Help wanted on how to best convey a particular message

Carmel

Crusader
Our next shot at getting the Inquiry over the line is coming up very shortly, and a few of us are again approaching MP's and the like. As I've said in other threads, the issue is not now about whether or not the crimes and abuses at the hands of the CofS need addressing, it's about *how* they should be or can be addressed.

There is a particular message (relevant to the above) that I'd like to get across to the powers that be, but that message involves concepts which outsiders or 'never scios' would/do find hard to grasp.

This is what it is:

* If there's a crime by a member of the CofS or some neglect by the CofS itself, the Church will subvert and/or obstruct justice to protect its own public image, and by doing so it protects criminals.

* There is a mindset that the Church must be protected at all cost. This includes protection from any ill repute, and is the reason that Scientologists will commit perjury (the lesser evil, in their minds).

* Nothing is sacred when it comes to the image and survival of the Church. Human rights of individual scientologists are forfeited and denied in the name of the "cause".

* To Scientologists, the authority within the church is considered superior to any outside authority which they consider amatuer and incompetant. Any knowledge of an abuse or crime, or any seeking of justice, must be reported or done "in-house" only. Scientologists don't trust outside authorities and aren't permitted to use them on matters involving the Church or its members.

* The Church is expert at pre-empting legal scrutiny and presents an acceptable image which gives the illusion that they operate within the law.

* This is why we need an Inquiry into the Church of Scientology:
An Inquiry will create a safe platform and help give courage to the many victims and witnesses who would otherwise be afraid to speak. It's only the testimonies of many which will shed light on how the Church avoids detection by law enforcement and how it manages to operate above the law.


So, while most of you will understand what I am saying here, what do you think would be the best way to communicate this to those who have had no involvement with Scientology?

Whether it's a point I've made, or the whole message/concept, how do *you* think that it could best be communicated, to those who haven't been in the loop?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
rough notes (just what you needed right? LOL)

Our next shot at getting the Inquiry over the line is coming up very shortly, and a few of us are again approaching MP's and the like. As I've said in other threads, the issue is not now about whether or not the crimes and abuses at the hands of the CofS need addressing, it's about *how* they should be or can be addressed.

There is a particular message (relevant to the above) that I'd like to get across to the powers that be, but that message involves concepts which outsiders or 'never scios' would/do find hard to grasp.

This is what it is:

* If there's a crime by a member of the CofS or some neglect by the CofS itself, the Church will subvert and/or obstruct justice to protect its own public image, and by doing so it protects criminals.

* There is a mindset that the Church must be protected at all cost. This includes protection from any ill repute, and is the reason that Scientologists will commit perjury (the lesser evil, in their minds).

* Nothing is sacred when it comes to the image and survival of the Church. Human rights of individual scientologists are forfeited and denied in the name of the "cause".

* To Scientologists, the authority within the church is considered superior to any outside authority which they consider amatuer and incompetant. Any knowledge of an abuse or crime, or any seeking of justice, must be reported or done "in-house" only. Scientologists don't trust outside authorities and aren't permitted to use them on matters involving the Church or its members.

* The Church is expert at pre-empting legal scrutiny and presents an acceptable image which gives the illusion that they operate within the law.

* This is why we need an Inquiry into the Church of Scientology:
An Inquiry will create a safe platform and help give courage to the many victims and witnesses who would otherwise be afraid to speak. It's only the testimonies of many which will shed light on how the Church avoids detection by law enforcement and how it manages to operate above the law.


So, while most of you will understand what I am saying here, what do you think would be the best way to communicate this to those who have had no involvement with Scientology?

Whether it's a point I've made, or the whole message/concept, how do *you* think that it could best be communicated, to those who haven't been in the loop?

C, this is a really outstanding idea--to find a way to simplify and communicate the core concepts.

Perhaps some or most of my response is well known to you and the powers that will make this happen. But, there may be something to tweak the presentation here....

1) WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL, CORE POINTS TO GET ACROSS. You have outlined some biggies! For example, it might be possible to group 2 or more of those under one heading; The Doctrine of Greatest Good For Greatest Number of Dynamics. It is extremely vital to convey this concept because it is that doctrine and holy scripture that begets CoS POLICY like KSW, Fair Game, Disconnection, Acceptable Truths, Shore Stories, TR-L and others.

