News and Commentary [1997-01]




Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. [JimDBB, 03 Jan 1997]

From: jimdbb@aol.com (JimDBB) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. Date: 3 Jan 1997 19:59:00 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Lines: 17 Message-ID: <19970103195700.OAA23485@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com There seem to be a number of fools who need to be deprogrammed from the jive and nonsense they have been programmed with about CAN. CAN had an office staff of 5 people and a handulf of local affiliates around the country...mostly older women. This is the montrous hate group the the Church of Scientology was so desparately attacking with an expenditure of millions of dollars. To listen to all of these fools, one would think that this tiny orgainization had started all of the troubles in the world, including World War III Well, the Church of Scientology has done well. It has spent millions to get CAN perceived as this serpentine hate group dispatching legions of deprogrammers to kidnap people around the world. And now, scientology itself owns CAN and is taking calls and dispensing who knows what kind of rubbish. But as the saying goes, what goes around...will come around. For the person that wondered, I have, in fact, heard, off line, from quite a number of people who were helped by CAN.
CAN Mirror Page Index

Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. [Steve A, 05 Jan 1997]

From: stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult,alt.meditation.transcendental,alt.religion.unification,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.new Subject: Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 13:40:30 GMT Organization: Steve A, Castle Systems Limited Lines: 242 Message-ID: <32e273f1.151204324@192.168.2.1> Reply-To: stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: steveatp.demon.co.uk Keywords: XENU, alt.religion.scientology.xenu X-NNTP-Posting-Host: castlsys.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 21:41:44 GMT, bern@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: > jimdbb@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote: > > >There seem to be a number of fools who need to be deprogrammed from the > >jive and nonsense they have been programmed with about CAN. > > Yeah! In goes this glorious sentence straight in my .sig > archives. Thanks :-) > > So when do you start? Do you still have enough deprogrammers out > of jail to carry this action? Don't deny it: you would ~love~ to > do that! How many CAN "deprogrammers" are currently IN jail, Bernie? Even Rick Ross, Scientology's most recent target, isn't serving time. > All these nasty cult apologists daring to criticize > your oh so highly benevolent and generous organization. They > sure deserve to be forcibly deprogrammed (and tortured a bit > too, just to learn them a thing or two about life). I don't see any suggestion that force or torture should be used in Jim's post, Bernie. Perhaps you'd care to point out the bit I must have missed. > >CAN had an office staff of 5 people and a handulf of local affiliates around the > >country...mostly older women. > > For what I saw of CAN conference, it seemed more than a tiny > group of old ladies. A five star hotel, very posh. Got special > prices for customers in luxury rooms, very big and elegant > dinning room, hundreds of people roaming around, among which > known deprogrammers, in many different seminar and conferences, > etc. First of all, it is not unknown for large posh hotels to do deals with organisations for conferences in the off-season. It costs a lot of money to run and maintain a hotel, even when it's empty, so I'm not the slightest bit surprised to hear that CAN did it. In fact, you even admit that they got "special prices". So, what does this tell us about CAN? No more than that they must have been well-enough organised to book their conferences at venues and times that enabled them to get such special rates, and sufficiently far in advance as to beat all the other conference organisers to it. As far as your little throwaway remark about "known deprogrammers" being at CAN's meetings is concerned: I wonder whether I would bump into any "known Holocaust deniers" if I went to a meeting on the Freewinds? Then again, if I went to Clearwater, I could probably bump into a few "known perjurers", not to mention aiders and abetters of child sex abuse, parties to false imprisonment and (in all probability) culpable homicide. Then there's the fraudsters, cheats, loan welshers, liars, whores (in the "legal profession" sense of the word), and not a few burglars among them too, I'll bet. > >This is the montrous hate group the the > >Church of Scientology was so desparately attacking with an expenditure of > >millions of dollars. > > The very big majority of things I saw from CAN were clearly > biased and hard to distinguish from bigotry and hysteria. Their > support - at the very least tacit - to deprogrammers is well > known and rather obvious for the anti-cult groups watchers. So we've gone from "CAN - Deprogrammers In Jail" to "CAN - tacit support for deprogrammers"? That's a pretty big retrenchment on your usual position regarding CAN. > > There may be a need for an information group on cults (and still No. There IS a need for an information group on cults, because cults cannot be trusted to self-regulate. > with the internet I am not sure it is still necessary), and I Not everybody's on the Internet, Bernie. > hope that the organization that will come out from CAN's ashes > will do a better job. I doubt it, though. It would first need to > have a big disclaimer about deprogramming, right in front, and > have clear measures taken to prevent their member from falling > in this rather obvious consequence of the type of "information" > CAN was providing. Crap. Why should CAN dance to your tune? It's only the cults and their apologists, paid and otherwise, who make all this fuss about deprogrammers. When a private individual does, it's normally at the instigation of a cult, as in Jason Scott's case. No-one totally unaffiliated with cults complains: none of the families who went to CAN for help have called out against them subsequently. No, the only thing CAN needs to do differently is to make damn sure that every dirty trick that is played against them in future is made as public as possible, so that these tactics of overwhelming by barratry don't get the chance to succeed again. For remember, Bernie, that CAN isn't simply the victim in a straight fight: they have been hamstrung by the fact that the constant barratrous assaults on them by the criminal cult of Scientology had made it more and more difficult for them to get decent legal insurance cover. We already have experience of the cult's tactics in this regard: why has it taken half a dozen expensive lawyers to sue an in pro per like Grady, if not for the fact that the sole aim of the litigation was to shudder him into silence, and, ideally, penury with the aim of getting one of the cult's famous gag settlements against him. But in any event, the fight is not over yet, and from a moral standpoint, no-one with an ounce of conscience can stand there and gloat over the demise (such as it is) of CAN, when that demise was clearly engineered in a spirit of complete moral bankruptcy. The constant barratry I mentioned above was one tactic, designed to weaken the organisation without actually addressing its faults, and Moxon's little bit of private enterprise on the back of Jason Scott's case knocked it to the ground. It is fortuitous that Jason has made the decision to sack Moxon before he was able to administer the coup de grace. Put it this way: the manner in which the CoS has achieved the damage to CAN is akin to the manner in which a terrorist organisation aims to achieve its goals: not via the accepted and respectable means of proper representations to authority, but by terrorism. Not, in this case, the terrorism of bombs and Armalite rifles, and not even "copyright" terrorism. No, what the cult is guilty of is legal terrorism. Anyone who can gloat over CAN's situation should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for supporting, tacitly (that word again)or otherwise, the sort of tactics that are standard operating policy for this gutter-cult of thieves and pirates. >I would be very surprised, though, that an > organization that was build on deprogramming itself will > renounce it altogether. You have a bad case of stuck attention, Bernie. The deprogrammer issue is old, dead, and irrelevant, particularly as far as CAN are concerned. It is only you and other cult apologists that insist on trotting out these sad old scare-stories all the time. > Why are you, for the second time, ignoring my generous offer for > you to post here for all to see the CAN's disclaimer on > deprogramming, and its context? Because you don't have any? I > thought so... CAN doesn't need to dance to your tune, Bernie. It's been forced to dance to Scientology's for long enough, thanks to the constant legal assaults on it, but it is unimportant. As long as CAN continues to get the support of those it is trying to help, that is all that counts. Anyway, if CAN started making such denials, I would imagine that you would be one of the first to start braying about how they must have something to deny if they're denying a connection with deprogramming. No, let CAN's potential clients decide whether they approve or disapprove of the organisation's ethos. Whatever they do, it cannot be less honest than the fact that CAN's telephone number is being answered by Scientologists - perhaps the new CAN would like to issue a few denials about that, hm? > >To listen to all of these fools, one would think > >that this tiny orgainization had started all of the troubles in the world, > >including World War III > > This tiny organization was certainly responsible for a great > deal of trouble, despair, misinformation, desinformation, and > even for giving a hand in bringing about the most horrendous > episodes in cults' history. What you call "misinformation" is what the rest of us call truth. No Scientology apologist (and I include you in that category) has the moral right to criticise ANYONE else for "misinformation". CAN's specific goal was to help people stuck in cults. It is inevitable that those actions will be inimical to cults' interests: but what of the lives to which CAN, and its volunteers, brought freedom and happiness? There are many people out there who, while they may have been reluctant or opposed to receiving exit counselling (shut up, Bernie) of any sort, are now living fulfilled lives with the prospect of a future, thanks to CAN and organisations like it. Personally, I consider the prospect of upsetting the odd criminal cult to be a perfectly acceptable quid pro quo in return for that. > Did you ever think about the fact that before groups like CAN > existed, i.e. before Ted Patrick started his deprogrammings in > 1971, there were -no- Johnstown, -no- Waco? How come these > events, out of hundred of years of history, happened just when > such 'tiny' organization were in full force? No, Bernie. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the oldest and crassest logical fallacies there is. If you want to demonstrate a link between CAN, Jonestown and Waco, start proving a causal connection between them. I'll illustrate that with a little "post hoc ergo propter hoc" of my own: Did you know that before groups like Scientology existed, there were no Jonestown, no Waco? How come these events, out of hundreds of years of history, happend just when such organisations were in full force. There you are: I am blaming Scientology for Waco and Jonestown, and my thesis is just as valid as yours. Come to that, a thesis based on the existence of Hawaii Five-O or the Jaguar XJ-12 would be equally valid. Flunk, Bernie. > >Well, the Church of Scientology has done well. > > Blame it all on the CofS, eh? Who has brought the majority of the lawsuits against CAN that meant that it had become uninsurable? Which cult does the lawyer who represented Jason Scott belong to? Which cult started the CAN Reform Group? >It takes a minimum of common sense > and a minimum of genuine concern for others and for justice to > realize what kind of group CAN was. Only cults had a problem with it. How about you show us a few genuine for-instances to demonstrate that CAN is as evil as you claim. And I'm talking about stuff which demonstrates that that evil is ongoing throughout CAN's history, not a couple of isolated incidents where individuals acting on their own authority acted inappropriately. Bernie, you are really starting to froth now. Anyone who wonders whether you have perhaps got some hidden agenda is, IMO, perfectly entitled to be concerned. -- Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12 ObDenial: I am not Arthur Stevens of Crawley. ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org Child molesters! Join Scientology and grope with impunity! Why? Donald Strawn raped a 13 year old girl, and attempted to rape her 12 year old sister. The "Church" of Scientology in Clear- water attempted to blackmail the girls' mother into silence.
CAN Mirror Page Index

Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. [Martin Hunt, 06 Jan 1997]

From: martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult,alt.meditation.transcendental,alt.religion.unification,alt.religion.new Subject: Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. Date: 6 Jan 1997 23:41:56 -0800 Organization: Xenu Inc. Lines: 50 Message-ID: <iVf0yMdlgYpO092yn@islandnet.com> Reply-To: martinh@islandnet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: island2.islandnet.com In article <wizard-ya02408000R0501971228510001@news.primenet.com>, wizard@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote: }>On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 21:41:44 GMT, bern@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: }> CAN's }>specific goal was to help people stuck in cults. } }Theres the rub. } }By not having a clear definition of what a cult is, CAN ended up going }after anyone they disagreed with. } }There is an old saying: Beware that you do not become what you are fighting. } }If you want to see how cults operate, you can do no better than look at the }methods of CAN. } }Wizard From the mouths of babes... Looking into the history of the Cult Awareness Network reveals a great deal about how cults operate, though not in the way Wizard the apologist thinks. CAN was a small organization with a handful of staff who answered the phonecalls from desperate parents wanting to know what was happening to their brainwashed children in various cults like TM, $cientology, the Unification "Church", Hare Krishna's, Children of God, etc. $cientology infiltrated CAN with its "CAN Reform group", imagining a threat in the form of its money-making base of customers, dupes for the con game, getting wind of what was really up: auditing out "Body Thetans" from 75,000,000 years ago for hundreds of thousands of dollars. $cientology also launched into years of lawsuits, dozens of them, aimed at this tiny little organization. $cientology has a one billion dollar "war chest" set aside for just such emergencies. Well, CAN, needless to say, couldn't withstand the onslaught, and finally went bankrupt. Now, the $cientology cult has the files and the phone number. Get this: when you call CAN now, you get a $cientologist recruiter on the other end! Orwellian or what? -- $cientologists on the lam: Susanne Schnurrenberger-Graewer, Ildiko Cannovas and Laura Arrunada, wanted for questioning concerning the mysterious death of Lisa McPherson in Clearwater, FLA.
CAN Mirror Page Index

