Interesting comment, Lee. I get your viewpoint about felon and immigrants.

Here’s another one: my great X 4 or 5 grandfather was one of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. The Signers are revered today, but when they crafted that document they were not only not revered but despised and feared by most of their fellow American colonists. They were not merely the Liberals of their day, they were in fact treasonous Radicals against King George III ,Each Colonist Signer/Patriot had money and property (and slaves) and they put everything they had on the line including their own lives and the lives of their wives and children. If the Patriots had lost the Revolution they would have been hanged, their lands and money seized and families deported back to England and probably hanged there too. Many American colonists wanted to remain a British colony. These were the Conservatives of that day.

And while on the subject of American colonists, guess what they were, what their beginnings were, back then? If you believe they were for the most part prosperous Brits who merely sought religious freedom, guess again. They were no accounts, jailbirds, poor people, “waste” people (a name for them in England at the time). England wanted them OUT and away and so they emptied their jails and shipped them to America. The vast majority of people who came to this country in the 1600s and early 1700s were NOT people who were making it in England. My own original ancestor Simon came to New England in the mid 1600s with a wife and 4 sons. He died of small pox on the voyage. His wife and sons survived and founded a very large and extensive family of property owners and landed gentry and statesment and one of these descendants, a little over a hundred years later, became one of the Signers, and was the first governor of Connecticut after the Revolution. Now why did the original founder of the family Simon leave England? Did he have a comfortable life there, but maybe just got bored so he packed up his family on a dangerous sea voyage to live in a strange land? I would say no. I would say he very likely for whatever reason WASN’T doing well AT ALL in England which is why he came to the Colonies. Or maybe he was emptied out of a London jail. Or maybe he was in debt, or in frail health and couldn’t keep a job,, On the sea voyage HE caught small pox and died; his wife and 4 sons survived, and thrived in the colony that was America. “Waste” people. Very likely NOT wanted or needed in England, so ship them the hell out, and good riddance! Do I make my point? Starting with the English, America is a country of immigrants and always has been a country of immigrants, and these immigrants were and continue to be, the vast majority of them, total losers of one kind or another in their former countries. The English poor, the Irish potato famine poor, the Italians, Poles, Germans, Chinese…but NOW we should shut the door, right? Because the descendants of these early ones are middle class respectable people now, right? Because there needs to be a limit to immigration, now that the European Americans have what they need. Because we don’t want any more immigrants in this country; we don’t need them, particularly if their skin is dark and if they have a lot of kids. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way in America. That’s not America’s “business model”. Think about it.

Makes me think of the democrats releasing felons from prison and allowing the invasion @ the border for population purposes cause it helps them in the electoral college votes #

Indeed, Ms. Smith. So long as no animals are harmed 🙂

Hm I’m just a teacher but I thought the colonist left the Brit’s to escape British rule and oppressive religion. Are we not lucky that we live in a country where you can even worship Satan if you choose?

DV, Hubbard’s ‘work’ was in many ways rooted in late 19th century movements, and so for example rather similar to Christian Science, though tapping into mid century “space era” trends. And much of his “space opera” is a sci-fi infused take on late 19th century occultism via Crowley. It has some early 20th century influences as well, such as Freudian psychology obsessed with infancy and sexuality, and the use of electropsychometers.

“New religions” tend to be products of their time. Mormons, JWs, Christian Science, British Israelites and Black Hebrews owe their ideas to 18th-19th Century movements (“Awakenings”) whereas Scientology, COG/TFI, Rajneesh, etc owe their ideas to mid-20th Century trends.

Most of the NRMs or “cults” that sprang up mid-century have adapted to some extent, whereas Scientology hasn’t. They’ve also largely not been associated with criminality, unlike Scientology. Eckankar is one example, worth mentioning because its founder Paul Twitchell was briefly involved with Scientology.

Rajneesh was known as the “sex guru” and presided over the infamous ranch in Antelope, Oregon and also an ashram in India, where a philosophy of sexual liberation, if not even free love, was practiced. His group as well as COG/TFI can be seen as appealing to the counterculture sexual mores of many of the baby boom generation. There were other, smaller, groups of course.

The relationship of NRMs with “sexual fluidity” is interesting. One discussion I saw suggested that Mormons and Scientology were known for being “sexually fluid” in their earlier years, before tightening things up on that score (albeit Scientology now includes abortions – a reason no Christian or conservative should ever accept them).

The Children of God/The Family were the ones who enshrined sexual liberationism into their creed. Even they largely abandoned many of the most contentious practices, at least after Berg passed away and his widow took over. COG/TFI seems to have undergone a number of reformations since then.

Scientologists are anti-abortion (at least publicly), anti-homosexual, racist and don’t believe in helping the poor. How could they be anything but a republican?

Interesting information, thanks. Makes sense; I would totally agree.