Re: A Piece of Blue Sky, by Jon Atack (BLUE_SKY.ZIP)

In article <3pqcbn$b9t@mars.earthlink.net>, vera@earthlink.net (Vera Wallace) wrote:

> I have read the book. It is a piece of garbage. Atack tried for years to
> become employed by the Church who would not let him due to the fact of
> his criminal background (drug arrests) and due to his psychiatric
> history. He was disgruntled about this and he decided to get even. He
> wrote the book, and it is obvious to anyone who really wants to look,
> simply to be the most negative portrayal of events that he could think
> of.
Hmm, but there is nothing wrong with giving a negative view of events. Every writer introduces a level of subjective commentary on his/her subject, whether such opinions are obvious or more subtle. That does not undermine the fact that those "events" took place. The reader is still entitled to make up his/her own mind about the interpretation of such "events".

Tell us what he got wrong, Vera. Please include the relevant extracts (under "fair use") with your comments. Vague assertions do not work on this newsgroup.

BTW, the continued dead-agenting of critics gets to be laughable after a while.

> Atack was never even employed on staff and nearly every account in his
> book is at best second hand or third hand and none of it from the people
> who have the most knowledge of the inner workings of the Church and who
> know the most.
And who would those people be? What is wrong with second or third hand accounts anyway. What do you think the study of history relies upon?

> It is obvious that the guy is a failure and wanted to try and get paid
> off by the Church - which obviously didn't work.
No, you are wrong. It is NOT obvious that the guy is a failure. He has MY utmost respect. He could have backed down in the face of your organisation's attempts at intimidation - he didn't. I think that indicates bravery - hardly a negative virtue, Vera.

Standing up to tyrannical organisations takes guts, Vera. When have YOU done anything as brave? All you can do is grind the heel into his face. Does that take guts, Vera?

But, of course, you are simply following Hubbard's teachings. There is no room for compassion in your philosophy. So that is what adherence to Hubbard really means - a total lack of all those virtues which serve to emphasise our humanity.

If I felt for one second that you belonged to a genuine religion and that you were being subject to religious discrimination in the way you and your fellow org members constantly claim, I would be "on your side" in an instant. But it blatantly is NOT true - as Woody used to say "it is a distortion of the truth". Your organisation is actually ANTI-RELIGION itself. Its behaviour towards those who actually deign to criticise it is so out of proportion to the apparent "offence" that it undermines any claims it might make to being regarded as anything more than an evil organisation.

And while you and other Co$ members continue to defend its leadership and their actions, you are yourselves tainted by that evil.

"What's true for you", eh, Vera? But that does not mean that you are really being true to yourself. What has Scientology REALLY done for you? What has it REALLY done to advance the cause of human progress? One thing I learned a long time ago is the importance of separating the action from the person. Thus, it is important when someone has done something that you view as wrong to condemn the action without condemning the individual. You don't do this. Rather than seeking to dispute assertions made by critics with evidence of your own and answers to their questions, you attack the character and integrity of the critic. In your eyes, critics are criminals who are always out for what they can get. What a throughly jaundiced view of the world and the humans who populate it. Where did you get such a view from, Vera? Did you always react in the same way towards anyone who criticised things in which you believed?

It must be SO sad to view people like that and I am sorry for you. Because I do NOT believe that you are particularly happy.

-- Sister Clara *********************************************************************** *** Vote NO to the proposal for talk.religion.scientology *** ***********************************************************************