What is this with Scientology? - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion What is this with Scientology?

Blackhawck

More options Oct 30 1999, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: Blackhawck <blackha...@my-deja.com>

Date: 1999/10/30

Subject: Re: What is this with Scientology?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

> >Could this have been what Hubbard meant? I know he had a strange
> >vocubulary filled with numerous acronyms, is this interpretation a
> >stretch?

> No. I am the one who started this clam business.
> I used clam because of the ludicrous and absolutely hilarious claims
> Hubbard made in a book "The History of Man" he wrote in 1952.

> These ludirous and bizarre claims are but a taste of what Scientology
> really teaches.

So, you took a piece of Scientology that seemed strange and used it to
attack the religion. Fine. But let's not forget that Christianity has
just as many aspects of it which are subject to the same ridiculed
using your criteria.

In the creation theory involving Adam and Eve, Eve was created by using
one of Adam's ribs. So, "God", the one who created everything needed a
few spare parts to create the female gender. Using the criteria that
you applied to Scientology, the only fair term then for Christians
are "Spare Ribs" or more cryptically just "Ribs". I will not complain
against the use of "Clam" if you agree to use the term "Rib" to
describe Christains.

Likewise, it would only be fair to call Mormons "Salimanders" after the
famous "Salimander Document".

There are certainly other religions that have "strange" aspects, I will
do some research and create a post at a later date.

The point is: every religion, those you like and those you hate, have
aspects that can be ridiculed.

> Yet, Hubbard pompously claims that Scientology is completely
> proven, a milestone comparable to the invention of the wheel,
> the invention of fire, the onbly workable science of the mind,
> a science as hard and proven as chemistry or physics.
> In HoM he even goes so far as to claim his hilarous babblings
> "prove" the mere theories of Charles Darwin!

The Theory of Evolution is pretty much proven without his help. From
the Austriopithicus to the generic data concerning the Bonobo and
traits in fetal development, I doubt Darwin needs LRH's help.

> His books and Scientology propaganda are filled with his
> bloviations and expansive claims for his cult and its bizarre
> claims. It must be true, otherwise it wouldn't be called
> "scientology", eh wot?

I myself think that they should have chosen a different name. But, from
a techical point of view, it translates to "Study of Life", which is
okay, I guess.

> Much of his claims are so ludicrous, so stupid, so foolish,
> that the cult is forced to keep them secret or people would
> never, ever join in any circumstances. They have sued numerous
> times in the past to keep this crap secret.

I posted to this thread at another time about whether the Catholic
Church has ancient writings from when this religion was formed that are
archived and subject to public review. I think it is very likely.

> Just two years ago they sued the Washington Post for daring
> to print the details on the creation 75 million years ago
> by evil outer space dictator Xenu of disembodied dead
> alien soul parasites called BTs, body thetans AKA, space cooties.

Why is Xenu any more silly than some depictions of the "Devil"?

> Why did I use the ludicrous clam stories to as a name for
> Scientologists? As a warning of the secret teachings.
> If the whole world started calling Scientologists "clams",
> sooner or later, almost anybody interested in their cult
> due to their propaganda efforts would be forced to consider
> the portentious question, "why do people call Scientologists
> clams?".

I fear that the goal of creating this term may have little to no
effect. I can imagine that following discussion:

Young Scn: Why do those who hate us call us "clams"?
Senior Scn: They read it from a document called the "History of
Man". They see a reference that states humanity has
engrams from clams.
Young Scn: The sea-creature?
Senior Scn: No, no no. "Clam" also means one without the ability
to talk. Or in the latin, one who is feeble, primative
and have no way to express themselves.

In other words, the term "clam" can be explained away with little to no
effort. However, every instance I have seen it used on a.r.s. it have
been used out of hate - in conjuction with attacks on intelligence and
morality.

Though I can only imagine you created the term without hate, many
common terms to belittle a group have "innocent" roots as well. The
term "Wop" and "Kike" both come from all the paperwork that was done at
Ellis Island. Immigrants from Italy were often without proper documents
and were refered to as "Without Papers" - hence "Wop". On immigration
papers, the Ellis Island staff would also put a symbol for the person's
religion: A cross for a Christian, and a circle (or what was called a
Kikecle) on a Jews.

> And if asked, the question would be answered by pointing
> out the long list of oncredibly stupid claims about clams, space
cooties,
> Xenu, Fac One Bap! Bap! Bap! implant stations under the pyranees
> mountains, gorrilla goals, and a long, long litany of Hubbard

silliness,

You are expressing hatred towards the religion, not their behavior.

> including Hubbard's habit of lying and the cult's attempt to
> keep these ludicrous beliefs hidden from newbies and the general
> public until you are brainwashed enough to believe all of
> this crap and pay $$$$$ and possibly your life to be taught
> this expensive swill, brought out in dribs and drabs as you payed
> thousands for the privledge.

Early Christians required 10% of their property to be given the Church.
Modern Evangelicalists ask for much more. Someone I knew in high school
was ruined by the Evangelicalists.

> The clam bit is not bigotry, but a lever, a tool, to fight
> Scientology's lies, deceits and propaganda which starts

Maybe not when you coined it, but not it has a life of its own.

> with their very name, Scientology, which implies, science,
> knowledge, evidence, all utterly absent from Scientology.

You should take some latin courses.

> It is a name designed to get people to ask questions, to make it
> hard for the cult to lie to people, mislead them, trick them.
> I started this with these cold blooded and specific reasons
> in mind. Not merely to make fun of them, cause people to hate
> them, or as empty, mindless bigotry.

I commend you for that. But unfortunately, it is in this newsgroup that
a new term of bigotry has been born.

-Blackhawck

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Reply to author Forward