This blog is open for serious questions!

Hi there,

and thanks for visiting this blog! I put it up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists and whatever you feel it related to that. If you are here to make statements or raise a fuss, you are violating the only rule this blog has. So please, don’t to it.

– Louanne

Update 5 August 08: Comments closed, new thread here.

86 Comments

  1. @Comment by veritas on August 4, 2008 7:49 am

    “… ‘Self analysis …. is it supposed to be techiques similar to dianetics that one can apply to her/himself specifically solo?”

    Self Analysis can be applied straight from the book with nobody else around, yes.

    “Also do you know of anyone who uses/used that book effectively if that is its purpose?”

    Me. It requires a little discipline and that you focus on what you are doing, did sleep enough and cared to cut off any potential distractions (hunger, phone calls, cats etc). Otherwise it works just like that.

    – Louanne

  2. @Comment by veritas on August 4, 2008 7:49 am

    This is on the inside flap of the book:

    “In sum, this book not only moves one up the Tone Scale, but can pull a person out of almost anything. Included are:

    * The laws of survival and abundance
    * The most embracive description of consciousness
    * Essays describing a broad array of discoveries including time, remembering, forgetting, imagination, valences and special auditing lists for each.
    * And, beyond all those revelations, self-processing lists that provide the most powerful of auditing and which can be done anywhere and at any time – uncovering the real world of you”

    It also states on the Title page
    “SELF ANALYSIS
    A simple self-help volume of tests and processes based on the discoveries of Dianetics”

    Self Analysis is the Straight Wire processes that LRH talks about as part of Dianetics. It improves memories and raises tone level.

    Personally, I’ve received it from an auditor. And, I’ve used it on myself and audited it on others. For me and those I audited it worked.

    Pat

  3. Fair enough
    thank you for weighing in as always, pat & Lou.

    Am wondering about the book ‘Self analysis’ now, the reviews on amazon were not the most descriptive or in depth with there reviews, so is it supposed to be techiques similar to dianetics that one can apply to her/himself specifically solo? Also do you know of anyone who uses/used that book effectively if that is its purpose?

  4. @Comment by Louanne on August 4, 2008 2:10 am

    Correction: do not use Wikipedia for “Pulmonary Embolism”. It (currently) says that “Symptoms may include … sudden death.” ORLY?

    – Lou

  5. @# Comment by C on August 4, 2008 12:59 am

    “I thought it was a fender bender.”

    The driver door got smashed in.

    “If it was from the auto accident then why would the doctors let her go immediately?”

    Search Wikipedia for Pulmonary Embolism and it’s relation to “sudden death”. She died without medical possibilities to predict it. Those docs looking after her after the accident could not have found that.

    “I realize I might be jumping to conclusions in assuming the cuts came from the auto accident but reasonably where else could they have come from?”

    Transport? She was rushed to the hospital. Falling down the stairs? Dark Angels with knives descending from the Heavens and attacking her? C, I am not sure what your purpose is. What exactly do you want to find out? Or are you just trolling?

    – Louanne

  6. @Comment by C on August 2, 2008 5:26 pm

    “I have a few serious questions. I feel very hesitant to even ask because this forum seems acrimonious but none the less…here goes:”

    You can always send an email (many do): scientologymyths(at)yahoo.com

    “Sites like Wikipedia appear to be very neutral. I honestly don’t think you can categorize online encyclopedias as anti-scientology sites. Wikipedia has articles on Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White which include documents detailing the plans. Would you regard these information pages as either the half-truths or dramatized stories you refer to on your myth pages?”

    Yes, I do. It’s not Wikipedia that is an anti-scientology site but there are no knowledgeable Scientologists active on Scientology Wikipedia articles. Instead the articles are being created, poisoned and watched by known anti-Scientology writers and POV pushers. The sheer amount of “anti”-articles alone (about 300, more than on any other subject in that category) should give you a hint but if you don’t believe me try to correct something. Try the Freewinds article. It says the ship has been sealed for months for asbestos contamination. Meanwhile there had been four videographed events on this ship and a farewell party after the scheduled refit was finished. Try the Scientology article. Plenty of very obvious falsehoods. No, Wikipedia is a propaganda tool the moment editors with a certain agenda are outnumbering others. I am using Wikipedia pretty often, but never for biographical, political or religious information. Too many pressure groups and paid lobbyists around.

    “You say that the plan was canceled before it reached church officials. Are members of the Guardian’s Office not church officials?”

    No, they weren’t. The GO was a unit working out of sight of church management which went off the rails. People working there were not even members of the Church at times but hired for their profession (lawyers, accountants, private investigators etc) whose moral codes do not at all align with that of a scientologist. It was a mistake. The GO was closed down over 20 years ago and its members sacked. The lesson learned for the church was that such an organization would never be permitted again and today the activities of the organization that took over the GOs duties (legal representation, tax matters and public relations) is transparent and fully accountable to Church management.

    “In regards to Lisa McPherson, perhaps she did not lose 40 lbs but there are clearly sores all over her body.”

    I know the photos you mention. How long did the dead body lie there in hot climate until those pictures were (illegally) taken? If you are looking for answers, this one can lead you to an interesting story. If you are looking to blame some unknown church members for some unproven “faults”, using “questions” to repeat accusations that have been thrown out by the courts for years, well, then you might not be interested in the full story.

    “Why would her friends allow what appears to be neglect?”

    She died of a blood clot which existed unbeknown of her, her friends and the doctors. Such type of death is not predictable by even today’s medical means. Even if she could have been treated better she would not have died without having had that accident.

    “It just seems as if there is a huge gap between was is written on the online encyclopedias and this site.”

    Plural? Wikipedia and what? As for Wikipedia, as noted above, you will never get a true story there, just because ALL those articles have been created by outright critics of the Church of Scientology and their “common conscience” of truth is what you read (aside from the inherent flaw that lies or bias printed in a newspaper decades ago now can become “truth” in Wikipedia, as Pat laid out somewhere in this thread).

    “To close, I am just seeking answers. I am not trying to contradict the information provided by this website. ”

    Ok, I am willing to give you whatever I find. It is going to be you who makes up his/her mind in the end. All I can promise you is a balanced view.

    – Louanne

  7. @Comment by C on August 4, 2008 12:59 am

    That it was just a minor bump of an accident is the common spin these anti-sites try to put on this. It was bad enough to cause an injury which led to her death. That’s per the autopsy.

    What those sites also don’t tell you was that she was being seen by a physician all the time she was being cared for. All of this was well documented for the court case. I hope that this answers your questions.

    Here’s the link to the data on the Guardian’s Office:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/guardians-office/

    Pat

  8. Pam:

    I appreciate you taking the time to answer some of my questions but it has led me to a few others: if those wounds are indeed bruises and cuts as you say then where did she get them? From the auto accident? I thought it was a fender bender. If it was from the auto accident then why would the doctors let her go immediately? The gash on her wrist (even from that small pic) looked very extensive and as such would surely be open to infection. If she was covered in cuts and bruises why didn’t her friends just let her stay for observation? Or if the Church does not permit non-Scientologist doctors why not transfer her to a Scientologist doctor?

    I realize I might be jumping to conclusions in assuming the cuts came from the auto accident but reasonably where else could they have come from?

    So setting that aside, what of the Guardian’s Office? What is the hierarchy in regards to that department? Can you explain what they were then labeled as if not Church officials? OR if they the people involved were Church officials, are you saying that they were all renegade Church Officials that were some how not representative of the Church?

  9. @ Comment by JaneyZ on August 3, 2008 12:40 am

    “re: Hittman and the “FDNY Medal of valor”: Why indeed, as R. Hill asks, does the Volunteer Ministers’ own site claim the FDNY Medal of Valor, saying nothing about “911 Foundation”?”

    I guess it’s a mistake on that site, because it cannot be found on any other site talking about the same event.

    “Also, what right has Hittman, who does seem to be a prominent Scioentologist (I saw the pix of him with Jenna Elman the year before this fiasco)”

    Anyone being photographed with Jenna Elfmann is a “prominent Scientologist”? I guess there are plenty of people disagreeing with that.

    “what right has he to do or say ANYTHING on behalf of FDNY, having been forced to resign from FDNY 2 years earlier?”

    That’s an undocumented rumor. If you throw mud you better have the documents to prove that.

    I am tired of this nonsense. Is that all you guys from the anti-forums can come up with?

    – Louanne

  10. @ Comment by veritas on August 3, 2008 2:47 am

    I agree with Pat and only want to add one more tip: Listen to the Dianetics Lectures titled “What Dianetics can do” (there are two of them). LRH is – even in September 1950 – very clear that Dianetics can be used to help outright insane people but he does not recommend it and it was not compiled for that purpose.

    I might note that Youtube is not exactly a good source for anything other than rumors, extreme opinions and out-of-context quotes. And personally I think that if someone would put a forged LRH recording on Youtube, nobody would notice for a long time. Youtube is for entertainment – and good at that – but not for education (unless you want to learn about technology like Photoshop or sports like Aikido).

