What is this with Scientology?
david...@my-deja.com
quite something. I had heard about Scientology before and I went on this
site to have a look to get more information about it. Where do you get
the info from that is posted here? I donï¼µ necessarily believe
everything said here, but at the same time, I want to look further into
this now. So, the question is, where is the proof? Where can I find
more information? And also, why is is that so many of you guys on this
site are so pissed off at Scientology, [personally, I mean)?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Roland
The reason I am pissed off is because they took me for about ï½£60,000.
The best site to go to is http://www.xenu.net and follow the links out
from there.
Try doing a bit of background reading and then you will know what this
is all about. There is no better book than "Bare-Faced Messiah".
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/bfm/
Are you UK based? Fancy picketing them with us?
Have a listen to Hubbard claim he went to Venus where he was nearly run
over by a freight locomotive. It's in my sig.
Roland
--
"I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and
is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other
day -- didn't look very uncivilized to me." - L. Ron Hubbard,
"Between Lives Implants" lecture, SHSBC #317. 23 July 1963.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/rams/Venusloc.ram
Nile Evil Bastard
:I have been looking at some of the information on this site. This is
:quite something. I had heard about Scientology before and I went on this
:site to have a look to get more information about it. Where do you get
:the info from that is posted here? I donï¼µ necessarily believe
:everything said here, but at the same time, I want to look further into
:this now. So, the question is, where is the proof? Where can I find
:more information? And also, why is is that so many of you guys on this
:site are so pissed off at Scientology, [personally, I mean)?
A good site for information is http://www.xenu.net/
For people's reasons to be critics:
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/why/others.html
--
http://netizen.com.au/ http://www.caube.org.au/
"Good writing, meaningful writing ... should be a designer warhead created to
penetrate a specific breed of target and explode within, resonating. Anything
less is just pissing off a cliff and calling it spring rain." (Letterbomb)
Chris Leithiser
> I have been looking at some of the information on this site. This is
> quite something. I had heard about Scientology before and I went on this
> site to have a look to get more information about it. Where do you get
> the info from that is posted here? I donï¼µ necessarily believe
> everything said here, but at the same time, I want to look further into
> this now. So, the question is, where is the proof? Where can I find
> more information? And also, why is is that so many of you guys on this
> ite are so pissed off at Scientology, [personally, I mean)?
Personally? Not really. They haven't busted my dolly or taken my girlfriend
or anything like that.
My beef with $cientology is that they appear to behave like malign thugs,
attempting to stomp on dissent, while demanding the special treatment society
generally affords to religions. They can either stop the abuse, or be
treated like any other criminals. They will not be allowed to have it both
ways.
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
<7umijr$kaf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>I have been looking at some of the information on this site. This is
>quite something. I had heard about Scientology before and I went on this
>site to have a look to get more information about it. Where do you get
>the info from that is posted here? I donï¼µ necessarily believe
>everything said here, but at the same time, I want to look further into
>this now. So, the question is, where is the proof? Where can I find
>more information? And also, why is is that so many of you guys on this
>site are so pissed off at Scientology, [personally, I mean)?
For an independent view check
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/nrms/lron.html
http://www.cesnur.org/testi.htm
_________________________
Bernie -- http://welcome.to/ars
Suzie
>From: wel...@bernie.us-inc.com (Bern - http://welcome.to/ars)
>Date: Thu, 21 October 1999 03:27 PM EDT
>Message-id: <38156893...@enews.newsguy.com>
>
>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:24:36 GMT david...@my-deja.com wrote in
><7umijr$kaf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>I have been looking at some of the information on this site. This is
>>quite something. I had heard about Scientology before and I went on this
>>site to have a look to get more information about it. Where do you get
>>everything said here, but at the same time, I want to look further into
>>this now. So, the question is, where is the proof? Where can I find
>>more information? And also, why is is that so many of you guys on this
>>site are so pissed off at Scientology, [personally, I mean)?
>
>For an independent view check
>
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
>http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/nrms/lron.html
>http://www.cesnur.org/testi.htm
Just FYI, to the person who asked the question....the religioustolerance.org
page is sponsored by Scientology. "Bernie"'s page appears to be at least in
part bankrolled by the "church" also. I just mention this since "Bernie" was
duplicitious enough to present these pages as "unbiased sources". HA!
Suzie
"I never have to lie to any man because I don't fear anyone. The only time you
lie is when you are afraid." - JJG
Cornelius Krasel
> wel...@bernie.us-inc.com (Bern - http://welcome.to/ars) wrote:
>>For an independent view check
>>
>>http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
>
> page is sponsored by Scientology.
You are probably confusing www.religioustolerance.org with
www.religioustolerance.net. The latter is indeed a page of a frontgroup
for the CoS. For the former, I know of no evidence for this allegation.
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP4 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Dave Bird
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> writes:
This would make someone a nice sig block!
++
My beef with $cientology is that they appear to behave like malign
thugs, attempting to stomp on dissent, while demanding the special
treatment society generally affords to religions. They can either
stop the abuse, or be treated like any other criminals. They will
not be allowed to have it both ways----------------Chris Leithiser
--
OCTOBER 21ST is FUCK ECHELON DAY. We're talking about a revolutionary action
where the expected shipment of semtex will be rolled into circular shaped
charges and rammed up the ass of each NSA or other spook idiot who thinks that
mass interception is a good way to shoot the FIRST AMENDMENT and privacy rights.
Your modem is your AK47: and this sig should trip all the alarms!
podkayne
> I have been looking at some of the information on this site. This is
> quite something. I had heard about Scientology before and I went on this
> site to have a look to get more information about it. Where do you get
> the info from that is posted here?
Ex-Scns, US Navy records, Hubbie's actual college records, Clearwater
police records...
>I donï¼µ necessarily believe
> everything said here, but at the same time, I want to look further into
> this now. So, the question is, where is the proof?
See above. Start at www.xenu.net
>Where can I find
> more information?
Note this: www.xenu.net links to www.scientology.org. Scientology's site
doesn't return the favor, not even for a "rebuttal against accusations"
page. Ask yourself why.
>And also, why is is that so many of you guys on this
> site are so pissed off at Scientology, [personally, I mean)?
Wandered here looking for something amusing to tide me over during
compiles, read about Lisa McPherson, read about NoGoot's experiences with
the TOS-happy AOLers, read the AOL TrueScn board and realized I'd found
Orwell's doublethink in action.
--
I can only fight one abusive nut-cult per day.
Today's your day, and tomorrow's looking good for you too.
Read more Heinlein
Suzie
>Date: Fri, 22 October 1999 12:32 PM EDT
>Message-id: <2j3qu7...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
You're right-I'm sorry. Thanks for catching my error. I wasn't playing close
enough attention in my ZEAL to respond to "Bernie".
Jack Craver
Kristi Wachter
> I have been looking at some of the information on this site. This is
> quite something. I had heard about Scientology before and I went on this
> site to have a look to get more information about it. Where do you get
> the info from that is posted here?
Much of the info at various web sites has links to the original source of
the information. For example, my pages
http://www.scientology-lies.com/crimesindex.html
and
http://www.scientology-lies.com/investigation.html
list information about Scientology's crimes. When I mention the suit filed
by Lisa McPherson's estate against Scientology, I link to the full
complaint that's been posted on the web. When I mention Michael
Pattinson's claim that Scientology held him against his will, I link to
the webbed version of the notarized statement he's made. Many of my links
are to sworn declarations and court documents; others are to newspaper
articles. Some are to anonymous Usenet postings, which I consider less
credible than sworn testimony ... but the anonymous stories are quite
similar to the sworn documents.
I also link to quotes from the Scientology texts and policies that
encourage members to hold others against their will, discourage members
from going to the police about serious crimes (such as their attempt to
keep Tony Strawn from being reported for sexually abusing two young
girls), and practicing medicine without a license. You can print out the
policy quotes, take them to your library, and compare them to actual
printed Scientology policy manuals - that's what I did - to confirm their
accuracy.
> I donï¼µ necessarily believe
> everything said here, but at the same time, I want to look further into
> this now. So, the question is, where is the proof? Where can I find
> more information? And also, why is is that so many of you guys on this
> site are so pissed off at Scientology, [personally, I mean)?
See my sig.
Kristi
--
Kristi Wachter
the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)
I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I
want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.
Can you say "Xenu?" ... I knew that you could.
Blackhawck
Thank you. This was a very good site to look at. I understand now alot
more of the basic belief structure of this language.
Roland
>
> >
> > For an independent view check
> >
> > http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
>
> Thank you. This was a very good site to look at. I understand now alot
> more of the basic belief structure of this language.
No. You only think you do. The site you visited is run by cult
apologists.
Dave Bird
1, Kristi Wachter <human...@racerrecords.com> writes:
>[ A MIME TEXT / PLAIN part was included here. ]
why?
--
OCTOBER 21ST is FUCK ECHELON DAY. We're talking about a revolutionary action
where the expected shipment of semtex will be rolled into circular shaped
charges and rammed up the ass of each NSA or other spook idiot who thinks that
mass interception is a good way to shoot the FIRST AMENDMENT and privacy rights
Blackhawck
> > > For an independent view check
> > >
> > > http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
> >
> > Thank you. This was a very good site to look at. I understand now
alot
> > more of the basic belief structure of this language.
>
> No. You only think you do. The site you visited is run by cult
> apologists.
I do believe that the Scn owned site is www.religioustolerance.NET
not .ORG This site seems quite fair and neither blames nor glorifies
any particular faith.
> Try http://www.xenu.net
I've seen this site before and read most of its content. I am still
rather new to this topic, but I do consider this a hate site and not
one that simply addresses the behavior of the Church's leadership.
The use of the term "clam" is quite obviously used as an attack the
membership rather than the leadership. Also, the mockery of
"Xenu", "Xemu" or whatever the hell his name is, is also done in a
hateful manner.
I myself and agnostic and view all religions in a very skeptical light.
Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where one can
be considered superior to the other.
AndroidCat
news:7uvvrg$uon$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > > > For an independent view check
> > > >
> > > > http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
> > >
> > > Thank you. This was a very good site to look at. I understand now
> alot
> > > more of the basic belief structure of this language.
> >
> > No. You only think you do. The site you visited is run by cult
> > apologists.
>
> I do believe that the Scn owned site is www.religioustolerance.NET
> not .ORG This site seems quite fair and neither blames nor glorifies
> any particular faith.
>
> > Try http://www.xenu.net
>
> I've seen this site before and read most of its content. I am still
> rather new to this topic, but I do consider this a hate site and not
> one that simply addresses the behavior of the Church's leadership.
www.xenu.net as a HATE site? That's hard to believe. Examples?
As for www.religioustolerance.net, they do seem to have blinders on. I
believe that they have been told about a number of inaccuracies, but have
never fixed them.
> The use of the term "clam" is quite obviously used as an attack the
> membership rather than the leadership. Also, the mockery of
> "Xenu", "Xemu" or whatever the hell his name is, is also done in a
> hateful manner.
"Hateful manner"?! We're only going by what Hubbard said. Please explain.
As for clams, I hope you'll be as strident on the general use of Wogs and
Normals inside of Co$.
> I myself and agnostic and view all religions in a very skeptical light.
> Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where one can
> be considered superior to the other.
Agnostic eh? How can you view all religions in a very skeptical light, when
you (by definition) don't know? (Some of my Wiccan friends call me a
fence-sitter, but I'm not ready to be a Humanist Pagan.)
But all joking and degrading aside, this isn't about religion.
This is about an organization that (it has been said) has the largest
private spy agency in the world.
This is about tin-pot dictators who want to forbid anyone from talking about
them -- who when they learned that a RMGROUP didn't work, tried to drown the
newsgroup in spam and sporgeries.
This is about a group that charges $400/hr for "confession". (Which may
later be used against you.)
This is about an organization that thought it was okay to punch out
protesters, until they discovered that they were "live" on the Internet.
This is about a company that has such conditioned procedures that a number
of people (otherwise well meaning) watched as someone slowly died under
their care, and they kept doing it by the book.
This is about a multi-level marketing scam designed to suck money out of
believers, keep the local "churches" poor, and funnel all that cash to the
central organization. (Where some of that cash will "disappear".)
This is about a criminal organization that has been busted in several
countries for spying on government departments. (In Canada, the
organization has been busted AS A WHOLE for criminal activities.)
This is about a ruthless bunch of morons who hassled the aging parents of a
critic to try and obtain his silence.
This is about a group that thinks the proper response to picketing is to
hassle the picketer's employer, and threaten to blanket their neighborhood
with flyers.
This is about people who used bogus info to obtain search and seizure
warrants to invade critics' homes and suck their computers (and contact
lists) dry.
This is about a group claiming to be a religion using tax-free money to
lobby politicians to hassle foreign governments because those governments
think that $cientology is a business, not a religion.
This is about the "Church" of Scientology Inc., and this ain't about
religion!
Ron of that ilk.
barb
>
> > > > For an independent view check
> > > >
> > > > http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
> > >
> > > Thank you. This was a very good site to look at. I understand now
> alot
> > > more of the basic belief structure of this language.
> >
> > No. You only think you do. The site you visited is run by cult
> > apologists.
>
> I do believe that the Scn owned site is www.religioustolerance.NET
> not .ORG This site seems quite fair and neither blames nor glorifies
> any particular faith.
>
> > Try http://www.xenu.net
>
> I've seen this site before and read most of its content. I am still
> rather new to this topic, but I do consider this a hate site and not
> one that simply addresses the behavior of the Church's leadership.
>
> membership rather than the leadership. Also, the mockery of
> "Xenu", "Xemu" or whatever the hell his name is, is also done in a
> hateful manner.
>
> Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where one can
> be considered superior to the other.
>
> Before you buy.
A big fat hint for you, blackbird...scientology is a profit generating
scam disguising itself as a religion!
--
barb
"No clears, no OT's, no research, no understanding, and trying to
conduct intellectual warfare with no ammunition. I was right,
Scientology just
doesn't get any good help anymore."
-retiredcap
Blackhawck
> > > Try http://www.xenu.net
> >
> > I've seen this site before and read most of its content. I am still
> > rather new to this topic, but I do consider this a hate site and not
> > one that simply addresses the behavior of the Church's leadership.
>
The use of the term clam is a dead giveaway.
> As for www.religioustolerance.net, they do seem to have blinders on.
I
> believe that they have been told about a number of inaccuracies, but
have
> never fixed them.
I would like to hear what aspects in which it is inaccurate. It seems
to have good summaries of all the large religions from Christianity to
Bahai.
