Scientology Is Gay

[Terry in Crapchester]

I don't know about that for sure, but I do know that it is demanding, manipulative, greedy and amoral. And now, apparently insecure as well.

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-jenna ... -headlines

Rack this guy for making two C-list Scientology "celebrities" melt down in public.

[Diogenes]

"Scientology is Gay!" on the front and a picture of John Travolta (a la "Stayin' Alive") and the words "Very Gay!" on the back.

If this is considered gay....




..sign me right up.

Your 'idie film producer' is just an idiotic intolerant POS.

[BBMarley]

Didn't realize you had a thing for Travolta Dio.. but more power to you. You can put on a Jew Fro and play Gabe Kaplan to his Barbarino...

[Diogenes]

Didn't realize you had a thing for Travolta Dio..

A thing for his wife, you mean?

[shortsoldier]

There are plenty of super hot Muslim women; it doesn't exactly make me want to join the mujahadeen.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Your 'idie film producer' is just an idiotic intolerant POS.

Read this article.

A bit lengthy, but very informative nonetheless.

Scientology is a very scary outfit. Sayin'.

[Diogenes]

Your 'idie film producer' is just an idiotic intolerant POS.

Read this article.

A bit lengthy, but very informative nonetheless.

Scientology is a very scary outfit. Sayin'.

Nothing new there. Scientology is a tad loopy, but not much of a menace to anyone with a grip on reality.





Atheism is quite gay, BTW.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Your 'idie film producer' is just an idiotic intolerant POS.

Read this article.

A bit lengthy, but very informative nonetheless.

Scientology is a very scary outfit. Sayin'.

Nothing new there.

The article's been out since 1991, so there's been plenty of time to read it. But I'm pretty sure there are some who haven't.

Scientology is a tad loopy, but not much of a menace to anyone with a grip on reality.

Did you read the article? Not sure you'd be saying that if you had.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Atheism is quite gay, BTW.

In my haste to edit the UBB, I didn't even see this gem before. What makes you say that?

[Diogenes]

From Wikipedia...

The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations". This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". By the late nineteenth century the term "gay life" was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behaviour that were perceived as immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay


If there is no Creator, no purpose to the universe, then nihilism becomes a viable creed and all restraints are subjective or discardable. Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law IS the logical outcome of the atheist mindset, whether most or even many take it to that level.



And no, the fact that sexual deviants have used the Catholic Church as a lever to corrupt the unsuspecting doesn't make it gay any more that the existance of liberation theologians makes it Marxist.

[Terry in Crapchester]

From Wikipedia...

The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations". This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". By the late nineteenth century the term "gay life" was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behaviour that were perceived as immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay


If there is no Creator, no purpose to the universe, then nihilism becomes a viable creed and all restraints are subjective or discardable. Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law IS the logical outcome of the atheist mindset, whether most or even many take it to that level.

Actually, I had always heard that "gay" originated among homosexuals themselves, in response to a perception that they must be very unhappy individuals. But I could be wrong about that.

Atheism does not necessarily imply hedonism, and I would posit that the overwhelming majority of atheists do not practice anything remotely approaching a hedonistic lifestyle. And in any event, atheism most certainly is not associated with homosexuality.

Like I said, I don't think Scientology is "gay", nor are any "religious" (word placed in quotes so that Scientology may be included therein; we all know that the "Church" of Scientology is a scam designed to get around the IRS) beliefs, or lack thereof (in the case of atheism), inherently gay. The title of this thread was a reference to the message on the shirt the guy was wearing, nothing more.

And Scientology is far more dangerous than atheism ever possibly could be. When was the last time you heard about somebody being chased by atheists, or atheism trying to shake every last dollar out of an atheist?

And no, the fact that sexual deviants have used the Catholic Church as a lever to corrupt the unsuspecting doesn't make it gay any more that the existance of liberation theologians makes it Marxist.

Huh? I seem to recall Marx describing religion as "the opiate of the people." If that's the case, no religion could properly be described as Marxist.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Back to the topic at hand . . .

More on Scientology: http://www.xenu.net/

Some info on Lisa McPherson: http://www.lisafiles.com/

Both sites contain many links. That should keep Scientology's defenders busy for awhile.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Scientology's defenders

Where? I don't see any.