    – Lou

  11. @ Comment by DDELE7 on August 2, 2008 8:46 am

    “Where are Ron’s other children like Diana, and Arthur among others. I hear some are in Int Management. And what ever happened to Mary Sue after she went down for her actions with the GO thing?”

    Ron’s other children are Scientologists somewhere in the US. I do not have much detail about that but I also won’t discuss individual Scientology members here. Mary Sue was a member of the Church up to 2002 when she passed away.

    “Thanks again. Oh and this website http://www.webshots.com got pictures of the new Freewinds. just punch in Freewinds and you’ll find them, just i case some of your readers are still trippin.”

    Thanks, I have seen them, they are great!

    ” Wikipedia still has under the Freewinds article that the ship is still sealed up. Then again Wikipedia has a lot of false data LOL”

    Wikipedia is a piece of shit when it comes to non-technical articles. A flaw in their rules and blatant incompetence of their “Admins”. Ah, and a breeding ground of anti-Scientology fanatics. Try to correct something obviously wrong and you’ll see what I mean.

    – Lou

  12. Comment by veritas on August 3, 2008 2:47 am

    You should hear the whole interview.

    Earlier in this same interview he says “Psychiatry has to do with the insane. We have nothing to do with the insane whatsoever.”

    LRH defines insane as “an individual who is incapable of any responsibility for his own acts and social conduct.”

    Book 1 was written in 1950 before LRH had really established that auditing was best done by addressing the spiritual being. That was in 1952. Between those two dates he continued researching, wrote and published around 10 or 12 more books. Yes, there are going to be changes. Isn’t that to be expected during continuing research? If you look at Science of Survival, it goes into this area in depth. If any of that were true for you then you would see that there is good reasoning behind the fact that Scientology is not for the insane or those bent on destruction and harm of others. We don’t owe Scientology. That seems to be disagreeable to some.

    Pat

  13. Lou-
    He said in the above youtube cllip that scientology is for the able and that the insane have already failed and the psych’s can have them.
    That flies in the face of what he wrote in book 1 which was my point.
    And what about the uncleared having rights and the ability to procreate(or not) that smacks of eugenics thinking.

  14. re: Hittman and the “FDNY Medal of valor”: Why indeed, as R. Hill asks, does the Volunteer Ministers’ own site claim the FDNY Medal of Valor, saying nothing about “911 Foundation”?

    Also, what right has Hittman, who does seem to be a prominent Scioentologist (I saw the pix of him with Jenna Elman the year before this fiasco); what right has he to do or say ANYTHING on behalf of FDNY, having been forced to resign from FDNY 2 years earlier? Let alone calling himself an ‘Honorary Commissioner,” which the Scientology NY site and many others repeat.

  15. @Comment by C on August 2, 2008 5:26 pm

    The problem with Wikipedia is that all you need as a cite (reference) is something published by a source exterior to Wiki. So you get stuff like anti-Scientology books or web-sites that themselves have no basis in reality, and in some cases are copying stuff from other sites, being used as source references for “facts”. It’s supposed to be neutral, which to me would mean examining the anti-Scientology stuff against the Scientology data and reconciling them. That isn’t happening. You have to have data of comparable magnitude to arrive at a correct evaluation of data. The best way to go here is look at all the data and decide for yourself.

    Let’s take this situation for example:
    According to the data, she had scrapes and bruises. Not sores. So, where did that data come from that they were “sores”? Her medical evidence was examined by 5 other doctors besides the medical examiner and show that she died of natural causes (a blood clot causing a pulmonary embolism). So what reason would there be to make it seem like anything else?

    Did you read the affidavit that describes how most of the controversy over her death was contrived?

    Here’s the link to that:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/docs/stacy-books-affidavit.htm

    Hope this helps

    Pat

  16. I have a few serious questions. I feel very hesitant to even ask because this forum seems acrimonious but none the less…here goes:

    Sites like Wikipedia appear to be very neutral. I honestly don’t think you can categorize online encyclopedias as anti-scientology sites. Wikipedia has articles on Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White which include documents detailing the plans. Would you regard these information pages as either the half-truths or dramatized stories you refer to on your myth pages?

    You say that the plan was canceled before it reached church officials. Are members of the Guardian’s Office not church officials? What is the difference between this department and church officials?

    In regards to Lisa McPherson, perhaps she did not lose 40 lbs but there are clearly sores all over her body. I have seen pictures. Granted I did not WANT to see these pictures nor did I seek them out. If you go to the search engine ask.com you are presented with these photos in the upper right corner. You need not click on anything.
    If she died strictly of natural causes then why all the sores on her body? Why would her friends allow what appears to be neglect?

    To close, I am just seeking answers. I am not trying to contradict the information provided by this website. It just seems as if there is a huge gap between was is written on the online encyclopedias and this site.

    Thanks.

  17. Hi there! Saw the new articles. Thanks for the answers on Ronald DeWolf. Heard the name and the connection to LRH but didn’t know the extent of his problems.

    Where are Ron’s other children like Diana, and Arthur among others. I hear some are in Int Management. And what ever happened to Mary Sue after she went down for her actions with the GO thing?

    Thanks again. Oh and this website http://www.webshots.com got pictures of the new Freewinds. just punch in Freewinds and you’ll find them, just i case some of your readers are still trippin. Wikipedia still has under the Freewinds article that the ship is still sealed up. Then again Wikipedia has a lot of false data LOL

    Gotta Go. And thanks!

    ARC, Chris

  18. @Comment by Veritas on July 31, 2008 2:06 am

    Youtube: What don’t you understand? Dianetics says that the insane can be helped but then also the Church of Scientology is not a health service.

    Science of Survival: That’s a story to illustrate the harmful effects of bad people in society. Not a claim.

    Try not to mix up “law”, “policy”, “claim”, “opinion” and “possibility”. These are all different.

    – Louanne

  19. This is somewhat disturbing now that I’ve been digging around

    That is a complete reversal of the Lron that wrote Dianetics: science of mental health in which he exactly said the “insane” could be helped.
    Also remember in Dianetics bk 1, he says that the uncleared should not be allowed to procreate or have rights!

    Chapter 27 of Science of survival has a weird claim
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Survival

  20. @Comment by Louanne on July 30, 2008 12:42 am

    >@Comment by R. Hill on July 25, 2008 7:00 pm
    >@Comment by R. Hill on July 29, 2008 8:30 pm
    >@Comment by R. Hill on July 29, 2008 8:30 pm

    It’ll get there. Confusion and the Stable datum :)

    Pat

  21. @Comment by R. Hill on July 25, 2008 7:00 pm
    @Comment by R. Hill on July 29, 2008 8:30 pm
    @Comment by R. Hill on July 29, 2008 8:30 pm

    I know you got trouble understanding things. We’ve been going over this for years now and you didn’t change. Fine.

    But listen: The source of the information, on video, says: “911 PROGRAM’s Medal of Valor”. And as I said: The press release is wobbly. And as I said: I sent something off to the Church to take a look at it and correct it if it is incorrect.

    So if you please recognize that this is all I can do here right now and that none of your frantic attempts to be right about something will carry us any further. Thank you.

    – Louanne

  22. @Comment by Louanne on July 28, 2008 4:58 pm

    Again, the page at:

    http://www.volunteerministers.org/relief/

    doesn’t mention anything about “911 Program.” It does mention “New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor.” Anyone visiting that page will read that the VMs were awarded the “New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor.” You expecting those readers to find and watch a particular Youtube video to get it right is not reasonable.

  23. @Comment by Louanne on July 28, 2008 4:58 pm

    Again, the page at:

    http://www.volunteerministers.org/relief/

    doesn’t mention anything about “911 Program.” It does mention “New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor.” Anyone visiting that page will read that the VMs were awarded the “New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor.” You expecting those readers to find and watch a particular Youtube video to get it right is not unreasonable.

  24. @Comment by Anonymous on July 29, 2008 5:58 pm

    Yes, contrary facts.

    A lie, to be blunt, or at least delusive on your part. But as you claim it I let you do the homework. Tell me how much money was paid in 2007 for legal fees.

    – Louanne

  25. 90% of your contributions are going toward legal fees. Outpoint?

  26. @Comment by Alison on July 28, 2008 3:29 pm

    I guess you didn’t read the FAQ. Did you happen to notice the part about multiple links causing the WordPress filter to block it as spam? You evidently didn’t read the thread either or you would have seen the issues were already addressed. This is not a platform for your ant-Scientology rhetoric. If you want to stump go elsewhere.

    You owe Louanne an apology

    Pat

  27. @Comment by R. Hill on July 25, 2008 7:00 pm

    I know you got trouble understanding things. We’ve been going over this for years now and you didn’t change. Fine.

