Hi there,
and thanks for visiting this blog! I put it up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists, David Miscavige and whatever you feel is 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
144 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Scientology Myths Forum 
Comment by reporter on April 23, 2011 2:05 am
“out of curiousity, do you defer to the 1976 versions of the OEC or the 1992 version?”
Starting in 1950. with the publication of Dianetics, all the way to 1986, when LRH dropped his body, research was constantly on-going, with new bulletins and policy letters being published. Each book that followed added to or revised earlier research. That’s why a chronological study is needed. The OEC volumes of 1976 were out-dated as soon as policy letters were issued after it’s publication, this the 1992 edition is the current sum of extant policy today.
Pat
Nick,
I didn’t say to ignore the church management, I was basically trying to say why don’t you just focus on the positive aspect of Scientology? I’m still learning and have appreciated the discussion you and c.d. have been having.
Oh, yeah, cd’s great- I like…him? Her? I appreciate also that be agreed to keep discussing our topics, which I’ve never seen on this site before.
You know the saying, car, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”? The positive aspects are there, I happily express that. But there are several people, like pat and louanne; that’s ALL they talk about- the positive pieces. You can look, not once has either of them acknowledged that there’s any room for improvement, not even a mention of any problem big or small. If that’s all you see, change never happens and reform is impossible. (I ack and respect that you obviously have your eyes open)
As you know, Hubbard taught that to fully understand a subject, you must explore all aspects. As the “positive only” aspect is well covered here, I explore the areas of concern and advocate honest and open confrontation of the problems or perceived problems.
You see, in the last pew survey, researchers were only able to account for 25,000 people in the us that identified themselves as scientologists. That’s a small number, yet the number of vocal critics are growing. One critical forum alone has almost 40,000 members! In this internet age, people have access to information that was unprecedented only a short time ago. This means that the problems and perceived problems carry greater weight and hit worldwide instantly. For this reason, in order to avoid losses, reform must be honest and open. so while I honestly value the benefits, I don’t want to fix what ain’t broke; the positive.
Please consider this- Jesus was a critic, and openly criticized the church of the day. Martin Luther, too, was a critic that is valued by history, but opposed by the church. The greatest scientific minds- all critical. It is a valuable instrument for change. With both perspectives represented, there is the opportunity for positive change and greater dissemination.
Clarification- Martin Luther, too, was opposed by the church of the day
Great, I agree. Let’s concentrate on the positive aspects of Scientology.
– L
Nick-ok, but I doubt this is upsetting anyone. I never got an answer to my question from you though-what were you referring to with the auditing question? Did I answer it inadvertently?
Cd- if you read back at other threads, you’ll see what I’m referring to :)
What I was asking is that when an independent is auditing, ate they using dianetics or Scientology? I know there’s a difference between the two, but don’t fully understand which is being applied within the scope of this discussion.
Again you would need to look at What is Scientology for a description of the difference between both. As for what independents audit you would have to ask them.
My only thought is that if they’re using dianetics (I don’t know) then there’s no issue with that, that would not be squirreling per my understanding, as I don’t believe that the cos desires to have exclusive control over dianetics. That’s what im wondering, is all.
See the Dianetics Book which covers standard procedure, plus Dianetics Lectures and Demonstration CDs and The first few chapters on Science of Survival which covers the regulations for Dianetics. Nick, I hate to be snide but have you actually read or listened to much in the way of actual Dianetics and Scientology? Other than just critical sites I mean
I’m still learning, cd, and take your references to heart :)
But, I don’t believe that my last question is in that resource, as it’s to the intent of the church.
Nick-i see, now I understand, you are only inerested in the stuff that would prove Scientology wrong or make its organization appear skewed. Nice talking to you, I see you have a fixed idea and wont bother any further.
Untrue, but your last posts sound frustrated, and I dont think we’re communicating effectively any longer. I have your list of books, and thank you for it, but my sincere questions, as I just described in my last post, differ than the reading, I believe. Thanks anyways.
Anywho, closing thought, if you read my posts, I’m eager in seeing certain issues reformed to make a stronger healthier group. Surely you’d agree that there’s room for improvement; like countless times in history, criticism is a causitive function. Like I said, both Jesus and Martin Luther were critics, and each suffered opposition from the current church. But, criticism led to strength, despite opposition.
(before pat chimes in, I’m not saying that I am like Jesus or Luther, just pointing out that the concept is not new)
Nick-my frustration is that for being a critic you seem to know very little of actual Dianetics and Scientology as most of your questions are answered in beginning books or available on official Scientology sites for free. Its obvious by your questions (and last statement)you have not read most of the materials and I get the idea that you think you know all about the subject already. If this is not the case I apologize, but I would appreciate it if you took a look at what I’ve given you prior to asking more questions.
Cd- I will respect that you want no more questions of you, but assume you’re not trying to suggest that I am not to communicate there entirely.
I am, even now, eagerly reading your resouces, but they do not answer my questions so far. Indeed, they only say how things “should” work, but one has to make the assumption that things are currently working flawlessly in order to apply them as an answer to my questions about contemporary management.
Similarly, I understand about the difference between dianetics and Scientology, but that does not answer if management would (or should) attempt to interfere with the free practice of dianetics. That is not in any resource that you have listed, unless you see something I missed.
Definitly not intending you should not communicTe. Re: dianetics specifically see the introduction to Science of Survival in regards to professional practice of Dianetics.
im suprised you didn’t find the answers in those references! Did you read all the way though them? I found the answers to be crystal clear.
I kid you not, the answers to my questions, they simply aren’t there. For example, I can find ample information on the difference between dianetics and Scientology, but can find nothing stating the current church’s position on the application of dianetics within the independent movement. As it’s crystal clear to you, perhaps you could answer that “go/no-go” question?
Ok I will be a bit more specific: in Science of Survival the introduction states who may practice Dianetics professionally. In what is Scientology the chapter on IHELP also describes who may audit professionally. You may have a confusion on a non professional co audit and a professional auditor either DN or Scn. Hope that helps
Thank you, cd, that helps ms to better understand. I felt confusion between that and hubbards insistence that “if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.”
But so if an independent is practicing dianetics while keeping the concept of exchange… I’ll have to consider how that fits relative to the definition of a squirrel.
Thank you, sincerely.
Nick-again refer to the Auditors Code and the Intro to Scientolology Ethics Book in regards to this subject.
When squirrels “audit” they are not doing standard Dianetics or Scientology. That was already answered by me and in the references, especially the ethics book.
Pat
So then, to summarize, the independent groups have rejected the dogmatic elements that prevent them from practicing their beliefs outside of the church, and have done so in accordance with their stated belief that the tech practiced outside the church is more loyal to hubbards vision then what is happening within the church.
Do we agree on this at least?
Uh no. Obviously the point that standard tech includes standard admin and ethics was missed. It is literally impossible to provide standard tech without standard admin and ethics. This appears to be the datum that is not grasped even though a study of even the most basic of auditor courses fully makes this clear.
No, we can’t agree on that.
dogmatic elements ? lol
What you call “dogmatic” are the LRH policy letters and technical bulletins that comprise the trademarks of Scientology. Those ARE the authority, as is the right or the owner of said copyrights and trademarks. Squirrels don’t use standard e-meters, are using altered technologies and have tried to justify this with generality statements with no foundation or specifics against the Church. Freezoners still operate off of David Mayo squirrel technology. Your complicity in this shows you to be an avowed enemy of Scientology. Your continuing to assert your squirrely attitudes despite Scientologists referring you to the correct source shows that you have no ethics change or case change. Refer “No Gain Case Student” in Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
Pat
Pat, I’m not sure if you’ve word cleared the word “dogmatic”, otherwise I’m not quite sure what makes you laugh.
Dogma: “a system of principles or tenets, as of a church”, “a system of principles or tenets, as of a church”.
So what is it that’s funny?
So, to both cd and pat, if we can break down my statement, and maybe you can let me know what I said is untrue:
1. The independant groups rejected the elements of dogma that restricts their ability to practice outside of the church. In other words, I believe it’s item 26 of the auditors code, they choose to not follow that one as it does not allow them to practice outside of the fold.
2. They did this because they believe that doing so is CLOSER to standard tech than what is currently practiced inside the church. This is not to say that they are correct or that they are practicing standard tech- my statement specifies that they believe this to be so and act on that belief.
I don’t believe that either of you understood my comments and hope this clarifies my point.
Are my two statements correct?
oops, second definition was: “a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church”
What I’m trying to say is that the independant practitioners clearly are not sanctioned by the church, no one denies that. But what they practice is in line with their religious beliefs, that’s all I’m saying.
Nick-again no. Do you know what standard tech is?
Yes, cd, I do. In my point, nowhere did I say that they ARE or ARE NOT practicing standard tech, or that the church IS or IS NOT doing the same.
Please note that I used the word “believe”. I am not asking if you agree with what they believe, but only noting that it is a fact that they have stated that they believe this to be true. This is shown on multiple sites.
Nick-what actual LRH materials have you studied? It appears some very basic LRH materials have been either not studied or misunderstood as you seem unable to grasp some very basic concepts for someone who says he studies all sides of something.
cd- your question is not relevant to either one of my two assertations.
is it not a fact that the independants have rejected a portion of dogma?
is it also not a fact that they state that they believe doing so is more correct than not doing so?
that is not a tech concept, it is one that is based on simple observation. I realize that you’re very studied and knowledgable of the tech and policies, and have obviously spent a great deal of time researching them. That’s impressive. But this is one question that can’t be answered by a pl, tape, or other.
