BAM! Another liar bites the dust

Go make babies!

Marc and Claire Headley

On 24 July 2012 Marc and Claire Headley (whoismarcheadley.com) lost their appeal in a “forced labor” case against the Church of Scientology.

The Headleys had left the Sea Organization in 2005 and went their way until running out of money. So in 2009 they re-defined their so far fond memories about their time in the Sea Org for the purpose to get some money from the Church. The first instance already took them apart in 2010 and on 24 July 2012 Ninth Cicruit Court of Appeal decided again on it. Key quotes from the judgement:

– The Sea Organization is a religious order, participation in it is voluntary and those who want to leave can do so easily.

“The Sea Org is an elite religious order of the Church and acts as Scientology’s evangelical wing. The Sea Org demands much of its members, renders strict discipline, imposes stringent ethical and lifestyle constraints, and goes to great efforts to retain clergy and to preserve the integrity of the ministry.” (page 8398)

– Nothing and nobody forced the Headley’s to join, participate and stay in the Sea Organization. To the contrary, the Headley’s testified under oath that they enjoyed it and wanted to be there.

” Rather, the record overwhelmingly shows that the Headleys joined and voluntarily worked for the Sea Org because they believed that it was the right thing to do, because they enjoyed it, and because they thought that by working they were honoring the commitment that they each made and to which they adhered.” (page 8408)

– The Headleys could have left whenever they wanted to but did not.

“We emphasize that the Headleys had innumerable opportunities to leave the defendants. They lived outside of the Base and had access to vehicles, phones, and the Internet. They traveled away from the Base often. The security that they decry afforded them a multitude of opportunities to leave, as hundreds of other Sea Org members had done-whatever their commitments and whatever they may have been told regarding the permissibility of leaving. … They did not take any of their many opportunities to leave until 2005 and chose instead to stay with the defendants and to continue providing their ministerial services. They have not established a genuine issue of fact regarding whether they were victims of forced-labor violations.” (page 8410)

But they first chose to stay and then – as the last of numerous violations of agreed-upon moral codes – took a hike instead of leaving like anyone else would.

“Sea Org members learn that strict discipline is central to preserving the integrity of Scientology’s ministry. If a member fails to meet Scientology’s ethical standards, he may be disciplined with verbal warnings or rebukes, loss of privileges, removal from a post, diminution of responsibilities, manual labor, or expulsion. Sea Org members also participate in religious training and practices, including “confessionals.” In a confessional, a member confesses transgressions and may then be absolved or disciplined.

This demanding, ascetic life is not for everyone-and is not even for many of those who go through the Sea Org’s extensive training and preparation. A member may formally withdraw his vows and leave the ministry through a process called “routing out.” Routing out allows a member to remain a Scientologist in good standing. The process involves filling out a form and normally includes participating in Scientology ethics programs. Routing out can take weeks or months. During that time members are excused from their posts but are expected to continue serving the Church by performing chores.” (page 8399)

What, no Suppressive Person declare for those leaving the Sea Org? Exactly. Luckily the court cleared that up too. And what about the people that “blow”?

“Some Scientologists leave the Sea Org without routing out – a practice known as “blowing” – but the Sea Org discourages members from doing so. When a member leaves without routing out, other members may band together to try to locate that member and attempt to persuade him to return to the Sea Org. Scientologists believe that such an effort-known as a “blow drill” – is integral to their efforts to clear the planet and to help their members (even departed ones) achieve salvation. So important is this to the Church that a blown member may be disciplined if he returns or may be declared a “suppressive person.” Being so declared is akin to being excommunicated or shunned, and can cause blown members to lose contact with Scientologist family or friends.” (page 8400)

Obviously. If a friend of yours goes missing you would go looking for her too, right?

And in the end this turned out to be one of those sad “apostate” stories: The Headley’s enjoyed their stay and work in the Sea Organization and only after they had repeatedly betrayed and lied to their former friends they found something “wrong” about it.

– L

PS: The full decision for download here.

PPS: Update on ScientologyMyths.info

96 Comments

  1. Funny thing, I was 100% positive that’s what you would say. Guess I called it.

    How do you propose that I research your opinion or what you would do in a particular scenario? Or are your opinions so inexplicably aligned with what Hubbard wrote that they’re one and the same? The only way that your answer makes any logical sense is if your personality is so closely and carefully attuned to his books do as to be indistinguishable. Otherwise, answering a question about you’d personal standards with a book is strange indeed.

    For that matter, exactly how much space would it take to say, “I would do x”?

    Anyways, if I have any further questions about what you think, I’ll find out what Hubbard wrote- you made it clear that’s where the answer lies. Not exactly bucking that stereotype, are you?

    Thanks for making some things clear- its been enlightening. Goodbye.

    • odd- that was in reply to Pat; my error.

  2. I don’t know why these aren’t threading properly. I reply to the comment and it’s just being appended. Louanne, any ideas?

  3. From the Judge: “Sea Org members learn that strict discipline is central to preserving the integrity of Scientology’s ministry. If a member fails to meet Scientology’s ethical standards, he may be
    disciplined with verbal warnings or rebukes, loss of privileges, removal from a post, diminution of responsibilities, manual labor, or expulsion. Sea Org members also participate in religious training and practices, including “confessionals.” In a confessional, a member confesses transgressions and may then be absolved or disciplined.
    This demanding, ascetic life is not for everyone—and is not
    even for many of those who go through the Sea Org’s extensive training and preparation.”

    Next sentence: “Members thus often wish to leave the Sea Org for a more normal life.”

    What is a Normal life for you?

    • The Sea Org Motto is “Many are called. But few are chosen”.

      Being in the Sea Org being hard has always been known by those going in. This is certainly nothing knew. I fail to see what the issue is, unless you consider that anything you wouldn’t do is wrong for another or others. What is “normal” anyway?

      • Sorry. knew = new

      • It’s a valid point- being in the sea org is NOT a normal life, but neither is being a monk, missionary or other religious figure. I don’t agree with many things that scientology does, but this one isn’t unique.

  4. When will http://scientologist.blogspot.com/ be updated with attacks on Katie Holmes? She seems to be one of the biggest SPs to Scientology’s reputation these days. Can you blame her departure on the evil Pychs?

    • Why are you asking about someone else’s blog here? Ask http://scientologist.blogspot.com/ when it’ll be updated. Sheesh!

    • It’ll be updated if she speaks out against scientology. That has happened to many former members who were at one time in good standing- as soon as they speak out about what they claim to have seen, they’ll have websites dedicated to them, magazines printed up with them on the cover, a feature in louanne’s blog- that sounds normal to you, right?

  5. Louanne, please assist me in understanding some of the other elements of the decision:

    Is this true?

