Re: Very good analysis of UN document by Scientologist Whippersnapper (long)
[14 April 1998]

I doubt that you will find a more putrescent bigotry permeating any group
than you will find in Scientology.


From: Gerry Armstrong <armstrong@dowco.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Very good analysis of UN document by Scientologist Whippersnapper (long)
Date: 14 April 1998

On 14 Apr 1998 00:43:18 +0200, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:

>[Full Repost]
>
>Whipsnap@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER)
><6gtmo2$e4j@examiner.concentric.net>
>
>On this thread, Tilman has made light of his refusal to debate the facts
>of his statements with me.
>
>Let's be clear on what happened here.
>
>Tilman was asked by Ron Newman to comment on the recent UN Commission on
>Human Rights report on religious intolerance in Germany.
>
>Tilman's response falsely characterized the report's contents. He glossed
>it over, and quoted nothing but its ONE AND ONLY comment which was
>critical of anything besides the distinct stench of bigotry that permeates
>the German government, its "churches of officialdom," and its news media.

Okay, Tilman may have missed it, but you go ahead and post, EACH AND
EVERY comment in the report which criticizes, as you state, "the
distinct stench of bigotry that permeates the German government, its
"churches of officialdom," and its news media."

I doubt that you will find more stinking bigotry permeating the
Germans than you will find in the US government, its official cults
and churches and its news media. I doubt that you will find a more
putrescent bigotry permeating any group than you will find in
Scientology.

>Tilman refuses further debate, I am quite sure, because he doesn't wish to
>see the facts discussed. For this reason alone I'm inclined to discuss
>them further! But there's plenty of reason to do so in any case.
>
>I will again address what Tilman said and, more clearly than before, show
>why and how it was false. Tilman will again respond with nothing but
>transparent, bitter, childish evasions and distractions.
>
>Tilman said, "This report is an improvement." Over what, I can't imagine,
>because it's exclusively critical. It doesn't credit the German
>government with any progress of any kind against the intolerance it has
>incited, not one single change for the better.
>
>He said, "The report is neither negative nor positive for Germany."
>
>The report in fact is *strongly* negative.
>
>In the very first place, you have the fundamentally damning fact that the
>UN feels it must take a hand in German affairs. Things have obviously
>gone seriously wrong. The UN has done this, and continues to do it,
>against strong opposition by the German government.
>
>The report itself is not easy reading. It's cautiously worded, as is
>virtually any document of international diplomacy.

What, we're not going to see all those comments criticizing, as you
say, the distinct stench of bigotry that permeates the German
government, its "churches of officialdom," and its news media? We are,
however, not ungrateful to learn of your knowledge of virtually any
document of international diplomacy. That's helpful, and gives you a
certain credibility.

>It approaches many issues with careful statements of principle and a
>very conservative acceptance of the parties' assertions (including those
>of the German government and its weird Commission). An unsophisticated
>reader who skims through that report might mistake it for a wholly neutral
>commentary. But despite the writer's restraint and constraints, it paints
>a clear picture which shows broad departures in the actual state of affairs
>in Germany from the moral and Constitutional obligations of the German
>state, its authorities and its media.
>
>Example, taken at random:
>
>"96. On the question of competition between the major Churches and other
>groups and communities in the sphere of religion or belief, the Special
>Rapporteur believes there is a need for an ongoing dialogue to avoid
>maintaining a climate of mistrust or even intolerance within society."
>
>This looks on its face like a statement of principle anyone can agree
>with. But implicit in that statement is the fact there IS "... a climate
>of mistrust or even intolerance..." in German society, and that the major
>Churches have a part in it. And the reader must take this statement in
>the larger context of the report, which details and criticizes some of the
>mechanisms of that involvement.

You didn't demonstrate what it appears you want us to think you did.
Try this:

On the question of competition between the major Churches and other
groups and communities in the sphere of religion or belief, the
Special Rapporteur believes there is _no_ need for an ongoing dialogue
to avoid maintaining a climate of mistrust or even intolerance within
society."

There would be a comment by the Special Rapporteur that might
legitimately raise an eyebrow.

Or try this:

On the question of relations between sceinos and wogs, the Special
Rapporteur believes there is a need for an ongoing dialogue to avoid
maintaining a climate of mistrust or even intolerance within society."

Then read this:

This looks on its face like a statement of principle anyone can agree
with. But implicit in that statement is the fact there IS "... a
climate of mistrust or even intolerance..." in every society, and that
the scienos have a part in it. And the reader must take this
statement in the larger context of the [Anderson] report, which
details and criticizes some of the mechanisms of that involvement.

Where oh where is the cult of Scientology in all this bigotry? What is
the cult doing to eliminate its own suppressive bigotry? Why doesn't
the cult do anything about the bigotry it can do something about?

I think it's weakness. I think Scientologists should stop what they're
doing and devote themselves to getting strong. They're getting visibly
weaker and weaker. Their refusal to see their own flagrant bigotry
makes them weak, and being weak they do nothing about it.

>Tilman said, "The main point of the report is that Germany should do more
>to educate about religious tolerance."
>
>This is by no means the main point of the report. It does *not* merely
>recommend educational approaches. It repeatedly refers to the German
>Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, often in counterpoint to
>the actual scene.

Here's an easy one for you. It would be very helpful for anyone's
understanding if you would point out all of these references to
German Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, and those
actual scenes you say are often in counterpoint to each reference.

>It emphasizes the Government's responsibilities in that respect
>with direct reference to specific deficiencies. It questions the
>purpose of the Bundestag Study Commission and pointedly invalidates
>its nonexistent powers.

