Got questions? Go here!

Hi there,

and thanks for visiting this blog! There are some hot discussions ongoing here at times but I just got reminded that this blog was put up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists and whatever you feel it related to that.

Let me know, I am interested to read what is on your mind!

– Louanne

PS: 16 July 08. This thread is closed and a new one opened here:

https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/this-blog-is-open-for-serious-questions/

There has been an increased amount of trolling in the past week. I have better things to do than moderating each comment on this blog, so please get your act together and vent somewhere else.

47 Comments

  1. @Comment by Pat on July 13, 2008 1:48 am

    “Amy continues to commit suppressive acts to this day, as do you.”

    @Comment by Link on July 13, 2008 3:24 am

    “Really? What suppressive acts is Amy committing?”….

    Christ Almighty….

    “Yes, this forum does have the purpose of answering questions. And I think our conversation here has answered lots of people’s questions about disconnection, as well as demonstrated the Church’s attitude about it.”

    Not “the Church’s attitude” (Ha! You said a generality!!! ;-))

    This relatively interesting debate shows that there is a gap in understanding between former and current Scientologists which won’t solve in a public forum. It can be a nice game to continue this but I am not an adherent to debate culture, really, I’m just getting bored too fast doing this. However I am happy that all sides could show their arguments here.

    I’ll leave this thread for anyone to inspect and build on but please respect the purpose of this blog described here:

    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/faq/

    – Louanne

  2. So, are you both staff or just volunteers?

  3. @ Comment by Link on July 13, 2008 3:26 am

    “By the way, Pat… are you the same Pat as Pat Harney?”

    I happen to know that this is not the case. Pat Harney has most likely not the time to hang out on blogs.

    – Louanne

  4. By the way, Pat… are you the same Pat as Pat Harney?

  5. Really? What suppressive acts is Amy committing? What suppressive acts have I been committing? And where in this thread did I admit that I chose to connect to someone who’s whole purpose in life is to keep others down? Did you pass by a misunderstood word?

    There is one word for these comments of yours, Pat — NATTER. I must have missed a withhold on you. After, all, LRH says… “CRIMINALS accuse other people of doing what they themselves are doing.”

    You see, I know my ethics tech and my PTS/SP tech.

    Yes, this forum does have the purpose of answering questions. And I think our conversation here has answered lots of people’s questions about disconnection, as well as demonstrated the Church’s attitude about it.

    WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY! I rest my case. :)

  6. @Comment by Link on July 13, 2008 1:25 am

    Amy continues to commit suppressive acts to this day, as do you. And by your own admission you chose to connect to someone who’s whole purpose in life is to keep others down. Maybe that’s yours, too? Since this forum is for the purpose of answering questions, I don’t see any reason to communicate to you or Amy. This forum is not for you to post your justifications for suppressive acts against Scientology or Scientologists. There is no intent here to see anything from any other viewpoint except the one you’ve elected for Scientology. If you had truly been a Scientologist and knew for yourself that its the only way out, from the beginning, the choices would have been a no brainer. “Let them quit fast” – LRH – KSW 1

    Pat

  7. No, Pat, you are missing MY point.

    Amy’s parents didn’t disconnect from her on their own determinism. I didn’t disconnect from my mother on my own determinism. Yes, I made a self-determined choice to stay in Scientology, but that required me to disconnect from my mother because she wouldn’t disconnect from my grandmother.

    There is also a policy that people who are connected to people antagonistic to Scientology are PTS Type A and are not eligible to receive services as theoretically, they can’t make any gains.

    Isn’t it also considered a HIGH CRIME in Scientology to associate with a declared suppressive person? The MAA at ASHO was going to put my aunt down in the condition of Treason because she gave her declared stepfather a coffee mug.

    Amy is a declared suppressive person, so per LRH policy, her parents are forbidden to associate with her.

    You are most certainly aware of these policies.

    Pat, in Scientology, as a result of these policies I’ve mentioned to you, there are parents disconnecting from their kids and vice versa! Are you going to stand for that? Aren’t you going to have some standards for your own Church? Aren’t you going to take a stand and say, “I am a proud Scientologist, and I am not going to stand for those kinds of situations going on in my religion! My Church should not be acting as a third party causing conflict and ARC breaks between family members. I’m going to do something about this!”

    My point is… whether it’s an easy process or not…Amy shouldn’t have to go through steps A – E for her parents to be allowed by the Church to speak with her.

  8. Pat, really!. Yeah you have a choice but it comes with major consequences, so how is it a self-determined one? Give me a break. I don’t understand why Scientologists won’t admit to this. It boggles my mind, and that’s why the problem and critics continue to persist on that point. Guess what – it’s not as-ising!!!!! And one other thing the statement, “There is no disconnect policy” and then referring us to “PTSness and Disconnection” is a little ridiculous. It states “Disconnection” in the policy – duh! That IS the reference we are talking about dude.

  9. You guys keep missing the point. There is no “disconnect policy”. This is a term that the anti-scientologists have created to stir up trouble.

    Your reference is HCOPL 10 Sept. 1983 “PTSness and Disconnection”

    You have a choice.

    Pat

  10. >From what I understand, you chose to leave Scientology completely. Now you’re saying “Scientology” or an org or an exec made you do that. Can you be responsible for any part of that decision?

    Pardon me, I missed the “you chose to leave Scientology completely” bit. Trust me, that was a more self-determined decision I made than when I disconnected from my mother. After I heard the MAA tell my aunt on the phone, “You either have to disconnect from anybody remotely connected to your mother, or get them to disconnect from her,” that was the breaking point for me. I was so angry, I started communicating with my mother again.

    In the hypothetical situation above I posted at 2:57am , I was talking about my aunt’s situation, not my own.

  11. >Good ol’ greatest good for the greatest number, again, isn’t it? From what I understand, you chose to leave Scientology completely. Now you’re saying “Scientology” or an org or an exec made you do that. Can you be responsible for any part of that decision?

    Unfortunately, Pat, we don’t live in a world where people like to take responsibility for their grievances they have against others. We live in a world where a woman can accidentally spill hot coffee on herself and sue McDonald’s for a million dollars and even win.

    I am not trying to play a victim here. I am simply pointing out to you some things that shouldn’t be.

    What are you doing? Instead of looking at those things and considering whether I have a point or not, all you are doing is justifying everything I point out to be wrong by making all the critics wrong, not to mention, doing it in generalities, which is an anti-social characteristic. Now who has the motivator?

    Can you try, for once, to look at the things I’m pointing out to you which I feel are wrong, and not make justifications?

    If you want to make a change, the first step is to make others aware of the possibility for a change.

    And that is what I am trying to do here.

    Well, what would it be like in the Church of Scientology if it resolved its policies so that situations like mine or my aunt’s or Amy’s didn’t happen in Scientology? Wouldn’t it be better? Wouldn’t there be less ARC Breaks?

  12. Pat, another thing….

    I’m not going to deny my own accountability in disconnecting from my mother. However, I wouldn’t hold the Church and other Scientologists less accountable. My family may have been angry with me for disconnecting from my mother, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have anger towards the Church for influencing that decision.

    I’d hold Amy’s parents just as accountable for disconnecting from her as I hold the rest of the Scientologists and the Church for agreeing to uphold that policy, or at least for carrying it out the way they are interpreting it. But I would NEVER say or consider that they were making a “self-determined” choice if they were being held in a position where they either had to disconnect from their daughter or be denied their Bridge and be disconnected from by the rest of their family and friends who were in Scientology.

    The thing is… there needs to be some boundaries set when applying this disconnection policy — nobody should be denied services for refusing to disconnect from somebody they don’t want to disconnect from.

    Now, if the Church would do this and make it public that it were doing so… they’d be handling a big portion of the antagonism.

  13. Louanne, thank you for your answers. I respect that. Just for the record, however, the state of the condition where I was that people were on lines to route out for up to a year and there were about 40 people on these lines, so it wasn’t looking too good. You are right this is completely off-policy, and per FO (Sea org policy) it is supposed to be done in 24 hours. I know of at least two that I can name who were on lines to leave for a year. Not saying two wrongs make a right for what I did, but of course nobody wants to take responsibility for the things that were undoubtedly off-policy and wrong by the Church, and simply state that we “exes” are the ones who refuse to take responsibility. Well, it’s a two-terminal universe and it goes both ways guys.

    Scientology has more critics and exes than ever before in it’s history right now. Per their own technology, they have to be doing something to PULL IT IN. They have to be committing their own overts, and trust me I know for a fact that they are. Unfortunately for you, you are just some nice Scientologists trying to help out and have no clue what goes on within the walls of the Sea Org. You guys are not the target so I don’t want to offend you guys, but I do strongly suggest you give another look over at what this group you have decided to be a part of is really doing, and what their statistics and actions are. I don’t mean public Scientologists. I mean the Church of Scientology which is run by the Sea Org, headed by David Miscavige.

  14. Pat, I find your answers all extremely Simple Simon and robotic use of the policies. I will admit there are some great philosophies and policy in Scientology, but the problem is people interpret or apply them robotically and even destructively and don’t think for themselves.

    You have NO IDEA what my situation really is about and you can still state matter of factly all about why it happened, and how and the mechanics and all that. You are know-best, and unfortunately I find most Scientologists seem to be that way and that is why I say you are like a robot. You can’t think logically with the information that Scientology has available to you to analyze situations and even see right from wrong within your own religious group.