> > The use of the term "clam" is quite obviously used as an attack the
> > membership rather than the leadership. Also, the mockery of
> > "Xenu", "Xemu" or whatever the hell his name is, is also done in a
> > hateful manner.
>
> "Hateful manner"?! We're only going by what Hubbard said. Please
explain.
Discussing the behavior of the leadership is one thing. Mocking one of
the characters in their theology is another. How would you like a group
dressing up as an insulting version of Jesus with a bunch of wine
bottles.
> As for clams, I hope you'll be as strident on the general use of Wogs
and
> Normals inside of Co$.
The use of Wogs and Normals is also a hateful statement. Remember it is
the conotation not the denotation.
> > I myself and agnostic and view all religions in a very skeptical
light.
> > Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where one
can
> > be considered superior to the other.
>
> Agnostic eh? How can you view all religions in a very skeptical
light, when
> you (by definition) don't know? (Some of my Wiccan friends call me a
> fence-sitter, but I'm not ready to be a Humanist Pagan.)
Well, I do not see any belief system with ethnocentric bias.
> But all joking and degrading aside, this isn't about religion.
>
> This is about an organization that (it has been said) has the largest
> private spy agency in the world.
I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
a "siege" mentallity. I find groups that attack their beliefs rather
than their behavior is part of the cause. Those who dress as "Xemu" and
go to rallies, are part of the problem not the solution. In all
honesty, they need to introduce themselves to adulthood.
> This is about tin-pot dictators who want to forbid anyone from
talking about
> them -- who when they learned that a RMGROUP didn't work, tried to
drown the
> newsgroup in spam and sporgeries.
And the Evangelicalists have attacked many aspects of society here in
the United States. Dissention is not welcome in this religion,
Scientology, or any others. Remember that dissention caused the
Reformation.
> This is about a group that charges $400/hr for "confession". (Which
may
> later be used against you.)
Again, the evangelicals ask alot more. I've heard the term "faith
pledge", ugh.
> This is about an organization that thought it was okay to punch out
> protesters, until they discovered that they were "live" on the
Internet.
Personally, if the protestors were advocating "www.xenu.net" or
dressing like "Xemu", I don't blame them. I really don't.
> This is about a company that has such conditioned procedures that a
number
> of people (otherwise well meaning) watched as someone slowly died
under
> their care, and they kept doing it by the book.
I know the following statement is going to be responded to. But, one
death caused by a religion? That's a pretty good average when one takes
into account the Holy Wars, the Inquisition, Witch Burnings, The
Jihads, etc...
> This is about a multi-level marketing scam designed to suck money out
of
> believers, keep the local "churches" poor, and funnel all that cash
to the
> central organization. (Where some of that cash will "disappear".)
Again, envangelicals.
> This is about a criminal organization that has been busted in several
> countries for spying on government departments. (In Canada, the
> organization has been busted AS A WHOLE for criminal activities.)
Operation Rescue here in the United States committed simular crimes.
This is a racial doomsday protestant group in the United States that is
now out of favor.
> This is about a ruthless bunch of morons who hassled the aging
parents of a
> critic to try and obtain his silence.
>
> This is about a group that thinks the proper response to picketing is
to
> hassle the picketer's employer, and threaten to blanket their
neighborhood
> with flyers.
Religion has a way of creating zealots who believe the ends justify the
means. Remember the bombing of the World Trade Center?
> This is about people who used bogus info to obtain search and seizure
> warrants to invade critics' homes and suck their computers (and
contact
> lists) dry.
>
> This is about a group claiming to be a religion using tax-free money
to
> lobby politicians to hassle foreign governments because those
governments
> think that $cientology is a business, not a religion.
Again, evangelicalists.
> This is about the "Church" of Scientology Inc., and this ain't about
> religion!
Then the use of terms like "clam" have no place on this newgroup or on
legitimate sites.
Blackhawck
>
> A big fat hint for you, blackbird...scientology is a profit generating
> scam disguising itself as a religion!
One can argue this the nature of many religions.
Becky
Blackhawck wrote:
> I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
> organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
> a "siege" mentallity.
And this excuses their behavior -- how?
> I find groups that attack their beliefs rather
> than their behavior is part of the cause. Those who dress as "Xemu" and
> go to rallies, are part of the problem not the solution. In all
> honesty, they need to introduce themselves to adulthood.
>
The ability to critique, satirize and poke fun at any belief, whether
it carries the label "religion" or "politics", is part and parcel of free
speech.
I've always been mystified by the attempts of some people to justify
the bad behavior of one group by pointing out the bad behavior of
others.
Beck
Jack Craver
>
>
>Blackhawck wrote:
>
>> I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
>> organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
>> a "siege" mentallity.
>
>And this excuses their behavior -- how?
>
Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
>> I find groups that attack their beliefs rather
>> than their behavior is part of the cause. Those who dress as "Xemu" and
>> go to rallies, are part of the problem not the solution. In all
>> honesty, they need to introduce themselves to adulthood.
>>
>
>The ability to critique, satirize and poke fun at any belief, whether
>it carries the label "religion" or "politics", is part and parcel of free
>speech.
>
Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
version of free speech?
>I've always been mystified by the attempts of some people to justify
>the bad behavior of one group by pointing out the bad behavior of
>others.
>
<chuckle>
>Beck
Ian Rennie
<snip)
> > This is about an organization that thought it was okay to punch out
> > protesters, until they discovered that they were "live" on the
> Internet.
>
> Personally, if the protestors were advocating "www.xenu.net" or
> dressing like "Xemu", I don't blame them. I really don't.
most scientologists have no idea who xenu is. This is only taught at OT
III, after you are into the cult for around 50 thousand pounds. For this
reason, most scientologists would NOT have reason to be offended by xenu
references.
barb
You are one of 'em, or you've bought into their party line. You tell me
ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
Hubbard made this a religion cuz he was tired of punching typewriter
keys for pennies. And you know why Xenu is mocked? Because it costs
thousands of dollars to learn this 'deep dark seckrit' of scn's
doctrine, and it's ALL CRAP! It ain't even GOOD science fiction! It's a
scam, buddy, and if you've bought into it, well too bad.
The smart ones leave, and some come to ARS. I suggest you start
conversing with some of them.
Becky
Jack Craver wrote:
> >> I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
> >> organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
> >> a "siege" mentallity.
> >
> >And this excuses their behavior -- how?
> >
>
> Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
>
Well - what do you think Blackhawck's purpose was
in comparing scientology misbehavior with the misbehavior
of other religious groups? Does he/she think we're not
aware of this? Does s/he think we should be more
accepting of their little peccadillos because the Catholic
Church acted like thugs a few centuries ago?
Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
> >The ability to critique, satirize and poke fun at any belief, whether
> >it carries the label "religion" or "politics", is part and parcel of free
> >speech.
> >
>
> Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
> version of free speech?
Is that your roundabout way of saying, yes, religious belief is
special and you're a [insert politically-correct buzzword] because
you don't agree?
Beck
Blackhawck
barb <bw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Blackhawck wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > A big fat hint for you, blackbird...scientology is a profit
generating
> > > scam disguising itself as a religion!
> >
> > One can argue this the nature of many religions.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> You are one of 'em, or you've bought into their party line. You tell
me
> ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
Evangelicial Christianity.
> Hubbard made this a religion cuz he was tired of punching typewriter
> keys for pennies. And you know why Xenu is mocked? Because it costs
> thousands of dollars to learn this 'deep dark seckrit' of scn's
> doctrine, and it's ALL CRAP! It ain't even GOOD science fiction! It's
a
> scam, buddy, and if you've bought into it, well too bad.
I do not believe in Scientology or its "thetans". I do not believe in
God either.
> The smart ones leave, and some come to ARS. I suggest you start
> conversing with some of them.
I have.
Blackhawck
> > Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
> >
>
> Well - what do you think Blackhawck's purpose was
> in comparing scientology misbehavior with the misbehavior
> of other religious groups? Does he/she think we're not
> aware of this? Does s/he think we should be more
> accepting of their little peccadillos because the Catholic
> Church acted like thugs a few centuries ago?
First off, I'm a guy.
The point I am making is that though I detest the misbehavior of any
religious organization, one must understand why. The premise that this
behavior is caused by "evil" people trying to exploit the weak is
rather a rose-colored view. Like all faiths, the members of Scn think
that their way is the best for humanity and often the ends justify the
means.
I make no excuse nor apology for their behavior. It is wrong. But they
are not alone. Before calling Scn a group of thugs, one must take a
step back and analyze the reality of religion as opposed to what is
taught in Sunday School.
> Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
> every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
> Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
The single point I will make is that Scientology is not any better nor
worse that other religions. It is as dirty and deceitful as competators.
> > Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
> > version of free speech?
>
> Is that your roundabout way of saying, yes, religious belief is
> special and you're a [insert politically-correct buzzword] because
> you don't agree?
He is making the point that many see this religion through a non-
objective light.
Blackhawck
>
> Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
> version of free speech?
Good point. Many on this newsgroup hate the behavior of the leadership.
This is fine. Many just simply hate the religion. This is bias.
Jack Craver
>Blackhawck wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > A big fat hint for you, blackbird...scientology is a profit generating
>> > scam disguising itself as a religion!
>>
>> One can argue this the nature of many religions.
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>You are one of 'em, or you've bought into their party line.
(Disagree with me?You *must* be a clam!)
You tell me
>ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
Barb asks the tough questions.
>Hubbard made this a religion cuz he was tired of punching typewriter
>keys for pennies. And you know why Xenu is mocked? Because it costs
>thousands of dollars to learn this 'deep dark seckrit' of scn's
>doctrine, and it's ALL CRAP! It ain't even GOOD science fiction! It's a
>scam, buddy, and if you've bought into it, well too bad.
>The smart ones leave, and some come to ARS. I suggest you start
>conversing with some of them.
Hi Blackhawck -
I left the cult years ago, came here to ars and guess what I found?
ANOTHER ONE.
Jack Craver
>
>
>Jack Craver wrote:
>
>> >> I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
>> >> organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
>> >> a "siege" mentallity.
>> >
>> >And this excuses their behavior -- how?
>> >
>>
>> Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
>>
>
>Well - what do you think Blackhawck's purpose was
>in comparing scientology misbehavior with the misbehavior
>of other religious groups?
Accuracy?
Does he/she think we're not
>aware of this? Does s/he think we should be more
>accepting of their little peccadillos because the Catholic
>Church acted like thugs a few centuries ago?
>
>Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
>every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
>Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
>
After re-reading the posts from Blackhawck, I can't find any of this.
Reading between the lines will make you blind.
>> >The ability to critique, satirize and poke fun at any belief, whether
>> >it carries the label "religion" or "politics", is part and parcel of free
>> >speech.
>> >
>>
>> Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
>> version of free speech?
>
>Is that your roundabout way of saying, yes, religious belief is
>special and you're a [insert politically-correct buzzword] because
>you don't agree?
>
Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental human
rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
YMMV - HTH
>Beck
Blackhawck
> Hi Blackhawck -
> I left the cult years ago, came here to ars and guess what I found?
>
> ANOTHER ONE.
LOL
I first came to ars to find out what Dianetics 55 was. I hadn't a clue
when I saw it in a friends book collection. I know now.
BTW, why did you leave?
Jack Craver
wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Blackhawck -
>> I left the cult years ago, came here to ars and guess what I found?
>>
>> ANOTHER ONE.
>
>LOL
>
>I first came to ars to find out what Dianetics 55 was. I hadn't a clue
>when I saw it in a friends book collection. I know now.
>
Hope you stick around awhile. Its quite an interesting NG.
>BTW, why did you leave?
>
Just reached the point where I couldn't go along with it any more.
Scn, like most other religions, can be pretty demanding of an
individual, but I harbor no grudges wrt Scn, and have a couple of
friends still involved.
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Best of luck
jack
Ian Rennie
>
> >
> > Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
> > version of free speech?
>
> Good point. Many on this newsgroup hate the behavior of the leadership.
> This is fine. Many just simply hate the religion. This is bias.
find a single person in here who hates scientology.
I dislike what the Church of Scientology does to people. I don't 'hate'
them. I especially don't hate scientology as a subject, if people want to
follow it, more power to them!
Jack Craver
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Blackhawck wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
>> > version of free speech?
>>
>> Good point. Many on this newsgroup hate the behavior of the leadership.
>> This is fine. Many just simply hate the religion. This is bias.
>
>find a single person in here who hates scientology.
>
Some examples here :
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/hate.htm
>I dislike what the Church of Scientology does to people. I don't 'hate'
>them. I especially don't hate scientology as a subject, if people want to
>follow it, more power to them!
>
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>>
>>
For more ZEAL reaching critical mass:
Becky
Jack Craver wrote:
>
> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental human
> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
of criticism offends you is also your right.
Beck
see www.xenu.net
Ian Rennie
>
> > > Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
> > >
> >
> > Well - what do you think Blackhawck's purpose was
> > in comparing scientology misbehavior with the misbehavior
> > of other religious groups? Does he/she think we're not
> > aware of this? Does s/he think we should be more
> > accepting of their little peccadillos because the Catholic
> > Church acted like thugs a few centuries ago?
>
> First off, I'm a guy.
>
> The point I am making is that though I detest the misbehavior of any
> religious organization, one must understand why. The premise that this
> behavior is caused by "evil" people trying to exploit the weak is
> rather a rose-colored view. Like all faiths, the members of Scn think
> that their way is the best for humanity and often the ends justify the
> means.
>
> I make no excuse nor apology for their behavior. It is wrong. But they
> are not alone. Before calling Scn a group of thugs, one must take a
> step back and analyze the reality of religion as opposed to what is
> taught in Sunday School.
>
>
> > Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
> > every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
> > Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
>
> The single point I will make is that Scientology is not any better nor
> worse that other religions. It is as dirty and deceitful as competators.
I think the evidence points against this, if only in the sheer scale of
the operation. The Church ofScientology as an organisation litigates to a
huge degree, sues almost anyone who publishes material that criticises it,
and has a severe discrepancy between what it states its aims/beliefs/goals
are and what they in fact are.
>
> > > Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
> > > version of free speech?
> >
> > Is that your roundabout way of saying, yes, religious belief is
> > special and you're a [insert politically-correct buzzword] because
> > you don't agree?
>
> He is making the point that many see this religion through a non-
> objective light.
>
>
Jack Craver
>
>
>Jack Craver wrote:
>
>>
>> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
>> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
>> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental human
>> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
>
>My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
>is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
>actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
>offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
>
Never said that it did.
>And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
>of criticism offends you is also your right.
