|
Debate with Tilman
Hausherr
To make the debate more
readable, I combined the first three posts together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nobody@huge.cajones.com:
>>- Scientologist Klaus Kempe and his wife attempted for 7 years to
adopt a child, which was denied due to the fact that they were
Scientologists. They fought for 7 years in the courts but by the end of
that time, the issue became moot as both had passed the upper age limit
allowed for adoption.
Tilman Hausherr:
>No discrimination. Kempe is a hard-core scieno. The concept of "adults
in small bodies" is not compatible with the general view how children
should be raised.
Bernie:
The irony in this paragraph is that you start by saying "no
discrimination" and in the next sentence you are doing just that. There
are hundreds and thousands of Scientologists around the world who are
perfectly able to care about their children as well as anyone else. You
are justifying the denial of human beings to adopt a child based on
~your~ interpretation of ~their~ belief. This is a perfect example of
discrimination, and not a pretty sight, I must say.
>If these "hundred and thousands" people use
scientology to "care" (or rather, "handle" since "care", "love", etc.,
is just a product of the reactive mind)
Please cite the reference
on which you base yourself to assert that for Scientology "care" and
"love" is just a product of the reactive mind.
>It is a logical assumption based on the concept
that the reactive mind is the one that does the "spontaneous",
"emotional", "silly" stuff, etc.
If this is a logical assumption, your logic
must be false, or your information on which it is based must be false,
since it isn't the case. This is the kind of misrepresentation you use
to "explain" what Scientology really is to outsiders. Any Scientologist
would just laugh at you. It isn't very effective therefore for
exit-counseling either.
>You won't find "love" or "care" on the tone scale.
True scientologists don't love, they "communicate", they "handle", they
"postulate", etc.
No, they don't love of course, they aren't
human.
>their children, then this means "hundred and
thousands" children abused and deprived of their childhood, like Cassie
Weigand or ??? Harthun.
Yea, Weigand and Harthun makes hundreds and
thousands. For me it makes two. You like to portray the attitude of the
majority of scientologists with the few exception. This of course gives
a very truthful picture, doesn't it?
Furthermore, if you read my statement again,
you will find out that I didn't say that they use scientology to care, I
said that they are perfectly able to care for their own children just
like any other human. Of course you do not consider Scientologists as
human, that's another question.
>These two were two recent ones, from well-known
scienos. Should I repost the affidavit of Yolanda Howell? Or the segment
from "The road to Xenu"? Or the segment from Bruce Gilham who wrote a
long success story after he had realized that it was a good idea to
*talk* with his son?
Does the above nutcase making abusive phone
calls, or the one shooting people outside orgs represent a behavior
typical of the majority of critics? I don't think so, but the COS does.
When you use a few cases to imply that the vast majority of
Scientologists aren't able to love their own children, you are doing
exactly the same. These cases show that abuses ~can~ happen, and in this
sense they can be useful, but it is a misrepresentation to use them to
paint all Scientologists with the same brush, and you are doing the same
wrong as the cult-member to which you object to when you use these cases
as a discrimination weapon against all Scientologists.
>I do consider scientologists to be human, but I do
not consider "true" scientologists to be able to care for their children
Therefore, in actuality, you don't consider
them to be human, because the very vast majority of humans do care for
their children, even the most criminal ones.
Of course you cannot ~say~ that you do not
consider them as human, or maybe don't even realize it, but in practice,
you do not. What matters is what you do, and in this case you are
supporting a clear discrimination case, all the while thinking that you
are doing something "good". Cult members go through the same process.
>, and luckily the german adoption agencies see this
so too.
That's why it is discrimination. If this can
be proven in Court, the responsible would be condemned, and it would be
fully deserved. If it turns out that they were enticed in doing so by an
outside informant, this person could be indicted too, and should.
>Luckily some scientologists are smart enough not to
use it against their children.
You don't understand what Scientology is,
Tilman, you only have ideas about it.
>Sure, I should enter scientology and waste a few
years to be allowed to discuss about it.
No, although it would help :-) especially if
during that time you are the direct recipient of discrimination, so that
you could have at least the taste of it.
>You should start looking for the rights of the
children instead of the rights of those who abuse them by indoctrinating
them in this system.
"Indoctrination" is only your interpretation,
Tilman. Others call it teaching in what they belief to the best of their
knowledge. Are children being abused because they are "indoctrinated" in
the Christian, Muslim or Buddhist view? It is their ~right~ Tilman, just
as it is your right to teach your children whatever crap you think is
true.
