From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Is Scientology a CULT? You decide. It's YOUR life, afterall.
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:49:02 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <axg708.259.724641155@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>, axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) writes:
>>>>  Michael Rokos, the
>>>>former president of CAN accepted probabtion before conviction for 
>>>>soliciting lewdness from an undercover police officer and resisting
>>>>arrest.  Rokos told the undercover officer, "I want you to tie me up,
>>>>put clothespins on my nipples, and make me suck your dick"  Clearly,
>>>>these are not exactly objective sources to report on the religious
>>>>beliefs of anyone.
> 
> The above excerpt is from a posting from John Hollifield. I must have missed 
> it before. He later went on to say that CAN deals with criminals therefore 
> is an uncredible source. 
> 
> Surely the same argument could be used against Scientologists!!!
>

   Wrong because the Church of Scientology does not deal with criminals.
 
> Also, I dont know much about criminal law, but he says that Mister Rokos was 
> not convicted, therefore can not be a criminal can he? Then he points out 
> what the officier said! Surely this is what is alleged to have been said. If 
> the man was not convicted, it was not proven that he said this!
>

   Mr. Rokos is a criminal regardless of wether or not he was convicted.
The officer testified in a sworn affidavit that Mr. Rokos made those
statements.  Mr. Ted Patrick, the founder of CAN has a criminal history ranging
from possession of cocaine to sexual battery.  There is no question that
they are criminals.
 
> On top of all this, instead of argueing against the allegations made by Mr 
> Behar, the churches attacks the CAN group. 

   I noticed that you're from Australia, so you probably never heard the
Church argue Mr. Behar's allegations.  You were probably unaware that the
Church distributed over 50 million booklets that documented the lies in
the article.

  Not only has the true story been told and documented, but the sources 
Mr. Behar used have been exposed for what they are:  an anti-religious 
hate group that kidnaps members of "undesirable" religions and mentally 
and physically abuse them untill they renounce their religious beliefs.

>This does not destroy the 
> original point raised by Mr Behar, nor does it dampen the information he 
> published.

   Mr. Behar provided NO verifiable information, and instead wrote an article
filled with lies and negative innuendo.  The only time Mr. Behar ever refered
to any type of documented evidence on the Church of Scientology, he distorted
the truth by 1/2 Billion dollars.

> Why do Scientologists try to defame the arguer instead of the 
> argument?
>

    They don't.  But Mr. Behar NEVER made any specific arguments that could
be proven.  After, you remove the lies, you see that the rest of the article
is just a bunch of wild allegations.  

    For example, Mr. Behar alleges that Scientology Executives are squeezing
millions from the Church Members.  But, he never says who.  If someone was
"squeezing millions" isn't it just a little unbelievable that he wouldn't
say who?

-John Holifield

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology