The Scientology inquisition
|
The Senate, Scientology and Steve: Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Sport yes, taxpayer subsidy of abuse no — the logic of Senate inquiries” (yesterday, item 1). Bernard Keane’s analysis of the Scientology debate is wrong-headed. Firstly, he endorses Keating’s condemnation of the Senate as “unrepresentative swill”, which is quite inapposite. Keating’s real complaint was that the upper house, with its proportional voting system, was too representative of the broad spectrum of public opinion, giving voice to minor parties and independents. It makes no sense to use this slur to criticise the major parties for voting down independent Senator Nick Xenophon. Major party domination is what Keating wanted. Secondly, allegations against Scientology have been comprehensively aired in the media and in the parliament. There is no sense in which they are being suppressed. Cases of abuse should be dealt by the courts, not politicians. A Senate inquiry, on the other hand, with its power to compel witnesses, has the potential to degenerate into a witch-hunt, which would be a serious attack on freedom of religion. It raises the spectre of Scientologists being jailed indefinitely for refusing to answer questions. Thirdly, the issue of Scientology’s tax status is at best a red herring and at worst religious persecution. Clearly higher taxation is not an appropriate response to abuse. And the prospect of politicians punishing religions by withdrawal of tax concessions is highly undesirable. Undoubtedly minority religions would be targeted. As would politically inconvenient charities. In Scientology’s case, it is often said that it is really a profit-making business and should be taxed as such. However, these allegations co-exist with equal and opposite allegations that it is a zany, dogmatic cult. The critics can’t have it both ways. Lastly, a common complaint against Scientology is that it campaigns against psychiatry. This would undoubtedly be canvassed in a Senate inquiry. At this point it would stop being an attack on freedom of religion and become an attack on freedom of speech. These issues should be dealt with by public debate, not inquisition. Terry J Mills writes: In recent times I have been listening to the Senate on ABC News Radio and for one who has previously taken little interest in the mechanics of our parliamentary system I have been quite shocked and dismayed at the quality of debate and the shift from a House of Review to a House of Dissent . Listening to the ramblings of Steve Fielding I was reminded of the BBC Radio show, Just a Minute where a panel member was given a subject to speak on for a minute without repetition, deviation or hesitation. If he or she were caught out by any of their fellow panel members, they were buzzed and the task passed to the successful challenger. I found myself, in the car, calling out DEVIATION and REPETITION but the senate president obviously couldn’t hear me as he let Steve rabbit on for his allotted time (ten minutes I think). Perhaps a double dissolution is not such a bad idea. Michael Atkinson’s trousers: Michael Atkinson, Attorney-General for South Australia, writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (11 March, item 8). Last Thursday’s “Tips and rumours” in Crikey claimed that my driver each day ironed or pressed my garments. This is untrue. In the eight years my ministerial driver and I have been together, he has not pressed or ironed a single garment for me. I do not own a press and do not have access to one. Climate change: Chris Hunter writes: Tamas Calderwood’s remarks (Friday, comments) about humanity’s “puny production of CO2 being a pathetic 4% of the total” don’t quite gel. 4% could actually mean quite a lot. When your body temperature rises by 4% then you are conceivably ill. So why not the planet — is it not an organism? What I am talking about is the tipping point and the symptoms that ensue when it is reached. By marginally lowering our CO2 contribution we may just be saving the planet — raped and pillaged that it is. Unhappy subscriber Peter Wilson-Jones writes: Four well-espoused responses on the climate change issue in the comments section on Friday. But of course Crikey feels compelled, as always, to publish that lone country voice (pop. 12,000) with an internet connection and a hot-link to Watts Up, Tamas Calderwood — strangely too — the closing/rounding comment. Could Crikey subscribers like myself, have a couple of graphs please — showing the Top 10 people whose letters are published by order of volume and subject? You could no doubt just cut and paste the one showing the ABC’s bias to Monckton — for your bias towards Tamas. Big call, eh? Bet you won’t have it in