About two months ago, I began researching Scientology in the hopes of writing a book about the conflict between the Church and ARS. It was to be an unbiased, journalistic look at what has been described as "The First Internet War." Now, that book will be something very different. My research into Scientology has led me to the conclusion that it is a corrupt criminal organization that has assumed the veneer of a religion so that it may pursue its mercenary aims with minimal government interference. Its methods are so destructive, its intentions so anti- democratic and dangerous, that I can no longer remain a dispassionate observer. To do so under these circumstances is, I believe, a morally untenable position. As evil as Scientology has turned out to be, the critics I have met and observed and with whom I have corresponded are in equal measure extraordinary and interesting people. Whereas the cult does everything it can to demonize them, I have found them to be intelligent, moral, and deeply well-meaning people. Their concern over the excesses of the cult became animosity only when Scientology responded to their criticism by trying to ruin the critics lives. Recent events suggest that, as the cult suffers more devastating setbacks, it is becoming desperate and even violent. It is more important than ever for those lurkers and fence-sitters out there to become engaged in this struggle. It is time to cast our hats into the ring and stand up for what is right no matter what the risk. Others have endured much to purchase for us the right to post here our meager words. It's time for us to do our part. Scientology may try to ruin or discredit me, but to OSA, et al, let me say this: Look how little those methods have won you in the past. Thus far, you have not silenced your critics, and the ruthless character of your response has only added to their ranks. Surely, you realize the folly of continuing as you always have. Instead, why not engage me in debate? Rather than denouncing me personally, why not try to prove me wrong with the same tools of logic, rhetoric, and philosophy other "great religions" have used to defend and propagate their beliefs? As Scientologists, why not drop your discredited and counter-productive methods and learn the art of religious apologetics? I may disagree with you and the church you represent, but I am more likely to temper my views when confronted with a cogent and lucid argument passionately articulated. "Black PR" and "dead agenting" will only confirm my present beliefs, harden my determination, and embolden others to join this cause as critics of your church. Surely, there is among you someone who is at least familiar with St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Thomas Moore. They have a lot more to teach you about the reasoned defense of faith and the articulation of moral courage than Hubbard's amaturish interpretation of Sun Tzu. To OSA, let me be clear: I am here not because of Scientology's beliefs, but because of YOUR methods. Confront me as you have confronted others, and more will join me. To quote Ben Kenobi: "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." As for my book, I will now write it in the belief that presenting the truth about Scientology is more important than maintaining the pretense of dispassion. So choose your response, but choose wisely. Confront me as you have others and you hasten the pace of Scientology's collapse. Engage me in a thoughtful discussion, and maybe in the midst of chaos there will be room for understanding. I await your reply. P.S. To get you started, look for the post "Three Questions No Scientologist Can Answer." Nolo putes prauos homines peccata lucrari: Tempore si peccata latent, et tempore parent. Think not that evil-doers surely win; Tho' hidden for a while, time shows their sin. - - Cato

Go Back