intensely dangerous in the
society, since aberration is contagious. A
society which reaches this level is on its
way out of history, as went the Greeks, as
went the Romans, as goes modern European and
American culture. Here is a flaming danger
signal which must be heeded if a race is to
go forward.”

Well, I’ve often been told I’m intelligent and I have no reason to doubt that many times being offended or outraged represents people’s genuine feelings.

I’ll even say that I’m pretty sure all intelligent people know that being “offended”, “outraged”, etc. are not genuine feelings (except for the really crazy ones).

Israeli (where I came from) politicians tend to be offended a lot by any non-jews that dare suggest that anyone has suffered more than the jews or if the term holocaust is being used in any connotations other than the one relating to the jewish experience during world war II.

Glenn Beck, Hannity, they all get “offended” and “outraged” as it suits them.

Now I don’t have a problem with tying the way the interview was handled with the tactics described above of people I disagree with. However, let’s not pretend and play a chess game if this is to be a genuine exchange.

When some gay people go on TV I sometimes cringe, particularly back in the early 80s on some talk shows, but that’s a different disucssion. Nobody represents everybody is what I’m tring to say.

I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything, particularly not those who already had their opinion made up well before. For some this is only a game to twist my words, make me look an unsavory person and all other types of character assasinations. Whatever.