What's new

Claire Swazey is now an ex Scientologist

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
Mostly, I just wanted to write and say that I am very happy for you. You seem to be much happier and "lighter" -- like a weight has been lifted.

Your post was very honest, very brave and very insightful. You have never lacked for "confront," but unlike many (perhaps sometimes including myself) you have also never lacked self-confront.

I was tempted to say Congratulations!, but I didn't want to appear to be condescending or, worse, actually be condescending.

Just a couple of comments:

I still have use for some Scn ideas
The horrible thing (shhhh, don't tell anyone on WWP) is that I do too. Every once in awhile I remind myself to get my fracken TRs in; to be interested, not interesting. The KRC triangle has come up a lot lately in my life. For Xenu's sake, I found myself explaining the KRC triangle to someone recently, and damn it if they didn't say it made sense.
This does not mean that I won't stop taking up for my FZ and indie friends (not that I don't stick up for other people in the critic's scene- I do.) . I will. I know some nice people in the FZ
I have found most Freezoners and Independent Scientologists to be well-intentioned, just like I found most Scientologists to be well-intentioned when I was in -- at least at first, before they had been in too long, or risen too high.
and, while I know some of you may not agree with this, I think they're doing jut fine and are not hurting themselves or anyone else.
This is where I disagree. Whether they hurt themselves is largely their own business. But I to think they do harm others, even if only negligently. Even if only by foreclosing or displacing forms of therapy that are based on something called reality. I have a real problem with "past life" therapy in any form (Scientology, Freezone, or elsewhere), or the "confronting" of problems, issues, etc. that "arose" in a past life.

I used to know a lot of people who were in the alien abduction community -- who believed they had been abducted by aliens. They became really good about confronting the "fact" that they had been (and sometimes were still being) abducted. One couldn't help but notice that by confronting that "fact" they were able to non-confront, to avoid confronting, the facts concerning what had actually happened, or was actually happening, in their lives. I fear the "past life" stuff in Scientolgy operates in the same way, to the same effect.
In fact, I think that Scientology can be beneficial in some cases.
I hate to admit it, but I agree. I'm sure the subset of Scientology I find beneficial is much smaller than subset you find beneficial, but I well-understand and respect your position.

I do have my concerns about even the "good" stuff in Scientology. First, because I'm concerned that it is inexorably intertwined with the bad. That it is part of a mindset, and ideology, a way of thinking (primarily KSW) that is dangerous. As a more practical matter, I worry that the good is the bait in the trap.

Let me give an example. When I explained the KRC triangle to someone recently, my need to be intellectually honest caused me to give credit where credit was due -- Scientology. But then I felt the need to give a large, detailed disclaimer to warn the person away from Scientology. I'm can't stand the idea of being even partially responsible for getting someone involved in the Church.

Perhaps the best advice one can give regarding Scientology -- after "Don't get invovled! Stay away! -- is a quote I've seen attributed to Ram Dass (but can't find online) -- "Take the teachings and run!"

I didn't intend to post this to largely state disagreement. Like I said, I'm very happy for you, and indeed have all respect for you.

I also identify with your interest in other "isms," and am particularly struck by what appears to be some attraction (albeit far from exclusive) in your original Catholic faith. Even when I was in the COS, I never abandoned "other practices." [I was a great Scientologist in some ways, but really lousy in others.] But I found that when I left the COS I returned to my original faith -- in my case liberal, New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Christianity, in addition to Zen. There was some comfort in coming home. I've always been attracted to New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ethics. What I was thinking when I joined the religion of "DBs," "wogs," the doctrine of exchange (when it doesn't involve contributing to the IAS), "illegal PCs," and demonzizing evil psychs, I'm embarassed to day I don't know.

Anyway, I wish you the best.

I will cap this by saying that not only am I not OSA, but I never was. Not when I was in CofS, not when I considered myself to be a Freezoner and not during my heretical indie term.
I never thought you were OSA, even back in the ARS days when you were still in the official Church. Anyone who thought you were OSA was an idiot.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Mostly, I just wanted to write and say that I am very happy for you. You seem to be much happier and "lighter" -- like a weight has been lifted.

I think, mostly, yeah. I'm relieved because I figured it out. And I feel a bit less boxed in. I don't mean that people were boxing me in or even that the ideology was. I was boxing me in by sticking to a label and a certain set of behaviorisms that went with it.