    “The Sea Org’s lifestyle constraints include strict policies on
    outside communications, marriage, and children. Sea Org
    members’ mail is censored and phone calls are monitored as
    part of ministry discipline and policy.” (8399)

    Do sea org members really have to ask permission to use the internet?

    “In keeping with Church disciplinary policy, the Church
    censored the Headleys’ mail, monitored their phone calls, and
    required them to obtain permission to access the Internet” (8401)

    Are these actual punishments in RPF?

    In 2004, for example, Marc (along with
    hundreds of others) was assigned to hand-clean dried human
    excrement from a large aeration pond. This two-day assignment
    was levied as discipline for problems in Marc’s work.
    As another example, in a six- to eight-month period in 2002,
    Claire was denied dining hall privileges, had to subsist on
    protein bars and water, and lost about thirty pounds. (8401)

    The judge made this statement as fact. Is it true?

    “A senior Scientology executive physically struck Marc on two occasions and another official punched him on another occasion. A co-worker shoved Claire once.” (8401)

  6. That’s covered in the post.

  7. Can I get directions to the nearest org from 2111 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL

    • I’m quite disappointed in you, GLWT- you need to do more research. If you had, you would know that no one has ever had a legitimate problem with scientology. Those that claim that they have are just bitter apostates that were treated wonderfully and, for some reason, decided to turn on their friends (in many cases, losing everything- business, family, standing, just “because”!) that treated them so well. You know what? In fact, they always leave because it’s THEIR fault! They’re always just trying to hide their crimes. I mean, doesn’t it make sense to you, that someone would give up everything, knowing that they’re losing their families, friends…. everything… that’s how committed to the lie they are.

      This is true for each and every one of the nearly two thousand former members that have left and publicly spoken out against scientology. Far from this being a pattern, they’re all “just a few disgruntled apostates with axes to grind”- not to mention those that left and just choose to live their life quietly away from scientology. Each one of them has turned their back on the perfect system and decided to make up lies that are eerily similar to one another (clearly, the nearly two thousand have all gotten together and decided to support eachother’s lies!)

      You see, anyone that leaves a religion and decides to speak against it is NOT to be trusted. That’s why nobody listens to all of those kids that were sexually abused while part of the catholic church- those, too, are just bitter apostates with an axe to grind that left a wonderful church and decided to hurt their friends- just over a little bit of molestation! That’s the same reason why you can’t trust those that have left the westboro baptist church and spoken out against its leadership- clearly they’re just trying to hurt their friends!

      You can see this happen in the political realm as well. Every once in a while, some bitter ex-national decides to leave North Korea, which is a perfect nation with the happiest people in the world (source: North Korea) and try to harm the reputation of the dear leader. I don’t know what would make someone do a thing like that, but there’s no reason to listen to them and their “agenda”. After all, there’s official ways to route out of NK as well; why didn’t they do that?

      So do a little research, GLWT, and you’ll understand perfectly why thousands of people have had some connection to scientology and are now speaking out against it- they’re all liars, every one of ’em. Then you’ll understand why it’s actually good news, worthy of publication, that scientology didn’t lose a lawsuit. Sure, if there was other good news, that would be good to post as well, but take what you can get! This is also why it’s a GOOD thing that scientology has a hate-site dedicated to these people; it shows the world what happens if you speak out against them.

    • “no one has ever had a legitimate problem with scientology.”

      That’s true. Scientology is the philosophy. No one, to my knowledge, has a problem with the technology. Where the rant and vent come in, is with the Administration, and if that’s what you really meant, is still a generality. Apostates follow a pattern that is historic.

      • Pat : “That’s true. Scientology is the philosophy. No one, to my knowledge, has a problem with the technology.”

        I wonder if you have the guts to tell that to the family of Stacy Dawn Murphy, age 20, who died a little over 2 weeks ago at Scientology’s Narconon Arrowhead in Oklahoma. Or to the families of the other 2 people who died there in the past year.

        I guess LRH’s “Purification Rundown” Tech didn’t work out so well for them.

      • Well, isn’t this sweet. Per my own research she died in detox, as did the others. There was no Scientology technology involved. You really need to know before you go.

      • Pat, please provide sources for your “research”, as I have not found anything that supports your claim. Can you provide anything?

        The local McAlester News says, “Narconon Arrowhead, a nonprofit drug and alcohol rehabilitation center in Canadian with affiliation with the Church of Scientology.”

        As far as I can tell, that’s the only primary source covering that story. So, please, tell us about your research- because if you’re lying or mocking up data, then that’s beyond unethical.

      • It’s Candian. Where Narconon Arrowhead is. See, just one word and you’ve got this happening in another country.

        It also says she was found in the detox room. Same ref you found. Do you know what detox is in drug rehab? There’s no Scientology involved in the detox procedure. Just like every other rehab facility. First step is to get people off the drugs. You might want to review the Narconon literature before calling me a liar.

      • It would be funny if not sad…

        The city is called Canadian; that was a part of your research?

        Next, the one that called it a detox room is the victim’s father. Unless you have another source?

        Was that seriously your research?

      • You’re right, it’s canadian. My bad.

        It’s also referred to as the withdrawal room by an anti-Narconon activist. detox room, withdrawal room. Semantics.

      • “You’re right, it’s canadian. My bad.”

        I can respect that you can admit the error. It IS confusing, having a city in Oklahoma called “Canadian”. But, there is. So, you can see that the deaths did indeed occur at the Scientology-based Narconon Arrowhead center in Oklahoma.

        “It’s also referred to as the withdrawal room by an anti-Narconon activist. detox room, withdrawal room. Semantics.”

        True, people have used many named to refer to the same center. Point remains that it was at the Arrowhead center. Did your research indicate that she would have died if she had been in any other center?

      • There is no point. People have been known to die from drug withdrawal. Look at what has happened with psychotropic drugs?

        The real deal here is that the critics have spun this to justify criticism without having any official determination if cause of death was anything other than the drug withdrawal. Something similar to anti-gun people trying to use Colorado’s shooting as a platform to destroy the Second Amendment right. It’s politicalization.

      • Okay, so we agree that this death did occur at a narconon facility, then? Your point, however, is that such a death is not uncommon.

        I believe that I’ll withhold judgement until after the official report is released.

      • The accusation is snide. A covert way of saying I’m lying or mocking it up. You could have just said “What’s your cite?”. Instead you threw in the “So, please, tell us about your research- because if you’re lying or mocking up data, then that’s beyond unethical.”

    • “Apostates follow a pattern that is historic” (another generality).

      There have been many Scientology apostates going all the way back to before it was brought out as a religion. Although Jamie DeWolf can not be an apostate since he’s never been a member, he can be labeled as a critic, right? He doesn’t know anything about the current church and is only stating here-say from his stupid LRH descendant apostates, right?

      How many of the LRH descendants are there left associated with the church and why have others left?

