Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, Mar 2009






Home. Index for all posts.


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Mar 7 2009 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Scientology has healthy growth, but NOT the fastest growing religion, per James R. Lewis "Scientology" 2009, Oxford University Press

On Mar 7, 9:58 am, Hartley Patterson wrote:

> chuckbeatt...@aol.com:

> > Page 11 introduction, James R. Lewis "Scientology" 2009, Oxford
> > University Press

> > "...On the basis of census and other data collected in a variety of
> > different Anglophone countries, a clear pattern emerges showing that
> > Scientology is experiencing healthy growth---though it is is also
> > clear that the Church is not the "world's fastest growing
> > religion," . . ."

> This comes from a useful paper he wrote in 2004:http://web.uni-
> marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/pdf/2004/lewis2004.pdf
> useful in that it has the data in one place that can be referenced.

> But he is being evasive. The important lie these figures expose is not
> 'fastest growing' but 'millions of members'. He also fails, for the USA,
> to say that the data is statistically unreliable.

> --
> ARSCC Demographics Departmenthttp://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_4.htm
> Still looking for 9,900,000 Scientologists (TM)

Dear Hartley,

I sometimes wonder why the heck don't one of YOU guys, you, Eldon, any of the other longterm expert observers of Scientology) publish, submit papers, someone has got to fill this gap.

Someone COULD and SHOULD step up and fill that gap, change the field, impact the field of scholars.

I commented to Melton,and he said I hit the nail on the head, so to speak, because normally a religion generates its own somewhat honest and frank and open internal expert theologins, and Scientology does not allow such. All that Scientology allowed was Heber Jentzsch, and the people allowed to speak to Lewis, whom Lewis credits in the opening of this anthology book.

But this issue of this unworn "hat" of internal honest open frank Scientology expert, Heber is sort of "it", and one good thing about this book is in Lorne Dawson's chapter, Lorne takes Heber to task on some of Heber's tactics.

These new religious movement scholars are left to connect the dots and defend Scientology as part of their belief that Scientology is just indicative of how new religions are still calving in western civilization.

We have a gap of realities preventing the sides from discoursing, and that other side over there, these new religion scholars, can be contacted.

You (meaning the expert ARS critics) are heard. YOU DO IMPACT THESE MEN!

Lewis speaks you "you" in his introduction, where he comments how Lewis understands this book will be perceived.

I urge you and other expert ARS Scientology observers to begin dialogue with these new religion scholars, no matter what.

The Hubbard flawed setup is itself indicative of how smalltime or unobservant or limited L. Ron Hubbard was in the first place about his new subject/religion.

It's a sloppy mess.

I urge you to write to whichever of the scholars you can stomach writing to.

Please!

Rather than simply condemn these men and women, I think they deserve the smart ARS observers' direct input.

Read their chapters, and begin a dialogue with them. I noted the final chapter of the book, is the Xenu chapter, and that author unfortunately didn't hear the Class 8 Assists lecture now leaked on Wiki Leaks, and thus that chapter's author makes an immediately outdated comment that there's no evidence of Hubbard saying the word Xenu.

But I do my tiny part and I try to info certain scholars when new Hubbard material leaks into the public domain.

These new religion scholars have such a huge amount of raw material and ex members to confirm the material is valid, there is a huge amount of research to delve into.

Each of these scholars who write chapters in this "Scientology" book can be looked up and written to, on any point in their chapters.

Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me after 9pm east coast
time)
http://tinyurl.com/49g722
http://tinyurl.com/295khy
http://tinyurl.com/cgrg7
http://tinyurl.com/38ptz8
http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf
http://tinyurl.com/5xkdl5

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Mar 8 2009 3:07 pm Subject: Re: James R. Lewis "Scientology" book, 2009, decides to omit Lisa McPherson, LMT and Robert Minton from Scientology's
history

On Mar 8, 6:27 am, Eldon wrote:

> On Mar 7, 6:45 am, "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
> wrote:

> > the book has no mention of LMT, Robert Minton, nor Lisa McPherson's
> > death.

> > Hmmmm.

> > I don't think other NRMs have had their Robert Mintons, have they?

> > And how Scientology toppled LMT is a chapter or it's a scholarly paper
> > waiting for someone to write someday.

> > One of the old LMT people is right now asking me to update him,
> > sheesh.

> > So much history, and no one writing it up!

> I just did a few more searches. The book contains only two brief,
> passing mentions of Lisa McPherson, including a footnote saying the
> case will not be discussed here. There is no reference for "Perkins."
> Nothing for "Mayo." The name "Swann" (as in Ingo) brings up nothing.
> But of course, those individuals, like Bob Minton, aren't worthy of
> any discussion, right?

> The Wollersheim case is, however, described in four references.

Thanks!

I'm trudging through the introductory essays section, the chapter by Melton, which is simply a reprint of Melton's 2000 pamphlet booklet on Scientology.

The Melton essay, just makes my blood boil how onesided it is, not a critical balanced mentioning of any of the contradictory and normalizing anti-hagiography writing about Hubbard's life.

Melton's 2000 booklet does include reference to Wallis, Miller and Atack, thankfully. But that booklet by Melton done in 2000 does NOT get into the Wallis, Miller nor Atack arguments in any way. And likewise, by just putting that article as the intro article for this book, unfortunately sweeps away from discussion all the arguments contrary to the Scientology What Is Scientology (Melton's regurgitation) hagiography of Hubbard/Dianetics/Scientology.

It's just repeating the past uncorrected, history changing PR Scientology seeks.

This Lewis' anthology ("Scientology" 2009, edited by James R. Lewis, Oxford University Press) I wonder what he was thinking, honestly, frankly, about all this.

I'd like to meet and become a lifelong acquaintance of his.

Has anyone met Prof Lewis?

Back to the subject of what is missing in Lewis' anthology, because the Melton discussion of the Dianetics years is so church hagiographic I immediately thought of Martin Gardner. Martin did some great articles which I unfortunately didn't heed way back when I first got into Scientology. Martin Gardner wrote a couple articles for the New York Review of Books, that put Hubbad's Scientology and Dianetics in its place, which I didn't read in time to keep me from getting sucked into the mess.

I looked to see if Martin Gardner was indexed, he's not. So the Dianetics years are all Scientology PR slanted, and not a stitch of what some more secular and skeptical people in America thought of Dianetics at the time of the Dianetics "boom" 1950 period.

But the slant of Lewis' anthology is not the secular anti-religious viewpoint, or the viewpoint that religion is dying. I think the slant of the book is that despite all it's offensive flaws, Scientology is carrying on, dribbling along, and that is proof that new religious movements still emerge and some survive in our world today.

Which Hubbard himself always was writing as if that were the case. Sheesh!

Scientology hasn't allowed intellectual debate and has no class of intellectual defenders, so NRM scholars are forced somewhat into that role. And scholars will be hit for their imperfect regurgitation of the PR Hubbard/Dianetics/Scientology hagiography they relay from these church PR people, who get their wordage from the OSA wordsmiths, and the people who help the OSA wordsmiths.

I hope the scholars reach out to Larry Brennan, since Larry was a wordsmith for some of the material in the What Is Scientology book, and Larry was a significant helper/formulator of the church's current corporate setup.

That Larry and Larry's list of similar senior ex staffers contacts weren't and aren't being consulted and interviewed by scholars, shows just how much further Roy Wallis was compared to ANY of our current scholars.

Current scholars haven't even bothered to understand the administrative pecking order, and learn really the details of the administrative inner top workings and read the existing upper ranks church policies to understand and judge the information from the former members.

Scholars are to my taste unbelievably "hands off" in making the commitment/leap into really understanding the real nuts and bolts of the movement.