    But listen: The source of the information, on video, says: “911 PROGRAM’s Medal of Valor”. And as I said: The press release is wobbly. And as I said: I sent something off to the Church to take a look at it and correct it if it is incorrect.

    So if you please recognize that this is all I can do here right now and that none of your frantic attempts to be right about something will carry us any further. Thank you.

    – Louanne

  28. @Comment by Chris D. on July 27, 2008 9:36 pm

    Hi Chris,

    I have seen that video showing up here and there on the web in the past 2-3 years. It seems to be a Church recording passed around to all Churches in 1986. But as you say, the dude spreading the story (what use has this creatively edited version other than to piss people off) is not a friend of mine.

    – Lou

  29. @Comment by Alison on July 28, 2008 3:29 pm

    Blaming me for something I have nothing to do with tells a story about you not me.
    So why don’t you RTFM? And don’t send a link farm which WP automatically files as “Spam”, without my doing.

    – L

  30. PS, luana, I ask again: What was “fiction” about Dr. von Marcab’s article?

    Inrtellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.

  31. Louanne deleted my response from 8 am, 25 July — just before I say “Oops, here’s the pic.” I provided many examples of Scientology sites and blogs claiming FDNY and saying nothing about the “911 Foundation.” Too much evidence, eh Luana?

  32. Hello. Im a Scientologist and i love your website. I refer it to several of my curious non scientology friends if they wish for some answers and they dont feel like checking out some church related data.

    Anyways, the other day i came across an interesting video posted on YouTube. It seems to be the official announcement of LRH’s passing. I have never seen it before.

    The man who posted it must be a anti-Scientology dude because the video was severely edited for timing and the audio is out of timing.

    Im sure some people are curious to know what happened when Ron left, but perhaps you could look into it.

    Here is the link to part 1 of said video featuring a young David Miscavige.

  33. The question has been answered including a video of the award when it happened.

    Pat

  34. Try to avoid ad hominem and let’s stick to the essence of the discussion:

    I say the claim that “800 Volunteer Ministers earned praise from officials and civic leaders and were awarded the New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor” is false.

    As seen on the Volunteer Ministers web site:
    http://www.volunteerministers.org/relief/

    “New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor,” that exactly what it says.

    Is it true or false that 800 Volunteer Ministers were awarded the New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor, as stated on the VMs’ website?

  35. Comment by R. Hill on July 25, 2008 5:24 pm
    I went to re-read again to be sure, and I can’t see where it says “911-PROGRAM Medal of Valor” in there:

    http://www.volunteerministers.org/relief/

    It really says “were awarded the New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor.”

    Why would you blame people *pointing out* the false claim? How pointing out at this false claim makes someone “vicious,” “fanatic”?

    Because you did more than “pointing out”. I agree with Louanne. It was viciously done and made to look like no award occured at all. Vicious is a good word for it.

    Pat

  36. I went to re-read again to be sure, and I can’t see where it says “911-PROGRAM Medal of Valor” in there:

    http://www.volunteerministers.org/relief/

    It really says “were awarded the New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor.”

    Why would you blame people *pointing out* the false claim? How pointing out at this false claim makes someone “vicious,” “fanatic”?

  37. @Comment by confused on July 25, 2008 1:10 am

    “That makes it a little more clear that it’s an award from the 9/11 Program (the private charity), not the FDNY Medal of Valor but it’s still a pretty confusing speech though as parts of it read like it’s supposed to sound like the FDNY gave the award instead of a charity. Maybe that dude just sucks at public speaking.”

    The actual test for that is to listen to the guy live and get the impression the audience gets from it. There’s a huge difference between reading the script and watching the actual speech. And guess what, I found parts of it on Youtube, sitting there since 2006 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=JPwRY5W6TGI (Hittman starts at 5:50).

    I got the idea the proclamation is called the “911 Program’s Medal of Valor and 9/11 Service Award”.

    – Louanne

  38. @Comment by confused on July 25, 2008 1:01 am

    Thanks for the research. Yes, that sucks. It is always better to read the source and I agree with you that that press release is wobbly. You could argue though that a private citizen like Hittman would not be able to give an award on behalf of the fire department so it’s kinda clear that the 911 Program or his foundation is awarding the plaque. The actual award however if without question (as quoted earlier, “911 Program’s Medal of Valor). I sent something off to the Church nevertheless.

    – Lou

  39. @Comment by R. Hill on July 25, 2008 12:54 am

    R.Hill, I guess you are the one running this vicious anti-Scientology campaign since a couple of years? That might impair your ability to actually read what I wrote. I found that you fanatics regularly have that problem. Let’s see if you can get this under control. If not, you might want to jerk off somewhere else.

    – Louanne

  40. Oops, here’s the pic of Hittman shmoozing with Jenna Elfman in 2003:
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-76754711.html

  41. Sorry Louanne for the double post but one more link came up in my Google Search. It appears to be the speech the guy made when he gave the award.

    Found here: http://www.scientology-newyork.org/community/opening/hittmann001.html

    From the article: “And so, on behalf of FDNY’s 16,000 Firefighters, paramedics, our thousands of emergency workers and on behalf of each and every one of the 8 million citizens that make up this great city, it’s my honor to present you with something that symbolizes the respect and the admiration for the Volunteer Ministers of the Church of Scientology who, at Ground Zero and every day since, have given us a gift that keeps on giving. With that in mind, we proudly present you with the FDNY and 911 Medal of Valor.”

    It’s really kind of ambiguous there because it really does sound like he’s giving the FDNY Medal of Valor as he says it’s on behalf of the FDNY’s 16,000 fire fighters.

    Later on in the article though it does say this: “”THEREFORE: That FDNY and the 911 PROGRAM officially recognize this dedicated service to the citizens of the City of New York, and hereby bestow upon L. Ron Hubbard and the Volunteer Ministers of the Church of Scientology, the FDNY and the 911 PROGRAM’s Medal of Valor and 9–11 Service Award”

    That makes it a little more clear that it’s an award from the 9/11 Program (the private charity), not the FDNY Medal of Valor but it’s still a pretty confusing speech though as parts of it read like it’s supposed to sound like the FDNY gave the award instead of a charity. Maybe that dude just sucks at public speaking.

  42. Thank you for the answer Louanne. I am still confused though. Here’s a quote from a Scientology site with regards to the Medal of Valor.

    “Dr. Stephan Hittman, CEO of the 911 Foundation presented the Volunteer Minister Corps and the religion’s Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, with the Fire Department of New York’s Medal of Valor and 911 Service Award”

    Found here: http://www.scientology.org/news-media/news/2004/040926.html and also pictured in the article (that’s how I found the link).

    From that quote it sounds like they received 2 different awards, the 911 Service Award and the FDNY Medal of Valor. It doesn’t say the 9/11 program Medal of Valor (an award from the 9/11 Program, a separate charity), it specifically says the FDNY Medal of Valor (the one for fallen service people).

    In other places I see it says an FDNY representative and president of the 9/11 Program (the charity) gave the 9/11 program Medal of Valor, but this one sticks out.

    From a quick google search it appears the 9/11 service award is a separate award so at least in this instance it does appear that they are claiming to have received the FDNY Medal of Valor.

    So is that an error in the press release?

    Also I’ll try and find again where I found the Marvin Gaye thing. It was really quite funny assuming it actually happened.

  43. @ Louanne

    “Wild theories”? Clearly you (conveniently) didn’t read carefully.

    I will quote for you:

    Volunteers.org:
    “Ministers earned praise from officials and civic leaders and were awarded the New York Fire Department’s Medal of Valor”

    scientology.org:
    Dr. Stephan Hittmann presented the Volunteers Minister Corps and the religion’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, with the Fire Department of New York’s Medal of Honor”

    Etc.

    Can hardly be more fraudulent and despicable.

  44. @Comment by confused on July 23, 2008 8:48 pm

    Hi confused,

    “Here is an article: htt p://www.indybay. org/newsitems/2008/07/19/18517551.php”

    All I see is an anonymous, unprofessional compilation of wild theories. SF Indybay…hmm… more like “Science-Fiction IndyBay” or “Scientology Fiction Indybay”.

    Anyway, your idea is right, what has been awarded is the “911 PROGRAM’s Medal of Valor”. This is quoted from the source Pat linked to above. The anonymous writer from this fiction place had to put the lie first that the Church claims that they got awarded a “9/11 Medal of Valor”, which it is nonsense, as such a medal is only awarded to dead people, namely “the 442 public safety officers who were killed in the line of duty during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks”. As far as I know no Volunteer Minister was killed, even though some of them might be public safety officers for a living. What has been awarded however is the “911 PROGRAM’s Medal of Valor”, which is for those whose help made a difference after the 9/11 attacks.

    “Did one of the Scientology churches in the Netherlands really give out fliers with a picture of Marvin Gaye on it claiming he was a leader of Anonymous?”