My friends and family are all quite pleased. My husband is philosophically resigned- LOL!

Your post was very honest, very brave and very insightful. You have never lacked for "confront," but unlike many (perhaps sometimes including myself) you have also never lacked self-confront.

Well, I've tried, but I can think of lots of times when I really shied away from looking at things I was doing and flaws I had. There were a number of "non confront" thingies like that. But I tried to keep getting back on the horse.

What helped was prayer. I never totally lost the praying habit, as I was brought up Catholic (mostly- Dad was a Catholic Scn'ist from the time I was bout 8 or 9 to when I was mebbe 20) and I've been doing it more and more. Partly because my bff is a devout Christian (but the "my God is a God of Love" type. Not the mean judgemental "you're all going to hell if you don't go to my church" kind.) and we talk about prayer a lot. I hadn't totally stopped praying before but my friend has definitely influenced me on the prayer thing. I don't think I'm tapping into some Jehovah type being, but yeah, something's there and it helps.


I was tempted to say Congratulations!, but I didn't want to appear to be condescending or, worse, actually be condescending.

Yeah, like you'd ever be condescending! You're a really nice person whose posts I enjoy.

Just a couple of comments:

The horrible thing (shhhh, don't tell anyone on WWP) is that I do too. Every once in awhile I remind myself to get my fracken TRs in; to be interested, not interesting. The KRC triangle has come up a lot lately in my life. For Xenu's sake, I found myself explaining the KRC triangle to someone recently, and damn it if they didn't say it made sense.I have found most Freezoners and Independent Scientologists to be well-intentioned, just like I found most Scientologists to be well-intentioned when I was in -- at least at first, before they had been in too long, or risen too high.This is where I disagree. Whether they hurt themselves is largely their own business. But I to think they do harm others, even if only negligently. Even if only by foreclosing or displacing forms of therapy that are based on something called reality. I have a real problem with "past life" therapy in any form (Scientology, Freezone, or elsewhere), or the "confronting" of problems, issues, etc. that "arose" in a past life.


I can see the use of various principles/theories in Scn. I think there are a lot of critical exes who do so but don't want to really advertise it.

Now, as to displacing other theories -- well, all I can say is I hope not. I like to think there's room for us all. I know that religious history is littered with auto da fes, pogroms, and so on, but I think that what one does is to look at how groups behave. If they go after other groups, then they're actively trying to harm and displace them. If they don't, then they're not. But we may end up having to agree to disagree on that one.

I used to know a lot of people who were in the alien abduction community -- who believed they had been abducted by aliens. They became really good about confronting the "fact" that they had been (and sometimes were still being) abducted. One couldn't help but notice that by confronting that "fact" they were able to non-confront, to avoid confronting, the facts concerning what had actually happened, or was actually happening, in their lives. I fear the "past life" stuff in Scientolgy operates in the same way, to the same effect.I hate to admit it, but I agree. I'm sure the subset of Scientology I find beneficial is much smaller than subset you find beneficial, but I well-understand and respect your position.

I know exactly what you mean! They're confronting a construct, an imaginary thing and then that lets them out of looking at reality. Although I do believe in past lives, I am VERY sure that Scn'ists do this, also, on some occasions.
Your observation on this is damn good, Kha Khan!


I do have my concerns about even the "good" stuff in Scientology. First, because I'm concerned that it is inexorably intertwined with the bad. That it is part of a mindset, and ideology, a way of thinking (primarily KSW) that is dangerous. As a more practical matter, I worry that the good is the bait in the trap.

I think the problem may be in having it as some sort of identity. Of course, I may be saying that 'cuz that's my dealie-bop, right? It's what I've been going through lately. So that may be just claire-think.


Let me give an example. When I explained the KRC triangle to someone recently, my need to be intellectually honest caused me to give credit where credit was due -- Scientology. But then I felt the need to give a large, detailed disclaimer to warn the person away from Scientology. I'm can't stand the idea of being even partially responsible for getting someone involved in the Church.

I know just what you mean and I've had very similar experiences and almost the same identical thoughts (and subsequent caveats, etc) that went with them.

Perhaps the best advice one can give regarding Scientology -- after "Don't get invovled! Stay away! -- is a quote I've seen attributed to Ram Dass (but can't find online) -- "Take the teachings and run!"