    You are right in that I am responsible for leaving the Sea Org the way I did, I am responsible for consequently deciding to leave Scientology, and furthermore publicly discussing the fact that I did. True, true, true, you are right. But guess what? I don’t think anyone but a die hard Scientologist would find any of that a good reason to tear a family apart or shut someone out of your life completely. Out here in the real world, parents would visit their children in jail for having committed a serious illegal and overt act. I personally believe there is a reason we have parents to aid our survival and it’s called unconditional love. Without even getting into all of the reasons behind me making those decisions which are damn good ones, it doesn’t even matter, and you are missing the point. You think it’s okay to disconnect a family member because of it and I don’t. Period.

  15. @Comment by Link on July 12, 2008 2:57 am

    >What do you do? You’ve made all these life plans to be a Scientologist and go up the Bridge. You’ve already put $50,000.00 on your account, you can’t ask for it back unless you promise never to have any Scientology services again. And you want your services. But you don’t want to give up your relatives.

    Good ol’ greatest good for the greatest number, again, isn’t it? From what I understand, you chose to leave Scientology completely. Now you’re saying “Scientology” or an org or an exec made you do that. Can you be responsible for any part of that decision?

    Pat

    >Don’t you think the Church would lose 50% of its critics if situations like this didn’t happen?

    No. Because those 50% of those “critics” are critical and if it isn’t trying to find something wrong with disconnection it will be something else. Look at the definition of motivator at http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/motivator.php. That applies to the ex-scientologists. The other 50% just don’t like the fact that Scientology helps people.

  16. >It is always self-determined. You have choices and even recourse. LRH made sure that was available to all. You are expected to make those decisions based on the greatest good for the greatest number. You made your choice. Don’t now come back and say that someone “made” you do it. That’s like making yourself wrong, because the initial decision is yours. Every time you say someone did something to you, that’s making them cause over your life. Taking responsibility is hard, I know. But it’s the only way to stop being effect.

    Pat, I’m sure the majority of people reading this thread will not agree with you on it being “self-determined.”

    And we’re not talking about whether or not I’m a responsible person or not, we’re talking about how the disconnection policy really works.

    It was a choice I shouldn’t have had to make, a choice other Scientologists shouldn’t have to make.

    Even Neal Donald Walsch says in his book CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD, “How is God giving anybody free will if he threatens to punish them with eternal torment in Hell if they don’t obey them? How is that ‘free will?'”

  17. >But should this really happen (and I know people who took 1-2 weeks, not 6 months), then it is sure not intended that way. Keeping someone who does not want to be there is more of a liability than of any advantage, for all concerned, and that is why administrative policy says: quit fast.

    So, you agree… it should not take six months long to route out of the Sea Org and that keeping the person who doesn’t want to stay would be a liability. So… if the people making policy in the Sea Org are doing any research, reading any anecdotes on the Internet, they’d find out that there are people where it took that long to route out. Does the Church plan on implementing any kind of policy to safeguard against that kind of situation from happening, where it doesn’t take more than 30 days to properly route out?

    >I can’t really comment on your grandma as I don’t have the details needed to do that.

    My point wasn’t whether or not my grandmother was a suppressive person or not.

    My point was that often, disconnection is not a self-determined decision.

    Let’s say you’ve been in Scientology for awhile, you’ve had some auditing, gone up a few Grades. Then let’s say you spend $50,000 to buy some intensives. Then… something happens. You have a relative who is a declared suppressive person. You have other relatives who aren’t Scientologists who won’t disconnect from that SP, even though that SP may have done some really nasty, terrible things. Through your occasional association with those relatives, you are connected to that SP. You have to either get those relatives to disconnect from the SP, or you have to disconnect from those relatives.

    What do you do? You’ve made all these life plans to be a Scientologist and go up the Bridge. You’ve already put $50,000.00 on your account, you can’t ask for it back unless you promise never to have any Scientology services again. And you want your services. But you don’t want to give up your relatives.

    You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. How can you make any self-determined decision to disconnect from somebody in this situation?

    When spokespeople like Pat Harney and Tommy Davis and Karin Pouw go around saying, “Oh, no, there is NO disconnection policy in Scientology…” that is not only offensive to ex-Scientologists who’ve been disconnected from, that is equally offensive to Scientologists who are still in who’ve had to make the decision to disconnect.

    Don’t you think the Church would lose 50% of its critics if situations like this didn’t happen?

  18. Link,
    It is always self-determined. You have choices and even recourse. LRH made sure that was available to all. You are expected to make those decisions based on the greatest good for the greatest number. You made your choice. Don’t now come back and say that someone “made” you do it. That’s like making yourself wrong, because the initial decision is yours. Every time you say someone did something to you, that’s making them cause over your life. Taking responsibility is hard, I know. But it’s the only way to stop being effect.

    Pat

  19. @Comment by Link on July 12, 2008 2:04 am

    “One can argue that if there is a consequence of getting declared suppressive person if you don’t properly route out, they are not staying there on their own determinism if it’s taking them six months to route out.”