    I never heard or saw that the Church anywhere claims that Marvin Gaye is a leader of Anonymous. Over here – the US that is – I only saw one flier about Anonymous which I just scanned in and put here, FYI.

    Ehm, and I just googled Marvin Gaye (didn’t know him, sorry): he was a Black american. Now, Anonymous is heavily racist when it comes to real life – they love to mess with any minority, cowards they are. So it’s very unlikely that an Anon leader would fraudulently impersonate a Black dead singer, not even for their perverted sense of “fun”.

    – Louanne

  45. Hi Scientologists,

    I’ve been reading up on this whole Scientology vs. Anonymous thing after I read about it in this month’s Maxim magazine. During my reading around I found various responses to articles saying I could learn more and have some questions here, so here is my question:

    Here is an article: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/19/18517551.php

    The basic gist of the article is that Scientology Volunteer Ministers claimed on various websites etc. that after 9/11 they were awarded a Medal of Valor for the work they did at ground zero.

    It goes on to state that the FDNY Medal of Valor is only awarded to fire fighters who died in the line of duty and that Scientology is lying about receiving the medal.

    Before you guys get started in answering, I understand that the article was written by a member of Anonymous and may be more sensational and over-stated due to that. I also read the comments to the article from Volunteer Ministers talking about the work they did at ground zero so I don’t really need info on that. I’m curious specifically about the medal.

    Even if Anonymous is sensationalizing everything the facts remain:

    1) Scientology claims they received a Medal of Valor from the FDNY
    2) FDNY websites states that the Medal of Valor is only given to fire fighters killed in the line of duty.

    So my questions are:

    1) Was it really a Medal of Valor awarded to Scientology Volunteer Ministers? Could it possibly have been a different/similarly named civilian award?

    2) If it was a Medal of Valor, under what circumstances were the Volunteer Ministers awarded the Medal of Valor? I find it hard to believe that the FDNY would give an award meant for dead service people to anyone alive as it could be viewed as disrespectful to the memories to those who died. Instead (as I mentioned) I could see them giving a different award.

    On a lighter note, when looking at one of the Anonymous sites (enter..something?) I saw something funny. Did one of the Scientology churches in the Netherlands really give out fliers with a picture of Marvin Gaye on it claiming he was a leader of Anonymous? I mean he was a great singer and all but I think telling anyone what to do is beyond his capabilities at the moment since he’s dead.

    Thank you in advance for your answers.

  46. >I don’t see this resolving.

    I wasn’t expecting anything to get resolved. I wasn’t expecting to convince you or you to convince me. But…. at least we both got an opportunity here to express our points of view, and it allows for people reading this to see both sides. It’s not often people get to see a Scientologist debating with an ex-Scientologist.

    But to finish off, I’ll say this:

    Regardless of whose fault it is, who has overts and withholds, who’s suppressive, who’s misapplying policy, who’s being irresponsible… it appears to be a common thing where communication lines are cut over Scientology.

    I understand that a group has the right to refuse services, just as a restaurant reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. I understand that a Christian church has the right to refuse to allow gay people in their congregation. And I understand that the Church of Scientology has the right to refuse services to people they think they can’t help or people they think would be a liability.

    But as I said, if Scientology is something that comm lines are commonly being cut over… I think it would behoove the Church to reconsider what the ethical standards should be when it comes to refusing services to people, not only to prevent situations like mine or Amy’s from happening, but also to protect itself from being viewed as accountable for being an influence. Because whatever they’ve got going on right now doesn’t seem to be working to that purpose.

    I’ll leave it at that.

  47. I don’t see this resolving. You have the references.

    Pat

  48. While we’re on the subject of what I could have done differently….

    In my last post, I mentioned that perhaps I could have disconnected from my mother TEMPORARILY until I no longer had to be in LA and continue trying to handle it with the Senior DI&R.

    How would this arrangement have worked out? Whenever I go down to ASHO for an auditing cycle, I disconnect from my mother. Whenever I finish an auditing cycle, I reconnect with my mother. And it is only during auditing cycles that don’t talk with my mother.

    Would something like that likely have been approved?

  49. >The MAA or IJC didn’t talk to the non-scientologists in your family. Why would their viewpoint be that the Church did anything wrong, unless you presented it that way? Who caused that?

    I just told them the facts. Grandma is an SP. It is a high crime for me to be connected to an SP. Therefore, unless I get Mom to disconnect from Grandma or I disconnect from Mom, I can’t get my services. Those are the NEUTRAL facts. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    >I don’t see that the MAA or IJC did anything wrong at all in giving you the choice.

    The phrase, “giving you the choice” is a neutral statement. And while neutral may mean there’s nothing wrong with it, it also means there’s nothing right about it.

    >Wait, wait, wait. Why would a non-scientologist think the Church did anything to him? Who was the Scientologist who disconnected in such a way as to create the impression that he/she was forced to do it, and is therefore equally as much a vicitim as they are?

    You might as well say it’s Amy’s parents that are creating her antagonism by being disconnected from her because she is a Declared SP on technicality that she didn’t return to route out of the Sea Org properly. After all, THEY disconnected in such a way as to create the impression that they were just following policy.

    I can also tell you, that in present time, my Aunt is virtually disconnected from my Mom, ever since I disconnected from my Mom eight years ago. I can tell you that my Aunt would have a hard time convincing me that the Church has not influenced her decision to stay disconnected from my Mom (the way I see it, it’s safer for her to maintain the disconnection she had before she got declared Type A). Not that I’m letting it bother me too much, I’ve basically accepted it (after all, my Aunt still sees my Mom at family functions and is paying for my Mom to fly down and and visit me at Disneyland). But would you say it’s my Aunt’s fault for whatever resentment I feel against the Church’s policies over this?

    >By blaming the Church or MAA for the effect you create is giving them power and saying you aren’t able to be cause.

    What effect in whose life are we talking about here? It’s certainly not a bad effect in MY life. I’m not in Scientology anymore. No more disconnection over it. No more family drama over it. Its bad PR, its critics, Anonymous, the monthly protests, all the antagonism… THAT is the effect, the result we’re talking about here. That effect is not my problem, that is the problem of Scientologists collectively as a group. Who is still creating that effect? And who is blaming critics and ex-members for that effect and giving them power and saying they (the “who”) aren’t able to be cause?

    >Considering that you were part of that group (Scientologist), what would have been your on-policy way to handle that situation (because going by your statement, you were accountable)?

    Good question. I could have refused to participate in the sec check and kept protesting it until they changed their mind (which most likely would have taken forever). I could have refused to disconnect from my mother and in the meantime, not have services, meanwhile protesting to the MAA that the situation was handled (which would most likely would have taken forever, and I was in a hurry).

    >For starters, you would have to be able to point to whatever policies that individual violated, right? What exactly was the policy violation, anyway?

    Honestly, I’m not sure that any policy was technically violated, but I could have continued to protest that I didn’t want to disconnect from my mother, and that by disconnecting from my mother would have created more antagonism in my family, and that it would have been a more appropriate handle to just accept the fact that she lived next door to the SP.

    You are right, I could have done that. And for that, I am accountable. But like I said, I was cornered because it was wasting my family’s money to be down in LA and not getting services. But… I could have told my Mom, “I’m going to disconnect from you temporarily until I finish my acting classes I’ve already paid for and no longer have to stay down in LA.” (I was living in a hotel, so I didn’t have any permanent address) Or… I could have evaluated what to do with my life in the meantime, too, while not being able to have services. I could focused on other things besides trying to get back on my services… I could have found a job to fill up the time, etc.

    You are right, I could have done that. But let me remind you, my family held me accountable, too, not just the Church for giving me “the choice.”

    It is a little late to be thinking about this now. Oh well.

  50. @Comment by Link on July 19, 2008 9:08 pm

    The MAA or IJC didn’t talk to the non-scientologists in your family. Why would their viewpoint be that the Church did anything wrong, unless you presented it that way? Who caused that?

    I can say right now that you have what appears to be some pretty hefty false data and / or misunderstoods on the policies of PTSness. I don’t see that the MAA or IJC did anything wrong at all in giving you the choice. You were the one who decided to disconnect, creating the upsets by the way you handled it, therefore the effect was yours. By blaming the Church or MAA for the effect you create is giving them power and saying you aren’t able to be cause.

    >Well… a question to consider… “If a non-Scientologist feels that his rights are being encroached upon by the Church, more specifically, what the MAA or Senior DI&R deems to be a proper PTS handling…. does that mean that the MAA or Senior DI&R screwed up on their post by not applying LRH policy correctly? Or is the MAA or Senior DI&R merely applying LRH policy correctly?”

    Wait, wait, wait. Why would a non-scientologist think the Church did anything to him? Who was the Scientologist who disconnected in such a way as to create the impression that he/she was forced to do it, and is therefore equally as much a vicitim as they are?

    Are you getting my point here?

    >And I guess another ethical question to consider would be, “At what point should a group be held accountable for a group member’s actions?”