      How many of COB’s family are still members and why have others left?

    • “That’s true. Scientology is the philosophy. No one, to my knowledge, has a problem with the technology. Where the rant and vent come in, is with the Administration, and if that’s what you really meant, is still a generality. Apostates follow a pattern that is historic.”
      – Pat

      Exactly. No one, not even the thousands that have left the organization, has had a problem with the technology itself. In fact, scientology works for everybody who gives it a chance, and those that it doesn’t work for haven’t been trying hard enough. This includes those that felt at one time that it worked, but do no longer.

      Now, true, there are many, many stories about the administration (which is why so many have left the organization- because of the administration- and chosen to pursue scientology on their own, keeping the tech but leaving the administration) that are pretty consistent. However, anyone can see that each of those stories are completely made up OR the result of individuals that have since left the church. For example, those that were beaten were beaten without the knowledge of the CURRENT leadership; surely DM had no idea that such a thing was going on.

      And Louanne has good points, too. For instance, she says “Obviously. If a friend of yours goes missing you would go looking for her too, right?”- Duh, GLWT, it’s very obvious. When someone (foolishly) believes that they can’t take it any more and try to “escape” in the middle of the night, scientology is just concerned with them; that’s why they follow them, confront them at airports and chase them in cars. It’s out of love.

      See, GLWT, you have to understand that the fact that thousands of people have left scientology, and nearly two thousand are speaking out against their experiences, and the critical movement is growing, and the news is generally bad- those are all based on lies. Just lying liars who are lying about the things that they would lie about. The CURRENT leadership is beyond reproach, and have done no wrong at all.

      That’s why you’ll find so many more scientologists willing to share their positive experiences and talk about how much scientology has improved their lives- far more than you’ll find these bitter apostates that are talking about negative experiences.

      • “Now, true, there are many, many stories about the administration (which is why so many have left the organization-”

        Ah, so you admit that people leave after getting hearsay rather than looking for themselves. Interesting.

      • “Ah, so you admit that people leave after getting hearsay rather than looking for themselves. Interesting.”

        Oh yes, I absolutely do admit that. But not in the way that you want. Many of the thousands that have left have done so because they’ve seen what it’s done to their fellow scientologists. Some, after having to choose between disconnecting from their loved ones or being a “PTS”. Still others left because of terrible things that they’ve witnessed, while others because of a realization that they weren’t making gains. So, yes, people DO leave because of “hearsay”, and many other reasons. There are thousands and thousands of reasons for the thousands and thousands of people that have left.

      • And you act on hearsay :P

      • You wish :P

      • I wish? Does that mean that you have personally experienced that which you’re asking is true? That you’re antagonistic because of your personal experiences or because of what hearsay you read and accepted as true without personal observation to see if it’s true or not?

      • Exactly, pay :)
        I don’t need to explain myself to you, but I have not made as ingle claim that I have not evaluated and personally found to be true.
        Tell me, please- can you say the same?

        See, my major is religious studies. I started with the thesis that Scientology is an unfairly oppressed religion that has been slandered in the media; I set out to prove this. I spent a long time researching this- I tried it for myself, I spoke to current and former members, I took tours of orgs

      • (continued)

        I did it all. So, yes, im not relying on hearsay (especially as I don’t think you know what that word means), but have first hand knowledge from both sides, and have since changed my opinion of Scientology. To be frank, the way you are here does nothing to challenge that conclusion.

        I’m curious, how can you possibly discount the claims of thousands of former members?

      • Because, I know the tech behind the “former”. Something apparently you haven’t confronted about yourself yet. You’re an apostate. Look up what that means. Come clean,

      • Ah, yes, that IS how it works, isn’t it? If someone opposes Scientology but hasn’t tried it, they’re listening to hearsay and are I’ll-informed. If someone tries Scientology and end up opposing it, they’re an apostate. How convenient- everyone that disagrees with you is wrong by default. Must be nice.

        Have you ever seriously considered the opposite point of view, as I have? From your activity here, I doubt it. But hey, if it works for you- swell! You just can’t pretend it’s some universal, objective reality shared by all. If you truly feel you can leave your body at will… Cool! But I won’t lose any sleep worrying about my privacy ;)

      • Btw- your ad him attacks convince no one but yourself :)

      • ad him?

        What’s that?

      • *ad hom, but I truly suspect that you knew that already… were you seriously not able to reason that through, given the context?

      • No, I didn’t know what you meant or I wouldn’t have asked. Ok, so I have enough of the word now to assume you are accusing me of an ad hominem attack on you.

        ad hominem [(ad hom-uh-nem, ad hom-uh-nuhm)]. A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks. (such as the one you just used on me by calling me a liar).

        Michelle says “blah blah blah”. If I were to go ad hominem I would say “Michelle, you’re a liar”, instead of correcting the data or questioning your conclusions. Once a person starts calling names (ad hom) the debate is already lost.

      • Sigh, I’ll gladly correct your multiple errors after supper :)

      • Have fun with that :)

      • I will :) you’ve given me a lot to work with :)

        I

      • “No, I didn’t know what you meant or I wouldn’t have asked. Ok, so I have enough of the word now to assume you are accusing me of an ad hominem attack on you.”

        Accusing? No, I’m pointing it out. But it’s not just you, Louanne does it too.

        “ad hominem [(ad hom-uh-nem, ad hom-uh-nuhm)]. A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks. (such as the one you just used on me by calling me a liar).”

        You provide a definition that disproves your point. For one, where did I call you a liar? Please provide a quote. I did say that if you are LYING, that’s beyond unethical. For some reason, you took that as me calling you a liar. One could conclude that you subconsciously reached the conclusion that you were lying.

        But your own definition, as I mentioned, disagrees with you. The key to that is the portion “An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks”. You seem to think that “name calling” is the same as ad hom, and that represents a logical fallacy. Please, take the time to educate yourself on logical fallacies- wikipedia makes it very clear. An ad hom occurs when the argument is BASED ON the accusation.

        Consider your own argument- you called me an apostate; Louanne does it too. You offer that AS an argument, like it somehow answers the question. You offer up a personal attack as an answer, which is what makes it an ad hom.

        Mere name calling, in general, is not ad hom- using that accusation as an argument is a logical fallacy that is widely studied in logic and debate courses. You used ad hom, I did not.

      • Name calling is an ad hom. That’s my point of view. I don’t see my pointing out that your true purpose for being critical has grounds in your own overts against Scientology by hiding you were investigating. You’re saying with that that no one can point out an out-ethics situation that it’s ad hom. I didn’t go after you and attack your speech or call you a name which is “to the man”.

