On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 10:19:10 GMT, hart...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
>I'm not sure who wrote this: >>>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do >>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
William Barwell, the subgenius pope, wrote that.
>The disciple (and gospel writer) Matthew was a tax collector. Does he count >as an "accountant type?" There's at least one story in the Bible about Jesus >spending time over at Matthew's house chatting with Matthew's friends (other >tax collectors and such) and getting heat from the more conservative folk of >the area about it.
>Who knows... maybe besides spreading the Good Word, Jesus was also picking up >a few tips on how to lighten his tax burden? ;-)
In article <ws4lnzrrk9e....@tr3.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dean Benjamin writes: >William Barwell: >> Was Scientology a real religion or was religion a cloak Hubbard >> insincerely wrapped around Scientology for matters of tax purposes >> and legal reasons? What does Hubbard's words indicate? That it is >> a "matter for soliciters and accountants only".
>I think both definitions apply: Hubbard cynically peddled >his quack therapies under the guise of "religion" in order to >reap the tax breaks and public sympathy afforded to religions. >Nonetheless, he did create a religion, complete with a supernatural >theory of Origins (how the universe was created and how we fell from a >state of "grace" into the abundant misery of the human condition), >coupled with rituals (called "auditing") to secure eternal salvation >from our apparent fate.
Very sensible article, and quote. There is much equivocation around the word "religion", introduced as "having supernatural elements" and converted -- SHAZZAM! -- to being benevolent, charitable, ethical etcetera. We should be quite unmoved by this wordplay: so it has supernatural elements, so what, we should judge it by its conduct."
>Stephen Kent offers the best evaluation of the "religion angle":
> Even if we grant the point that Scientology cosmology and > soteriology have supernatural elements that classify the > belief-system as religious (regardless of these elements' suspect > history), neither government officials nor society at large should > *necessarily* grant Scientology religious status for purposes of > receiving societal benefits. Rather than struggling over whether > or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more > helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational, only *one* > element of which is religious.
|~/ |~/ ~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~ P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
In article <34483560.16647...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatHername writes: >On 17 Oct 1997 16:57:00 -0500, wbarw...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM wrote: >:In article <344543d1.2028...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes: >:>On 14 Oct 1997 22:58:21 -0500, wbarw...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM wrote: >:>:In article <34435cc1.891...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes: >:>:>On 13 Oct 1997 19:27:58 -0500, wbarw...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM wrote >:>:>:In article <34420e4e.6506...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes >:>:>:> >:>:>:> Quote: >:>:>:> | >:>:>:> |real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers >:>:>:> >:>:>:>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters? >:>:>: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >:>:>:Are the religous 'foundations' of real religions a "matter for >:>:>:soliciters and accountants only"? >:>:> >:>:>I don't know, Barwell. Maybe Jesus talked to his solicitors and >:>:>accountants about this without his words showing up in the Bible. >:>:>Do you know? >:>: >:>:The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything >:>:to do with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out >:>:of the temple. ####################################### <--------- >:> >:>Do you think every word Jesus uttered during his lifetime (if there >:>was, indeed, such a person) appears in the Bible? >: >:Heh! heh! Heh! Heh! Another silly Diane Richardson strawman. >:Now Diane, what does this have to do with Hubbard's pointed >:announcement in 1970 that Scientology's new religous orientation >:changed nothing and was a "matter for solicitors & accountants only"?
>Barwell, in case you've forgotten, you wrote:
| as above ------>
>What you are now claiming as a strawman was a direct reply to the >remark you wrote above.
So, WhatsHerName, still lying to promote a bunch of killers I see? what you came out with is a bent-out-of-all-recognition evasion which, so far as it means anything, is meant to imply that the pice about moneycahngers is unrepr4esentative or out of context.
So give us the context which DOES show that Jesus thought that religious status was a useful cover fopr commercial enterprises and this had his approval. And don't wriggle out of it by saying you're not interested in what Jesus or Xianity say, because you were the one brought them into the argument.
In article <62a2ik$...@snews3.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName's B.T. wrote: >Bill Barwell: >>>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do >>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
>The disciple (and gospel writer) Matthew was a tax collector. Does he count >as an "accountant type?" There's at least one story in the Bible about Jesus >spending time over at Matthew's house chatting with Matthew's friends (other >tax collectors and such) and getting heat from the more conservative folk of >the area about it.
