Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!slsv6bt!cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr!theeuwen Wed Jul 19 09:29:18 1995
From: email@example.com (twan theeuwen)
Subject: Re: The Noose is Tightening on CoS (was Big Suprise - 79K) (LONG)
Date: 18 Jul 1995 19:52:22 +0200
Organization: Alcatel Telecom Systems
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: mxrn 6.18-16
Xref: news.interserv.net alt.religion.scientology:76717 comp.org.eff.talk:57201
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Tim Johnson) writes:
>Dear Sister Clara
>Being a Scientologist myself doesnít mean that I believe in Scn or L.
>Ron Hubbard, and I donít know of any others frankly who do believe
>something as if in a cult or a faith even. What I consider about the
Then why is the CoS a religion if no one believes in its founder and/or
major dogma's? What is the definition of religion according to the CoS?
And what according to you?
>CoS is based on what information I have read, studied, examined, tested
>and evaluated for myself - not the claims of others, not the reports
>(purported false or otherwise), but what I have experienced to be true
IMHO what you read and studied must be written or taught by someone else.
So you (partly at least) base yourself on claims of others. I think it
is not so much wrong to listen to others, but one should remain skeptic,
and always keep in mind things may be viewed from different angles.
I am very much interested in scientology and in particular the current
"scientology v. the web" war. My feeling is that in the a.r.s. newsgroup
the general opinion is highly biassed against the CoS, and I am therefor
very interested in reading scientologists' opinions in this newsgroup.
You (that is Tim Johnson) are one of the rare pro-scientology writers
that I find here, who writes in a mature fashion, and you are rather rare
in attemping to explain the scientologists' viewpoints, rather than shouting
or even threathening as some scientologists who post here. In this way both
"active" members of this group and "lurkers" can follow the disputes and
make up their own minds about scientology, based upon what they read here
and information gathered by other means. I think more scientologists should
>I notice how rare it is that anyone attempts to claim that Dianetics
>doesnít really work. The reason is, itís too easy to prove that it
>does. Just do it. If a person dared actually evaluate it for
>themselves, that is. But of course much as the media operates: ĎOh no,
>donít look, itís dangerous; donít dare look for your self; we have
>looked [apparently] and we know it is dangerous, believe us; take our
>word for it Ď So, people are coerced *out* of looking.
The point I have heard a lot of CoS critics make is that it is not Dia-
netics they disapprove of, but rather the way the CoS is praticing what
dianetics and other writing by LRH learn them. In order to make a point
I think it would be better and much more interesting to defend on the
points on which the CoS is attacked, rather than pointing out where the
CoS is not critisised.
I must admit that some jokes about scientology are made here, but for me
and I think most (skeptic) readers here, they are just noted and not seen
in any way as arguments against the CoS.
>The Scientologists I know have not taken anyoneís word for anything.
>They have evaluated the data for themselves and found it to be true.
Truth is relative. What is true for you, might not be true for me and vice
versa. Therefore I think it's recommended to look for yourself and form
your individual opinion, keeping in mind that things can be viewed from
different angles. So I like this attitude of "evaluating the data for
But an important accusation made towards the CoS is cancelling messages
critic of the CoS. Which in means that the CoS refuses me the right to
evaluate all data for myself. So if the CoS (illegally?) cancels messages,
why am _I_ not allowed to see all data. And if the CoS does not, what is
the big deal in publicising an official note saying "it's not us sending
these cancels" as suggested several times in this newsgroup.
And what I really dislike is the fact that the CoS thinks some of its
documents should be hidden from me, they even sue Dennis for quoting from
it and have their attorney sending mail to people quoting from the CoS
works to warn them not to do this.
As you are, I like to evaluate the data for myself, and people who find
it neccesary to prevent me from doing this tend to raise a slight suspicion
>All this distasteful anti-CoS information spread around the Internet is
>deliberately intended to communicate to people that they should not look
>for themselves. Well, if you donít evaluate (that is, think) for
>yourself, you had better know very well the character of those you are
>allowing to think for you, those you are allowing to evaluate and align
>and represent the information for you.
No I'm not. I'm reading all, and some I accept, some I refuse. As you can
read in this post I'm getting biassed agains the CoS, but that's enirely
because I think for myself and see the scientists' lack of defense.
And really I do think a lot of stuff from the CoS critics is disputable
and some without any convincing value at all.
>I think we have all probably been led astray at one time or another by
>people we have trusted. I donít do that any longer. I know what I know
>because itís what I myself have evaluated with my own experience and
>found to be true by my own test, and retest and retest over and over;
>and it still holds to be true for me.
Good, keep on doing that!
>If you know something to be factual for yourself, if you know all the
>particulars and details, so you can be certain there are no distortions
>or alterations of fact or of relative importances concerning something -
>then I think you would not be swayed by contrary claims or opinions, or
>information aligned such as to make the greatest negative impact.
Yes I agree, but my point is that the CoS is withholding information from
me. So it is the CoS that doesn't allow me to know all the particulars and
details. This I don't doubt about. I really think the church does send mail
to people warning them not to publicise CoS material, and I really do believe
the CoS took Dennis Erlich to court. Even if they are backed up by law, it is
the CoS that is withholding information from me.
>My own personal experience with the news media, for instance, has been
>around 8 different occasions in my life where I had first hand knowledge
>of some event which the media reported on. In each and every case
>there were incorrect names, dates, places, accounts inconsistent with my
>first hand information, etc.
>That is my own personal experience with how reliable second-hand
I agree, and we should be careful with information we get through regular
media. But here we say that "were there is smoke there has to be some fire".
I.e. alltough writing may be partly or mostly wrong, their appears to be
a cause for it to exist. The question you should ask yourself is what this
cause is (_where_ is the fire, or is it just someone smoking a sigaret?).
Moreover I don't think court transcripts lie, they may be forged, but as
they can easily be verified, I think that's very unlikely. I also think that
if Helena Kobrin says she represents CoS organisations, and this wasn't true,
the CoS would have disputed her. Therefor I do regard Helena's mail in name
of the CoS as the CoS' voice. If you think this isn't true, please present me
arguments for this.
>I weigh this against what I myself have experienced to be true. I
>consider this to be rational, sane behavior. There is little going on
I certainly agree with that and your advise to think for myself, and therefor
(with all necessary respect) consider your personal expierences as totally
irrelevant including the conclusion you draw from them. To convince me you,
and all others (including my boss :), will have to come with arguments and
conclude from them.
>on ARS that is rational or sane. It is fear, hatred, anger, and the
>intention of destroying something on the basis of second and third hand
>information, the distortion and alteration of facts (many which I know
>personally to be other than are being represented).
>According to Websterís Unabridged dictionary a bigot is: 1. a person who
>holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
>Draw your own conclusions.
An advice with which I agree.
I'd like to thank Tim for providing comments on what's happening on a.r.s.
from a scientologists' point of view without threats, accusations etc.
I hope to hear from you here soon.