    Considering that you were part of that group (Scientologist), what would have been your on-policy way to handle that situation (because going by your statement, you were accountable)? For starters, you would have to be able to point to whatever policies that individual violated, right? What exactly was the policy violation, anyway? Then you would get that terminal corrected if there was a violation of policy, right? Did you do that?

    Pat

  51. >It’s specifics, Link

    Yes, that’s why I said earlier, “The thing is, in my viewpoint, whether or not the Church (more specifically the MAAs, Justices, etc) is right about what a survival choice for all is.”

    >What that would mean is that everytime an individual screws up on post, “the Church” itself can be criticized for that. Don’t you see that as a generality and a big justification (excuse) to go after the Church? That that viewpoint comes from an antisocial personality? (Not saying you are, but you’re forwarding it)

    Well… a question to consider… “If a non-Scientologist feels that his rights are being encroached upon by the Church, more specifically, what the MAA or Senior DI&R deems to be a proper PTS handling…. does that mean that the MAA or Senior DI&R screwed up on their post by not applying LRH policy correctly? Or is the MAA or Senior DI&R merely applying LRH policy correctly?”

    I’m not saying that if a member of the Church is a child molester, the Church should be attacked for that. Not at all. But what I’m saying is… the Church as a group has policies, and for having these policies, the Church can be viewed as accountable by a non-Scientologist, whether the MAA or Senior DI&R applied the policies correctly or not.

    >You still haven’t given me who as non-scientologists are saying that.

    You asked me who were the non-Scientologists that viewed the Church as a third party. I gave you examples of non-Scientologists who view the Church as a third party. It doesn’t matter if it’s “The MAA said…” rather than “The Church said…” because the MAA is acting upon what he feels is the Church’s policy. It’s the MAA acting on behalf of the Church.

    And I guess another ethical question to consider would be, “At what point should a group be held accountable for a group member’s actions?”

  52. @Comment by Link on July 19, 2008 6:20 am

    >The point I was trying to make is that the Church, as a group, can’t expect to not be held accountable by people with legitimate grievances if there were mistakes made by people in the group.

    What that would mean is that everytime an individual screws up on post, “the Church” itself can be criticized for that. Don’t you see that as a generality and a big justification (excuse) to go after the Church? That that viewpoint comes from an antisocial personality? (Not saying you are, but you’re forwarding it)

    Again, Truth is the exact consideration of time, place, form and event. (Axiom 38)

    It’s specifics, Link

    It’s “The MAA said..” not “the Church said” and any individuals who are having the generality run on them are under the influence of anti-socials. You still haven’t given me who as non-scientologists are saying that.

    Pat

  53. >Do you mean that non-scientologists compare Scientology justice with the american legal system (as litigious)?

    I’m sorry, I guess I’m not being clear enough.

    I was not comparing the Scientology Justice System to the American Legal system. I was just saying we live in a society where if one person in a group does something wrong, the rest of the group (I guess more particularly, the leader of the group) gets viewed as accountable. I was saying that in response to this:

    >If the MAA does something you disagree with, was that the MAA or was it “Scientology”? So, I ask — Why are you blaming Scientology? Isn’t that just one huge generality?

    The point I was trying to make is that the Church, as a group, can’t expect to not be held accountable by people with legitimate grievances if there were mistakes made by people in the group.

    >Axiom 38, Link. Know that one? Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

    With that in mind… in other words… the BALD FACTS, without any value judgments, qualifying statements, interpretations or opinions.

    Let’s use my situation as a short, rough example:

    Eight years ago, I was at ASHO down in Ethics. The MAA told me that the Senior DI&R wanted me to get my mother to disconnect from my grandmother or disconnect from my mother before I could continue on my services. My mother would not disconnect from my grandmother. I disconnected from my mother. I got back on my services.

    Those are the neutral facts without any added value judgments, interpretation, qualifying statements, etc.

    “I made a self-determined decision” and “That was not a self-determined choice” are interpretations of the facts, which are always neutral.

    >Are they? Which ones actually do view it that way, and why?

    Pardon the generality.

    The non-Scientologists that are in the vicinity whose lives are somehow effected by a PTS handling, whether they be actual SPs, people declared SP by technicality (such as Amy), people connected to SPs, people with antagonism against the Church, etc. I gave you my sister and my mother as examples. Amy is another example. These are some people who view and hold accountable the Church for influencing their family members to disconnect. These non-Scientologists are also capable of getting other non-Scientologists to share the same viewpoint. The fact that every month since February of this year, there have been people protesting Scientology churches around the world illustrates this point.

    Why do they view the Church that way? Some have overts and withholds, others have legitimate complaints. We don’t have all the facts for every situation.

    >Then you created the situation because (and I’m basing this on your earlier posts) ,you, yourself let her believe that you were being forced to do it against your own self-determinism.

    Well… she is aware of the policies. She knows that our grandma is a declared SP. I can’t help it if she makes a conclusion that I’m disconnecting from our Mom because the Church was ordering me to. And as I recall, nobody ever told me that I had to make her believe that I did it on my own determinism, which she never would have believed, even if I had tried to convince her of that.

    Besides, I was constantly justifying my decision to my sister. “The Church is right. Our grandma is a suppressive person, and Mom would be better if she disconnected from her, after all, you guys got in that car accident after having Thanksgiving with her. This is tough love I am practicing. I am right. Why can’t you see that?”

    My sister didn’t care what the Church thought of our grandma. There was this group that she viewed as encroaching into her life that she didn’t want to have anything to do with.

    You asked me why the Church gets blamed for a decision that is supposed to be pro-survival and self-determined. I have tried to explain why. Need I say more?

    >You chose to be a victim (you know, prime postulate — in the beginning was the decision and the decision was to be), and your postulate worked. Now you pretty much have a situation, it seems that your whole family is now outside viewing it the same way. Who created that?

    I’ve never denied any accountability for my decision to be in Scientology or my decision to disconnect from my mother. But in my opinion, nobody creates any situation by himself. Everything is co-created.

    But to reiterate… a non-Scientologist isn’t going to care what an MAA thinks is right or wrong. The Church could be totally right in what it determines to be the most pro-survival decision, but if non-Scientologists feel that a Scientologist’s PTS Handling is encroaching into their life, they are not going to like it. Yes, some of them are suppressive, some of them have overts and withholds, some of them do have legitimate grievances. But unless we know all the facts, we can’t assume anything about these people.

    A group does have a right to make policies designed to protect itself and keep itself strong. However…. there is an ethical question to consider– at what point do these policies encroach on the rights of people not part of the group? And are these policies doing so?

    Not everybody will agree on this. I am not expecting to convince you and I am not expecting you to convince me. But… I think this discussion has brought up some very good points from both sides.

  54. >>No, the MAA is not “Scientology”. Your analogy isn’t comparable since Justice isn’t litigious or anything at all similar to the American legal system. That isn’t justice, it’s punishment.

    >I was not comparing Justice to the America legal system. I was comparing non-Scientologists to the America legal system

    *makes that went over the head motion*

    Do you mean that non-scientologists compare Scientology justice with the american legal system (as litigious)?

    What non-scientologists are doing that? You do realize that that’s a generality, right? Trying to make it seem all non-Scientologists in general think this way?

    Pat

  55. Ignore everything below my name on the last post. copy/pasta :(

  56. @Comment by Link on July 18, 2008 9:20 pm

    >Non-Scientologists are still going to view it as third party, or rather, some laymens term for third party. Just because they don’t study Scientologese, doesn’t mean they don’t already have some concept of how third parties create conflict.

    Are they? Which ones actually do view it that way, and why?

    >My sister was very upset when I was disconnected from my mother. She held me accountable, but she also held Scientology accountable. In her viewpoint, she recognized a third party (or whatever she thought in laymens terms).

    Then you created the situation because (and I’m basing this on your earlier posts) ,you, yourself let her believe that you were being forced to do it against your own self-determinism.

    You chose to be a victim (you know, prime postulate — in the beginning was the decision and the decision was to be), and your postulate worked. Now you pretty much have a situation, it seems that your whole family is now outside viewing it the same way. Who created that?

    Pat

    >No, the MAA is not “Scientology”. Your analogy isn’t comparable since Justice isn’t litigious or anything at all similar to the American legal system. That isn’t justice, it’s punishment.

    I was not comparing Justice to the America legal system. I was comparing non-Scientologists to the America legal system

  57. @Comment by Link on July 18, 2008 9:09 pm

    >How common do you think it is for Scientologists who haven’t reached that level yet to have heard something about the contents in that level? Let’s say they watch a show like South Park or Nip/Tuck or Boston Legal which mentions that, or perhaps they run into a non-Scientologist who brings it up, or perhaps they look at a website…. is this a situation that commonly comes up nowadays? And what usually happens afterward?

    Not common. But it has happened where someone accidentally came across what was being called OT III. I think that most of the time they get a review and are alright.