Again the question is nonsense if you actually knew what standard tech was. Actually look up what standard tech consists of and you will them understand how it would be that an indpendent is not practicing scientology,.
Why wont you actually tell me what youve studied? It will greatly assist my ability to answer your questions
For one, it’s not a question. For two, what about it is nonsense? Could you actually point out to me what it is that you don’t agree with?
Do you disagree that they are not fully adhering to the auditors code? I wouldn’t imagine so- that was your point.
Do you disagree that they believe that it’s right to do so? I can show you multiple sites where that is stated.
I really don’t understand what part you are disagreeing with. In which of my questions do you think standard tech has any play, other than the fact that someone has an opinion of what that is?
As far as what I’ve studied, I don’t have a list. I’ve read, before, KSW. I’ve read multiple PABs and PLs, I’ve read dianetics, years ago, and portions of others. But, again, my concept will not be found in those resources.
So, again, which of my two statements do you find fault in? What exactly is incorrect?
By the by, c.d., I truly do enjoy talking to you, which explains why I’m up late doing it, lol! :)
But, I always hate the anonymous and impersonal nature of a blog like this. I mean, you know my name, but all I can picture when speaking to you is a compact disc, lol!
I’m a pretty open type guy, generally, and don’t enjoy merely considering a screen rather than the complex person on the other end. May I ask you to return the introduction, so we can better relate?
Thanks,
Nick
c.d.- I think that we’ve reached a point where further discussion would upset louanne, as she’s apparently back. I appreciate the references and will read them closely, as I’m sure you’ve also considered my points, which I appreciate. I appreciated the mutual respect, and your ability to answer questions directly and fully, without insults, accusations or evasion. That’s a good trait, and I hope that you stay on this site so that I can experience more of our wonderful conversations.
Pat- To be honest, I don’t see you answering many questions at all on this site, snide, sincere or even those lines of question that you yourself start! However, cd is actually able to do so- he can answer questions and be honest when he can’t. Not saying you don’t, but I’d point out that cd makes scientology look open, well informed and interested in actually providing information. So, I hope he stays, he’s a welcome counterbalance to the usual fare here.
I would note, for your interest, that not everyone puts complete stock in references created by scientology, except for when that’s within the scope of the discussion. As louanne said, ” 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”. Like her, I try to vary my sources.
LOL. I <3 you too.
Pat
Do you?
Reporter,
I referred you to the references. I have noticed a common pattern on a few of the people commenting here and that is the tendency to argue about things rather than read the references given so you can understand better, what we are communicating about.
c.d. is 100% right that in order for your questions to get answered you need to read the references you were given.
Also, I don’t answer “what if” questions as they are snide innuendos.
Pat
Nick I will try to answer your questions on this to the best of my ability:
a. Re standard tech and going indepedent due to non standard tech-this too is answered in the ethics book. I also made note to you to check the Scn handbook re: organization and the function of a Qual division and how it would be impossible to practice standard tech without organizational backup.
b. I don’t understand your question re: auditing and dianetics. Did you check the What is Scientology ref I mentioned. This covers the difference between the two.
c.the last two points are also covered in the ethics book section on honesty and again see vm site on
Really you need to read these to get these questions answered.
As to who runs Scientology-there is no one individual. See (again) What is Scientology? Part six.
why have OTs died of cancer? I am not aware of any reference stating that OTs cannot die of a physical illness. Also see scientology handbook again chapters on assists and Cause of suppression for data on illnesses.
The other two questions I have no idea about.
Hope that helps.
Cd- you raise some great points. Please excuse the delay in answering you- like all critics, I’m paid by psychiatrists to post information, so I had to wait for the payment from my psychiatrist boss before posting again. ;)
Anyways, I’ve heard that answer before, that Scientology is run by multiple people, but no one’s been able to get a specific answer as to who does what. For example, is there anyone equal to or higher than Miscavige? There’s always a hierarchy; where does dm fit in that?
Regarding OTs and cancer, didn’t Hubbard say that auditing has found a way to eliminate cancer by dealing with the cell reproduction? Also, with ots having control of matter, energy, space and time, should they not have control of the cells of their own body?
And the other two questions, I would suggest that those are questions you would not have answered, if you were to ask the questions through management, if you hadn’t already had thoughts on the matter.
The biggest question, I would say, is about hubbards record, given Tommy davis’ statements.
Again re: management What is Scientology and any org bd are quite clear on “who” runs it. Also OEC Vol 7 is quite clear on how the church was to be run after LRH died. To spoil any mystery again its no one person but I am sure with those hints you can figure it out. This too will answer for you if anyone is higher than david Miscavige. Also see Keeping Scientology Working Pl which should spell it out.
Re:OTs and cancer:again I’ve never heard that, but I also know LRH is very clear on illnes in HCOBs from the seventies such as Scientology Current State of the Subject and Materials. Also see Clear Body Clear Mind which discusses how toxins can restimulate a person. Personally the other questions don’t bug me and I could honestly care less.
really Nick you need to read everything I quoted you as its looking like you haven’t done your homework. If you really want to know you will check out what I’ve mentioned 99 percent of which is available on VM site or at most libraries. That’s how I found out-I read a lot.
Cd, at this point, I’m not talking about intent, I’m talking about practice. I could give you a by name list of every executive for most of the related entities; I’ve done my homework to find how things are meant to be. But, I don’t see things working that way. But that’s from the outside; the only way I can glimpse into the inside world is to ask someone or join.
But, again, I’m more asking about how the intent is being put in practice, based on the outside appearances and first hand accounts that indicate otherwise. This is especially difficult, for instance, as Hubbard never created the position which Miscavige now fills. (at least not in writing, but as Hubbard said, if it’s not written, it’s not true)
I’ve also read clear body clear mind, but was surprised to see how many concepts from it were put in place within Scientology after being disproven by modern science. Of course, that science wasn’t available during hubbards lifetime, but it’s clear that the beliefs are not able to self-correct without altering the source.
Also, I understand that the other questions don’t bother you, bit given Tommy davis’ wager, I, if I were a scientologist, would feel that I should be able to get that answer. That’s all in saying.
Again Nick, please do your homework prior to asserting things that are simply not true. RTC is mentioned by LRH in several PLs in OEC volume 7 so he was at least aware of the organization and approved it, plus as you are probably aware he does mention them on tape (one of the Rons Journals). You must also be unaware that an LRH tape is considered valid as policy or tech as per HCO PL Policy, Source Of and HCO Pl orders. This is also covered extensively in OEC Vol 0 as well.
if you want to criticize the practice please at least have more than a fleeting familiarity with what it is
CD- I have to admit that it’s refreshing to discuss these things with a scientologist that is able to actually answer question and has a solid understanding of their faith, including its history. While I’m sure there’s many, I had not had the pleasure of meeting on before.
I did not intend to eliminate tapes as a valid source, and did over simplify my paraphrasing. Of course I acknowledge tapes as a valid source.
But, anywho, I am reading OEC Volume 7 now, but don’t see any mention of RTC. As you are clearly familiar with it, could you please direct me to a page number?
Aside from that, I can find no reference by LRH specifically creating the RTC COB or the RTC as a whole. As you surely know, that idea is a commonly-repeated myth, and I have been unable to find something that countermands it. If you could help me put that myth to rest once and for all, I will gladly share it with others when I see it repeated.
As I’m sure you’re aware, RTC was incorporated in 1982, while Hubbard died in 1986. So, by the dates alone, it’s possible that Hubbard knew of the role. Of course, Miscavige didn’t assume the role as COB until 1987, a year after Hubbard’s death, so Hubbard was not alive at such a time when Miscavige was elivated to the role of the most senior ecclesiastical leader in the church. While Hubbard was still alive, Miscavige was still a trustee for the organization.
Why I mention that is because I’ve seen it asked before, but have never seen it answered, did Hubbard in any way document or direct the decision to elevate Miscavige to such an elevated position so long after his death? I know Hubbard had a habit of documenting his orders and other such decisions, which is valuable for posterity. I’m very sincerely asking for assistance in addressing this common myth, and any help that you could provide would be much appreciated. Yes, I have searched for the records on my own, but have had no luck.
Thank you for your help.
Nick
Nick-read the whole thing and not just a couple of random PLs and I think you will be able to get the answer to your questions. You may want to start with OEC 0 first as a lot of datums in 7 wont make sense unless you read it. As both vol total about 1700 pages it should at least be a few days for you get through it. You may not like that answer but that’s how I found the answers to your questions. Im not being evasive, that’s really the only way for you to figure it out. Let me know when you’re done with those, the Ethics, scn handbook and What is scientology books I referenced as I am taking no more questions until you have some understanding of some basic data as im finding this conversation incredibly funny and hard to take seriously anymore!
c.d., I’m sure you’re not being evasive, but it’s much like someone asking how the vatican is managed and being told to read the bible, the apocrapha and the catechism. I realize that the analogy is not absolute, but the answer is not found in your references. I told you that, I looked. Now, if you have the answer, I’d imagine you’d have no trouble providing the page number, but I have the notion that you may be having the same difficulty finding it as I.
