Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews Wed Jul 19 09:29:10 1995
Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: esi_inc@ix.netcom.com (Tim Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,misc.taxes,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Noose is Tightening on CoS (was Big Suprise - 79K) (LONG)
Date: 18 Jul 1995 02:19:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 271
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3uf5mk$3nj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com
References: <noringDBpqJz.M72@netcom.com <DBq3nJ.DwK@ceco.ceco.com <3u8enc$e34@castlsys.demon.co.uk <DBvoEo.EI8@ceco.ceco.com <19950718.001310.70@holsoft.demon.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-chi7-04.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.interserv.net alt.religion.scientology:76444 misc.legal:62290 misc.legal.computing:10281 misc.taxes:18901 comp.org.eff.talk:57100
In <19950718.001310.70@holsoft.demon.co.uk clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk
(Sister Clara) writes:
In article <DBvoEo.EI8@ceco.ceco.com,
a#urban@ccmail.ceco.com ("R. Urban") wrote:
stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve) wrote:
(snip)
Every so often, someone will delurk and blind us with the brilliance
of his insight, gleaned from, ooh, *minutes* of careful study of the
discussion on a.r.s.
I don't access a.r.s. or alt.conspiracy or anything else that sounds
like
a forum for a hate group.............
So you haven't even tried to find out any facts about the subject but
feel
knowledgeable enough to pontificate.
Hate groups just try and destroy things,
whether it's society or whatever. They all speak with forked tongues.
They follow the "means justifies the ends" strategy, which makes
lying
and painting a religion out to be the devil or anything else ok. They
aren't constructive at all. If they say 'this is the way things are',
chances are it's probably just the opposite.
I'm sorry - what "hate group" are you referring to? Are you trying to
imply
that critics of the Scientology organisation are organised themselves?
Great
theory! Amongst the critics you will find people with the whole range
of
political views, from many countries, united in their desire to expose
the
evil doings of an organisation that purports to be a religious group.
You
said in a previous post that you are a catholic. Fine. My partner is a
catholic. I am able to criticise my partner's religion and any other
religion without being accused of hatred. And I CERTAINLY do not expect
to
be harassed by the Catholic church as a result of any public criticism
that
I may or may not make. But Scientology has a long history of harassment
against critics. If you could actually stir yourself enough to lurk on
a.r.s
for a few weeks you would see scores of documentary pieces of evidence
to
back up what I have just stated. As an alternative, you might like to
look
at some of the many web sites devoted to this issue.
Recently the neo-Nazis of America (from wherever State they are based
in), came to a neighboring town to try and recruit members to their
destructive cause. It was the talk of the town. It was all over the
local
news. You should have seen them and heard what they were spouting. In
fact, all the anti-religious posts fit right in there. Divide the
house
and conquer, huh?
Uh oh. Mention of Nazis. Here we go again. Look, for goodness sake,
amongst
the critics we have people who belong to many religions themselves.
Some of
the most ardent critics of the Scientology Organisation still believe
in
many of the "religious" teachings associated with the cult. That is
fine.
What is clearly not understood here is that it is this so-called
religious
organisation that continually demonstrates its intolerance of any views
that
diverge from its own. Its oft-stated aim is to "clear" the whole
planet. Do
you know what this means? If not, I suggest you find out.
Who defined Scientology as a religion, anyway? The answer is L Ron
Hubbard.
So what would you do if the Mafia decided to declare itself a religion.
It
has its own rituals - I am sure that a case could be made. If it were
to do
so, would you then attack its critics as hatemongerers?
The so-called church of Scientology is a criminal organisation. I quote
from
a FactNet document...
In 1979, nine of Scientology's top executives pleaded guilty to
extensive burglaries, forgeries, infiltration, obstruction of
justice,
and other crimes against more than 100 Federal agencies including the
Dept. of Justice, The Dept. of Defense and the I.R.S.
In U.S. v. Heldt et. al., the facts showed that church personnel had
secreted a documentary evidence of crime, (688 F.2d at 1243 n.8), had
committed illegal break-ins and theft (id. at 1244,1247,1248), had
electronically bugged government offices (ibid), had lied to federal
investigators and a grand jury (id. at 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1253),
had suborned perjury (id. at 1247, 1253), had forcibly restrained,
kidnapped, handcuffed and gagged a potential adverse witness (id. at
1244, 1273), and had formulated conspiracies to obstruct justice,
steal
government property, burglarize, bug, harbor fugitives from justice,
and
commit and suborn perjury before the grand jury (id. at n. 27 at
1258).
In a memorandum urging stiff sentences for the Scientologists,
federal
prosecutors wrote:
The crime committed by these defendants is of a breath and scope
previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe
from
their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free
from
their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were
miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials
and
any other device they found necessary to carry out their
conspiratorial
schemes.