    I am OT III and I can honestly tell you that:

    1. What is being bandied about on the Internet has been altered so much data-wise that anyone trying to use it that way is going to get pretty messed up.

    2. OT III is something you become aware of at the right place on the Grade Chart. If you don’t have the Awarenesses gained on the earlier steps you won’t be able to DO or understand it. Keep that in mind. OT III is something you DO, not read. Right now, it’s just a big joke out there, because it’s so altered. That and those who’ve gotten messed up trying to do it is exactly why the SPs propagate it.

    Pat

  58. >It is very much NOT 3rd Party because PTS is PTS because of how it affects other Scientologists.

    Non-Scientologists are still going to view it as third party, or rather, some laymens term for third party. Just because they don’t study Scientologese, doesn’t mean they don’t already have some concept of how third parties create conflict.

    My sister was very upset when I was disconnected from my mother. She held me accountable, but she also held Scientology accountable. In her viewpoint, she recognized a third party (or whatever she thought in laymens terms).

    >No, the MAA is not “Scientology”. Your analogy isn’t comparable since Justice isn’t litigious or anything at all similar to the American legal system. That isn’t justice, it’s punishment.

    I was not comparing Justice to the America legal system. I was comparing non-Scientologists to the America legal system.

  59. Oh, I have another question, and I ask this respectfully… it was something I was curious about since I’ve been out for seven years…

    In your opinion, Pat…. in light of the information age we live in now… seeing that it’s very common for non-Scientologists to have heard something about what’s in the OT III materials… whether they’ve seen the South Park episode or gone on the Internet…

    How common do you think it is for Scientologists who haven’t reached that level yet to have heard something about the contents in that level? Let’s say they watch a show like South Park or Nip/Tuck or Boston Legal which mentions that, or perhaps they run into a non-Scientologist who brings it up, or perhaps they look at a website…. is this a situation that commonly comes up nowadays? And what usually happens afterward?

  60. @Comment by Link on July 18, 2008 8:31 pm

    It is very much NOT 3rd Party because PTS is PTS because of how it affects other Scientologists. It is very much the concern of all of us. It’s being responsible for all the dynamics, and not just the 1st or 2nd. Moral choices by the individual is made based on the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Justice is used when the individuals don’t keep their own ethics in until ethics has gone in, when it is affecting the group.

    No, the MAA is not “Scientology”. Your analogy isn’t comparable since Justice isn’t litigious or anything at all similar to the American legal system. That isn’t justice, it’s punishment.

    Refer: Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics in the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

    Axiom 38, Link. Know that one? Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. Somewhere there’s a lie here or this would have “as-ised” (evaporated, disappeared, gone away, be gone, etc. etc).

    Pat

  61. @Comment by Link on July 18, 2008 8:35 pm
    >It is not alright to leave your cell phone on because the ring disturbs the classroom. You’d have to turn it on and off. There’s no HCOB or HCOPL that says otherwise to my knowledge (I’ve done the Student Hat)

    You could still leave the iPhone on but have the ringer and vibrator off, couldn’t you?

    Yeah, the Student Hat was created before the advent of cellphones, fortunately. :)

    Like I said, there’s no policy against it.

    Pat

  62. >It is not alright to leave your cell phone on because the ring disturbs the classroom. You’d have to turn it on and off. There’s no HCOB or HCOPL that says otherwise to my knowledge (I’ve done the Student Hat)

    You could still leave the iPhone on but have the ringer and vibrator off, couldn’t you?

    Yeah, the Student Hat was created before the advent of cellphones, fortunately. :)

  63. >Scientology is very encompassing. It’s all the Churches, Missions and groups. It’s the technology of auditing, ethics and administration. It’s the practice of that technology.

    >If the MAA does something you disagree with, was that the MAA or was it “Scientology”?

    >So, I ask — Why are you blaming Scientology? Isn’t that just one huge generality?

    My aunt has a business. Decades ago, one of her employees sold a client a bad deal. Well… my aunt and her company ended up getting sued by that client, who won the case, even though it was the employee, not my aunt, that sold the bad deal. I mention this simply to demonstrate that we live in a litigious society where the group is going to be held accountable for one person’s actions. (I am in NO WAY implying that my aunt is a shady business woman because this happened DECADES ago when she was younger and newer at her business.)

    Here’s the deal.

    My aunt and I were disconnected from my grandmother. I heard through the grapevine that she had gone to Barstow to work on her squirrel OT VIII. I was joking with my supervisor about this, and he told me that I needed to report it to OSA. So I did, I wrote a report while making it clear that my aunt and I were still disconnected.

    What happens? My aunt gets kicked off her Org’s building committee, which she was really enturbulated about. Later, we flew down to ASHO, planning on getting auditing. We’ve already bought intensives. When we get there, we find out that we are getting sec checked on suspicion of being connected to squirrels. My aunt was really enturbulated about it. She kept saying, “If you want to investigate me, that’s fine! But why do I have to pay for it?” And that was enturbulating to me.

    We were also informed that my grandmother had written a letter to FLAG stating, “I would like to get reinstated back into the Church. I am not ashamed of what I did. My daughter ______ and my grandson ______ are Scientologists in good standing.”

    Later, it was determined by the Senior Di&R that I had to handle or disconnect from my mother. I disconnected and stayed disconnected for a year and a half. Later, after my aunt was told she had to disconnect from any relative who wouldn’t disconnect from my grandmother, I got back in communication with my mother and told her what had had happened.

    What did my grandmother do? She wrote a letter to the MAA saying, “I want to talk about my daughter ____. I understand that she is in trouble right now, but I want to assure you that she is disconnected from me.”

    What was my grandmother doing? She was taking advantage of the Church having these policies so she could stir up chaos. I recognized that all these problems going on, my aunt getting kicked off the building committee, getting sec checked, my having to disconnect from my mother, etc. all this was the result of POLICY, not just because of anything my grandmother was doing.

    So, if an MAA does something I don’t like based upon policy? Is it a generality to hold a group accountable for having such policies?

    >As for the Church stating the condition. That is because people who are PTS are just that – Potential Trouble Sources. They get labelled. The group needs to know. It’s a type of person, not a case condition. That seems to be a misunderstood here.

    I completely understand the group having a right to protect itself with its policies. But…. the group is still placing itself in a third party position with Scientologists and non-Scientologists, whether it be an SP or someone who has some connection to an SP or someone like Amy who is a Declared SP for refusing to go back and route out of the Sea Org properly. Whether the MAAs, Senior DI&Rs, etc. are right or wrong, whether or not they’ve applied the tech correctly, the Church as a group is going to be recognized as a third party and held accountable by any upset party.

  64. @Comment by Link on July 18, 2008 11:05 am

    I understand everything you’re saying. Maybe my question wasn’t that clear.

    Scientology is very encompassing. It’s all the Churches, Missions and groups. It’s the technology of auditing, ethics and administration. It’s the practice of that technology.

    If the MAA does something you disagree with, was that the MAA or was it “Scientology”?

    So, I ask — Why are you blaming Scientology? Isn’t that just one huge generality?

    Meantime, it sounds like your mom (and you) needs some hatting on the PTS/SP course. I suspect that she never did the one after the golden age of knowledge. It would explain the confusion that seems to have expanded out into the whole family.

    As for the Church stating the condition. That is because people who are PTS are just that – Potential Trouble Sources. They get labelled. The group needs to know. It’s a type of person, not a case condition. That seems to be a misunderstood here.

    Pat

  65. @Comment by Link on July 18, 2008 11:33 am
    >On a lighter note…. here is a more trivial question, out of curiousity.

    >Since it’s been seven years since I’ve been on course…. with the advent of newer technologies…

    >Let’s say a student has a cellphone with Internet access, like an iPhone, example.

    >While they are on course, are they allowed to use that phone to go on the Internet to look up a word or to google an image for mass? Or is there a “No Cellphones” policy?

    >That’s what I’ve been doing lately when I read. Whenever I run into a word, and more specifically, if it’s a type of flower or a type of tree or a type of dog, etc…. rather than just try to imagine what it looks like by looking at the description in the definition, “It has this color of petals, this shape, this tall, etc.” I’ve found it so much more easier, effective and efficient, to google images on my iPhone! It’s a great way for me to get mass.

    I don’t see why you couldn’t as long as the supervisor knew you were using study tech (clearing a misunderstood or getting a picture for mass), rather than non-course activities, like chatting on MySpace or something :P
    It is not alright to leave your cell phone on because the ring disturbs the classroom. You’d have to turn it on and off. There’s no HCOB or HCOPL that says otherwise to my knowledge (I’ve done the Student Hat)

    Pat

  66. On a lighter note…. here is a more trivial question, out of curiousity.

    Since it’s been seven years since I’ve been on course…. with the advent of newer technologies…

    Let’s say a student has a cellphone with Internet access, like an iPhone, example.