The point here is that if an Inquiry takes place, I am assuming that Scientology will have the opportunity to present it's case and also be scrutizined under some variation of interrogatory or cross-examination of the documents they enter into the record. Just speculating because I have no real understanding of the protocols of an Oz Inquiry.

Assuming there is a back-and-forth, it would be a bombshell to ask a Scientology representative about this doctrine--because they could easily be trapped into admitting or agreeing that the "Greatest Good" was the ethical in all circumstances. It would follow (under closer scrutiny) that a Scientologist who believes that the fate of every being in universe rests upon getting them Clear and OT to salvage them and save their "eternity"...that any means would justify the ends. Hence, a criminal act or merely telling a "shore story" would not be unethical from a Scientologist's perspective. Neither would frying 6million people in gas chambers for a Nazi.

I would think it imperative to establish the Greatest Good scripture/doctrine as a fundamental of Scientology that all Scientologists religiously adhere to in order to safeguard their eternity.

2. Related to #1 above is another doctrine/scriptural essential which is the multi-faceted policies of L. Ron Hubbard. While there is KSW and Greatest Good (per Ethics & Justice Policies) there is also The Way To Happiness which says to never break the law. But Hubbard did not believe in or follow WTH and neither did all of the many thousands of hard-core believers that ran ops on Paulette Cooper and other "fair game". And Hubbard had no qualms about sending his dear wife and a dozen others to federal prison for his criminal campaigns against the US Government. The list of crimes and victims is vast, but the point is that Scientology has a COUNTER POLICY (acceptable truth, shore story) for every other policy to commit crimes.

It must be known by any inquiry that if any given policy is quoted (e.g. Fair Game) there is a canceling or contrary policy that can be quoted to "handle" it (e.g. Cancellation of the term Fair Game)

If one does not know that there is a veritable library of millions upon millions of written/recorded words that are contrary to any one (1) scripture that is cited, then one would be fully thrown off track by the Scientologist's ability to present "evidence" that the accusation is unfounded.

I dare say that ANY Scientology policy/scripture has a mirror-image opposite which can readily be found. It commonly passes under the radar as "revised" polices or "canceled" polices, with the spin that the later one takes precedence. But, by way of example, the date of "CLEAN HANDS MAKES A HAPPY LIFE" far predates Hubbard's criminal exploits of the 1970s and early 80's.

Another obvious example are the claims of the ability and state of Clear. While this may be perceived as dangerous religious rights territory, it can and should be compared to what actually happens when a person goes Clear--and they are suddenly shocked to be informed that they are "at risk" unless they get immediately thru OT III. It is a sensitive area and might be well to include because it reveals the nature of the bait and switch. A Scientologist testifying would readily agree that all the claims about the Clear are correct, including but not limited to total recall, no psychosomatics, 1 IQ point raise per hour of auditing, a state of high-toned happiness, etc. How does this factually compare to what Scientologists doing their Bridge are later told after going Clear? The cognitive dissonance that is suffered by Scientologists is not shared by a casual inquisitor comparing what is PROMISED to what is later REVEALED in the bait and switch.

3. It may be very helpful to reveal that Church "scripture" is not just for religious worship in Church and the home. Hubbard's religious teachings are exported as "policies" and "ethics" and "justice" procedures that are not religious in nature. They are converted to CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR by believers. In other words, it is not merely a "belief" but it is a belief that requires faith-turned-into-action or else the Scientologist is dealt with severely and punished, censured or even disconnected from their family, friends and gainful sources of employment/income. Scientologists are expected and, in fact, coerced, incited and mandated to commit human rights violations and crimes. It could be something as minor as having Tory set up fake web accounts for OSA to use to anonymously suppress free speech or something as unforgivable as the criminal conspiracy (and later coverup) of killing Lisa McPherson.

Sorry I cannot complete this post now, but if you think that this is moving in a helpful direction, I can try do more work on it.... Although rapidly jotted down, hope this may be of some use. HH
 
Last edited:

mate

Patron Meritorious
Hi Carmel, this is how I covered the issue.

Each and every Church of Scientology member, whether staff or not, “knows” that the survival of mankind, can only be achieved through scientology teachings, that without these teachings, mankind is doomed. This is their mission.

