Posted: 4/17/2006, 10:21 pm
We have that same thing sort of going on here with the discussion of native rights to self-rule and for band control and such.
Page 18 of 31
Posted: 4/18/2006, 8:59 pm
Posted: 4/18/2006, 11:05 pm
go gore! you show them!
on a lighter, and far more trivial note: http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainm ... ab35488fd2
"TomKat" (:wtf:) have finally had their baby
on a lighter, and far more trivial note: http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainm ... ab35488fd2
"TomKat" (:wtf:) have finally had their baby
Posted: 4/18/2006, 11:26 pm
I bet she made noise
Posted: 4/19/2006, 5:38 am
She was allowed to make noise... I know the media made this big deal about no noise, but it's actually only the nurses/doctor/father/whoever else is in the room who isn't allowed. Definitely something that the media ran away with and people didn't care enough to look into.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 6:11 am
it is really hard to find information on scientology admidst the millions of articles on tom cruise when you search the topic....
is the not talking to the baby for 7 days afterwards true?
is the not talking to the baby for 7 days afterwards true?
Posted: 4/19/2006, 9:43 am
Yes. Which is psychological suicide.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 3:06 pm
ya they apparently advise that the mom have no contact with the baby for a full day, and no breast feeding is allowed. There have been countless studies about the effect of having the mom and baby be with eachother more often (i guess if you decrease the time between their interactions it will create a stronger bond).
The best bet for learning about it might be through wikipedia or the official scientology website.
The best bet for learning about it might be through wikipedia or the official scientology website.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 3:54 pm
I never speak negatively about people's religion, but Scientology seems a bit....odd.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 4:08 pm
ya a virgin giving birth is a little crazy too...
Posted: 4/19/2006, 5:17 pm
J-Neli wrote:The best bet for learning about it might be through wikipedia or the official scientology website.
tried both, but nada.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 5:34 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
There's quite a bit on scientology there with only a small section on the celebrity side...
There's quite a bit on scientology there with only a small section on the celebrity side...
Posted: 4/19/2006, 5:51 pm
hahahaha, I love reading up on Scientology.
"What the Church opposes are brutal, inhumane psychiatric treatments. It does so for three principal reasons: 1) procedures such as electro-shock, drugs and lobotomy injure, maim and destroy people in the guise of help; 2) psychiatry is not a science and has no proven methods to justify the billions of dollars of government funds that are poured into it; and 3) psychiatric theories that man is a mere animal have been used to rationalize, for example, the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II."
First of all, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind the 2nd statement. No proven methods? How about centuries of research? Clinical successes?
Clearly L. Ron Hubbard knows better than generations of teams of highly educated individuals conducting years of arduous, intesive research.
Now back to the 1st... It depends largely on how you use them. Yes, practices in the past have later been criticized for being inhumane. But I love the reasoning that since it has been used improperly in the past, drugs and psychosurgery can never be used to in any way benefit the patient.
As for 3 ... um... when has "psychiatry" ever claimed to rationalize slaughtering people?
Then again, I don't know the history of psychiatry. Tom Cruise does.
/glib
"What the Church opposes are brutal, inhumane psychiatric treatments. It does so for three principal reasons: 1) procedures such as electro-shock, drugs and lobotomy injure, maim and destroy people in the guise of help; 2) psychiatry is not a science and has no proven methods to justify the billions of dollars of government funds that are poured into it; and 3) psychiatric theories that man is a mere animal have been used to rationalize, for example, the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II."
First of all, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind the 2nd statement. No proven methods? How about centuries of research? Clinical successes?
Clearly L. Ron Hubbard knows better than generations of teams of highly educated individuals conducting years of arduous, intesive research.
Now back to the 1st... It depends largely on how you use them. Yes, practices in the past have later been criticized for being inhumane. But I love the reasoning that since it has been used improperly in the past, drugs and psychosurgery can never be used to in any way benefit the patient.
As for 3 ... um... when has "psychiatry" ever claimed to rationalize slaughtering people?
Then again, I don't know the history of psychiatry. Tom Cruise does.
/glib
Posted: 4/19/2006, 5:56 pm
hahahahaha, how perfect is this. While I submitted that, this line came on Seinfeld:
George: I ... I didn't mean anything by it! I don't even know L. Ron Hubbard! I didn't know you were with that group!
Jerry: Wow, those Scientologists can be pretty sensitive.
George: I ... I didn't mean anything by it! I don't even know L. Ron Hubbard! I didn't know you were with that group!
Jerry: Wow, those Scientologists can be pretty sensitive.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 8:34 pm
J-Neli wrote:ya a virgin giving birth is a little crazy too...
Yup, that's a miracle for you.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 8:46 pm
...no breast feeding?? well, i'm sure that does the baby a whole bunch of good when its immune system is compromised because it didn't get the mom's colostrum like it should've. but at least it'll be free of "engrams" 
Posted: 4/19/2006, 8:59 pm
You don't know the history of breastfeeding.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 9:05 pm
hmm, guess i don't at that, but that doesn't make me cringe about it any less
*nutrition freak to the core*
*nutrition freak to the core*
Posted: 4/19/2006, 9:59 pm
Has scientology ever recieved any good press? It seems the only people promoting scientology are scientologists.
Posted: 4/19/2006, 10:30 pm
It's hard to give something so rediculous good press unless you're invested in it.