Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: ARNIE & FAIR USE: TIT Message-ID: <9509222143.0UIGB03@support.com> References: <221307Z22091995@anon.penet.fi> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 21:43:11 -0700 Lines: 47 ckaun@nyx.cs.du.edu (Carl Kaun) sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) writes: >another point is that when we starting picking on Scientology's occult >connections, or on the ludicrousness of its sacred droppings, we _are_ >engaging in religious persecution. Carl: >bulloney! since when can finding and telling the *truth* be construed >as persecution. > >that's assuming that what phil proposes to say is true, as exhibited >by verifiable data and reasonable interpretations of its meaning. if >it's not apparently true, of course, it might be taken to be >crackpottery, or persecution, or a number of other things. > >of course, we can bet in either case that the CoS will see it as >persecution if it is contrary to their perception of themselves. Scott: >agreed. leave the doctrine alone (except where the doctrine >encourages criminality); go after the actions. Carl: >i can agree with this on the basis of effectiveness. attacking their >doctrine does little to harm the CoS. maybe a few hear about the >doctrinal foundation and avoid being taken in as a result, but not in >such numbers that CoS is really harmed. Those inside Scientology >never hear about the satanic roots, or deny them if they do. With all due respect, exposing the doctrine is as vital as exposing the practices. People should know what their potential religion will eventually have them believing and doing. To do less is to expose naive seekers of spiritual fulfillment to a bait-and-switch which, at worst, could drive them completely schizophrenic. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"