>No it ain't when it's scientology. And german,
english and american courts see this like me.
What exactly do they see like you? That you
can't teach Scientology to your children? Do they all backup your
assertion, like in the sentence "german, english and american courts"?
Which German, English and American cases can you cite?
>Scientology cannot be compared to Christian, Muslim
or Buddhist religions.
That's another question. The point is that a
Scientologist believes in Scientology the way a Christian believes in
the Bible and a Muslim in Islam. Naturally, he will teach his kids in
what he believes, since for him that is what is best. The fact that the
philosophy sustaining these beliefs is correct or not is not for the
State or one of its agency to decide or interfere with.
The same goes for discrimination in the
business area, and your Federal State reminded its citizen about their
civil duties in the most judicious way by stating that
"only economic considerations are to be taken
into account when deciding who can enter into a public contract with the
government. It can not be used as a means to dispense sanctions or as a
control mechanism in pursuit of socio-political aims."
>Your definition of discrimination seems to include
also the prosecution of mafia members. Hey, they are just people who
don't believe in the current rules of acquisition.
It does not. If they engage in crime, they
should be prosecuted. But note that even for the mafia this has to be
~proven~. Such is the civil and judiciary law, whether you like it or
not.This is valid for Scientologists, or anyone else, as well. I always
said that Scientologists should be pursued to the full extent of the law
if there are proof that they violated the law and engaged in criminal
activities. But to support, as you do, the denial of potential parents
to adopt a child for the mere fact of ~your~ interpretation of ~their~
belief is discrimination, and an abhorrent one at that.
>Sure, give scientology all the children they want.
I didn't say that. They should go through the
same procedure as anyone else, not less, not more.
>And while we're at it, give a few to the Mooniex,
the AUMies, Thakar Singh, etc.
If they live in a communal setting and they
don't earn enough to sustain themselves and their children, then this is
an objective element that could play against them in the procedure. But
if they meet all the criteria required for anyone else, then their
belief is not an element that can be held against them.
>Let's just wait until the children get 21. And if
they don't complain, then we won't prosecute.
There are some very stringent criteria for
the follow up as well, I believe. If there is any objective elements for
prosecution, then they should be pursued, just like for any other
person.
>I'm getting tired of so-called "ex-scientologists"
(actually, it's only you) who use all their energy to support the rights
of this contemptouus cult. What are you - a stepson of Gordon Melton and
Eileen Barker?
To tell you the truth, I am getting tired
too. I would prefer to criticize the COS. The problem is that I don't
find the time for it because I have to spend it against those things I
find even more contemptuous and dangerous, such as the matter at hand.
Supporting injustice, all in the name of the
Holy Jeehad, is not the way to go about fighting the COS. It is
counter-productive and a waste of everybody's time.
Bernie
|
Tilman then answers with yet another post
filled with incredibly stupid statements, and with a load full of
irrelevant cases references. I realized that there really was no point
debating with him, so I just snipped the whole thing and made a last post
to put an end to this absurd discussion, and at the same time an end to
any further debate with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernie:
>>There are some very stringent criteria for the follow up as well,
I believe. If there is any objective elements for prosecution, then
they should be pursued, just like for any other person.
Tilman Hausherr:
>Yeah, but prosecution is "discrimination" again.
Bernie:
No it's not, but what is the use to explain the whole thing again? You
didn't get it and you probably won't, or you are deliberately twisting
things around, or both.
Bye.
Bernie
|
Tilman Hausherr is also the author of a
page entitled "Answers for Scientology Kids", mainly
aimed at turning children from Scientologists against their parents.
Needless to say, this page is rote with false and sick statements, such
as, again, telling the kids their own parents don't love them. The
page is used prominently on the Operation Clambake, one of the most
referred to critical site (Mar 7, 2008 update: after ten years of being
webbed, the link to Tilman's FAQ has now been replaced with the link to
the exscientology.com web site. Their own
FAQ for Scientology
kids is, contrary to that of Tilman, very good). The following is
an example of a reaction from the son of a Scientologist to Tilman's page,
as reported by a friend of his.
|
|
|
|
hello ars group
I am NOT a Scientologist. When I found out that my new friend, who I will
call “Roger” was a Scientologist I did some research on usenet and the
internet. I found this article by "Tilman Hausherr" and a few
other things, printed
them out and showed them to Roger. He was pissed. I mean royally PISSED!
