I am not a bigot. And I don't like bigotry. That's part of the reason
I am now an ex-Scientologist.
In article <64ppc9$660@netaxs.com>, rkeller@netaxs.com says...
>
>
>[ Article reposted from news.groups ]
>[ Author was RonsAmigo ]
>[ Posted on 17 Nov 1997 10:38:35 GMT ]
>
> Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> in message-id:
><346483B4.39D0@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bernie wrote:
>>> The problem is that only the anti-Scientology viewpoint is
>>> being represented in usenet. We can't blame the Scientologists
>>> not to participate in ars any more than we can blame Jews not to
>>> participate in a Nazi oriented forum (sorry for the comparison,
>>> it is maybe overblown but I don't find another one right now. It
>>> probably looks that way from *their* viewpoint anyway).
>
>>Yes, it is overblown, not to mention inappropriate. There is no good
>>reason why Scientologists cannot post here. That they choose not to is
>>not my fault nor my problem--it's a self-imposed censorship on their
>>part.
>
>Bullshit!
>
>Let’s look at the situation from another angle.
>
>Do you think Jews would choose to participate in a newsgroup where:
>1) the majority of the participants referred to them as "kikes?"
Do you mean like how Hubbard called non-Scientologists "wogs",
or how he called the Chinese "chinks"? (He once said "The problem
with China is that there are too many 'chinks'.") And how about
Scientologists' habit of calling reporters, psychiatrists, IRS
employees, policemen, medicos, etc "SPs" (suppressive persons)!?
Is that not bigotry in the extreme?
And did not *you*, RonsAmigo, call Tilman a "Nazi" simply
because he lives in Germany and is critical of your cult!?!
You Scieno apologists are pathetic whiners, Amigo...
>2) they knew that unless they posted anon, their email address
> would become part of a database and they would be harrassed
> via email?
Do you mean like how your cult's Office of Special Affairs compiles
data on critics of Scientology? And how about your cult's use of
private investigators like Eugene Ingram? And while I am at it,
perhaps I should remind you how your cult's attorney Warren McShane
admitted under oath that they record *everything* posted to ars!!
>3) where common topics for discussion were along the lines of
> "Did the Jews kill Jesus because they are the spawn of Satan or
> because they are just basically evil?"
Do you mean like how Hubbard said that Jesus was an "implant"
(a false memory)?
>4) where "humorous" (if you’re a bigot) poems, limiricks, and
> songs which degrade and demean Jews were common fare?
Didn't Hubbard say people were evolved from bivalves (clams)
and piltdown man?
>5) where "regulars" advocated the gassing of Jews?
Do you mean how Hubbard advocated "disposing quietly and without
sorrow" enemies of Scientology? (reference _Science Of Survival_
by L Ron Hubbard)
>6) where "regulars" advocated the branding of Jews so they could be
> more readily identified?
Like how Hubbard advocated isolation of individuals who are
"low-toned"?
>7) where "regulars" advocated enforced shock treatment to help "cure"
> the Jews of their religion?
Do you mean how Hubbard wrote that enemies of Scientology "may be
tricked, cheated, lied to or destroyed"?
>8) where "regulars" got their kicks by tracking down Jews on-line and
> "outing" them so that they could then be added to the databases of
> anti-semites?
Do you mean how regular PIs and OSA personnel put critics under
surveillance, harrass former members who are vocal in their opposition
to your cult and even file lawsuits in an attempt to "ruin them
utterly" (to again use the words of your cult's founder, L Ron Hubbard)?
>9) where hate filled articles such as "Why Jews Can’t Love or Care for
> Children" were posted?
Do you mean like the full page ads your cult has taken out in
major newspapers wherein Scientology has absurdly likened the German
government's stance on your cult (of failing to recognize Scientology
as a religion, and instead, recognizing the clearly business-like nature
and activities of your cult) as comparable to the atrocities committed
during the holocaust?
>10) where every bit of anti-Semitic material known to man or beast
> was posted over and over again as gospel truth?
Do you mean how Scientology massively "spammed" the internet
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for weeks, in an attempt to drown
out legitimate discussion of the criminal activities, deceptive practices
and fascistic nature of your cult, Scientology?
>11) where moderates, such as Bernie, who suggest that maybe the Jews
> don’t really eat their young are broadly flamed?
This is ridiculous! Have you ever read Jonathan Swift's _A
Modest Proposal_? Have you ever heard of *satire*, Amigo? Or
should I be asking whether Hubbard called satire "covert hostility"
("tone level 1.1")?
>12) where grossly disgusting and obscene stories featuring as characters,
> leaders in the Jewish community were posted? (to wild applause from
> most)
Do you mean like how Scientology smears critics like Gerry
Armstrong and Grady Ward, just to give two current examples?
>13) where phone numbers of synagogues, Rabbis and others of the
> faith were published to usenet with a, "have fun" epilogue, so
> that bigots could have their "fun" via telephone as well as via
> email and usenet?
Do you mean like how "Vera Wallace" outed Scientology critic,
TarlaStar?
>14) where references to enforced homosexual acts on Jews were
> commonplace to the point of being routine and usual?
Like how L Ron Hubbard reportedly said "Jesus was a lover of
young boys"?
>And wouldn't any Jew in his right mind resent such a usenet group
>being called "alt.religion.judaism" rather than "alt.religion.anti-semitism"?
>
>Of course all the ARS "regulars" don’t participate in anti-Scientology
>activities such as I’ve detailed above (in another context to make my
>point), but very few of them (who don’t particiapate) bother to speak out
>in protest of such unabashed bigotry, and those who do are often flamed
>by the many as "appologists."
>
>And now I find out that the email addresses of all those who vote in the
>usenet creation process are published on usenet! (where they would
>promptly be picked up and become part of existing anti-Scientologist
>databases) That alone is probably reason enough to drop the idea of
>a "soc" or "talk" Scientology group, at least for the time being.
>
>Amigo
Get a grip, Amigo! Your cult already has its "TNX-L" for members
in good standing. And if your cult of Scientology doesn't like criticism,
then perhaps it should clean up its act!
I am not a bigot. And I don't like bigotry. That's part of the reason
I am now an ex-Scientologist. You know as well as the next Scieno in
good standing that there is no true freedom of speech within your
cult. Your founder of your insane cult even said so himself. He said
that "So long as one does not attack Scientology, then one is safe."
>--
>Rod Keller / rkeller@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
>Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
>The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go
>Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
And to Rod Keller -- Thanks for posting this to alt.religion.
scientology. I would have missed RonsAmigo's twisted logic otherwise!
Warrior