I think someone needs to list out all the major arguments, covered in all the best books on Scientology, and really go down and further research and lay to rest all aspects of each of those arguments in seperate book length studies.

Not for profit, but for coverage of WHY Hubbard's Scientology continues to be a problem for the world and for itself. I think it has to be done by universities giving someone the time to do it.

Roy Wallis' "The Road to Total Freedon" 1977, Columbia Univ Press, is still my all time favorite overall instructive book explaining WHY Scientology is a troublesome movement.

Lewis throws in this comment, that burns me a little, since I think Wallis book is so underappreciated:

page 4, "Scientology" edited by James R. Lewis, 2009 Oxford Univ Press:

"...at present, there exist only two scholarly, English-language monographs about the Church, Roy Wallis' out-of-pirnt, and now outdated, "The Road to Total Freedom" (1977) and Harriet Whitehead's similarly outdated "Renunciation and Reformaulation" (1987). "

I highly doubt what Lewis says next will turn out to be true, but I'll apologize later if I am wrong about this chest puffing next statement by Lewis:

"the present collection thus fills an important gap in the NRM literature."

This is preposterous. Absolutely presposterous puffing by men who don't even know how little they goddamn know of Hubbard's cannon of writings and lectures.

I hope someone knows WHERE to look to see how this book is reviewed by the NRM crowd of scholars. Probably it will get some in house review by more of their crowd of scholars, NONE of whom even are looking and reseaching to the degree that Wallis did!

I don't think we have scholars up to Wallis' ability even looking at Scientology, honestly.

I'll revise that opinion if Lewis' "collection" proves me wrong.

But Lewis didn't invite Kent to write for this anthology, which seems absolutely ludicrous.

Kent has the largest trove of Scientology related research material outside of the Church of Scientology itself.

Kent has MORE ex members relaying material to Professor Kent than any Scientology scholar today, and Lewis couldn't allow Kent to write an essay for this anthology.

This scholar studies of Scientology needs some sorting out.

My impression is these men and women have NOT really humbled themselves to DO the years of reading and listening, and interviewing, to even get up to what Wallis did!

Kent's the closest, in my opinion.

Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me after 9pm east coast
time)
http://tinyurl.com/49g722
http://tinyurl.com/295khy
http://tinyurl.com/cgrg7
http://tinyurl.com/38ptz8
http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf
http://tinyurl.com/5xkdl5

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Mar 8 2009 8:28 pm
Subject: Re: James R. Lewis "Scientology" book, 2009, decides to omit Lisa McPherson, LMT and Robert Minton from Scientology's history

On Mar 7, 10:56 am, Monica Pignotti wrote:

> On Mar 7, 12:45 am, "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
> wrote:

> > the book has no mention of LMT, Robert Minton, nor Lisa McPherson's
> > death.

> > Hmmmm.

> > I don't think other NRMs have had their Robert Mintons, have they?

> > And how Scientology toppled LMT is a chapter or it's a scholarly paper
> > waiting for someone to write someday.

> > One of the old LMT people is right now asking me to update him,
> > sheesh.

> > So much history, and no one writing it up!

> Minton is only a legend in his own mind and apparently those of a few
> other believers. He was hardly important enough to deserve a mention.
> The LMT would be interesting material, though, for a future analysis
> focusing on cult-like aspects of certain anti-cult groups. Read the
> reports of some of its defectors about Stacy's acting out as an
> executive in that organization and her codependent behavior vis a vis
> Minton, but that would be off topic for a book that has the
> Scientology organization as its main focus. I hope that whoever this
> old LMT person is, he or she has learned a lesson about how easy it is
> for people involved in fighting cults to get into very cult-like
> behavior.

Monica,

I agree with you most of the time.

I feel that so many of the best observers of the Scientology mess themselves, though, you included, and most here who do intelligently make meaningful comments, NONE of "us" (meaning you guys) seem to go the next step, and do the papers, or whatever the next step would be to do some decent papers and books.

We (meaning the ex members of us who know where to find the ex participants, I have contacts to all the big ex cheezes, and can get anything relayed to any of the ex big cheezes, and I introduce media to them, those that are willing to speak privately), have the raw research material (people and writings, and people to confirm the validity of Hubbard's cannon of writings and lectures and tell ALL details of compilations Hubbard policy to verify the validity of every damn publicly existing including leaked materials), WE have a vast wealth of the truth, sufficient for "one or more of us" to write Scientology history WAY more detailed and accurately than the scholars.

Whom do you suggest, Monica, we try to encourage to do the job?

I have felt our current civilization's cultural institutions, namely our universities, are the bodies that are the existing places that research such subjects, and Scientology is an NRM like it or not.

I'm 57. I got 20-25 years at most, left to live.

I want to help whoever is going to get the history of the Scientology movement correct.

I have about 30,000 bucks worth of Hubbard's crap writings, and I can get donations, since ex public are willing to donate the material to scholars who are going to honestly do the slugging research.

What's your opinion of somehow getting someone to start the proper amount of focus and do the long range (meaning lifetime commitment, decades) scholarship study of the mess.

And how to absorb summarize, or index all the terrific firstperson stories by ex members that litter the chat sites.

XSO chat site has amazing Hubbard stories on it, UFO crap, the whole nine yards, people who heard Hubbard blather about the drones monitoring earth.

I mean these firsthand stories ARE history.

How to get the damn Scientology history absorbed, codified, and summarized and written about?

My thoughts are it is our universities that have that responsibility, and the time, and we just need some brains from those universities devoted to the job.

My big regret is someone didn't talk Minton into donating his money to some university fellowship programs, and hire someone to find first the best universities that would legitimately find and grant fellowships to decent NRM scholars.

My other thoughts are, in life, what I've noticed, the best people don't always end up on the teams at all, because the best people choose other vocations.

NRM vocation might not simply attract people smart enough and skilled enough to write accurately about the breadth of the Hubbard/ Scientology mess, and that includes this group of ARS experts.

If scholars in the NRM group fail to get Scientology right, then how to make one of "us" (meaning you ARS experts) take up the job.

I'm for building up one of the ARS experts, or several of them, network and recommend to universities so as to get them multi-year fellowships, get them doing advanced degrees at some good universities, give them the time to write on Scientology.

I'll help fundraise, and Minton to me, had he been smoothly talked to, possibly could have better been swayed to make some big donations to some good universities that are doing decent NRM studies.

I'm so damn uneducated, I don't even know if the NRM sub niche of scholarship is such a new area, manned with sub par scholars, I mean, the truth unfortunately, is that the people I most have learned from since leaving, are Roy Wallis, Dawson and Kent.

And Wallis towers over any Scientology expert, in my opinion.

I wonder what you even think should be done to take advantage of the raw material that is available at the moment, but frittered away by the sub par scholarship crowd?

Would you recommend any of the ARS experts to be granted fellowships. I've seen the ads in the New York Review of Books, asking people to submit for these grants/fellowships, from bigname universities.

My thoughts are, were there one of "us" (meaning you guys) who have some university backgrounds, are any of you good enough to win an Oxford fellowship (which I've seen the ads in the New York Review of Books, asking for applications).

I'd gladly donate my library of 30 Gs worth of Hubbard, and help for the rest of my life ANY such serious long term scholarly inclined person, who will want to make their career change to become a long range serious scholar Scientology expert!

But braininess, intelligence, real smarts, I will gladly help whoever is really sharp.

Where's Roy Wallis when you need him?

Seperately, Monica, what university in the world has the best NRM department, or universities? I might just go move there and take my trove with me, and look for local talent.

Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me after 9pm east coast
time)
http://tinyurl.com/49g722
http://tinyurl.com/295khy
http://tinyurl.com/cgrg7
http://tinyurl.com/38ptz8
http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf
http://tinyurl.com/5xkdl5

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Mar 18 2009 11:54 am
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap: You believe in space aliens infesting your bodies.

On Mar 17, 5:00 pm, Hey-Nony-Nony wrote:

> Enough tip-toeing around it, or denying it in the face of overwhelming
> evidence to the contrary. If you have reached OT-III or higher, and
> you're still in Scientology, you believe that alien spirits infest
> your body and mind, or at the very least, you find the idea acceptable
> enough to stay in.

> Not making a judgment call on that, by the way. Just trying to achieve
> some semblance of common ground so everyone knows where everyone else
> stands. So let's take the reincarnated aliens thing as a given.

> Now let's take something else as a given: There's no evidence for the
> presence of human-like aliens on this planet 76 million years ago. If
> this is something you believe to have happened, then it is a belief
> without a foundation in science. Heck, let's just call it faith. I
> mean, it wouldn't be the only bizarre and unscientific belief in the
> world - some folks might look at Christianity and see a bizarre and
> unscientific zombie cult.

> So can we agree that none of Hubbard's writings reflect scientific
> fact, and none have been scientifically proven? Take the Introspection
> Rundown, or the Purification Rundown, for instance... You may believe
> these to be spiritually beneficial, but no scientific study of either
> has demonstrated that they are *physically* beneficial. Still with me?

> Again, not making a judgment call. Just trying to differentiate
> between science and belief. Can we all agree, then, that there is a
> difference between the two, and that Scientology is not a science, as
> the word is commonly understood?

All valid points, all covered more neutrally by academics like Roy Wallis, "The Road to Total Freedom." In my opinin, still the overwhelming best book on Scientology from academia.

I think people should read what academics have written, and someone of you go get the sociology and new religion studies degrees and get into academia, and take your Scientology expertise (if you are one of the long term Scientology observer experts) with you.

I'm finding almost all of the good criticism of Scientology has already been written and included in the scholarly papers I'm reading.

Here are my current pick of books to show any beginner just how much has been covered on Scientology which about 80 percent of the criticism rehashed here in ARS matches:

"The Road to Total Freedom" by Roy Wallis, 1977, Columbia Univ Press
"Renunciation and Reformulation" by Harriet Whitehead, 1987 Cornel Univ Press
"Scientology" edited by James R. Lewis, 2009 Oxford Univ Press

It is tough slugging, but these books, in my opinion, get it pretty much right. And these books have detailed bibliographies so one can find all of Prof Kent's great papers on Scientology, etc, etc., for example.

I agree with Prof Doug Cowan's concluding view in his intro chapter in the 2009 "Scientology" anthology, he says:

"...Comprehensive socio-historical reseach into the Church of Scienotlogy is desperately needed in our field and would be invaluable to new religions scholarship. But such research cannot (and likely will not) usefully proceed until the Church commits itself to refrain from interference or intimidation of any kind, regardless of scholarly product. Respond to the product, certainly, disagree with it, dbate it, excoriate it, if that's what Scientologists want to do---that kind of exchange lies at the heart of the scholarly dialectic. But do not interfere with its production."

-- from Doug Cowan, his chapter in this Lewis anthology on "Scientology", Oxford Univ Press, 2009.

Cowan and Dawson (Dawson wrote "Comprehending Cults" and he placed Scientology in the "established cult" category) both are from University of Waterloo in Canada, and I urge ex Scientologists contact your local scholars!

On body thetans discussion, I think it has to be made less frivolous, and more discussion like Catholics will speak about angels.

Body thetans can be discussed in the same way angels are discussed.

I mean, body thetans coming from dead humanoids from other planets, killed millions of years ago, implanted and dead in their thetan noggins, does sound somewhat logical and more scientific compared to angels from heaven.

Hubbard traces all thetans back to their own "home universes" WAY long ago, and our home universes colliding formed the existing universe.

To me, a LONG term Scientology dupe (now I'm an atheist and ex), to me, body thetans works logically.

Body thetans are just the Star Trek floating glowing orbs of pure soul beingness race of space "people", that don't have bodies.

But body thetans are really dumb, really under tremendous memory implanting.

The problem of body thetans is the problem of proving even we are a soul ourselves, inhabiting our body.

body thetans are just troublesome "demons", and demons who are asleep in us for the most part.

Body thetans has to become household understood. It's not necessary to ridicule it.

I think it is much more helpful to speak about body thetans in simple terms, quickly compare body thetans to amnesia tranced dead souls of humanoids from long ago space civilizations.

And also to bring up the idea that even these body thetans, each one of them LONG ago, like even us, we are all thetans, or pure souls, just buried under a huge long history of thoughts and memories, so we forget that WAY long ago we all had our own "home universes" where we WERE god with the big G of our home universe. Hubbard's "The Factors" speak of how it was for each of us, in the beginning, as GOD, in our home universe, way way long ago, at the beginning.

That is the full "creation myth" which media and beginner observers of Scientology should learn.

References for the "home universe" missing piece of the "creation myth" are Hubbard's 1963 "Time Track" bulletins, and one or more of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures of the same time period of those "Time Track" bulletins.

And the Factors are the Factors, even online I think.

body thetans fits right into the longer range real beginning "creation myth" of Hubbard's.

finally, a former Class 12 person told me in one of Hubbard's "Class 12" lectures, he mentions or comments that the whole fabric of the universe is made up of "body thetans" which means that the whole mess, the whole universe, is made up of deeply amnesia tranced souls.

Sort of all makes sense.

I don't believe a stitch of it.

But it can be all spoken about neutrally, and simply, for public consumption, and so that average layman at least gets a neutral simple description of what Scientologist unfortunately will NOT state as simply as I just did above, for you.

Only ex members who put it all together, and spit it out in simple terms, are the ones I find who are free to speak the real stuff in simple language.

Hubbard thus thought that the whole physical universe is a fabric of souls, souls that make up matter, are in deep deep amnesia about who they are.

The smarter souls, us as thetans, inhabit bodies, and even our bodies are infested with slightly more aware 'demons' of body thetans.

So, this all does sort of make sense.

I'm an atheist, again, I don't believe this, but I can understand it, and I hope people spoonfeed what Scientology is all about, simply.

We need those Class 12 lectures in the pubilc domain, and we need more ex Class 12 Scientologists to confirm this issue of the whole physical universe fabric consisting of body thetans, meaning very amnesia tranced souls whose function is being MEST (matter, energy, space and time).

Anyone with Class 12 ex Scientologist friends, ask them about that Class 12 lecture by Hubbard about body thetans making up the whole universe.

I think the Scientology creation myth, needs to be all researched, and someone present a paper to one of the scholarly journals, and wise our scholars UP on what the actual secret FULL Scientology creation myths is, and since we DON'T have the Class 12 lecture in the public domain. We, meaning us ex members, can vouch for the memories of the ex Class 12 Scientologists who will discuss what they remember of hearing the Class 12 lectures.

I think it would be a good thing for someone to DO this Scientology creation myth story, for real, base it on what Hubbard wrote and said, make it digestible in average household people language.

Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me after 9pm east coast time)
http://tinyurl.com/49g722
http://tinyurl.com/295khy
http://tinyurl.com/cgrg7
http://tinyurl.com/38ptz8
http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf
http://tinyurl.com/5xkdl5







DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology?. Dianetics?, Scientology are service marks and trademarks reportedly owned by Religious Technology Center, and permission was not sought for their fair use here.




Home. Index for all posts.

















This site is hosted for FREE by FreeWebs.com. Click here to get your own Free Website!