• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

should I be concerned?

punychicken

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
374
I haven't had much chance yet to evaluate the claims made but a little bell is ringing in my head. I will explain:

An email from a good friend popped into my inbox this morning, it reads thus:

"Scientology:Be drug free and think clearly...

Do you want to go along with me? Seriously! The nearest 'church' is Coleridge Street, Hove. Wonder if its some mad cult thing, or a good way of detoxing. Er can't help thinking I am being a bit naive here. thinkclearly "

So anyway, off for a google but would like some opinions on the subject. Got a friend who wants to 'think clearly' but I am not sure that this organisation is the way to go...(personally I'd suggest drinking lots of water and not smoking but due to a lack of will power this is also a flawed idea).
 
Yes, you should be concerned.
The Church of Sci delibrately target people with drug problems or other personal concerns, as they are easier to manipulate and screw money out of it.
If your friend is worried about his/her drug intake, the best place to get free and confedential advice is to visit your local G.P..
I was addicted to speed for about three years, my G.P pointed the way to a good support group, and its never been a problem since.:)
 
quick response! cool!, been looking round for things but no luck yet. Aside from the personal issues involved the C of Scie. seem to be on a constant leafleting vigil in the area. You might have seen them, the tick box flyers where you fill them in and arrange an interview and all that.

Incidentally, I have just found a site by some guy relating his
tale of scientology . But it is hard sitting on this fence between opinion and doubt and all that, as to what to believe!! Must find more! As for the friend, I'll tell him to hold fire on taking a look at the scientologists.
 
I remember from my time in the Brighton area, that the C of S were always big.
As I remember they have their British headquarters somewhere around East Grinsted (sp?) or Hove.
 
You have to be very careful about what you say about the CoS - they're the ones that tried to stop Google linking to anti sites and we don't want Aunty ForT confronted with our learned friends. Both the Germans and the French have recently had legal victories over CoS and I hope that European Law will be just as accomodating so that the British can take some action.
 
There is a kind of logic in an all encompassing, all enveloping religion that targets the young, the lonely, the insecure. People with low will power, low self esteem and addictive personalities. I'm sure this one's quite different.

There was a Buffy episode about it. When she ran away from home. Demons, disguised as a cult, were kidnapping the lost and homeless and taking them to Hell. She kicked the bad guy's butts! Of course that was only a scary story.
 
Check out this article from Breaking News

Follow That Story

Eighty-Six Million Dimes

BY ALAN PRENDERGAST

A 22-year legal battle came to an abrupt end last week when the Church of Scientology paid .67 million to one of its harshest critics: a former member who claimed the church had harassed him for years and driven him "to the brink of insanity."

The settlement between the church's California organization and former Boulder resident Lawrence Wollersheim is notable not only for its size, but for its public nature. In the past, litigation involving the controversial "new religion" -- founded by science-fiction writer and Dianetics author L. Ron Hubbard in 1954 -- and disaffected ex-members has been resolved quietly, the terms kept strictly confidential. But Wollersheim says his settlement contained no such conditions and came minutes before a court hearing at which his attorneys planned to introduce a recently acquired document challenging the Church of Scientology International's tax-exempt status.

"I signed no gag orders," says Wollersheim, who now lives in Nevada. "The only reason they settled was that somehow they pierced our intelligence. Three hours after we [uncovered] an absolutely conclusive piece of evidence that [CSI's] corporate structure is a scam, the check was delivered to the court."

A former Scientology recruiter, Wollersheim says he became disillusioned with the group and was subjected to thousands of hours of intensive counseling at "thought- reform camps designed to make you crazy." He filed suit in 1980, claiming that members continued to harass him after he left the church. In 1986, a California jury awarded him million in damages; the award was reduced to .5 million on appeal. But he was unable to collect from the Church of Scientology of California and spent years trying to "pierce the corporate veil" of its parent organization, CSI. Outside of court hearings, church supporters carried protest signs declaring that they would pay "not one thin dime to Wollersheim."

Other suits and countersuits followed. One action against Wollersheim resulted in a judge assessing a 0,000 fine against the church under California's SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) legislation.

In 1995, Wollersheim and a handful of other ex-Scientologists made headlines by disclosing portions of the group's secret upper-level teachings on the Internet. Alleging copyright violations, church officials obtained federal search warrants and seized computers from Wollersheim and other boardmembers of the group he founded, the Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network (FACTNet). That action resulted in more costly lawsuits and stirred international debate over the limits of free speech in cyberspace ("Nightmare on the Net," March 6, 1997) before it was finally settled in 1999.

Five years ago, Wollersheim told Westword that he'd rejected a million settlement offer from the church because it would have required him and other FACTNet members to cease their anti-cult activities and destroy their extensive archive of Scientology materials ("Hush-Hush Money," August 14, 1997). At the time, church officials denied making such an offer and accused Wollersheim of attempting to extort a settlement.

Last week's payment of ,674,643 represents the .5 million award from the 1986 trial plus sixteen years' interest. "The cult that vowed it would never pay me one thin dime has now paid over 86 million thin dimes," Wollersheim noted in a statement on FACTNet's Web site (http://www.factnet.org).

Asked for comment, Church of Scientology of California president Neil Levin provided a written statement noting that the judgment was against a church entity that has since undergone restructuring. "This is a twenty-year-old case involving an old Scientology church that doesn't exist anymore," Levin wrote. "We've been trying to pay Mr. Wollersheim for five years, but he has so many creditors, we couldn't do it. So finally, we put the money into the court."

Wollersheim, however, contends that the timing of the settlement indicates that the church didn't want him to present in court his "conclusive piece of evidence" -- which, he says, has been turned over to the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies.

"This has nothing to do with getting me out of their life," he adds. "They saw what we had. But they haven't stopped anything. It's all going to be public someday. For my security, I need to be a government witness and have government protection."

Although much of the money is owed to attorneys, Wollersheim says there should be enough left over to allow him to continue to support FACTNet and to become involved in "less confrontational" activities -- "social work that's easier on the soul," as he puts it. He sees the settlement as a turning point in the tumultuous history of Scientology.

"Now victims who have been intimidated into silence by the belief that no one could ever get paid are calling their attorneys," he says. "These people are going to reach out and get justice, and hopefully, Scientology is going to change
 
Back
Top