Consequently, Scientologists have accepted that an attack, any attack, whether a press article on scientology or a court case or even one scientologist suing another, imperils the future of Scientology and so, of mankind, and they will do whatever is necessary, to defend the Church’s reputation.

Staff Scientologists are aware of the many abuses within the Church, and indeed, the abuses are rampant, but they are in full agreement (yes, coerced, in many cases) that the abuses be handled internally. This is the case even where the handling is or has been, ineffective, and the abuse continues. These abuses include rape, pedophilia, incest, coerced abortions, physical violence, and so on. Yes, each of these crimes has occurred in the Sydney Church of Scientology and other Australian Churches of Scientology.

When anyone or any organisation, attacks the Church, they are declared an “Enemy” and the Church’s “fair game policy” applies, which states an enemy may be “deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed”.

Indeed, where the Church is being sued in a court case, civil or criminal, Church scientologists willingly agree, or coerced, to lie as witnesses, even under oath, even committing perjury, because the future of mankind depends upon it. They will and do make the sacrifice. These chosen “witnesses” are trained to lie and thoroughly drilled to be effective. As well, the Church will always provide many more witnesses than the plaintiff, while at the same time, attempt to frighten off, often successfully, the plaintiff’s witnesses.

Regards, David.
 

PerfectRecall

New Member
Scientology spends a lot of time hammering in the idea that Suppressive People are the root of all evil. Tom Cruise joked about the day when their wouldn't be any suppressives. There's a course call "Confront & Shatter Suppression". Etc.

WELL, something I think is interesting is how unusually upfront Scientology is about High Crimes (Suppressive Acts). The acts that define a Suppressive Person. For example:

  • "Testifying hostilely before state or public inquires into Scientology to suppress it."
  • "Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology."
  • "Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press."
  • "Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists..."
  • "Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists..."
  • "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists..."

How can a tax exempt organization have rules like this when they seem completely opposed to the general public good. And Scientology DOESN'T deny them.
 

Div6

Crusader
Those traits are not confined to just the scientology "group". Many "groups"
through the ages have exhibited the same, or worse.

So I would say that rather than shotgunning multiple thought points, it may be better to focus on one or two, give them a purpose they can sell back to their constituents as having been "a good thing":

1. Where can victims of religious abuse get justice?

2. Should tax exemption be extended to groups clearly violating laws and human rights?

3. Investigating criminal complaints against "religions" is an area that needs some social structure, for all parties involved....

These are just off the cuff....open to refinement/suggestions.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Thanks guys, this is helpful.

The situation we have right now, is that sometimes we only get a few minutes or the chance for only a couple of sentences, to convey *why* we need an Inquiry - Why won't Scientologists go to outside authorities? How does the Church get away with the continual abuse of its members and staff? Why will Scientologists commit perjury? What is the mindset that permits the continual abuse?

HG, thanks for reminding me of that vid....There's stuff there we can all use.

Hoaxee, yep the point about the "greatest good" doctrine and safeguarding their eternity, is a good one. So are the other points ya made. So yeah, it's certainly moving in a helpful direction and anything else ya could add would be great.

The "core concepts".....What are they exactly, and how do we define them?

This is what I'm wanting help with. Most of us know what the score is, and I think that I do too, but I know that I'm still trying to get my head around certain aspects of how I fell for it all in the first place. We know we got sucked in, but how do we convey to others in a concise manner, what we adopted and how that affected our sensibilities?

Currently we have a Senator arguing that an Inquiry isn't needed. He says that we have various authorities (including police) which Scientologists could use in the event of a crime or abuse. We know that is just bull! For one thing the Senators are supposed to be looking at how to prevent crime and abuse in the first place, but for another Scientologists don't have outside authorities as an option. Why don't they? - This is the concept we are trying to convey concisely, 'cause sometimes we very little time to do so.
 