    That’s true, one could argue that. But should this really happen (and I know people who took 1-2 weeks, not 6 months), then it is sure not intended that way. Keeping someone who does not want to be there is more of a liability than of any advantage, for all concerned, and that is why administrative policy says: quit fast.

    – Louanne

  20. Also, Louanne, I’ve heard ex-Sea Org members say that often, it can take a long time to properly route out of the Sea Org. Amy said the reason she didn’t properly route out was because she knew people who had been trying to route out for six months. I can understand giving your job a 30-day notice when you quit. That’s understandable. That’s standard. But… six months??

    >There is your misconception. The SO is not a “job”. The Sea-Org is a fraternity of the most dedicated Scientologists. They agree of rigid moral codes and tough work to forward the religion of Scientology. And none of them is forced to stay there.

    One can argue that if there is a consequence of getting declared suppressive person if you don’t properly route out, they are not staying there on their own determinism if it’s taking them six months to route out.

  21. @Comment by Link on July 12, 2008 1:35 am

    Your grandmother was a wild one, eh? SP Declare plus Type A and so on. But Link, the problem is, that I can’t really comment on your grandma as I don’t have the details needed to do that. But on the other hand I won’t allow either that private data of people gets posted on this public blog, unless you volunteer it but even then I would not recommend it and feel that I should delete it. Private data can easily be abused and I would hate it if ScientologyMyths served as a source.

    As an objective fact though I might say that leaving a staff position without terminating it first is a violation of the agreement any staff signs. If you want to quit, quit fast (says: “Keeping Scientology Working 1”). But properly and not in a damaging manner (says another policy, called “Leaving and Leaves”, both to be studied by any staff, even those who are working in a Scientology Mission for 10 hours a week). The longest, most involved, most destructive and most complicated way to terminate a staff position is to run away overnight. Your story kinda confirms that.

    – Louanne

  22. Pat, I have to say… I saw the SP declare on my grandmother, and if I recall correctly, (as it’s been a few years since I read it) she was declared a suppressive person for blowing the Sea Org. I don’t remember if the declare order said anything about “publicly” leaving staff or not, but according to my grandmother, she snuck out in the middle of the night, so I would hardly call that “publicly leaving.” Of course, that was back in 1982, I don’t know if people would still get declared for that same reason nowadays.

    >Amy, if you were disconnected from, it’s because you are antagonistic to Scientology. It’s that simple. Your antagonism is enturbulative to your parents. It’s always a self-determined decision to disconnect. I’m guessing that after looking over your actions, they felt they were better off exercising their right to not communicate to you. You want to change that? Then do Steps A – E, which I’m pretty sure your SP Declare includes. LRH always leaves the door open. If you think its wrong, then ask for a Comm-Ev. Stop being a victim.

    I’d like to point something out. It seems to me that the term “antagonistic” is used in Scientology pretty loosely. Like, if somebody is a squirrel, they are therefore “antagonistic” to Scientology.

    I’ve been in Scientology. I have a grandmother who is a declared suppressive person. To be fair, I’ll admit that my grandmother has a pretty twisted mind and has done some pretty horrendous things. Anyway, my mother lives next door to her. When it became known in 1999 that my grandmother was squirreling, even though I was disconnected from her, I was still sec checked. My mom in turn started looking up stuff on the Internet and passing on critical information about the CoS to me (she didn’t reveal anything on OT III). But mainly, my mom would tell me that she didn’t agree with the Church’s disconnection policy or ethics handlings.

    Eventually, I was told by the Senior Director of Inspection and Reports via the MAA at ASHO that I either had to get my Mom to disconnect from my grandmother, or I had to disconnect from my mother. Until then, I could not be on course or receive any auditing.

    My mother was totally willing to stop talking about Scientology to me, she was totally willing to make a rule that she wouldn’t discuss Scientology with me. She even wrote a letter to the MAA expressing this (while still expressing she didn’t think her mother was a suppressive person). Nobody acknowledged my mother. I either had to disconnect from her or get her to disconnect from my grandmother. So, wanting to get my Scientology services, I ended up disconnecting from my mother, since she wouldn’t disconnect from my grandmother. I did not want to disconnect from her, but… it was either her or my services.

    Pat, you say, “It’s always a self-determined decision to disconnect.” I’m telling you from experience, it is NOT always a self-determined decision to disconnect. Being denied your Scientology services until you either handle or disconnect leaves no room for any self-determinism. The only way it could ever be called “self-determined” would be if you decided to disconnect from someone even though the Church was not denying you your services if you stayed connected to them.

    With all this in mind, is it plausible that because Amy refused to go back and properly route out, she was considered “antagonistic” to Scientology? She could have very well had a good, theta relationship with her parents, however… when her mother went to Flag, the MAAs there viewed her as PTS to Amy because since Amy wouldn’t properly route out, she was “antagonistic” to Scientology, even though she might not have been giving her mother entheta communication about Scientology (and I don’t know whether she was or wasn’t)?

    And for the record, regarding Comm Ev’s… my aunt was declared PTS Type A because she refused to disconnect from her relatives who wouldn’t disconnect from her mother or people connected to her mother. She requested a Comm Ev to get this Type A declare lifted. But the Type A stayed.

  23. @Comment by Amy on July 12, 2008 12:10 am

    Amy, I agree, we have different experiences and lives, and while you won’t convince me I am not expecting to convince you either, especially as I have no way of checking your story. But thanks for sharing and giving your viewpoint.

    – Louanne

  24. Wow, sorry Louanne, as I do admit that my post was sour and grumpy, however why shouldn’t I be? Trust me it’s not misemotion, you have clearly never been affected by the disconnection policy yourself. When I saw this post about why I am declared and why my parents disconnected and you guys again thinking you are the authorities, well you guys have no clue, you weren’t there. I’m sorry if I offended anyone, it ticked me off.

    You guys can continue to convince yourself that that is why my parents disconnected from me because I know that’s what would make sense if I was some big old bad guy, so if it makes you feel better, fine.

    But the truth is, I I have a sister in the Sea Org still and other family still in Scientology and my parents had to make a hard decision forced upon them by the policies within their church – me, or the rest of their family who they would lose if they decided to stay connected to me.

    Either way, I am not going to try to argue with you guys, because I know what it’s like being inside. Nothing gets through besides the stable datums you operate on every day. I truly do get it. Well, at least everyone else looking here can see both sides now instead of just yours.

  25. I think that what I missed here in my last answer, is that people don’t get declared SP for blowing the Sea Org. Period. Only for Suppressive Acts as laid out in the Policies on the subject.

    Amy, if you were disconnected from, it’s because you are antagonistic to Scientology. It’s that simple. Your antagonism is enturbulative to your parents. It’s always a self-determined decision to disconnect. I’m guessing that after looking over your actions, they felt they were better off exercising their right to not communicate to you. You want to change that? Then do Steps A – E, which I’m pretty sure your SP Declare includes. LRH always leaves the door open. If you think its wrong, then ask for a Comm-Ev. Stop being a victim.

    Your post here pretty much proves their action as valid.

    Pat

  26. @Comment by Amy on July 11, 2008 11:25 pm

    “there’s only one reason I got declared which is that I didn’t go back”

    Ever heard of “Leaving and Leaves”? I mean, I read that as an org staff once. Anyway, what does your declare say then?

    “I won’t waste my time here. You guys are all delirious robots that can’t think for yourselves which ironically is exactly the opposite of what Scientology is supposed to do (make one think for themself). I’m so sick of hearing Scientologist’s robotic answers and lies. You guys are the pathetic ones.”

    Uh, really sour and grumpy, aren’t we.

    ” I will move on and live my life.”

    Yeah, why don’t you? Instead you are nattering around and calling people names.
    Now how does that make sense.

    Anyway, good luck. You know the way back is always open.

    – Louanne

  27. Seeing that this thread is about me, I can put a few facts into place here. FIrst of all, Pat, I do not fit into the definition of an antisocial personality and anybody who knows me also knows that, and I do not personally believe anything I have done could convince someone who knows me that I am one. Since you seem to know so well, please tell me what characteristics I have and how there are more antisocial ones than social ones??

    Secondly, my parents stayed connected to me somewhat for months and told me they would never not answer my phone calls. Then, my mom went to Flag for handling and stopped talking to me, so it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what changed.

    I was told when I left and OSA Int was trying to get me to come back, that I would not get declared if I came back and properly routed out. The ONLY reason I did get declared was because I refused to, so how can someone say because of my “Actions” I got declared. It’s simple and there’s only one reason I got declared which is that I didn’t go back. So to say it was “what I did” which is one big whopping generality, is a big fat piece of crap lie.

    I won’t waste my time here. You guys are all delirious robots that can’t think for yourselves which ironically is exactly the opposite of what Scientology is supposed to do (make one think for themself). I’m so sick of hearing Scientologist’s robotic answers and lies. You guys are the pathetic ones. I will move on and live my life. You can take my family and friends away, but you’ll never be able to take away my freedom and ability to think for myself which unfortunately for you, Pat, is something you will never have. People out here think I am the one to feel sorry for having lost my family, and you know what I think? I think the Scientologists and my parents that are told who to talk to, what to do, when to do it, how much to pay, etc, etc are the ones to feel sorry for. You guys live your life the way Scientology wants you to, not the way you want to and I don’t care how much you deny it, I’ve been there done that, seen it all. You have no idea what freedom you are missing. Good luck on your website and spreading all the lies. Unfortunately, we all know that in the end truth is what prevails and it’s just a matter of time my friend………..