This is tricky because you seem to be serious, but what does it mean
to invalidate a nonexistent power? And to pointedly invalidate one?

> It criticizes the German press in the strongest of terms.

Oh boy, let's hear these strongest terms. At least about the German
press the report is not cautiously worded, thank goodness. Let's hear
about all those German writers and all the media magnates in those
strongest of terms. Let's see if they're as strong as the terms even I use.

>It refers directly to the improper use of sensational press
>reports as officially-sanctioned educational materials on "sects" in
>schools. It points out that the State already "possesses a sufficiently
>broad range of legal instruments" and therefore needs not adopt new laws,
>and that those "instruments must be rigorously enforced ... in a
>substantiated and non-discriminatory manner." All these and many more
>statements and recommendations go far, far beyond merely "educat(ing) ...
>about religious tolerance." Tilman simply lies here!

So far you have not convinced me that Tilman lied even slightly.
Perhaps if you post the facts to support your assertions I could be
convinced. If this is difficult, ask for help.

>Despite the report's apparent acceptance of Germany's generally cozy
>Church/State relationships, the Government's manifest and unmistakable
>religious bias and improper influence has clearly met with disapproval.
>"Conducting public information and education campaigns untouched by any
>form of ideological or partisan indoctrination is one of the proper
>functions of any contemporary State." They need to be TOLD this. "...
>remedies must remain available to individuals and groups wishing to
>dispute the content of official information and, where necessary, oppose
>its dissemination." These things are obviously being emphasized BECAUSE
>THEY ARE NOT THE CASE in Germany today.

No that is not obvious, and is in fact belied by your own words. E.g.,
"Conducting public information and education campaigns untouched by
any form of ideological or partisan indoctrination is one of the
proper functions of any contemporary State." Isn't that exactly what
Germany has done: conducting public information and education
campaigns about Scientology, untouched by any form of ideological or
partisan indoctrination? Hasn't Germany attempted to prevent the cult
of Scientology from perverting that public information and education
with its ideological indoctrintion? Hasn't Scientology refused to
address legitimate criticisms of its policies and practices, and
refused to meet with people to discuss their legitimate criticisms?
Hasn't Scientology and Scientologists done anything wrong at all to
pull in the serious motivators from government people, church people,
media people and all sorts of legitimate critics?

The report says, so you say, "remedies must remain available." Then
you say that the report is obviously emphasizing that these remedies
must remain available because THAT ISN'T THE CASE, these remedies are
not available. Don't you see that your arguments are quite regularly
fallacious, and unworthy of a reasonably rational person?

>Tilman said, "Several minority religions *deny* that they are persecuted,
>but mention that people see then [sic] with suspicion, a result of the
>suspicion against scientology."

Why don't you acknowledge the damage Scientology has done to religious
relations and tolerance, and the part your organization has played in
making religion look ugly.

>A deliberate misstatement, and in part a lie. Tilman deliberately
>misdirects with the term "persecuted," a term Scientologists might justly
>use only on occasion, and which others carefully did NOT use.

I'll use it. Scientology under the direction of David Miscavige has
persecuted and persecutes countless people for not going along with
their tyranny. The answer is for no one to go along with their
tyranny. Why don't you do your part? What you do now is excuse,
support and forward the tyranny.

>There is no statement anywhere in the report which attributes "suspicion
>against Scientology" as a cause for other groups' woes. Each and every
>one of the minority religions, (excepting only the Jews, Protestants and
>Catholics, all officially recognized) raised issues ranging from arbitrary
>roadblocks in the way of official recognition, through pejorative
>mislabelings, to outright smear campaigns sponsored by the Government.
>Wherever such things are mentioned, they have nothing whatever to do with
>Scientology, though obviously they are part of the general climate of
>intolerance.

Hat dump. They have a great deal to do with Scientology. Whenever the
cult has had the opportunity to do something to resolve the conflict
it has not done so. It continues to refuse to do what it easily can to
resolve or ameliorate the conflict. It does things to stir up conflict
against the German government and people. It is acting dangerously as
a Hubbardian third party between the US and Germany.

>Tilman should be, and apparently is, embarrassed and ashamed to have been
>caught in his misrepresentations. His bigotry on a personal level appears
>to be profound, quite aside from his apparent involvement with officialdom
>in Germany who seek to institutionalize religious intolerance. These
>things cloud his judgment, muzzle his responses, cripple his capacity for
>debate, and render his participation here no more credible than that of
>Steve Fishman.

What we can know with complete certainty in your words in this
paragraph, is that Tilman is extremely credible and his continued
credible participation on ars has those who really have no credibility
very concerned. Why not tell us about the bigotry of Scientologists
and Scientology, something you could be very helpful about, and would
be on-topic.

>Further, Tilman's willingness to so mischaracterize a publicly-available
>document throws a glaring light on his low opinion of his audience;
>particularly because he himself is intelligent enough to comprehend the
>reality. He assumes the targets of his propaganda will be incapable of
>reading and evaluating the information for themselves.

Now isn't that just the big stupid assumption Hubbard made? Didn't he
assume that the targets of all his lies about himself, his "tech" and
his intentions would be incapable of discovering, reading and
evaluating all the information for themselves? Isn't that the big
stupid assumption Miscavige and his cohorts made about the internet?

Hasn't it gone too far when the liars no longer care that their lies
will be read and evaluated? Isn't that the point Miscavige and his
black PR units have arrived at? Isn't that the point you are at when
you knowingly lie for DM and Scientology?

>What a sad showing, Tilman.

Excellent Tilman.

>- Whippersnapper
>

Gerry






Copyright © Gerry Armstrong - All Rights Reserved.