Note that one of those sent to prison was none other that L Ron
Hubbard's
wife, Mary Sue Hubbard. The sentencing memorandum named L Ron himself
as an
"unindicted co-conspirator".
But, if you could be bothered to read a.r.s, you would of course know
this.
Standard behaviour for a religion, isn't it?
I do access some of the other newgroups though, and object to your
obvious hostile attack on religion. Doesn't matter if it's not the
Jews,
Hitler would be proud of you. So much hate and malevolence.
You really know how to stretch Godwin's Law, don't you! Well, as you
have
set the precedent, then let me respond in kind. The so-called Church of
Scientology is an evil organisation whose sole aim is to gather
adherents
who will then be fleeced of every penny they may possess. It is a
money-making enterprise which will stoop to any level in its actions to
maintain a steady flow of income. It preys upon the weak by promising
them
the powers of super-beings. If an adherent offends his/her superior
within
the organisation then that adherent will be thrown out of the
organisation
or sent to its internal disciplinary regime, the RPF. Here, any and
every
degradation may be visited upon the wrongdoing adherent in order that
they
may "purge" their "evil thoughts". Adherents are persuaded to
"disconnect"
from non-believing family members.
The so-called "beliefs" are based upon the insane ramblings of a
second-rate
science fiction writer who must have been immensely gratified to
discover
that it didn't matter what shit he spouted, his followers lapped it up.
Read
SCAMIZDAT - the writings posted are the teachings that the organisation
does
not want to world to know about. They classify many of the writings as
"trade secrets". What other religion has "trade secrets"? Mind you, be
very
careful if you DO read SCAMIZDAT. Hubbard claimed that reading the
so-called
OT higher levels could render the unprepared reader dead or insane.
Laugh at the stupid mythology of the cult. But don't laugh at the
organisation itself. When the FBI raided the Church of Scientology in
connection with the case I mention above, they discovered documents
which
showed a conspiracy, codenamed Operation Freakout, whose aim was to
either
frame a critic for a crime she did not commit or drive her insane. They
very
nearly succeeded.
I think there is enough above for me to legitimately hate the
organisation.
I may not be able to convince you, Urban, but there are many thousands
who
read a.r.s who are as convinced as I that the organisation is a threat
to
individuals and the freedoms that we all cherish so much. If I see
evil, I
call it as such, no matter whether it pretends to be a religion or not.
Look at the web pages, read the newsgroup. Make up your own mind.
--
Sister Clara - SP2.5
***********************************************************************
*
* Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
*
***********************************************************************
*
Dear Sister Clara
Being a Scientologist myself doesn’t mean that I believe in Scn or L.
Ron Hubbard, and I don’t know of any others frankly who do believe
something as if in a cult or a faith even. What I consider about the
CoS is based on what information I have read, studied, examined, tested
and evaluated for myself - not the claims of others, not the reports
(purported false or otherwise), but what I have experienced to be true
for myself.
I notice how rare it is that anyone attempts to claim that Dianetics
doesn’t really work. The reason is, it’s too easy to prove that it
does. Just do it. If a person dared actually evaluate it for
themselves, that is. But of course much as the media operates: ‘Oh no,
don’t look, it’s dangerous; don’t dare look for your self; we have
looked [apparently] and we know it is dangerous, believe us; take our
word for it ‘ So, people are coerced *out* of looking.
The Scientologists I know have not taken anyone’s word for anything.
They have evaluated the data for themselves and found it to be true.
All this distasteful anti-CoS information spread around the Internet is
deliberately intended to communicate to people that they should not look
for themselves. Well, if you don’t evaluate (that is, think) for
yourself, you had better know very well the character of those you are
allowing to think for you, those you are allowing to evaluate and align
and represent the information for you.
I think we have all probably been led astray at one time or another by
people we have trusted. I don’t do that any longer. I know what I know
because it’s what I myself have evaluated with my own experience and
found to be true by my own test, and retest and retest over and over;
and it still holds to be true for me.
If you know something to be factual for yourself, if you know all the
particulars and details, so you can be certain there are no distortions
or alterations of fact or of relative importances concerning something -
then I think you would not be swayed by contrary claims or opinions, or
information aligned such as to make the greatest negative impact.
My own personal experience with the news media, for instance, has been
around 8 different occasions in my life where I had first hand knowledge
of some event which the media reported on. In each and every case
there were incorrect names, dates, places, accounts inconsistent with my
first hand information, etc.
That is my own personal experience with how reliable second-hand
information is.
I weigh this against what I myself have experienced to be true. I
consider this to be rational, sane behavior. There is little going on
on ARS that is rational or sane. It is fear, hatred, anger, and the
intention of destroying something on the basis of second and third hand
information, the distortion and alteration of facts (many which I know
personally to be other than are being represented).
According to Webster’s Unabridged dictionary a bigot is: 1. a person who
holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
Draw your own conclusions.