Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pedophile Foley: Scientologist?
Scientology "Flag Service Organization" ^

Posted on 10/03/2006 4:59:54 PM PDT by research99

Is ex-Congressman Foley, admitted gay male, a Scientologist?

Consider the Evidence:

(1) Linked to Scientology organizations in 2003

(2) Reported to attend functions at Scientology "Celebrity Center" in Hollywood

(3) Notice of his enrollment in "rehabilitation program" sent to Florida TV station from Clearwater, Florida (home of Scientology).

Question: Is Foley in the Scientology "Narconon" program, run by the Church of Scientology?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: foley; gay; scientology

1 posted on 10/03/2006 4:59:54 PM PDT by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: research99

I hope you don't think that that makes him any less guilty of his perversions (or his embarassment to the GOP).


2 posted on 10/03/2006 5:01:24 PM PDT by Triggerhippie (Always use a silencer in a crowd. Loud noises offend people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: research99
Why are you calling him a pedophile? Is there any evidence he ever molested a child?
3 posted on 10/03/2006 5:02:13 PM PDT by msnimje (Seriously, if it REALLY were a religion of PEACE, would they have to label it as such?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: research99
Consider the evidence:

http://www.fso.org/en_US/news-events/pg005.html

4 posted on 10/03/2006 5:02:14 PM PDT by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: research99
Scientologists PAY to have others scientologists pretend that they are GOD (if you can afford the price to be palyed to as a GOD).

I worked for them in the 70s and remember that a different phoney put on what looked to be a preacher's Coller each day.

Don't believe me? Well AUDIT me then.
5 posted on 10/03/2006 5:04:56 PM PDT by Rovendem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

He's over 50 years old, and corresponds sexual thoughts with teenage males.


6 posted on 10/03/2006 5:06:10 PM PDT by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Does the definition of 'pedophile' require a physical act? According to the dictionary it is just that one is sexually attracted to children - of which Foley was.

I tend to think people this sick are often members of some cult - whether it be Scientologists or Moonies...


7 posted on 10/03/2006 5:07:06 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: research99
Funny, he doesn't look like a Thetan.
8 posted on 10/03/2006 5:07:13 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Every single day provides at least one new reason to hate the mainstream media...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: research99
It's safe to assume that every florida politician -- especially republican -- has his hands in scientology's pockets.

but homosexuality is allegedly a no-no in scientology.

So, just because he's on their dole, doesn't mean he's a "member," at least not in the official sense.

Odds are that his connection with scientology is/was one of mutual convenience only.

9 posted on 10/03/2006 5:08:18 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand ("...Church and state are home to the very same people....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
This came from Foley to one of the teens:

we may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted

Gee why do you think he wanted a teen to come over to his house to drink? What the heck is it with people? Is this freerepublic or democratic underground?

10 posted on 10/03/2006 5:26:07 PM PDT by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: graf008

The definition of pedophilia involves prepubescent children only. That is part of why its so sick.

A grown man of whatever age being attracted to a post-pubescent young person is not, by definition, a pedophile.


11 posted on 10/03/2006 5:27:54 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

its = it's


12 posted on 10/03/2006 5:28:51 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rovendem
(if you can afford the price to be palyed to as a GOD).

I've never heard of palyed.

Is that a Scientology thing they do?

13 posted on 10/03/2006 5:30:39 PM PDT by humblegunner (If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

To some, they are, by definition, perverts.


14 posted on 10/03/2006 5:31:11 PM PDT by George Smiley (This tagline has been Reutered. (Can you tell?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley

No argument from me. You're right, I can think of a lot of reasons that it is bad to do what Foley is accused of doing. But, pedophilia is a different animal. And, a very ugly one.


15 posted on 10/03/2006 5:37:13 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: research99

Is he part of the Super Adventure Club?


16 posted on 10/03/2006 5:56:49 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Homosexuality a no-no? Did you see the "Come out of the closet" epi of South Park?

I always thought they gave cover to homosexuals in public life.


17 posted on 10/03/2006 6:07:57 PM PDT by HelloooClareece ("We make war that we may live in peace". Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

18 posted on 10/03/2006 6:09:09 PM PDT by mcg2000 (New Orleans: The city that declared Jihad on The Red Cross.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Ask any young lady- fiftysomething guys chasing after them isn't exactly appealing, either.