His face actually turned red and the veins stood out on his neck like in a
cartoon.
We sort of talked it over and sort of got over it but he was realy hung up
on
some of the stuff in the “answers for kids stuff.” I wished I had
never gave him
the stuff because we are friends and it really screwed up our friendship.
I told him he should answer the worst stuff
that he swears are just stupid lies and
I would format it and post it back for him. I hope this comes out okay. I
put
it together in MS Works.
I will check for responses in a couple of days and give them to him but I
don’t
want to get in the middle of a flamewar forever.
Danny T.
Everything from here down is his words not mine.
>Answers for scientology kids
>3. My parents almost never have time for me. Why?
>Your parents may be fooling themselves about what is important. Many scientologists believe that unless they devote their time to
scientology they will lose all their friends or get sick. Maybe your parents have even been *forbidden* by scientology to care about you because they
are not "upstat" (= having worked very hard). Scientology does
not have a concept that children are special in the way that they need love and care. They are just "thetans in small bodies" that have to
be turned into small scientologists.
I don’t know why somebody would say such a thing
and broadcast it to the whole world via the internet. My parents
have always put me and my sisters first. My parents and I are all
Scientologists ... does not compute... I know for sure that they
put us ahead of not only Scientology but if the choice were forced
on them they would choose to be hurt themselves rather than see us
hurt and would for sure be willing to take a bulltet if it meant we would
live.
Parents have these concepts that children need love etc not because they
are a particular religion but because they are good caring people.
(hopefully)
How stupid would you have to be to believe that Scientology teaches
parents
not to love their kids? Pretty damn stupid, right? How big a jerk would
you have to be to post such a stupid opinion on the info superhigway?
My sisters and I spend far more time with our parents than most kids our
age
and I just don’t get why somebody would dream up this stuff. I know what
“upstat” means and it does not mean “having worked very hard.”
I reread what was written here and I just get pissed all over again!
The idea that Scientologists treat their kids like little robots and don’t
love them or something is so incredibly dumb that I sit here amazed that
this
Tilman jerk so obviously believes what he writes. (or is a very good liar)
I don’t know if any who read this can understand how disgusted,
pissed and upset just this part makes me. Not to mention the rest
of this thing which is mostly just as bad. I live in the world Tilman
is trying to write about and he is so full of it that his eyes are
unnaturally brown! I also wonder if he would have the gutts to say
these things to my face!
>5. But scientology is the most ethical group on
the planet!
>Says who? Scientology itself. If you look in the "ethics"
book, you will see that in scientology the word is synonymous to scientology itself, and also means to "getting things done".
Tilman needs to study some Scientology next time before he shoots his
mouth off. He should have came to some kind of an understanding about
what Scientologists are talking about when they are talking about “ethics.”
Ethics is a personal thing. It has to do with the choices we make for
ourselves
which effect how well we do in life. It has to do with knowing the
difference
between right and wrong and acting accordingly. It is not something
enforced
by an outside person. It is something that must come from inside each of
us.
But I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to teach a stupid jerk
about
ethics.
>6. How are other schools different from
scientology schools?
>You learn a lot of different stuff, like language,
science, art, sport, etc. There is no "religion" in all these courses. You do not
have to write a success story all the time. Good teachers answer your
questions, instead of asking "what word have you not understood, go look it
up".
And here too, Tilman doesn’t know what he is talking about. I went to
a Delphi school up until a year ago when we had to move because of my
Dad’s work. Of course I learned language, science, art, etc. I don’t
understand what he even means in the part about “not having to “write
success
stories all the time.” Our CA State scores were avg three grade levels
ahead
of where they were expected to be. Stick that in your pipe and smoke IT,
buddy!
Again this stuff just makes you look stupid to anybody who has ever been
around real Scientology.
I am now in a good private school and there are some fine teachers here.
At first it was very strange to me that the other kids had not been taught
how to study, and the teachers don’t even know the subject of “study
tech”exists.
I don’t know how they manage at all without it. I help them when I can.
>You don't write K/Rs ("Knowledge
report" - other calls this spying) on other students - this is not cool.
Tilman would fit right in at the school I’m at now. Even though it is a
very
good school, if I wanted to I could buy drugs here and the kids who sell
them get away with it because writing K/Rs is “not cool.” Although
most here
are pretty good kids, some think that cool = being out ethics.