CAN Takeover news [Xenu phobic, 07 Jan 1997]

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 23:42:02 -0800 Message-ID: <199701080742.XAA16036@mailmasher.com> From: Xenu phobic <chrislandry@mailmasher.com> Organization: http://www.mailmasher.com pseudonymous service Comments: Please report abuse to abuse@mailmasher.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: CAN Takeover news Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Lines: 37 Hello all...... While in Michigan this past month, I came across the following sidebar story about CAN and Jason Scott. I have been away a few weeks, and apologize if this is a repeat. XENU-phobic [From 'The Flint Journal', Saturday, December 28, 1996 - Page A6] [Start Quote] MAN MAY SPARE ANTI-CULT GROUP A man whose lawsuit pushed the Cult Awareness Network into bankruptcy and led to a virtual takeover of the organization by its longtime foe, the Church of Scientology, has reportedly changed his mind about helping Scientology dismantle CAN. Jason Scott, 24, of Bellevue, Wash., has fired his Sceintology-linked attorney and has hired another attorney, who in the past has assisted CAN. Scott's new attorney, Graham Berry, said he will seek a cash settlement with Scientology that would allow CAN to keep its files and re-establish itself as a clearinghouse for information about controversial religious movements that many regard as destructive cults. CAN declared bankruptcy earlier this year after Scott won a $1.8-million judgement after claiming he had been kidnapped at his mother's request in 1991 by a deprogrammer. [End Qoute] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ All that is required for evil and greed to triumph is for the good to do nothing about it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAN Mirror Page Index

Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. [Brent Stone, 10 Jan 1997]

From: bstone@kudonet.com (Brent Stone) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult,alt.meditation.transcendental,alt.religion.unification,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.new Subject: Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 03:48:00 GMT Organization: Access Internet Communications, Inc. Lines: 94 Message-ID: <32d5b2ef.299835@news.accesscom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: rstone-di.accesscom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/16.339 On 9 Jan 1997 19:23:05 -0700, wizard@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote: >In article <32d726aa.7656709@news.mindspring.com>, eguy@mindspring.com >(Eric Guy) wrote: > >>On 8 Jan 1997 14:11:02 -0700, wizard@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote: >> >><clip> >>: >>:T:>>>and unethical means to recruit and retain followers. >> ^^^^^^^^ >>: >>:So youıre saying that the Boyscouts, who recruit and retain followers, are >>:a cult? >> >>Try reading the _whole_ sentence. The important word is unethical, I >>for one have not heard of Boyscouts resorting to unethical means to >>recruit members. >> >>It seems to be futile though, you only see what you want to. >> >Once again, it is MINDLESS ASSHOLES who assume what a word means instead of >asking for definitions. Unethical simply means not following a particular >set of principles for right conduct (American Heritage Dictionary). > >So, if some Boyscouts want to get more kids involved in order to have some >camp outs and donıt tell those kids the purpose of their recruitment then >they are behaving unethically. > >The problem, as I have repeated over and over, is that CANıs definition is >vague. They are the only ones entitled to interpret it and the kick out >anybody who disagrees with them. That is too much power for one, small, >undemocratic, unelected body to wield. > >Wizard How does CAN wield any power at all. As I understand it, they act as a clearinghouse for information. I don't believe they even called any organization a cult (correct me if I'm wrong), but just passed on information to others. The family of the victim of a cult can learn from information what others have said about the organization, what lies the group has told to other members, what others have done when their family and friends have become involved in mind-control cults, etc. Are you saying that there is no such thing as a mind-control cult? If that's the case, why not look at "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" web page, because _they_ seem to think there is such a thing, and give several lists of guidelines to decide whether a particular group _is_ one. I think, for example, that Jonestown had the characteristics of a mind-control cult. Do you disagree? Since there _are_ mind-control cults out there, what's left is to decide if your family/friend is being victimized by one. That is done by looking at the _actions_ of the group and deciding if they meet the guidelines. In order to do this, you need information on the actions of the group. If CAN provided incorrect information on a particular group (maybe one that has no reservations on suing for the slightest reason), I'm sure CAN would be held accountable for providing bad information. Since they were not, I will assume that the _information_ they provided was correct. With this information, and guidelines from several other organizations and experienced people, the family can decide whether or not it is a cult. Even if CAN _did_ decide what was a cult, what's wrong with that? I can decide "it's a cult" (got several in mind here), and I'm not an elected democratic body. So can you, so can anyone or any group. Do I now have more power than I should be entitled to? Can you show anywhere that CAN wielded some power (maybe CAN controlled the evil psychs, the government, or some such thing), and had any power at all over them? CAN collects and distributes correct information, and passes it on to people who need it. Who has a problem with that? I would think that only someone who wanted to lie and deceive others would complain about that (actually, I _do_ think those are the only ones who have complained). If I were writing guidelines for determining a cult, one of the lines on my checksheet would be "do they complain about CAN". If the organization complained about availability of factual information, I would _definitely_ suspect it to be a cult. If the Girl Scouts recruited kids to sell cookies and _lied_ about where the money went, if they forced "cookie stats" and sent the downstats to prison camps, if they lined the directors pockets and hid the girls from their families -- yes, I think I would call them a cult. If they sell cookies to support an organization that goes on campouts, tell the kids the truth about what they're doing and do what they say they stand for, no problem. You say there is a _problem_ with what CAN does. I don't see any problem from what you have presented. What is the problem with an organization presenting factual information? - Brent
CAN Mirror Page Index

Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. [Steve A, 10 Jan 1997]

From: stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult,alt.meditation.transcendental,alt.religion.unification,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.new Subject: Re: CAN: It's Role in WACO. Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:11:37 GMT Organization: Steve A, Castle Systems Limited Lines: 281 Message-ID: <32d443b0.776724@192.168.2.1> Reply-To: stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: steveatp.demon.co.uk Keywords: XENU, alt.religion.scientology.xenu X-NNTP-Posting-Host: castlsys.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 On 7 Jan 1997 14:49:01 -0700, wizard@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote: > >In <wizard-ya02408000R0601971616410001@news.primenet.com>, wizard@primenet.com > >(Wizard) wrote: > Tilman, you dodged my comment completely. Putting something on paper is one > thing. Following it is another. Letıs go through their definition and find > out why: > > > > > > > >Cult Awareness Network > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >What is a Cult? > > > >A serious problem exists in our society as a result of the emergence of > >groups, popularly called cults, > > No evidence is given to support this statement. It is simply a terror > tactic to influence people to believe as CAN does. I don't believe that it is necessary to go back to first principles on such a simple matter: CAN's thesis is a simple one, and pretty well a given to most people with any involvement with cults. Do you claim that NO cult poses a serious problem? What was Jonestown if it wasn't a problem? What was Waco? What about the death of several Scientologists under suspicious circumstances? What about Aum Ryu Shinrikyo - does not a cult which attempts to poison thousands of Tokyo citizens not a "serious problem"? > >using mind control (undue influence) > > With no clear definition of what ³mind control (undue influence)² is, this > statement becomes so broad that it is meaningless. For example, where is > the dividing line between ³influence² and ³undue influence?² Who decides > which is which? Why, it must be the leaders of CAN, of course! No. "Undue influence" is a very old British legal term - sufficiently old that it predates the American Revolution, so I suspect that it may be incorporated into American law. For an idea of just how potent a legal definition the term "undue influence" is, one can look to the British courts, where on several occasions the cult of Scientology has settled out of court when the plaintiff presented a claim of "undue influence". I do not have a precise legal definition for the term (perhaps someone who is better-versed in matters legal can assist), but in layman's terms, "undue influence" is the gaining of control over an individual by exerting some form of psychological hold over him/her. This is precisely what cults tend to do, and the fact is well-documented. Once again, CAN's statement is a given, and hardly needs to be justified in an environment where the reader is au fait with cult behaviour. > > >and > >unethical means to recruit and retain followers. > > Again, what are these unethical means? If you would say lying to people and > threatening them with death if they donıt convert, then all of Christianity > would be such a cult. I agree that this statement is somewhat general, although even so, it is fairly clear to most people with half a clue what is going on. To me, and I suspect to anyone else prepared to consider CAN's statement without rejecting it out of hand, the term "unethical" neatly covers exactly the sort of manipulation we see in many cults: in terms of "false flag" recruiting, as demonstrated by Scientology's introduction technique of using a bogus personality test to "find the ruin" of the mark, followed by a graduated series of ever more mentally-intrusive "courses" designed to break down the mark's resistance to further suggestions by the cult; as far as keeping members in, then there is plenty of evidence of threats and incarceration - Scientologists considering leaving are told that they will be dead within six months. Others are harassed to the point that, like Richard Collins, suicide becomes the only escape. That, to me, amply qualifies such behaviour as "unethical". And yes, Christians who make such threats are _equally_ unethical. > > Association with these > >groups can be harmful to followers and disruptive to families, friends and > >society. > > > > Letıs see, now. Jesus said abandon your parents and families to follow him. > Therefore, you have condemned Christianity as a cult. Of course, CAN does > not see Christianity as a cult. Interesting, huh? There is much in the Bible which is contradictory, but the general theme of Christianity is undeniably family-based. It is possible to take literal quotations out of the Bible to support any thesis, and you have given one example of this. Cults, in the CAN sense of the word, however, are _designed_ to cut followers off from family and friends, where that is in line with the cult's interests. Scientology, again, has a clear policy on this, called, appropriately, the "disconnection" policy: members are ordered to "disconnect" from (cease contact with) family members or friends if those individuals are critical of the cult or attempt to persuade the cult member to leave. > >MARKS OF A DESTRUCTIVE CULT > > > >Mind Control (undue influence): Manipulation by use of coercive persuasion > >or behavior modification techniques without informed consent. > > Again, no clear definition of what this means. Watching commercials on TV > manipulates by use of coercive persuasion, yet you arenıt calling TV a > cult, are you? Parents punishing their children is the use of behavior > modification techniques without informed consent on the part of the child. > Are you calling parenthood a cult? It is a question of degree and intent. Scientology (I use this cult as an example because it is one that I am familiar with) goes out of its way to recruit members using techniques that, if they were used on TV, would be slammed as deceptive advertising. They aim to exert a degree of control over their members that goes beyond merely influencing which particular brand of washing powder they will buy - and here is the essential difference between TV commercials and cults: the TV commercials give you a _choice_. A cult member does not have the option of leaving given to him, or at least not without some pretty hefty quid pro quo's attached. >Charismatic Leadership: Claiming divinity or special knowledge and demanding > >unquestioning obedience with power and privilege. Leadership may consist of > >one individual or a small core of leaders. > > Letıs see. That makes the Catholic Church a cult. So, too, with the > Southern Baptist Convention. Why hasnıt CAN attackted them? Or have they? Yes, and this comparison has been made. The Catholic Church does exhibit quite a lot of cult characteristics, but it is not deceptive, and it is not abusive: once again, degree comes into it, and there is no comparison between the situation of a Catholic wishing to leave the church and that of, say, a Scientologist wishing to leave his cult. > >Deception: Recruiting and fundraising with hidden objectives and without > >full disclosure of the use of mind controlling techniques; use of front > >groups. > > You mean like Newt and GoPac? Are you saying that the Speaker of the House > is a leader of a cult? Is CAN going to go after Newt? No. You need to look at these characteristics in toto: that's why there's more than one of them. Sure, if you take each one separately, and interpret it literally, you can come up with all sorts of ideas. But what makes cults different is that they exhibit many, maybe even most, of the characteristics CAN identifies. > >Exclusivity: Secretiveness or vagueness by followers regarding activities > >and beliefs. > > You mean like the way CAN seems to give a definition of a cult when, in > fact, it is so vague that it is meaningless and leaves interpretation open > to the leader of the organization? Of course you don't want to agree with CAN's definition of a cult, because that would, I suspect, denote whatever organisation you're fronting for as one. But to a halfway intelligent reader, with normal reading comprehension abilities, CAN's "characteristics" list is perfectly clear, and not at all vague. In fact, I find it interesting that in one paragraph you're complaining that they're using terms like "unethical means", then you're accusing them of being vague. Sounds like they wouldn't be able to satisfy you WHATEVER they wrote. > >Alienation: Separation from family, friends and society, a change in values > >and substitution of the cult as the new family; evidence of subtle or abrupt > >personality changes. > > Letıs see. I believe that Christians refer to this as being ³Born Again.² > Are you saying that CAN is going to go after all Born Again Christians as > being part of a cult? In combination with other characteristics, this would qualify a particular group as a cult. Born-again Christians do tend to display quite a few of the characteristics of a cult - indeed, the Branch Davidians were an extreme form of Christianity, and I don't hear too many people arguing that they weren't a cult. > >Exploitation: Can be financial, physical, or psychological; > > Like most churches, synagogues, sports activities groups, scouting and the > armed forces? When does CAN go after them? No. Most churches, etc., are happy for members to contribute, either financially or in terms of their time, but it rarely becomes such a burden that there is no time or money left for anything else. Scientology, OTOH, encourages members to max their credit cards, take out loans and even mortgage their homes, to the extent that many Scientologists are living packed into rooms. Likewise, we have seen reports here of Scientologists who are given less than an hour a week to see their children, and who work 18 hour days for the cult, for pennies. THAT is exploitation: show me a scout group, church, or whatever that uses up its members to that degree, and, moreover, does not make it an optional choice. > > pressure to give > >money, to spend a great deal on courses or give excessively to special > >projects, > > I see. So Universities and colleges are nothing but cults. Have you checked > out how much a credit costs at a major, private university like Harvard, > lately? And in order to get into the ³inner circle² after graduation, you > do have to go to the Harvard cult. Once again, this is but one of a whole slew of characteristics of a cult. Taken in conjunction with the other ones listed here, it is obvious that a university satisfies very few of them, and then only if you insist on an excessively literal interpretation. Besides, you can leave a university with comparative ease: cult membership is open-ended. > >or to engage in inappropriate sexual activities, even child abuse. > > Fantastic! Now CAN is going after the ³Kennedy Cult.² They may even go > after congress! By the way, I think an inappropriate sexual activity would > be having sex with any member of CAN. If you are anybody else who is a > member of CAN has sex, Iım going to DEMAND that CAN come after you and > denounce you as a member of a cult. Why? Why should the world bend to your personal view? What gives you the right to DEMAND anything? At least CAN was formed by private individuals who, together and voluntarily, wanted to do something about the cult problem. >Totalitarian Worldview (we/they syndrome): Effecting dependence, promoting > >goals of the group over the individual and approving unethical behavior > >while claiming goodness. > > Like most Christian churches. Like most Jewish Synagogues. Like most Moslem > Mosques. No. Christianity preaches (even if it doesn't always practice it) integration with the society in which it exists. The Muslim faith, if you leave aside the fundamentalist tendency, is one of the most tolerant and broad-minded faiths there is, and Judaism cannot be far behind. When you look at the fundamentalist arms of many religions, however, I would agree that there is a tendency towards cult-like behaviour, and that is something which needs to be prevented. > You see, Tilman, the so-called definition given out by CAN is so vague and > loose there is only one determining factor. To CAN, a cult is any group CAN > thinks is a cult. By use of the definition above they can make virtually > any organization or group sound like a cult. No, the definitions are not vague. They are clear, and sufficiently general as to be widely applicable without being so wooly as to not be of any use at all. It is your over-literal and naive interpretation of their document that leads you to that conclusion and makes you look like a fool. But carry on, because you are doing a fine job of demonstrating, using CAN's own material, the degree to which cult apologists are prepared to cripple their own mental processes in order to serve whatever organisation they've handed their self-determinism over to. [rest snipped: based as it is on a faulty thesis, it's only wasting perfectly good bandwidth] -- Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12 ObDenial: I am not Arthur Stevens of Crawley. ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org Child molesters! Join Scientology and grope with impunity! Why? Donald Strawn raped a 13 year old girl, and attempted to rape her 12 year old sister. The "Church" of Scientology in Clear- water attempted to blackmail the girls' mother into silence.
CAN Mirror Page Index