I’ll be honest, I’m not a scientologist, which is why I ask questions about the things that catch my curiousity. If you don’t know the answers, I really wish that you’d say so, or at least help me narrow down where I can find the answers.
out of curiousity, do you defer to the 1976 versions of the OEC or the 1992 version?
Hello, Cd!
I realize that I had asked pat multiple questions that remain unanswered, but I had mistakingly thought that some of those were directed at you. Silly of me! :)
A few that got lost in the shuffle:
(you answered part of this one, but not the other) “if the church decided to no longer practice standard tech, wouldn’t it be preferable to use Scientology in the best way that one is able?” [my note: I’m not asking if it did decide to do this, I’m asking what would be expected of a scientologist in that case. As you’ve clarified more, in general, I’m including proper ethics processes in the question, if I may]
“I understand that dianetics is a substudy of Scientology, but isn’t auditing from dianetics?” [My question may have been unclear. I was asking that if one is auditing, are they doing scientology or dianetics? or is it both?]
“Also, is it possible that someone could be “brutally critical” of something legitimate, even if it’s something that you personally never experienced? I refer primarily to the first hand accounts of thousands of former members who DID experience problems. Surely their experiences are as valid as your own?”
“Surely that must be indicative that SOMETHING is working as it should, don’t you think?”
That’s a lot, I know, and if yuo don’t have the time or information, I undertand.
About the questions to management, I was referring to some of the ones that had been asked here and before. I’ve talked to scientologists that have tried, but they universally reported that their questions were not answered and not met “well”. questions like,
“who actually ‘runs’ scientology? Is anyone senior to David Miscavige?”
“why have OT’s died of cancer? Is it because they’re not applying the tech properly?”
“How do we come up with the membership number of 10 Million? Who are we defining in that number?”
“Why does L. Ron Hubbar’s war record not agree with his own claims?”
I’m not challenging you to ask those questions, but those are examples of some of the questions that people have reported as discouraged.
Nick:Sorry I didn’t realize I didn’t answer some questions. Are you referring to the one asking why I am not free to ask questions of management? I am free. The way to do this is covered again in the ethics book. Plus any Scientologist has an open line to both ED Int and RTC. I see people use these lines all the time as have I. Again never had a problem with getting a response. Im sure your questions will be resolved by reading that book plus the PLs I mentioned and VM data. I think I answered any thing else directed to me
I will read your references, and I appreciate it. I can concede, as it’s true, that these men and women are in no way part of the body of the church of scientology, but I can’t agree that they’re not scientologists.
After all, the universal declaration of human rights says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. (of course, the scientology entity youth for human rights international simplifies it as “Freedom of Thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want.”). It doesn’t say that the management of the religion is required to agree :)
Ive greatly enjoyed talking to you, its been a delight! On a different note, I’ve noticed that some questions that I’ve asked you remained unanswered. May i please ask why that is?
Nick it does appear that we are at a standstill on this one! Anyway that’s fine if you have a differing opinion, however I do invite you to read the refs I indicated as I believe that will answer any questions you may have in regards to why freezoners aren’t Scientologists. Take care.
c.d., I think that we may have differing opinions on this, and that’s fine, except that that’s all that we really have at this point- opinion against opinion. And I’m not after your opinion, I feel your welcome to it.
Again, if all is working well, then the solution works. But I would point out that Enron had an ethics officer. It had a CEO. It had a legal compliance officer. It had a code of ethics. Yet, something didn’t work.
In the realm of our discussion, thousands of people are speaking out, with first hand information, and often about attempts to get ethics resolution. For them, it didn’t work.
If there were no problems, wouldn’t you be free to ask any question of management? Yet, those that have tried, have found themselves subjected to black dianetics. Again, however, that’s based on their experiences, not mine or yours.
Nick that’s obviously something you’re not familiar with than- the ethics system is designed to catch the slipups as long as ALL scientologists report the outnesses.if someone does not report it, then blows they again are not applying Scientology ethics. Reversly if they do report it their are several channels such as LRH Comm in the org, LRH Comm Int, Int Justice Chief etc.they can still take to correct if nothing done. Again see the ethics book which again explains it. LRH even gives a solution to how to correct it in the ethics book if even those avenues fail.
Nick that’s obviously something you’re not familiar with than- the ethics system is designed to catch the slipups as long as ALL scientologists report the outnesses.if someone does not report it, then blows they again are not applying Scientology ethics. Reversly if they do report it their are several channels they can still take to correct if nothing done. Again see the ethics book which again explains it.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you, Car, that sometimes psychiatric drugs are over-perscribed, and for some people don’t work at all. But consider the subjective proof offered of auditing and scientology- “It works for me”, “I feel better”, etc. There is no OBJECTIVE evidence, it’s entirely subjective. Which is fine. However, what of those that similarly claim that medication works for them? Are their experiences not valid?
Bear in mind that early medicine, in general, was brutal. The idea now of draining blood from someone to balance their energies is archaic, and the idea of putting leaches on someone is strange at best (although that’s still done in some cases). And amputations without pain medication? yikes! And yet, medicine has learned and is now a respected industry. Psychiatry, too, is in its infancy, relatively speaking, and has learned much in a short time. In most regions, lobotomies are outlawed, and ECT is widely criticised even in non-scientology circles. Even the American Psychiatric Association released a report in 2001 warning against its use and the National Institute of Mental Health and National Institutes of Health noted that here aer significant side effects that must be warned about.
Now, for your references, please note that the last article didn’t exactly say that the drugs “don’t” work. Instead, it noted that the side effects of insomnia, sadness and decreased concentration may not be improved by the tested drugs. To quote: “Widely used antidepressant medications, while working overall, missed these symptoms”. But I do agree with you that the psychiatic industry needs to be reformed (not “eradicated” or “destroyed” like CCHR and DM advocates); but I was talking about scientology- CCHR is a different, although related, entity. Would you advocate destruction or reform?
You ask “why worry about the management issues of the church,”- that’s a good question. I would only have to answer, “would you have me ignore them?” Or, to repeat the most famous three words in mountaineering, spoken by George Mallorty, “Because it’s there”.
ah, but c.d., you make the assumption that the system is working as designed, which I don’t believe that either of us have experienced well enough to judge, at least in the realm of the personal experiences of others. However, we’re not talking a few people, we’re talking on the magnitide of THOUSANDS, and growing, each with first hand experience. Surely that must be indicative that SOMETHING is working as it should, don’t you think?
I’m familiar with third party law, but I believe the concept to not be universal. It’s written, true, but unproven and indeed cannot be proven. In Hubbard’s article on the subject, there are examples, true, and hypothetical situations a plenty, but I see nothing beyond that. For me, examples are not evidence. Furthermore, it eliminates the possibility that individuals are able to make up their own minds about a situation.
c.d., your last sentence explains it all.
Nick, check out today’s news headlines about antidepressants:
# Antidepressants Show Long Term Benefits Online Journal – 56 minutes ago
# Antidepressants could help heal brain injuries MSNBC – Apr 19 11:14am
# Antidepressants may not improve all symptoms of depression, researchers find
Science Daily – 4 hours ago
This is one of the main reasons why Scientology and the work of the CCHR are important to me. The first two are allegedly benefits from the drug and the last one states that the psych drugs don’t work.
Why worry about the management issues of the church?
Nick-again check out the data in Scientology Handbook on both study tech and personal values and integrity. He dosent say no crtiscism is never valid, check it out. Also see data on third party law. My own personal observation is that most of the complaints on Scn are based on heresay and not the persons own experience. Also if something bad really did happen the person themselves is bound to report it to ethics. Again, in my own experience the ethics system works to correct injustices if you apply it. A person who just blows is obviously not applying Scientology ethics to correct the sit just per the ethics policies.
Car,
I neglected to answer part of your question. You’re right, that there’s legitimate criticism against scientology, as there is for almost any other group. Does that mean that any particular group’s problems should be ignored? Sticking to demonstrable facts and the experiences of those, living and dead, that had problems, only means that the right thing to do is to address the problems head on in order to ensure that ALL members are able to experience the same benefits. I think that’s fair.
So, you’ve seen me say enthusiastically that there ARE positive aspects to scientology. Of course, you know that Hubbard based a lot of his research on existing philosophies, and many people have benefited from this. I claim that loudly and proudly. However, by “only” focusing on the positive aspects, which is already provided for by Pat and Louanne, the negative aspects (of which we all agree exist) fail to be addressed.
There is indeed positive things on the internet about scientology. But, I must ask, if you exclude those that are created by scientology itself, to include the free press releases, how many positive things are left? If you further exclude subjective experiences, how many objective, non-self generated good news is out there? It exists, but it is, as you point out, dwarfed by the objective negative news out there. I’m not saying that demonstrates a lack of value, but it is a verifiable fact for consideration.
Just as a point of thought- there is a list called the “Big List Of Ex Scientologists Who Have Spoken Out” that is available all over the internet, with real names and verifiable identities. The list is over a thousand names long. The forum called “ex scientology kids” is a place where people that were raised in the church speak out about the abuses that they witnessed, including David Miscavige’s own niece and the daughter of the president of scientology, has almost 27,000 members. I have been unable to find anywhere near that number of people speaking about positive experiences, although members are certainly free to maintain blogs, websites, etc. For comparison, there are millions of christians, catholics, jews, muslims, etc speaking about their positive experiences with their religion.