That's the guy who said "be here now". And this is another fantastic thing he said. Pretty awesome.

I didn't intend to post this to largely state disagreement. Like I said, I'm very happy for you, and indeed have all respect for you.

I'm enjoying this discussion, truly.


<snip stuff that is cool only for brevity, etc.)

I never thought you were OSA, even back in the ARS days when you were still in the official Church. Anyone who thought you were OSA was an idiot.

Well (ruefully) there's a person who posts here and on a.r.s. and OCMB who has said it many times in the past 11 years. Well, hey--- it's a way to demonize people we don't like and the hope was obviously to keep throwing shit til it stuck. I shouldn't dwell on it as I have emerged victorious. :happydance:

Good to chat with you again, my friend.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
I totally understand not wanting an identity as a Scientologist, even if it's as a non-CofS Scientologist.

I don't consider myself an ex, but I don't consider myself a Scientologist either.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh Man... So Cool!

Thanks Claire!


So very nice to meet you... anew!! :)


However... I'm kinda screwed here cause... well I had you all 'pegged' and 'labeled' :p... and now... well shit... I'm feeling uncertain about how to proceed... :blush:

Guess I'll just have to look at things differently... :wink2:


Ok, you've been so honest... I'll admit it... yes I have found you annoying at times (not like I've never been that way....:whistling:).... but I've always liked you and admired you too. :yes:


Onward Ho! The Journey is rich in surprises....
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Oh Man... So Cool!

Thanks Claire!


So very nice to meet you... anew!! :)


However... I'm kinda screwed here cause... well I had you all 'pegged' and 'labeled' :p... and now... well shit... I'm feeling uncertain about how to proceed... :blush:

Guess I'll just have to look at things differently... :wink2:


Ok, you've been so honest... I'll admit it... yes I have found you annoying at times (not like I've never been that way....:whistling:).... but I've always liked you and admired you too. :yes:


Onward Ho! The Journey is rich in surprises....

Thanks for the kind words- truly. But you know, I do want to point out that I'm the same person. I'm still Claire...ya know what I mean, jellybean? But I'm sure you know that. Life is indeed a journey!
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hi Claire (or can I still call you Fluff?). Just a quick answer here;

I've got a couple of Ram Dass's books, and one thing he said was that his teacher Neem Karoli Baba's favourite expression was "Jao!" (Go away). Can you imagine the CofS saying that to anyone who turns up with a bit of money in their pocket? There are a lot of other organisations of which this could be said too.

You and I also have some acquaintance with Vernon Howard's teachings, and Vernon said that putting labels on ourselves is one of the worst things we can do. Though we all do it, they weigh us down and mean we have to spend time and energy defending them.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Hi Claire (or can I still call you Fluff?). Just a quick answer here;

I've got a couple of Ram Dass's books, and one thing he said was that his teacher Neem Karoli Baba's favourite expression was "Jao!" (Go away). Can you imagine the CofS saying that to anyone who turns up with a bit of money in their pocket? There are a lot of other organisations of which this could be said too.

You and I also have some acquaintance with Vernon Howard's teachings, and Vernon said that putting labels on ourselves is one of the worst things we can do. Though we all do it, they weigh us down and mean we have to spend time and energy defending them.


Of course you can still call me Fluff. Most of my friends still do and it's cool.

No, I can't imagine CofS saying that to anyone from whom they could extract money. I've pointed out something to a number of people- not just re Scn but also in the business world- "if you ask someone for permission to do something or other, even if it's something for which you didn't need to ask permission, something basic or whatnot- people will tend to grant or withhold it. When it's something that you didn't even need to ask (permission)- most people will not say "oh, no, it's ok, you don't have to ask me about something like that." very few people will." I've seen this scenario played out many many times.

Yes, agreed re Vernon Howard. And I really was getting too into the label. I'm kind of a defiant contrarian kinda girl, see, and well, that was just kinda how I roll(ed)... :coolwink:
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hi. When I left CofS in 2000 (the cult making it formal with the decree a year later) I still very much wanted to be a Scientologist. I resisted being thought of as a Free Zoner and just knew that I was on my own with it.

Then I tried the Free Zone and got some benefit, I did feel. I still do. Later, I decided I was more an indie or heretical Scientologist but still supportive of the Free Zone and those who wished to be part of or affiliated with it.

I have always liked to debunk stereotypes and look at more than one side of the issue. Sometimes if there's no other side immediately perceivable, I'll just make one! :coolwink: When I was in CofS but hangin' on a.r.s. and still feeling pretty party line, if I saw a critic saying or doing something cool, I'd give credit where credit was due. Later, if I saw a churchie or someone else with whom I disagreed doing something cool, I continued on in this tradition. I also remember the things I liked about certain theories Hubbard had and certain things I did- drills, auditing, and so on- that I really liked.

Somewhere along the line, my identity as a non CofS Scn'ist (another term I've used frequently) became more important than ... well, me.
I can't be this anymore. I can't be a label and, more importantly, I can't be this label. My beliefs have wandered a bit too far afield for me to use it even if I did want to be a label which is the reason it couldn't be that label.

I still have use for some Scn ideas but for quite some time now, I've been interested in other ologies and isms. I have said so a few times here, too. I think maybe one can be an heretical what-sis and still do that but I think that in my case, I'm not an heretical Scientologist. I'm not any kind of Scientologist.

This does not mean that I won't stop taking up for my FZ and indie friends (not that I don't stick up for other people in the critic's scene- I do.) . I will. I know some nice people in the FZ and, while I know some of you may not agree with this, I think they're doing jut fine and are not hurting themselves or anyone else. In fact, I think that Scientology can be beneficial in some cases. Saying this doesn't make me a Scientologist any more than the fact that I still watch Christian evangelist shows (I was very excited a couple months ago when I found a Catholic channel on cable. I was brought up Catholic. Mother Angelica rocks!) has made me go back to Christianity. It hasn't. But I maintain that there's much beauty and truth there and I don't have to be of that faith to see that. So that's about how I feel about Scn.

I wrote a post about prayer recently and I had a couple things happen soon after I sort of sent up a plea. I wasn't unhappy or angst ridden but I knew some things needed to happen. As usual, the answers to my prayers weren't what I expected. But that's always how it goes, isn't it? So a couple things happened that were important. This is one of them. I was pretty excited and pleased to get this idea as it does resolve some things. But now I am feeling really weird. I guess I am struggling with it. I am not questioning my stance. I know I'm an ex Scientologist. I'm just struggling with coming to terms with that fact. I felt a lot more sprightly about this Saturday. I may need some help with this and god help the person who writes something along the lines of "I told you so" or "It's about time you woke up"! :omg::yes::coolwink:

I hope that my Free Zone and indie friends won't be disappointed in me. I rather think y'all will be cool with it. The kind of people I make friends with do not put conditions on their affection.

I will cap this by saying that not only am I not OSA, but I never was. Not when I was in CofS, not when I considered myself to be a Freezoner and not during my heretical indie term.


I love what you said. I especially liked, "The kind of people I make friends with do not put conditions on their affection." I have also come to that same conclusion.

Thanks for this post.:thumbsup:

TP
 
Last edited:

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I love what you said. I especially liked, "The kind of people I make friends with do not put conditions on their affection." I have also come to that same conclusion.

Thanks for this post.:thumbsup:

TP

Sure!

There sure are a lot of conditions on friendships in CofS, aren't there. It's nice to be in the real world.
 

altruistichedonist

Patron with Honors
I've always loved claire even when I wanted to whack her upside the haid :)

Zinj

A caution here Zinj. A friend of mine firmly believes what you do comes back to you 3 times.:melodramatic:

Hey. WTF. I was bitchin' at Fluffy on another forum before I got to know her. And a few women in my life have been bitching back at me lately.

Uh. Oh.:nervous:
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
When you first came onto ARS screaming insults at every critic, you replied to every post on every thread. You posted as many as 300 messages a day. All of them horribly diminishing to anyone who was critical of the 'church'. Is it any wonder that we who were already posting there thought that you were OSA?
Then you got on the bandwagon of trashing Arnie Lerma, you and your 'friends' calling those of us who supported Arnie " LermaLoonies". You trashed Tory. You trashed Caroline Letkeman, you trashed every critic , a list too long to note, unmercifully and without cease. HUNDREDS OF POSTS DAILYfor years. And you still whine that you were thought of as OSA?
If, as you say, your viewpoint has changed, perhaps it would behoove you to look over your old posts and consider that some apologies are in order. I can guess that you will now retort that you are not sorry for anything that you have posted, and that you "stand by it". So be it.


chlng
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Re: Thread derailment

When you first came onto ARS

11 years ago.

screaming insults at every critic

That's a lie. In fact, I received many emails and posts from people saying "Well, at least you're polite." I didn't scream insults at all. I did answer some people back but I refrained from speaking to them the way some of them had spoken to me.

I can very easily pull up the posts from then. I tend to doubt, however, that Emma would want us to go there. But it would be very very easy- make no mistake about that.

you replied to every post on every thread.

Many, yes. Every, no. I broke no rules. So what's it to you?

You posted as many as 300 messages a day.

Nope.

All of them horribly diminishing to anyone who was critical of the 'church'.
I

That's a lie. Like I said, I got a lot of emails from people and also a lot of posts in which people said I was at least willing to discuss things, that I was polite, had a sense of humor, etc. At least two people who didn't then approve of me commented that I was so "ARCful" and "folksy" and seemed to be talking to people- and this from people who did not approve of me. So obviously, I wasn't diminishing anyone nor was I considered rude.

One of your first posts to me before I barely got started posting was that I should look out my org window and see some woman picketing.

I suggest you review the google archives. My posting addy then was [email protected], then, later, [email protected]. And the ng, for those who want to know, is alt.religion.scientology. The first post I made was 06/12/98 under the [email protected] addy. I encourage all whose interest is piqued by this mendacious and vicious diatribe to feel free to review the records.


s it any wonder that we who were already posting there thought that you were OSA?

Well, only if they're umm...truth impaired. I could point out that you remember what you want to remember, but I don't think that's the situation here with what you are saying and why you are saying it.


Then you got on the bandwagon of trashing Arnie Lerma, you and your 'friends' calling those of us who supported Arnie " LermaLoonies".

That was years later and it was after he targetted me on the forum.


You trashed Tory.

I do not like a number of comments she's made to and about me- no one would.

You trashed Caroline Letkeman,

I respond to people who trash me. If they don't trash me, then it's all good.


you trashed every critic ,

That's not true. I have a lot of friends who are critics and I cannot even count how many emails containing expressions of support- and apologies on many occasions from them that I've received- scores I would think. About half my facebook friends are critics. In fact, when I was undergoing handlings from CofS and when I was expelled, the first people I called were critics.
When I posted about my expulsion, a VERY long thread ensued with dozens of expressions of support from very dyed in the wool critics- people who didn't like Scn at all. In fact, there were several like that. Plus the private emails I received. So the portrait you are painting is wholly and completely fabricated.

a list too long to note, unmercifully and without cease. HUNDREDS OF POSTS DAILYfor years.

Never, in all the echoing corridors of time have I posted "Hundreds of posts" on a.r.s. in a day.

And you still whine that you were thought of as OSA?

I'm not the one whining.

If, as you say, your viewpoint has changed, perhaps it would behoove you to look over your old posts and consider that some apologies are in order.

Oh, it's ok. I already received many apologies from people I knew back then.
Of course, that's not what you meant.

But, point of fact, I have posted apologies several times on a.r.s.. I remember once even apologizing to you, and it did nothing as you said you wouldn't accept it and then you continued to slam me many times on thread where I was not talking to or about you. Just as you are doing now. So I'm not sure who you are to talk about apologies and good behavior.


I can guess that you will now retort that you are not sorry for anything that you have posted, and that you "stand by it". So be it.

You guessed wrong. Duh.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten the forum about things you've posted about me-every single one of which was made out of the blue when I was saying nothing to or about you whatsoever ? Google has those, too.

:readfaq::drama2::threadjacked:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill

A caution here Zinj. A friend of mine firmly believes what you do comes back to you 3 times.:melodramatic:

Hey. WTF. I was bitchin' at Fluffy on another forum before I got to know her. And a few women in my life have been bitching back at me lately.

Uh. Oh.:nervous:


I don't think you ever bitched at me, IIRC. I never had that feeling. I think I remember reading some posts where I felt we weren't agreeing- but that was about it.
 

exscilon

Patron
Congratulations, Claire!


It was rough for me when I gave up Scientology and I was completely lost for a long time but it's all good now. Not that your story would be similar.
 
Top