posted to the
newsgroup on November 17, 1999
This is a post I made to alt.religion.scientology after one of the regulars repeatedly implied that I hated Scientologists and Scientology. In fact, I don't hate anyone.
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:01:31 -0800
From: Kristi Wachter
Subject: Re: Kristi Watcher: Lurkmonster wants to know
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Safe ... www.fza.org wrote:
> Hi Kristi,
> Lurkmonster asked you a question but it's buried deep in a thread that I
> think you may miss;
> He asked;
> > Ok. Kristi do you mean all senior execs are hurting people and
> > breaking the law?
> > Lurkmonster
Thanks for highlighting this for me. Not only do I miss a lot on a.r.s. in
general; I also have Lurkmonster killfiled. I only see Lurk's posts when
others respond to them.
(And by the way, Safe, if you want to make SURE someone sees an a.r.s.
post, it's usually okay to post AND mail it to them, which is usually
indicated in a post by [P/M] or something similar.)
I believe Lurkmonster is trying to waste our time by deliberately
pretending to misunderstand what we say. I'm happy to answer this
question, especially since you asked, Safe, but in order to make sure it
doesn't end up being wasted time, I'm going to post a copy on my web site
as well, so it will be a long-lived essay instead of a fleeting a.r.s.
The meaning of my original post was quite clear. Lurkmonster snipped part
of it. Here's what I wrote:
> I do not hate the Church of Scientology.
> I do not seek its destruction.
> My feelings about the Scientology organization are summed up in my sig:
> I think Scientology's hurting people and breaking the law, and I want
> them to stop it.
I explicitly said I was talking about the Scientology organization. This
is clearly not the same as "all Scientologists" or even "all senior
execs." Maggie understood perfectly, even after Lurk's snips; as she said,
> Kristi didn't say anything about *Scientologists*. She said
> *Scientology*, which is, imho, a reference to the conglomerate of
> organizations and corporate entities that are devoted to L. Ron
> Hubbard's dream society, (in which many people are offed because they
> don't agree with him), and act in concert to Keep Scientology Working.
By "the Scientology organization" I mean CoSI, RTC, and all the various
corporations and groups that are part of that whole, including CCHR,
Narconon, WISE, and the Drug Free Marshalls.
When I picket the Chinese consulate to urge China to stop their human
rights violations, no one thinks I am claiming that every single Chinese
person is violating human rights, or even that every single senior
executive in the Chinese government is doing so. They understand that I am
protesting the actions of an organization - in this case, a government -
which is composed of individuals, but which is guided by policies that do
not necessarily reflect the values of each individual entrusted with
executing those policies. If one of those officials is replaced, the
policies are unlikely to change. It is the policies that must be changed.
In some organizations, one person may be able to change a major policy; in
others, it may need a majority or even a consensus of executives.
If David Miscavige were replaced, would Scientology's illegal acts stop? I
don't care whether David presides over Scientology for another week or
another century. I just want the illegal and unethical actions to stop.
Here on the newsgroup, some of us take great pains to distinguish between
"Scientology, the organization" and "Scientology, the subject." In my
experience, that is completely unnecessary in real life. Outside of
a.r.s., there is no confusion at all about what I mean when I say
"Scientology." (Nasty Mark MIGHT have tried to introduce that confusion,
but I don't think so.)
Safe, I understand why you like to make that distinction ("CoS" vs
"Scientology"), and I am happy to do it when talking to you, but in
everyday conversation with folks outside the newsgroup, it is not
necessary. The word "Scientology" means the group, the corporation, the
organization, and I don't encounter confusion when I say "I think
Scientology is breaking the law and hurting people" (except from that
handful of people who have never heard of Scientology).
Look through the Time Magazine article. There are a handful of references
to "the Church of Scientology" and dozens of references to "Scientology."
So, when I picket Scientology, when I walk up to strangers on the street
and offer a flier and say, "I think Scientology is hurting people and
breaking the law," no one has the kinds of misunderstandings Lurkmonster
pretends to have.
Just for the record, though, I'll clear them all up, or at least as many
as I can find in DejaNews:
> By the way are you saying
> that Kristy Wachter does not hate the Church of Scientology?
I do not hate the Church of Scientology. (I don't hate
I don't hate any person or group of people, either. I believe in loving
the sinner and hating the sin. I strive to love Bill Gates and Jesse
Helms and David Miscavige and Mike Rinder and Nasty Mark and Craig, even
though they present a serious challenge.
> Do you think all or most Scientologists hurt people and break laws?
No. I do think all or most Scientologists in good standing with IAS
actively support an organization that hurts people and breaks laws, either
with their money or their labor, and I think that makes them complicit in
the harm the organization does.
> Ok. Kristi do you mean all senior execs are hurting people and
> breaking the law?
No. I don't know enough about the actions of each and every senior
executive to know whether that is true.
I do believe that most, if not all, current senior Scientology executives
are involved in enforcing policies that call for illegal acts, including
fraud and false imprisonment. In a court of law, they MIGHT be able to
excuse their behavior by claiming they didn't know the information used to
deceive people into paying for Scientology services was false, but then
again, maybe not.
And, again, these senior execs are supporting Scientology (the
organization) and contributing to it. It is their responsibility to know
whether Scientology is acting ethically and legally.
And since I've answered your questions so thoroughly, Lurk, perhaps you'll
be kind enough to answer one for me (actually, two, but they're related):
When high-ranking Scientology executives break the law - as in the recent
convictions in Marseille, or in the Bonnie Woods and Casey Hill libel
cases, and the Lisa McPherson case - and when they direct one another to
break the law, whom do you hold responsible?
Historically, do you find that prosecuting the individual Scientologists
who have broken the law has resulted in the cessation of that exact same
behavior by other Scientologists?
I look forward to your replies.
Thanks, Safe. I'll have this on my web page by the end of the week.
the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)
I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I
want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.
Can you say "Xenu?" ... I knew that you could.
This page was last updated on November 21, 1999.