HappyGirl

Gold Meritorious Patron
The situation we have right now, is that sometimes we only get a few minutes or the chance for only a couple of sentences, to convey *why* we need an Inquiry - Why won't Scientologists go to outside authorities? How does the Church get away with the continual abuse of its members and staff? Why will Scientologists commit perjury? What is the mindset that permits the continual abuse?
...
This is what I'm wanting help with...how do we convey to others in a concise manner, what we adopted and how that affected our sensibilities?
...
the Senators are supposed to be looking at how to prevent crime and abuse in the first place, but for another Scientologists don't have outside authorities as an option. Why don't they? - This is the concept we are trying to convey concisely, 'cause sometimes we very little time to do so.
If your time is that severely limited, couldn't you just say that you don't have enough time to fully convey how one gets into that mindset, but that Scns do get into a robotic, unquestioning mindset of following church policies, one of which would be to never trust outside help because only they have the answer, and that you would be happy to provide more information about that to anyone that wants it. Then give a brief statement listing all the crimes being committed on a daily basis, which is why you feel there should be an inquiry. A short, simple statement of horrific crimes could be kind of electrifying. It could then maybe open the floor to individual questions and more time. Or, I could have no idea what I'm talking about, having done no public speaking whatseover. But it seems if you only have 2 or 3 minutes, you don't have any other choice anyway, and what I suggested seems like the way to make the best of it. :D
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
The situation we have right now, is that sometimes we only get a few minutes or the chance for only a couple of sentences, to convey *why* we need an Inquiry - Why won't Scientologists go to outside authorities? How does the Church get away with the continual abuse of its members and staff? Why will Scientologists commit perjury? What is the mindset that permits the continual abuse?


Ohhh, I didn't realize that this is a few minutes or couple lines. That is quite different.

My first take on that would be:

1. GREATEST GOOD DOCTRINE: And the policies that encourage, incite, coerce or require criminal acts by Scientologists. It's not just a "belief" system because it instructs and expects its members to do ANYTHING necessary to protect Hubbard, Miscavige and Scientology. A few compelling narrative examples would be easy to tell the story of and would be riveting. It might be good to allude to the fact that there are HUNDREDS of persons ready, willing and able to testify as to the human rights atrocities and crimes that are regularly committed by Scientologists, organized Scientology front groups and the Church of Scientology.

2. SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE TRAINED TO LIE: Cite some compelling examples of how spokepersons and Scientologists will lie (must lie) to protect Scientology at all costs. TR-L, shore stories, acceptable truths, etc. And to prevent the truth from coming out about Scientology's human rights violations and criminal activities, even Scientologists will even attempt to de-rail the a fact finding inquiry itself thru a carefully orchestrated campaign of lies. What does Scientology have to fear from a fact-finding body? The answer for any honest organization should be "nothing" so I would suggest that anyone who believes in the truth should now stand up and make their voice heard and not allow Scientology to play loose and fast with peoples' lives, their mental, physical and financial health simply by spinning lies upon lies which they are drilled to deliver without blinking or flinching.

3. SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE TRAINED TO "ATTACK" ANY INVESTIGATION OF THEIR CRIMES. (citing policies) Presented well, a listener might well take sides against the "bully".

In such a limited presentation, I think that 3 simple points delivered in "shotgun" fashion would have the greatest impact.

Nothing conclusive can be done in that short space, but one might well be able to create in the listener the curiosity and determination to force Scientology to show it's unclean hands. It's something of a freak-show, but some of the votes to support an Inquiry might not be borne out of any sense of Justice but out of a morbid curiosity to watch the cult use its tricks and try to get away with it. That's just fine, whatever gets a vote is good at this point....
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that the fact (with evidence) that scientology subverts and corrupts usual law enforcement through corrupting the court systems needs to be put solidly in front of politicians. This is linked to abuse because victims do not have faith that the law is enough so victims are intimidated into silence.

Politicians *should* be interested in an enquiry if it possible that scientology can actually do what it likes on the basis that it has found out how to sidestep the usual laws in a country. The government, officials, politicians, etc, right at the top of the pile are in a sense victims of scientology themselves if they cannot manage things using the law.
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Focus on the children who were abused

In my opinion, the fight to right the abuses perpetrated by the Church of Scientology will be won by focusing on what has been done to the children -- the second and third generation scientologists who had no choice, whose lives were limited to the strange culture within the various levels of the scientology community.

An inquiry into the lives of children who have suffered (and those who might be still suffering) through no fault of their own is likely to gain widespread support, and will uncover the truth about scientology and CoS policies and activities, and will lead the way to ending the abuses because:

-- Most of the actual provable crimes and human rights abuses committed by the CoS and its individual followers were committed against underage children who were immersed in the scientology culture without their permission, before they reached the age of consent.