>Exams are done so that you have to respond to
questions or solve problems. You have only one round to go - and you will get a result depending how many you answered correctly. There is no "pink
cheat sheet" so that you can take the exam again and again and again
until you have 100%. This way you and the teachers can see how much you know,
and if you have to work harder. But you have to learn quite a lot before
an exam.
I don’t understand your point here. At Delphi, the entire curriculum was
built around the idea that we should gain knowledge so we could use that
knowledge in life. What is your objection to all students learning
everything
they should learn? I don’t get it unless you're saying it's good to stay
a
little stupid, and given your apparent smarts, that wouldn't surprise me!.
>Depending on the school, you have to do more or
less homework. If you have difficulties to learn, you can get help from your parents, other students, the teacher or additional hired or volunteer
"helpers" (aides and tutors)
I have far, far less homework here. Delphi’s requirements and standards
were much tougher than this school’s. And I study on my own real well
thanks to Delphi.
>In one case reported to me, children from a
scientology school who transferred to a public school had to start over again from lover
school levels.
This didn’t happen to me. It was just the opposite.
>In many places there are other kinds of schools
also, but almost all of them teach what will help you work and think for yourself and your family, and deal peacefully with many different kinds of people
besides scientology members.
The stupid assumption here, is that Delphi and other Scientology schools
don’t do any of this. So crass and so stupid as to be almost beyond
belief.
gt;10. Do other children have to work?
I’m not so pissed anymore, maybe because this stuff is starting to look
funny
to me. Does Tilman think that Scientology children are made to work like
little
slaves? More stupidity. If stupid = gunpowder then Tilman couild blow up
the whole world with a sneeze.
There is so much else that I was going to respond to here but the hell
with it.
If you don't see what I'm driving at by now, what's the use.
Tilman is not only stupid, he is also a failure. The whole thing he wrote
is
intended for Scientology kids, but I can’t think of any Scientology kid
who
wouldn’t come to the same conclusion I did. Tilman is a jerk. In fact he
is a
stupid jerk. And that’s not just name calling. It is an observation
based on
the solid evidence of what he has written. Maybe Tilman should try
observing
and weighing evidence sometime. I’m sure it would be a new experience
for him.
Tilman needs to get a lot smarter, stop being a jerk and learn at least a
little bit about what Scientology and Scientologists are about before he
wastes more of his time. (although I doubt if he will ever get past the
barriers to learning
he is stuck in)
If anyone knows how to get this for sure to "Tilman" I would be
obliged if they
would do so.
Thanks
“Roger”
|
School
Pickets
Here is yet another idea of Tilman, made
a year and a half after the above debate. It shows that Tilman didn't
change his position a bit, and is still completely oblivious to the
feelings of parents and their children as long as they are Scientologists.
|
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Houston picket opportunity
Message-ID: <35965434.88724743@news.snafu.de>While reading "Rod Fletcher"s posts I had an idea - why not
picket
scientology schools. I suggest to start in Houston, where people have
complained of not being able to picket:
http://tanglewoodacademy.org/
5714 Dolores Street
The advantage of picketing a scientology school is that you just need to
picket one 30min window (morning) and one 15min window (afternoon). Some
intelligence gathering needs to be done, to get the correct times. But
in a successful picket you would get more "audience" per minute
than in
any other place. Leaflets should focus on Hubbard's bogus education
instead of Lisa McPherson. You could make copies of the LA Weekly
article as "2nd" leaflet, i.e. for people who approach you.
Suggestions for signs:
L. RON HUBBARD
EDUCATION
FAILURE
SCIENTOLOGY:
DESTROYING
KIDS FUTURE
HUBBARD
IS A
RACIST
SCIENTOLOGY
RUN BY A
HIGH SCHOOL
DROP-OUT
L. RON HUBBARD
GRAMMAR
TERRORIST
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/mystory/study.html
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4] |
While some critics, like
Keith Henson,
approved of the idea to picket schools, a small handful of others
disagreed with it. Tilman justifies it nevertheless on the ground that it
constitutes "information" for the children, that it's not a
school at all but a "brainwashing factory", and that
"children's mind are hurt with thought-stopping technique of word
clearing" (!!!)
|
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Houston picket opportunity
Message-ID: <35ab225d.141517489@news.snafu.de>In <3573071C.2FC2@idt.net>, jbwebb
<jbwebb@idt.net> wrote:
>I am not sure how I feel about picketing at schools. My first inclination would be to say No. I'm not sure if the majority of children there are COS even. It's a very small school. I think the total enrollment is around 50 - all grades.