>Who knows... maybe besides spreading the Good Word, Jesus was also picking up >a few tips on how to lighten his tax burden? ;-)
And the witch's cat chips in, however written with a joke and a smile, to sow more lying implications. Jesus indeed associated with theives, prostitutes, tax-collectors and other low life because he felt they could be redeemed in spite of their despised occupations.
This does not mean he approved of those occupations.
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
On 18 Oct 1997 10:28:41 -0500, wbarw...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
[snip]
>>>It was a strawman meant simply and only to distract us from the issue. >>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion as a useful tool to get tax breaks and >>>to stay out of legal trouble with the FDA and other agencies.
>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion may be the issue for you, Barwell, >>but it certainly isn't the topic under discussion on this thread until >>you decided to change it. Talk about strawmen!
>Baloney Diane! Baloney!
>The thread has been exploring the question "is Scientology a real >religion?"
If that's what you'd like the topic of this thread to be, Barwell, I'd suggest you define your terms. What criteria must a religion meet to be categorized by you as a "real" religion?
>Considering Hubbard's comments and writings, the answer >must be no. Repeatedly Hubbard claimed it was no religion but a hard >science, and his change over to a 'religous basis' was a cynical >action. The only strawmen here has been your refusal to contemplate >what Hubbard wrote and to try to drag Jesus in this for some reason or the >other as a strawman to distract.
Not a strawman, Barwell, just an attempt to get you to define what criteria you think must be met in order to qualify an organization as a "real" religion. What are these criteria? How do you define them? Or would you prefer to scuttle under a rock, screeching "strawman, strawman, strawman," rather than face an issue that makes you quite uncomfortable?
>>>Diane would rather not deal with the substance of Hubbard's own >>>writings. To admit she was wrong is something she cannot do.
>>Admit I'm wrong about what? I don't understand what you're claiming >>I'm wrong about. Perhaps if you stopped snipping things you'd prefer >>not to acknowledge, it would be easier for me to follow the >>discussion. Of course, if you refrained from snipping, you might end >>up looking terribly foolish.
>Isn't she lovely when she plays dumb? Hubbard left no doubt >that Scientology's religous veneer was a matter foor soliciters >and accountants only. A problem of practical business. >A religous angle. "What? Huh?" Says Diane disingenously. >"If only you'd stop snipping stuff I'd know which end is up."
I'm asking you a direct question now, Barwell. What criteria do you believe an orgnization must meet in order to be classified as a "real" religion? Who should be given the authority to determine whether an organization meets these requirements?
Will you answer these questions or will you squirm uncomfortably as you try to deflect them? Every time you begin ranting, you do so because you can no longer defend your stated position in a rational manner. I suspect that's what you're doing once again right now.
>>>Diane, did Jesus believe in Xenu? Did Jesus own an E-meter? >>>Here are some real good strawmen for you.
>>No, Barwell. Why would you need to ask? Are you really that stupid?
>Actually this is a private joke between me and Ted Mayett. >You may ignore it and please don't let it distract you from considering >Hubbard's pronouncements on religous angles, matters of practical business >and soliciters and accountants.
I'd suggest you keep your private jokes to e-mail, Barwell.
>(Ted, no, she does not flee in horror from the name Xenu.)
>>I suspect that it's not that you're stupid, just incapable of >>discussing issues rationally.
>Oh, I have been rather rational. Your strawmen have been rather, well >amusing, if one does not expect much from you.
Amuse me a little more, Barwell, by being rational for a bit. All I'm asking is for you to define your terms. You've stated that the CoS is not a "real" religion. I would like you to explain to readers what requirements you believe a religion must meet in order to be considered "real."
After all, you yourself have determined that the topic of this thread is whether or not the CoS is a "real" religion. It's difficult discussing that issue if we don't understand what constitutes a "real" religion. Since you are the one making the claim that the CoS is not a "real" religion, it is up to you to define your terms.
>Would you like to put this to ARS and see who the peanut gallery >thinks is discussing the issue rationally, and who keeps dragging up silly >strawmen?
Do you consider a discussion of what does and does not constitute a "real" religion a strawman? If so, I'd suggest you stop constructing such strawmen.
>Since you are probably in a lot of killfiles, the vote will be >somewhat non-representitive.
At least you haven't started screeching about nominating me for KOTM yet, Barwell. I'm sure that will appear in the next response you post here.
>>>>>>>>real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
>>>>>>>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
>>>>>>Are the religous 'foundations' of real religions a "matter for >>>>>>soliciters and accountants only"?
