Subject: CofS'ist asks what am I doing about it.
From: "Safe" <Safe2WC@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 14:02:30 -0700

lurkmonster <nada@noneya.com> wrote in message news:3748456d.1330383695@news.erols.com...

> On Sun, 23 May 1999 01:08:21 -0700, "Safe" <Safe2WC@worldnet.att.net>
<clip>

> Now it is time for you to answer some questions.
>
> 1) Are you an immortal spiritual being?

Yes.

> 2) Is Scientology auditing hypnotism?

No, not "white" Scientology.

> 3) Have you lived before this life?

Perhaps, but I don't have verifiable evidence yet except my own subjective reality. Have you lived before? What was your name? What was your social security number?

> 4) Has Scientology technology helped you?

Most definitely.

> 5) Would you like to see Scientology auditing outlawed world wide?

Of course not, I'm a Scientologist in case you forgot.

> 6) Have you ever been exterior to your current body?

Yes.

> 7) Why do you not try to help the other critics see the truth of
> Scientology?

I do try to help. That is my intention here. Perhaps you can't see that yet so perhaps I can make it clearer for you with an explanation.

First things first, right? Well, before they start reading LRH books and reading the tape lectures of Ron posted by the Secret Squirrel, the credibility problem has to be handled first. We live in a very skeptical society and with good reason.

I've noticed that Church of Scientologists and the Church of Scientology have totally lost credibility whenever they are scrutinized. Why shouldn't a group who claims to be the most ethical people on the planet be scrutinized? Is there anything wrong with that? People want to know that Church of Scientologists aren't just hypocrits.

Are you familiar with the dissemination drill? You have to HANDLE first before you can "salvage." What I'm doing is trying to handle the situation. My first major way of doing that is to separate out the confusion that Church of Scientologists continue to create for the public which damages PR for the subject. Even Mike Rinder has spoke up about this in the press as a problem. That's one thing he and I agree on and it was actually the truth he spoke for once.

That problem is ... the difference between Scientology the subject, and the Church of Scientology. Let's call the organization what it is ... the "Church of Scientology." It is not "Scientology" itself. "Scientology" is a subject. It is studied by many in the Freezone. Though they study it, you wouldn't call the "Freezone" ... "Scientology." So calling the "Church of Scientology" ... "Scientology" makes the same sense. If you're not clear on the definition of Scientology, then please look it up.

Once you get this really clear, you'll understand what most critics are attacking. They are criticizing the BEHAVIOR of the Church of Scientology ... the lies and abuses CofS perpetrates. Most are not really mad at Scientologists' religious beliefs (unless they lead to and create actual abusive behavior).

So get it clear that it's the ACTIONS that critics are angry about. I'm amazed that Church of Scientologists don't seem to get this. It's not that hard to understand. Instead of Church of Scientologists dealing with the actual criticism of the behavior of CofS, they avoid it.

CofS tries to make Church of Scientologists and public believe it's an issue of "religious intolerance." This is a deceptive play by CofS. CofS has not been open about this. It's no wonder though, because CofS has overts. They don't want to give them up. CofS has created Church of Scientologists who are walking "service fac's" for them.

The other thing I'm doing is helping to straighten out the name "Scientologist" so critics don't think that ALL Scientologists are cultish, brainwashed, and can't think for themselves. In case you haven't noticed, this is generally what critics believe.

I've worked on demonstrating with my posts here that all Scientologists do not think alike. So I've broken Scientologists down into basically two category's ... "Church of Scientologists" and "Freezone Scientologists." The first group believes in that Scientology tech must be dictated by the CofS authority. The second group believes in freedom and that Scientology should be able to be freely practiced for all man. The first group believes in all 274 rules/crimes of the CofS. The second group says the hell with those rules, personal integrity takes senior priority.

I've found many of the objections by critics have merit after I looked into it. If you care to look, you would find there's truth in that. For example, they object to Scientology being called a science. Even though it's alleged to be and sold that way, there has never been any 3rd party verification. Why? No real science should stay secluded in elitists hands. So I agree with the non-Scientologists and some ex-Scientologists. I think this is wrong too.

If there is nothing to hide and it's truth, let's open Scientology up to the scientific community. So what if Ron tried a couple times and failed. Try again. It doesn't mean you should quit. If the entire subject of Scientology is on the up and up, then eventually Scientology will get excepted as a science.

There is no current evil conspiracy against the subject of Scientology. The communists aren't out to get it. If there is, then tell me who, what, where, when. If there was any concern about the subject of Scientology, why isn't the mental health profession marching alongside with all the other ARS picketers? Don't tell me you really believe in Ron's conspiracy theory of 12 evil men ruling the world. Ron sure had his OPINIONS and many were far-fetched. I don't believe everything Ron says. I hope you don't either.

So I help critics see the truth about the Church of Scientology so that maybe they can see the truth about Scientology ... the SUBJECT. I also try to show Church of Scientologists the truth about the Church of Scientology so that maybe they can see that they aren't trapped into thinking that CofS is the only place they can get the bridge and go free. Because it's not true. There are alternatives like the fine people in the Freezone.

I hope I have clearly answer your exact questions.

Yours for understanding, Safe, an authentic, informed NON-CofS Scientologist

>Lurkmonster

-- "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (Justice for 36 years)

David Miscavige, Ban Church of Scientology Censorship Software now!

For freedom of discussion of CofS's unethical behavior, go to ...

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/churchofscientologysethics

Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate: XENU.NET

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.