>
Nothing "arbitrary" about what I said. And you certainly haven't
offended *me*.
I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Hartley Patterson
> The use of the term clam is a dead giveaway.
Why?
The CoS and Hubbard continued to use 'wog' as a term for
non-scientologists, even when they knew it was a term of racist abuse in
the UK, like the American 'nigger' but applied to Arabs and Indians.
The term 'clam' has no racist connotations, it is used exclusively for
CoS supporters by critics of the CoS.
I'm an SF fan. SF fans call non-SF fans 'mundanes', implying that they
are boring people living boring lives. It is a *deliberately*
denegrating term - but not meant to to taken 100% seriously. I see
'clam' in the same light.
> I would like to hear what aspects in which it is inaccurate. It seems
> to have good summaries of all the large religions from Christianity to
> Bahai.
On it's page about Scientology, www.religioustolerance.org refers to the
Cult Awareness Network, an anti-cult organisation driven into bankrupcy
by the CoS. CAN's assets were bought up by scientologists and it is now
staffed and run by scientologists, as revealed on a US TV documentary.
The web site fails to mention this. They have been been told about this
omission, they have not corrected the error.
Try phoning CAN. Will they say to you "Hi! This is Cult Awareness
Network, an organisation that used to collect information about cults
but is now run by people belonging to an organisation that most people
think is a cult".
I think not...
On another page they say that claims that the old CAN's files would be
aquired by the CoS were baseless. This has now happened, but the entry
has not been amended.
The Web Site is in general opposed to the 'anti-cult movement'.
> Discussing the behavior of the leadership is one thing. Mocking one of
> the characters in their theology is another. How would you like a group
> dressing up as an insulting version of Jesus with a bunch of wine
> bottles.
The Church of Scientology tries to keep much of its theology secret from
its own members. There is a reason for this, but it's part of the
secret.
In Christianity there are no secrets of this kind.
My personal view is that I don't object to religions having secrets, but
I do object to religions telling lies about them. The Church of
Scientology does in my view tell lies to new recruits about its beliefs,
so I feel no hesitation about providing them with the truth.
> > > Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where one can
> > > be considered superior to the other.
I would suggest you need to do some more careful reading of Christian
and CoS theology. To reduce your arguement to absurdity, do you see the
Aztec religion, which required the sacrifice of thousands of prisoners
and slaves each year, to be no different ethically from Christianity?
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta, how to outrun
Thread and some riddles preciousss....
Fredric L. Rice
p and m.
>>>> For an independent view check
>>>> http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm
>>> Thank you. This was a very good site to look at. I understand now
>>> alot more of the basic belief structure of this language.
>> No. You only think you do. The site you visited is run by cult
>> apologists.
>I do believe that the Scn owned site is www.religioustolerance.NET
>not .ORG This site seems quite fair and neither blames nor glorifies
>any particular faith.
It's the criminal activities of the Scientology syndicate's leaders
that matters, though, not what they claim its followers/victims believe.
If the leaders of the criminal business were to go straight and would
refrain from employing brainwashing and actually tell their victims
what they're buying up front, nobody here would feel the need to help
expose Scientology for what it is. If they would refrain from employing
deadly behavior that kills people -- like Lisa McPherson -- nobody would
care about the business. Scientology's criminal felony history would
not exist, in fact.
The reason why the criminal business doesn't mention the dead space
aliens clinging to everybody is because one must be heavily brainwashed
and have paid a great deal of money to the syndicate before one is
predisposed to believing such nonsense. An investment emotionally
and financially is needed before one is ready to buy the dead space
alien claims. Thus the need for the late-added bait-and-switch scam.
If Scientology would sell the dead space aliens up front as a belief,
that would be okay -- people are allowed to believe anything they
want. Because Scientology hurts people, their predations are subject
to exposure -- but their beliefs that don't hurt people amount to a
"so what."
The crime syndicate's ringleader, L. Ron Hubbard, learned early on that
he needed to add the bait-and-switch scam to the traditional Ponzi scam
he was selling otherwise he wouldn't have been able to accumulate the
bewildering amount of money the Feds caught him with (200 million plus.
(See the Federal Emmons Report.)
Another good place to find information on the criminal business is to
locate and review Time Magazine's detailed article "Scientology: The
thriving cult of power and greed." And, of course, look at the history
of the business and see what Judges have to say about it.
--- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP4
The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
Scientology Criminals: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/csindex.htm
Scientology libel big time! See: http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/woods.html
Fredric L. Rice
>> A big fat hint for you, blackbird...scientology is a profit generating
>> scam disguising itself as a religion!
>One can argue this the nature of many religions.
And prove it beyond reasonable doubt with the Scientology business
-- using the syndicate's own once-secret documents as evidence. (Not
to mention the many Federal felony indictments handed to the crooks
over the years.)
If the Scientology crime syndicate had managed to keep its documents
from being seized by Federal authorities, all critics would have to
go on would be the horror stories of ex-victims and the many court
documents of ex-victims dueing the criminal business. As it is, however,
the felonies that the business have routinely been raided, arrested,
and indicted for yield a plethora of detailed, unquestionable evidence
that yields no other conclusion than Scientology being a criminal
busines, not a religion.
Fredric L. Rice
>In article <38145C11...@pacbell.net>,
> barb <bw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> You tell me ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
>Evangelicial Christianity.
Fundi Christianity doesn't even come close to the criminal behavior
of the Scientology crime syndicate's leaders, though. While it's
true that "faith healing" is a good excuse to murder one's children,
and while it's true that the _financial_ scams are roughly the same,
fundi Christian cults don't get raided, arrested, and indicted for
fraud, racketeering, and spying like the Scientology syndicate does.
Hell, the Scientology crime boss Heber Jentz is reportedly out on a
million dollar bail from Spain where, if he gets extradicted, he's
expected to serve 30 years.
Fredric L. Rice
>> Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
>> version of free speech?
>Good point. Many on this newsgroup hate the behavior of the leadership.
>This is fine. Many just simply hate the religion. This is bias.
Name one.
Blackhawck
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Blackhawck wrote:
>
> > The use of the term clam is a dead giveaway.
>
> The CoS and Hubbard continued to use 'wog' as a term for
> non-scientologists, even when they knew it was a term of racist abuse
in
> the UK, like the American 'nigger' but applied to Arabs and Indians.
> The term 'clam' has no racist connotations, it is used exclusively for
> CoS supporters by critics of the CoS.
> I'm an SF fan. SF fans call non-SF fans 'mundanes', implying that they
> are boring people living boring lives. It is a *deliberately*
> denegrating term - but not meant to to taken 100% seriously. I see
> 'clam' in the same light.
The degree that "clam" is a bias insult relies on how the target of the
term feels. I would like to hear from Mr. Shaw or another Scn how they
like being called a clam.
>
> On it's page about Scientology, www.religioustolerance.org refers to
the
> Cult Awareness Network, an anti-cult organisation driven into
bankrupcy
> by the CoS. CAN's assets were bought up by scientologists and it is
now
> staffed and run by scientologists, as revealed on a US TV documentary.
> The web site fails to mention this. They have been been told about
this
> omission, they have not corrected the error.
> Try phoning CAN. Will they say to you "Hi! This is Cult Awareness
> Network, an organisation that used to collect information about cults
> but is now run by people belonging to an organisation that most people
> think is a cult".
> I think not...
I know. Scn was able to destroy CAN and take them over in bankruptcy
court. Of course, this begs the question: "Why?". It can be either that
the church saw the organization of targetting them and defended what
they saw as "true way". In many regards, it is best to identify with
role reversal. I don't know who on ars is what religion, but just
imagine an organization that would take your children and even kidnap
you because it detested your religion. CAN naturally had other reasons,
was judeo-christian bias the main reason?
The second possibility is that Scn did want CAN giving information to
its members that it did not want them to know. Naturally, one cannot
avoid this possibility and I do believe the majority of this newsgroup
will side this one.
> On another page they say that claims that the old CAN's files would be
> aquired by the CoS were baseless. This has now happened, but the entry
> has not been amended.
> The Web Site is in general opposed to the 'anti-cult movement'.
As a site that promotes Religious Tolerance, they naturally will see
the line between a "religion" and "cult" is rather grey. I am not a
Scn, nor will I ever be. But I do think CAN brought down their own
destruction by kidnapping Scn members. This is how legally it happened.
> The Church of Scientology tries to keep much of its theology secret
from
> its own members. There is a reason for this, but it's part of the
> secret.
> In Christianity there are no secrets of this kind.
That you and I know of. Christianity is an anceint religion. The Bible
is a collection of different works from approximately the same era. I
think it is quite possible that some rather "odd" religion documents
can be found in the Vatican that are not subject to public review.
Remember too that when Christianity was strong influenced by the Roman-
Greco religion. Their are some exquisite pieces from about 200 AD that
show Zeus with Jesus as a son (Apollo is no more). The current face
of "Jesus" seen in pictures is the same face on anceint statues of Zeus.
> My personal view is that I don't object to religions having secrets,
but
> I do object to religions telling lies about them. The Church of
> Scientology does in my view tell lies to new recruits about its
beliefs,
> so I feel no hesitation about providing them with the truth.
Well, they have to recruit. I doubt they would do so well if they just
blurted out "your soul is being influenced by dead spirits from beings
not of this world". They seem to want to lay down the basic
philosophical base and then slowly introduce them to the whole dogma.
Of course, the Catholic Church does not tell children about the Trilogy
until they get to a certain age.
> > > > Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where
one can
> > > > be considered superior to the other.
>
> I would suggest you need to do some more careful reading of Christian
> and CoS theology.
A faith is in the heart of the one practicing it.
> To reduce your arguement to absurdity, do you see the
> Aztec religion, which required the sacrifice of thousands of prisoners
> and slaves each year, to be no different ethically from
Christianity?
I know quite a bit about the Aztec Religion. Those who were sacrificed,
were done so to the Sun God "Huitzilopochtli" so each day he can be
reborn. Every night he died and was brought back to life through the
blood and ceremonies of man. In return, he made the plants grow and
nurtised the people. It was a very corporate still of religion.
Those who where sacrificed often did so eagerly. Women who died in
birth, those who gave their lives to Huitzilopochtli, and warriors who
died in battle all assended to the upper level of heaven.
Aztecs religiously ate these people as a type of communion.
Of course, these "savage" people also had a more stable economy,
society, astrology and harvesting skills than Cortez and the Europeans.
The main reason Cortez was able to see easily destroy the Aztecs was
1. They thought we was the other benevolent god of man: Quetzalcoatl
2. Smallpox
A good site for information is http://northcoast.com/~spdtom/a-rel.html
Ian Rennie
> In article <3814ECFE...@vossnet.co.uk>,
> Hartley Patterson <hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Blackhawck wrote:
> >
> > > The use of the term clam is a dead giveaway.
> >
> > Why?
> > The CoS and Hubbard continued to use 'wog' as a term for
> > non-scientologists, even when they knew it was a term of racist abuse
> in
> > the UK, like the American 'nigger' but applied to Arabs and Indians.
> > The term 'clam' has no racist connotations, it is used exclusively for
> > CoS supporters by critics of the CoS.
> > I'm an SF fan. SF fans call non-SF fans 'mundanes', implying that they
> > are boring people living boring lives. It is a *deliberately*
> > denegrating term - but not meant to to taken 100% seriously. I see
> > 'clam' in the same light.
>
>
> The degree that "clam" is a bias insult relies on how the target of the
> term feels. I would like to hear from Mr. Shaw or another Scn how they
> like being called a clam.
not to speak for Russ, but usually he seems to take it in good humour,
uses it himself from time to time
Hartley Patterson
> The degree that "clam" is a bias insult relies on how the target of the
> term feels.
Sure. I don't mind being called a 'Brit' by Irish Republicans or a
'pommie' by Australians. Different nations make fun of each other all
the time. It's when the stereotype is acted upon that matters become
serious, as in 'all Irish are stupid, so I'm not going to employ any'.
> As a site that promotes Religious Tolerance, they naturally will see
> the line between a "religion" and "cult" is rather grey.
It's rather the opposite. They recognise that there are a few nasty
cults of the mass suicide/sex orgy/murderous types, but consider the
rest to be fairly benign and harmless. They simply don't believe that
CoS could be as the critics and the media claim it to be.
It's a shame, because a purely informative Web Site without an agenda
would get them a lot more links and support.
> I am not a
> Scn, nor will I ever be. But I do think CAN brought down their own
> destruction by kidnapping Scn members. This is how legally it happened.
IIRC the old CAN was never accused of engaging in forcible deprogramming
behaviour itself, only of associating with and giving information to
people who did.
> Well, they have to recruit. I doubt they would do so well if they just
> blurted out "your soul is being influenced by dead spirits from beings
> not of this world". They seem to want to lay down the basic
> philosophical base and then slowly introduce them to the whole dogma.
In theory, yes. In practise it's a lot easier for CoS senior staff to
tell junior members that it's all lies made up by Suppressive People.
It's part of a wider problem in that the CoS has frozen its theology at
the point when Hubbard died, so it remains confused and unrefined.
podkayne
<black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
> > >
> >
> > Well - what do you think Blackhawck's purpose was
> > in comparing scientology misbehavior with the misbehavior
> > of other religious groups? Does he/she think we're not
> > aware of this? Does s/he think we should be more
> > accepting of their little peccadillos because the Catholic
> > Church acted like thugs a few centuries ago?
>
> First off, I'm a guy.
>
> The point I am making is that though I detest the misbehavior of any
> religious organization, one must understand why. The premise that this
> behavior is caused by "evil" people trying to exploit the weak is
> rather a rose-colored view. Like all faiths, the members of Scn think
> that their way is the best for humanity and often the ends justify the
> means.
Members yes. Higher ups? Maybe some. We've got some ex-higher ups here,
some were deluded adherents, some knew it was a scam. Hubbard knew it was
a scam at first; in his later, drug-addled days, who knows?
--
I can only fight one abusive nut-cult per day.
Today's your day, and tomorrow's looking good for you too.
Read more Heinlein
podkayne
<black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
> organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
> a "siege" mentallity. I find groups that attack their beliefs rather
> than their behavior is part of the cause. Those who dress as "Xemu" and
> go to rallies, are part of the problem not the solution.
They had a "siege" mentality practically from day one.
"rallies"? Oh, please.
> > This is about a group that charges $400/hr for "confession". (Which
> may
> > later be used against you.)
>
> Again, the evangelicals ask alot more. I've heard the term "faith
> pledge", ugh.
I haven't, and I lived in the Bible Belt
> > This is about a company that has such conditioned procedures that a
> number
> > of people (otherwise well meaning) watched as someone slowly died
> under
> > their care, and they kept doing it by the book.
>
> I know the following statement is going to be responded to. But, one
> death caused by a religion? That's a pretty good average when one takes
> into account the Holy Wars, the Inquisition, Witch Burnings, The
> Jihads, etc...
Those who won't bother to learn from history still have no excuse for
repeating it.
> Operation Rescue here in the United States committed simular crimes.
> This is a racial doomsday protestant group in the United States that is
> now out of favor.
"racial doomsday" - huh?
In article <7v4hks$5q5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Blackhawck
<black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The degree that "clam" is a bias insult relies on how the target of the
> term feels. I would like to hear from Mr. Shaw or another Scn how they
> like being called a clam.
Safe is not a clam. wgert is a clam.
"If you find that insulting, good. You deserve to be insulted" - Heinlein
> I
> think it is quite possible that some rather "odd" religion documents
> can be found in the Vatican that are not subject to public review.
Oh, please, redux.
podkayne
> Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <38145C11...@pacbell.net>,
> > barb <bw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> You tell me ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
>
> >Evangelicial Christianity.
>
> Fundi Christianity doesn't even come close to the criminal behavior
> of the Scientology crime syndicate's leaders, though. While it's
> true that "faith healing" is a good excuse to murder one's children,
> and while it's true that the _financial_ scams are roughly the same,
> fundi Christian cults don't get raided, arrested, and indicted for
> fraud, racketeering, and spying like the Scientology syndicate does.
Most fundi/evangelical Xians aren't even part of any organization, most of
them really *are* members of a dirt-poor church.
The Bakkers and their ilk are notable *because* they are exceptions.
And even the most extreme, KJV-thumping, flat-earth,
human-footprint-carving[1] ones are up front about their beliefs.
[1] Glen Rose Texas, there's a riverbed with fossilized dinosaur tracks.
There's also a vaguely human footprint in with them, and a "why
eevil-lution is wrong" stand outside the park. Funny thing is though, the
discoverers of the dinosaur tracks took pix way back then, and gosh, no
human footprint.
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
in <podkayne1-261...@abd7c04e.ipt.aol.com>:
>We've got some ex-higher ups here,
>some were deluded adherents, some knew it was a scam.
Who's the ex-higher up here who "knew it was a scam" when he was in?
_________________________
Bernie -- http://welcome.to/ars
Peter B. Perlsø
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:39:58 -0400, Becky <bec...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jack Craver wrote:
> >
> >> >> I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
> >> >> organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
> >> >> a "siege" mentallity.
> >> >
> >> >And this excuses their behavior -- how?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
> >>
> >
> >Well - what do you think Blackhawck's purpose was
> >in comparing scientology misbehavior with the misbehavior
> >of other religious groups?
>
> Accuracy?
>
Considering the context of the thread, that is not a valid answer. We're
discussiong the wrongdoings of the "Church" of Scientology, and whatever
wrongdoings other cults have done is sofar irrelevant to this group - go
to alt.flame if you canna fight about that.
> Does he/she think we're not
> >aware of this? Does s/he think we should be more
> >accepting of their little peccadillos because the Catholic
> >Church acted like thugs a few centuries ago?
> >
> >Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
> >every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
> >Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
> >
>
> After re-reading the posts from Blackhawck, I can't find any of this.
>
> Reading between the lines will make you blind.
>
Refusing to do so will make you a fool.
--
Best Regards, Peter B. Perlsų - http://www.titancity.com
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM - all the reasons you need to get a Mac...
If you wish to mail me, use this address:
p b p (at) a d r (dot) d k
Peter B. Perlsø
>
> > Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
> > every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
> > Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
>
> The single point I will make is that Scientology is not any better nor
> worse that other religions. It is as dirty and deceitful as competators.
>
Scientology is not a religion.
Repeat until cognition.
> > > Do the terms prejudice, bigot, or intolerance have any place in your
> > > version of free speech?
> >
> > Is that your roundabout way of saying, yes, religious belief is
> > special and you're a [insert politically-correct buzzword] because
> > you don't agree?
>
> He is making the point that many see this religion through a non-
> objective light.
To be human is to be non-objective. Accept it and get on with your life
of biased opinions.
Peter B. Perlsø
> Good point. Many on this newsgroup hate the behavior of the leadership.
> This is fine. Many just simply hate the religion. This is bias.
Even though the "religion" relies on fraud and vague generalizations?
No, I don't hate Scn, I despise it.
--
Best Regards, Peter B. Perlsø - http://www.titancity.com
Peter B. Perlsø
> > Why?
> > The CoS and Hubbard continued to use 'wog' as a term for
> > non-scientologists, even when they knew it was a term of racist abuse
> in
> > the UK, like the American 'nigger' but applied to Arabs and Indians.
> > The term 'clam' has no racist connotations, it is used exclusively for
> > CoS supporters by critics of the CoS.
> > I'm an SF fan. SF fans call non-SF fans 'mundanes', implying that they
> > are boring people living boring lives. It is a *deliberately*
> > denegrating term - but not meant to to taken 100% seriously. I see
> > 'clam' in the same light.
>
>
> The degree that "clam" is a bias insult relies on how the target of the
> term feels. I would like to hear from Mr. Shaw or another Scn how they
> like being called a clam.
>
Cosidering how Scientologists feel towards "normal" people, better know
as "Wogs" or "raw meat", I would consider your argument irrelevant.
"Wog" is derogatory and discriminative, while "clam" is a parody of
Hubbard's old ramblings about clams being the archaic ancestors of Man.
> >
> > On it's page about Scientology, www.religioustolerance.org refers to
> the
> > Cult Awareness Network, an anti-cult organisation driven into
> bankrupcy
> > by the CoS. CAN's assets were bought up by scientologists and it is
> now
> > staffed and run by scientologists, as revealed on a US TV documentary.
> > The web site fails to mention this. They have been been told about
> this
> > omission, they have not corrected the error.
> > Try phoning CAN. Will they say to you "Hi! This is Cult Awareness
> > Network, an organisation that used to collect information about cults
> > but is now run by people belonging to an organisation that most people
> > think is a cult".
> > I think not...
>
> I know. Scn was able to destroy CAN and take them over in bankruptcy
> court. Of course, this begs the question: "Why?". It can be either that
> the church saw the organization of targetting them and defended what
> they saw as "true way". In many regards, it is best to identify with
> role reversal. I don't know who on ars is what religion, but just
> imagine an organization that would take your children and even kidnap
> you because it detested your religion. CAN naturally had other reasons,
> was judeo-christian bias the main reason?
>
No-one here on ARS is pro-deprogramming/kidnapping. At least no one has
spoken openly for it.
> The second possibility is that Scn did want CAN giving information to
> its members that it did not want them to know. Naturally, one cannot
> avoid this possibility and I do believe the majority of this newsgroup
> will side this one.
>
No; CAN could give CoS member info on how they were beiong ripped off,
but the primary reason for the CoS-CAN assimilation was that CAN was a
major threat to the CoS in the US, and the CoS simply couldn't allow
that.
> > On another page they say that claims that the old CAN's files would be
> > aquired by the CoS were baseless. This has now happened, but the entry
> > has not been amended.
> > The Web Site is in general opposed to the 'anti-cult movement'.
>
> As a site that promotes Religious Tolerance, they naturally will see
> the line between a "religion" and "cult" is rather grey. I am not a
> Scn, nor will I ever be.
>
> But I do think CAN brought down their own
> destruction by kidnapping Scn members. This is how legally it happened.
>
Is your claim docmented? I.e. can you prove that CAN were affiliated
with de-programming kidnappings? Please!
> > The Church of Scientology tries to keep much of its theology secret
> from
> > its own members. There is a reason for this, but it's part of the
> > secret.
> > In Christianity there are no secrets of this kind.
>
> That you and I know of. Christianity is an anceint religion. The Bible
> is a collection of different works from approximately the same era.
2000 B.C to > 1AD? Ahem..
I
> think it is quite possible that some rather "odd" religion documents
> can be found in the Vatican that are not subject to public review.
>
But do you think they would severely compromise the public image of
Catholicism?
> Remember too that when Christianity was strong influenced by the Roman-
> Greco religion.
I would say judaism, as the greek religion had its base in a many-god
and demi-god idea, but never mind.
Their are some exquisite pieces from about 200 AD that
> show Zeus with Jesus as a son (Apollo is no more). The current face
> of "Jesus" seen in pictures is the same face on anceint statues of Zeus.
>
To my knowledge, the greek god idols were never painted on walls, but
merely on clay jars (amphorae) and carved in stone.
> > My personal view is that I don't object to religions having secrets,
> but
> > I do object to religions telling lies about them. The Church of
> > Scientology does in my view tell lies to new recruits about its
> beliefs,
> > so I feel no hesitation about providing them with the truth.
>
> Well, they have to recruit. I doubt they would do so well if they just
> blurted out "your soul is being influenced by dead spirits from beings
> not of this world". They seem to want to lay down the basic
> philosophical base and then slowly introduce them to the whole dogma.
So do you think it's a coincidence you have to pay lots of cash before
you get to know what it really is you got involved in?
> Of course, the Catholic Church does not tell children about the Trilogy
> until they get to a certain age.
>
Irrelevant, even if true. And if the catholic children decides to leave
the church and badmouth it, they can do so without fear of being dead
agented.
> > > > > Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where
> one can
> > > > > be considered superior to the other.
> >
> > I would suggest you need to do some more careful reading of Christian
> > and CoS theology.
>
> A faith is in the heart of the one practicing it.
>
Go do what the man said!
> > To reduce your arguement to absurdity, do you see the
> > Aztec religion, which required the sacrifice of thousands of prisoners
> > and slaves each year, to be no different ethically from
> Christianity?
>
> I know quite a bit about the Aztec Religion. Those who were sacrificed,
> were done so to the Sun God "Huitzilopochtli" so each day he can be
> reborn. Every night he died and was brought back to life through the
> blood and ceremonies of man. In return, he made the plants grow and
> nurtised the people. It was a very corporate still of religion.
>
> Those who where sacrificed often did so eagerly. Women who died in
> birth, those who gave their lives to Huitzilopochtli, and warriors who
> died in battle all assended to the upper level of heaven.
>
> Aztecs religiously ate these people as a type of communion.
>
> Of course, these "savage" people also had a more stable economy,
> society, astrology and harvesting skills than Cortez and the Europeans.
>
So you feel a society based on religious feudalism and daily human
sacrifice is more advanced than what the european societies were? The
aztec society, great is it was in some areas, went nowhere!
> The main reason Cortez was able to see easily destroy the Aztecs was
>
> 1. They thought we was the other benevolent god of man: Quetzalcoatl
> 2. Smallpox
3. Syphilis
4. Gonorrhea
Peter B. Perlsø
> You tell me
> >ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
>
> Barb asks the tough questions.
Answer the lady, man.
--
Best Regards, Peter B. Perlsų - http://www.titancity.com
AndroidCat
news:1e0cph1.qtbyu71ay1mulN@[192.168.1.2]...
> So you feel a society based on religious feudalism and daily human
> sacrifice is more advanced than what the european societies were? The
> aztec society, great is it was in some areas, went nowhere!
>
> > The main reason Cortez was able to see easily destroy the Aztecs was
> >
> > 1. They thought we was the other benevolent god of man: Quetzalcoatl
> > 2. Smallpox
>
> 3. Syphilis
> 4. Gonorrhea
Syphilis at least probably went the other way. (There's some debate.)
Read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ by Jared Diamond.
The main problems the Aztecs had were lack of riding animals, domesticated
meat animals (which promotes disease and disease resistance), and the
North/South orientation of the Americas (slows spread of agriculture
innovations through different climate zones).
Ron of that ilk.
Jack Craver
PerlsÅ™) wrote:
>Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:39:58 -0400, Becky <bec...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Jack Craver wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> I agree. But this is behavior one can expect of any religious
>> >> >> organization going through an expansionistic stage and suffering from
>> >> >> a "siege" mentallity.
>> >> >
>> >> >And this excuses their behavior -- how?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Who said anything about "excuses their behavior" ?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well - what do you think Blackhawck's purpose was
>> >in comparing scientology misbehavior with the misbehavior
>> >of other religious groups?
>>
>> Accuracy?
>>
>
>Considering the context of the thread, that is not a valid answer. We're
>discussiong the wrongdoings of the "Church" of Scientology, and whatever
>wrongdoings other cults have done is sofar irrelevant to this group - go
>to alt.flame if you canna fight about that.
>
I kinda like it here :-)
>> Does he/she think we're not
>> >aware of this? Does s/he think we should be more
>> >accepting of their little peccadillos because the Catholic
>> >Church acted like thugs a few centuries ago?
>> >
>> >Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
>> >every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
>> >Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
>> >
>>
>> After re-reading the posts from Blackhawck, I can't find any of this.
>>
>> Reading between the lines will make you blind.
>>
>
>Refusing to do so will make you a fool.
Cool.
Jack Craver
PerlsÅ™) wrote:
>Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Or this another attempt to insist that we spend equal time righting
>> > every single wrong we see? The All or Nothing paradigm.
>> > Scientology would love that. Further dilute the opposition.
>>
>> The single point I will make is that Scientology is not any better nor
>> worse that other religions. It is as dirty and deceitful as competators.
>>
>
>Scientology is not a religion.
>
Doesn't sound like a scientologist.
>Repeat until cognition.
>
Does sound like a scientologist.
???
Hey, you must be a critic!
Right?
Welcome to ars Peter.
Jack Craver
PerlsÅ™) wrote:
>Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> You tell me
>> >ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
>>
>> Barb asks the tough questions.
>
>Answer the lady, man.
Sorry, don't do demands. But thanks for the thought!
podkayne
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_B=2E_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
> > Of course, the Catholic Church does not tell children about the Trilogy
> > until they get to a certain age.
> >
Yeah, old enough to understand their parent's native language.
> Irrelevant, even if true. And if the catholic children decides to leave
> the church and badmouth it, they can do so without fear of being dead
> agented.
Just look at alt.recovery.catholic ;-)
Blackhawck
nos...@nospam.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_B=2E_Perls=F8?=) wrote:
> Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Good point. Many on this newsgroup hate the behavior of the
leadership.
> > This is fine. Many just simply hate the religion. This is bias.
>
> Even though the "religion" relies on fraud and vague generalizations?
>
> No, I don't hate Scn, I despise it.
Ah. I admire your honesty. I'm curious whether you hate the religion or
the behavior of its zealots?
