Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: HAte Group affiliation From: koreenb@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) Date: 4 Dec 1995 19:32:44 GMT It's interesting to see how many ties to known hate groups the critics of Scientology on ARS have. Tilman Hauseur supports the activities of those who promote the Nazi agenda in Germany and who have attacked Scientology, and has publicly stated that he feels that even one Scientologist left in Germany is one too many. Arnaldo Lerma is a Board of Policy member of the LIberty Lobby, described by the Anti-Defamation League as "The wealthiest and one of the most active anti-semitic organizations in the United States." The Southern Poverty Law Center (which litigates against hate groups, and provides educational activities to promote tolerance) has exposed William Carto, publisher of the anti-semite newspaper "The Spotlight", and head of Liberty Lobby, as being a dedicated rascist. Carto is quoted as once having said, "only a few Americans are concerned with the inevitable niggerification of America." He has also criticized Scientology in his propaganda publication, "The Spotlight." This same publication is full of paranoid hate propaganda about Israel, and various Jewish activities and organizations in the US. The advertising for this publication, by the way, is very deceptive and fraudulent regarding the actual content. Jeff Jacobsen and Priscilla Coates are Cult Awareness Network members. This is an anti-religious hate group which spreads hate propaganda about numerous religion, including numerous Christian religions. They don't stop at propaganda though. They and their deprogrammers commit the violent acts associated with most hate groups, such as assault against members of religious group members. Diane Richardson is very supportive of this group and its activities, as evidenced by her committed defense of this group on AOL recently. On ARS, she has denied her support of this group for some reason. Dennis Erlich has also been connected with Priscilla Coates, head of CAN LA. Priscilla is the person who publicly defended Ted Patrick, who has been convicted at least three times of drug possession and/or violent acts against individuals (for instance, using a straight edge razor in a deprogramming to assault somebody, among other things). She said he was a "very honorable man, a person who cares," and once publicly stated that everybody in CAN has been a deprogrammer. None of the Scientology critics associated with these hate groups have satisfactorily answered questions about their sympathies or involvement with these groups. In light of the level of bigotry and hate coming from certain of the Scientology critics on ARS, I feel these hate group affiliations are extremely relevent and should be more closely examined. Cory ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Nazi activity From: koreenb@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) Date: 12 Dec 1995 10:58:09 GMT In , koreenb@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) wrote: >It's interesting to see how many ties to known hate groups the critics of >Scientology on ARS have. > >Tilman Hauseur supports the activities of those who promote the Nazi >agenda in Germany and who have attacked Scientology, and has publicly >stated that he feels that even one Scientologist left in Germany is one >too many. <> Tilman, instead of beating around the bush about what you said, why don't you tell us what you think the solution to Scientologists should be in your country? Do you think their businesses should be shunned based on their religious belief? Do you think their children should be barred from attending public schools or not? Do you think Scientologists should be able to buy a home anywhere in Germany? Do you think they should be given business licenses based on the same criteria as anyone else? Do you think they should have the same rights as everybody else? What do you think of the publication "InSects - No Thanks" (with a picture of flies and a fly swatter on the cover, aimed at new religions in Germany) distributed by the Young Union CDU party? Does that remind you of anything distributed in Germany, say, circa 1936? <> Tilman, you know very well what is going on in your country, and you agree with it based on your posts to ARS. If not, let us know publicly that you absolutely don't agree with the Nazi approach to things, including the expressions of bigotry which led up to the holocaust originally, and are occurring anew in your country today. If you are really against the new Nazi's in Germany you should have no problem publicly condemning their activities. <> No, it is I that await your apology, though I don't expect to ever get it. Cory ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: free speech vs free religion? From: koreenb@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) Date: 11 Jan 1996 20:04:28 GMT In article <4cugh1$dtd@utopia.hacktic.nl>, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: > In article , > koreenb@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) wrote: > > > In article <4b3445$5ir@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, spintheca@aol.com > > (SpinTheCa) wrote: > > > > > Cory-- > > > I get the feeling you're not listening. > > > > You keep saying over and over again (argument by repetition!) that the > > > Constitution forbids interference with freedom of religious beliefs.... > > > and then interpreting that to mean > > > 1. That criticizing Scientology is unconstitutional > > > 2. That the US government should never investigate Scientology's practices > > > 3. That private individuals should not be allowed to make up their own > > > minds about whether you are full of crap > > > Let me clarify, because this is a misinterpretation of what I said. > > > 1. I never said that criticizing Scientology is unconstitutional, nor do I > > believe that. This is a serious leap of logic on your part. > > "The point being, that this is not just an issue of free speech. Some > critics are using this issue as a red herring to obscure the fact that > they are directly attacking our constitutional right to practice our > religion as we believe." > > There is no constitutional right which states that religious freedom means > fredom from criticism. You later on claim that indeed there is a legal > right (freedom of speech) and a social right (freedom of religious > beliefs). > There is also a legal right to freedom of religion in the US at least, but that is a seperate issue. > > > "The only time this would logically ever become an issue would be when someone > was trying to violate someone else's rights via the use of speech. I.e. > libel, inciting hate crimes, perjury, false testimony, etc." > > Yet you have to show not assert that people committed libel, incite hate > crimes, commit perjury or false testimony. I can give you examples. You > refered to Tilman as a nazi, you accused Jeff and others of criminal acts, > you made claims based upon research articles/newspaper articles which are > plainly wrong. No, I accuse Jeff of supporting an organization that commits criminal acts, and have shown proof of this. And I have corrected the mistake made in quoting the wrong study, and shown further evidence of my point on the subject, which has not been refuted. In Tilman's case, I think we may have two different definitions of a Nazi, and I understand that the term is very inflammatory in his country, so I will not call him that again, though I will assert that he very heavily and actively anti-religious, and that he doesn't recognize the dangerous path his government is moving toward - a path that will result in restrictions of free speech and other rights *for everyone* in Germany if it is continued. > > Then you try to expand the 'crimes' to: > > "But it is_not_ confined to free speech, it encompasses > copyright violation, harrassment of Churches and of individual > Scientologists, boycotting of Scientologists' businesses, various actions > taken to try to prevent us from communicating about our religion, and > personal attacks on Scientologists such as the recent picture of a staff > member affixed to a pornographic photo and then distributed on the 'net." > > You have to show copyright violations, to my best knowledge harassing > people for quoting six lines of a larger texts does not constitute such. > Nor have the recent suits been settled now have they ? Give us examples of > harassments by critics Cory ? I can give you a few Henry, Rogue, David, > Grady, Washington Post, Time magazine, xs4all, Karin Spaink. In the search of Wollershiem's computer, thousands of substantial violations were found. Not six lines, Pim. > > Boycotting scientology business is not a crime. > > Preventing communication is not a crime unless it involves cancellation of > people's postings as done on the Internet. What? This is totally illogical. Cancelling people's posts is not a crime as far as I know. Preventing someone's communication in other circumstances certainly could be a crime. For instance, in an involuntary deprogramming, a person is_physically_ prevented from speaking to anyone the kidnappers don't want him to. False imprisonment, resulting in the inability to communicate and travel freely, is a crime. Also, if there are constitutional laws granting free practice of religion and/or free speech in a country, preventing someone from communicating because of his religious beliefs could be a violation of that country's constitution. This could be done in a variety of ways, via intimidation, threat of arrest, disallowing any access to printing, etc. I'd say there was quite a big difference in the magnitude of the examples I gave compared to canceling someone's post, which they can just re-post. .AOL's policy to remove critical > postings sounds like double standards since folders of ex-catholics or > anti-new-age postings are present but no recovering scientologist folder > is allowed. Please show us how people on ARS have prevented > communications. There is a Scientology folder in the debate area, where several other folders like this are located. You are certainly allowed to say whatever you want. Anyway, what does AOL have to do with this? They are a private company, that can have any policy they want - not the government. Do you understand the difference? > > Personal attacks: The picture was in poor taste and many people on ARS > stated as much so there is the evidence that critics are actually quite > responsibel but neverthelesse they act as individuals and not as church > organized groups to flood the channels. You don't get my point. Hate propagada incites acts like this. It never would have happened if it weren't for the hate propaganda on ARS. I'm not talking about criticism, i'm talking about rabid propaganda - i.e. lies used to incite a particular reaction. There is a difference. > > > 3. I've never said this either, nor do I believe it. There is something > > very basic about the Scientology religion that you should understand. The > > whole point of Scientology is to make a person more and more > > self-determined, and more and more able to make up his own mind, based on > > data and evaluation of it. L Ron Hubbard emphasized this a lot in his > > various lectures. It is a *fundamental* of Scientology. One could say that > > other datums in Scientology are as valuable as they contribute to that > > one. > > Examples of such open mind: > > "You, for