you. Look, those recent calls to ban this type of sh-t in Crikey should be heeded. Send all climate change comments to the cage-match. It does you no favours allowing this stuff into the comments section. Ian Campbell: John Kotsopoulos writes: Re. “Play it again, Kev: the monotonous drone of Question Time” (Friday, item 11). Bernard Keane wonders “how Ian Campbell feels about Peter Garrett’s survival as Minister?” It was the gormless wonder aka Peter Costello who loaded the gun that spun around and took out Campbell. His over the top attacks on Rudd for meeting with Burke gave Howard no option but to sack the unfortunate Campbell. Trainspotting: John Dowden writes: Re. “Rundle’s UK: Adonis in name only, as the Labour train leaves the station” (Friday, item 4). Guy Rundle reports from England that the government of Scotsman Gordon Brown has announced that there might be a new railway built sometime in the future. (The New South Wales approach?) Meanwhile in Scotland, following devolution, several major rail projects have been completed, including the reopening of lines closed by previous UK governments. Airports: Michael R. James writes: Re. “Airport competition benefits — everyone for seconds!” (Friday, item 12). Ben Sandilands wrote:
Indeed, but of course all Paris’ airports are under the control of one government entity, Aeroports de Paris. Ditto, JFK and all the airports in the greater NY area, including Newark and LaGuardia, are run by the quasi-governmental Port Authority of NY & NJ. Airports are natural monopolies and it does not serve citizens to be held to ransom by commercial entities. Even the centre of the universe of the free market, New York, doesn’t engage in the nonsense we have inflicted on ourselves. No doubt the Port Authority likes to turn a profit too but that hasn’t impeded fulfilling its public interest role in building excellent public transport links as you said. Using the free shuttle to the A-train subway, last time I took it — all the way to Columbia University Medical Centre above 168th street (i.e. a long, long ride) it cost all of $1.75, and got you there with no drama or sweat. They are now planning extending the AirTrain (currently shuttles to the Subway at edge of the airport) all the way to lower Manhattan. Whereas Melbourne Airport is obstructing a train line purely to protect its parking rip-off monopoly (and taxi levy income). In Brisbane the much shorter train trip — by private operator — to the airport costs $14.50 (from CBD) and stops at 8pm! Merde! And of course the real competition for the existing airport monopolies would be TGV train lines connecting Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne. Unless our governments contracted with Macquarie to never compete in that way too? In the first year of operation of the TGV linking Paris and Lyon (25 years ago!), planes stopped flying the route. Ditto for the recently opened TGV linking Barcelona-Madrid. All trains and city Metros in France are still run by the state while everything in the UK is pretty much privatized (though some RailTrack had to be rescued by the state when the privatized entity failed). Which is the successful model — from the point of view of citizens? (Those who really don’t know or cannot guess, should read Guy Rundle’s piece of last Friday). The HMAS Adelaide: Chris Hill writes: Re. “Central Coast in a spin over rumours Obama will sink their battleship” (Friday, item 3). Jason Whittaker wrote: “The ship will also be sunk about 1.7 kilometres offshore from North Avoca Beach — the closest scuttled naval ship to the Australian shore.” Ah … no. That honour goes to HMVS Cerberus, located at Half Moon Bay (within Melbourne’s Port Phillip bay), which is less than 100 metres from shore. Perhaps a little checking of sites other than noship.com.au would have revealed that? From Burma, Lonely Planet founder Tony Wheeler writes: I expect they’re just going to scuttle it rather than dramatically “blow it up”, but I’m surprised your HMAS Adelaide story didn’t mention HMAS Canberra — sunk off the Great Ocean Road in Victoria on October 4 last year. Or HMAS Swan sunk off the Western Australia coast some years back. Neither with much negative effect apart from making scuba divers happy. Meanwhile in Burma, all the talk is about the election… Balanced reporting: Tom Richman writes: To paraphrase Goring, every time I hear the words “balanced reporting” I want to reach for my Luger. (yes, I know it was a Browning in the original and that Goring was a mis-attributed source … but you get the point). Separated at birth: Simon Ferns writes: Tony Abbott:
Doctor Who monster, Silurian:
|
|
|
|
32 Comments
What is the sin some seem to think Garrett has committed beyond the media have a hate on for him?