-- These young people were led to believe that scientology and the Church internal “justice” policies were their ONLY resource for seeking relief from any suffering they experienced. Furthermore, they were “educated” to believe that any suffering they experienced was their own fault due to their own “out ethics” or "case" and that only through the application of scientology ethics or auditing would they ever achieve any real relief.

-- These young people feared the consequences of seeking the help of outsiders MUCH MORE than they feared the consequences of staying within the abusive environment BECAUSE they were either unaware of the outside help available to them, OR BECAUSE from an early age they were thoroughly prejudiced against any “outside influences,” AND BECAUSE Church policies (see Church publications regarding Crimes, High Crimes) prohibit them from doing so.

-- Crimes against these young people are the most “provable” and include physical neglect and abuse, rape, child molestation, abdication of parental responsibility (turning the child over to the Sea Org to “raise”), violation of labor laws, violation of laws pertaining to children’s education, abandonment (“disconnecting” from a minor and leaving that minor to somehow fend for themselves), and so forth.


There is ample evidence and testimony from second- and third-generation young people who have escaped scientology to show that these crimes did occur, and to show why those same children could not and did not seek help from law enforcement, social services, or other outside authorities.

The inquiry could result in some digging into the lives of children currently posted in the Sea Org and working in lower org staff or "volunteer" posts which could open a big and fresh can of worms.

There really is no good, logical reason why adults who CHOSE to join then CHOSE to remain and CHOSE to submit to the Church’s outrageous commands, demands, and abuses. While each individual who submitted has their personal story and "reasons why," none of those reasons will ever make any sense to outsiders or those who left early -- they can only be explained as some weird quirk of human nature and human weakness, and no inquiry and no laws will fix that.

Focus on what was done to and experienced by those who had no choice: the children.
 

Arthur Dent

Silver Meritorious Patron
Those traits are not confined to just the scientology "group". Many "groups"
through the ages have exhibited the same, or worse.

So I would say that rather than shotgunning multiple thought points, it may be better to focus on one or two, give them a purpose they can sell back to their constituents as having been "a good thing":

1. Where can victims of religious abuse get justice?

2. Should tax exemption be extended to groups clearly violating laws and human rights?

3. Investigating criminal complaints against "religions" is an area that needs some social structure, for all parties involved....

These are just off the cuff....open to refinement/suggestions.


I agree with Div6...keep it very focused to the fact that the gov't and public tax payers are supporting a facist group that consistently violates human rights.
Scn. is designed to make the critic look like the crazy.
If there are any testimonies of how scn has brought down any politicians with black-mail, black PR (highlighting the policy How to Handle Black Propaganda), going after psychs illegally (the incident of putting LSD on the toothbrush of a psych's pregnant wife for instance) ...anything that would make this body nervous about letting this continue. Proof that "going to the police" did nothing for the victim. Go for and stay focused on the actual Gestapo behavior of the cofs.

Have a pack of the Gestapo policies ready and highlighted (copies for each member of the body deciding if there is to be an inquiry. And make sure you know what their exact protocol is beforehand.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
The situation we have right now, is that sometimes we only get a few minutes or the chance for only a couple of sentences, to convey *why* we need an Inquiry - Why won't Scientologists go to outside authorities? How does the Church get away with the continual abuse of its members and staff? Why will Scientologists commit perjury? What is the mindset that permits the continual abuse?

Two sentences? "It's like the staff and public are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome — battered wife syndrome. They see nothing really wrong with being abused and lying to protect the abuser."

(Original positioning from Robert Vaughn Young, I believe.)

Paul
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Our next shot at getting the Inquiry over the line is coming up very shortly, and a few of us are again approaching MP's and the like. As I've said in other threads, the issue is not now about whether or not the crimes and abuses at the hands of the CofS need addressing, it's about *how* they should be or can be addressed.

There is a particular message (relevant to the above) that I'd like to get across to the powers that be, but that message involves concepts which outsiders or 'never scios' would/do find hard to grasp.

This is what it is:

* If there's a crime by a member of the CofS or some neglect by the CofS itself, the Church will subvert and/or obstruct justice to protect its own public image, and by doing so it protects criminals.