    L, Amy

  28. @Comment by Link on July 11, 2008 10:27 pm

    “But are you saying that because this girl quit the Sea Org without properly routing out (the reason she got declared)… she must have all these anti-social personality traits?”

    No. To determine an anti-social personality you take the social personality traits and the anti-social personality traits together and based on the majority of the traits in a person you would decide whether this person better gets her shit together and become straight and honest or if that person is a great one to work with in the first place.

    “because she got up and left a job that she didn’t like.”

    There is your misconception. The SO is not a “job”. The Sea-Org is a fraternity of the most dedicated Scientologists. They agree of rigid moral codes and tough work to forward the religion of Scientology. And none of them is forced to stay there. You might want to read up on this here.

    – Louanne

  29. @Comment by Link on July 11, 2008 8:29 am

    Link, you are throwing around Scientology terms as if you just heard them briefly. But I assume for now that you know what you are talking about. It’s more fun that way.

    “So, quitting the Sea Org without properly routing out is a pretty heavy suppressive act?”

    Not at all. But leaving from one day to the other without telling anybody is not acceptable in any group and a heavy violation of rules you agreed to follow. The SO is demanding, they even say so in their promotion. It is not meant to be a holiday trip and not everyone qualifies.

    “Properly routing out”, what do you think this is? I know people who decided that the SO is not for them and they routed out within a week or two (some went back later, now “feeling ready for the challenge”). Making ends meet and turning over areas one took responsibility for cannot take that long and it doesn’t. Unless you actually messed up and try to cover it up by leaving unexpectedly. Lacking responsibility for one’s own actions is a great to introduce “added time”, i.e. things take longer if you are not straight about it.

    If your hypothetical girl wanted to get back in good standing or has been declared a Suppressive Person by mistake, there are several ways to correct that. If she was a SO member she most likely got trained in them and cannot claim she does not know how to undo a SP declare or correct an incorrect assignment. It’s really simple to do but might take a while (as opposed to doing it properly).

    – Louanne

  30. >This is a good question.

    >We disconnect from people who have been declared, not because they have been declared but because they ARE suppressive and have been committing some pretty heavy suppressive acts. It takes alot for someone to get declared. It’s not a matter that’s done lightly.

    So, quitting the Sea Org without properly routing out is a pretty heavy suppressive act?

    >A Declare is as much for us, in the group, as it is for the person being declared. It gives specific acts that brought about the Declare order and it gives the steps that the one so declared can take to be re-instated. For the group, it helps because removes the generalities and causes erasure of upsets.

    >As for her parents (since you didn’t mention a name, I won’t either) it wasn’t because of the Declare that they disconnected, it was because of what she did.

    >Check out this link:

    >http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11.HTM

    >Would you want to stay connected to someone like that?

    No, I wouldn’t want to stay connected to an anti-social personality.

    But are you saying that because this girl quit the Sea Org without properly routing out (the reason she got declared)… she must have all these anti-social personality traits?

    If that was the only reason she was declared a suppressive person, do you think her parents really believe that she’s an awful, suppressive person? Don’t you think that if her parents could communicate with her with no consequence of them getting into trouble with Ethics or declared PTS Type A, they would? Could it be that because this girl is declared, her parents have justified their reason for disconnecting from her in their mind that she must have overts and withholds and be suppressive because she quit the Sea Org without properly routing out? Because I don’t know any parents that would disconnect from their daughter or judge her for being a person they should have nothing to do with because she got up and left a job that she didn’t like.

  31. @Comment by Link on July 11, 2008 8:29 am

    >I understand about suppressive people. There really are some nasty people that one shouldn’t be associating with.

    Yep

    >But… doesn’t the practice of “declaring” somebody an “SP” get carried out too far?

    >Like let’s say, there is a girl who is working in the Sea Org. She decides that she wants to quit, and she doesn’t want to wait to route out because it can take a long time to properly route out. She gets declared a suppressive person, even though she might not necessarily be one of those nasty people that bring others down.

    >It’s one thing for her, as a declared suppressive person, to be denied services until she gets undeclared. That is understandable. But to me, it’s completely another thing to forbid her parents from having any communication with her until she gets undeclared. And by forbidding, I mean that they would be denied their Scientology services, get sent down to Ethics, be Comm Ev’d and declared PTS Type A until they either disconnected from their daughter or got her to be undeclared.

    >Whether or not it is easy for the girl to be undeclared, if this girl doesn’t want to be involved with the Church of Scientology anymore, why should she have to follow Scientology’s rules to speak with her parents?

    >If a Catholic gets ex-communicated from the Church, their family can still associate with them, the ex-communicated Catholic just can’t receive any blessings or participate in any of the rituals.

    >It is instances such as this where the disconnection policy seems to do more bad than good.

    This is a good question.