Again, I’m not saying that these things demonstrate worth, but they are simply facts for which I am unable to account.
Wow, it seems that I’m outnumbered :)
Car, I apologize, as I didn’t see your email about the Catholic Church. I know how frustrated you must be, you can see that my questions go largely ignored by Pat.
First, regarding your quote, about dismissing the crimes of some. You’re right! I totally agree! But, at the same time, she lists three crimes committed by critics, and has been talking about those same crimes for years. Does that mean that not every critic is a criminal, despite a few being so?
Now, regarding the Catholic Church- according to gallup polls, Church attendence dropped 13% as a direct result of the church leadership’s handling of the scandal. 70% of catholics agreed that the head of the Boston church should be removed from his position, which later happened. That’s reform. But, something more relevant- I keep asking the question, but no one seems to have an answer. Was Martin Luther wrong for his famous split from the church?
c.d.- you’ve given me a lot of good information, addressing some of the things that I had asked of Pat. I appreciate that, I really do. Please allow me a period of time to research your position based on your references, and I will get back to you. Also, is it possible that someone could be “brutally critical” of something legitimate, even if it’s something that you personally never experienced? I refer primarily to the first hand accounts of thousands of former members who DID experience problems. Surely their experiences are as valid as your own?
Jeff- the crimes of a few was not meant to be given as a point, but as an example of the differing focus of the two groups. What you’ll find, as you research further (assuming you give equal weight to both sides) is that it actually CAN be both! Some, many even, find great benefits from studying the tech, and that should be celebrated and encouraged. However, it is also true that there are legitimate elements that need to be reformed or eliminated, and there are several official documents and court records demonstrating this. For example, there are people like C.D. who experienced great benefit from the group, but there are also experiences like Scientology being convicted of Fraud (as an organization) in France, Founder L. Ron Hubbard’s wife going to jail for multiple crimes, plus the deaths associated with the purif rundown, the suicides, etc.
BOTH sides include verifiable facts (the pro side being in the form of subjective evidence, granted, but that does count for something), and there are legitimate points and criticisms for each position. It’s just a matter of allowing all available information to digest. For example, if I were wanted to join, and being told about what is a “clear” and an “OT”, I would want to know if anyone has ever achieved such a state, as defined by L. Ron Hubbard himself, not by the church today. Or if I heard Tommy Davis say “if it’s true that Mr. Hubbard was never injured during the war, then he never did heal himself using Dianetics principles, then Dianetics is based on a lie, and then Scientology is based on a lie,” then I would want to consider the evidence from the Navy and the VA to see if indeed Hubbard WAS injured in the war. If I were to read the History of Man (1961, pg 20) that “Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis,” I would want to know if any OT’s are dying of Cancer.
Maybe that’s just me, but scientology is a big commitment, and if I were to decide to join it, I would want to be satisfied that the claims and the promises made by Hubbard and by the church itself stand up to honest, objective scrutiny. It’s a simple matter of applying Hubbard’s own doubt forumula, which I have done, to arrive at an honest decision. Even the highest ranking scientologist in Norway applied the dount formula to his own life before making the decision to leave the group. You can actually find it online, if you wanted to honestly review all information, by searching for his name.
Jeff-check out the volunteer minister site which has the course on Personal Values and integrity. This covers why someone would be brutally critical of something-ive been in Scientology for 13 years and never had any problems whatsoever. In my experience the people who complain loudly, grossly exagerrate their complaints.
Cat lin Dee-Im not sure which format they are in as i’ve never done the online version, only in the org,however I am sure if you ask them to send you the lessons in an alternate format they will.
I’m not really interested in the crimes of a few. Obviously that kind of thing happens in every organization and that is the individual’s responsibility, not the organization. Pointing fingers won’t solve anything.
What I’m really curious about is I read all these stories about Scientology helping people improve their lives (some of it is confusing because of technical terms that I don’t understand) and it sounds absolutely fantastic! Like why wouldn’t anyone want to give it a try? Then I read stories about how it’s expensive and how people are treated horribly inside the organization and it just sounds it couldn’t possibly be the same thing. So which is it? I don’t see how it can be both!
c.d., Even though your posts were directed to Nick thank you for all the information. The book you referenced, “What is Scientology” was available in my public library. I checked out the vm website for the free courses. I’m using an old platform so if any of classes are on pdf files, I’d have to wait for a new computer because pdf files won’t open on my computer.
Also re; dn auditing this too is covered in What is Scientology book. Honestly if you really are interested your best bet is to do what I did and actually do a study of both the Org Exec Course vols and basic books.
Nick-hmm… Next best thing would be to check out the online vm data on study tech re second phenomena which covers why someone would drop a subject altogether or “splinter”. Also you could check the scn handbook. On organization which covers what a “qual” section of an org bd is (which is something a lone “independent” wont have. That’s the best I can think of if you can’t access the other materials I referred to
Nick,
You ignored my previous comment about the Catholic church. So I don’t know why I’m going to bother.
[quote]louanne herself dismisses the crime as the actions of an individual that she feels does not reflect on the group[/your quote]
She’s right. Otherwise every Scientologist would be a murderer.
Comment by Jeff on April 21, 2011 5:51 am
Here’s an excellent article by L Ron Hubbard on just that point, Jeff.
http://freedom.lronhubbard.org/page084.htm
An independent study on the use of ex-members to cast slurs
http://www(dot)neuereligion(dot)de/ENG/Wilson/ replace “(dot)” with “.”. WordPress sees more than one link as spam so blocks it, thus the “filter skip” ;p
The best place to get data on what Scientology is, is from the books. If you haven’t read these yet, read Scientology: A New Slant On Life or Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought.
You can also get all of the basics here:
http://www(dot)scientology(dot)org
Pat
Hello, Jeff! You’re absolutely correct With your observation; it certainly makes the issue confusing!
The problem is frequently seen in discussions on politics or religions, which must get really bad if you wanted to talk about a theocracy! Scientology is a subject about which people seem to feel very passionately, and naturally present information that is selectively beneficial to their point or damaging to the other position.
Take for example crimes within the groups. Three critics of Scientology have been sentenced to crimes related to Scientology- in the realm of malicious mischief, no felonies. Louanne has made multiple posts about these three crimes over the last several years, recently reporting the same stories once again, in order to support get position that critics, as a whole, are somehow implicated by the actions of these three. But, when a Scientology minister was recently convicted as first degree murder, louanne herself dismisses the crime as the actions of an individual that she feels does not reflect on the group.
On the other side, critics decry the official church of Scientology for impeding the religious beliefs of independents, while mocking the “secret” beliefs taught at the higher levels.
So, you’re correct that the truth lies in the middle, yet the raw emotion and the belief by both sides that, literally, lives are at stake make this an issue that will continue to be wrapped in hyperbole and bias.
If you’re looking for something unbiased, I would recommend wikipedia, as it is locked for from editing and both sides were editing until the lock was put in place. There’s also ample court documents and government records, including hubbards military record, online which help to give that unbiased data. I would advocate starting with wikipedia; a search for “Scientology” will lead you to the Scientology portal, which has those collections of articles and often times links to the official records. Although for the military record and some court documents, you may need to google
Nick
Cd- thank you for the references; your willingness to answer questions is refreshing. Unfortunately, my lOcal library does not have any of the resources listed, so I will need to find another way.
I’m still slightly unclear (no pun intended)- I understand that dianetics is a substudy of Scientology, but isn’t auditing from dianetics?
I have a question for Louanne or anyone who might be helpful…. I am an unbiased person who is new to Scientology. In trying to learn about it on the web, it seems that Scientologists and anti-Scientologists can’t agree on ANY aspect of the religion. Why is that? Why is it so hard to meet somewhere in the middle on any issues being discussed? It makes it impossible to understand what the truth is.
Comment by c.d. on April 20, 2011 5:13 pm
Thanks c.d. – I did refer to the book but your ref is more specific.
Pat
Nope, you will need to either find them in a library or go to an org and get them.
C.d- what a well-reasoned andlofical answer; it’s very refreshing and I thank you for it.
I will read your references asap and reply appropriately. Do you happen to have links where I may read them?
Nick
Nick-i don’t have the quote on me but will try to remember to get it. Re: standard tech-ethics and admin are part of standard tech. This is per HCO PLs Keeping Admin Working, Admin Degrades and again in the ethics book and Rons Journal 67 so as splinter groups are not following ethics tech in regards to tech on PTSes and SPs they are not following standard tech.
Luke… Huh?
Daunting the word “confront” automatically makes one a scientologist? No, sorry, I just know some of the lingo.
Nice meeting you, though.
Nick
reporter wrote…
“you can’t confront.”
only a scientologist would say that…
Your an ex-scientologist… who thinks you know more… and will argue forever you atleast believe you are prosurvival in wasting a scientologists time… even if you are wrong…
Sorry not talking to you!
Nick,
It’s interesting that you bring up the Catholic church because I was thinking about the comparisons today, but not in the way you did. Do serious practicing Catholics stop going to church because of the world-wide effects of the child abuse scandal? No. So, why pick on Scientology? Were there bad apples in Scientology? Sure. BUT THAT’S TRUE EVERYWHERE. So why not just focus on the positive aspects? There is good being done, you can find positive things on Scientology on the internet, not as much as the all the anti-stuff, but it’s there. The only thing I stated before was that there weren’t many positive message board/forums around.