* There is a mindset that the Church must be protected at all cost. This includes protection from any ill repute, and is the reason that Scientologists will commit perjury (the lesser evil, in their minds).

* Nothing is sacred when it comes to the image and survival of the Church. Human rights of individual scientologists are forfeited and denied in the name of the "cause".

* To Scientologists, the authority within the church is considered superior to any outside authority which they consider amatuer and incompetant. Any knowledge of an abuse or crime, or any seeking of justice, must be reported or done "in-house" only. Scientologists don't trust outside authorities and aren't permitted to use them on matters involving the Church or its members.

* The Church is expert at pre-empting legal scrutiny and presents an acceptable image which gives the illusion that they operate within the law.

* This is why we need an Inquiry into the Church of Scientology:
An Inquiry will create a safe platform and help give courage to the many victims and witnesses who would otherwise be afraid to speak. It's only the testimonies of many which will shed light on how the Church avoids detection by law enforcement and how it manages to operate above the law.


So, while most of you will understand what I am saying here, what do you think would be the best way to communicate this to those who have had no involvement with Scientology?

Whether it's a point I've made, or the whole message/concept, how do *you* think that it could best be communicated, to those who haven't been in the loop?

This is a very important post!

This has blown up too big for the Church to rely on its usual tactic of scaring (most) people into silence, but there will be obvious attacks on people's integrity and credibility (as was done to Carmel recently).

The Church will flood any inquiry with diversions--we have to keep things on track.

The Church will play "Divide and Conquer". For those of us who don't have the most amicable history, we have to agree to disagree, and maintain a united front against the Church. In Church terms, we have to stay "on purpose".

We have to remember that our target is THE CHURCH, not the individual deluded members who really believe they are doing the "right" thing.

When I sent my correspondence to Parliament, I deliberately omitted a number of events because those events would have identified the guilty parties and, subsequently, myself (and I'm not ready for that). I have given the undertaking that if this ball does get rolling, then I will provide full information in the hope that others doing the same will all contribute to an avalanche.

Those of us in Adelaide in 1985 fully participated in Church tactics to divert the intended Inquiry back then--we have to remember that most of the people we will be "fighting" will be "ourselves 25 years ago". Compassion must remain part of the equation, otherwise we are descending to DM's level.

For some of us, this is going to be more difficult, because we are going to have to admit to crimes that we committed in "defence" of the Church.

Remember that we were once subject to the same conditions as current members, and they will defend the Church as vehemently as we once did.

This is not going to be easy, and we can't rely on Carmel to do everything--this is not a load that one person can carry. She needs our support in communication, in person, in spirit.

This is going to get much uglier before it gets better, and even if you think your contribution is "insignificant", it may be one of the straws that helps to break the camel's back.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Scientology spends a lot of time hammering in the idea that Suppressive People are the root of all evil. Tom Cruise joked about the day when their wouldn't be any suppressives. There's a course call "Confront & Shatter Suppression". Etc.

WELL, something I think is interesting is how unusually upfront Scientology is about High Crimes (Suppressive Acts). The acts that define a Suppressive Person. For example:

  • "Testifying hostilely before state or public inquires into Scientology to suppress it."
  • "Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology."
  • "Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press."
  • "Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists..."
  • "Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists..."
  • "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists..."

How can a tax exempt organization have rules like this when they seem completely opposed to the general public good. And Scientology DOESN'T deny them.

In the original 1965 HCOPL
we have

public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened; proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the Suppression of Scientology; pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology; testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it;
It would be useful to point out that the policy squeezes in "1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings" as an afterthought deep in the list, and what they consider important enough to be at the top of the list.

A Scientologist would be MANDATED by policy to say whatever he needed to say in order to derail or misdirect a criminal inquiry that put Scn leadership at risk of criminal or civil penalties.
 

OldAuditor

Patron with Honors
Hit the CULT button hard and then explain if there is time

All of the concepts that are being described are true, but they require explanation to be understood. There is a concept that lawmakers already understand and it is political dynamite for them to be found supporting it.

You need to communicate that Scientology is no longer a church - It is now an international cult.

The Church of Scientology has EVERY characteristic listed on cult checklists.

Read my summary at http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=489

Forget explaining fair game Forget disconnection. forget child abuse and the RPF abuse. Every cult does this and more.