A bit strong, perhaps, but Diogenes was critical of the guy in the article wearing the "Scientology is Gay" t-shirt.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The Catholic "Church" is no church. It is a criminal conspiracy that must be eradicated in this country.

Really? And how do you propose that be accomplished?

[Terry in Crapchester]

The Catholic "Church" is no church. It is a criminal conspiracy that must be eradicated in this country.

Really? And how do you propose that be accomplished?

Remove their tax exempt status, bankrupt them with civil lawsuits then seize their property using RICO predicates or anything thing else handy.

Will never happen, certainly not the first part. If the "Church" of Scientology has been able to hold onto tax-exempt status (their lawyers are obviously not rocket scientists, as a quick perusal of any of a number of websites will tell you), the Catholic Church will be able to do so, without a doubt.

The Archdiocese of Boston declared bankruptcy, IIRC, but I expect they'll be able to emerge from it eventually.

[Diogenes]

From Wikipedia...

The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations". This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". By the late nineteenth century the term "gay life" was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behaviour that were perceived as immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay


If there is no Creator, no purpose to the universe, then nihilism becomes a viable creed and all restraints are subjective or discardable. Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law IS the logical outcome of the atheist mindset, whether most or even many take it to that level.

Actually, I had always heard that "gay" originated among homosexuals themselves, in response to a perception that they must be very unhappy individuals. But I could be wrong about that.

You are. It may have been adopted by them in the same way queer was, as an in-your-face poke at normals, but the roots go back farther than that. The expression 'gay men and lesbiens' came about because lesbiens don't tend to have the same general levl of promiscuity as male homosexuals-if anything, they are probably more monogomous than heterosexual couples.

Atheism does not necessarily imply hedonism, and I would posit that the overwhelming majority of atheists do not practice anything remotely approaching a hedonistic lifestyle. And in any event, atheism most certainly is not associated with homosexuality.

Homosexuals probably tend to be atheist more so than any other belief system. and your little posit probably missed...

Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law IS the logical outcome of the atheist mindset, whether most or even many take it to that level.

Like I said, I don't think Scientology is "gay", nor are any "religious" (word placed in quotes so that Scientology may be included therein; we all know that the "Church" of Scientology is a scam designed to get around the IRS) beliefs, or lack thereof (in the case of atheism), inherently gay. The title of this thread was a reference to the message on the shirt the guy was wearing, nothing more.

The guy wearing the shirt is still an ignorant intolerant POS.

And Scientology is far more dangerous than atheism ever possibly could be. When was the last time you heard about somebody being chased by atheists, or atheism trying to shake every last dollar out of an atheist?

When was the last time Scientologists ran a gulag or had a cultural revolution ala Chairman Mao?

And no, the fact that sexual deviants have used the Catholic Church as a lever to corrupt the unsuspecting doesn't make it gay any more that the existance of liberation theologians makes it Marxist.

Huh? I seem to recall Marx describing religion as "the opiate of the people."

Opiate of the masses. It isn't. But Atheism is certainly the hallucinogen of the ignorant elitist swine.

[Diogenes]

Hopefully we'll even see some terrorist attacks on Catholic churches and cathedrals.

Who knew mvscal was member of ACT-UP?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Hopefully we'll even see some terrorist attacks on Catholic churches and cathedrals.

Who knew mvscal was member of ACT-UP?

I didn't know ACT-UP was in that business. But in any event, advocating terrorist attacks on Catholic churches is just plain despicable, if he's not trolling.

[Diogenes]

Hopefully we'll even see some terrorist attacks on Catholic churches and cathedrals.

Who knew mvscal was member of ACT-UP?

I didn't know ACT-UP was in that business. But in any event, advocating terrorist attacks on Catholic churches is just plain despicable, if he's not trolling.

A) They were.
B) The guy obviously has issues with the Catholic church that go far beyond sporatic cases of pediophiles masquerading as priests.
C) He seems to be a staunch defender of the obviously gay atheist ideology.















D)...Let's not go there. Inquiring minds don't really want to know all that much.

[Diogenes]

But in any event, advocating terrorist attacks on Catholic churches is just plain despicable,

The Catholic Church actively promotes illegal immigration as well as pedophilia and homosexuality.