He didn’t put the frigging insulation into the roofs did he?
Mr Clugston, thank you for your sane commentary on the Scientology issue. (Yes, in case you haven’t read my rants elsewhere, I am a Scientologist.)
With regard to wrecked warships, what about the remains of HMAS Parramatta beached in Hawkesbury River?
PS I am not a Scientologist!
Peter Wilson-Jones: I note that your refute none of the facts I stated about the climate last Friday.
You may not like my arguments, yet you are incapable of countering them. Better to just tell me to shut up, eh? How savvy of you.
Refute the points I made in Friday’s newsletter:
1) Phil Jones of the CRU admits previous warming periods have been of similar magnitude to the one that stopped 15 years ago
2) He also admits the urban heat island effect on temperature measurements may be far greater than previously thought.
3) Weather balloons cannot find the “hotspot” tropical warming signature
4) satellites show cooling since 2001.
I don’t recall these points being proven wrong in Crikey before so maybe you could enlighten me?
Maybe the fact that you can’t refute these points is the reason for the collapse in support for “global warming”.
Chris Hunter: Got any evidence for this mysterious “tipping point”?
Niall Clugston, what makes you think the media coverage - which has been significant - has been comprehensive? There is much, much more of the Scientology story to come.
Regarding Niall Clugston’s five points, none of them goes to the question of whether Scientology is in fact a religion. A public discourse cannot examine this question, nor can a court. So what better place than the Parliament?
No Mr. McColl, this is not the job of parliament. Parliament already discussed this matter long. long ago, after which the task ended up in the High Court. In fact, before coming to its precedent-setting affirmative 1983 decision, the High Court had to establish the criteria for what IS a religion under Australian law.
In fact, if you go to the government website at http://www.cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap20.htm , you will find that:
“The most significant Australian authority on the question of what constitutes a religion is the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Scientology case which was decided in 1983.4 The High Court found Scientology to be a religion. On the question of the current approach to the meaning of religion, the Scientology case provides the best elucidation and it is worth a detailed consideration here.”
So, you see, the question has already been answered.
Maroubraman, there is no limit to “the job of parliament”. The reason we have parliaments is (amongst other things) so that if we want to change our mind we can. Parliament makes the law, not the courts. If the Australian parliament wanted to re-visit the question of “what is a religion under Australian law” it can perfectly correctly choose to do so. On this occasion, the government has decided not to make that choice - not because “…the question has already been answered”, but for any number of other reasons, one of which might be that this is not an ideal moment, in an election year, to be having a contentious religious bunfight.
Last word: The allegations raised by Senator Xenophon are mostly hyperbole.
Firstly, maroubraman, you claim (immediately above) merely that the allegations are MOSTLY hyperbole — - which presumably means some weren’t hyperbole? That’s a useful start.
Secondly, even IF some were hyperbole, that doesn’t mean that because they may have been over-stated [in YOUR eyes, of course] they didn’t contain important core truths. I have to agree with you there, and congratulate you on making such a frank concession.
Thirdly, while the question of whether or not the acceptance of Scientology as a religion should be continued is interesting, I’d suggest the origins of its claim to religious status in the States are far more interesting. Scientology was an odd form of ‘psychology’, and adopted its ‘religion’ cloak only after it ran into legal problems, and found being a ‘church’ had advantages.
You may not have been around then, maroubraman, but if you were, you could have the sort of fun I did visiting the New York ‘Church’ headquarters a few years back, when I discussed their origins with several of the Front Office P.R. specialists, who didn’t seem to be accustomed to having to deal with someone whose memory went back to those fascinating early days.
I am not, never have been, and in all probability never will be, a Scientologist — - but the careful reader may have suspected that already?
Well Norman, I guess I’d better give up. You have obviously discovered something very important here. I mean, you wandered off the street and had a sort of “chat.” Like, wow! We’ve been looking for an in-depth researcher like you for a long time. Hell, just on the strength of your informative report (immediately above) I can see that we should immediately throw out the in-depth, reasoned findings of the Australian High Court judges who unanimously came to a different conclusion.