        Example:
        I made a statement about what I read about what happened at Narconon and you accuse me of lying or “mocking it up”. That is taking a statement about Narconon and your saying that instead of just contesting my statement. What you did was took it to me and my integrity instead of just contesting my statement with your view of what happened. You’ll have to quote what you consider was an ad hom against you, because I just don’t see what I said was a personal attack on you in any way.

      • No, Pat, name calling is not ad hom. I know that’s your “point of view”, but that doesn’t change the well-established definition. You can make it your own definition, but it’s an actual concept that’s applied to formal logic. Ad hom is a logical fallacy, and is distinct from “name calling”.

        Please allow me to give you an example:

        1. I respond to a question of yours by saying, “you’re an idiot!” (bear in mind, I’m not saying that, but using it as an example). That’s not ad hominem by any definition. It may be name calling and rude, but it’s not using an argument against the person.

        2. I respond to your question by saying, “I have your IQ test results, and see that your IQ is below average”. Since I’ve offered that AS an argument, attempting to invalidate your position by arguing against you personally.

        To put it in context, if a former scientologist were to level criticism against the group, you would have two options. You could argue against the argument itself and address the content of the claim, or you could simply say, “you’re an apostate” as though that were an answer. I quote you doing the latter. Furthermore, I did speak to your point of view- that’s how we were able to establish that your claims required some modification. Furthermore, an ad hom doesn’t need to be insulting, only trying to argue against the person versus their point.

        Now, as I asked before, please quote where I accused you of lying or mocking it up.

      • …wait- when did I hide that I was investigating? I was very up front that I was writing an academic paper on Scientology, and that I felt that the group was unfairly represented in the media. Turns out that I found more problems with the group than I expected and could not in good conscious make the claim.

        You keep accusing me of saying things that I have not said… Why?

      • Seriously? Scientology isn’t for everyone. In Scientology, what is true for you is only true if you personally observed it to work in application. If that hasn’t happened for you, that’s ok. But because this is a personal thing for individuals, it may be true for another. The only reason I can see for you to attack something that is supposed to be only true for you, if you personally observed it, is that you have an axe to grind due to motivators. These make one critical to lessen the overts one committed against the Scientology mores, by trying to make the subject being criticized less so the overt is less.

        You can disagree with me, but it’s true for me based on personal observation. Therefore, I have no idea why I would want to look at your data, knowing from experience why someone becomes critical.

      • and why, please, does someone become critical?

        are their criticisms EVER valid?

      • People are not perfect. Injustices occur. That’s why LRH wrote policy on recourse. If someone feels there’s an injustice, there is always recourse. Always. Leaving and going public just means that there were things the person leaving didn’t want to have discovered and wanted to redirect onto the Church their own overts.

      • Hypothetically speaking, what if the problems exist at the highest ecclesiastical level? What’re dress exists then?

        Also, why would someone stay if they’ve lost trust in the system?

      • The same redress anyone else gets. Take a look at claims made where the person actually availed himself or herself of recourse, choosing instead to leave suddenly (blow)

      • “The same redress anyone else gets. Take a look at claims made where the person actually availed himself or herself of recourse, choosing instead to leave suddenly (blow)”

        Pat, that doesn’t answer the question. Realize that those thousands (I have names, if you want them, so you can’t claim it as hearsay) all left feeling that the system of redress doesn’t work. I’m glad that you feel that it does… have you ever used it yourself?

        Again, what if the source of redress itself is corrupted, as some allege? Can they really seek redress within the organization if that is the case, or if they believe it to be so?

        Can you see, also, how dangerous that concept actually can be? Consider the sexual abuse victims in the catholic church, or those that spoke out about the cover-up. The catholic church has a redress system as well; would you really suggest that they keep such a crime within the church walls??

      • How can they say the redress didn’t work when they didn’t use it? Please do name some who claim they tried to use the system to get redress and didn’t get it. Who asked for a Comm Ev (a fact finding body with the charges iterated so they could be examined by peers, fully recorded and documented and convened by a senior authority) and stuck around for it? That would have uncovered any injustices.

      • “How can they say the redress didn’t work when they didn’t use it? Please do name some who claim they tried to use the system to get redress and didn’t get it. Who asked for a Comm Ev (a fact finding body with the charges iterated so they could be examined by peers, fully recorded and documented and convened by a senior authority) and stuck around for it? That would have uncovered any injustices.”

        Wouldn’t that be hearsay, if I gave you a name?
        How do you know that they didn’t try to use it?

        The point remains that thousands of people did not have faith in that system. Many of those feel that the process is corrupted- you seem to have great faith in it; how many times have you used it?

      • Michelle, I find it unique. What else has all the technology that comprises Scientology knowledge? We are talking about over 500,000 printed words in in books, bulletins and over 3000 recorded lectures.

      • No it wouldn’t be hearsay because the person is present at the proceedings and can refute anything written (evidence has to be written and / or recorded). My point is that you don’t have direct knowledge of any wrong doing on the part of the Church or the person making the claim, yet you’re operating on it as if it’s true.

      • As a Scientologist of 41 years, I’ve been public and staff. I’ve experienced first hand several times using recourse and it worked to my satisfaction. I’m a trained auditor and have first hand experience with it as an pc / pre-OT as well. I have the technology on the overt / withhold mechanism and first hand experience with it. You can experience it first hand for yourself by doing the course ‘Integrity and Honesty’ that’s one of those free courses I linked for you. There are practical exercises you can do to see if it’s something that works.

      • Alright.

        I said in my example “for example”

        There are many such principles and you can find these in the online courses free at http://www.scientology.org/courses.html

        Don’t stick on just what I gave as an example.

      • “Alright.

        I said in my example “for example”

        There are many such principles and you can find these in the online courses free at http://www.scientology.org/courses.html

        Don’t stick on just what I gave as an example.”

        Pat- I said the stuff that’s unique. It’s all well and good that the self-help portion works, but none of that is unique to scientology.

        What is unique are some of the claims- exteriorization being one; would you not agree that that is entirely subjective and could never be objectively validated?

      • I’ll tell you what, let’s explore this a different way;

        are the scientology courses and the arc triangle dependent on the religious beliefs of scientology? In other words, does one have to accept the tenants of scientology in order to take advantage of these resources?

      • Nope. You don’t have to accept anything that isn’t true for you based on your own personal observation when you applied it to life.

      • I’m actually fairly impressed, Pat- you’ve mounted a fairly reasonable defense of Scientology. True, you’ve cherry-picked your arguments, but you chose well.

        So the bottom line is that the non-religious activities are objectively beneficial, correct? A couple thoughts on that- first, if it’s not dependent on the religious tenants of Scientology, is it then a self-help program? Those can be fine, although I haven’t yet seen anything unique within them. But that’s okay, I’ll gladly accept that the self-help portion helps people. In fact, I’ve always thought that part- for example, some people feel that study tech helps them. It’s not unique, the ideas have been around for a long time- but that doesn’t mean that people can’t find value in it.