>>>>>I don't know, Barwell. Maybe Jesus talked to his solicitors and >>>>>accountants about this without his words showing up in the Bible. Do >>>>>you know?
>>>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do >>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
>>>Do you think every word Jesus uttered during his lifetime (if there >>>was, indeed, such a person) appears in the Bible?
>>Heh! heh! Heh! Heh! Another silly Diane Richardson strawman. >>Now Diane, what does this have to do with Hubbard's pointed >>announcement in 1970 that Scientology's new religous orientation >>changed nothing and was a "matter for solicitors and accountatnts only"?
>Barwell, in case you've forgotten, you wrote: >__________________________________________________
>>>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do >>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple. >__________________________________________________
>What you are now claiming as a strawman was a direct reply to the >remark you wrote above. I'd suggest that you stop posting such >idiotic statements if you don't wish me to follow up on them.
No, my reply above was a snide remark in return to the strawman YOU erected. A strawman erected to distract us from Hubbard's quotes that showed Hubbard to be a cynical bastard who used 'religion' only as a cloak for tax and legal purposes and propganda.
Please do follow up on your own strawmen, it simply illustrates the fcat you simply seem unable to follow a thread or an argument without getting lost along the way somewhere. I used to think it was cupidity, now I realize you are simply clueless.
Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple, Ron made the 'money changers' his high priests. I was contrasting the two, Hubbard the cynic, he of the "It is a matter for soliciters and accountanats only" and the Jesus of your strawman.
Which not only failed to distract, but then added contrast to Hubbard's ugly and cynical HCOPL.
Can you hear the few people who have not kill filled you laughing at you?
Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston Slack!
"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. IT IS NOT A PSYCHO-THERAPY NOR A RELIGION. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.
- From "The Creation of Human Ability", by L. Ron Hubbard (Los Angeles: A.S.H.O., 1971), page 251:
"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."
HCO PL March 9, 1972
GOVERNING POLICY
A. MAKE MONEY .... J. MAKE MONEY. K. MAKE MORE MONEY. L. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY.
The Son of man hath no place to lay his head. .... Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor.
>>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'? >>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real >>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
>What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow, >the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are >"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious >things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm). It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed SubGenius brains.
Really, all reality aside for the moment, it is simply a matter of noting Hubbard was a cynic who saw no religous roots in Scientology, but a mere "matter of practical business", a "religion angle", a "matter for soliciters and accountants only", a way to hold the FDA at bay, a way of getting tax breaks.
>>Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this >>have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted >>to avoid dealing with?
>Perhaps, if Jesus had been literate and fond of having every word he >spoke recorded for posterity, we'd have a statement from Jesus similar >to the one we've read from Hubbard.
But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it? That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those who buy this farce.
These people laughed and sniggered and guffawed when Ron cynically had them get clerical robes and gear and costume themselves when wogs were around to trick the silly wogs.
We have a lot of old timers from that era that have told us that this religion bizzness was a farce and a fraud and that every Scientologist knew it and laughed at the whole thing.
It ain't about Jesus and your and utterly pointless bizarre Jesus rant above is .. well, bizarre and beside the point. As usual.
Scientology was no religion, became a pseudoreligion for the advantages of being a paper religion and this farce was well recognized as the farce it was by those who saw this fraud put into action. Who will admit it was a farce, that all knew it was a fraud and laughed at it all even as they bought priest costumes and set up phony religous trappings around orgs to snow reporters and nosy wogs.
Besides Mormonism and theosophy, I know of few 'religions' that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful fraud.
Would that make Christianity any
>less of a "real" religion, Barwell? Can only illiterate carpenters >found "real" religions? When you get right down to it, what do you >consider a "real" religion?
Not Scientology. Which is the point of this thread even though you keep desperately trying to distract us from that. Not very successfully. I do not intend to let you sidetrack me with a long useless debate not germane to ARS or Hubbard's fraudulent religion.
Discuss Hubbard's writings on the cynical fraud he perpetrated, which is the subject here.
>>Hubbard was not sincere about Scientology being placed on a religous basis >>was he? What else could he have meant that nothing was changed, that it >>was a matter for solicitors and accountants only?
>He was most likely *very* serious about putting Scientology on a >religious basis. That's how he planned to have his scam taken >seriously.
>How do you know Jesus took his own statements seriously? Perhaps >Jesus was every bit as much a con man as Hubbard was. Or do you >accept the words of Christ as divinely inspired and therefore the >truth?