... I know, I know, you don't consider it a religion... but work with
me here! :-)
Blackhawck
> Considering the context of the thread, that is not a valid answer.
We're
> discussiong the wrongdoings of the "Church" of Scientology, and
whatever
> wrongdoings other cults have done is sofar irrelevant to this group -
go
> to alt.flame if you canna fight about that.
You know how these threads go. They start off on topic, but then
meander in all sorts of strange directions.
> C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM - all the reasons you need to get a Mac...
Well, I know we don't see eye to eye at all. I'm a programmer and
admire the design of Windows (especially NT) and UNIX. Off topic, sorry.
Blackhawck
>
> Cosidering how Scientologists feel towards "normal" people, better
know
> as "Wogs" or "raw meat", I would consider your argument irrelevant.
> "Wog" is derogatory and discriminative, while "clam" is a parody of
> Hubbard's old ramblings about clams being the archaic ancestors of
Man.
I actually was going to create a thread on this issue, but I'll bring
it up now. From the quote I saw, the term "clam" may not have been used
in the context of that tasty little mollusk.
In the English language, clam can also mean someone without voice or
holds back expression (i.e. to clam up). This same word in latin (it is
the same word in pronounciation too) basically means ignorant, silent,
etc...
Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
stretch?
> > you because it detested your religion. CAN naturally had other
reasons,
> > was judeo-christian bias the main reason?
> >
>
> No-one here on ARS is pro-deprogramming/kidnapping. At least no one
has
> spoken openly for it.
I agree. But I'm new to this newgroup.
>
> No; CAN could give CoS member info on how they were beiong ripped off,
> but the primary reason for the CoS-CAN assimilation was that CAN was a
> major threat to the CoS in the US, and the CoS simply couldn't allow
> that.
Do you think that Scn saw CAN as a financial or spiritual threat? The
line may be quite gray.
>
> Is your claim docmented? I.e. can you prove that CAN were affiliated
> with de-programming kidnappings? Please!
I watched the 60 Minutes special on the acquisition of CAN by Scn. I
could be wrong. I know that the people on this newgroup have a deeper
knowledge of this subject than I ever will.
>
> 2000 B.C to > 1AD? Ahem..
Well, its a bunch of documents that were put togather about 400 AD.
Before then, the chapters were different documents much like all the
texts that Scn has now. I'll stop with comparisons.
> I
> > think it is quite possible that some rather "odd" religion documents
> > can be found in the Vatican that are not subject to public review.
> >
>
> But do you think they would severely compromise the public image of
> Catholicism?
I think any documents of this nature would have an impact on
Catholicism as well as its branchs - Lutherian, Protestant, Calvinist,
etc...
Remember that the impact the "Salimander" document had on the Mormon
Church has quite severe.
> > Remember too that when Christianity was strong influenced by the
Roman-
> > Greco religion.
>
> I would say judaism, as the greek religion had its base in a many-god
> and demi-god idea, but never mind.
Okay. Sorry, but alot of features of Christianity seem to have been
taken from Judaism and Greco.
> Their are some exquisite pieces from about 200 AD that
> > show Zeus with Jesus as a son (Apollo is no more). The current face
> > of "Jesus" seen in pictures is the same face on anceint statues of
Zeus.
>
> To my knowledge, the greek god idols were never painted on walls, but
> merely on clay jars (amphorae) and carved in stone.
My error. The "picture" in question is a marble engraving.
> > Well, they have to recruit. I doubt they would do so well if they
just
> > blurted out "your soul is being influenced by dead spirits from
beings
> > not of this world". They seem to want to lay down the basic
> > philosophical base and then slowly introduce them to the whole
dogma.
>
> So do you think it's a coincidence you have to pay lots of cash before
> you get to know what it really is you got involved in?
No. Scientology is in an expansionistic stage right now using the
mindset of either "sink or swim". I'm sure from their point of view,
the large economic base is needed to advance their philosophy and
belief system they think is benefiscial to humanity. This is typical of
most religions. For a long time, Christians were required to give 10%
of all their possessions to the church.
Sorry I keep picking on Christainity, but this is the only religion I
am somewhat familiar with.
> > Of course, the Catholic Church does not tell children about the
Trilogy
> > until they get to a certain age.
> >
>
> Irrelevant, even if true. And if the catholic children decides to
leave
> the church and badmouth it, they can do so without fear of being dead
> agented.
The point I'm trying to make (and badly doing so :) is that they may
think the membership is not ready for such data. I can only think of
Hubbard's warning about the content of OT III which would kill those
not ready for such "enlightenment". Could this be the same thing?
> > A faith is in the heart of the one practicing it.
> >
>
> Go do what the man said!
Finally, I knew someone would eventually agree with me! :)
>
> So you feel a society based on religious feudalism and daily human
> sacrifice is more advanced than what the european societies were? The
> aztec society, great is it was in some areas, went nowhere!
Not for me, but I can seeing this issue from bias inherit to my being
raised on American culture and belief. I'm sure that this society
worked well for those who were members of it.
The religious feudalism is hardly an attribute found only in "Native"
Civilizations.
> > The main reason Cortez was able to see easily destroy the Aztecs was
> >
> > 1. They thought we was the other benevolent god of man: Quetzalcoatl
> > 2. Smallpox
>
> 3. Syphilis
> 4. Gonorrhea
Could be. But the two I mentioned did most the damage. Had the Aztecs
had metalurgy and immunity to some European diseases, the nation and
relgion may still exist.
Blackhawck
>
> They had a "siege" mentality practically from day one.
>
> "rallies"? Oh, please.
Put yourself in their shoes. What would your reaction if outside your
church, there were protesters mocking characters in your faith and
calling you brainwashed?
>
> I haven't, and I lived in the Bible Belt
Look around cable TV. It's quite disgusting.
> > I know the following statement is going to be responded to. But, one
> > death caused by a religion? That's a pretty good average when one
takes
> > into account the Holy Wars, the Inquisition, Witch Burnings, The
> > Jihads, etc...
>
> Those who won't bother to learn from history still have no excuse for
> repeating it.
True.
> > Operation Rescue here in the United States committed simular crimes.
> > This is a racial doomsday protestant group in the United States
that is
> > now out of favor.
>
> "racial doomsday" - huh?
Operating Rescue is a christain "cult" that believs the second coming
is taking place NOW. The church outlaws all interracial relationships
since these are part of the cause. They are best known for attacking
abortion rights. The leader, Randell Terry, is in prison for assaulting
the President.
> > The degree that "clam" is a bias insult relies on how the target of
the
> > term feels. I would like to hear from Mr. Shaw or another Scn how
they
> > like being called a clam.
>
> Safe is not a clam. wgert is a clam.
> "If you find that insulting, good. You deserve to be insulted" -
Heinlein
Ah. Thank you.
> > I
> > think it is quite possible that some rather "odd" religion documents
> > can be found in the Vatican that are not subject to public review.
>
> Oh, please, redux.
"redux"?
Keith Henson
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 06:33:05 -0700, barb <bw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
> You tell me
>>ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
> Barb asks the tough questions.
I don't think so. Aum is worse. Keith Henson
Peter B. Perlsø
> Ah. I admire your honesty. I'm curious whether you hate the religion or
> the behavior of its zealots?
>
> ... I know, I know, you don't consider it a religion... but work with
> me here! :-)
"Religion" then.
I try not to hate. But I despise the actions of the willing zealots and
the stringmeisters on top (Jentz, Mischavige etc.)
--
Best Regards, Peter B. Perlsų - http://www.titancity.com
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM - all the reasons you need to get a Mac...
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
wrote in <7v8r7p$98m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>I actually was going to create a thread on this issue, but I'll bring
>it up now. From the quote I saw, the term "clam" may not have been used
>in the context of that tasty little mollusk.
>
>In the English language, clam can also mean someone without voice or
>holds back expression (i.e. to clam up). This same word in latin (it is
>the same word in pronounciation too) basically means ignorant, silent,
>etc...
>
>Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
>vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
>stretch?
The expression comes from a book called "History of Man", in which LRH
expands on all kinds of incidents the thetan, but mostly the "genetic
entity", went through down history. One of these was the clam. So, I
don't think LRH had really anything like any hidden meaning in mind.
Zinj
says...
>
>On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:42:01 GMT Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com>
>wrote in <7v8r7p$98m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>it up now. From the quote I saw, the term "clam" may not have been used
>>in the context of that tasty little mollusk.
>>
>>In the English language, clam can also mean someone without voice or
>>holds back expression (i.e. to clam up). This same word in latin (it is
>>the same word in pronounciation too) basically means ignorant, silent,
>>etc...
>>
>>Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
>>vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
>>stretch?
>
>expands on all kinds of incidents the thetan, but mostly the "genetic
>entity", went through down history. One of these was the clam. So, I
>don't think LRH had really anything like any hidden meaning in mind.
>
>_________________________
>Bernie -- http://welcome.to/ars
The problem is this Bernie...
Elron claimed to be so 'enlightened that every one of his farts was equal to
the longest statements of *any* buddha.
I mean.... either Elron is the source of all knowledge
or he isnt's?
what's your point bern?
If Elron is *not* the source of all knowledge... they he led people to commit
crimes in the name of 'Clearing The Planet ®
keep it in mind bernie.. *Scientolgy* excuses it's shit because it's the only
hope.
Keep it in mind
My love you bleep bleep
Zinj
Beverly Rice
> keep it in mind bernie.. *Scientolgy* excuses it's shit because
> it's the only hope.
This is stated over and over again.
They dynamics are even used, that phrase "The greatest good for
the greatest number of dynamics" takes on a whole new twist when
put in the single-minded Hubbardian think of a devout Co$ member.
If something in the 1-7 dynamic interferes with the 8th dynamic,
it is expendable.
Of course, every good Co$ member knows that it is scientology
that encompases the 8th dynamic.
Co$ literature and lectures continually state that it is only
scientology (i.e. the bloated TOAD Hubbard) that is the only hope
for mankind and ~SURVIVE~al.
But you know what, you can tell that to people who have not
been inside Co$ all you want, and try to emphasise it every way
you can, and they just will not really get the total picture.
Beverly
Beverly Rice
> > They had a "siege" mentality practically from day one.
> > "rallies"? Oh, please.
> Put yourself in their shoes. What would your reaction if outside your
> church, there were protesters mocking characters in your faith and
> calling you brainwashed?
You asked, so here is the answer, at least from one person who
is a Christian, and who is of Jewish heritage.
I would never react in any such way as the Co$ members have been
acting, nor would I ever consider doing to critics of my belief
and my heritage what Co$ is doing to their critics.
BTW, I'm also part Irish, and I'm not even upset that the Co$'s
Right Reverand Andy Bagley stated that the reason he had behaved
as a total asshole was because of his "Irish", rather than admitting
it ws simply becaue that is standard Co$ behaviour when they dont
think they will be called to carpet on it. (P.S., even though
being Irish, I do ~not~ consume alcohol, either :-) ).
Beverly
Jack Craver
<hkhe...@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote:
Many people in the world have never even heard of Scn (or aum for that
matter) and yet are well-aquainted with religiously inspired murder
and other crimes. Perhaps their answers would be different than yours.
In this anti-scientology NG, it is not so surprising that some people
think that Scn is the "worst" religion in existence. Reading some of
the more colorful posts here, one could draw the conclusion that Scn
is the "worst" *anything* in existence.
Surely the meme responsible for *fanaticism* is an equal opportunity
employer and is not limited to religions alone. An interesting
subject, no?
The answer to Barbs question probably depends on the respondents
location, culture, and religion, not membership in an anti-scientology
NG, IMO.
For more Tough Questions:
John or Claire Swazey
"Fredric L. Rice" wrote:
>
> Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> A big fat hint for you, blackbird...scientology is a profit generating
> >> scam disguising itself as a religion!
>
> >One can argue this the nature of many religions.
>
> And prove it beyond reasonable doubt with the Scientology business
> -- using the syndicate's own once-secret documents as evidence. (Not
> to mention the many Federal felony indictments handed to the crooks
> over the years.)
>
> If the Scientology crime syndicate had managed to keep its documents
> from being seized by Federal authorities, all critics would have to
> go on would be the horror stories of ex-victims and the many court
> documents of ex-victims dueing the criminal business. As it is, however,
> the felonies that the business have routinely been raided, arrested,
> and indicted for yield a plethora of detailed, unquestionable evidence
> that yields no other conclusion than Scientology being a criminal
> busines, not a religion.
Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
people that were trying of heop and assistpeople to improve themselves
spiritually and to get moer in touch with God and their own
spirituallity.
Go figure.
John
>
> --- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
> 24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP4
> The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
> Scientology Criminals: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/csindex.htm
> Scientology libel big time! See: http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/woods.html
John or Claire Swazey
Probably because it is not correct. Of course Scientologists believe
that Scientology and Dianetics will only advance as far and as long as
they work. :-)
John
Warrior
Hash: SHA1
>"Fredric L. Rice" wrote:
>>
>> If the Scientology crime syndicate had managed to keep its documents
>> from being seized by Federal authorities, all critics would have to
>> go on would be the horror stories of ex-victims and the many court
>> documents of ex-victims doing the criminal business. As it is, however,
>> the felonies that the business have routinely been raided, arrested,
>> and indicted for yield a plethora of detailed, unquestionable evidence
>> that yields no other conclusion than Scientology being a criminal
>> business, not a religion.
In article <3818C85F...@home.com>, John Swazey wrote:
>
>Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
>people that were trying of heop [sic] and assistpeople [sic] to improve
That's just the "shore story", in my opinion.
>themselves spiritually [sic] and to get moer [sic] in touch with God and
>their own spirituallity [sic].
If one defines "God" as L Ron Hubbard (after all, Hubbard ~is~ "Source" in
$cienoville), then I suppose $cientology is a group of (duped) individuals
who are trying to get others "on Source". Is this about how it is?
If not, which policies or bulletins pertaining to getting more in touch
with God can you refer me to?
Could you be referring to HCOB 23 September 1968 "Resistive Cases Former
Therapy" which states:
"Also the Christian Church used (and uses) implanting (with a
squirrel version of the '7s'). These gangsters were the
Nicomidians from lower Egypt who were cast out for criminal
practices (implanting officials). They took over the Niocene
Creed before the year zero [!], invented Christ (who comes
from the crucifixion in R6 75 million years ago) and implanted
their way to 'power'. The original Nicomidians date about 600
BC and people who were Christ [!] date at 75 million years ago."
Is this an example of how $cientology hepls its members to get more
"in touch" with God?
And ~why~ is the above-referenced HCOB designated "CONFIDENTIAL"?