        Your second claim is that the system of redress works. You base that on your observation that it worked for you. Based solely on your personal observation, are you able to honestly claim that it works in every case?

        You can’t claim knowledge on that, of course. You trust the system, clearly, based on your experiences, but how can you invalidate the beliefs of someone who claims a contrary experience?

        I think that sums up your two major points; each is tied to a personal assessment of value. For example, most religions have some form of a self-help component, and adherents frequently claim that they find value in it; that’s wonderful, but common. In addition, it lends no credence to the beliefs system as a whole. Which leads to the amended question that you’ve missed- are there any objective validations to the religious component of scientology? Or is it all subjective as it appears?

        A few other thoughts- you list correctly an assessment of the printed works of Hubbard. With all due respect, does quantity imply quality?

        You say that “evidence has to be written and /or recorded”. I assume that I’m misunderstanding you to be saying that first-hand testimony is not evidence… The federal rules of evidence clearly allow firsthand testimony as admissible. That’s why people can testify in court. So if the federal court system allows eyewitness accounts to be admissible, why can’t we?

        I’m curious- is there a difference to you between an “apostate” and a “whistleblower”? More to the point, of one were to witness a crime- child molestation for example- would you advise them to go to the authorities or the church?

      • This is going to be a long post because I’ll have to do some copy / pasta.

        I’ll put my answers in Caps. I’m not shouting just distinguishing between your communication and mine.

        I’m actually fairly impressed, Pat- you’ve mounted a fairly reasonable defense of Scientology. True, you’ve cherry-picked your arguments, but you chose well.

        THANK YOU.

        So the bottom line is that the non-religious activities are objectively beneficial, correct? A couple thoughts on that- first, if it’s not dependent on the religious tenants of Scientology, is it then a self-help program? Those can be fine, although I haven’t yet seen anything unique within them. But that’s okay, I’ll gladly accept that the self-help portion helps people. In fact, I’ve always thought that part- for example, some people feel that study tech helps them. It’s not unique, the ideas have been around for a long time- but that doesn’t mean that people can’t find value in it.

        I’M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY NON-RELIGIOUS. WHAT MAKES SCIENTOLOGY A RELIGION IS THAT IT HOLDS THAT YOU ARE AN IMMORTAL SPIRITUAL BEING. RELIGION BEING DEFINED AS DEALING WITH THE PARANORMAL. ALL OF THE DOCTRINE ABOUT HOW TO GET BACK TO OUR BASIC NATURES, NO LONGER BEING BODIES, BUT HAVING THEM (OR NOT) IS THEREFORE RELIGIOUS. EVEN THE TOOLS I REFERRED YOU TOO. IF YOU REJECT OUTRIGHT THOSE TOOLS BECAUSE THEY’RE IN THE DOCTRINE, THAT’S YOUR CHOICE.

        Your second claim is that the system of redress works. You base that on your observation that it worked for you. Based solely on your personal observation, are you able to honestly claim that it works in every case?

        I DO SINCERELY THINK THAT WERE ONE TO AVAIL HIMSELF OR HERSELF OF THE RECOURSE LRH LAID OUT IN THE ADMINISTRATION POLICIES OF THE CHURCH THAT EVERYONE WOULD BENEFIT. FOR SOME, THE ROAD BACK WILL BE LONGER.

        You can’t claim knowledge on that, of course. You trust the system, clearly, based on your experiences, but how can you invalidate the beliefs of someone who claims a contrary experience?

        YOU’RE ASSUMING I CAN’T CLAIM KNOWLEDGE. IT WORKED FOR ME SO IT’S TRUE FOR ME. I’VE SEEN IT WORK FOR OTHERS. YOU’RE ALSO ASSUMING THAT IT WON’T WORK FOR ANOTHER. THE PRINCIPLE OF “WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU…” APPLIES TO EVERYONE. IF THEY DON’T APPLY IT, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW IT WOULDN’T WORK?

        I think that sums up your two major points; each is tied to a personal assessment of value. For example, most religions have some form of a self-help component, and adherents frequently claim that they find value in it; that’s wonderful, but common. In addition, it lends no credence to the beliefs system as a whole. Which leads to the amended question that you’ve missed- are there any objective validations to the religious component of Scientology? Or is it all subjective as it appears?

        SEE ABOVE. IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE SOME IDEA OF RELIGION THAT DOESN’T APPLY HERE. SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE TRYING TO ATTAIN SPIRITUAL FREEDOM. THAT’S OUR RELIGION. ALL TECH, ADMIN AND ETHICS ARE WHAT BRINGS THAT ABOUT.

        A few other thoughts- you list correctly an assessment of the printed works of Hubbard. With all due respect, does quantity imply quality?

        THE QUANTITY THAT YOU SPEAK OF IS A FULL CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE FROM DAY 1. WHAT HE GAVE US WERE HIS FINDINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO EVALUATE OURSELVES. HE DIDN’T HIDE IT. HE SHARED IT.

        You say that “evidence has to be written and /or recorded”. I assume that I’m misunderstanding you to be saying that first-hand testimony is not evidence… The federal rules of evidence clearly allow firsthand testimony as admissible. That’s why people can testify in court. So if the federal court system allows eyewitness accounts to be admissible, why can’t we?

        I TOLD YOU THAT THE PROCEDURE IS RECORDED. A PERSON CAN DISPUTE ANY FINDING AGAINST HIM. THAT GOES ON THE RECORD. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE FINDINGS POINT TO THAT PERSON AS GUILTY OF A CHARGE, AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THEY ABSOLVE HIM. IT’S UP TO HIM TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING HE’S DONE THAT WAS HARMFUL TO THE GREATEST NUMBER. IF HE DOESN’T THEN HIS ROAD BACK IS LONGER. BUT HE CAN STILL DO IT. IT’S ALSO HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT DATA AGAINST HIM OR ONE DOESN’T GET TRUE JUSTICE. ONE IS ABLE TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS (IN THE AFOREMENTIONED COMM EV, HIS ACCUSERS ARE ABLE TO BE CONFRONTED) AND THAT ALSO WORKS IN HIS FAVOR. THE ACCUSER COULD HAVE FALSE REPORTED ON HIM AND HE CAN USE POLICY TO CORRECT IT.

        I’m curious- is there a difference to you between an “apostate” and a “whistleblower”? More to the point, of one were to witness a crime- child molestation for example- would you advise them to go to the authorities or the church?

        FOR THAT I HAVE TO REFER YOU TO A REFERENCE. IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO COVER THAT HERE. IT IS

        THE BOOK: INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS, CHAPTERS 12 THROUGH 14.

        THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTOLOGY JUSTICE AND THE COURT SYSTEM. A BIG ONE – THAT’S CALLED RECOURSE AND A REPORTING SYSTEM, BASED ON COMPASSION AND HONESTY, WHEREIN THE COURTS USE AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM.

        A LOT OF WHAT I’VE SAID TODAY IS IN THAT BOOK. IT SHOWS THE RECOURSES, WHAT ARE CONSIDERED CRIMES, WAYS TO IMPROVE ONE’S CONDITIONS IN LIFE. ALL OF THESE ARE INTENDED TO HOLD THE SIDES SO THAT A PERSON CAN ADVANCE SPIRITUALLY. IT SADDENS ME THAT THOSE WHO LEFT CHOSE THAT ROUTE SINCE THEY AREN’T ADVANCING SPIRITUALLY.

      • I’ve always thought that part- for example, some people feel that study tech helps them. It’s not unique, the ideas have been around for a long time- but that doesn’t mean that people can’t find value in it.

        CAN YOU GIVE ME THE REFERENCES THAT THE STUDY TECHNOLOGY IS NOT UNIQUE AND WHERE YOU’VE FOUND THEM BEFORE?

      • Sure! I honestly was unaware that people considered it to be unique, else I would have approached that differently.

        “Study tech” is founded on three principles:

        (1) use pictures and diagrams to illustrate the concepts being taught,

        (2) break down complex concepts so they can be mastered in a series of simple steps,

        (3) always seek definitions for unfamiliar terms

        So the first principle is, when confronted by a new idea or concept, to “get its mass”. In other words, hubbard feels that a physical example, if not the object itself, is best used when trying to understand an idea- like his tractor example. If this sounds like common sense, it’s because it is. You see, Hubbard, like the majority of people, was a visual learner- they learn best by seeing. He says that very clearly when he says:

        “Photographs help and motion pictures would do pretty good, as they are a sort of promise or hope of the mass, but the printed page and spoken word are not a substitute for a tractor if he’s studying about tractors.” (HCOB 25 June 1971, “Barriers to Study”).

        This understanding actually dates back to the 19th century and was well understood even before hubbard. What he failed to consider, however, is that there are other learning styles that are not visual, such as kinesthetic or auditory. Those types of learners would not necessarily benefit from this first principle. Neither, of course, would those with certain disabilities which leave them unable to see, but very able to listen (auditory learning) or feeling (kinesthetic learning).

        This style of learning was better fostered by Maria Montessori in 1897.

        Now, Hubbard DOES add the theory that visual learning adds mass, while the other learning styles do not. “But reading books or listening to someone talk does not give you mass.”  (Learning How to Learn, p. 70). That is unique, but would be very easy to prove to be true (there are measurement devices that do just that.) So hubbard added only the unproven component, while assuming that all learners shared his learning style.

        Next is learning on a gradient- learn things in gradual steps.

        My personal belief is that idea could be used, if one were to use it unethically, to make one compliant and not question further steps. But that’s my opinion.

        Learning on a gradient and at a proper pace is hardly unique, but is still the cornerstone of education. This is not new.

        Finally, “Go back and find your misunderstood”.

        In other words, use the dictionary to word-clear difficult words. The basic study manual even says, “It’s not a misunderstood phrase or idea or concept, but a misunderstood WORD.” While looking up difficult words is far from unique (the first English dictionary was created in 1592). I’ve found, in my observations, that students using study tech are less able to consider the CONCEPT difficult, blaming their inability to comprehend on the words themselves. Consider the following portion of a physics textbook:

        “This temperature characterizes the crossover from the so-called local moment regime for TT K to the regime where Kondo correlations between the localized spin within the QD and the spin of the electrons in the leads sets in. Although this physics is basically well understood since the 70s for the case of magnetic impurities in metals, its consequences for transport in artificial nanostructures has started to be developed much more recently specially driven by the advances in fabrication techniques. In this respect, while the linear transport properties are well understood still open questions remain regarding the non-equilibrium regime.”

        Now, clearly we’ve failed to learn on a gradient, haven’t we? But have you ever seen a student using study tech when confronted with such a wall of text? Their first instinct is to break out the dictionary and start tackling the words. They lose valuable time by failing to consider the concept as a whole. Or, let’s say that one DOES learn appropriately on a gradient- what if the first concept provided is faulty? They may have the object, they may be along the first step of the gradient- but if the concept is not clear, there’s no direct provision for that in study tech.

        On a similar note, have you ever seen what happens when someone yawns in a study tech – led class? It doesn’t go well- the assumption is invariably made that they are failing to understand a word, as minsunderstands make one feel tired. You can actually confirm this yourself, it works every time.

        Some have suggested that the focus on words, rather than concepts (which really isn’t found in anything that hubbard wrote on the tech) could only serve to suppress critical thought. Interesting perception.

        The basic concepts are not new, but the portions of study tech that ARE unique are deeply flawed and half-completed. Johanna Lemlech, professor of education at USC with a specialization in curriculum and teaching, called the books “awful” and said that they violate everything we know about how children learn, and appropriate pedagogy. In short, these books should be carefully placed in the cylindrical file.”

        MaryEllen Vogt, a professor of education at California State University at Long Beach and the former president of the California reading association and a past board member of the international reading association, said, “there is a whole other aspect of the reading process that is ignored. For older readers, we sometimes say, ‘Skip a word you don’t understand and try to gain comprehension from the whole context. We don’t say that for young readers. But for older readers, itis extremely cumbersome to try to attend to every word.”

        It’s also relevant that the FCAT scores from the Pinnellas charter school, which uses study tech, was among the lowest in the area.

        Now, here’s another interesting thought- You say, “ALL OF THE DOCTRINE ABOUT HOW TO GET BACK TO OUR BASIC NATURES, NO LONGER BEING BODIES, BUT HAVING THEM (OR NOT) IS THEREFORE RELIGIOUS. EVEN THE TOOLS I REFERRED YOU TOO”. Are you implying that study tech is religious in nature?

      • No, in the sense that it can be used outside of Scientology and is. There are other things, like the Purification Rundown or Way to Happiness Common Sense moral codes. I should have said that these are part of the doctrine or tools we use in life. Good catch. I see that being used by critics (like calling Narconon Scientology) and should have picked up on it being common sense stuff used as tools to make life easier. LRH has always acknowledged these as discoveries of past belief systems, especially the Veda and Buddhism.

        I can’t believe that you used FCAT to measure whether someone can use study tech or not. With study tech you clear the words then restudy the material. That’s in the bulletin you gave me as a reference. It works for me, so I don’t look past it for some other tech. That is open-minded to me. It works, so why invalidate it? That’s how squirreling gets started. Take your person for example – recommending that one read the whole text to get the concept and leave behind words that cause blanks and a lowering of consciousness, thus dumbing down awareness. This is why kids are failing at education. (My personal point of view)

      • “No, in the sense that it can be used outside of Scientology and is. There are other things, like the Purification Rundown or Way to Happiness Common Sense moral codes.”