    We disconnect from people who have been declared, not because they have been declared but because they ARE suppressive and have been committing some pretty heavy suppressive acts. It takes alot for someone to get declared. It’s not a matter that’s done lightly.

    A Declare is as much for us, in the group, as it is for the person being declared. It gives specific acts that brought about the Declare order and it gives the steps that the one so declared can take to be re-instated. For the group, it helps because removes the generalities and causes erasure of upsets.

    As for her parents (since you didn’t mention a name, I won’t either) it wasn’t because of the Declare that they disconnected, it was because of what she did.

    Check out this link:

    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11.HTM

    Would you want to stay connected to someone like that?

    Pat

  32. I understand about suppressive people. There really are some nasty people that one shouldn’t be associating with.

    But… doesn’t the practice of “declaring” somebody an “SP” get carried out too far?

    Like let’s say, there is a girl who is working in the Sea Org. She decides that she wants to quit, and she doesn’t want to wait to route out because it can take a long time to properly route out. She gets declared a suppressive person, even though she might not necessarily be one of those nasty people that bring others down.

    It’s one thing for her, as a declared suppressive person, to be denied services until she gets undeclared. That is understandable. But to me, it’s completely another thing to forbid her parents from having any communication with her until she gets undeclared. And by forbidding, I mean that they would be denied their Scientology services, get sent down to Ethics, be Comm Ev’d and declared PTS Type A until they either disconnected from their daughter or got her to be undeclared.

    Whether or not it is easy for the girl to be undeclared, if this girl doesn’t want to be involved with the Church of Scientology anymore, why should she have to follow Scientology’s rules to speak with her parents?

    If a Catholic gets ex-communicated from the Church, their family can still associate with them, the ex-communicated Catholic just can’t receive any blessings or participate in any of the rituals.

    It is instances such as this where the disconnection policy seems to do more bad than good.

  33. @ Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 9, 2008 4:20 am

    >>Looks like someone paid them to spread this false information. Maybe one of the guys linked at the bottom (Lerma, Woodcraft).
    >Traditionally, one does not make such accusations without evidence. I assume you have some?

    I worded it as assumption so it does not read as accusation but as my opinion. Which is what it is. Fact is that this false information is deliberately spread far and wide and just like the recent “Nicole Kidman names daughter ‘Sunday’ to insult Scientology” spin also this story has no grounds but conspicuously many voices.

    >>In the end however drugs – any chemicals except for vitamins – got discarded as “not helpful” and actually detrimental to reaching spiritual freedom.
    >>Whoa whoa whoa. “Not helpful” for mental and/or spiritual health, or “not helpful,” period? There is a difference.

    True. Drugs – the word is used in the sense of “mind altering drugs, psycho drugs” and the like – are considered not helpful for anything in Scientology, especially not mental and/or spiritual health, which is one of the goals of Scientology. Drugs in the sense of pain killers or medication against physical illness are considered as helpful as the MD says they are.

    >>…now that the ship is back in the water and cruising the islands again.
    >Allegedly.

    Don’t be shy, go to your nearest Church of Scientology and watch the Maiden Voyage 2008 video, recorded end June 2008, on the ship. I believe that the first part is shown next weekend. Or google it:

    http://www.bonairetalk.com/newsgroup/messages/27/368135.html?1214922587
    http://travel.webshots.com/album/563969144lFJLWY

    – Louanne

  34. @Comment by Fancy The Bard on July 9, 2008 6:18 pm

    I answered to this in the Freewinds thread:

    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/scientolologymyths-updated-freewinds-article/

    – Lou

  35. @ Lou:

    “M2 Press Wire? Looks like someone paid them to spread this false information. Maybe one of the guys linked at the bottom (Lerma, Woodcraft). Woodcraft must bite his ass that his lie factory didn’t work with Curacao officials.”

    Here Lou, I’ll help you out. Here’s the contact info for the Curacao Drydock Company, the folks who are housing the Freewinds during it’s refit and the ones who the article states discovered the asbestos and quarantined the ship.

    Now you will be able to contact them directly and ask them as to whether the Freewinds is loaded with asbestos and if it was sealed off.

    Curacao Drydock Company, Inc. Dokweg 1, Koningsplein, P.O. Box 3012, Cura硯, Netherlands Antilles
    Telephone:
    +(5999)-733-0000
    Fax:
    +(5999)-736-5580
    E-mail:
    info@cdmnv.com

    Hope it helps.

  36. @Comment by veritas on June 30, 2008 7:04 am

    >Actually this is unrelated but if you feel up to tackling the ‘drug taking/mental history controversy’ of Lron, I would be happy to have your feedback as to your view explaining the validity of these letters .

    Lu can confirm this as true but Ronald De Wolf was the source of much of this stuff about LRH during the time he tried to sue. He later recanted all of this. The court cases in Germany threw this stuff out as false data if I remember correctly.