On an interesting historical note, I don’t think that Hubbard would be too hard on them, and certainly wouldn’t hope to restrict the private practice of their beliefs.
His very good friend, John Galusha, founded the first independent group using hubbards tech, called “idenics”. He and Hubbard remained friends, and there were zero efforts by Hubbard to restrict Galusha’s application.
You can see the discussion about that on this thread: http (colon double slash) scientologymyths (dot) wordpress (dot) com/2010/12/26/happy-holidays/
I can actually find no instance of Hubbard suing or otherwise impeding someone from practicing Scientology on thir own, but I may be wrong.
Another thing I’m unclear on… Isn’t auditing dianetics? That’s a sincere question, I’m really not sure.
“Another thing I’m unclear on… Isn’t auditing dianetics? That’s a sincere question, I’m really not sure.”
Well, this is interesting. Dianetics and Scientology auditing are two different things.
Refer:
http://www.dianetics.org/#/faq
http://www(dot)whatisscientology(dot)org/html/Part02/Chp05/index(dot)html
Pat
Not at all, cd, I value your input!
I’m afraid I don’t have the book- can you give me the quote you’re referring to?
If I may ask your opinion on this: what should take precedence, adherence to standard tech or practicing within an org? As in, if the church decided to no longer practice standard tech, wouldn’t it be preferable to use Scientology in the best way that one is able?
Sorry to butt in but: Re: Why freezoners are not Scientologists: see the Intro to Scientology Ethics book section on “Suppressive Acts” which is quite clear on LRH’s viewpoint in regards to splinter groups. In addition
Sorry to butt in but: Re: Why freezoners are not Scientologists: see the Intro to Scientology Ethics book section on “Suppressive Acts” which is quite clear on LRH’s viewpoint in regards to splinter groups.
Of course, car! There’s a lot of value in the tech, and one can find great benefit from it. If you notice, I actually ENCOURAGE people to practice Scientology, if they so choose. It’s only legitimate criticism against managent, which I believe that everyone should push for.
Consider the catholic sex abuse scandal. Many Catholics, they honestly and openly confronted the abuses, and demanded reform. They fought to keep their church pure, and did so openly. I merely suggest that management owes as much to it’s members. As a scientologist, you deserve transparency. You deserve to know. You should be able to ask the hard questions and get answers. However, I could easily give you a list of questions that you would not have answered by your religious leaders, although I wouldn’t advise one to try. Is that fair to you? Is that what lrh intended?
Pat, thank you for the link.
Nick, did you ever stop to think that may be you could benefit from Scientology courses? I often enjoyed the Way to Happiness precepts. They’re free and a common sense guide to living.
Wow, I said the word “simply” waaaay to many times here, lol!
My only point is, pat, that you didn’t come to this thread to answer car’s question; only me and cd did that. You didn’t come here to discuss anything… You just joined in on a conversation between two people. Is that why you came?
CD- thanks for helping Car, I can’t believe I forgot to mention that! Yes, that is another great resource.
Pat, do you not see the questions that were directly related to the issues that YOU yourself brought up? How can it not be on topic?
Also, who am I “going after”?
I just don’t understand how you can celebrate the stifling of someone’s religious beliefs (as when you cheered them), but you’re just unable to answer the very simple questrions. Quite honestly, I don’t understand why you’re simply not able to answer questions. I simply don’t understand that, to be asked questions and simply be unable to answer them.
Actually, I’ll go one better: YOU yourself brought up the argument that freezoner’s are not scientologists. Which of my questions are unrelated to the statement that YOU made? Bonus points, how many have you answered?
None, of course. All you’ve been able to say so far is that freezone is also the name of a gay nightlcub, and that the “code” of a scientologist defines them as “not” a scientologist, if any one of the items is not strictly followed. Of course, my follow up questions to that remain unanswered.
But that’s what I don’t understand… why is it the “code” that defines who is and isn’t a scientologist and not Hubbard’s definition? When did the church start using the code to say who can and can’t call themselves a scientogist, instead of what Hubbard said was one? It opens up some problems, you see, as if the code defines who is and who isn’t a scientologist, then you can’t count any of the following:
Anyone who does not accurately inform the press about scientology and mental health (#1)
Anyone who is not actively working to abolish abusive practices in the field of mental health (#5)
Anyone who is not trying to clean up the field of mental health (#6)
Anyone who does not support the freedom of religion (#12) (note: you see that it doesn’t say “except for religions we don’t agree with)
Anyone who doesn’t teach scientology effectively (#14)
Anyone who does no support the freedom to use scientology as a philosophy in all of its applications and variations in the humanities (#15)
Anyone who is not setting an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of scientology (#19)
So, really, you’re saying that a lot of people aren’t permitted to be called scientologists, no matter what hubbard said. Hubbard said you’re a scientologist if you’re “an individual interested in Scientology. Disseminates and assists Scientologists”. So, a question which will most likely not be answered is, when did the church start using the code to define a scientologist? What happes to everyone that doesn’t meet the requirements?
So, I would be curious as to which of my questions you aer saying are not on-topic, especially when the only things you can reliably address are within conversations between two other people. But, it seems to be a trend, sadly, as I look through the page. I see even a case where you “dare” someone to find information and promise to do the same, but you didn’t do so. Why is answering questions so difficult for you?
Comment by c.d. on April 20, 2011 11:25 am
That’s an awesome idea, c.d.! Here’s a link to the courses :)
http://www.volunteerministers.org/solutions.html
Pat
Reporter,
I don’t see any questions that are on-topic or relevant to the blog. It’s getting pretty arrogant when you go after other commenters on the blog. What’s up with that?
Pat
c.d., Thank you.
Car Lin Dee-A good place to start would be the online courses on the vm course. They are free and will give you some tools to put to immediate application. After that the life improvement courses are fantastic.
Car Lin Dee,
If this thread is your first experience with this site, you may not getting a complete picture. Louanne and Pat, and other scientologists, have said some very vulgar, offensive and even hypocritical things on this very blog. A few examples of the standard set by Louanne and Pat (and select others)
“Germany became a country of killers and it seems like they have not learned yet that tolerance and understanding make up a successful group.”
-Louanne
“I don’t need to know you to know that you’re a critic, therefore you have crimes. That’s a certainty. It is true, 100% of the time”
-Pat
“I dont even think that the childmolester is truly insane. I would rather have a childmolester as my best friend than an SP, thats what I think”
-Deatherex
“The “insane people” arent really insane. The only insane person which is hard to rehabilitate is the SP. The rapist, the killer, and the childmolester arent the SP’s, they are the supressed ones.”
-Deatherex
“Scientologists do not listen to masked, obnoxious a**holes.”
-Louanne
(I took out the profanity, of course. That statement that she makes is ironic, as she herself is masked, here, and carefully hides her true identity. In fact, you’re the only scientologists that I’ve ever seen posting here that’s actually given real information, and not hidden behind a mask. I respect that)
““If I’d been there I had bulldozed these vicious trolls out of the way”
-Louanne
That’s just a small sample. Car LIn Dee, in all sincerity, please do make your decision with care. There is a growing list of thousands of former members, once idealistic and caring like yourself, who fled the group and now publicly speak out about the abuses and out-ethics that they witnessed first-hand. There’s also thousands of people that grew up in the church and now speak out regarding the terrors of their upbringing. Information is all over the net, such as private sites, forums, youtube, and even the websites and blogs of former members.
I know that you won’t believe this, but reality is that there are people that are concerned about you right now. You’re probably an adult, and obviously an intelligent one, but so were the doctors, lawyers, educators, etc, that got caught up in the group and now speak about what they’ve been through.
Just look in this thread- Both Pat and Louanne logged in, but neither bothered to answer your question, as Nick did. Pat only logged in to attack his advice and make a statement, and Louanne… who knows. You seem like someone who values truth, knowledge and wisdom; it’s out there, and there are people that would give their lives to defend your right to it. You deserve it.
Please don’t think that anyone is against you, personally. But there are those of us that have seen the effects of these crimes and out-ethics first-hand, and we seem to be left hoping that others will avoid the same.
I’m not going to take up any space here, but my brother joined five years ago. He finally came back to his family- us and his wife- a few months ago. He admits, when he will talk about it, that he was faced with a hard choice: “handle” our doubts or disconnect from us entirely. And failing to do either would mean that he would be blocked from advancing on the bridge. What kind of a choice is that for a family man?
I won’t be following up, I already know how things will go, here. I’ve seen it time and time again; hell, I’ve lived it. Please, just do be careful.
Hey, a fan!
– L
Just pointing out, Louanne got all of her posts in BEFORE 2 PM PST.
That means nothing, just a little trivia that coincides with the rumor that stats are turned in at that time.
Pat,
To make things easier for you, here’s a list of the questions that you have been unable to answer in this thread alone, if you should decide to confront them. Of course, that’s not counting the hundreds in other threads, in conversations which I was not engaged and will not address.
“First, can we agree that right or wrong, that is what they believe?”
“IF it were true, would it be the duty of a true scientologist to continue practicing Scientology in a way that was, as Hubbard was so fond of saying, true for them?”
“would they be ethically bound to continue following the tech as applied and established by hubbard?”
“wouldn’t a true scientologist be ethically bound to constinue practicing pure scientology? Is that a question you can answer?”