They are *all* scientologists by attending this school. Sometimes
without their knowledge. We don't picket to annoy the children - but to
inform them. These schools are not schools at all, these are
brainwashing factories for children, to take away their ability to think
critically.
>>Also, the school is in a weird, off the beaten
tract location. Their would be NO advantage to picketing, except to scare little kindergarteners out of their minds.
We could hand out balloons!
>No, I don't think this is a good idea at all. I
don't feel that involving innocent children is necessary.
Ask this the scientologists. They destroy these children's future.
>Plus - Tilman, do you have ANY idea of how
fucking hot it is in Houston right now? Are you nuts?
ot on 8am, when the parents bring their kids to school. Maybe on 4pm,
but we'll just picket naked:-)
Tilman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Houston picket opportunity
Message-ID: <35d6e83f.257744829@news.snafu.de>
In<3574D6A2.5CC7@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,SteveJebson naismith@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I think picketing a school is a dreadful idea. It's rotten PR and
likely to upset the kids and their families.
The same could be said about picketing an org. It is also
"upsetting",
and "rotten PR" (from the scientology viewpoint), since it is a
"church". What I find upsetting is that these scientology
schools are
legal, schools where children's mind are hurt with thought-stopping
technique of word clearing.
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4] |
The Story
of Sasha
Sasha Zbitnoff was born and raised within the CoS. As
he grew older and started to think for himself, he gradually began to question the CoS' particular conditioning and, eventually, decided to
leave Scientology. Over-zealed reactions on the part of
some of his closest friend, as well as his own father, helped to
precipitate his decision.
I find this story remarkable for several reasons:
1) Sasha's current approach isn't one of
anger and resentment. Not only does he show a great deal of discernment for being able to question and free himself from a life-long
conditioning, he also finds within himself enough strength and compassion to forgive his fellow Scientologists and try to understand
their reaction. Knowing most of the critical litterature, he doesn't
fall for the lurid aspect of the anti's side and is able to critically
appreciate the respective value of both sides.
2) It shows that there is no such thing as unalienable
conditioning, much less "brainwashing", as
even someone born and raised within Scientology can break away from it -
much like someone born and raised from within another religion, or from
within a political system like Communism, may do.
3) It shows that Scientology isn't the dark and
sinister system often painted out by critics, as Sasha acknowledge that
he derived some good from it. His mind doesn't
seem to be very damaged either by the "thought-stopping
technique of word clearing" he was supposedly subjected to for
years in Tilman's "brainwashing factories". Que du contraire.
4) It shows that the CoS is populated with human
beings like you or me, who love their children like any other
human beings, even if some may sometime turn silly to the point of fanaticism,
while others will refuse to break off their personal
allegiance despite of everything.
5) For that matter, it shows that not all
Scientologists react alike, even regarding
disconnection, which was much of the point Claire
Swazey, another Scientology kid, made in ARS.
6) It shows what can be wrong with Scientology and
the cultic mentality: making up an ideologized, unreal,
depiction of LRH (which is being mirrored by critics making a demonized,
unreal, depiction of him), intolerance to dissent, and,
sadly, the over-zealed reaction of certain Scientologists for whom the
system has become all-important.
Hopefully, this may have a redeeming effect for
Scientologists who may happen to read this story, while it will also show
the gap between, on the one hand, actual excesses
and abuses that may indeed happen, as recounted honestly and with a sense
of proportion by Sasha, and, on the other hand, the generalizations
and exploitation of these incidents by anti-cultists like Tilman
Hausherr who, based in part on actual event, will bring these overboard and promote the kind of intolerance and discrimination
illustrated on this page.
Sasha
Story
Links
Pro Scientology
Scientology
and Kids - Children of Scientologists - An excellent description on the
way a Scientology couple raised their children. Shows an intelligent,
non-fanatical application of Scientology, leaving their children
"self-determined" to make their own choices.
Scientology and Children - A second generation Scientologist (in fact
the younger daughter of the writer above) view on
successfully raising a third generation Scientology kids.
Growing Up in Scientology - A happy Scientology kid testimony
Anti Scientology
Growing Up a Scientologist - An excellent story on departing from
Scientology by Kendra Wisemen, a grown up Scientology kid.
FAQ for Scientology Kids
- At last a well balanced FAQ from Critics, that comes ten years after
the disgraceful FAQ of Tilman Hausherr has been prominently featured on
Operation Clambake.
|