(It is on the "Class VIII Course".)
One more thing, John...
Why did you sign one of your earlier posts (reproduced below for
your convenience) as "John Carter"?
===
Title: Re: LRH on Venus (was Re: Wow! Seems I got your attention :)
Author: John or Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:31:58 GMT
<snip all but your part of the post>
Yeah, and just wait until the Venusian clears reveal themselves. And
this doesn't even take into account the gross Venusian income from the
Orgs on the main continent.
John Carter
===
All the best,
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.org/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOBj0loP3RAgBwh4zEQK+lwCcCMtJZqAHxAJrrnT9wdALb1NwP+kAnRxg
TD4/8RV2C7G3ToYDSh0C9GIN
=BgAg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
podkayne
<black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > They had a "siege" mentality practically from day one.
> >
> > "rallies"? Oh, please.
>
> Put yourself in their shoes. What would your reaction if outside your
> church, there were protesters mocking characters in your faith and
> calling you brainwashed?
BTDT: arc.r-c has at least as many anti-Catholics as Catholics, and they
love to call us brainwashed. (Check out an arc.r-c poster called CB)
Thing is, I *know* the leader of my church is the Pope. Most Scns inside
an org don't know who Xenu is, or that they'll be told that after spending
$360K.
On arc.r-c, Catholics actually answer the questions of anti-Cs, even the
mocking ones. But then, we *are* a "'turn the other cheek' religion".
(Digging up old history is not a valid counter-argument, as we've learned
from it and watch out to make sure we don't do it anymore)
> > > I
> > > think it is quite possible that some rather "odd" religion documents
> > > can be found in the Vatican that are not subject to public review.
> >
> > Oh, please, redux.
>
> "redux"?
Just like before.
podkayne
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
> people that were trying of heop and assistpeople to improve themselves
> spiritually and to get moer in touch with God and their own
> spirituallity.
>
> Go figure.
That's the bait
podkayne
<inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 28 Oct 1999 05:10:50 GMT, Keith Henson
> <hkhe...@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 06:33:05 -0700, barb <bw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> You tell me
> >>>ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
> >
> >> Barb asks the tough questions.
> >
> >I don't think so. Aum is worse. Keith Henson
>
> Many people in the world have never even heard of Scn (or aum for that
> matter) and yet are well-aquainted with religiously inspired murder
> and other crimes. Perhaps their answers would be different than yours.
>
> In this anti-scientology NG, it is not so surprising that some people
> think that Scn is the "worst" religion in existence. Reading some of
> the more colorful posts here, one could draw the conclusion that Scn
> is the "worst" *anything* in existence.
Well, it's the "worst" religion to have a noticable presence in the Bay
Area. Anything outside the BA, I can only indirectly affect - an anti-Aum
picket here would be pointless.
podkayne
<black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM - all the reasons you need to get a Mac...
>
> Well, I know we don't see eye to eye at all. I'm a programmer and
> admire the design of Windows (especially NT) and UNIX. Off topic, sorry.
NT was designed, yes, but Windows just grew.
Unix just grew too.
Jack Craver
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>One more thing, John...
>
>Why did you sign one of your earlier posts (reproduced below for
>your convenience) as "John Carter"?
>
>===
>Title: Re: LRH on Venus (was Re: Wow! Seems I got your attention :)
>Author: John or Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:31:58 GMT
>
><snip all but your part of the post>
>
>Yeah, and just wait until the Venusian clears reveal themselves. And
>this doesn't even take into account the gross Venusian income from the
>Orgs on the main continent.
>
>John Carter
>===
>
And another thing -
Message-ID: <3818FD85...@home.com>
/start
<snip>
>
> Claire: Welcome back!
Thanks, I think, sweetie but it's *John* who posted before, remember?
You're such a cute funny man, honest you are.
Funny man, look at the funny man!!
> Got any super-powers?
Just the same adorable-ness I have always had, and baby, that's super
power enough.
<snip>
/end
This sure doesn't *sound* like Claire.
There also seems to be some intrigue going on with a few anon posters.
>All the best,
>Warrior
>See http://www.entheta.org/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
>iQA/AwUBOBj0loP3RAgBwh4zEQK+lwCcCMtJZqAHxAJrrnT9wdALb1NwP+kAnRxg
>TD4/8RV2C7G3ToYDSh0C9GIN
>=BgAg
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Best of luck
jack
Warrior
Hash: SHA1
>"Fredric L. Rice" wrote:
>>
>> If the Scientology crime syndicate had managed to keep its documents
>> from being seized by Federal authorities, all critics would have to
>> go on would be the horror stories of ex-victims and the many court
>> documents of ex-victims doing the criminal business. As it is, however,
>> the felonies that the business have routinely been raided, arrested,
>> and indicted for yield a plethora of detailed, unquestionable evidence
>> that yields no other conclusion than Scientology being a criminal
>> business, not a religion.
In article <3818C85F...@home.com>, John Swazey wrote:
>
>Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
>people that were trying of heop [sic] and assistpeople [sic] to improve
That's just the "shore story", in my opinion.
>themselves spiritually [sic] and to get moer [sic] in touch with God and
>their own spirituallity [sic].
If one defines "God" as L Ron Hubbard (after all, Hubbard ~is~ "Source" in
$cienoville), then I suppose $cientology is a group of (duped) individuals
who are trying to get others "on Source". Is this about how it is?
If not, which policies or bulletins pertaining to getting more in touch
with God can you refer me to?
Could you be referring to HCOB 23 September 1968 "Resistive Cases Former
Therapy" which states:
"Also the Christian Church used (and uses) implanting (with a
squirrel version of the '7s'). These gangsters were the
Nicomidians from lower Egypt who were cast out for criminal
practices (implanting officials). They took over the Niocene
Creed before the year zero [!], invented Christ (who comes
from the crucifixion in R6 75 million years ago) and implanted
their way to 'power'. The original Nicomidians date about 600
BC and people who were Christ [!] date at 75 million years ago."
Is this an example of how $cientology hepls its members to get more
"in touch" with God?
And ~why~ is the above-referenced HCOB designated "CONFIDENTIAL"?
(It is on the "Class VIII Course".)
All the best,
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.org/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOBkS3IP3RAgBwh4zEQJgXQCgp+v0l1nJ+f4M42DxU/zxdgYyX08AoK5L
4FV0/TmwFnQFtmnDaY+6C0Sa
=/84n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thomas J. Best
John or Claire Swazey wrote:
> "Fredric L. Rice" wrote:
> >
> > Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
>
<snip>
> no other conclusion than Scientology being a criminal
> > busines, not a religion.
>
> Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
> people that were trying of heop and assistpeople to improve themselves
> spiritually and to get moer in touch with God and their own
> spirituallity.
>
> Go figure.
>
> John
<snip>
Is it really funny? They obviously haven't helped you much with spelling
or grammar. MUs anyone? Did they help you get in touch with your body thetans?
Are you *really* one of *those* Swazeys, from - oh, those many moons -
in the past?
tam
John or Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >"Fredric L. Rice" wrote:
> >>
> >> If the Scientology crime syndicate had managed to keep its documents>
> In article <3818C85F...@home.com>, John Swazey wrote:
> >
> >Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
> >people that were trying of heop [sic] and assistpeople [sic] to improve
>
> That's just the "shore story", in my opinion.
>
> >themselves spiritually [sic] and to get moer [sic] in touch with God and
> >their own spirituallity [sic].
>
> If one defines "God" as L Ron Hubbard (after all, Hubbard ~is~ "Source" in
> $cienoville), then I suppose $cientology is a group of (duped) individuals
> who are trying to get others "on Source". Is this about how it is?
>
> If not, which policies or bulletins pertaining to getting more in touch
> with God can you refer me to?
How about every reference to the 'eighth dynamic' references to which
abound beginning with
book one DMSMH. Now of course I realize that you are not a
Scientologist, but it would seem to me that
you would have to have seen some reference to the Eighth Dynamic and
that this might have given you
some pause. And of course since this is the scientological reference to
god and is in every single
book from DMSMH To 8-8008 I guess that you know very little about
Scientology.
It appears from my earlier message that I'd hit the old rum a little too
hard.
John
>
> Could you be referring to HCOB 23 September 1968 "Resistive Cases Former
> Therapy" which states:
>
>
Warrior
Hash: SHA1
>> In article <3818C85F...@home.com>, John Swazey wrote:
>> >
>> >Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
>> >people that were trying of heop [sic] and assistpeople [sic] to improve
>> >themselves spiritually [sic] and to get moer [sic] in touch with God and
>> >their own spirituallity [sic].
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> That's just the "shore story", in my opinion.
>>
>> If one defines "God" as L Ron Hubbard (after all, Hubbard ~is~ "Source"
>> in $cienoville), then I suppose $cientology is a group of (duped)
>> individuals who are trying to get others "on Source". Is this about how
>> it is?
>>
>> If not, which policies or bulletins pertaining to getting more in touch
>> with God can you refer me to?
In article <38193886...@home.com>, John says...
>
>How about every reference to the 'eighth dynamic' references to which
>abound beginning with book one DMSMH. Now of course I realize that you
>are not a Scientologist, but it would seem to me that you would have to
>have seen some reference to the Eighth Dynamic and that this might have
>given you some pause. And of course since this is the scientological
>reference to god and is in every single book from DMSMH To 8-8008 I guess
>that you know very little about Scientology.
You "guess" wrong, John. I know quite a lot about Scientology; I was a
member for fifteen years, and I spent almost eight of those years on
staff as a Sea Org member at the American Saint Hill Organization, which
as you most likely know, is an "advanced org".
Hubbard wrote very little about God, preferring instead to lead individuals
down _his_ road to delusion built on "Source" (Hubbard's) rot.
Perhaps I should quote some "remedies" Hubbard dreamed up to handle
"PTS" types who have "implants" from "earlier practices", including
Christianity, or other religious practices. John, would you like to
discuss the "practical" applications given in Hubbard's _Book of Case
Remedies_?
I could also post $cientology's official statement (concerning the
practicing of other religions) given in its 1023 application to the
IRS. Are you familiar with that?
When you hit the rum a little too hard, does it cause you to snip
portions of my post which are embarrassing to you and/or your "church"?
>It appears from my earlier message that I'd hit the old rum a little too
>hard.
>
>John
>> Could you be referring to HCOB 23 September 1968 "Resistive Cases Former
>> Therapy" which states:
(I have un-snipped this part of my previous post which you snipped.)
"Also the Christian Church used (and uses) implanting (with a
squirrel version of the '7s'). These gangsters were the
Nicomidians from lower Egypt who were cast out for criminal
practices (implanting officials). They took over the Niocene
Creed before the year zero [!], invented Christ (who comes
from the crucifixion in R6 75 million years ago) and implanted
their way to 'power'. The original Nicomidians date about 600
BC and people who were Christ [!] date at 75 million years ago."
Is this an example of how $cientology hepls its members to get more
"in touch" with God?
Shall I post some of Hubbard's "source materials" pertaining to
religious "implants" from the "whole track"?
And ~why~ is the above-referenced HCOB (from the "Class VIII Course")
designated "CONFIDENTIAL"?
All the best,
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.org/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOBoNRIP3RAgBwh4zEQJNdACeOLNA2MZ9uEKygP39NDVYQQYdfU8AoOJ2
f+9vz8nlBkYfpje73duOr+dN
=h/O3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Barwell
In article <3814BB71...@umich.edu>, Becky <bec...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Jack Craver wrote:
>
>>
>> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
>> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
>> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental human
>> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
>
>My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
>is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
>actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
>offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
>
>And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
>of criticism offends you is also your right.
>
True. But his habit ain't arbitrary. The idea of equating
criticism with bad stuff like bigotry and intolerance is to stifle
healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism.
And criticizing a cult is not the same as criticizing basic
human rights.
And as far as laughing, rememeber the first demand of the false prophet is
always "Don't laugh!".
Laughing at goofy claims is not only a right of thinking human beings, it
is a duty. When laughter is banned, dictatorship begins.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <7v8r7p$98m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Cosidering how Scientologists feel towards "normal" people, better
>know
>> as "Wogs" or "raw meat", I would consider your argument irrelevant.
>> "Wog" is derogatory and discriminative, while "clam" is a parody of
>> Hubbard's old ramblings about clams being the archaic ancestors of
>Man.
>
>I actually was going to create a thread on this issue, but I'll bring
>it up now. From the quote I saw, the term "clam" may not have been used
>in the context of that tasty little mollusk.
>
>In the English language, clam can also mean someone without voice or
>holds back expression (i.e. to clam up). This same word in latin (it is
>the same word in pronounciation too) basically means ignorant, silent,
>etc...
>
>Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
>vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
>stretch?
I used clam because of the ludicrous and absolutely hilarious claims
Hubbard made in a book "The History of Man" he wrote in 1952.
These ludirous and bizarre claims are but a taste of what Scientology
really teaches.
Yet, Hubbard pompously claims that Scientology is completely
proven, a milestone comparable to the invention of the wheel,
the invention of fire, the onbly workable science of the mind,
a science as hard and proven as chemistry or physics.
In HoM he even goes so far as to claim his hilarous babblings
"prove" the mere theories of Charles Darwin!
His books and Scientology propaganda are filled with his
bloviations and expansive claims for his cult and its bizarre
claims. It must be true, otherwise it wouldn't be called
"scientology", eh wot?
Much of his claims are so ludicrous, so stupid, so foolish,
that the cult is forced to keep them secret or people would
never, ever join in any circumstances. They have sued numerous
times in the past to keep this crap secret.
Just two years ago they sued the Washington Post for daring
to print the details on the creation 75 million years ago
by evil outer space dictator Xenu of disembodied dead
alien soul parasites called BTs, body thetans AKA, space cooties.
Why did I use the ludicrous clam stories to as a name for
Scientologists? As a warning of the secret teachings.
If the whole world started calling Scientologists "clams",
sooner or later, almost anybody interested in their cult
due to their propaganda efforts would be forced to consider
the portentious question, "why do people call Scientologists
clams?".
And if asked, the question would be answered by pointing
out the long list of oncredibly stupid claims about clams, space cooties,
Xenu, Fac One Bap! Bap! Bap! implant stations under the pyranees
mountains, gorrilla goals, and a long, long litany of Hubbard silliness,
including Hubbard's habit of lying and the cult's attempt to
keep these ludicrous beliefs hidden from newbies and the general
public until you are brainwashed enough to believe all of
this crap and pay $$$$$ and possibly your life to be taught
this expensive swill, brought out in dribs and drabs as you payed
thousands for the privledge.
The clam bit is not bigotry, but a lever, a tool, to fight
Scientology's lies, deceits and propaganda which starts
with their very name, Scientology, which implies, science,
knowledge, evidence, all utterly absent from Scientology.
It is a name designed to get people to ask questions, to make it
hard for the cult to lie to people, mislead them, trick them.
I started this with these cold blooded and specific reasons
in mind. Not merely to make fun of them, cause people to hate
them, or as empty, mindless bigotry.
I plan to call them clams until this spreads and the entire world calls
them clams, so that people who do not know why they are called clams
will ask around until they find somebody who does and who will explain
it to them. Then one more potential sucker will not be sucked into
this idiot cult by lies and propaganda that fails to tell the whole goofy,
expensive truth to the suckers out there it trolls with its incessent
propaganda.
Ian Rennie
charles.
On 30 Oct 1999, William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <7v8r7p$98m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Blackhawck <black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Cosidering how Scientologists feel towards "normal" people, better
> >know
> >> as "Wogs" or "raw meat", I would consider your argument irrelevant.
> >> "Wog" is derogatory and discriminative, while "clam" is a parody of
> >> Hubbard's old ramblings about clams being the archaic ancestors of
> >Man.
> >
> >I actually was going to create a thread on this issue, but I'll bring
> >it up now. From the quote I saw, the term "clam" may not have been used
> >in the context of that tasty little mollusk.
> >
> >In the English language, clam can also mean someone without voice or
> >holds back expression (i.e. to clam up). This same word in latin (it is
> >the same word in pronounciation too) basically means ignorant, silent,
> >etc...
> >
> >Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
> >vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
> >stretch?
>
Jack Craver
Barwell) wrote:
>
>In article <3814BB71...@umich.edu>, Becky <bec...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Jack Craver wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
>>> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
>>> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental human
>>> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
>>
>>My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
>>is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
>>actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
>>offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
>>
>>And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
>>of criticism offends you is also your right.
>>
> True. But his habit ain't arbitrary. The idea of equating
>criticism with bad stuff like bigotry and intolerance is to stifle
>healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism.
>
While I'm sure the KKK would agree with your statement, I doubt that
blacks would be impressed. If a "criticism", based on mockery and
ridicule, lacks evidence and cannot be verified, what terms would you
use to describe this phenomena? Healthy? Reasonable? Dead on?
If someone, like you for instance, makes the totally baseless and
vicious "criticism" that Hubbard molested his daughter Diana, am I
expected to not ask for evidence, to just accept that you are being
healthy, reasonable, and dead on?
>And criticizing a cult is not the same as criticizing basic
>human rights.
>
Who has said differently?
>And as far as laughing, rememeber the first demand of the false prophet is
>always "Don't laugh!".
>
Which false prophet did this? Aaah, never mind.
>Laughing at goofy claims is not only a right of thinking human beings, it
>is a duty. When laughter is banned, dictatorship begins.
>
Go ask Mary Sue Hubbard.....
LMAO
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope of Houston
>Slack!
For more healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism:
Maggie Council DiPietra
----------
In article <otwaOJdIMDVprI...@4ax.com>, Jack Craver
<inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On 30 Oct 1999 01:00:19 GMT, wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <3814BB71...@umich.edu>, Becky <bec...@umich.edu>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Jack Craver wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
>>>> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
>>>> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental
>human
>>>> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
>>>
>>>My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
>>>is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
>>>actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
>>>offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
>>>
>>>And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
>>>of criticism offends you is also your right.
>>>
>> True. But his habit ain't arbitrary. The idea of equating
>>criticism with bad stuff like bigotry and intolerance is to stifle
>>healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism.
>>
>While I'm sure the KKK would agree with your statement, I doubt that
>blacks would be impressed. If a "criticism", based on mockery and
>ridicule, lacks evidence and cannot be verified, what terms would you
>use to describe this phenomena? Healthy? Reasonable? Dead on?
Satire (what you call mockery and ridicule) is a tool of
criticism.
Like any tool, it can be used to build an argument or bash that
which
appears threatening.
Your reference to the KKK and 'blacks' is overwhelmingly
irrelevant.
Please try to refrain from deciding how huge groups of people
might feel,
as if they weren't in the room. It really detracts from your
argument. :)
The cool part about criticism is that, unlike Hubbard's work, one
is allowed
to question it without fear of retribution.
>
>If someone, like you for instance, makes the totally baseless and
>vicious "criticism" that Hubbard molested his daughter Diana, am I
>expected to not ask for evidence, to just accept that you are being
>healthy, reasonable, and dead on?
Thing is, the Tech demands you do *not* ask for evidence; there
is to be no
welcoming of an investigation into Scientology, but only its
critics.
If Hubbard makes the claim that going "clear" can give one
perfect
recall, that he spent time on Venus, or more generally that
Scientology
is the only answer to human problems, are we expected to not ask
for
evidence, to just accept that he is right?
And when evidence is appallingly lacking, are we expected to
still not
make fun?
[snip]
>>Laughing at goofy claims is not only a right of thinking human beings,
>it
>>is a duty. When laughter is banned, dictatorship begins.
>>
>
>Go ask Mary Sue Hubbard.....
>
>LMAO
>
>>Pope Charles
>>SubGenius Pope of Houston
>>Slack!
>
>
>
>
>For more healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism:
>http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm
>
>
>Best of luck
>
>
>jack
---
M.C.DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net>
"Hell, if you understood everything I say,
you'd be me!" -Miles Davis
Fredric L. Rice
>Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> You tell me
>> >ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
>>
>> Barb asks the tough questions.
>Answer the lady, man.
He's not allowed to. Nothing approaches the level of Scientology
in any _real_ religion out there. The Scientology crime syndicate
does manage to approach the level of the tobacco industry, however.
Fredric L. Rice
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:13:45 +0200, nos...@nospam.com (Peter B.
>Perlsų) wrote:
>>Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> You tell me
>>> >ONE religion that compares with the criminal scam scientology!
>>> Barb asks the tough questions.
>>Answer the lady, man.
>Sorry, don't do demands. But thanks for the thought!
You don't answer questions at all, it would appear. Trying
to pretend you don't have to back up your claims just because
somebody didn't say "please" is something that cultists do.
Fredric L. Rice
>> If the Scientology crime syndicate had managed to keep its documents
>> from being seized by Federal authorities, all critics would have to
>> go on would be the horror stories of ex-victims and the many court
>> documents of ex-victims dueing the criminal business. As it is, however,
>> the felonies that the business have routinely been raided, arrested,
>> and indicted for yield a plethora of detailed, unquestionable evidence
>> that yields no other conclusion than Scientology being a criminal
>> busines, not a religion.
>Wow that's funny. Here I concluded that Scientology was a group of
>people that were trying of heop and assistpeople to improve themselves
>spiritually and to get moer in touch with God and their own
>spirituallity.
>Go figure.
Hubbard -- their "spiritual leader" -- told them there are no gods.
While it's true they try to help better themselves, they also have
a historic record of convincing themselves that no crime is too bad
a crime to committ while doing so.
Fredric L. Rice
>> True. But his habit ain't arbitrary. The idea of equating
>>criticism with bad stuff like bigotry and intolerance is to stifle
>>healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism.
>While I'm sure the KKK would agree with your statement, I doubt that
>blacks would be impressed.
Of course trying to equate racial hatred-motivated rhetoric with
a detailed exposure of a criminal organization's felonious history
and racketeering policies is, well, something only a cultist would
do without flinching.
Suzie
>From: Jack Craver inm...@bellsouth.net
>Date: Sat, 30 October 1999 08:59 AM EDT
>Message-id: <otwaOJdIMDVprI...@4ax.com>
>
>On 30 Oct 1999 01:00:19 GMT, wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <3814BB71...@umich.edu>, Becky <bec...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Jack Craver wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
>>>> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
>>>> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental human
>>>> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
>>>
>>>My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
>>>is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
>>>actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
>>>offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
>>>
>>>And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
>>>of criticism offends you is also your right.
>>>
>>criticism with bad stuff like bigotry and intolerance is to stifle
>>healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism.
>>
>
>While I'm sure the KKK would agree with your statement, I doubt that
>ridicule, lacks evidence and cannot be verified, what terms would you
>use to describe this phenomena? Healthy? Reasonable? Dead on?
>
>vicious "criticism" that Hubbard molested his daughter Diana, am I
>expected to not ask for evidence, to just accept that you are being
>healthy, reasonable, and dead on?
>
>>human rights.
>>
>
>Who has said differently?
>
>>And as far as laughing, rememeber the first demand of the false prophet is
>>always "Don't laugh!".
>>
>
>Which false prophet did this? Aaah, never mind.
>
>>is a duty. When laughter is banned, dictatorship begins.
>>
>
>Go ask Mary Sue Hubbard.....
>
>LMAO
>
>>Pope Charles
>>SubGenius Pope of Houston
>>Slack!
>
>
>
>
>For more healthy, reasonable, and dead on >criticism:
>http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm
>Best of luck
>jack
>
Ooh, Ooh, I'd like to nominate this sentence:
For more healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism
:http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm
in the "one sentence dumbest post" contest! (TOO juicy to pass up and better
than anything I could paraphrase or make up)
Suzie
"I never have to lie to any man because I don't fear anyone. The only time you
lie is when you are afraid." - JJG
Blackhawck
> >Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
> >vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
> >stretch?
>
> No. I am the one who started this clam business.
> I used clam because of the ludicrous and absolutely hilarious claims
> Hubbard made in a book "The History of Man" he wrote in 1952.
>
> These ludirous and bizarre claims are but a taste of what Scientology
> really teaches.
So, you took a piece of Scientology that seemed strange and used it to
attack the religion. Fine. But let's not forget that Christianity has
just as many aspects of it which are subject to the same ridiculed
using your criteria.
In the creation theory involving Adam and Eve, Eve was created by using
one of Adam's ribs. So, "God", the one who created everything needed a
few spare parts to create the female gender. Using the criteria that
you applied to Scientology, the only fair term then for Christians
are "Spare Ribs" or more cryptically just "Ribs". I will not complain
against the use of "Clam" if you agree to use the term "Rib" to
describe Christains.
Likewise, it would only be fair to call Mormons "Salimanders" after the
famous "Salimander Document".
There are certainly other religions that have "strange" aspects, I will
do some research and create a post at a later date.
The point is: every religion, those you like and those you hate, have
aspects that can be ridiculed.
> Yet, Hubbard pompously claims that Scientology is completely
> proven, a milestone comparable to the invention of the wheel,
> the invention of fire, the onbly workable science of the mind,
> a science as hard and proven as chemistry or physics.
> In HoM he even goes so far as to claim his hilarous babblings
> "prove" the mere theories of Charles Darwin!
The Theory of Evolution is pretty much proven without his help. From
the Austriopithicus to the generic data concerning the Bonobo and
traits in fetal development, I doubt Darwin needs LRH's help.
> His books and Scientology propaganda are filled with his
> bloviations and expansive claims for his cult and its bizarre
> claims. It must be true, otherwise it wouldn't be called
> "scientology", eh wot?
I myself think that they should have chosen a different name. But, from
a techical point of view, it translates to "Study of Life", which is
okay, I guess.
> Much of his claims are so ludicrous, so stupid, so foolish,
> that the cult is forced to keep them secret or people would
> never, ever join in any circumstances. They have sued numerous
> times in the past to keep this crap secret.
I posted to this thread at another time about whether the Catholic
Church has ancient writings from when this religion was formed that are
archived and subject to public review. I think it is very likely.
> Just two years ago they sued the Washington Post for daring
> to print the details on the creation 75 million years ago
> by evil outer space dictator Xenu of disembodied dead
> alien soul parasites called BTs, body thetans AKA, space cooties.
Why is Xenu any more silly than some depictions of the "Devil"?
> Why did I use the ludicrous clam stories to as a name for
> Scientologists? As a warning of the secret teachings.
> If the whole world started calling Scientologists "clams",
> sooner or later, almost anybody interested in their cult
> due to their propaganda efforts would be forced to consider
> the portentious question, "why do people call Scientologists
> clams?".
I fear that the goal of creating this term may have little to no
effect. I can imagine that following discussion:
Young Scn: Why do those who hate us call us "clams"?
Senior Scn: They read it from a document called the "History of
Man". They see a reference that states humanity has
engrams from clams.
Young Scn: The sea-creature?
Senior Scn: No, no no. "Clam" also means one without the ability
to talk. Or in the latin, one who is feeble, primative
and have no way to express themselves.
In other words, the term "clam" can be explained away with little to no
effort. However, every instance I have seen it used on a.r.s. it have
been used out of hate - in conjuction with attacks on intelligence and
morality.
Though I can only imagine you created the term without hate, many
common terms to belittle a group have "innocent" roots as well. The
term "Wop" and "Kike" both come from all the paperwork that was done at
Ellis Island. Immigrants from Italy were often without proper documents
and were refered to as "Without Papers" - hence "Wop". On immigration
papers, the Ellis Island staff would also put a symbol for the person's
religion: A cross for a Christian, and a circle (or what was called a
Kikecle) on a Jews.
> And if asked, the question would be answered by pointing
> out the long list of oncredibly stupid claims about clams, space
cooties,
> Xenu, Fac One Bap! Bap! Bap! implant stations under the pyranees
> mountains, gorrilla goals, and a long, long litany of Hubbard
silliness,
You are expressing hatred towards the religion, not their behavior.
> including Hubbard's habit of lying and the cult's attempt to
> keep these ludicrous beliefs hidden from newbies and the general
> public until you are brainwashed enough to believe all of
> this crap and pay $$$$$ and possibly your life to be taught
> this expensive swill, brought out in dribs and drabs as you payed
> thousands for the privledge.
Early Christians required 10% of their property to be given the Church.
Modern Evangelicalists ask for much more. Someone I knew in high school
was ruined by the Evangelicalists.
> The clam bit is not bigotry, but a lever, a tool, to fight
> Scientology's lies, deceits and propaganda which starts
Maybe not when you coined it, but not it has a life of its own.
> with their very name, Scientology, which implies, science,
> knowledge, evidence, all utterly absent from Scientology.
You should take some latin courses.
> It is a name designed to get people to ask questions, to make it
> hard for the cult to lie to people, mislead them, trick them.
> I started this with these cold blooded and specific reasons
> in mind. Not merely to make fun of them, cause people to hate
> them, or as empty, mindless bigotry.
I commend you for that. But unfortunately, it is in this newsgroup that
a new term of bigotry has been born.