Re: CAN it's role in WACO [JimDBB, 10 Jan 1997]

From: jimdbb@aol.com (JimDBB) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: CAN it's role in WACO Date: 10 Jan 1997 20:57:33 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: <19970110205500.PAA22969@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com There still seem to be a few morons who haven't received the news the CAN (the real CAN) has been closed since the end of June. So would they please make clear in their endless and silly flailing away at CAN whether they are talking about the old CAN or the new CAN. Since I worked in the Nat. office of the real CAN for almost 2 years I would like to think that I know something about CAN. CAN didn't have a list as to who was or wasn't a cult. CAN never had an etched in cement, defination of a 'cult'. All CAN basically did was to gather public domain information on groups that were considered destructive and made that information available. CAN didn't make the destructive determination , the desparate callers, the inquirees, the people who were defrauded and abused, the writers and publications who wrote about and exposed destructive groups... these were the ones who decided for themselves, based on experience and information as to the destructive nature of the groups involved and as whether to consider them cults or some other determination. I suggest to those who insist on keeping up this asine harange about CAN, start calling the new CAN with your nonsene...they are using the real CAN's number. here it is...312-267-7777. Keep in mind that you will be talking to some nitwit rondroids. JDB OT-SP
CAN Mirror Page Index

1st person in email in re CAN [Martin Hunt, 10 Jan 1997]

From: martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: 1st person in email in re CAN Date: 10 Jan 1997 20:58:27 -0800 Organization: Xenu Inc. Lines: 44 Message-ID: <Qww1yMdlgcfF092yn@islandnet.com> Reply-To: martinh@islandnet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: island2.islandnet.com Upon reading about the demise of CAN from a newspaper article, here's what one person with experience in scn wrote to me: (posted by permission without changes) }Wow, that's pretty scary. I wonder if the people down at the local org }know about this. I found it ironic that Heber Jenscnzh referred to CAN }as a hate group which acted with impunity. SCN does the exact same }thing. They tried to recruit me for the SO once, they wouldn't take no }for an answer. The recruiters repeatedly tried to manipulate me. They }have been trained to tell the person anything regardless of whether it's }true or not, as long as it will lead them to join up. My own goals }meant nothing because to them I was supposed to be a worker bee for SCN }like they were. I was out ethics because I owed my help according to }them. What I was doing meant nothing. It wouldn't have mattered if I }were successfully working on a cure for cancer. I couldn't believe they }actually expected me to leave school and my job and go work 16 hour days }7 days a week for 50 bucks a week. I suspect that SCN will now use the }CAN name as a mechanism of attacking other religions. SCN hates other }religions. The first thing I ever saw when I set foot in the door of an }org was a poster which claimed that SCN was all demominational and }anyone could be a member of another religion as well as SCN. Well when }I was in LA someone I knew there who was a Muslim was given an ethics }handling because he was reading the Quoran. SCN has no respect for }other religions. My showed my friend that poster and reminded him that }in scientology "if it isn't written it isn't true." His ethics officer }couldn't find any policy or reference which contradicted that poster. }He stuck to his guns and she backed down, but she did not like it one }bit. She didn't think much of either of us after that. When she would }see me she would glare at me. But you can only make a person PTS if the }have overts, so it didn't really do her much good. I would just smile }right back at her with total confront and she was the one who would }become uncomfortable. She did some third partying of me and my friend }but even that didn't do much. She was on the RPF the last time I heard }anything about her. I think it would be an interesting thing to call }the CAN hotline number in a few months and record the conversation. }Claim to have a family member who has suddenly gone off into the SO and }see what they say. -- $cientologists on the lam: Susanne Schnurrenberger-Graewer, Ildiko Cannovas and Laura Arrunada, wanted for questioning concerning the mysterious death of Lisa McPherson in Clearwater, FLA.
CAN Mirror Page Index

CAN: Trustee files Notice of Intended Abandonment [Marina Chong, 11 Jan 1997]

From: marina@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.scientology.xenu Subject: CAN: Trustee files Notice of Intended Abandonment Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 21:46:39 GMT Organization: The Knights of Xenu Lines: 109 Message-ID: <32d807f4.1034018@snews1.zippo.com> Reply-To: marina@super.zippo.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/16.227 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: CULT AWARENESS NETWORK, INC., Debtor. Chapter 7 Proceeding No. 95 B 22133 Judge Ronald Barliant Date of Hearing: Thursday, January 30, 1997, at 10:30 a.m. NOTICE OF INTENDED ABANDONMENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Trustee, Philip V. Martino, pursuant to Section 554 of the Code and Bankruptcy Rule 6007, intends to abandon the estate's interest in Debtor's library, computer memory, video and audio tapes, files on cults, phone records and financial records (these materials include about 270 boxes being stored at Trustee's warehouse, additional boxes being stored at Debtor's pre-bankruptcy storage facility, and about ten more boxes being stored at Trustee's office) (the "Materials"). In support the Trustee's request, Trustee states: 1. On October 19, 1995, Debtor filed a voluntary petition to reorganize under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On June 20, 1996, the case was converted to a chapter 7 liquidation. On August 28, 1996, Philip G. Martino was appointed trustee. 2. The Materials consist, among other things, primarily of Debtor's files. From these files, however, one could learn (a) the identity of people who contacted CAN, (b) the names and addresses of real or suspected "cults", (c) allegations that were made by and against those "cults", (d) the identity of people who were believed to be members of "cults", and (e) the identity of people who support CAN, either by deeds or donations. As tangible assets, the Materials are worth little more than scrap value. However, a number of people have expressed a willingness to purchase the Materials and to pay for the cost of redacting confidential or private information. Trustee has negotiated a Redaction Protocol pursuant to which the Materials would be reviewed on a page-by-page basis and all references to all individuals and organizations (except those identified in the protocol) would be redacted. Trustee has been "assured" that he and the estate will be sued if the Materials are sold, even in a redacted state. 3. Given the disproportionate and passionate vigor with which parties (especially those generally not recognized as "parties-in-interest" in bankruptcy proceedings) have attacked the prior sale of Debtor's name, P.O. Box, phone number and office equipment, Trustee believes that any attempt to sell them will be heavily contested. Further, he believes that the costs of defending these allegations--irrespective of their merit--exceed the price for which the Materials will be sold. 4. Accordingly, Trustee believes that once either the Internal Revenue Service has waived the need for Trustee to file tax returns or Trustee has filed all such returns, he intends to abandon the Materials. 5. Trustee will return the abandoned Material to the control of Debtor's Board of Directors. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT any party wishing to object to the proposed abandonment must file an objection with the United States Bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, 7th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604 within 15 days of this Notice and must serve a copy of the objection on Trustee's counsel at the address listed below. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT, if no objections are filed to the proposed abandonment, the Court must grant the requested relief without further notice; PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT a hearing will be held on Trustee's Notice of Intended Abandonment on Thursday, January 30, 1997, at 10:00 A.M., before the Honorable Ronald Barliant, Courtroom 742, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. Date: January 7, 1997 Philip V. Martino (ARDC #06183648) Elizabeth A. Graber (ARDC #06216163) RUDNICK & WOLFE 203 North LaSalle Street Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60601-1293 (312) 368-4000 Respectfully submitted, PHILIP V. MARTINO, as trustee for Cult Awareness Network, Inc. PVM3209 -- Marina Chong <*> SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, KBM#5, Joker/Degrader ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The criminal cult $cientology was largely responsible for the demise of: Noah Lottick Richard Collins Albert Jaquier John Buchanan Patrice Vic Lisa McPherson anon.penet.fi utopia.hacktic.nl Usenet: alt.religion.scientology Marina's Manor: http://sloth.rpi.net.au/~marina/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- marina@singnet.com.sg marina@pacific.net.sg marina@super.zippo.com
CAN Mirror Page Index

