Apostates
Public Relations
RE: APOSTATES
Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony
and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his
book "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of
Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement",
professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and
Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained
how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then
become critical of their religion in order to justify their
departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and
used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a
weapon against a minority religion:
"...One critical result of external intervention is
that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted
into the former as external opponents actively recruit
exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide
social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret
personal troubles as organizational problems, and control
role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a
price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to
disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of
subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the
organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there
may be little opportunity to do so."
Fredric L. Rice
(Public Relations) wrote:
> RE: APOSTATES
> Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony
> and public statements of apostates to be unreliable.
Funny how no names, dates, locations, or specifics is offered, huh?
Golly. I wonder why.
gerry armstrong
(Public Relations) wrote:
>
> RE: APOSTATES
You are very foolish to call, for unwanted gains, the people whom you
target, "apostates." You do this, of course, to make your psycho-cult
seem religious.
Sooner or later, however, the world will wake up to the fact that you
and your cult are promoting and practising religious discrimination
and intolerance. Flat out religious bigotry. You cannot keep a waking
world asleep with lies forever.
Your whole philosophy of "Suppressive Persons" is religious
discrimination and intolerance. It has led and is leading to violence
against that group of people you wrongly target with your false,
stupid and dangerous philosophy.
Your brand of discrimination is parallel to the Nazis' discriminatory,
intolerant and brutal treatment the Jews. You even excuse your
religious discrimination with pseudo-scientific writings by L. Ron
Hubbard. This terrible bigot writes reams of hate literature attacking
and vilifying on his bogus scientific bases people declared
"Suppressive Persons." All of these policies, enforced by yet other
policies, are vile religious bigotry.
Your organization will very soon become known universally as a
promoter of religious bigotry and hatred. You will bring shame to the
United States and to any person who has supported you. You must act to
reverse the downward spiral on which you are taking so many innocent
people.
$PC, take down that page.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
> Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony
Spiritual Research Workgroup
wrote:
>
> RE: APOSTATES
>
> Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony
> and public statements of apostates to be unreliable.
Which apostates? Unreliable in which way?
You will have to sort your "apostates" roughly into two categories:
One category of people who don't want to work with SCN anymore,
and one category of people who DO want to work with SCN, but have
found out that it is not possible to do this in the current church.
These people are actually Scientologists who apply the "Condition
of Danger". They use a piece of technology written by L. Ron Hubbard,
in order to make sure that the subject stays pure and their own
spiritual progress doesn't get stopped.
Part of the "Condition of Danger" is a step which says "Ignore the
junior normally in charge of the activity - handle it personally".
This is what happens in the so-called "Free Zone" - Scientologists
ignore the church which would normally be in charge of their
spiritual progress and handle it personally.
The person who is seeking spiritual progress is the BOSS of his
personal scene. The church has the role of a junior who gets employed
because he can contribute valuable knowhow - like a hired computer
programmer, beauty surgeon or plumber. At the very moment where this
employment doesn't pay off, an alert and efficient boss has to bypass
the employee and take care of the activity himself again.
That's how Hubbard saw it; it acts against you at the moment because
your church is in a "Condition of Treason" (not "on post" how it
should be). The way out is the correct application of the lower
conditions on behalf of the whole church as a group.
More about the "Condition of Danger" at http://www.sgmt.at/scioe/dangere.htm.
A commented version of the "Condition of Doubt" can be found at
http://www.sgmt.at/scioe/doubte.htm. This is for you, the individual
SCN staff. Have another look at this condition if you don't feel
fully comfortable on your post.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
roger gonnet
gerry armstrong wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:04:25 GMT, publicr...@scientology.org
> (Public Relations) wrote:
>
> >
> > RE: APOSTATES
>
> You are very foolish to call, for unwanted gains, the people whom you
> target, "apostates." You do this, of course, to make your psycho-cult
> seem religious.
>
> Sooner or later, however, the world will wake up to the fact that you
> and your cult are promoting and practising religious discrimination
> and intolerance. Flat out religious bigotry. You cannot keep a waking
> world asleep with lies forever.
Reminds me that two days ago, while giving an anti-cult lecture in INSA
(a Lyon big scientific campus), ssix clams were there, and tried to
impose the idea of "hate", and turn it to mere intolerance when I
protested virulently. They know damned well we don't hate them poor
souls, and that we are trying to help them out.
roger
Ted Mayett
<sect...@worldnet.fr> wrote:
>
>Reminds me that two days ago, while giving an anti-cult lecture in INSA
>(a Lyon big scientific campus), ssix clams were there, and tried to
>impose the idea of "hate", and turn it to mere intolerance when I
>protested virulently. They know damned well we don't hate them poor
>souls, and that we are trying to help them out.
>
Any pictures?
Were they shouting or pushing?
roger gonnet
No, i'm not equipped...
> Were they shouting or pushing?
Trying to cut every comm, mostly by foring their voices: alas for them,
I've a really strong and submersive voice when I want to, and I can get
very harsh to control when i don't want to!!
I disclosed to the spectators their tricks, saying that i'll be forced
to make the same if I ever want to get heard: happily enough, some of
understood rapidly twhat was happening and criticized their behaviour
violently!
Roger
Ted Mayett
<sect...@worldnet.fr> wrote:
>> >Reminds me that two days ago, while giving an anti-cult lecture in INSA
>> >(a Lyon big scientific campus), ssix clams were there,
>I disclosed to the spectators their tricks,
Well, you did get assigned SIX of them, an impressive number.
Since they did not punch you, or steal flyers from you, or knock you
on the ground, or have picket signs or flyers calling you a bigot, I
will not list this as Harassment.