“do you believe Martin Luther was right or wrong in what he did?”
“Were the “squirrel busters” right or wrong in what they did?”
And that’s just within the space of three days.
I’ve seen you, Pat, post well when you feel free to actually converse, why won’t you do so?
I think I answered that here: https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/squirrels-yikes/
– L
“Yay, squirrel busters!!”
So, Pat, it’s okay for someone to interrupt religious services that they don’t believe in? The “squirrel busters” were intentionally and knowingly disrupting what someone else considered to be a religious experienced based solely on the fact that they don’t agree with it. That’s okay to you?
re: discussions.
please read this thread- you responded to a conversation between two people (which I read you previously said was not okay to do, and yet…). She asked a question and I answered it, per the FAQ, right? You didn’t answer her question, nor did Louanne. Instead, you took issue with one part of my answer. I responded to your statements.
And, if you read carefully, you were not asked a hypothetical. You were asked how a scientologist would be expected to behave in a particular situation. That should, actually, be quite a simple question, so I’m quite surprised that you’re not able to answer it. In fact, in this thread and others, I’m seeing a lot of questions that you leave unanswered. Why?
I saw that video this morning and laughed hard! Yo, busters!
See the separate post on that.
– L
Comment by Reporter on April 18, 2011 9:17 pm
Yay, squirrel busters!!
Pat
“It’s a place to discuss myths, as we are doing.”
Not true. It’s a place to get your questions answered (refer the FAQ). So far, I haven’t seen any questions from you to be answered as to Scientology. Hypotheticals and snide innuendos don’t apply and will be ignored.
Pat
Pat,
In a very related question, today a delegation of scientologists, including at least one ot8 showed up at Marty’s door saying they were with “squirrel buster productions” and demanding an interview. Marty informed them that he was in services, and that they were impeding the application of Scientology. While leaving, they continued to interrupt his services by yelling that he wasn’t actually practicing Scientology. The video is below.
Were the “squirrel busters” right or wrong in what they did?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOBwJ5RypLfI%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded&feature=player_embedded&v=OBwJ5RypLfI&gl=US
That link doesn’t go anywhere.
Check out the one on here: https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/squirrels-yikes/
Car,
Have you ever visited this site before? It’s a place to discuss myths, as we are doing. Aside, you posted after the initial comments were deleted. I stand against religious discrimination, as pat is espousing- I really don’t see how a logical discussion “ruins” anything, unless one is unable to consider or discuss alternate points of view.
If you’ve noticed, neither pat or louanne has yet made any efforts to answer your question, although the opportunity exists. I did answer your question, which pat disagreed with, one item at least. Is it wrong to discuss her disagreement to one aspect of the answer I gave? I stand by my answer, that freezone is one way to practice you’d religion- it’s pat that is trying to put her opinion upon you.
I, sincerely, wish you the best and support your right to practice your religion in any way you choose. I do, however, advocate reform, as I’m sure anyone would agree that there are, at least, certain aspects that may be improved upon.
Nick
Nick, I was going to keep my mouth shut…but why did you have to ruin this thread? Thanks to Luanne and Pat for trying, but for new people like me who are interested in Scientology all you did was prove my earlier statement (the one where I allegedly hurt you) that you indeed have an axe to grind against Scientology.
Pat, given your statements, I’m very curious: do you believe Martin Luther was right or wrong in what he did?
No pat, it’s a very simple and direct question about a Scientology “myth”, in fact one that’s on louannes other site. And it’s not asking you to discuss secret material or anything that you had ever said you’re not permitted to discuss, at least that I can find.
No, YOU made the statement, that freezoners “aren’t” scientologists. I am questioning that statement.
Why are you unable to answer?
Now, you’re right that the name “scientology” is indeed trademarked, which bars any other entity from naming their entry as such. But the freezoners, they do not call their organizations scientology, with respect to trademark law, even in other countries where they may be legally permitted to do so. So no problems there. And, no one can restrict belief or thought, so there is no reason why an individual may not choose for themselves to be a scientologist. And surely the church has no intention of restricting or controlling access to the practice of dianetics, which is of course a substudy of Scientology, and clearly the experiences and other aspects that make up Scientology are on a deeply personal level, so there is no reason why one may not be identified as a scientologist if they so wish. Sure, they may be denied church affiliation, that’s the church’s right, bit I can find no other religion that would go to any lengths to restrict someone’s right to claim a religious belief.
So, with the trademark issue out of the way, and our agreement that one may practice any religion they choose, it would seem to me that they are indeed scientologists; at least as much as those that the church counts in their statistics that don’t count themselves ;)
Your “what if” is a statement, snide and hostile. It is irrelevant since it’s only a “what if” and doesn’t warrant a response.
The universal declaration of human rights does not give you permission to violate the policies of a religion, by attempting to discredit it. You can practice any religion you want but you can’t call it the Scientology religion unless you’re part of the Church of Scientology. Those marks are trademarked and the references have already been given.
Pat
statements? Standing up for the fundamental right of one to declare and practice their own religion is a “statement”? No, me, I take the universal declaration of human rights very seriously.
It appears to me that the church may forbid one from being a part of the corporate entity itself (much like being excommunicated from the catholic church), but it’s terrible that so many would try to impede the free practice of religion.
Now, regarding your 8:16 post, you sidestepped the question. I’m intentionally not making any accusations against the current structure. I’m saying that IF that were the case, wouldn’t a true scientologist be ethically bound to constinue practicing pure scientology? Is that a question you can answer?
If, someday, the church were entirely “wrong”
Huh? Not once have I seen any Freezoner or other squirrel point to specific ethics or administrative policies that were violated. This is just one big obvious generality being used as a troll.
Quit making “statements”
Pat
Code breaks are covered in the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, as are the ethics and justice jurisprudence. It is very much the Code that Scientologists operate on, especially #12 when it comes to squirrels like Freezoners.
Pat
Oh, pat, my fault, my question was unclear.
If, someday, the church were entirely “wrong”, as in no longer what Hubbard put in place, would a scientologist still be obligated to support the church, if that were the case? Or would they be ethically bound to continue following the tech as applied and established by hubbard?
Perhaps, pat, that’s a feature unique to Scientology. The catholic church, for example, wouldn’t tell someone they’re “not” a catholic because of how they choose to practice their belief. Similarly, the church of Satan wouldn’t tell someone they’re “not” a satanist because of how they choose to practice their religion. I would also believe that the universal declaration of human rights, which Scientology claims to support, would allow someone to practice their religion without such interference.
The thing is that the code doesn’t define a scientologist- it doesn’t say anywhere, that I saw, “do these things or you can’t be a scientologist. I believe that Hubbard defined a scientologist as
“an individual interested in Scientology. Disseminates and assists Scientologists”
Lastly, it seems to me that the freezoners are following the code under item 2- they’re practicing Scientology as they believe it to be true. The church has a schism- that’s not a bad thing, it’s happened before in history. And like all schisms, the more powerful church is attempting to hinder them. Posterity, I suppose, will be the judge.
I don’t argue about standard tech. You either support the Church or you’re not a Scientologist.
Pat
Woah, I didn’t have time to look after the blog this week but believe me I am thrilled to see all your comments! I’ll get back to that in the next days or so.
– L
Pat,
Thank you for the link.
Pat, I’ll tell you what, let’s pretend, just for the sake of argument, that the position of the freezoners is accurate. I’m not saying it is, but what if the church under Miscavige was no longer practicing standard tech; that he had made changes that opposed hubbards intent. First, can we agree that right or wrong, that is what they believe?
IF it were true, would it be the duty of a true scientologist to continue practicing Scientology in a way that was, as Hubbard was so fond of saying, true for them?
We may disagree, pat, but I believe that the universal declaration of human rights suggests that they should be able to practice their religion. After all, wasn’t Martin Luther declared a heretic by the church?
Freezoners are not Scientologists. Refer to the Code of a Scientologist.
http://www.thetaviewpoint.com/wis/code/codeofscientologist.html
Pat
Small point, “freezone” is also a brand of corn remover, a video game company, A movie, a computer fan company, and many other things. There’s only grounds for a legal challenge if there’s significant confusion between the two. Plus l, the name is not trademarked.
Pat, what is “wrong” with the freezone? Doesn’t Scientology take pride in supporting the universal declaration of human rights, which says that one should be able to freely practice their religion? Similarly, I celebrate the right of scientologists to practice their religion, although I admire those that do so while bravely seeing all aspects. But that’s true of any religion.
Wow, car, that’s quite hurtful.
I suppose that there’s nothing left to talk about, and sincerely wish you the best.
Pat,
Re: The link you sent! If a nightclub (gay or straight) can use the name and the Freezone people aren’t demanding that the name be changed. That really says something.
Nick,
My internal thoughts work just fine thanks.
Pat, thank you for the link. I will definitely check it out.
What I wanted was real advice from a real Scientologist (as I know Pat and Louanne are) not someone like Nick (no matter how cordial he is trying to be) who has an obvious axe to grind.
I’d think twice, or better yet 3 times about Freezone:
http://www.freezonelv.com/
Pat
Car,
I think I brought up several issues or concepts that you may not have been ready or willing to address, at least internally. If so, I regret that.