    While they are on course, are they allowed to use that phone to go on the Internet to look up a word or to google an image for mass? Or is there a “No Cellphones” policy?

    That’s what I’ve been doing lately when I read. Whenever I run into a word, and more specifically, if it’s a type of flower or a type of tree or a type of dog, etc…. rather than just try to imagine what it looks like by looking at the description in the definition, “It has this color of petals, this shape, this tall, etc.” I’ve found it so much more easier, effective and efficient, to google images on my iPhone! It’s a great way for me to get mass.

  67. >These are actually some good questions. I’d have to answer from my viewpoint and hope I say it so it’s “palatable”, so to speak, ok?

    I see that we are off in a better direction. :)

    >So, I guess my question for you, Link, is why was Scientology blamed for something that should have been a survival choice for all? Completely self-determined?

    Good question.

    First of all, I’d like to make a distinction between Scientology as a technology/philosophy, and the Church of Scientology. So, I want to make sure you understand that it’s the Church, not the philosophy, that is being blamed.

    The thing is, in my viewpoint, whether or not the Church (more specifically the MAAs, Justices, etc) is right about what a survival choice for all is… why is it THEIR place to determine for others what is a survival choice and what’s not?

    Yes, my grandmother is a pretty twisted person. What I remember of her is that 65% of the time, she has a critical, snappy personality. She has done some terrible, considerably unforgiveable things in the past. The children she is closer to tend to have health problems, be screwed up mentally, etc. I can’t say that she is committing any suppressive acts in present time, but she is a FreeZoner, so in your book, that would be a suppressive act. From a Scientological POV, you could say that she has this entheta cloud about her that poisons everyone she’s close with, but the thing is… you can’t say that to a non-Scientologist, they’re not necessarily going to agree that just a person’s presence can be damaging.

    When I was in Scientology, I used to think that of course, my mother would do better if she moved away and disconnected from my grandmother. Now… I’m not so sure… I’m thinking if it’s not my grandmother, my mother would pick some other creepy person to associate with. Even before she moved next door to my grandmother, my mother made what I viewed some pretty poor choices in her life. LIke my Dad, he was a successful person (my Mom isn’t) and the sweetest guy in the world, but he always picked these CREEPY, AWFUL women to live with him. If one woman left, he’d pick another one just as bad to replace the former. It was my Dad’s MO to keep picking creepy women, just as it’s most likely my Mom’s MO to keep picking creepy, trashy people to be around.

    Looking back at the situation now, even though I disconnected from my mother and was allowed back onto my services… technically I was more PTS Type A then I had been when I was connected with her. Not only was there an ARC Break on my end, but it really just created more antagonism with my family. They knew that the only reason I wouldn’t talk to my mother was because I was following what the MAA told me to do. It was so frustrating to me that they couldn’t see that I was RIGHT, that my mother was being suppressed by my grandmother, and I was practicing tough love on her.

    Of course, before I disconnected from my mother, I flew home for a week to try to convince my mother to disconnect from my grandmother. I tried to get her to see that her mother was a person that she should shun, but it was no use. I explained to her that if she didn’t disconnect from my grandmother, I’d have to disconnect from her. While this was going on, I couldn’t be on course or receive auditing, and my family was paying for me to live in LA. I moved down to LA to be an actor and also to work intensively on going up my Bridge. Other than some acting classes, I really had nothing going on in my schedule because I couldn’t receive my services, so it was basically wasting my family’s money to have me live in LA. I didn’t have time to draw this situation out, to try and handle my mother or argue with the MAA about a different handling. I chose to disconnect from my mother because it was the fastest, most economical way for me to get back onto my services.

    The way my Mom puts it to me… it was I that disconnected from her, not the other way around. She resented that her self-determinism was being interfered with by another person or group. It did not matter whether that person or group was right or wrong.

    Why does the Church get blamed for something that is supposed to be a survival decision for all? Because not everybody thinks that an MAA or an IJC has the right to determine for another what is a survival connection, a survival relationship, a survival choice and what is not. When an MAA or Senior DI&R makes that determination and imposes an ultimatum on the individual, in my opinion, not only are they interfering with the self-determinism of that individual, but they are also placing the Church in a THIRD PARTY position with the individual and the family member they have to handle or disconnect from.

  68. @Comment by Link on July 18, 2008 1:43 am
    >And Pat, I was never complaining about people’s right to not communicate to somebody.

    >But you have to admit… if you had a son involved in a religion, and you were living next door to a family member whom that religion viewed as suppressive, and people in that religion were demanding that you move away from that person, basically changing your whole life, as well as end your relationship with that family member, so that your son could continue in the religion… and if you didn’t do it, your son would disconnect from you so he could continue in the religion… if you didn’t want to do it, you WOULD have antagonism against that religion. And if your son ended up disconnecting from you, who would you blame? The religion or your son?

    >Like you’ve said, there is recourse. If I didn’t agree with that situation, I could have kept protesting it to the MAA.

    >Unfortunately, the reality of it is, the Church is a very bureaucratic organization, with lots of different cycles going on. It can take forever to get a reply. When I first disconnected from my grandmother, we had to inform the IJC of it it and get approval, and we had to wait TWO MONTHS before we got a reply back. Whenever my aunt sent a letter to the IJC, it would always take WEEKS before she ever got any reply.

    >For me, things just would have been a lot easier and functional and smooth and less complicated if those policies weren’t there in the first place. I know that they’re there to protect the group, and the group has a right to have policies to protect itself, but… having been on the inside and now observing from the outside, it doesn’t seem to me that the polices really are protecting the group as much as they are endangering the group.

    >There is a difference between telling a waiter, “HOW DARE YOU SERVE ME COLD SOUP!” and telling him, “Excuse me, this soup is too cold… could you please heat it up?” That is what I am trying to do in this post.

    These are actually some good questions. I’d have to answer from my viewpoint and hope I say it so it’s “palatable”, so to speak, ok?

    Having studied the basics of Scientology and experienced the gains of auditing and training for myself, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had an SP in my family (SP isn’t just a title or label. It’s what they do to others that makes them an unwanted commodity) I would let my family know that I didn’t want anything to do with this person (and you can be very sure that this person has not been idle in his/her anti-social ways) because of what they do, and I would enlighten them on MY reasons. If somehow, the anti-social was upsetting my other family and it was coming back on me, I would say that it’s for MY survival to not be in this persons vicinity. I had an SP in my life, in my mother. Never again. I didn’t have to handle just her but my whole family. What was amazing was that they saw it too. It helped them to spot what she’d been doing. She’s gone now and everyone is doing better now. Not one of them ever, ever thought that my religion had anything to do with it. So, I guess my question for you, Link, is why was Scientology blamed for something that should have been a survival choice for all? Completely self-determined?

    Pat

  69. @Comment by creolegirl on July 17, 2008 11:16 pm
    >I find the entire concept quite revealing. I am currently researching and I wanted to get some CREDIBLE websites. Also, is Mr. Hubbard is simply known as Mr. Hubbard? I don’t believe in holding any being above myself. I do believe that he has made a GREAT contribution to society as a whole, but I want to make sure that he is not idolized and put on a pedastal. I am not posting this question to cause a problem, I just want to get an answer before I continue. Thank you for your time.
    ~~~~Creolegirl

    I’m not sure what concept you’re finding quite revealing. A lot of stuff gets talked about here. Could you clarify?

    As for LRH, we give him the respect he deserves for mapping the way for us to have knowledge and enlightenment. We don’t consider him the Creator but we do think he was pretty f__ing awesome for his acheivements. We know him as the Founder of Scientology, and we celebrate his accomplishments. Scientology is not faith-based or messianic (no saviors). We strive for spiritual enlightenment that will help us be closer to the Creator, and what that will be is very much left up to each individual, according to his or her own realizations. We aren’t asked to believe anything as true on faith.

    Pat

  70. And Pat, I was never complaining about people’s right to not communicate to somebody.

    But you have to admit… if you had a son involved in a religion, and you were living next door to a family member whom that religion viewed as suppressive, and people in that religion were demanding that you move away from that person, basically changing your whole life, as well as end your relationship with that family member, so that your son could continue in the religion… and if you didn’t do it, your son would disconnect from you so he could continue in the religion… if you didn’t want to do it, you WOULD have antagonism against that religion. And if your son ended up disconnecting from you, who would you blame? The religion or your son?

    Like you’ve said, there is recourse. If I didn’t agree with that situation, I could have kept protesting it to the MAA.

    Unfortunately, the reality of it is, the Church is a very bureaucratic organization, with lots of different cycles going on. It can take forever to get a reply. When I first disconnected from my grandmother, we had to inform the IJC of it it and get approval, and we had to wait TWO MONTHS before we got a reply back. Whenever my aunt sent a letter to the IJC, it would always take WEEKS before she ever got any reply.

