Thanks for Actions Against CAN
lah
Here's a round of applause to the Church of Scientology for their
courageous action against the Cult Awareness Network.
From our point of view, no group was as "off" in their judgment of
others as was CAN. No group was as out of place in their
condemnation of the innocent as was CAN.
They accused our group of "cult activities" promoting all sort of
lies about us. When we asked to speak with them to correct some of
their false accusations, they refused to listen. Their only desire
was to see our financial records and ironically, we really have no
finances to speak of at all. They exerted no effort to determine
the facts even when those who could most accurately provide those
facts were literally at their doorstep.
We hope you will continue to advertise on behalf of freedom of
thinking for all.
History proves that nearly every conceptual milestone now considered
"good" was at one time considered a "cult." In the early/inception
stages of any significantly updated thinking, it seems that some
embodiment of narrow- minded opposition takes it upon themselves to
threaten its right to exist.
So thanks again from all of us determined to continue the search for
Truth through alternate paths. And thanks from those who support
the right of others to do so as well.
In Service to the Next Level,
The so-called "UFO Cult"
Tilman Hausherr
In <1996122206...@Spacestar.Net>, "lah" <l...@heavensgatetoo.com>
wrote:
>The so-called "UFO Cult"
*Which* UFO cult ? Scientology is itself an UFO cult !!
Tilman
Mike O'Connor
In article <1996122206...@Spacestar.Net>, r...@heavensgate.com wrote:
> Here's a round of applause to the Church of Scientology for their
> courageous action against the Cult Awareness Network.
>
> From our point of view, no group was as "off" in their judgment of
> others as was CAN. No group was as out of place in their
> condemnation of the innocent as was CAN.
"our" and "our group"? Well then in the first paragraph, don't you mean
"here's a round of applause from us to us for what we did"?
[...]
> We hope you will continue to advertise on behalf of freedom of
> thinking for all.
Don't you mean "we hope we will continue to advertise ourselves"?
[...]
> So thanks again from all of us
[...]
Do you mean "from all of us to all of us"? -Mike
seaorg
In article <1996122206...@Spacestar.Net>, l...@heavensgatetoo.com
says...
>
>Here's a round of applause to the Church of Scientology for their
>courageous action against the Cult Awareness Network.
{cut}
>They accused our group of "cult activities" promoting all sort of
>lies about us. When we asked to speak with them to correct some of
>their false accusations, they refused to listen. Their only desire
>was to see our financial records and ironically, we really have no
>finances to speak of at all.
{cut}
>In Service to the Next Level,
>
>The so-called "UFO Cult"
Would you mind posting your financial records?
Matthew Bell
Here is an even greater round of applause for CAN who had the courage to
stand up against the Crutch of Scientology.
If you are so keen to set the record straight and allege that CAN was
unprepared to listen to you then I will most happily do what they allegedly
did not - though I would suggest that perhaps a good starting place for the
COS is by answering some of the statements/questions posted by people who
have a greater knowledge of the subject than myself.
The CoS is considered to be a cult today and with the work of groups like
CAN and newsgroups like this will continue to be so - until of course they
clear themselves of the manipulative, deceptive etc etc which they employ
to gain recruits and dupe the public.
Look forward to hearing from you
Matthew Bell
Steve A
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:29:52 +0000, "lah" <l...@heavensgatetoo.com>
wrote:
> Here's a round of applause to the Church of Scientology for their
> courageous action against the Cult Awareness Network.
>
> From our point of view, no group was as "off" in their judgment of
> others as was CAN. No group was as out of place in their
> condemnation of the innocent as was CAN.
Are you then suggesting that no action is too low to stoop to in
beating your adversary?
Is the fact that Kendrick Moxon, Jason Scott's former attorney, was
dismissed by his client because he did not appear to be serving his
interests, but rather those of an organisation of which he (Moxon) was
a member, not something that you consider to be morally repugnant?
Or is it that whatever organisation you claim to represent another
that considers that the means justify the end, no matter what those
means may be?
> They accused our group of "cult activities" promoting all sort of
> lies about us. When we asked to speak with them to correct some of
> their false accusations, they refused to listen. Their only desire
> was to see our financial records and ironically, we really have no
> finances to speak of at all. They exerted no effort to determine
> the facts even when those who could most accurately provide those
> facts were literally at their doorstep.
I find your coyness about who "us" is somewhat suspicious.
I am also familiar with these sorts of allegations regarding opponents
of cults who "won't find the facts", where in fact the "facts" turn
out to be whatever acceptable truths the cult sees fit to manufacture,
and their opponent's only sin is that they failed to swallow this PR
whole.
> We hope you will continue to advertise on behalf of freedom of
> thinking for all.
>
> History proves that nearly every conceptual milestone now considered
> "good" was at one time considered a "cult." In the early/inception
> stages of any significantly updated thinking, it seems that some
> embodiment of narrow- minded opposition takes it upon themselves to
> threaten its right to exist.
History has also proven that many organisations that make such claims
(such as the National Socialists in Germany, the Order of the Solar
Temple, Jim Jones' mob, Scientology, and the Moonies, to name but a
handful) are capable of causing a considerable amount of damage to
both their own members, and innocent third parties.
Are you seriously suggesting that organisations such as these should
be given carte blanche to lie, steal, kill, drive to suicide? Do you
honestly consider that an organisation to which family members of cult
victims can go voluntarily for independent support, in the absence of
any other form of assistance, should not be allowed to exist?
And, before you even think about suggesting it, no: this is not a case
for self-regulation. We on a.r.s. have already seen the depths to
which Scientology is prepared to sink in order to suppress open
debate, and there is no place for their form of social control in
society at large.
> So thanks again from all of us determined to continue the search for
> Truth through alternate paths. And thanks from those who support
> the right of others to do so as well.
What about the right of former cult victims and families of current
cult members to have an organisation to provide mutual support and
information? Do they not have the same rights, too?
--
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
ObDenial: I am not Arthur Stevens of Crawley.
ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org
Child molesters! Join Scientology and grope with impunity! Why?
Donald Strawn raped a 13 year old girl, and attempted to rape
her 12 year old sister. The "Church" of Scientology in Clear-
water attempted to blackmail the girls' mother into silence.