-Blackhawck
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Blue Xenu
>>Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <3814BB71...@umich.edu>, Becky <bec...@umich.edu>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jack Craver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
>>>>> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
>>>>> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental
>>human
>>>>> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
>>>>
>>>>My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
>>>>is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
>>>>actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
>>>>offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
>>>>
>>>>And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
>>>>of criticism offends you is also your right.
>>>>
>>> True. But his habit ain't arbitrary. The idea of equating
>>>criticism with bad stuff like bigotry and intolerance is to stifle
>>>healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism.
>>>
>
>The cool part about criticism is that, unlike Hubbard's work, one
>is allowed
>to question it without fear of retribution.
>
Yeah, as long as you are in complete agreement with royalty.
>>
>>If someone, like you for instance, makes the totally baseless and
>>vicious "criticism" that Hubbard molested his daughter Diana, am I
>>expected to not ask for evidence, to just accept that you are being
>>healthy, reasonable, and dead on?
>
>Thing is, the Tech demands you do *not* ask for evidence; there
>is to be no
>welcoming of an investigation into Scientology, but only its
>critics.
>
>If Hubbard makes the claim that going "clear" can give one
>perfect
>recall, that he spent time on Venus, or more generally that
>Scientology
>is the only answer to human problems, are we expected to not ask
>for
>evidence, to just accept that he is right?
>
Yeah, just like we're supposed to accept all of Minton's bullshit without any
evidence.
>And when evidence is appallingly lacking, are we expected to
>still not
>make fun?
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Laughing at goofy claims is not only a right of thinking human beings,
>>it
>>>is a duty. When laughter is banned, dictatorship begins.
>>>
>>
>>Go ask Mary Sue Hubbard.....
>>
>>LMAO
>>
>>>Pope Charles
>>>SubGenius Pope of Houston
>>>Slack!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>For more healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism:
>>http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm
>>
>>
>>Best of luck
>>
>>
>>jack
>
>
podkayne
<black...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
> > >vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
> > >stretch?
> >
> > No. I am the one who started this clam business.
> > I used clam because of the ludicrous and absolutely hilarious claims
> > Hubbard made in a book "The History of Man" he wrote in 1952.
> >
> > These ludirous and bizarre claims are but a taste of what Scientology
> > really teaches.
>
> So, you took a piece of Scientology that seemed strange and used it to
> attack the religion. Fine. But let's not forget that Christianity has
> just as many aspects of it which are subject to the same ridiculed
> using your criteria.
>
> In the creation theory involving Adam and Eve, Eve was created by using
> one of Adam's ribs. So, "God", the one who created everything needed a
> few spare parts to create the female gender. Using the criteria that
> you applied to Scientology, the only fair term then for Christians
> are "Spare Ribs" or more cryptically just "Ribs". I will not complain
> against the use of "Clam" if you agree to use the term "Rib" to
> describe Christains.
Fine. I'm a Rib. Doesn't bother me, according to my church leaders that
story is a parable. There are some Fundies who disagree with that.
(Guess what, I make fun of Fundies too.)
Didja know the cross was originally used to poke fun at Xians?
Crucifiction was only used for the lowest class of criminals, therefore
the cross was a way to say "your leader was scum"
Then there are all the pink triangles proudly displayed round Castro in SF.
podkayne
> the Ellis Island staff would also put a symbol for the person's
> religion: A cross for a Christian, and a circle (or what was called a
> Kikecle) on a Jews.
I have a MOO here on "Kikecle"
William Barwell
>> >vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
>> >stretch?
>>
>> No. I am the one who started this clam business.
>> I used clam because of the ludicrous and absolutely hilarious claims
>> Hubbard made in a book "The History of Man" he wrote in 1952.
>>
>> These ludirous and bizarre claims are but a taste of what Scientology
>> really teaches.
>
>So, you took a piece of Scientology that seemed strange and used it to
>attack the religion.
No, it is not the strangness of these claims that is the point, it
is teh fact that they are ludicrous, often obviously false,
pompously written, hilarious and whacked out.
I do not use it to attack the religion, I use these things
to point out that despite the careful propaganda front that
this idiot cult attempts to present to the public, the man
behind this cult and it's beliefs are whacky as all get out.
One reason I specifically chose the clam bizness is because
History of Man pops up at used bookstores so people can sometimes
get a chance to peek for themselves, if they do not trust the
webbed version that can be found on the net.
One can ever by a copy from the cult, either mail order,
or at the local org if one was so inclined.
Now, part of Hubbard's incessent claims is, that all of Scientology's
idiot claims are scientifically proven.
Baloney! The man can't even get clam biology right!
The whole part of this idiot book sounds like something
a precosious 6 year old would write about clams.
Fine. But let's not forget that Christianity has
>just as many aspects of it which are subject to the same ridiculed
>using your criteria.
And your point is? That we should not criticise Hubbard
because Christianity is based on idiocy? Actually, I
hit Christianity just as hard on its idiocies and have
as little patience for Christianity, Judaism or Islam's
ridiculous claims either. And I am not shy about telling
anyone that either.
>In the creation theory involving Adam and Eve, Eve was created by using
>one of Adam's ribs. So, "God", the one who created everything needed a
>few spare parts to create the female gender. Using the criteria that
>you applied to Scientology, the only fair term then for Christians
>are "Spare Ribs" or more cryptically just "Ribs". I will not complain
>against the use of "Clam" if you agree to use the term "Rib" to
>describe Christains.
Bluntly, there is a word in current use that describes gullible
and scientifically illiterate anti-intellectualist Christians,
"fundies". Or fundamentalists. Many "fundies" are actually evangelicals
or charismatics. But fundie has that secondary meaning.
>Likewise, it would only be fair to call Mormons "Salimanders" after the
>famous "Salimander Document".
Mormon has long had a connotation of odd beliefs, fanaticism,
and heterodoxy. One does not need a slang term, though cracks
about funny underwear are not unknown either.
>There are certainly other religions that have "strange" aspects, I will
>do some research and create a post at a later date.
No need to. I could write a lengthy list myself.
>The point is: every religion, those you like and those you hate, have
>aspects that can be ridiculed.
But not all of them lie about what they believe, hide the true beliefs,
and propagandize like Scientology.
The Moonies are the only other major cult with as unenviable
a reputation as liars and tricksters with their doctrine
of "heavenly deception". And they got the derisive name Moonies.
In part because they often would lie when recruiting new members
about what their "church" was. And what it believed.
The Moonie name was meant to emphasize their key beliefe about Moon
which they tried often to hide when they first set up shop in the
USA.
>> Yet, Hubbard pompously claims that Scientology is completely
>> proven, a milestone comparable to the invention of the wheel,
>> the invention of fire, the onbly workable science of the mind,
>> a science as hard and proven as chemistry or physics.
>> In HoM he even goes so far as to claim his hilarous babblings
>> "prove" the mere theories of Charles Darwin!
>
>The Theory of Evolution is pretty much proven without his help. From
No shit Sherlock. The funny part is that he makes this claim and then
proceeeds to rant about clams in a manner that shows he knows
NOTHING about any of this nonsense. I like the part about the
exploding barnacles too.
>the Austriopithicus to the generic data concerning the Bonobo and
>traits in fetal development, I doubt Darwin needs LRH's help.
Hubbard wouldn't know a bonobo from a banana.
>
>> His books and Scientology propaganda are filled with his
>> bloviations and expansive claims for his cult and its bizarre
>> claims. It must be true, otherwise it wouldn't be called
>> "scientology", eh wot?
>
>I myself think that they should have chosen a different name. But, from
>a techical point of view, it translates to "Study of Life", which is
>okay, I guess.
No, he named his cult "Scientology" to trade off of the good
name and reputation of science. He claims Scientology means
"Knowing how to know in the fullest sense". But Scientology
is simply goofy pseudoscience.
>> Much of his claims are so ludicrous, so stupid, so foolish,
>> that the cult is forced to keep them secret or people would
>> never, ever join in any circumstances. They have sued numerous
>> times in the past to keep this crap secret.
>
>I posted to this thread at another time about whether the Catholic
>Church has ancient writings from when this religion was formed that are
>archived and subject to public review. I think it is very likely.
I doubt it. There isn't much secret as far as secret writings.
Mainly the only secrets are secrets because we cannot read some
languages.
Did you know that only 3 words of the Philistine language are known?
>> Just two years ago they sued the Washington Post for daring
>> to print the details on the creation 75 million years ago
>> by evil outer space dictator Xenu of disembodied dead
>> alien soul parasites called BTs, body thetans AKA, space cooties.
>
>Why is Xenu any more silly than some depictions of the "Devil"?
>
Because Xenu represents bad SF. The devil's representations
are actually in many ways worse. The Bible says fairly little
about Satan actually. The fantasies of medieval demonologists
are every bit as brain damaged as anything Hubbard came up
with. But these fools had an excuse, there was comparatively
little sceptical thinking going on when they wrote, they had
little chance to reflect on what knowledge was and how it is
to be gained. Hubbard did not have their excuse. He was
exposed to some science in college.
>> Why did I use the ludicrous clam stories to as a name for
>> Scientologists? As a warning of the secret teachings.
>> If the whole world started calling Scientologists "clams",
>> sooner or later, almost anybody interested in their cult
>> due to their propaganda efforts would be forced to consider
>> the portentious question, "why do people call Scientologists
>> clams?".
>
>I fear that the goal of creating this term may have little to no
>effect. I can imagine that following discussion:
>
It has, in the past, had its effect here. We used to LOVE it
when some lurker asked the question, "why do you call them clams?".
I have had to answer that question in other newsgroups. It has
its effects.
Properly done, the question asker will soon be rolling in
laughter and will not be inclined to take Scientology seriously
after that.
Ask the oldtimers here. We get much fewer people asking anymore.
A lot of people already know the joke.
J. R. Ford
wrote:
>
>Thank you. This was a very good site to look at. I understand now alot
>more of the basic belief structure of this language.
>
TROLL
J. R. Ford
wrote:
<snap><snap><snap>
>
>I do believe that the Scn owned site is www.religioustolerance.NET
>not .ORG This site seems quite fair and neither blames nor glorifies
>any particular faith.
>
>> Try http://www.xenu.net
>
>I've seen this site before and read most of its content. I am still
>rather new to this topic, but I do consider this a hate site and not
>one that simply addresses the behavior of the Church's leadership.
>
>The use of the term "clam" is quite obviously used as an attack the
>membership rather than the leadership. Also, the mockery of
>"Xenu", "Xemu" or whatever the hell his name is, is also done in a
>hateful manner.
>
>I myself and agnostic and view all religions in a very skeptical light.
>Scientology is as valid of Christainity. I see no aspects where one can
>be considered superior to the other.
>
TROLL
Jack Craver
<mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>----------
>In article <otwaOJdIMDVprI...@4ax.com>, Jack Craver
><inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On 30 Oct 1999 01:00:19 GMT, wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com (William
>>Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <3814BB71...@umich.edu>, Becky <bec...@umich.edu>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jack Craver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. Free speech encompasses questioning religious beliefs,
>>>>> cultural beliefs, and sexual preferences. Free speech also allows us
>>>>> to properly label the ridicule and mockery of these fundamental
>>human
>>>>> rights as being bigoted, predjudiced, and intolerant.
>>>>
>>>>My mileage does indeed vary. The only fundamental right I recognize
>>>>is your fundamental right to believe what you wish. Criticism of the
>>>>actual beliefs, even when expressed in speech you find personally
>>>>offensive, does not infringe upon your right to hold them.
>>>>
>>>>And, yes, arbitrarily attaching offensive labels to anyone whose style
>>>>of criticism offends you is also your right.
>>>>
>>> True. But his habit ain't arbitrary. The idea of equating
>>>criticism with bad stuff like bigotry and intolerance is to stifle
>>>healthy, reasonable, and dead on criticism.
>>>
>
>>While I'm sure the KKK would agree with your statement, I doubt that
>>blacks would be impressed. If a "criticism", based on mockery and
>>ridicule, lacks evidence and cannot be verified, what terms would you
>>use to describe this phenomena? Healthy? Reasonable? Dead on?
>
>Satire (what you call mockery and ridicule) is a tool of
>criticism.
>Like any tool, it can be used to build an argument or bash that
>which
>appears threatening.
>
>Your reference to the KKK and 'blacks' is overwhelmingly
>irrelevant.
>
I don't think so. The KKK are quite critical of other races and
beliefs and frequently use mockery and ridicule as part of their
"toolbox". Are the KKK intolerant or merely presenting a kind of
healthy, reasonable, "satire"?
Just because a person calls themselves a critic does not make them
somehow immune to bigotry, prejudice, or intolerance, *as Barwell
suggested*.
>Please try to refrain from deciding how huge groups of people
>might feel,
>as if they weren't in the room.
Hey! You must be a critic! Right?
LOL
It really detracts from your
>argument. :)
>
Thanks, Coach. :-)
>The cool part about criticism is that, unlike Hubbard's work, one
>is allowed
>to question it without fear of retribution.
>
This is true. True enough to start a new thread about it because it
has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.
>>
>>If someone, like you for instance, makes the totally baseless and
>>vicious "criticism" that Hubbard molested his daughter Diana, am I
>>expected to not ask for evidence, to just accept that you are being
>>healthy, reasonable, and dead on?
>
>Thing is, the Tech demands you do *not* ask for evidence;
Good. Perhaps you can show me this tech demand. I'm always amazed to
learn about this kind of tech.
there
>is to be no
>welcoming of an investigation into Scientology, but only its
>critics.
>
I have never said differently.
>If Hubbard makes the claim that going "clear" can give one
>perfect
>recall, that he spent time on Venus, or more generally that
>Scientology
>is the only answer to human problems, are we expected to not ask
>for
>evidence, to just accept that he is right?
>
I have never said differently.
>And when evidence is appallingly lacking, are we expected to
>still not
>make fun?
>
Of course not :-)
Make fun, make fun, and make more fun. Thats what I say.
Dangle ol' xenu out there like a pinata, and bash him hard. And stomp,
stomp. stomp like crazy on *all* of of that zany scientology
cosmology. Yesirree, show 'em what *real* critical thinkers are like.
After all, its free speech, right? And its fun, right? Anyone
disagreeing is prolly just a clam or osa agent anyway. And someone
will surely post something with a subject like "Its not their beliefs,
its their actions" and that will make everything alright.
Yep, thats just fine with me.
But you might want to remember that I'm not the only one that can tell
the difference between satire and intolerance. Even if you can't.
YMMV.