And I speak as one of the latter group (the age, not the chasing, hehehe.)


19 posted on 10/03/2006 7:07:43 PM PDT by George Smiley (This tagline has been Reutered. (Can you tell?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley

A little chasing is probably good for the soul. Or, was that chastizing?


20 posted on 10/03/2006 7:20:07 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: research99

He may very well be that now but earlier he was a Roman Catholic:

Social issues

Foley's stances on many social issues, such as abortion, differ from his party's leadership. Although a Roman Catholic, Foley is pro-choice (a member of The Republican Majority For Choice[16]), but has advocated alternatives such as adoption and abstinence. He supports also supports the Patriot Act, the death penalty, and strict sentencing for hate crimes. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley#Early_years_and_initial_career

Gee, is it any wonder he is PRO choice and PRO gay?


21 posted on 10/03/2006 7:48:17 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I prefer women who are all grown up.


22 posted on 10/03/2006 7:56:47 PM PDT by George Smiley (This tagline has been Reutered. (Can you tell?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HelloooClareece
I always thought they gave cover to homosexuals in public life

As far as their doctrine is concerned, they frown upon it -- officially. Or at least, they used to.

Scientologists -- nothwithstanding the sheer lunacy of their teachings -- are very pro-family, at least among the core that I knew.

They homeschooled, preached fidelity and responsibility, voted republican, and distrusted big goverment. Sort of like "Spaceballs meets the Quakers."

Over the years they've probably come to see the deep pockets of the queer demographic and have put forth the dual message so common to any other type of business -- "far be it from us to offend...."

23 posted on 10/04/2006 4:13:51 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand ("...Church and state are home to the very same people....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley

Obviously a man of great discernment.


24 posted on 10/04/2006 9:20:33 AM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I'll pull a Scalia on you - no dictionary definition I am aware of makes such a qualification. Merriam Webster's, American Heritage, etc, just say "child" or "children". That is defined as an individual below the age of majority. Theerfore, he is a pedophile.


25 posted on 10/04/2006 9:45:32 AM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: graf008
If you look in a general dictionary for a term that applies to a specific field, you may not get a full definition. This is a psychiatric/medical term, and here is a comment on its definition and application:

The American Psychiatric Association in its main diagnostic manual, the DSM-IV TR, defines a pedophile as somebody who “over a period of six months, [has] recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexually activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger)”. It further states that the person has either acted on these urges or as a result of the urges has experienced marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. In other words, the pedophile may have acted upon the urges but did not necessarily do so. Sex researchers Ralph Underwager and Holida Wakefield in Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases wrote:

“Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between ‘sex offender against a minor’ and ‘pedophile’. The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference. Many pedophiles never act on their impulses. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles.” [italics mine]

Fagan, Wise, Schmidt and Berlin in a 2002 paper entitled Pedophilia wrote:

“Terms such as ‘child sexual abuse’, ‘incest’, ‘child molestation’ and ‘pederasty’ are not equivalent to pedophilia. Terms that denote sex with minors are criminal actions; pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. Not all who sexually abuse minors are pedophilic. For example, some who sexually abuse minors may opportunistically select minors simply because they are available. Sex with a minor is not, ipso facto a determination of pedophilia. Also, not all individuals who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia actually abuse children.” http://hfp.puellula.org/Polemic/WhatIs.html

26 posted on 10/04/2006 3:48:36 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

That is a more thorough definition - but in no way excludes former Representative Foley from it. I would say that actually means he is probably a pedophile - he has never acted on his impulse in a physical manner (so he says), and he seems to have great distress - so much so that he is an alcoholic.


27 posted on 10/04/2006 7:11:43 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: graf008

No, I understand the confusion, but the important point is that pedophiles are attracted to pre-sexual children - children who have not reached puberty. It is a very aberrant and sick attraction and causes much damage to children who are preyed upon by pedophiles.

It is not the same thing as middle-aged men leering at an 18 year-old (which may be disgusting or funny, but not as sick and harmful as pedophilia). (Or middle aged women at a Chippendale exhibition, for that matter).