And just in case you weren’t around way back in 1983, this is such an important decision in Australian law, that if you go to the government website at http://www.cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap20.htm , you will find that:
“The most significant Australian authority on the question of what constitutes a religion is the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Scientology case which was decided in 1983.4 The High Court found Scientology to be a religion. On the question of the current approach to the meaning of religion, the Scientology case provides the best elucidation and it is worth a detailed consideration here.”
No, anonymous maroubraman, don’t “give up”; simply try (no matter how painful this may be for you) to analyse the logical structure of the points raised against Scientology.
You overstate the case when you suggest I “obviously discovered something very important — (when I) — wandered off the street and had a sort of ‘chat’ (with the New York Scientologists)” The only interesting aspect of that visit I mentioed was how unaware they pretended (in a non-pejorative sense of the word) to be completely unaware of — - as you may be? — - how Scientologists first decided to BECOME a religion.
In any case, ‘wandering in off the street’ isn’t such a bad idea — - provided you’re well-prepared before you do it, of course.
I was well aware of the ’83 Australian High Court decision, and why, at the time, based on my reading of their materials, it clearly brought a sense of relief to many far-off Scientologists in the States. It gave them a valuable weapon in their continuing battle with the legal problems the Church faced at the time.
I knew long before that — - the House of David in Australia being a prime example — - the tax and other advantages of a ‘religion’ being granted legal status. Whether it is good law, however, is a separate (and far complex) matter; one I imagine you’d agree that’s not really able to be addressed adequately on a blog site?
I don’t, by the way, believe that many would deny that you’re correct in emphasising the great importance of that ’83 decision in helping protect the bizarre activities of Scientology from the outside world. The main point of Scientology’s critics here is that this particular decision was not in the best interests of Australia, and since over the years many decisions have been re-interpreted by the High Court, they argue that with the Scientology decision, the sooner this happens the better it is for Australia.
In the meantime, by all means enjoy the privileged protection the decision provides; but try to understand why non-members of the sect want a fresh look at Scientology. Most important of all, try to discover more, much more, about the sect’s original decision to become a ‘religion’.
OK, Norm, you have persuaded me not to give up.
Here’s why not much else you say is worth commenting on: “Most important of all, try to discover more, much more, about the sect’s original decision to become a ‘religion.’”
Since you are apparently into Zen, here is one for you:
Norm, try to discover more, much more, about grasshopper’s decision to become a grasshopper.
If that doesn’t do it for you, meet me at the Junction and I’ll buy you a Coopers.
Before you do anything else, maroubra, learn more about grasshoppers, and you’ll find the concept of decion (in the sense most homo sapiens use it) isn’t really applicable to even the most highly developed insects, let alone grasshoppers.
I do, however, understand any reluctance on your part to examine too closely the genesis of Scientology’s decision to insulate itself from legal proceedings by re-inventing itself as a ‘re;igion’. It was a sharp move by their legal advisers, but apparently too embarrassing for many of the sect’s devotees to discuss?
I’m not surprised, of course, by your decision to duck most of the issues I raised. It shows that deep down you’re aware that your castle’s built on shaky grounds, so it’s far safer simply to ‘forget’ about the past.
Hi Norm. How about just coming out and saying what’s on your mind?
I guess, maroubra, it’s that I regret evolution didn’t prepare our species (more so with some of us than with others, of course) for coping with higher-level analysis. It wasn’t all that important as we wandered the primaeval savanna, but it’s of far greater use in current more highly developed societies.
I couldn’t tell you that straight out before without an invitation, because for those of you whose self-esteem could be hurt when you suddenly become more aware of your (until now probably un-recognised?) shortcomings whenever you’re asked to deal with anything more abstract than a pumpkin pie recipe, it seemed unkind to talk about your inadequacies.
But now you’ve asked, try to go forth and seek help — - asap.
Hi Norm. Grasshopper was a good name for you. “Glasshopper speak in liddles.” I guess that at least clarifies what you meant by “our species.”