Kenny Moxon moves to compel testimony [Rod Keller, 11 Jan 1997]

From: rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Kenny Moxon moves to compel testimony Date: 11 Jan 1997 23:45:58 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider Lines: 87 Message-ID: <5b98nm$f8t@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: unix3.netaxs.com X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] I received a thick packet of materials from Kenny Moxon yesterday. He seems unable to call me "Roderick" in the court papers, so I feel like calling him that here on the net. I don't go by that name every day, but my feelings are hurt that he doesn't want to use my full name. The motion is supposed to compel me and Priscilla Coates to attend seperate depositions in the Rick Ross/Jason Scott/CAN bankruptcy case in Arizona. Moxon is now the former attorney, and is apparently attempting to get his contingency fee. The legality of doing that is, uh, questionable at best. I don't know anything that y'all don't know, from the newspapers, etc. I also still haven't seen his signed court order that allows him to order depositions. The subpoena is invalid without a court order. Anyway, about the packet. It's almost all about Priscilla, with hand written notes from Rick to Priscilla, depositions, phone calls, etc. Nothing about me in it, except for one posting I made to this group. I'll try to post the whole thing, but settle for this for now. "MR KELLER IS UNENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER "The day that Mr. Berry was retained by Mr. Scott -- which was at or about the time of the purported settlement between Messrs. Ross and Scott -- he sent a press release to Rod Keller which was posted on the Internet (Ex. N.) Mr. Keller is a member and supporter of CAN. The press release was replete with false and inflammatory information(1), and obviously intended to promote Mr. Berry's practice and derogate Mr. Scott's prior counsel.(2) "In any event, Mr. Keller's Internet posting also indicates that he had been in e-mail communication with Mr. Berry on the matter. Mr. Keller is therefore expected to possess information relevant to the coercion of Jason Scott concerning the settlement agreement. The scope of relevance in Section 2004 examinations is necessarily broad. _In re Coffee Cupboard, Inc._ 128 B.R. 509, 514 (Bank. E.D.N.Y. 1991) _Cereton v. United States_, 286 F.2d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 1961), _cert. denied_, 366 U.S. 924, 81 S.Ct. 1351, 6 L.Ed.2d 384 (1961); _In re Fearm, 96 B.R. 135, 137 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989) Mr. Keller's examination is expected to be rather short but potentially important to resolving matters relevant to this action and will aid the parties and Court to resolve the disputed issues herein. "Footnote 1 - For example, Mr. Berry asserted that the CAN and Ross bankruptcy's were caused by Mr. Moxon and the alleged agenda of another of the many clients of Mr. Moxon, the Church of Scientology. In fact, both bankruptcy's were filed voluntarity. CAN also converted voluntarily to Chapter 7, (Ex. N), and some of its assets were sold at public auction at the demand of CAN's executive director, Cynthia Kisser, who thereafter lost the bidding. (Ex. O) "Footnote 2 - Indeed, in the transcribed telephone conversation with Mr. Scott, Berry was asked by Mr. Scott of his agenda. He stated: 'Well, I represent people against Scientology. Anything that is a black eye for Moxon and Scientology is a good deed as far as I am concerned. I certainly would like to see a settlement reached with CAN that would enable CAN to, at the very least, maintain its confidential files and perhaps even get up and running again. So my agenda, my agenda basically is to bite Scientology in the butt and to cause it as much grief as possible.' Ex. F at pp 16-17)" The falsehoods included in this snippet are, at least: 1) That I am a member and supporter of CAN. I have never been a member of CAN. I have never donated money to them. The only way I could be considered a "supporter" is that I think they did good things for people. They helped a lot of families, and I'd be very happy to see them continue doing that job. 2) That I posted the press release from Graham Berry. The first news on the net is attached in the packet. It's from seaorg@super.zippo.com, and they don't include the headers of the press release from Graham. I did post an email from Graham in-between the two other postings, with permission. 3) That I have been in e-mail communication with Graham about the Scott case. Except what I posted. They have the complete record of my communication about the case. 4) That he expects me to have any information about Jason Scott. He just wants to push me around a little. Get me in a room and make me nervous. I don't think he can just drag people in and question them for no reason. It won't work, Kenny. -- Rod Keller / rkeller@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
CAN Mirror Page Index

Cult Awareness Network's records... [Donovan, 19 Jan 1997]

From: "Donovan" <donovan@io.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Cult Awareness Network's records... Date: 19 Jan 1997 16:43:47 GMT Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 14 Message-ID: <01bc0627$93c4f120$7e59aac7@donovan> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-01-126.austin.io.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 I'm aware that one of the Cult Awarenexs Network's assets that is to be sold to help pay the judgement against them ($4+M) are their records, and that those records are being held as a "sealed document" by a court appointed attorney until it is decided to, or not to, sell them. I know that this law office has received threats to be sued if they do not sell them (or give them away or something) AND that that law office has also received threats to be sued if they do sell them. Which puts that law office in a stickey situation to say the least. What else is know about this situation and the possibility of these records being sold/transfer to another party or being kept to protect the identity of CAN's contributors?
CAN Mirror Page Index

CAN update [Tilman Hausherr, 01 Feb 1997]