So, to answer your question, if you want to get into Scientology, you have three good options:
1. Go to your library or bookstore and start with the basic books, getting a strong foundation before moving on
2. Go to your local org and inquire within
3. Hook up with a local freezone organization
I would also personally advise that you explore all sides, good bad and ugly, to completely understand the topic.
Car,
What are we disagreeing on? I’m actually confused. And I’m not understanding why it was wrong to mention that I had attended events after you recommended that I do so?
I’ve been enjoying our conversation- had I offended you?
Nick
Nick,
I didn’t like how you slithered in the fact that you’ve been to multiple Scientology events until later on in our conversation. I feel we are starting to go way off topic. It is up to Louanne whether or not we can continue talking in this space. Let’s just agree to disagree.
well, Car, if I in any way offended you with the analogy, then I sincerely apologize. I trust that you can see that there was no comparison of ideologies or membership, only as I described in my last message.
I enjoy speaking with you, and only hope that we may continue doing so. It’s wonderful to see someone willing to think, as they say, “outside the box” and challenge their own beliefs. Believe me, I know that’s not always easy to do.
Hope to talk to you more,
Nick
In no way did I compare scientology to the KKK. And even if I had, it would have also been compared to the polar opposite of the black panthers. The comparison was in groups that traditionally draw criticism doing things for social betterment.
Nick,
Did you really just compare Scientology to the KKK? Oh dear. I don’t have to tell you that there are African-American Scientologists. I have a feeling we are getting too off topic and this isn’t fair to Louanne who opened this thread up for having questions. I just wanted to know where to get started.
exactly, Car :) I wasn’t so much answering my own questions as I was reaffirming something that I think we both know to be true- there are good and bad people. There are good psychiatrists and bad ones. There are good scientologists and there are bad ones. So one can’t say that all scientologists are bad (as some critics do) any more than one can say that all psychs are bad (as some CCHR adherents do).
And, as far as 9/11, I wasn’t talking about the politics of it, but noting that CCHR has stated that it was due to psychiatrists.
And being murdered in the name of ANY religion is a tragedy, whether it’s christianity or scientology. But there’s a difference- in the case of the strict “jesus freak” homes, that’s the result of a misguided and, in my opinion, horrible person oppressing another, perhaps their own children. But if, for example, a catholic bishop were to murder someone, it would certainly garner more attention. There’s a higher expectation, in general, placed upon the clergy. Often, in this case, it’s not so much a problem of an individual, but institutional pressures to reach a certain goal, either membership or financial.
The problem with celebrities is that they’re just like anyone else. However, in scientology, they certainly do have a different lifestyle! With celebrity centers and (legal disclaimer: unproven) allegations of special treatment, there may be a sort of incentive to stay in that luxurious lifestyle. This is, in part, due to Hubbard’s directive (Flag Order 3323) be directly recruited whenever possible.
There are 12 A to B list celebrities that are commonly referred to in terms of scientology, not including Charles Manson. They have a belief, but (as I’m sure you’d agree) no more validity than, perhaps the dozens and dozens that have spoken out against scientology, including Elvis Presley, Carl Segan, Gore Vidal, James Woods, David Bowie, Ellen Degeneris, Craig Kilborn, Michael Moore, etc.
Celebrities are popular when one is trying to gain credibility for a particular cause, from religion to politics, because they have a certain amount of creedence with people based only on their celebrity status. I think there’s a difference, too, in their lifestyles. For example, Cruise is seem frequently with David Miscavige, the leader of scientology, with expensive clothes and motorcycles, often as “gifts” from Miscavige. As that money ultimately comes from individual scientologists, I believe that some people bristle at that. Cruise seems a little bit more… humble.
I’ve actually been to multiple scientology events. I like to keep an open mind, and I’ve collected a great mass of information both pro and con. I’ve drawn an overall conclusion, for me personally, but that’s based on objective study of the effects versus the costs and risks. For me, it’s just math :)
But it’s not that I’m focusing on the negative, like I said, there are people that have stated that they found a benefit to it, just as there are those that found a benefit to psychiatric care or psychadelic illegal narcotics. But focusing, in any way on only the positive or the negative, again, presents a faulty overall picture. I can tell that you’re open-minded anough and wise enough to be able to consider the so-called “critical” sites, and their personal stories. An example would be the forum ex-scientology kids, which is populated with former members who talk of their experiences.
My concern is not for those that join and find benefit, but for those that join and feel “trapped” (like those that report that they were unable to leave, or when they stopped believing and wanted to leave that the repercussions were far too great), or some of the actions of management. As an interesting aside, you’ll find a great deal of criticism or personal horror stories from former members of the registered church of scientology, but no one protests, and people report great gains from the “independant” movement, which is free or low cost and doesn’t have the same type of stories against it. In fact, I could only find one website dedicated against the independant movement, and that’s maintained by scientology itself.
But, yes, it is a good thing when scientology hold a function and donates money to the police, just like it’s a good thing when the KKK holds functions to donate money to charity, or the hell’s angels does a toy run, or the black panthers donates toys and other necessities to inner city youths. Even groups like these can do good, and that deserves recognition. You and I both know that nothing’s black and white! :)
I said: Do celebs get favored treatment? Yes, but that is everywhere and part of society as a while.
I meant to say “society as a whole.”
Sorry for the typo.
Nick,
You kind of answered your own questions and what I’ve always believed there are good and bad people everywhere, and you can’t judge a religion based on a few things. I don’t want to get into the subject of 9/11. Some believe it was an inside job in the Bush Administration…but that has nothing to do with Scientology.
What about gay teenagers who grow up in strict “Jesus Freak” type homes and then commit suicide? Or are murdered in the case of Matthew Shepard. (See I can throw around names too…and I swear I’m not trying to be argumentative.)
and I’m going to bring up what no one seems to talk about, if Louanne has to delete it, that’s okay, I’ll understand. Celebrities. I’m not talking about the A listers like Cruise and Travolta. But I will say in the media it seems Travolta gets more of a pass and Cruise (and his wife) get major bad press. Why do they seem to like John but hate Tom?
It is 2011, everyone is internet savvy, especially the kids nowadays who were born with all of the modern technology….it’s very hard to believe that “X” famous person who is in Scientology doesn’t go, “Hey…this is wrong…” If “X” famous person, and if it makes me naive so be it, can proudly say they believe in Scientology knowing the anti stuff that is out there…how can it be bad? And Nick before you think I drank the Kool-Aid…that is another thing cults were like Jim Jones in Jonestown. Anyway, if “X” famous person Scientologist can go, “This is me…and Scientology works.” Then how can you not take them seriously?
And how come not one famous person in the religion didn’t say, “Jason Beghe has a point?” Think about it. Not saying he doesn’t have the right to an opinion.
Do celebs get favored treatment? Yes, but that is everywhere and part of society as a while.
And what about that holiday show where the money goes to the police? Is that bad?
The Celebrity Centre has a restaurant and I have read regular people reviews where they say they weren’t hassled and that the food was good and they had a splendid time. If you live in California, Nick, I say go to the Easter Brunch and then report back to the board.
It seems that you are focusing on the bad apples in the bunch and not on the positive people. I’d rather see the positive people and not focus on the bad apples.
I apologize, in my rush to post before the delete-hammer dropped on me, I forgot to address some of your excellent points!
Re: psychs
Is it your belief that all psychs are doing bad things, although some may believe they’re doing good?
Personally, I believe that you can draw parallels between the psychiatric profession and that of teachers, doctors, politicians; even scientologists. Some are very warm and caring people that want to help. Some are bad people that delight in doing harm. But that’s on the individual, rather than the group. For example, Scientology minister (and OT7) Rex Fowler was recently convicted of first degree murder for murdering his business partner after promising him his severance check. The victim, a military veteran on his way to his son’s birthday party, had left in protest when Fowler stole money from the company to donate to Scientology. That’s fact, then we add interpretation: did Fowler do a bad thing? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean that ALL scientologists are thieves and murderers? Not at all. However, CCHR teaches that all psychs are bad (which stems from hubbards mistrust of psychiatry, which stagnated at some point after he left the military and wrote a letter to the VA asking for psychiatric care) which is reflected and explained in the secret higher level material found at OT3. As a result, CCHR teaches that psychs are responsible for almost every great tragedy, from ww2 to 9/11!
Regarding freedom of speech:
I’m not trying to influence you, and this is clearly a subject about which you feel very passionately. Bit you’re correct that what’s published by Scientology is both legal and only part of tv story, but it’s a concern, to me at least, that such resources and pieces of information are used to discredit former members and journalists themselves, rather than the ideas they present. It’s referred to as an “ad hominim” attack; the validity of using it is a matter of personal belief and ethics.
You also bring up a great point, that too many pro sites would too difficult to monitor, and you’re entirely correct. It leaves me to wonder, though, why they would want to monitor them? To further use our catholic analogy, I’d imagine that the catholic church doesn’t monitor the countless websites or blogs maintained by individual Catholics?
Thank you for the wonderful conversation, car!
Hey, I guess I’m good to communicate. Yay! :)
In my opinion, facts and knowledge are neutral; it’s our attachment to or interpretation of them that creates emotional attachments or reactions. For example, a dear friend if mine is a very devout catholic. If there’s a body of Christ nearby, he’ll be the first to gobble it up. He makes Ned Flanders look like a slacker. Yet, he’s read the satanic bible cover to cover, and he’s actively read criticism from writers like Christopher Hitchins. Why? Because he knows that seeking out knowledge leads to understanding, which leads to wisdom and true belief. You really can’t know something, in it’s entirety, until you know both sides.