Are you a sock of Venice Alstergren? You seem to have a similar incapacity for discussion without degenerating into high school smack talk the first time you have a lose.
I apologise, maroubraman.You’ve helped me remember how my approach to analysis of language has caused problems in the past. After a few weeks at Uni decades back, I dropped out because no one else’s answers in a Philos course coincided with mine. I’d assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that it was a rather easy test on basic aanalysis of language’s meaning.
The tutor was kind, encouraging me to not worry and stay in the course, but I couldn’t see the point. He reassured me that I shouldn’t mind being the only one who scored 100%; but I was even more concerned about standards then than now, because (after years in teaching / lecturing /admin /etc.) I’ve realised one shouldn’t expect too much.
But back to your needs, m. Don’t give up on yourself and (in light of your obsession with grasshoppers) if you really must model yourself metaphorically, of course, on a six-leg, try to be more like Aesop’s ant.
Hail Unbeliever Norm.
This is the fundamental question of ethics: Is the man’s behavior courageous or cowardly?
As a social deconstructionist, your aporetic answer is predictable: you know neither the answer nor the question.
More to the point: Shall I or shall I not assume responsibility for your further education?
Too late for you to help me Mam. I went back to Uni long ago [admittedly primarily to avoid a transfer away from Sydney] As a first year evening student at Sydney I completed only two terms of the three term courses they ran in those days, before I stopped attending. When, after unexpectedly recovering from what was assumed would be a fatal accident, I contacted the Uni in November and explained why I’d been missing, I was told I could ask for posts, but why not sit the end of year exams being held that week anyway as a trial run, to find out what I’d missed in the last term.
It turned out, Mam, that I wasn’t asked to sit posts, because they decided I’d done well enough, if I was interested, to be offered spots in three Hons courses. Mind you, even in 1961 before exam standards had to be lowered to fit in with declining entry standards, in subjects such as Philosophy (provided you could analyse words and logical threads) who needed lectures? After that I completed other courses without attending lectures, so I may not be a person who’d gain much benefit from your peculiar talents — - although, had I the inclination, because of the time I’ve spent helping remedial students, I’m sure I could help you overcome at least some of your educational shortcomings?
Not, mind you, that I’m so presumptious as to believe I could succeed (in light of your bizarre notions re ‘fundamental’ aspects of ‘man’s behaviour’) that anyone could enable you to handle more complex issues such as ethics.
Hey Norm. Don’t you worry about a thing. It is not too late. You CAN overcome your academic and social stagnation. All facetiousness aside (well, at least some of it), I am willing to help you.
In my last instruction, I thought I would point you in the direction of some educational fiction that might be more philosophically rewarding than your usual Harry Potter fare. But I see the point missed you. The fundamental question of ethics quoted is from Stephen Donaldson’s “Lord Foul’s Bane.” Of course, you knew that all along.
But for the long term, are you up to the challenge Norm?
Mam, I AM over the hill and in decline; but it’s not stagnation yet. What would be far worse than stagnation, I’m certainly not at the stage of conflating Harry Potter books/movies with serious philosophy. That WOULD be a worry.
As for a ‘challenge’, I still accept and enjoy them — - it’s just that sadly challenging challengers are a rare commodity these days, and and I’ve yet to find one on this website. If I did, I’d be more than happy to consider travelling some distance, just for the anticipated intellectual exercise. There I go, being over-optimistic again that you might know someone?
OK Norm. Here is why I like you:
Despite the fact that your unsolicited communication to me has been from the outset and consistently thereafter hostile, ill-informed, arrogant (particularly since you, I am sure, consider yourself WELL-informed), pre-judiced (I always like to throw in the unnecessary hyphen for added emphasis) and, to round out the illustration, boorish, well, I somehow got the idea that deep down you are a nice guy.
In fact, that is precisely why I suggested a challenge. You are a talented man with a lot to offer, but are not offering anything in any meaningful way because, well, what’s the point?
Behold the point.
I guess that means you don’t think I’m perfect, Mam? What a relief. Amd if you can’t follow the logic of my argument, don’t feel bad. In ancient times when it was still possible to fail students who couldn’t follow the material, I examined the records of all Sydney Uni Hons graduates who had failed one subject on their way through. The biggest single hurdle for these successful Hons graduates (i.e. ONE failed course) was Philosophy I.
Think about it, Mam, and the explanation is fairly obvious. I’m not, by the way, hostile, merely amused by it all.
It is not going to work unless you ask for help Norm.
What a fascinating riposte. Irrelevant, but nevertheless fascinating. Don’t give up your day job to teach logical analysis though.
That’s your problem Norm — you treat all communication from anyone and everyone as something to defeat. You no longer believe help is possible. You no longer believe there is any possibility that the future may be better than the past. You can no longer consider such things without quibbling about the impossibility of defining “better.” All things are irrelevant to you.
I would have no chance as a teacher in logical analysis. But I don’t consider that a failure. The biggest single hurdle for your Hons graduates was Philosophy 1. Conclusion? There is obviously something wrong with Philosophy 1. Just as there is something wrong with your approach to logical analysis.
I realize it might be difficult hearing all this from someone who didn’t finish high school, but that’s okay Norm. We are going to make progress and you will have the time of your life. (I must admit, I haven’t yet worked out the logistics.)
True I have only the old Year 9 Intermediate Certificate from school Mam, in part because I was bored. My brother didn’t even have that, but when he tried University, he passed without difficulty, before leaving because in disgust over the poor standard of written material he received from some of the lecturers. I too, despite not attending all that often or reading the less stimulating books we were set, found it less than challenging, which may be why I’m less impressed with pieces of paper than most — especially ‘qualifications’ issued in recent decades.
I’m not surprised, by the way, that you dismiss Philos I so cavalierly. It’s a common reaction not only by less able students, but also (more frequently perhaps?) by those whose ‘sacred beliefs”, be they theist or non-theist, are threatened when they realise their supposed certainties rest on unsound foundations. You might have a look at the cognitive dissonance for a simple description of how this works, protecting us from learning there are discomforting flaws in our core beliefs. But that’s a risk you may not cope with too well?
Finally, I’m sorry if I gave the impression I thought you should attempt to TEACH logical analysis. Heaven forbid! That would be cruel to both you and your students. Just consider trying to get a handle on how important it is to have logical links between your prmisses and the conclusions you believe they support.
Not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding Norm, but I am the one who never got through high school. But, to draw on your overriding philosophy of life, that’s irrelevant.
How unpredictable that you would take my dismissal of Philos 1 as an opportunity to conclude that I am a less able student, whose sacred beliefs have unsound foundations, threatened by discomforting flaws.
Take a look at your last sentence. I think it is VERY important to have logical links between premisses and conclusions. Wise words grasshopper. Here is another of your faults: You fail at living up to YOUR standards.
Norm, here is lesson one: I am not going to teach you about beliefs. I am going to teach you how to know.
Had you been one of Socrates’ students, Mam, he might well have decided to take hemlock wihout being told to do so. Hopefully one day you’ll sort out the differences between know and believe — - which is what even many relatively bright Philos students found a bridge too far to ever consider crossing it.
Apologies, by the way, for assuming you were one of the numerous graduates who don’t realise how little their pieces of paper mean. I realise now that you at least have a sound reason for being confused. Still, you might in future comsider not dismissing things so airlily when you haven’t tried them? I refrain from dismissing a whole range of beliefs where I suspect the conclusions are erroneous, but I haven’t investigated them sufficiently thoroughly to be in a position to criticise those beliefs.
Once again then, apologies for being critical, as I misjudged your background, and it won’t continue.
Best wishes with whatever approach to analysis you decide to adopt.
Good try Norm, but some things you can not run away from.
I have adopted you.
In describing me as having sound reason for being confused, you are only half right. I have sound reason.
I did not ask if you believe you know the difference between believing and knowing.
I know you believe you do.
And I also know you don’t know.
By the way, who’s on first?
Lesson two: Learn to enjoy the humour of your predicament.
An afterthought:
I accept your apology.
Somewhere along the line, we will broach the topic of sincerity. (Probably somewhere after integrity.)