From: schaf@socrates.ucsf.edu (Chris Schafmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PUBLIC WARNING. (Was Re: Ending Scientology)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:50:32 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>[text deleted]


>   Wow, I really caught a lot of flak for writing that.  It seems
>that a few of you who have posted and/or mailed to me think I might
>be advocating the suppression of free speech.

>   This is not the case.  I reposted the entire text of the conversation,
>and anyone who can read can clearly see that I was not advocating
>suppressing Chris's right to express himself.

>   On the other hand, Its clear that Chris IS SUGGESTING some type
>of legal action that would restrict religious freedom.  Also his use
>of the word "cult" leads me to believe that he only wishes to oppress
>those religions that HE VIEWS undesirable.

No, I'm not recomending any kind of individual suppresion.
There is a BIG difference between restricting a persons
right to think/say what they want and holding an organization
accountable for fraud.  There have been many cases
described here where Scientology (the organization) has
been shown to be taking advantage of the public and of its members.
Eg. $3000 E-Meters, ridiculously expensive courses, tax-free status,
exemption from financial accountability.

Your being hurt far more than I am, your the one who
is shelling out the money for this stuff.

I'm only out for a couple of bucks in taxes.

>   I feel that I'm correct in thinking that this type of thinking
>seriously threatens our already decaying liberty in the US.

>   Don't be fooled by Chris's doubletalk.  For example he states
>"No law that restricted peoples right to choose religion would ever
>get of the ground".  It appears he's one religiously tolerant dude.
>But then just five lines later he says "This might accelerate the
>dissolution of the cult."


>   It is clear to anyone that what Chris is suggesting is the oppression
>of minority religions that he feels are not worthy of being called a
>religion, and must be called cults.

>   Also, we see that Chris writes:

>  "Maybe if a law were created that prevented religious organizations
>from contacting ex-members, ex-members might be more willing to speak
>up against cults."

>   I ask you.  WHO is reccommending that laws be passed that will limit
>YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  It is clear from Chris's own statements
>that he is.  

Again, not limit YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, 
but the freedom of the organization to hurrass.

Although I admit, it is difficult to draw the line here.

I'm thinking now more along the line of partial or full removal
of tax-free status for 'religious' organizations that don't
meet certian criteria (anybody have some ideas), or
at the very least manditory auditing by external organizations
with complete public access to the results.

I can't see how any individuals (except for those who are taking
advantage of the system) would be hurt by these?

>   The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion are VERY 
>important.  Its very important to all of us that we be alert and
>not let people like Chris have their way with the United States and
>the rest of the world.

Freedom of speech and religion are what DEFINE us.

>Most sincerely,
>John Holifield

John, I won't get into the mud with you.

My attitude has been changing the last few weeks.

I originally believed that Scientology is 'evil' and that
all of its members were mind-controlled puppets whose only
aim was to suck people into the church.  This was not based
on direct contact with scientology, just on what I have read
and heard about scientology and cults in general.

But, from some things you've said and responses that I've gotten
from people have caused me to start thinking of you and the
other scientologists as 'just folks' with some funny ideas.
I have nothing personal against you and the other scientologists
and I don't want to hurt anybodys feelings.

I just think that Scientology is being run by some very ruthless
people.


.Chris.

P.S.: I wasn't very polite when I neglected to ask the scientologists
      to participate in this thread.  So I'll formally invite you.
      What kinds of controls would you like to see put in place
      to prevent ruthless organizations from taking
      advantage of the tax-breaks and imunity from accountability
      that are given to any organization that calls itself a religion?
      And it goes without saying, nothing that will limit individual freedoms.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christian E.A.F. Schafmeister               Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco      UUCP: ucbvax!ucsfcgl!schaf
"Biophysics . . . THE future."             INTERNET: schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu