Priest-Penitent Privilege in all forms of Scientology

[Caroline]

If the Auditors unite as a group and publish their standards and practices that will be a good start and the public will be able to comment on them.

IN THE MEANTIME, I believe each auditor INDIVIDUALLY has this responsibility and I see nothing wrong with my bringing it up here.

The fact that these auditors probably don't have formal mental health training only MAGNIFIES the out point.

Here are some relevant statements of standards and practices of the Association of Professional Independent Scientologists, (formerly IFA. See History) by Michael Moore, President APIS:

Goals of the Association of Professional Independent Scientologists

The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists (APIS) was started with certain goals in mind. These have not changed and are still the goals of APIS.

They should be more broadly known and have therefore been posted below.

1. The preservation and protection of the original applied philosophy of Scientology and Dianetics as issued by L. Ron Hubbard so it is always available worldwide

2. The applied philosophy of L. Ron Hubbard exported to the world and being applied standardly and without alteration, dilution or changed in anyway but exactly as Lafayette Ron Hubbard issued it.

[...]

Michael [Moore]
President
Association of Professional Independent Scientologists

http://internationalfreezone.net/Goals.shtml

From The History of the APIS

Purposes

APIS has a number of purposes outlined. These purposes indicate the direction APIS is travelling.

The 3 Prime Purposes are:

Preserve the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.
Protect the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard so it is not altered, diluted or changed in anyway but remains exactly as Lafayette Ron Hubbard issued it.
Promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard so it may be known by all mankind.

http://internationalfreezone.net/History.shtml

From The Constitution of the APIS:

Part 3. Membership Responsibilities

a. Accredited members are listed members that have applied for and been accepted as members of the association.

b. Membership accreditation is contingent on:

i) Full payment of the membership fee.
ii) That the member agrees to the purposes and constitution of the Association.
iii) That the member agrees to follow the Terms & Conditions of membership.
iv) That the member agrees they will not disparage the association, Lafayette Ron Hubbard or his technology and applied workable philosophy in any way.
v) That the member will not alter or change in anyway the technology or workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard and call the result Lafayette Ron Hubbard's technology & workable philosophy.
vi) That the member will not lie or falsify or give false testimony to the APIS with regard to his or her case and training level or affiliations.
vii) That the member is not a member of any group opposed to the APIS or any group attempting to disparage, unmock or destroy the APIS at the time of the prospective members application or during the tenure of membership.

[...]

i. Upon receipt of accreditation, the member will be placed on the listed auditors section of APIS web site with the name, email address and any other contact information including the country and region operating as given for that purpose by the auditor for contact purposes.

j. Accredited members will have the following responsibilities:

1. Members will conduct their business operations in a manner consistent with the constitution of the APIS.

2. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio* of an honor the most sensitive should be the standard of behavior for accredited members with regard to their relations with the general public. The application of appropriate codes of conduct, such as the auditor's code for example, is the expected standard of professionalism of a member.

3. If applicable, members will abide by the APIS binding dispute resolution contract that they may willingly enter into with their clients.

[...]

http://internationalfreezone.net/constitution.shtml

From an Indie Facebook document dated 26 October 2012 previously leaked to ESMB:

From various posts I have just read on Inde Scientologist it seems to me that some people still have a gross misunderstanding of what APIS (formerly IFA) is and does.

APIS is a legally registered not for profit association in the state of Delaware, USA. It was set up for the express purposes of ensuring the survival of the philosophy and technology as original issued by LRH.

It is not a war vehicle and is not here to oppterm against David Miscavige or the Church of Scientology International. APIS has been in existence for ten years and has already run the gauntlet of concerted attacks by Miscavige and his OSA minions even at my front door and at my then job, long before many of the people currently on Inde Scientologist, or indeed the group itself, have been in the field, and has come out the other side stronger and bigger than ever before. All were effectively handled and we grew stronger and expanded as a result.

LRH Quote:
“EVERY TIME YOU CLOSE TERMINALS WITH ENTHETA, YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DUPLICATE – WHAT? ENTHETA.”
“WHAT DO YOU DO WITH AN ENTHETA LINE?
IGNORE IT.
DON’T EVEN BOTHER TO CUT.”​

We have found by experience that what LRH says in the above quote is spot on and have made great strides by following that principle.

APIS is not here for the purpose of attacking Miscavige, although we have a 10 year history of accurately pointing out his deficiencies and gross overts.

LRH and experience has taught us that the best activity we can perform is to promote the hell out of the technology of LRH. To work to expand scientology so more people can be educated into life and move up the bridge. It is not here to form an army to ‘bring down’ Miscavige. Miscavige is his own worse enemy and by the very basic principles of life, will eventually bring himself down. He needs no help from us.

With entheta the trick is not to contribute to the entheta by action or agreement, but to out perform it with theta. Creating more auditors, more supervisors, more groups that actually clear people and make OTs. That is the best attack on entheta one can make.

That is what APIS is about and has been about since its inception.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions that may abound.

Steve Hall - Michael Moore.docx

Certified Member Auditor and Group List

 

[Free Being Me]

Let's not forget the APIS KSW PL on their site ..... it doesn't inspire confidence.

http://internationalfreezone.net/Keeping-Scientology-Working.shtml

 

[Caroline]

Let's not forget the APIS KSW PL on their site ..... it doesn't inspire confidence.

http://internationalfreezone.net/Keeping-Scientology-Working.shtml

Not in everyone, but I'd think that such a page would tend to inspire the "confidence" of vulnerable KSW Scientologists exiting the DMenschen. But it also applies to people in the Freezone, once they're there.

Michael Moore criticizes the dearth of ethics going in [in] the church and celebrates ethics going IN in the Independent field.

Perhaps I am missing some data, but I don't see a lot of ethics going in on the church., I see a lot of people leaving the church. But I don't see any case change on the third dynamic within the church. Miscaviage has not changed. The policy on how the church operates has not changed.

Ethics is going IN in the Independent field from what I can see however. More people are setting up groups, auditing and training. More people are being brought into scientology through the independent field and more CLEARs and OTs are made OUTSIDE of the church than in.
Thursday at 6:48pm • Like

Steve Hall - Michael Moore.docx

The connection between "ethics going in" and the numbers of Clears and OTs being made is made clear in the following three PLs, which are studied on the Organization Executive Course, Basic Staff Hat.

Ethics exists primarily to get technology in. Tech can't work unless ethics is already in. When tech goes out, Ethics can (and is expected to) get it in. For the purpose of Scientology, amongst others, is to apply Scientology. Therefore, when tech is in, ethics actions tend to be dropped. Ethics continues its actions until tech is in and as soon as it is, backs off and only acts if tech goes out again.

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1965, 1 September). Ethics Protection. Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., OEC Vol 0 Basic Staff Hat, pp. 502-3.) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Unless you get ethics in, you will never get tech in. If you can't get tech in, you won't get admin in.

So the lack of ethics permits the criminal impulse to go unchecked.

Unless there is ethics and ways to get it in, no matter how distasteful it may seem, you will never get tech and admin in.

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1972, 4 April). Ethics. Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., OEC Vol 0 Basic Staff Hat, pp. 526-31.) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

The following also clearly shows how Scientology's Suppressive Person doctrine relates to standard tech.

We help beyond any help ever available anywhere. We are a near ultimate in helping. At once this loads us up with SPs who would commit suicide to prevent anyone from being helped and it lays us wide open as "softies" to any degraded being that comes along. They are sure we won't bite so they do anything they please. Conditions correctly assigned alone can detect and eject SPs and DBs. So if we help so greatly, we must also in the same proportion be able to discipline. Near ultimate help can only be given with near ultimate discipline.

Tech can only stay itself where ethics is correctly and ruthlessly administered. Admin like ours has to be high because our orgs handle the highest commodity-life itself.

So our admin only works where tech is IN. And our tech works only where ethics is in.

Our target is not a few psychiatric patients but a cleared universe. So what does THAT take?

The lowest confront there is, is the confront of evil. When a living being is out of his own valence and in the valence of a thoroughly bad, even if imaginary, image, you get an SP. An SP is a no-confront case because, not being in his own valence, he has no viewpoint from which to erase anything. That is all an SP is. BUT the amount of knowing havoc an SP can cause is seen easily if only in this planet's savage, cruel wars.

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1967, 20 October). Conditions, How to Assign. Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., OEC Vol 0 Basic Staff Hat, pp. 654-58) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

 

[MostlyLurker]

Caroline thanks for posting your concerns.
I think you are right on many if not all important points. Because even if a Scientologist thinks that certain scn practices are reprehensible (like KRs on others, disconnection, ...) he may not be aware of other practices that are also reprehensible.

It's Scientology.It's LRH. It's devious by nature.

I had a laugh at reading Michel Moore quote of LRH:

“EVERY TIME YOU CLOSE TERMINALS WITH ENTHETA, YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DUPLICATE – WHAT? ENTHETA.”
“WHAT DO YOU DO WITH AN ENTHETA LINE?
IGNORE IT.
DON’T EVEN BOTHER TO CUT.”
​

If only LRH policy about 'entheta' was to ignore it! No! He had to set up the GO and covertly and not so covertly harass and destroy people. And for someone like Moore to post that quote makes my yawn drop. Delusional, stupid or dishonest because I don't believe he know nothing of the many mean policies where LRH stated to NOT ignore the entheta but personally attack and utterly destroy people who originate it.

Even if you are right in my view, what I think you could improve, on this forum that should be a friendly forum, is the way you express your ideas or data. Try to make your points without making enemies.

You think: "It is time for Karen to stop victimizing people, which she does by promoting and delivering Scientology"

There are ways to express the same that don't create enemies? That Karen could also agree?

For example:

"Karen, as IFA/APIS is using your name to promote Scientology, are you taking some precautions to see that APIS doesn't apply the same policies about ethics/KR, disconnection written by LRH and designed to control people instead of free them?"

"Do yourself write KRs and what you think about the LRH policies about KRs?"​

 

[Lulu Belle]

Whenever I think of the legal responsibilities of Freezone auditors I think of Melissa Ethridge.

I know that sounds nuts...stay with me here.


Melissa, as most people know, is gay. She was the poster child of Gay Marriage. Her and Tammy Lynn Michaels got married in 2003.

Melissa was always this great proponent of gay marriage....

....until her and her partner wound up in an ugly divorce.

Melissa then turns around and says that her marriage was "non-binding" because it wasn't a "real marriage" so she wouldn't have to pony up to a hefty alimony/child support settlement.

She lost.

Point is, there's always two sides. You want to be able to do something? You have to assume the liabilities too.


It's kind of naive to think that someone can be an independent auditor and be digging into people's heads and not have it blow up in your face every once in a while. Sooner or later you're going to have the same problems and issues with dissatisfied customers as the church does. What happens if a pc dies and the family sues you? What happens if a pc goes and shoots someone?

This stuff can and does happen.

You'd better be ready to deal with it.

 

[TG1]

I bet this is a redundant question, but does anyone know how large those FZ networks actually are? The whole thing looks quite ragtag, like nothing more than a few hobbyists.

Rhetorical question: Why don't those brilliant extra-cult Scientology organizers (FZ, Indies, etc.) appreciate that the world isn't beating a path to their door? The whole crew puts me in mind of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.



TG1

 

[ethercat]

From earlier discussion:

What power does the IFA site have to do anything with any reports that are filed? What are such reports worth anyway? Do they mean anything to anyone besides members of the IFA? Is the IFA schmoozing, blackmailing, and bribing its way into mainstream society, as was done by the "church"? Is it big enough, or powerful enough, to do that? Are there that many members?

APIS/IFA is essentially a one man show, as its policies are whatever Michael Moore decides. He tends to take a "standard tech/hubbard was a genius" perspective on things. It's membership historically has been split between those who share that attitude and other, more "liberal" freezoner types who simply use the IFA board as a means of communication with other practicing scientologists without actually sharing the views of board management.

In other words, the APIS/IFA message board is a semi-diverse board where the participants must agree to adhere to a communication standard which does not seek to put scientology or hubbard in a bad light. Not all the participants share that view but on that board they agree to that as the effective standard for moderation.

APIS/IFA "ethics" has little standing, even among many of those who are active on the message board. It's really just for those who share Michael Moore's views of what constitutes an "ideal scene" and are willing to follow his lead.

Would the IFA leave the page up even if she was not with them anymore? I know there are lots of people with "church" cookie cutter pages who are no longer with the "church". Might that be the case with the IFA? Is there actually anyone being drawn to the Freezone or the Indies who didn't already have some interest or experience with scientology?

Historically they haven't been particularly efficient at cleaning up and updating their website to keep abreast of events. Hold links often remain unchanged for months if not years. If a change on their board is warranted as a result of some major disruptive public scene involving APIS/IFA principles is more likely to result in a rapid alteration of the board. However in the past less public "upsets" and spats have not resulted in prompt changes to the website links are references.

APIS/IFA looks a lot more "impressive" as a web page than it is as an actual independent scientology organization, although Michael Moore likes to imagine differently.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Pooks]

This is what I said:



It doesn't take anything more than the links I have already provided to demonstrate that Karen promotes Scientology. Scientology was convicted of fraud in France. There have been numerous successful civil fraud claims against the Scientologists. Scientology is fraud. Fraud is victimization. Whether the Scientologists have acquired for themselves a ministerial exception to criminal fraud does not lessen the fraud, but could in fact magnify it.

By 1970, it was known that Scientology was a fraud. The Scientologists, of course, committed all sorts of crimes and immoralities to prevent their fellow Scientologists, and wogs, from acquiring and digesting this knowledge.

Why are you so hardcore, unyielding and unforgiving.

Most of us here know for a fact that Scn is an evil cult and fucks people up and needs to be stopped. We are with you on this.

But for crying out loud, Karen is OUT of the cult. She's speaking out she's speaking up she's doing a lot of work currently and should be supported for her efforts and not condemned and hounded because she hasn't stripped off enough of the mindfuck to your liking.

Get over yourself and chill the fuck out.

 

[Daisy]

It is no secret that I believe Scientology is harmful. Many people have been harmed by this so called technology. Indies are Scientologists. They apply Scientology as written by Hubbard. Scientologists lie. I know, i was one for 29 years.

Someone earlier brought up the point of someone committing suicide or going psychotic because of auditing. I would like to know how the auditors outside the organization are going to handle this?

If someone is being audited and goes out and commits a murder, will the auditor speak up to authorities or destroy all evidence?

 

[Caroline]

From earlier discussion:

Quote Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker

What power does the IFA site have to do anything with any reports that are filed? What are such reports worth anyway? Do they mean anything to anyone besides members of the IFA? Is the IFA schmoozing, blackmailing, and bribing its way into mainstream society, as was done by the "church"? Is it big enough, or powerful enough, to do that? Are there that many members?

APIS/IFA is essentially a one man show, as its policies are whatever Michael Moore decides. He tends to take a "standard tech/hubbard was a genius" perspective on things. It's membership historically has been split between those who share that attitude and other, more "liberal" freezoner types who simply use the IFA board as a means of communication with other practicing scientologists without actually sharing the views of board management.

In other words, the APIS/IFA message board is a semi-diverse board where the participants must agree to adhere to a communication standard which does not seek to put scientology or hubbard in a bad light. Not all the participants share that view but on that board they agree to that as the effective standard for moderation.

APIS/IFA "ethics" has little standing, even among many of those who are active on the message board. It's really just for those who share Michael Moore's views of what constitutes an "ideal scene" and are willing to follow his lead.

Would the IFA leave the page up even if she was not with them anymore? I know there are lots of people with "church" cookie cutter pages who are no longer with the "church". Might that be the case with the IFA? Is there actually anyone being drawn to the Freezone or the Indies who didn't already have some interest or experience with scientology?

Historically they haven't been particularly efficient at cleaning up and updating their website to keep abreast of events. Hold links often remain unchanged for months if not years. If a change on their board is warranted as a result of some major disruptive public scene involving APIS/IFA principles is more likely to result in a rapid alteration of the board. However in the past less public "upsets" and spats have not resulted in prompt changes to the website links are references.

APIS/IFA looks a lot more "impressive" as a web page than it is as an actual independent scientology organization, although Michael Moore likes to imagine differently.


Mark A. Baker

I would not automatically disagree with Mark A Baker that the "looks a lot more "impressive" as a web page than it is as an actual independent scientology organization." However, Mark A. Baker, as far as I know, is not part of the APIS. Michael Moore is the President, and is the person ultimately responsible for the claims he is making. But why should you and I automatically believe either one of them?

Michael Moore is not in any way hiding or diminishing the claims that he makes on the APIS/IFA web site. The document that Emma leaked last year confirms that Moore's "private" communications essentially match what he says publicly on that site. Why should I automatically ascribe sloppiness to his claims or the APIS/IFA website?

These web pages I've mentioned have been up for years. Here is a Wayback capture made on 12 June 2008. As far as I can tell, Karen's page, went up between 17 May 2011 and 17 June 2011. Each person listed on the APIS/IFA certified practitioner's list has a responsibility, as does Michael Moore, to tell the truth about what they are promoting, selling and delivering.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I personally think that application of Scientology tech is harmful, in or out of the Church, whether or not a person has wins or not.

And certainly the Church of Scientology has to be held accountable for the crimes they've committed.

But what I have come to terms with is that even if the tech harms people, people have the right to apply it.

My personal diet is certainly harmful to me.

But I have the right to eat what I want.

I'm curious to know Caroline, and this is not an attack but an honest to goodness discussion, is what you and everybody on the board thinks is the legal right of people who wish to apply Scientology.

My fear, based on your accusatory tone, is that after you've done away with Scientology that you'll come after my fried chicken and pizza. (figuratively speaking).

What I am getting at is a big, So What?

If someone is not committing a crime, why do you speak of them and judge them as a criminal?

And who else do you wish to control beyond that?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Caroline]

Has anyone followed up on Steve Hall's report regarding this protection racket?

The CoS runs what is essentially a “protection racket.” A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a criminal group or individual coerces a victim (usually a business) to cooperate or pay money, supposedly for protection services against violence or property damage from the very people who are extorting cooperation. In the case of the CoS, the scheme involves (until I personally blew the whistle on it in the Tampa Bay Times http://www.tampabay.com/components/video/?bctid=31474185001) both handing over huge sums of cash AND cooperating through silence.

OSA’s deal to the Freezone was: "Be silent and we'll leave you alone." An arrogant little snot from OSA Int, Aaron Mason, briefed me on the program — snickering about OSA’s victory in corrupting the Freezone people — in 2001 while I was still at the Int base.

The CoS then promptly *double crossed* the Freezone, already heavily infiltrated, by launching a covert campaign to generate out tech within their ranks, i.e., squirrel auditing, mixing rundowns and repairs, etc. to mess up cases on the theory that destroying their case gains would eventually cause the group to collapse. I learned about this at Int before I even left! Today there is even a Freezone “auditor” who delivers NOTs to people who aren’t even Clear! People think squirreling just “happens” — no stupid — it is made to happen by OSA because some people refused to pay the price of freedom: constant alertness and constant willingness to fight back.

The Freezone was considered by OSA to be totally in their pocket, quiet as a mouse. OSA’s objective for anyone leaving is SILENCE. That’s what their money, extortion, blackmail, harassment, PIs, dirty tricks, defamation, coercion and lies are ALL intended to purchase.

Money for silence; or in the case of the Freezone, OSA offered a “truce” — protection — for silence. But it wasn’t really a truce. OSA attacks on the Freezone continued as covert operations instead overt legal attacks and harassment.

WHO ARE WHAT IS THE FREEZONE.docx

Why should anyone automatically disbelieve what Steve Hall wrote in a private Indie FB discussion? We must stand up for the exiting Scientologists whose cases (psyches) are already admittedly messed up and risk getting further, willfully messed up.

According to Hall's report, there are people so malicious that they want exiting Scientologists to be messed up. And clearly some Scientology practitioners profit from "repairing" such abuse. But where does the APIS/IFA and their certified practitioners stand on this issue? Did they not investigate Hall's claims?

And even though they know about this op, we get silence from Rathbun, Rinder, et al., and, as everyone knows, silence on huge issues, like fair game on the Scientologists' wog victims. And, as even Hall says, this silence serves OSA/RTC/Miscavige.

 

[TG1]

Caroline,

Did you really just write a KR on the Church of Scientology for promoting squirreling in the Free Zone so as to mess up Scientologists' cases?



Girlfriend, you are straining so hard you're going to have a hernia!

Instead, go post this 'breaking news' on the iScientology.org blog where Steve Hall and his buddies may actually give a shit.

TG1

 

[Caroline]

[...]

And even though they know about this op, we get silence from Rathbun, Rinder, et al., and, as everyone knows, silence on huge issues, like fair game on the Scientologists' wog victims. And, as even Hall says, this silence serves OSA/RTC/Miscavige.

Rathbun commented on the long term relationship between Independent Scientology and the church of Scientology here:

Elephant In The Room
Posted on April 6, 2013 by martyrathbun09 | 309 Comments


[...] In the near year since the publication of the book, not a single independent Scientologist practitioner has originated a single word to me about the rather far-reaching implications of what is covered in this chapter. Some have disconnected from me, some have assigned me lower ethics conditions – including ‘Treason’ for having stated facts that allegedly conflict with L. Ron Hubbard opinions. To me, such actions speak to the truth of what is contained in the chapter below. The reversal is apparently effective inside and outside the corporate church. I am more convinced than ever that the way out is not through compliance, conformity, zealotry, and self-induced blindness. Such self-imposed ignorance will relegate ‘Independent Scientology’ to the role it has played for thirty years, a mere parasite appended to the church of Scientology. It will continue to walk lock step (with a shallow, self-serving protested distinction between it and the corporation) toward the demise of the subject when the corporate disaffecteds it sustains itself on run dry.

This is actually quite an admission from Rathbun at this point, which has to validate what Gerry and I have been saying, and have been attacked for saying, that the protested distinction between Independent Scientology and the corporation is shallow and self-serving.

 

[Purple Rain]

----snip

Girlfriend, you are straining so hard you're going to have a hernia!

----snip

Or a haemorrhoid.

 

[ethercat]

But why should you and I automatically believe either one of them?

Why should anyone automatically disbelieve what Steve Hall wrote in a private Indie FB discussion?

I don't think anyone should automatically believe or disbelieve anything of a questionable nature if they intend to take a stance or draw any conclusions from it. The IFA site was what formed the initial basis of your conclusion that Karen is victimizing people. I was just tossing in some info that may have been missed due to thread splitting.

 

[tired_of_pain]

It's kind of naive to think that someone can be an independent auditor and be digging into people's heads and not have it blow up in your face every once in a while. Sooner or later you're going to have the same problems and issues with dissatisfied customers as the church does. What happens if a pc dies and the family sues you? What happens if a pc goes and shoots someone?

This stuff can and does happen.

You'd better be ready to deal with it.

err.... no. You better don't allow Scientology AT ALL, it is harful and should not be allowed anywhere. Period. Brainwashing. I know, I was "trained".

No "auditing" anywhere please .... whay are we even contemplating "what could happend if a PC kills herself?" we SHOULDNT contemplate that. People should NOT get "auditing" lol PLS!!

sorry, I am a little worked up today seeing how ESBM is degenerating into a "mild Scientology is OK" forum ....

 

[Purple Rain]

err.... no. You better don't allow Scientology AT ALL, it is harful and should not be allowed anywhere. Period. Brainwashing. I know, I was "trained".

No "auditing" anywhere please .... whay are we even contemplating "what could happend if a PC kills herself?" we SHOULDNT contemplate that. People should NOT get "auditing" lol PLS!!

sorry, I am a little worked up today seeing how ESBM is degenerating into a "mild Scientology is OK" forum ....

What about Jehovah's Witnesses? What about Mormons? What other freedom to decide do you think you are qualified to impose on the rest of the world?

And as for a Scientology is ok forum - who says that? Go on, WHO? Who says that here? Find me one comment from somebody here saying that. Or acknowledge that that is a LIE. But I guess you would know all about ESMB, what with your 17 posts and all.

Edit: Just because the people here are good, rational thinking people who refuse to take up the torches and pitchforks and cry "Witch!" against a person who still practices Scientology, does not mean they necessarily approve of it in any way, shape or form. They just value liberty and prefer not to live in a nanny state. Maybe you can learn something here.

I am actually proud of the way the board has resisted the efforts to incite this sort of witch hunt - the way the majority of posters have come out in support of tolerance. It is so easy for any group to be whipped up into a mob frenzy, especially when they've been as hurt as these people have.

And also what I particularly resent is the attempt to manipulate us into being pawns in somebody's personal army.

If you don't like this forum there are plenty of others around.

 

[Caroline]

I don't think anyone should automatically believe or disbelieve anything of a questionable nature if they intend to take a stance or draw any conclusions from it. The IFA site was what formed the initial basis of your conclusion that Karen is victimizing people. I was just tossing in some info that may have been missed due to thread splitting.

Okay, thanks.

It is time for Karen to stop victimizing people, which she does by promoting and delivering Scientology, and has done with her attacks on good wogs, including people who blew the whistle on pc folder abuse thirty years ago.

I knew Karen was practicing Scientology on people long before I saw that the IFA was promoting her as an APIS/IFA certified auditor. Promoting and delivering Scientology has victimized thousands and thousands of people.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Promoting and delivering Scientology has victimized thousands and thousands of people.

Yes, the Church of Scientology's actions have victimized thousands. I think it IS pertinent to distinguish the nature of the this victimization.

Asking a person to "Recall a time that was really real" to them is quite different than having them mortgage their life to dispose of alleged BTs or to fill the coffers of the IAS, destroy the psychs, save the planet, etc.

There is a difference. Auditing a person does not necessarily equate to victimizing.

Just to be a devil: How much $ is flowed into Christian Church coffers? Well they don't victimize people you might argue and yes I can agree partially with that, but if you care to look at the Texas School Board's influence on textbook content which affects not just the children of Texas but the entire country, then I might point out that certain Christian fundamentalists are victimizing our children in FAR greater numbers and impact than the mere thousands of Scilons.

Scientology (note I'm not talking about a corporation) like Christianity needs to be tolerated. It's part of the equation for having personal freedom.