>>Can you stick with the matter at hand, or do you intend to erect more >>amusing strawmen while we laugh at your efforts to distract and avoid >>a real discussion on Hubbard's sincerity in this matter of Scientology >>being a religion? Jesus has nothing to do with Hubbard's statements. >>Jesus is off topic. Beside all possible points.
>Rather than being off-topic, I think you're desperate to avoid >discussing this issue, Barwell. It makes you look like a genuine >fool.
>You claim that the CoS is not a "real" religion because it was >established by a con artist with crass motives. Can you prove that >Christianity was not established by a con man with crass motives? >Or are you just willing to believe in the legends that have been told >over the decades by a powerful organization that once wielded power >that Hubbard would have killed to obtain.
>If you're willing to decide what's a "real" religion based solely on >what that religion says about itself, I'd suggest you're naive enough >to fall for any scam.
>>Care to try again?
>Yes. Why are you willing to accept Christianity as a "real" religion? >Surely you have to admit that the number of people who have been >killed, destroyed, and tortured in the name of Christianity dwarfs the >harm caused by the CoS.
>>>>I notice you did not answer my question. Bet I ain't th' only one who >>>>noticed.
>>>I answered your question. I said, "I don't know." You might not like >>>that answer, but it is an answer nonetheless.
>>>>Answer the question. Hubbard said his 1970 actions declaring >>>>Scientology a religion was a matter for 'soliciters and accountants >>>>only".
>>>Yes. Did Jesus make the same comment during his lifetime? Do you >>>know if Jesus did or did not make such a comment to his disciples? >>>Or are you only assuming that Christianity is a *real* religion >>>because the Bible does not record Jesus making such a comment?
>>There you go again. Now, back to Hubbard. Hubbard said that. >>Jesus has no relevancy to anything Hubbard said. Now, how sincere >>does Hubbard seem about Scientology as a religion?
>Not very sincere. What proof do you have that Jesus was any more >sincere than Hubbard was when he was establishing Christianity? >What proof do you have that Muhammed was any more sincere than Hubbard >was when he was establishing Islam?
>I'm sure you see my point, Barwell. The problem is that you're not >willing to acknowledge that I have a point. I realize this makes you >quite uncomfortable, but your absolute lack of logic is something I >refuse to ignore.
>>HCOPL 29 Oct. 1962, "Religion":
>> "Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious >>organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset >>in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is >>entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."
>>>I've answered your question, Barwell. Now it's your turn. Answer >>>mine.
>>Your strawman question has no bearing at all about the matter at hand. >>Was Scientology a real religion or was religion a cloak Hubbard >>insincerely wrapped around Scientology for matters of tax purposes >>and legal reasons? What does Hubbard's words indicate? >>That it is a "matter for soliciters and accountants only".
>>A touch of fraud on Hubbard's parhere. Pretty cynical, yes?
>Yep. It's pretty cynical. What do you think about Pope Leo XIII's (I >think it was XIII) comment -- "God has given us the papacy. Now let >us enjoy it"? Pretty cynical, eh? Does that mean that Roman >Catholicism isn't a "real" religion either?
>>>>This is not a real religion, is it? It is a scam, cover >>>>for Scientology legally and as for the tax breaks. >>>>Hubbard admits it himself here, doesn't he?
>>>Sure he does. My question to you is whether you can prove that >>>Christianity was not also established with the same greedy motives in >>>mind. How do we know that mainstream religions were any different in >>>the venality of their leaders' motives?
>>No, you are raising a strawman again I fear. Christianity has nothing >>to do with Hubbard's motives in abusing religion for his own purposes. >>Repeatedly Hubbard claimed Scientology WAS NOT a religion, and then it >>bacame a religion all of a sudden, BUT, it is to have no real effect on >>any Scientology org or activity, it is merely a matter for soliciters and >>accountants.
>>What did he mean here, Diane? No, no, no, don't throw out any strawmen to >>sweep aside or try to confuse the issues. Won't work.
>Hubbard was setting up a scam. As far as I'm concerned, other >religions were established as scams, too. Of all people, Barwell, I'm >amazed that you defend mainstream religions as "real" religions.
>>I notice you didn't want to get into teh letter to Helen O'Brien. >>Couldn't think of a good strawman invoking Jesus?
>I didn't read your original post, if that's where you quoted from her >letter. You're just not that entertaining, Barwell.