Take me for example. I know many critical facts about Scientology. But I also know a great deal about the beliefs, including the very pricy so-called “secret” beliefs. From that overall perspective, I can actually answer your question: start with the basic books, such as dianetics, and read them at your pace. On Scientology’s website, they have a list of the basic (as in:fundamental) series, which you may be able to find used for cheap or at your library for free. I would only add to be wary of certain cognitive biases- it happens to us all, and colors how we process new information. Fortunately, that can be combated by maintaining your open mind and seeking out neutral facts, separating them from the delivery.
You’re really almost caught in the middle. For example, lets pretend that you visit an anti website that has a list of the hundreds that have died in a way that is tied to Scientology, either through suicide, improper care (like those cases where individuals were taken off medication or died during the purif rundown) or being murdered by a scientologist. Those lists of names are factual and verifiable, but collected and presented for a particular effect. Similarly, if you go to scientology’s website, you’ll see pictures of happy people and glowing reviews, again collected for effect.
NEITHER one presents an overall holistic view, on their own, bit put together they start to.
Does that address your original question? If not, I tried, lol!
Nick
Good morning car! (can I call you car?)
Actually, there were many other posts before yours, mostly from bigdaddy, who you mentioned. They were censored, sadly, as I expect my posts to be before long. But, in the meantime, im enjoying our conversation!
Before I type a long reply, as your great comments deserve, I’m going to try and post this to see if I’m banned, too, lol!
Kindly stand by, please.
Nick
NIck,
I don’t know if writing back to you is a good thing or not when I just wanted my questions answered. Louanne opened up this space for questions and the only one who asked one was me, which I feel will have as much of a chance to get answered now as a snowstorm in Miami. But I will write back anyway.
I used to like reading her (and Pat’s) responses to a member named Big Daddy, so when there was a chance here to ask legitimate questions I decided to post. I think it would have been better if Louanne had these moderated.
Am I saying all psychs are bad people? No. Some people might actually believe what they are doing is a GOOD thing. It doesn’t make what they do right.
I don’t know anything about the cases you described. So I’m going to leave that to someone else to comment on.
As far as the lack of more positive sites go…Maybe, members aren’t allowed to because there would be too many to monitor?
Regarding your last point…it’s something I see all too often when I read about Scientology. You say a blanket statement and it’s supposed to be taken as fact. What is Scientology’s side? If I worked for corporation “X” and someone was a traitor I might just want to “out them” as well as a matter of the public record. There are always TWO sides to every story. Freedom of Speech works both ways and Scientology has every right to their opinions.
& Thank you for the kind words about my family.
I, and most that are honest, would agree that certain drugs are over prescribed, no doubt about that. But some people, I’m not saying you, but some people, have a blanket vendetta against all psychiatrists. Which is odd, because many psychiatrists don’t believe in drugs, and challenge over-medicating patients! So, I’m sure you can see that it’s not necessarily the profession, but unethical people that do the harm. I’m sorry about your mom and sister, it really is sad how such things can happen.. An actual understanding of the mind- from a physiological standpoint- is still in its infancy. It’s much like early medical science, you see. At one time, we truly believed that illnesses were caused by such things as “bad humours” in the blood, or small dwarves, or crazy things like that, and they’d cut people or put leeches on them to try and cure it! Or, there would be horrible experiments, like those performed by the Nazis in WWII, that reflected usch a lack of understanding. Psychiatry is the same way today- infant.
CCHR is an interesting group, and not completely truthful. For instance, they claim that they “stopped” the so-called “Alaskan Siberia”, which they claimed would allow unprovoked psychiatric imprisonment in Alaska out of the public eye. What they don’t mention is that the bill passed, successfully funding mental health programs for the then-territory (not a state) of Alaska. No one was imprisoned.
Of course, there are sad cases like that of Jeremy Perkins. He was on medication for Schizophrenia. But his mother didn’t believe in the meds he was on, and took him off of it in favor of scientology treatments. Sadly, off his meds, he stabbed her multiple times in one of his previously-controlled episodes.
This blog is, as far as I know, is the only resource to allow responses from the church of scientology to critical information. There really isn’t much positive information being presented, other than self-generated press releases. I’m not saying that “means” anything, but that’s just an observation.
It’s interesting that you bring up the Catholic Church. Take the sex abuse scandal, for example. When that happened, and the church failed to control it, there was a great deal of criticism for that action. Similarly, the CoS has drawn criticism for certain actions, different than the actions of individual scientologists, who may be criticized for said actions. But, people were free to criticize the catholic church without being called a “criminal” or a “bigot” or, worst of all, finding their faces plastered on a hate-site like “religious freedom watch” (which actually posts people’s names, pictures and even IP addresses) or perhaps former members that found information that they thought was personal and private published in a magazine and distributed by scientology (as in freedom mag, this actually happened) in order to discredit them. That’s a big difference.
I like talking to you, and looking forward to more!
Nick,
I can accept your apology. Do you want the long or short answer? I don’t like psychs and am against meds. If anyone saw the breaking news today regarding Catherine Zeta-Jones oh I can see in the coming months interviews touting the “wonders” of psych meds. My mother was diagnosed with clinical depression/chemical imbalance and OD’d on her medicine. I have a special-needs sister who was given Ritalin. She is still on meds today, but nothing made her the zombie like Ritalin did.
As far as anti comments, let’s backtrack, I WISH there was a forum for Scientology. The only ones I could find was something regarding a L. Ron tech and a Freezone forum. I don’t know why there aren’t more. Louanne opened up the blog for people to ask questions. I wish there were more online places to get positive information. So you read between the lines and try to figure these things out.
As far corruption goes…I’m afraid you’re going to find that all over. Look at the Catholic Church. Does that mean everyone who goes to church services is a brainwashed cult member? If someone doesn’t like how David M. handles things that’s their right, but does that mean Scientology has nothing to offer? That you can’t learn anything from it?
I just wanted to know where to start.
related, the charge to “attack” came from direct guidance from L. Ron Hubbard-
“Don’t ever defend. Always attack”
HCO policy letter August 15, 1960
Car,
I apologize- I made an assumption, and it was faulty. But, you see, Louanne was just (like, yesterday) “caught”, if you will, posing as several people, so it was quite suspect :)
And she’s done that before, so you can see why I would believe such a thing!
You’re more than free to believe what you want, and I’m sure Louanne could give you some valuable advice. Have you, if I may ask, given consideration as to the criticisms against the group?
-Nick
I was going to wait for Louanne to reply…but I’m Car Lin Dee and I’m not Louanne. I have a profile on facebook. I was looking for advice on joining Scientology. So reporter if you are in the profession that your user name implies then you suck at it. Maybe, I sound like a commercial, but it’s called READING up on THINGS and making an educated decision. No wonder Scientologists don’t like to defend their faith they’d rather just “attack” (note quotes). After dealing with idiots like you all day. Who can blame them? There’s good and bad in everyone…next thing you know you’ll call me Paul McCartney or Stevie Wonder.
well, maybe I was wrong! Seems you’re only banning certain people, and just deleting the comments you can’t confront.
Louanne, seriously, do you expect people to believe that, what EIGHT different people were posting from the same IP address, at the same time, with the same pattern of speech, and they all fell silent all across the web at the same time, and they’re not all you? I’m sure your steadfast ethics would give you pause in maintaining your current position on that.
But, the bigger question, is why do the critical sites have THOUSANDS of people posting, with HUNDREDS of replies and people active at any give time, but there’s only a few people out there, most of them the same person, posting anything positive? Shouldn’t there be more, even without you?
Hi Louanne,
First let me say thank you for all that you do. To make a long story short, I was an anti person, believing all of the negative things about Scientology. We even had to (in business school) do a report on this topic: Is Scientology a Cult? This teacher, I found out later is an extreme Christian (the kind that believes in Hell fire and doesn’t want gay people to be married). If she had switched the words from Scientology to Muslim, the ACLU would have made sure she was fired! But the hating on Scientology is okay somehow. Then later on, I took a class in Critical Thinking and then I was able to go back to this topic and think for myself. Now, I can go back to those anti websites and you can see the obvious lies that people tell. Well, I’m in-between jobs and totally broke. It’s usually me that will put the cart before the horse. But I would like to do this properly. I don’t want to stop in the middle of the bridge.
Where does a newbie start? Just buy a copy of Dianetics and start reading? There are so many causes that I’d love to be a part of CCHR and the New York Detox Center to name two.
I have many career aspirations that I know Scientology can help me with. My dream is to write a novel about women saving themselves for marriage and the stigma that follows. But I don’t have the motivation to get started.
I read if you sign up for the IAS you can get a discount on services? That would be great. I often wanted to email someone on the official Scientology page, but got “too chicken” because I know you have to buy books and pay for training (this seems to be a sticking point for some…Scientology explains it, so I don’t get what the big deal is). To me Scientology is like school…it’s an investment in the future and well worth the cost.
I would just like to know where to start. I’ve talked to some nice folks from the CCHR in the U.K. but I don’t want to bother them with dorky newbie questions and the Scientology page on facebook is not open for people to add questions you can only reply to the news topics of the day.
My question to you, Louanne is where is the best place for a newbie to start?
Thank you.