instance, appear to have made up your mind before you ever > looked at our side of the story." > > How can you tell. There are vaste resources available on the net. This is an opinion, and I use the word "appear" to make it obvious.It is based on my observation of Judith's communication about Scientology and her obvious pre-formed opinions about me. I still hold this opinion, but I can change my mind easily if the evidence supports it. > > "I don't know if this is true of you or not yet, > but most of the active critics that I've observed are completely unwilling > or unable to honestly consider any viewpoint of Scientology that disagrees > with their already formed opinion. That is intolerance, not examination of > a subject. So it is misleading to imply that "examination" is what the > most active critics are doing on ARS." > > You are accusing the critics of your own actions Cory. You are the one who > is unable to step away from the church policy of hatred towards > psychiatry, government etc. I don't hate psychiatry, or government. What have I said that makes you think I hate government? I do believe that psychiatry has dangerous and harmful abuses happening within its ranks which need to get handled. I'm open for any evidence that would show that psychiatry has cleaned its house and is no longer commiting abuses. > > You show in this posting an ability to generalize, to close your mind to > opposing views, to hypothesize (let's assume) and then draw conclusions > from this hypothetical case as if they are the truth. > > You accuse others of your own actions, you accuse governments of > harassment for investigating the crimes of your organization. No, I have accused specific governments at specific times of harrassment for investigating us for no good reason, and violating our constitutional rights while they were at it. Do you honestly believe that governments have never done this to people either regularly or occasionally? Cory ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Reverend "Alfreddie" Johnson From: koreenb@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) Date: 16 Jan 1996 09:30:36 GMT In article <30f2f252.13666548@news.snafu.de>, tilman@berlin.snafu.de wrote: > In , koreenb@jovanet.com > (Cory Brennan) wrote: > > >Alfreddie Johnson has preached in a Baptist church in Compton, California > >for years. His congregation definitely supports him. He is a dynamic > >preacher, who backs up his words with effective actions in his community. > > Cory, please explain us how *you* have found out that "his congregation" > supports him. > > Please tell us *when* it supported him. > > Please tell us also *who* his congregation is. LA Scientologists ? Gang > members who get a free lunch if they attend ? No, it is people in his community in Compton, USA. Families, individuals, etc. I believe he is no longer giving regular sermons there, because he has been traveling to other inner cities to start new inner city literacy programs in conjunction with Baptist churches and other community organizations. He is a dedicated man, and a very caring man, Tilman. This is very obvious to those who meet him. > > Please define the word "congregation". Remember, M/Us are dangerous. You > might be sent to ethics. Congregation: ...3. A group of people met together for worship; also, the body of persons who worship in a local church; a parish." (Funk and Wagnells desk dictionary) > > Please tell us how he lives with "In South Africa, a Bantu's withholds > read not on the needle alone but on the Tone Arm as well", He doesn't misinterpret it as you and others have done, and he doesn't take it out of context. He recognizes an organization that gives very real and very effective help when he sees one, too. > and how he > lives with "there was no christ". I assume that Baptists believe in > Christ. Do you, Ms Brennan ? Yes, I most definitely do. I have seen nothing in Scientology that would contradict my belief. But I also know how to evaluate importances and I know not to take things out of context too. Something I see rarely if ever from critics on ARS, when it comes to L Ron Hubbard's writings. By the way, I saw Alfreddie speak to a Scientologist audience a few months ago. He started out his speech by asserting his belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, affirming his worship and obedience to God and quoted the Bible more than once during his talk. > If you don't answer these questions, I have to assume, much to my > sadness (not!) that you have lied again. > > Btw, you still haven't told where you got your "Bobbitt" story, and the > evidence that I am supporting the nazi agenda. Your libel against me is > no small thing: you work for OSA LA. Therefore I can safely say that I > have been libelled by the Church of Scientology. I am still waiting for > your apology or your evidence. Yes, I have posted the "bobbitt" references several times now, but I will post them again since you missed it. Also, I posted that I discovered that in Germany, using the term Nazi has quite a different meaning than in the US (a very specific meaning), and I have no evidence that you practice Nazism as it is understood in Germany. I did not understand this when I posted the above statement, and did not mean to imply that you fit the German definition - I was not even _aware_ of that definition. So I retract that statement. But I do assert that you support activities, such as denying membership to political parties, etc, which will result in restricted freedom for all Germans if they are continued. And I do not think you understand the implications for your country and its people. Because if you do, that makes your motives a bit darker than what I have suggested here. Cory > > Tilman >