    Pat

  37. Looks like someone paid them to spread this false information. Maybe one of the guys linked at the bottom (Lerma, Woodcraft).

    Traditionally, one does not make such accusations without evidence. I assume you have some?

    In the end however drugs – any chemicals except for vitamins – got discarded as “not helpful” and actually detrimental to reaching spiritual freedom.

    Whoa whoa whoa. “Not helpful” for mental and/or spiritual health, or “not helpful,” period? There is a difference.

    …now that the ship is back in the water and cruising the islands again.

    Allegedly.

  38. @Comment by Chris D on July 5, 2008 12:58 am

    I couldn’t resist:

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/freewinds.php

    same text here:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/freewinds/

    – Louanne

  39. @Comment by Chris D on July 5, 2008 12:58 am

    Hi Chris, welcome!

    “Hello. I am a Scientologist from NYC and i just wanted to know if you could post some more info on the Sea Org and about specifically The Freewinds on your site, which i love.”

    Sure! There is quite substantial information here already:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/sea-org/
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/rehabilitation-project-force/
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/seaorg.php

    True, I don’t have anything up on the Freewinds yet. So this is one of my next little projects, now that the ship is back in the water and cruising the islands again.

    – Louanne

  40. @Comment by veritas on June 30, 2008 7:04 am

    “I do love you, even if I used to be an opium addict.”

    Allegedly from a personal letter between him and his first wife, which puts it in the 1930s. I have to delve into my research but I am not at home right now. Give me a bit.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if LRH had experience with the bad effects drugs have on people. He describes them pretty lively in the Dianetics book in 1950 and in several lectures later. During the Dianetics research – prior to 1950 – amphetamines were used (no news for those who read the book), probably even other strange stuff. In the end however drugs – any chemicals except for vitamins – got discarded as “not helpful” and actually detrimental to reaching spiritual freedom. There is a long series of bulletins written in 1968 or a little earlier about the bad effects of drugs on the body and spirit. Out of this grew the purification program (http://www.purificationpgm.org/) to make sure that drug/pollution effects are not in the way of reaching higher spiritual awareness.

    “Toward the end of my (military) service, I avoided out of pride any mental examinations”

    Forgery, as proven in court some 20 years ago. Again, I need to get back, which is scheduled to happen in 2 weeks.

    – Louanne

  41. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 5, 2008 6:44 am

    M2 Press Wire? Looks like someone paid them to spread this false information. Maybe one of the guys linked at the bottom (Lerma, Woodcraft). Woodcraft must bite his ass that his lie factory didn’t work with Curacao officials.

    – Lou
    (I am still on travel but couldn’t resist to check in)

  42. There are rumors out there that the ship was being contained for some Asbestos thing.

    Oh. Yes. Rumors. Spread by such hateful critics of Scientology as… the Curacao Drydock Company, who was responsible for the Freewinds refit.

    http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=200805023600.3_33bc000d60868fe7

    Nice try, though.

  43. Hello. I am a Scientologist from NYC and i just wanted to know if you could post some more info on the Sea Org and about specifically The Freewinds on your site, which i love.

    There are rumors out there that the ship was being contained for some Asbestos thing. However, the ship was infact undergoing a full refit which was just completed for the Freewinds 20th Birthday.

    Infact, someone on webshots.com has posted pics on the new Freewinds.

    Thanks in advance and please keep on keeping on!

  44. woah weird,
    My comp was not displaying my previous comment ’till now,
    sorry for the bit above :O

  45. Krunz=Veritas, sorry

  46. Well as my last one was unceremoniously deleted how about some non-controversial ones-
    Why didnt Lron like being called or using his ‘Lafaytte’ name?
    Also what religion if any was a young Lron brought up in from his parents?

  47. Actually this is unrelated but if you feel up to tackling the ‘drug taking/mental history controversy’ of Lron, I would be happy to have your feedback as to your view explaining the validity of these letters .
    This particular line of questions is coming from the famous(or infamous LRH wiki)

    The exact bits I was wondering about are-
    The Scientology v. Armstrong case,
    (a letter said to have been wrote by Lron)
    I do love you, even if I used to be an opium addict.
    -L. Ron Hubbard

    (Taken From Wiki source)
    But during this same period, Hubbard was financially destitute,] and suffered from feelings of depression as well as suicidal thoughts, according to a letter he wrote in 1947 requesting assistance from Veterans Affairs

    Toward the end of my (military) service, I avoided out of pride any mental examinations, hoping that time would balance a mind which I had every reason to suppose was seriously affected….I cannot account for nor rise above long periods of moroseness and suicidal inclinations, and have newly come to realize that I must first triumph above this before I can hope to rehabilitate myself at all.
    http://www.latimes.com/la-scientology062490,0,7104164,full.story
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865-2,00.html


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    Road Cross

    Raquel llora por sus hijos

    LOPBURI TEMPLES

    More Photos