>>Hubbard was not sincere about Scientology being placed on a religous basis >>was he? What else could he have meant that nothing was changed, that it >>was a matter for solicitors and accountants only?
>He was most likely *very* serious about putting Scientology on a >religious basis. That's how he planned to have his scam taken >seriously.
No, he was not putting it on a 'religous basis'. He wanted his scam to take in fools but he knew Scientology was no real religion.
Society, thirsting for more control of more people substitutes religion for the spirit, the body for the soul, an identity for the individual and science and data for truth. In this direction lies insanity, increasing slavery, less knowingness, greater scarcity and less society.
Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. IT IS NOT A PSYCHO-THERAPY NOR A RELIGION. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.
-- L. Ron Hubbard, "The Creation of Human Ability" Los Angeles: A.S.H.O., 1971, page 251
From History of Man LRH 1952 Chapter 8
Theta clearing is about as practical and simple as repairing a shoe lace. It is nothing to do with hypnotism, voodooism, charalatanism, monkeyism or theosophy. Done, the thetan can do anything a stage magician can do in in the way of moving objects around. But this isn't attained by holding one's breathe or thinking right thoughts or voting Republican or any other superstitous or mystic practice. So for the reason I brought up, rule out, auditor, any mumbo jumbo or mysticism, spiritualism, or religion.
LRH
Hubbard was a fraud, he claimed it was NOT a religion until he decided for purposes of advantage he would draw the cloak of religion around his pseudoscience.
A similar fraud was Scientology's exact opposite, creation science. Which was a purposeful and untruthful campaign to dress creationism up in scientific clothes to try to use this fraud science to push out real science from classrooms in Arkanasas and elsewhere. Like Hubbard, the neo-creationists left quite a trail of pamphlets, journals and books detailing their purposeful fraud that essentially sunk them in federal court when the evidence of their fraud was presented.
A fraud is a fraud, whether trusting people buy the fraud or not. A counterfeit $20 bill is still a counterfeit whether you notice the bill you accepted is fake or not.
Like wise, at the turn of the century, spiritualist churches were hotbeds of fraud religion. Fake mediums, tricking bereaved people sucked them dry, draining them remorselessly of money for "the cause". The fraud mediums had two terms, 'shuteye' and 'openeye'. And openeye was a medium that knew the big and fancy phenomena of the spiritualist churches were all frauds. They were the in group, who usually aided and abetted each other in their frauds, and with these spectacular frauds, kept the whole show going. They made the big money.
The shuteyes were the corner medium, who did not know it was all a fake and a fraud, and was most apologetic about her paltry gifts and powers, lack of much abilities, and lack of spectacular phenomena. These shuteyes were more alternative church services for spiritualist believers, more social phenomenon than 'real' mediums. A place to spend a Sunday afternoon prattling about metaphysical balderdash with the like minded. and convince themselves there was truth to this fraud. But they were important to the openeyes because they supplied the veneer of repectability and believability to the whole sorry enterprise. Afterall, these people were so sincere and open about their own lack of great abilities, it can't be a fake, can it? These people were an important part of of the charade of telling the world mediums and their phenomena were not fakes and frauds.
Like the spiritualist believer, the Creation Scientist believers, the low level Scientologist, a fraud is still not a real religion, it is simply a fraud religion that fools people, and often, takes advantage of them, imposes on them, tricks then for ulterior motives, a fraud with an agenda.
At the bottom, we had the spiritualist believers, the shuteyes, being imposed on by sniggering openeyes, fraud, fakes, money grubbing and vicious thieves, no better than fake faith healers.
At the bottom, we have shuteye Scientologists, being used as catspaws by the sniggering openeye cult leaders, who defraud their own belivers and society.
Like the creationist leaders and 'intellectuals' that set out to purposefully lie to society and their own believers about "scientific creationism' being a science when they knew full well every step of the way it was indeed, an imposter, a fraud, a fake.
But all these fakes were fakes even if a few people were tricked into believing otherwise.
And now you know why the Creation Scientists no longer try to use federal courts to push their agenda.
And what killed the spiritualist churches was magicians and the press. Who made debunking mediums and spiritualist churches a great adventure. The invention of the flashlight and the small camera with a flash finished them off. 'Ghost-grabbing' became quite the fraternity activity and police bunco squads caught many a medium dressed in phosphorus painted cheese clothe prancing around in the seance room on film with a small camera and a flash smuggled into the seance room.
Now it's Scientology's turn and it is the net that will do them in. It is no religion, it is a fraud.