From: tilman@xenu.com (Tilman Hausherr) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.new,alt.religion.unification Subject: CAN update Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 08:08:55 GMT Organization: Xenu's Ranch Lines: 166 Approved: xenu@galactic.org Message-ID: <3304f6b7.105542400@news.snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: pppx38.berlin.snafu.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 Xref: szdc alt.religion.scientology:155087 alt.religion.unification:8984 Someone sent me this: This is a summary of what happened yesterday, January 30, in CAN's bankruptcy case. The judge ruled that CAN's documents are to be abandoned to CAN. He announced he plans to issue an order in a few days, but once there is an order there will be a 20 day stay on execution of the order. Moxon & Bartilson, which claims standing in the case due to the money the firm claims Scott owes them, announced they would appeal the order. The judge has set a new court date of February 18, and carried over the rest of the business scheduled for today. Graham Berry was admitted to appear on behalf of Jason Scott. Herb Rosedale participated by phone in the proceedings, and was admitted on behalf of ICEP as a creditor. Berry is filling an objection to Moxon's standing in the case. There was quite a bit of debate on Martino's fee petition asking for reimbursement for legal work done in the bankruptcy case, and the judge wants to review CAN's motion objecting to portions of the fee petition before making any decisions. The fee petition of the first trustee, Bruce D'Medici was approved. George Robertson, a well-known cult apologist who is with the Bible Speaks (the group that Betsy Dovydenas successfully sued), made an appearance to ask the court to sell him the records for $75,000 rather than to abandon them to CAN. He claimed to represent a group called Religious Freedom Foundation. Jane Witcher, an attorney with the ACLU, made an appearance on behalf of John Doe, a CAN member. She underscored the seriousness with which the ACLU views the privacy rights of the John Doe in this case. A motion by Moxon to question Ron Taggart, Cynthia Kisser and Graham Berry under oath for various reasons was deferred until the next status date. ======== Here an article on George Robertson. Enjoy. Words are weapons in "cult" battle St. Petersburg Times February 8, 1992 By BOB HENDERSON Remember the good old days when the only "cult" in Clearwater was a hard-core band of Clearwater Bombers fans who never missed a home game of their national-champion fast-pitch softball team? Times have changed. Now there's an organization in town called the Church of Scientology, which refers to itself as a religion while critics describe it as a cult. A grim battle of words was waged in Clearwater this week. Unlike a Bombers game, it wasn't fun to watch at all. On one side was the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), an international group based in Chicago, which says its only mission is "alerting the world to the dangers of destructive cults" through education. On the other side were the Scientologists, who consider CAN a major threat to religious freedom in the world. Here's how the battle was played out, mostly in Clearwater but with side skirmishes in Tampa and Pasco County. It started Monday when Richard Haworth, Scientology's chief spokesman here, brought to the Clearwater Times building Dr. George Robertson, head of something called Friends of Freedom. He identified himself as a Baptist minister who is one of the founders and currently a teacher at Maryland Bible College in Baltimore. But he apparently spends considerable time traveling around the country attacking CAN, which points out that Robertson previously has been involved with controversial groups known as The Bible Speaks and Greater Grace World Outreach. Friends of Freedom literature says the group is "monitoring organizations and individuals who undermine our basic freedoms of worship and personal choice. " Robertson, when asked, said his group is a low-budget operation that is not affiliated with Scientology but supported primarily by Christian ministers like himself. The material he dropped off included an article from a publication called The Christian Cause headlined "Anti-Cult Groups Now They're After Christians." Visiting my office Thursday were Cynthia Kisser, executive director of CAN; Bill Rehling, a Chicago lawyer who serves as first vice president on the CAN board; and Judy Safransky of Clearwater, president of the Tampa Bay CAN affiliate. Rehling had flown in Wednesday night and stayed at a Holiday Inn in Tampa. As far as he knew, only three or four people were aware of his location. Wrong. Picketing in front of the motel Thursday morning were Scientologists, including Haworth, who said "Somebody told me" when asked how he knew about Rehling's whereabouts. Kisser told how her father, a retiree living in Pasco County, had been visited by someone identifying himself as a reporter for Freedom Magazine, a Scientology publication. The reporter, according to Kisser, said he was working on a story about prisoners & of war and wanted to interview her dad, who was a POW in Korea. Her father, she said with a laugh, didn't realize he was talking with a Scientologist and told the person, "If you want to learn about brainwashing, you should talk to my daughter. She knows all about that " While the CAN delegation was in my office, Haworth paced back and forth in our lobby, angry that he could not join the group. He had called earlier to invite himself to the meeting; I responded that I had met with him and Robertson in private and would do the same with the CAN group. When I escorted the CAN people to the front doors, Haworth glared at them and then demanded to know what we had talked about. He was livid and that's not too strong a word that those people had come down from Chicago into "my community trying to make trouble for my church." Safransky finds Scientology's apparent obsession with CAN curious, saying that it is only one of CAN's many concerns. To illustrate, she said she received, as the local CAN representative, 68 new inquiries during the last four months of 1991. Only five concerned Scientology. She said the calls came from parents and spouses of people in certain groups and from clergy, the media and others. Isn't it all strange and a little scary, regardless of which side you might be on? Times asked to change Scientology reporting (Letter to the Editor) St. Petersburg Times March 15, 1992 Editor: I am responding to your recent column on the visit by Baptist minister Dr. George Robertson and Cynthia Kisser of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). CAN is an organization not only at odds with my church but Christian churches and the very idea of religious freedom. On this I speak from personal experience. As a Scientologist, I have noticed that the Times' reporting on the Church of Scientology is different than that for other churches. Your column carries on this pattern of discriminatory coverage. The proof of this is that the newsletter of the Cult Awareness Network carries reprints (by permission) of stories from the Times on Scientology but not on any other community churches in our area. The articles in the Times on other churches in our community are much more balanced than those written about the Church of Scientology. Times stories on my church paint a false and deceitful picture. They don't tell the whole story or the real story. I find this personally offensive. Perhaps it is this false picture of Scientology portrayed by the Times that appeals so much to the Cult Awareness Network. It's time for a change in the Times' reporting on my church. Laraine Shape, Clearwater
CAN Mirror Page Index

Marina's Manor