Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Scientologists Unite - Support Safe!
From: stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 11:03:01 GMT

On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 09:40:18 GMT, giliad@mailexcite.com (The Crusader) wrote:

> This is a call to all Scientologists, active churchmembers and
> Freezoners alike, to unite and stand against the deplorable behavior
> of the men who control the Church of Scientology. Please pass this
> letter on to anyone you know who was ever involved with Scientology.
>
> Here is a brief synopsis of Safe's situation.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "Safe", a Scientologist, has been posting messages criticizing the
> Church of Scientology management to the internet newsgroup
> alt.religion.scientology.
>
> Now he may be facing legal trouble. The Church of Scientology has
> subpoenaed AT&T Worldnet, Safe's Internet Service Provider, demanding
> that they reveal his identity. The church alleges that Safe has
> violated its copyrights by quoting Scientology scripture in the
> messages that he posted. Safe contends that he did not violate
> copyright law because he stayed within the "Fair Use" clause.

I do not want to sound overly cynical about this, but I believe that Safe has given the anti-Scientology movement the platform it badly needs, and upon which we can take Scientology out into the open, with many of their typical "dead-agent" jibes effectively neutralised by Safe's position.

Think about it:

• A current Scientologist (_not_ an ex), comes out onto a.r.s. and starts posting regarding his views on the management of Scientology - not its beliefs, but how it is run.

• Scientology, predictably, want to shut him up. Standard tech says the way to do this is to "out" him: one good way of achieving this is to find or manufacture a reason for legal action. Scientology promptly trot out the old "copyright violation" chestnut (which I doubt would stick - I cannot remember seeing anything remotely resembling wholesale posting of Scn scripture by Safe at any time).

• In doing this, Scientology have effectively created their very own Ghandi figure. Safe is, and always has been, reserved and conservative in his criticism of his "church". No-one could accuse him of the ranting and frothing that most of us critics like to engage in from time to time.

• Furthermore, Safe's clear indication throughout his posting history that his opposition is to the management of Scientology, and the clear distinction he has drawn between that and the mainstream of Scientology, denies Scientology the opportunity to practice its usual tactics - of dismissing the "apostate's" views as mere apostasy, and groundless. This time, the opponent (for that is now, surely, what Scientology has made Safe into) is on solid grounds, because he is not rejecting the teachings of Scientology, but the way it is being run. Either Scn must admit that it happens to teach that criticism of the management is a High Crime, or it must account for why it is attacking a True Believer merely for daring to criticise the management - a lot of people out there who aren't even interested in the cult question can still get a handle on that kind of problem.

This is our opportunity to rally behind Safe, and align ourselves with his aims and methods. After all, it seems to be a generally accepted view among critics that we are not necessarily all after stamping out Scientology as an end in itself: it is *reform* of Scientology, and the removal of the various fraudulent and dangerous practices that it follows. Sure, we may all believe that, practically speaking, this would mean the end of Official Scientology, but that is an incidental matter, as long as - one way or the other - they cease to lie, cheat and deceive.

I hope that Safe is still able to read and post to a.r.s. and that he will make it known if he needs anything, be that financial support, logistical assistance or just a friendly email now and again.

To those who felt disappointed and "let down" over Dennis's settlement with the CoS, I'll say this: if you are really looking for a torchbearer, then perhaps Safe is someone to watch. His complaint is a fair one, his position entirely morally tenable, and his commitment is strong.

Whatever our motives, I believe that Safe deserves our support. I also believe that, if we can set our differences aside and see what we can do in order to provide that support, we on a.r.s. could be part of helping Safe make major inroads into the task of breaking through the cloak of secrecy that Scientology shrouds itself in. Perhaps, this time, real reform could be achieved - who knows?

--
There is no legitimate reason to send email to nuke@castlsys.demon.co.uk
Mail to this address will be treated as SPAM/UCE and reported accordingly
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1, non-Mintonista.
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net

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