        Exactly.. common sense. Not new, just written a different way.

        “Good catch. I see that being used by critics (like calling Narconon Scientology)”

        Not calling it the “religious belief” of scientology, but does is it not licensed by the church? Is scientology, the organization, not responsible for it?

        “I can’t believe that you used FCAT to measure whether someone can use study tech or not.”

        Why not? How is that not valid?

        But, Pat, we’ve discussed what we can discuss. You’re in the realm of the inarguable. Once you go to “it’s true for me”, there’s little discussion left. Even if a thousand people were to tell you what was true for them, and it was contrary to your beliefs, there’s still no room for discussion. So, you’ve effectively left us with little more to cover.

        That, and you’ve refused to answer so many questions, cherry picking the few topics that you will agree to discuss, that we’ve run out of room. I could give you a list of questions you’ve been unable to answer, but I wouldn’t anticipate that much would come of it. I would be interested in seeing the list of your questions that I’ve ignored- I imagine it would be much shorter.

        The part that concerns me, and realizes that there may be little use in conversing, is that fact that you can’t seem to answer when asked what you would do if you were aware of a child being sexually abused. Instead of being able to answer that question as to what YOU would do, you instead refer to what LRH SAYS to do. That seems normal to you? So I may quote the findings of experts (you call it criticism, when in reality it’s the findings of experts in the field), but at least I could tell you what I’d do if I knew of a child being abused.

      • Excellent points, all. So as not to cause confusion, I will put my replies in brackets.

        “I have seen posts by critics. I have the technology behind me that lets me see what is behind the criticism. I have the knowledge to shatter suppression. I have the knowledge that there was always recourse. So, yes, I weighed both sides and came out in favor of the Church.”

        [Is this to mean that you had reached a conclusion before you honestly weighed and considered the available data? It sounds like you approached the opposing data with the pre-existing belief that it was already wrong.]

        “THANK YOU.”

        [You’re very welcome]

        “I’M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY NON-RELIGIOUS. WHAT MAKES SCIENTOLOGY A RELIGION IS THAT IT HOLDS THAT YOU ARE AN IMMORTAL SPIRITUAL BEING. RELIGION BEING DEFINED AS DEALING WITH THE PARANORMAL. ALL OF THE DOCTRINE ABOUT HOW TO GET BACK TO OUR BASIC NATURES, NO LONGER BEING BODIES, BUT HAVING THEM (OR NOT) IS THEREFORE RELIGIOUS. EVEN THE TOOLS I REFERRED YOU TOO. IF YOU REJECT OUTRIGHT THOSE TOOLS BECAUSE THEY’RE IN THE DOCTRINE, THAT’S YOUR CHOICE.”

        [Okay, but my question was whether or not one needs to believe in the religious aspect in order to avail themselves of the tech. If I don’t believe that I am an immortal spiritual being, can I still “use” study tech or take the other courses? If so, that’s essentially a non-religious self-help program. One can find benefit in a self-help program; in fact, there are entire shelves at my local bookstore with similar programs]

        “I DO SINCERELY THINK THAT WERE ONE TO AVAIL HIMSELF OR HERSELF OF THE RECOURSE LRH LAID OUT IN THE ADMINISTRATION POLICIES OF THE CHURCH THAT EVERYONE WOULD BENEFIT. FOR SOME, THE ROAD BACK WILL BE LONGER.”

        [I see that you do sincerely think that, and I’m glad. But you can only say that’s true for you, can’t you? What if someone has a different truth, is yours more valid than theirs?]

        “YOU’RE ASSUMING I CAN’T CLAIM KNOWLEDGE. IT WORKED FOR ME SO IT’S TRUE FOR ME. I’VE SEEN IT WORK FOR OTHERS. YOU’RE ALSO ASSUMING THAT IT WON’T WORK FOR ANOTHER. THE PRINCIPLE OF “WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU…” APPLIES TO EVERYONE. IF THEY DON’T APPLY IT, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW IT WOULDN’T WORK?”

        [Yes, I am. You separated the paragraphs. I maintain that you can’t claim knowledge as to the personal observations or others, or whether or not it works in “every case”. Or do you feel that you can claim that knowledge based on your own experiences? If someone does apply it, and it doesn’t work… what then? Also, hypothetically speaking, what if those that are involved in the redress process are themselves corrupt? Would you expect the system to work then?]

        “SEE ABOVE. IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE SOME IDEA OF RELIGION THAT DOESN’T APPLY HERE. SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE TRYING TO ATTAIN SPIRITUAL FREEDOM. THAT’S OUR RELIGION. ALL TECH, ADMIN AND ETHICS ARE WHAT BRINGS THAT ABOUT.”

        [See my answer to that above. Let’s just try to run one single, simple claim to ground- we may be able to do that more easily. Could exteriorization EVER be objectively validated, or is that an example of something that is purely subjective?]

        “THE QUANTITY THAT YOU SPEAK OF IS A FULL CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE FROM DAY 1. WHAT HE GAVE US WERE HIS FINDINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO EVALUATE OURSELVES. HE DIDN’T HIDE IT. HE SHARED IT.”

        [Which is wonderful! But you used the quantity (words and volumes) as an assessment of worth. Do you stand to that?]

        “FOR THAT I HAVE TO REFER YOU TO A REFERENCE. IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO COVER THAT HERE. IT IS”

        [hmm, doesn’t exactly answer the question. I had asked, “More to the point, of one were to witness a crime- child molestation for example- would you advise them to go to the authorities or the church?” as a side question, if one doesn’t accept scientology, do they have any redress through it? For example, if one BELIEVES that their mother has chosen scientology over them, and that their family broke up because of it, is any help available to them if they are not a member?]

        “IT SADDENS ME THAT THOSE WHO LEFT CHOSE THAT ROUTE SINCE THEY AREN’T ADVANCING SPIRITUALLY.”

        [I truly believe that, Pat. We may disagree, but I can see that you’re passionate about it and I truly believe that you care. Most people do what they feel to be right, and try to improve the world.]

         

      • It all comes down to the tech, admin and ethics writings. I don’t profess to know what is true for another and I never said that. I know that I’ve seen it work for others – not in what they “think” but in their actions. The biggest criticism I hear is that the Church is in the wrong when the tools to fix any actual injustices were made available to those who left, long before they left. What is behind these criticisms are overts and withholds. When people come clean, they are then able to put the data on the proper lines and be heard. No one listens to carping criticism or people going on and on about what’s been “done to them” without saying what they themselves have done. Except those who have mutual situations where they left without the benefit of having a clear conscious. You, yourself, are quick to quote others criticism, which to me tells me that you have your own overts and withholds. What they are I won’t attempt to evaluate but they are there.