28 posted on 10/04/2006 7:20:15 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I think there is a distinction between the medical definition and the dictionary definition, then. The dictionary doesn't indicate the younger age requirement. Therefore, while you are correct, according to the medical definition he was not a pedophile (assuming his attraction was only to older teenage males - a fact that is an assumption), by the dictionary definition he was. Therefore, a doctor would be wrong to call him a pedophile, but a reporter wouldn't.


29 posted on 10/04/2006 7:23:40 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I think there is a distinction between the medical definition and the dictionary definition, then. The dictionary doesn't indicate the younger age requirement. Therefore, while you are correct, according to the medical definition he was not a pedophile (assuming his attraction was only to older teenage males - a fact that is an assumption), by the dictionary definition he was. Therefore, a doctor would be wrong to call him a pedophile, but a reporter wouldn't.


30 posted on 10/04/2006 7:26:09 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: graf008

No, a reporter who knew what he was talking about would not call foley a pedophile. It would be his duty to find out what the correct definition is, and not use sloppy, inexact definitions.

If you want to find out a definition for a chemistry term, you don't go to Websters you go to a chemistry source, and if you want to find an accurate definition of a medical/psych term, you go to a medical/psych dictionary.

But what is your point? Why do you want to call him a pedophile? There are plenty of other accurate words that would apply to him.


31 posted on 10/04/2006 7:28:43 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

People understand what that means - and the gravity of what it entails.

Even though a technician's dictionary not commonly available has a more strict definition, normal language dictionaries echo that it is the correct word to use. In addition to that, it was what the reporters audience understands the word to mean (and given that many people do not have access to Medical Dictionaries, what the books on their shelf would echo). The target audience is to whom a reporter is writing. That is why our news is so poor here in that the audience whats sensationalism. That also means choosing words that are understood to the general public in the forms they are understood. Pediophile is not understood by its strict medical definition in the general public, but rather by its looser dictionary defnition. Therefore, the term applies and the reporter was right to us it.


32 posted on 10/04/2006 7:36:15 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

If the report was in a medical journal, it would be incorrect to use the term. I don't think the above is a medical journal.


33 posted on 10/04/2006 7:36:48 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: graf008

No, but it's a medical term with a specific meaning.


34 posted on 10/04/2006 7:44:07 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: graf008

Well, I respectfully disagree. I heard a woman on a talk show once talking about something - I think someone had broken into her apartment - and she said "It was like being raped - I felt so violated". I wouldn't know firsthand, but I'm willing to bet that it wasn't anything like being raped.

Just like the current "torture" argument. People fling the word around with little concern as to what it really means, and the result is that sleep deprivation and bad music are now considered torture.


35 posted on 10/04/2006 7:48:40 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

A medical term that has a different common meaning. There are too many words in our langauge that are terms of art within one field, but have different general meanings. If we always stuck to the strictest definition - we'd all be lawyers.


36 posted on 10/04/2006 7:51:17 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: graf008

See #35.

I'm signing off for the evening. Must be perky tomorrow.

You make a good argument. We can take it up tomorrow.


37 posted on 10/04/2006 7:53:13 PM PDT by SuzyQue (Remember to think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Well, I appreciate that and understand your point. I would ideally agree that we should use the precise exact definition. But that imparts an exactness our society lacks - especially the media.

But have a good night. No need to keep on beating this dead horse ;)


38 posted on 10/04/2006 7:55:59 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: graf008
If he is attracted to postpubescent boys, he is an ephebophile, not a pedophile.
39 posted on 10/04/2006 7:57:23 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TChad

What was the age range of the people who received these messages? Wikipedia defines pedophile as including pubescent targets, which I think could go up to 18.


40 posted on 10/04/2006 8:02:13 PM PDT by graf008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

What is it with you literalists? Just cause I refuse spell-check you get all pithy.

Have you no clue as to what I'm trying to say?


41 posted on 10/05/2006 7:49:59 PM PDT by Rovendem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: graf008
Congressional pages have to be at least 16 years old, so they are postpubescent.
42 posted on 10/05/2006 11:35:18 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson