Scientology Mums feeding babies "toxic" mixture - scary stuff indeed!!

[theAfkaUrbanDryad]

here's the story and here's another forum talking about it.

Honey and barley water for newborns - nice

(although i'm fairly sure Katie Holmes is breastfeeding - no thetans for her!!!)

theBOD - while it is true that some of the world's major religions are inherently misogynistic most of them have learned to move with the times. For example, the introduction of women priests into the Anglican church etc.

I'm not saying that Scientology is wrong and all other religions are right - things are rarely black and white like that. I have problems with all organised religion, but they are my problems and obviously people are free to believe what they like. What they are not free to do is to subjugate followers to systematic physical abuse, fleece gullible people out of thousands and thousands of pounds, use child labour, and quietly dispose of anyone who questions them.

I know none of the major religions are exactly squeaky clean but few of them are as bad as Scientology.

We are Anonymous. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us

Fennel, aniseed, etc, aren't intended INSTEAD of BF. It's like taking infacol or gripe mixture or something for colic.

Also many/most of the tenets of other major religions were developed centuries or millennia ago; they may seem bizarre to us now but there were often very practical reasons for them at the time.

Churching is one example of this - women were usually advised to stay at home for 40 days after birth to bond with their baby and then went to church for a celebration of having safely survived the birth.

Although there are connotations of being "unclean" attached to it, this was actually a very practical practice which gave the mother a restful time to recover from the birth, bond with her baby and establish feeding. There are similar practices in Islam and other religions.

Whereas the bizarre practices of Scientology are nothing to do with changing times or outdated ideas. They were recently developed and were as ridiculous when they were made up as they are today.

ooh well said young. Ud phone me please

Can I just point out that at no point did I assume this tea was instead of BF - I was simply at a product being sold as 'tea' when it should only be used for digestive type disorders. Tea, to me, suggests a social-any-time-of-the-day type of affair

Oh sorry for misunderstanding you!

"...the bizarre practices of Scientology are nothing to do with changing times or outdated ideas. They were recently developed and were as ridiculous when they were made up as they are today."

Yeah... like I studied psychology at uni, and eventually got a degree in it. This means I'm marked for death by Scientologists, who believe I'm part of a conspriracy to form a one world government of psychologists, psychiatrists and communists.

Incidentally, isn't it time this thread was shut down? MN will be up to it's eyes in lawsuits come 5pm if it isn't.

lol Kevlarhead. I remember on the BBC PoV forum there were loads of new members praising up Scientology after the Panorama programme.

The misogynistic ways of some religions - I know Christianity for sure and the little I know about Islam - are usually the way something has been twisted. When you look at why something was said and who it was to, you usually find that it has a totally different meaning to what is thought today.

For example in COrinthians it says that women should have their head covered in church. This was written in the face of two things. Firstly they were Roman women who took a lot of pride in their hair, it would be ornately adorned and worn very high. It was a distraction and showed that their first priority wasn't to God. Secondly the priestesses of Corinth shaved their heads and prostituted themselves in the temple, women with bare heads looked like prostitutes. So they were being told in that passage that if their head was shaved it should be covered so they didn't look like prostitutes in God's House and if they wore their hair ornately they should cover it so they were showing they were there to worship God and He was their priority, Paul said that if they couldn't cover their head they should shave it - because if they did they'd cover their head rather than look like a prostitute.

In the Bible there were women ministers and there were for a couple of hundred years after until the church told people a different story (don't forget in those days the Bible was in Latin and only the educated could read it). At that time the Church made a lot of statements about women that weren't true and these things stuck. It was the same time that they said Mary Magadeline was a prostitute and it's only been in the last century they accepted she wasn't, although not many people know.

This 'formula' is based on a fairly old idea, which was very valid in those days. I have a Dr Spock from teh 50s or 60s, before formula was readily available, which gives recipes for a baby who cannot - for whatever reason - be breastfed. Essentially you have to dilute cows' milk to reduce the fat and protein content, as the newborn cannot digest it, but you then need to increase the sugar content.

Nowadays, of course, it is as valid as telling someone to wean at 8w, and that boiled eggs for a baby should be runny - also advice given in the first half of the 20thC.

PrettyCandles:

By theAfkaUrbanDryad on Tue 13-May-08 21:57:30
Copy pasta from enturbulation.org wrt the current policy on infant feeding:

"In a very real sense it does not matter if it's not "current policy". Hubbard wrote it and meant it and didn't "cancel" it, thus it is "source" and always valid according to scientologists. Once anything he has written is called into question then all of it is called into question. They can't pick and choose which bits they believe as that undermines the whole thing."

That was written by an ex-Scientologist, in case you doubt its validity.

What I meant was that the original, pre-Scientology concept was valid - for its era.

Yeah, thats true. It was best practise for babies at the time.

Thing is that best practise for babies changes as times change and new facts are discovered about old practices; while religious dogma is defined by its very unchangability.

But PrettyCandles - because L.Ron never revoked it, that means it's still considered by Scietologists to be current practice.

there's a fair amount of rumour/ evidence that states l ron often said 'if you want to make a million, start a religion' or words to that effect

www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.htm

More fools them.

Babycare books over the ages are a fascinating read. I would be surprised if modern Scientologists used that formula any more. On the other hand if you compare our diet today with that of people on US farms in the 1880s - whole foods, milk, plus lots of exercise we are poisoning our children in a way that was not done in those days.