Wrong on all three counts. Just because some American members or leaders do, doesn't make it official policy.

And they are nowhere near as dangerous and insidious as atheists.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

This has got to be one of the silliest arguements evar. Keep up the good work!

[Terry in Crapchester]

Wrong on all three counts. Just because some American members or leaders do, doesn't make it official policy.

And they are nowhere near as dangerous and insidious as atheists.

The Catholic Church routinely ignores "official policy".

The "official policy" for pederasty and homosexuality is that they are mortal sins.

Actually, the official policy regarding homosexuality is that a homosexual orientation is not sinful, since it is beyond the control of the individual, but that homosexual acts are sinful.

Needless to say at least half of the priest, bishops and cardinals are either taking it up the ass or buggering altar boys.

Link?

They also actively promote illegal immigration.

No, what they are doing is giving basic aid, such as food, clothing and shelter, to illegals who are already here. At the risk of running a cliche, WWJD?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

At the risk of running a cliche, WWJD?

He'd probably leave the Vatican as a smouldering pile of rubble.

Just a hunch.

[Terry in Crapchester]

At the risk of running a cliche, WWJD?

He'd probably leave the Vatican as a smouldering pile of rubble.

Just a hunch.

If He were looking to take out everyone who was acting hypocritically in His name, and He were going in order of the level of hypocrisy, He'd have a long time before He got to the Catholic Church. For instance, He'd take out Falwell and Robertson long before He ever got to the Catholic Church.

But nice try, Perk.

[Terry in Crapchester]

He'd take out Falwell and Robertson long before He ever got to the Catholic Church.

But nice try, Perk.

Falwell and Robertson aren't systematically molesting young boys, you stupid fuck.

Neither is the Catholic Church. But keep reaching for that strawman.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Falwell and Robertson aren't systematically molesting young boys, you stupid fuck.

Neither is the Catholic Church. But keep reaching for that strawman.

Keep dreaming, fuckstick. I guess being a Christian offers plenty of practice deluding yourself about the preverted and despicable practices of your faggot church.

Clergy abuse cases cost Catholic Church more than $1 billion

Sexual abuse by priests has cost the Catholic Church in the United States more than $1 billion, a figure guaranteed to rise, possibly by tens of millions of dollars, because of hundreds of still unsettled claims.


Tallies by American bishops and an Associated Press review of known settlements put the actual pricetag at $1.06 billion.

The money was used by dioceses to pay settlements with victims, legal fees, counseling and other expenses since 1950, the AP found. A $120 million compensation fund announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., pushed the total past the billion-dollar mark.

At least $378 million has been spent in just the past three years, when the crisis erupted in the Boston Archdiocese and spread nationwide.

The Rev. Thomas Doyle, who left a promising career with the church to help represent victims, had warned the bishops in 1985 that abuse costs could eventually exceed $1 billion.

"Nobody believed us," said Doyle, a canon lawyer. "I remember one archbishop telling me, `My feeling about this, Tom, is no one's ever going to sue the Catholic Church."

Asked about the dollar amount, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, said church leaders believe the payouts "should be just to all sides." He said victims deserve compensation, but the church also must have enough money to continue serving parishioners.

The bishops are set to meet in Chicago next week to review their plan for protecting youngsters.

The exact financial effect on the church is hard to determine, since each diocese owns property separately and settles cases on its own. Insurance policies cover some costs, but policies differ from diocese to diocese. And in many places, the coverage has run out.

Also, many dioceses already had financial problems because of rising labor costs, maintenance for old churches and other expenses, said Charles Zech, an economics professor at Villanova University who studies church finances.

The church, however, avoided a feared widespread boycott by donors, Zech said. The number of donors has fallen in the past few years, but the amount contributed overall has held steady, he said.

Still, some of the damage is plain.

The Boston Archdiocese and several others have agreed to sell property to cover their multimillion-dollar settlements. Three dioceses, Portland, Ore., Tucson, Ariz., and Spokane, Wash., have filed for bankruptcy, and more are expected to follow.

The billion-dollar cost does not come close to other major legal settlements in recent years. The tobacco industry, for example, has agreed to hundreds of billions of dollars in payouts.

The AP calculated the price from settlement announcements by dioceses and from reports commissioned by the nation's bishops, including a study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of claims from 1950 to 2002. Victims' groups believe the church reports have underestimated the total.

Among religious groups confronting abuse, the Catholic Church is the only one to release settlement figures covering decades. But experts believe that Catholics have paid more to victims than any other denomination. Researchers commissioned by the bishops found more than 11,500 abuse claims against priests since 1950.

Catholics disagree over whether the church is being forced to pay too much for its failures.

Barbara Blaine, founder of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted that most recent agreements have been reached before trial, a sign, she said, that bishops know the true scope of the wrongdoing and are trying to minimize the cost.

"That the settlements could go that high shows us the seriousness of the harm and the cover-up," Blaine said.

But defense attorneys say public opinion has moved so far against the church that the bishops have little choice. Several states extended the statutes of limitation for suing over the abuse; California abolished the time restriction for one year, leading to hundreds of new claims that have yet to be resolved.

Patrick Schiltz, an attorney who has defended many dioceses in abuse cases, agreed bishops have a moral obligation to pay victims but said the size of the settlements is "getting out of hand."

The Covington fund is the biggest settlement so far. Last December, the Diocese of Orange, Calif., agreed to pay $100 million to 87 victims. In 2003, the Boston Archdiocese settled with 552 victims for $85 million.

"It's because of the media coverage," said Schiltz, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. "The thumb is heavily on the scale against the church."

Schiltz said he disagreed with Catholics who contend many of the newer claims are fake. But he said weaker cases that once would have been thrown out of court are probably succeeding.

Despite the rising cost to the church, advocates say the majority of victims never sue.

"Victims want to feel as though their experience is valued, helping the church understand the problem so that it will never happen again," said Sue Archibald, head of the victim advocacy group The Linkup. "With lawsuits it's, `Here's your money, now go away.'"

Thank you for that insight, Mr. Allen. But, at the risk of quoting Index, the GED strikes once again.

The Catholic Church is not systematically molesting young boys. Of all the priests in the U.S., a small percentage of rogues are responsible for all of this.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A small percentage? Pull your head out of your ass. You dumbshits have already paid out over a billion dollars to settle these suits and there is no end in sight. 639 vicitms in just two dioceses?!? Just how small of a percentage are we talking here? 45%?

639 victims in just two dioceses, as opposed to what, 60-70 million Catholics nationwide? Yeah, it is a small percentage.

And a number of those cases are being perpetrated by just a handful of rogue priests. This should give you a start.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Funny it's only the Catholics with this "small handful" of faggot child molsters.

Did you even read your own source?

Among religious groups confronting abuse, the Catholic Church is the only one to release settlement figures covering decades.

It would seem that the Catholics aren't alone in this regard, now are they?

For the life of me I can't recall the Scientologists paying out a billion dollars to settle a "small handful" of sexual abuse cases.

Maybe not, but they did pay out quite a pretty penny to settle the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case. That seems to me significantly more culpable than sexual abuse claims.

How much hush money has Falwell and Robertson paid out to silence the victims of the predatory homosexuals in their ranks?

A red herring. Falwell and Robertson came into this discussion only in response to Perk's claim that Christ would reduce the Catholic Church to a heap of smoldering rubble.

Falwell and Robertson each heads his own "denomination," for lack of a better term. Each has shown far greater hypocrisy, ostensibly in the name of Christianity, than has any modern Pope.

Sorry guy. Any discussion of gay religions begins and ends with the Catholic Church.

Again, read the article I linked at the very beginning. The title of this thread is a reference to the caption on the t-shirt, and also the alleged behavior of Cruise and Travolta (also referenced on the same t-shirt), nothing more.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Back to this . . .

Your 'idie film producer' is just an idiotic intolerant POS.

No, he's not intolerant. At worse, he's trolling. And judging by the reaction he got from Jenna Elfman, mission accomplished in that regard.

And given that this board and predecessor boards have trolled such harmless groups as, among others, Weight Watchers, Buffalo Bills fans and Creed fans, then for my money Scientology is more than ripe for some trolling. Just sayin'.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Did L Ron Hubbard take it up the ass the way Jesus did?

Now, see, THAT is a t-shirt slogan!

[Diogenes]

Did L Ron Hubbard take it up the ass the way Jesus did?

