Paul Raulerson writes, bias fixed on outward view:
>Now I have one question to ask: Why is it in this news group, that
>the *pro* scientologist folks are being polite and trying to provide
>evidence of their cause, and the anti-scientologist folks are being
>nothing if not hostile?
Since when is one person's telling his experience with Scientology
hostile? Just because he didn't "Bow Down In Awe And Reverence To The Name Of
The One And Only True Master Of The Devine And Earthly Sciences" the first time
he went into the Scientologist storefront church, does that mean he is an enemy
of God and "Those Who Are Enlightened?" And just because he went in the second
time to protect his friends, does that mean he's "A Spawn Of Satan Meant To
Kill Off Those Who Wish To Seek Out And Find The One And Only Truth As Revealed
By L. Ron Hubbard?"
His experiences have been reported in numerous magazines and books, most
notably Time Magazine and 60 Minutes. In each of the reports, the numerous law
bending and breakings, intimidation and rubbing out of "Enemies Of The
Religious State," high cost for the "purifications," the continuous addition of
higher levels for those higher up, reports of excessive richness and excessive
paranoia of those on top of the Scientologist heap, and lies about his past
life (which seems to get better and better with every
retelling--HMMMM...)--hardly the beneficent religious group these boys
desparately wish to expose to us.
>From an outside viewpoint, that speaks loads. And not in favor of
>the anti-scrientologist crowd either.
We make the scientologist answer to inaccuracies and falsehoods in their
beliefs, does this make us raving lunatics? What if we just shut up and let
them spread their "religion" over the world. Will the world be a happier place
then? I THINK NOT.
Ask them why they give a "Watered Down" version of Scientology to John
Travolta. Ask them why their levels of awareness is based on money, not
sincerity or truthfulness. Ask them "Who buys ALL your books?" Then read up
on the other literature (NOT the stuff the Scientologists give, but other
viewpoints) and THEN defend their actions against us.
Don't just call us raving lunatics, prove us wrong if you can.
Good luck doing so--you'll need it.
##########################
# Kamchatka Charlie #
# Net.address due Dec. 1 #
##############################################
# I've been playing devil's advocate so long #
# I'm getting personal visits from him. #
##############################################
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Kamchatka Charlie
Subject: Re: Scientology: a comedy in 3 acts
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.194421.2635@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Organization: Lansing Area (Mich)
References: <1991Nov5.204745.23713@agora.uucp> <5818@email.sp.unisys.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:44:21 GMT
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.