Get this idea across or you will fail: The Church of Scientology is a cult

Compare this list of cult behaviors and secrecies to Scn behavior and it shows that the government is supporting a cult through tax exemptions.

  • The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
  • ‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
  • ‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
  • ‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
  • ‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
  • ‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
  • ‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
  • ‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
  • ‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
  • ‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
  • ‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
  • ‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.
  • ‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
  • ‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
  • ‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Even politicians know that if it looks like a cult, behaves like a cult and sounds like a cult, it is possible that it is a cult. Giving special privileges to a cult can be political suicide. We don't want these politicians to commit suicide on our watch, do we? :omg:

David St Lawrence
Old Auditor

If you landed here from a link I sent you, use the following link to see the rest of the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2wuwkby
 
Last edited:

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
Get Mark Bunker and Hanna and a few others over there that have had the media exposure that can tell them the real story in a way that they would understand.
 

Nightingale

Patron with Honors
Our next shot at getting the Inquiry over the line is coming up very shortly, and a few of us are again approaching MP's and the like. As I've said in other threads, the issue is not now about whether or not the crimes and abuses at the hands of the CofS need addressing, it's about *how* they should be or can be addressed.

There is a particular message (relevant to the above) that I'd like to get across to the powers that be, but that message involves concepts which outsiders or 'never scios' would/do find hard to grasp.

This is what it is:

* If there's a crime by a member of the CofS or some neglect by the CofS itself, the Church will subvert and/or obstruct justice to protect its own public image, and by doing so it protects criminals.

* There is a mindset that the Church must be protected at all cost. This includes protection from any ill repute, and is the reason that Scientologists will commit perjury (the lesser evil, in their minds).

* Nothing is sacred when it comes to the image and survival of the Church. Human rights of individual scientologists are forfeited and denied in the name of the "cause".

* To Scientologists, the authority within the church is considered superior to any outside authority which they consider amatuer and incompetant. Any knowledge of an abuse or crime, or any seeking of justice, must be reported or done "in-house" only. Scientologists don't trust outside authorities and aren't permitted to use them on matters involving the Church or its members.

* The Church is expert at pre-empting legal scrutiny and presents an acceptable image which gives the illusion that they operate within the law.

* This is why we need an Inquiry into the Church of Scientology:
An Inquiry will create a safe platform and help give courage to the many victims and witnesses who would otherwise be afraid to speak. It's only the testimonies of many which will shed light on how the Church avoids detection by law enforcement and how it manages to operate above the law.


So, while most of you will understand what I am saying here, what do you think would be the best way to communicate this to those who have had no involvement with Scientology?

Whether it's a point I've made, or the whole message/concept, how do *you* think that it could best be communicated, to those who haven't been in the loop?


I speak as a person who was never involved in Scientology, but I've spent hours reading posts and books about this matter. I hope my opinion will help in your quest! I cannot offer answers only questions.

To me, the one policy statement that seems most important in understanding the mindset of the CofS is this: Never defend. Always attack. . . Why not defend one's beliefs? What does the attack include? How is this justified? So, no explanation is necessary for ANY action, as long as if furthers the goals of the CofS?
 

BC1

Patron with Honors
I was never a member of the Church and what got me to believe in all the abuses is the numerous examples and how despite the fact that locations, people, positions, etc were different, there seemed to be a common thread in the abuse. I also was able to witness some things that went on with people I knew that were in the church, although I've never personally witnessed anything truly crazy.

I'm not sure if you have one already (you probably do), but could you give them a packet of documents during your two minutes of time. Then you could just say something briefly, but give them a few pages to read and then some references (websites, books, etc) to where they could find more if they are interested. I would think you would have a good chance of someone reading it if it is only a few pages and doesn't look like a novel. I would arrange it so that it follows a format like a checklist for a cult, then each item on the checklist is followed be supporting LRH quotes and real like examples.

One thing that might hit home about the mindset of a Scientologist defending the church are some quotes from Rex Fowlers wife when she was demanding the briefcase of church documents from the police and told them that they were too stupid to understand the information anyway.

During your two minutes of speaking, I would emphasize that the examples of abuse that they have heard already are the tip of the iceberg. I would say that they are not isolated examples, they are the common practices of the church worldwide and tell them that these practices were designed by LRH and that your documents contain examples of his text that support your argument.
 
Top