    For me, things just would have been a lot easier and functional and smooth and less complicated if those policies weren’t there in the first place. I know that they’re there to protect the group, and the group has a right to have policies to protect itself, but… having been on the inside and now observing from the outside, it doesn’t seem to me that the polices really are protecting the group as much as they are endangering the group.

    There is a difference between telling a waiter, “HOW DARE YOU SERVE ME COLD SOUP!” and telling him, “Excuse me, this soup is too cold… could you please heat it up?” That is what I am trying to do in this post.

  71. Creolegirl, from my experience in Scientology, Hubbard seems to be pretty deified. I’m not saying Scientologists think that he’s God, they don’t bow down and worship him, but…. he seems to get as much love and praise from Scientologists as Jesus gets from Christians. You could say that anything regarding life written by him is to Scientologists what the Bible is to Chrisitans.

    In every Org, you will find busts of him, photos of him, an office for him. Generally, at the end of every day in the course room, the Supervisor has all the students give three cheers for L. Ron Hubbard. At events, Scientologists are always clapping for him.

    I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. Personally for me, though, all the constant applauding was a bit overkill.

    I once took some seminars at Landmark Education, which, while not a religion, has similarities to the Church of Scientology, being that both groups want to help individuals, both groups have fervent, passionate followers devoting a lot of their time and energy, both have registrars that hard sell services and classes. One thing Landmark doesn’t have in common with Scientology, though, is the amount of praise it gives its founder, Werner Erhard, who from what I understand, never wanted to be deified.

    Does this give you an idea?

  72. I find the entire concept quite revealing. I am currently researching and I wanted to get some CREDIBLE websites. Also, is Mr. Hubbard is simply known as Mr. Hubbard? I don’t believe in holding any being above myself. I do believe that he has made a GREAT contribution to society as a whole, but I want to make sure that he is not idolized and put on a pedastal. I am not posting this question to cause a problem, I just want to get an answer before I continue. Thank you for your time.
    ~~~~Creolegirl

  73. >But in experience, at least with my Class V Org before going to Ethics

    Ooops, my bad! I meant to say ASHO, not Ethics! :)

  74. Okay, Pat, fair enough.

    And you are correct in that if my aunt were to try and get her Type A declare lifted and get services, me posting on the Internet would still be a Type A situation. But… we’ll deal with that when that finally comes up. My aunt literally has no time to put any attention on this cycle as she’s too swamped with other responsibilites in life.

    The point I originally intended to make (in answer to August’s question in the previous thread) that I don’t think I got around to making….as far as I know, LRH never wrote anything specifically pertaining to situations like, “What is considered proper handling when you have non-Scientologist relatives who maintain a civil relationship with the SP? And what happens with family functions like holidays, weddings, etc? Do you just not go there if the SP is going to be there?” All we have is just the policy that you’ve cited, Pat.

    But in experience, at least with my Class V Org before going to Ethics, if I wanted to go to a family function, like a wedding or Thanksgiving, it was something I’d have to clear with the Ethics Officer ahead of time. Example, “i’ve been invited to my cousin’s wedding, but my SP grandmother is going to attend. Can I still go?” And the Ethics Officer would say, “Yes, you can go to your cousin’s wedding. If the SP talks to you, just apply Good Roads, Fair Weather.”

  75. >The answer to that is: there is no special deal with or about homosexuals. I checked to answer somebody else’s question about 2 months ago and that’s the answer (and observation). It’s summarized here: http://scientologymyths.info/homosexuality/

    So you personally have no experience or knowledge of gays being on OT levels and abstaining from gay lifestyle then? Because I had heard from current Scientologists and ex-Scientologists that, but I didn’t know if this was something of the past or something that only happened with some gays who didn’t apply proper recourse, such as “I’m gay and I am not abstaining from my lifestyle and I want to do my OT levels!”

    >I disagree with them presenting pornography-like behavior at street parades (knowing that this is just of few extremists every bigger group has) but I fully support their efforts against discrimination.

    AGREED 100%. And from my experience, the more “flamboyant” gays (who like to flaunt their orientation for shock purpose) that I’ve been personally acquainted with… they did turn out to be backstabbers. I don’t mean to sound anti-gay in the previous sentence, because I’m most certainly not, but a lot of what Hubbard wrote in Science of Survival about certain characteristics going in the territory with other characteristics still does make sense to me. :)

    From a Scientological point of view, I would say that yes, there are 1.1s and out-ethics within the gay community, just like in any group or community. I also think that as a group, the gay community tends to be rather PTS to the rest of society.

  76. This is the gist of my data regarding Declared SPs and or those declared PTS Type A

    1. The door is always open. LRH insisted on this. He knew that people can change and in some instances, there was an actual injustice. Justice is not supposed to be punishment. It is only used long enough to get a person to where he is now getting in his own personal ethics.

    2. There are many recourse levels available to all of us in Scientology (and ex-staff or even ex-Scientologists, from Chaplain’s Hearings to A – E for those declared a Suppressive Person.)

    3. For someone who feels they have been labelled incorrectly there is always a Committee of Evidence where the person gets the right to be confronted with all of the data used to make the declaration, and correct any false reports. Any other data that may bring out truth should also be included.

    4. In Chapters 2 & 3 of Intro to Scientology Ethics, LRH explains the mechanism of why people leave (anyplace, not just Scientology or Scientology staff) and how to handle. What is behind a person who won’t handle real or imagined wrongs (those do happen) and becomes critical is explained very thoroughly in these 2 Chapters. This is what is true for me.

    This book, more than any other explains to me what is behind each and every ant-Scientology site or action against Scientology. It’s all there.

    Pat

  77. @Comment by Link on July 16, 2008 11:04 pm

    “But Louanne, did you see my question in the last thread about the gays? I think it got overlooked”

    Indeed. So your question was: “What exactly is the current deal with homosexuals?”

    The answer to that is: there is no special deal with or about homosexuals. I checked to answer somebody else’s question about 2 months ago and that’s the answer (and observation). It’s summarized here: http://scientologymyths.info/homosexuality/

    Personally I have worked with members of the LGBT movement on human rights issues. I disagree with them presenting pornography-like behavior at street parades (knowing that this is just of few extremists every bigger group has) but I fully support their efforts against discrimination.

    – Louanne

  78. >IIRC, he said he’d be notifying the MAA ASHO of your activity on this blog, applying the HCOPLs on Knowledge Reports, in order to let your aunt (and any Comm Ev she might get) know about it.

    Ew……

    Well, they don’t know my identity. I think they’d have to really do some detective work to figure out whose story this is, and I don’t think they have the manpower to do that.

  79. No, I can’t get to the private thread either. I don’t even know what Pat’s last comment was.

    IIRC, he said he’d be notifying the MAA ASHO of your activity on this blog, applying the HCOPLs on Knowledge Reports, in order to let your aunt (and any Comm Ev she might get) know about it.

    Then he said “I leave you to Louanne.”

    No, I’m talking about the thread where I first started talking,…

    Okay. Never mind then.

  80. No, I can’t get to the private thread either. I don’t even know what Pat’s last comment was.

    No, I’m talking about the thread where I first started talking, the one where I started talking about Amy’s situation and the one where Amy jumped in. That one is still up and open, just closed for further comment.

  81. Don’t worry, she still left up the previous thread.

    Well, I can’t get to it. But if you can, I’ll take that to mean the thread is still there, just not accessible by outsiders. Which I suppose is okay under the circumstances; that thread really was becoming a private thing between you and Pat.

    So all right then. ^_^

  82. But Louanne, did you see my question in the last thread about the gays? I think it got overlooked.

  83. Anonymous, I don’t know if you saw the last few posts, but… the tension was growing. Pat was starting to take on an accusatory tone, saying that I was antagonistic, committing present time overts, etc. And I was countering back. Also, I provided out a bunch of personal information, which Louanne had advised not to do in the previous thread as it could be used against me.

    Don’t worry, she still left up the previous thread.

    And thanks for your support. :)

  84. Do you even know the meaning of the word “trolling”? Because that’s not what I saw in that last thread. I saw two people having an open, honest, and civil discussion about the “Church”(TM) of Scientology(TM)’s disconnection(TM) policy(TM) and its consequences. There was no need for that discussion to be shut off, and there was even less need for it to be thrown down the memory hole.

    Unless you’re just trying to save yourself and Pat from SP(TM) Declares(TM) for having allowed Link to speak her(?) mind.

  85. What are you talking about?

    I won’t allow any chicken fights here. If you are in doubt you might read the FAQ. You know that I am open to receive critical questions and do my best answering them. But trolling is just not acceptable.

    – Louanne

  86. Hiding a post is bad enough, but hiding an entire thread? That’s just plain rude. Even if you think their conversation wasn’t conducive to whatever it is you’re doing with this blog, it was a revealing look at the nature of communications between current and former Scientologists(TM). As such, it could have been a useful reference tool to help dispel myths about Scientologists(TM) and Declared(TM) SPs(TM).

    I trust that you will put it back up promptly.


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