Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
When I first got on a critical forum, Free Zoners (no one was using the term "Indie" then, though sometimes they did discuss Independent Scn'ists) were regarded, I think, differently than they are now. Most critics were glad to see anyone publicly criticizing CofS. They knew- just as we all know nowadays- that the cult monitored the boards and that criticizing the cult and advocating its destruction and speaking out against OSA were obviously not things done by anyone who would give a free pass to Scn abuse.
At some point, this changed a bit. It did so even before Marty came out and set himself up as a guru of non CofS Scn. More people looked askance at the practice Scn outside CofS and were discussing it. My guess is that this was probably a result of the FZ being publicized more. Not just by Terril, but by Tommy Thompson, Rey Robles and others. Let me make this clear- I think the increased scrutiny and the many many disagreements - and even anger- people started to post were and are quite healthy.
However, healthy as this is, I want to take on some things that have been said a number of times here and elsewhere that, frankly, are in no way true. The main one of those being that they are no different than CofS'ers. Of course they're different! That's quite obvious given the many non CofSers who've been so frank and open here and at pickets.
But first I'll talk about the ways in which they are similar to CofSers. Because it's not my belief that there are no similarities.
Other than all, presumably, being bipedal carbon based lifeforms,
both CofS'ers and the heretics (lemme call them that from now on as it's pretty true and way easier to type) believe that Hubbard wrote some great stuff. Auditing and TRs and word clearing and false data stripping and qual and C/S tech all work. Many heretics like most CofSers view it as their religion. A major similarity is that both camps think that advanced spiritual states can be reached by receiving auditing of various types.
That's pretty much it for areas where just about every CofS member is going to be on the same page as just about every heretic.
After that, when looking for commonality, you get a lot more things where CofSers just about always think that but only some heretics do. Like brooking criticism of Scn and Hubbard. Very few CofSers would countenance that, right? And some heretics are greatly turned off and even angered by it. But only some. It no longer is 99%/99% or whatever. Maybe it's more like 99%/48% or hell, I don't know. I made those ratios up anyway. Point is that by this time the two camps/categories are diverging.
So where are they different?
Quite a few heretics picket. You aren't going to see a CofS member doing that. At least not one who isn't truly out in his or her heart, even if the cult didn't make it official with a nice piece of goldenrod on legal size paper.
I've yet to meet any heretic who thought there should be an RPF or any RPFing.
Very few CofSers (I have met some who did it in secret but still, pretty rare. Certainly not a party line kind of thing.) would even consider criticizing Hubbard or Scn itself. Yet I see a lot of heretics doing it.
I don't see any freeloader debts in the heretic's scene.
No enforced or even suggested abortions amongst heretics.
No one goes after minor children or young adults to make them join Heretic Staff.
No isolation watches in Heretic-land. Most heretics I talk to find this to be an appalling practice. They are keenly aware that they aren't doctors and, what's more, do not have the right to restrain anyone or step in as loco parentis for someone incapacitated. I have the distinct impression that this is a lesson that CofS has yet to learn
Heretics don't have a centralized price list (or any centralization) and don't charge high prices or have insane regging events wherein people are pushed to liquidate assets that they probably will never get back.
No Idle Org or Super Power buildings and the endless financial finagling for such by Heretics.
Heretics don't tell people to check this or that with their MAA or EO and whom to block on Facebook with those directives in mind.
The above are primary points of criticism against Scn/CofS. They are the things that make the news. They are the things that inspire pickets. So these are huge differences. So when someone tells me that heretics are the same as CofSers- which I've been hearing for years and years-I really wonder what color the sky is in their world.
Now, if one were to comment on the similarities I stated above- and that has been said- then that would make sense. But overall, as far as what people do that makes them considered immoral, unethical, wrong headed or just plain bad- those differences are huge and they do exist.
There are individual variances amongst CofSers, too, but if a person's really in CofS and isn't secretly out or secretly dissenting, then those differences can be pretty minute. Unlike the above stated ones.
I will end this op with a reiteration of my belief that wishing to examine and disagree with heretical Scn is healthy and we're a whole lot better off doing it than not, for those who are interested in doing so.
At some point, this changed a bit. It did so even before Marty came out and set himself up as a guru of non CofS Scn. More people looked askance at the practice Scn outside CofS and were discussing it. My guess is that this was probably a result of the FZ being publicized more. Not just by Terril, but by Tommy Thompson, Rey Robles and others. Let me make this clear- I think the increased scrutiny and the many many disagreements - and even anger- people started to post were and are quite healthy.
However, healthy as this is, I want to take on some things that have been said a number of times here and elsewhere that, frankly, are in no way true. The main one of those being that they are no different than CofS'ers. Of course they're different! That's quite obvious given the many non CofSers who've been so frank and open here and at pickets.
But first I'll talk about the ways in which they are similar to CofSers. Because it's not my belief that there are no similarities.
Other than all, presumably, being bipedal carbon based lifeforms,
both CofS'ers and the heretics (lemme call them that from now on as it's pretty true and way easier to type) believe that Hubbard wrote some great stuff. Auditing and TRs and word clearing and false data stripping and qual and C/S tech all work. Many heretics like most CofSers view it as their religion. A major similarity is that both camps think that advanced spiritual states can be reached by receiving auditing of various types. That's pretty much it for areas where just about every CofS member is going to be on the same page as just about every heretic.
After that, when looking for commonality, you get a lot more things where CofSers just about always think that but only some heretics do. Like brooking criticism of Scn and Hubbard. Very few CofSers would countenance that, right? And some heretics are greatly turned off and even angered by it. But only some. It no longer is 99%/99% or whatever. Maybe it's more like 99%/48% or hell, I don't know. I made those ratios up anyway. Point is that by this time the two camps/categories are diverging.
So where are they different?
Quite a few heretics picket. You aren't going to see a CofS member doing that. At least not one who isn't truly out in his or her heart, even if the cult didn't make it official with a nice piece of goldenrod on legal size paper.
I've yet to meet any heretic who thought there should be an RPF or any RPFing.
Very few CofSers (I have met some who did it in secret but still, pretty rare. Certainly not a party line kind of thing.) would even consider criticizing Hubbard or Scn itself. Yet I see a lot of heretics doing it.
I don't see any freeloader debts in the heretic's scene.
No enforced or even suggested abortions amongst heretics.
No one goes after minor children or young adults to make them join Heretic Staff.
No isolation watches in Heretic-land. Most heretics I talk to find this to be an appalling practice. They are keenly aware that they aren't doctors and, what's more, do not have the right to restrain anyone or step in as loco parentis for someone incapacitated. I have the distinct impression that this is a lesson that CofS has yet to learn
Heretics don't have a centralized price list (or any centralization) and don't charge high prices or have insane regging events wherein people are pushed to liquidate assets that they probably will never get back.
No Idle Org or Super Power buildings and the endless financial finagling for such by Heretics.
Heretics don't tell people to check this or that with their MAA or EO and whom to block on Facebook with those directives in mind.
The above are primary points of criticism against Scn/CofS. They are the things that make the news. They are the things that inspire pickets. So these are huge differences. So when someone tells me that heretics are the same as CofSers- which I've been hearing for years and years-I really wonder what color the sky is in their world.
Now, if one were to comment on the similarities I stated above- and that has been said- then that would make sense. But overall, as far as what people do that makes them considered immoral, unethical, wrong headed or just plain bad- those differences are huge and they do exist.
There are individual variances amongst CofSers, too, but if a person's really in CofS and isn't secretly out or secretly dissenting, then those differences can be pretty minute. Unlike the above stated ones.
I will end this op with a reiteration of my belief that wishing to examine and disagree with heretical Scn is healthy and we're a whole lot better off doing it than not, for those who are interested in doing so.