        Read the book I referenced, then I’ll talk to you about it again. Also the glossary definitions of overt, motivator and withhold at http://www.scientologymyths.info

      • By the way- it all goes back to my previous observation. It must be very convenient, that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong by default. Either they try scientology, at which point they’re apostates or “did it wrong”; or they don’t try it and they’re ignorant. Meanwhile, scientology is always right, and anything that’s wrong is quickly remediated by an effective process that works 100% of the time.

        Really, it must be nice.

        But I can’t get over the fact that you can’t take a clear stand against child sexual abuse- honestly, I was giving you an easy question. If all you can do is quote hubbard in response to such a question, I am very disappointed.

        We can talk more when you can answer such a simple question. Until that point, I see little use in conversing.

      • Have you read the book yet?

      • see my previous comment.

        unbelievable.

      • Why? What you ask is covered in the book. Sheesh

      • Youre not able to answer the clear question yourself?

        What’s the use in communicating, if anything that I can learn from you is what Hubbard said?

        Again, if you can’t answer the question by yourself, I see no utility in communicating.

      • Good bye then if you aren’t willing to do research.

        There’s not enough room here to explain jurisprudence to you, nor am I willing to take the time. Bye.

      • error was mine- your reply is now at the top of the list.

      • additional thought:

        I thought that this was widely agreed upon here- scientology is entirely subjective with no ability to be objectively validated; we agree on that point.

        Like was said before- it’s “true for you” that you can operate outside of your body. That’s awesome. But you’ll never, ever be able to show anybody that doesn’t ALREADY believe that you can do it.

        You have the same validation, subjective, as a is offered in voodoo or shamanism. It’s fine, but it’s purely subjective. I’m not using that as an argument, but I think that you’ve already agreed to that point.

      • “scientology is entirely subjective with no ability to be objectively validated; we agree on that point. ”

        I absolutely do NOT agree with that. I can use the ARC triangle, for example, to improve affinity or communication or reality and that is completely observable by another. There are many such principles. Your saying that makes me believe that you didn’t even try to apply the tech to see if it works. Your goal was investigation rather than research, as far as I can tell.

      • So that’s the one thing that you claim is objective? The ability to interact effectively with others by using a common-sense concept diagram?

        Okay, you can have that one. However, there’s countless models to achieve the same goal. In fact, if you were to objectively gauge the abilities of someone who uses the arc triangle (which people have been doing for a very long time before Scientology) and someone who uses another model, there would be no real benefit.

      • Reread what I wrote. There are many such principles that you can apply and see results that can be observed by others. Don’t try to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say or alter what I did say, please.

      • And the same to you, please.

        All you’ve been able to provide is one example, and that example is shared across multiple methods. I suppose that I was wondering if there’s anything objective that’s unique to scientology- I should have been more specific, my apologies.

        I acknowledge that the name “ARC” is unique to scientology, but the process and the end result certainly is not. Thank you for allowing me to clarify the question.

      • Because it’s hearsay. I have my own experiences (41 years worth) as a Scientologist to know it’s true for me. Those who left, who speak out against the Church have their own axe to grind and apostates historically embellish to justify overt acts that occurred before leaving. That’s well documented in at least 3 studies that I’ve read that support my point of view.

        If you tell me you had a bad experience, that’s one thing. But for you to sit there and say “thousands claim” is spreading hearsay.

      • So, you have no personal knowingness or goal to get better? You went in to “investigate” rather than for personal betterment. There’s the problem, and I’ll bet that got missed by everyone you came in contact with.’

      • Investigation is personal betterment. As adults, we already know that sticking your hand in fire is not good, but now with the internet we can read reviews on products and services before we invest money or time. Reading or hearing just the glowing testimonials doesn’t cut it these days.

      • That may be why the church discourages it ;P

      • G, That’s why what is true is only true by personal observation in applying some principle and seeing it work. That’s empirical.

        Assuming that something isn’t true without seeing for yourself isn’t a true investigation. I don’t see where you even weighed both sides. So, based on your posts I see someone who has accepted the critic point of view and dismissed the Scientology one out of hand.

      • Re: investigation

        I’m curious, Pat, when you talk about weighing both sides… Have you?

      • I have seen posts by critics. I have the technology behind me that lets me see what is behind the criticism. I have the knowledge to shatter suppression. I have the knowledge that there was always recourse. So, yes, I weighed both sides and came out in favor of the Church.

      • I’m curious, pat- is it even possible that the former member’s stories are true?

      • So, when someone that you have never met is declared “SP”, under your words, wouldn’t you have actually had to see the suppressive acts to agree? Otherwise, you are agreeing to hearsay, right?

      • You don’t understand hearsay based on what you just wrote.

        Hearsay is “John said…”, “thousands of people say” – a generality as well as hearsay and prompts one to ask who are thousands”

        Repeating anything said by an apostate is hearsay and even the judge pointed that out in the Headley case and made it inadmissable.

      • “You don’t understand hearsay based on what you just wrote.”

        I don’t think that’s true… I don’t know where you went to law school, but you don’t seem to understand the concept.

        “Hearsay is “John said…”, “thousands of people say” – a generality as well as hearsay and prompts one to ask who are thousands””

        Close- you’re speaking in a legal sense, and in court that’s largely true. Hearsay is when you testify to something about which you have no personal knowledge. For example, if you were on the stand giving testimony and said “so and so said this,” then that would be hearsay. But if I said, “I saw this…” that is not. I think that we agree on that point.

        So, if I were to quote that testimony, that’s not hearsay because I’m not claiming it as a fact, but instead noting the overwhelming number of first-hand accounts that disagree with your first-hand account. That is the extent of the argument using that data.

        Consider a corollary. If one person claims to have been abused by a catholic priest, that’s terrible and tragic. If two, that indicates a pattern. But what if thousands come forward with tales of abuse and impropriety? that warrants investigation, doesn’t it?

        “Repeating anything said by an apostate is hearsay and even the judge pointed that out in the Headley case and made it inadmissable”

        True for anybody, scientology or apostate. The judge didn’t rule it as such because it was spoken by an apostate but because it met the legal definition of hearsay. However, their first-hand accounts were certainly admissible, weren’t they? And, being admissible, they’re part of the legal record and can be directly quoted and discussed.

      • I don’t see a “legal” definition here. Do you?

        hear·say
           [heer-sey] Show IPA
        noun
        1.
        unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one’s direct knowledge: “I pay no attention to hearsay.”
        2.
        an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

        adjective
        3.
        of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: “hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.”

        So my use has no ‘legal use only’ implication.

    • Try this: http://www.scientology.org/churches/locator.html

  8. Thanks for posting this. :)


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

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

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

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos