You Know-This Is Really Sad

[Voltaire's Child]

This is the evaluating criticizing Scn thread. It is not the evaluating criticizing USA thread.

I don't read the Scn threads to be lectured about my country.

 

[Markus]

I just try to explain my opinion.

"Please don't let your disdain for Hubbard's philosophy cause you to suggest to my entire nation that we should turn into European socialists to suit you just because YOU'RE stuck with insanely high taxes on everything and have to get permission to sneeze."

Here YOU started to criticize the stupid European people. I just answered that.

"Those are two separate things. Over here, US politics. Waaaaaaay over there, LRH."

In my opinion there is a clear connection: In the United States Scientology can prosper despite there are permanent violations of human rights in the Sea Org and the RPF.

And in this tread we were talking about homeless in the United States.
And in my opinion the hard rude system of capitalism which is inherent in the philosopy of Scientology causes all the pain, violence and even death for the Scientology Staff members and public. And in this case Scientology even tries to influence local government politics. You really still can't see what I'm talking about.
Thank God - there still is no Sea Org and therefore no RPF here in Germany because the government was all the time watching Scientology carefully and because most of the German learned their lesson about "Führer" or "Founders" who talk about "Übermensch" or Homo Novus".
My brother died while suffering under his untreated MS in the Sea Org in the middle of Los Angeles. Countless violations of human rights were commited on him in his 30 years Sea Org history - and still The Church of Scientology has nothing to fear over there. All what I'm trying to say is that the American people have to wake up now and change something.

Do what your country is famous for: Fight for freedom and humanity!

Best wishes

Markus

 

[MarkWI]

It is also a matter of Religious Freedom

"Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Jesus taught believers have a responsibility to give to the hungry, poor and needy (Matt. 25:31-46)

It does not matter what the personal opinions are about the homeless people, here we have a case where a couple of Christians were forbidden to practice their faith.

And Co$ arrogance may be behind that.

 

[uncle sam]

To MarkWl

"Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Jesus taught believers have a responsibility to give to the hungry, poor and needy (Matt. 25:31-46)

It does not matter what the personal opinions are about the homeless people, here we have a case where a couple of Christians were forbidden to practice their faith.

And Co$ arrogance may be behind that.

I agree whole heartily with your words and sentiments.
Those thoughts that those people [scn'ers]have and what they do --makes me puke=gawd I loathe those folks.

 

[RogerB]

Use the Supreme Law of the Land


Reading this thread, I can't help seeing violations of Constitutional Guarantees and also breach of Oath of Office actions by the local "authorities" coming down on these old folks.

In my experience, and up front I will tell you I am an Aussie now 29 years in the US, most Americans 1) don't really understand their rights and 2) don't protect them.

I even read how folks have been held and effectively imprisoned by the "church" . . . isn't this a violation of the "illegal search and seizure" clause?

These following three instances of violations of the Supreme Law of the Land from my own personal experience since I've been in the US will give you a flavor of how insidious it can be, and now docile Americans can be about it!

In 1987-8, in New York, I was a Board Member of Health Education AIDS Liaison (I was the only straight guy on the Board, to give you a flavor of the times). I created and conducted a clinical trial for a bunch of HIV Positives. This was a "bootstrap" operation funded by the people themselves and assisted by other willing helpers on a charitable basis. (HEAL was a registered charity.)

Part of the protocol was that at a particular point during the trial the subjects had to have "blood-work" done which included a PCR test. This was the state of the art test for detecting the presence of HIV infection in the person's DNA. (PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction. In essence they use an enzyme to cause rapid multiplication (a chain reaction) of DNA replication so as to have enough substance to "read".)

At that time, there were only two labs in the US that had the tech available. The only commercial lab was in California. The other lab was in the CDC.

When we approached the lab to get the PCR tests, they refused. They cited that the New York State Medical Director had a ruling in place forbidding them from doing such HIV tests on New York residents.

Can you see the violation of Constitutional Guarantees in this? The breach of Oath of Office?

Hint: violation of the guarantee of Interstate Commerce. The breach of Oath of Office is that all appointed senior civil servants and elected official take an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitutions under which they operate (US and State).

I spotted this immediately, and phoned the Civil Liberties Union, thinking that they'd love this yum, yum of a case.

Noooo, it was not one they wanted to deal with because the gay community had lobbied them so heavily to do with confidentiality on the issue of HIV status.

I pointed out that this was a case wherein a bunch of Gay HIV positives themselves were trying to purchase interstate a commercial test of their own blood!

CLU not interested! I told my subjects, "Your blood, your rights, you do something about it!"

Same thing was going down regards me trying to buy some wine from California. New York State had "rules" in place preventing such interstate purchase. I pointed it out to the wine club people their and my rights were being shafted by this old rule enacted to protect the New York State liquor wholesalers. Eventually, the Californian wine boys sued to protect their rights, and just last year or so, they won the case in the US Supreme Court guaranteeing their right of interstate commerce.

Just 2 months ago, Virginia asked me to come to the local swim pool with her to check over and give her advice on her stroke. The pool is New York City Council property and run by its Parks Dept.

Winter swimming is indoors, and you have to have a paid "membership." They have good facilities with a full gym and equipment. We are both members.

This morning I chose not to swim, and was fully dressed at the end of the pool giving Virg tips on correcting her stroke.

Suddenly I am being told by the "lifeguard" this is not OK and that I'd have to leave the pool area.

I checked with the facility manager as to what was all this . . . here I am talking to my wife and giving her coaching tips on her swimming and I'm told to knock it off?

The answer was that "we stop personal trainers from coming in and giving personal advice because it is taking the bread out of our mouths!"

Well I could see instantly the violations of my Constitutional Guarantees of "Freedom of Assembly and Association," and of "Free Speech" at least . . . but I wanted to see what the New York State Constitution had to say on my behalf.

Well now. What a bonanza! An internet search reveals that the New York State Constitution forbids the State and its agencies from establishing and maintaining any monopoly of business . . . this apart from supporting and upholding all federal rights.

So we have a work in progress to get Constitutional Guarantees upheld and protected. The last thing any city official or elected official needs in his life is a suit charging and proving his violation of Oath of Office and the citizenry's protections under the Constitutions, or his allowing or condoning of it.

A letter to this effect to the Mayor, the applicable Dept Heads and the local press is a good start, and if needed a law suit brought pro se by the plaintiff. Costs nothing to prosecute such a suit for yourself (pr se) I did it once regarding my landlord . . .cost them a fortune in legal fees to defend themselves cost me only time.

This is also true for any folks who have been imprisoned by the "church" or otherwise have had their constitutional rights violated . . . either State or Federal. Statutes of limitation may apply.

Bottom line know you rights and protect, enforce and uphold them.

RogerB