Now, see, THAT is a t-shirt slogan!

Actually it's just stupid.

Now if you substitute Freud or Kinsey for Jesus it might make sense....

[Terry in Crapchester]

Did L Ron Hubbard take it up the ass the way Jesus did?

Now, see, THAT is a t-shirt slogan!

Actually it's just stupid.

Now if you substitute Freud or Kinsey for Jesus it might make sense....

Actually, those are stupid as well.

L. Ron Hubbard and Jesus did have one thing in common: both told their followers that they are God (allegedly). The difference, of course, is that one was right and the other wasn't. And Scientologists are wrong as to their conclusions about which is which.

[BSmack]

L. Ron Hubbard and Jesus did have one thing in common: both told their followers that they are God (allegedly). The difference, of course, is that one was right and the other wasn't. And Scientologists are wrong as to their conclusions about which is which.

There is not difference unless one of them was right. To someone without your faith, Jesus and L. Ron are the same huckster seperated by 1900 years.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

L. Ron Hubbard and Jesus did have one thing in common: both told their followers that they are God (allegedly). The difference, of course, is that one was right and the other wasn't. And Scientologists are wrong as to their conclusions about which is which.

There is not difference unless one of them was right. To someone without your faith, Jesus and L. Ron are the same huckster seperated by 1900 years.

Except that Jesus and his followers didn't turn their gig into a religion solely to elude FDA scrutiny of their fraudulent pseudomedical practices.

[BSmack]

L. Ron Hubbard and Jesus did have one thing in common: both told their followers that they are God (allegedly). The difference, of course, is that one was right and the other wasn't. And Scientologists are wrong as to their conclusions about which is which.

There is not difference unless one of them was right. To someone without your faith, Jesus and L. Ron are the same huckster seperated by 1900 years.

Except that Jesus and his followers didn't turn their gig into a religion solely to elude FDA scrutiny of their fraudulent pseudomedical practices.

So what if they did? If Hubbard is in fact God, then he, by definition, has all the validation he needs. After all, if the Almighty can't engage in a little medicine that is not understood by modern science, where's the fun in being God? You know? Like water into wine?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

There is not difference unless one of them was right. To someone without your faith, Jesus and L. Ron are the same huckster seperated by 1900 years.

Except that Jesus and his followers didn't turn their gig into a religion solely to elude FDA scrutiny of their fraudulent pseudomedical practices.

So what if they did? If Hubbard is in fact God, then he, by definition, has all the validation he needs. After all, if the Almighty can't engage in a little medicine that is not understood by modern science, where's the fun in being God? You know? Like water into wine?

Hey, the next time you hear of a Scientologist being cured (or curing) blindness, leprosy, or death will be the first time.

Even L. Ron hit room temperature, despite his followers' efforts to hide it, and like the Dead sang "and nothin's gonna bring him back. He's gone."

had to work a GD ref in after having run into an old AXP this weekend aftet not seeing dude for 19 freaking years....

[Terry in Crapchester]

L. Ron Hubbard and Jesus did have one thing in common: both told their followers that they are God (allegedly). The difference, of course, is that one was right and the other wasn't. And Scientologists are wrong as to their conclusions about which is which.

There is not difference unless one of them was right. To someone without your faith, Jesus and L. Ron are the same huckster seperated by 1900 years.

Except that Jesus and his followers didn't turn their gig into a religion solely to elude FDA scrutiny of their fraudulent pseudomedical practices.

Or to avoid the IRS, for that matter.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Except that Jesus and his followers didn't turn their gig into a religion solely to elude FDA scrutiny of their fraudulent pseudomedical practices.

No, he was just looking to elude the scrutiny of the temple money changers.

Then flipping their tables over and yelling at them in public was a pretty bad way to go about it....

[BSmack]

Hey, the next time you hear of a Scientologist being cured (or curing) blindness, leprosy, or death will be the first time.

Even L. Ron hit room temperature, despite his followers' efforts to hide it, and like the Dead sang "and nothin's gonna bring him back. He's gone."

had to work a GD ref in after having run into an old AXP this weekend aftet not seeing dude for 19 freaking years....

Jesus and L. Ron are both dead. I know his followers tried to cover up Jesus' death by making up that whole resurrection and ascension to heaven thing....

;)