Should Scientologists have the right to practice Scientology?

[JBWriter]

How do you define "Scientology"?

While there are many definitions kindly offered in the posts/threads here at ESMB, the largest differences appear to be whether or not the person offering the definition is a current member of Co$, former member of Co$, or current believer/practitioner. I have no definitions to offer as yet, if ever, but I am able to contribute a few, brief descriptions which may help others craft useful definitions.

Scientology is an Applied Philosophy - Co$, both management and members, appear to believe that it's best for all, including those people not affiliated with Co$, to believe this is the best description of what scientology is. To obtain the real/true definition of scientology, a person would/should pay money, time, attention, and effort directly to Co$. ("It's our way or the highway, buddy!" - You want a mystery sandwich, it's gonna cost ya.")

Scientology is a Misapplied Philosophy - Many Indies/FZers appear to believe that Co$ (and many believers/practitioners within the Independent/Freezone arenas) misapply the philosophy - and, in the doing, make scientology wrong/unworkable. ("You're doing it wrong!" - "No, you're doing it wrong!") For scientology to work correctly, it must be applied in a variant form - which is to say it must be misapplied differently than it is currently being misapplied by Co$ and/or other Indies/FZers.

Scientology is Applied Homogeneity - Many former members of Co$ describe their time 'in' as having lost their full autonomy - having had their minds/wills subdued in varying degrees, their judgment and critical thinking abilities lessened/removed - and nearly all describe the constant reinforcement of a shared group mentality. There was only 'one way to be' while in the company of fellow scientologists - infractions of that posture were immediately, and painfully/expensively, rectified. ("I've got your 'out ethics' right here, pal." *points to crotch* - "Yeah, bankrupt, no degree, crapped credit score - but I'm out and there's no stopping me now, f*ckers!" *fist pump*)

I don't think the above descriptions perfect but they are offered here with hopes of helping others.

JB.

 

[Enthetan]

So what about the ethics system in Scientology. Should this be a reason to make the practice of Scientology illegal?

My answer to this is that the idea of KRs & ethics conditions are introduced to a new Scientologist fairly early. The ethics book is part of the basics book package. So if a person decides to buy into that kind of "dob in a mate" attitude, then that's on them.

As for the SP doctrine of disconnection - it's no different to religious shunning that a lot of religions practice. It sucks & it's horrible but again, if you buy into it then that's on you. If you want to be part of a religion that separates you from your loved ones because of a difference of opinion then surely that is your right. It's stupid & harmful, but it's your right.

The main thing that allowed Scn to be actively harmful was the tactics of the GO and OSA: dirty tricks, harassment, and active criminal activities against anybody who spoke up about abuses, or who tried to practice Dianetics or Scn outside of the control of official Scn.

If Scn had competition, if people could just walk out of the org at the first "face ripping" and go get Scn delivered elsewhere, orgs would either change behavior or go bust. Most likely they would go bust, they way they are doing now.

 

[TG1]

Thanks, Gadfly. I know most ex-Scientologists take months, years or decades to rid themselves of all the cultic traces. I read virtual friends' stories here (like Auditor Toad's) about how their "ex" friends are still so trapped in Scio think. It's very sad to read and surely maddening to live with.

It's a cult. I don't think everything even begins to come into view until you really glimpse that you were in a cult created by a cult leader. Everything about the cult was designed to trap you further in the cult. Maybe if you had them look at other cults, they'd start to see that Scientology was also a cult?

It's so embarrassing to realize and then admit it was just a cult.

TG1

 

[Enthetan]

I have never understood this concept, personally, of someone practicing “Scientology” without the “bad stuff”.

It might be my particular issue because I spent pretty much my entire Scientology career in the Sea Org. But these are some basic rules I remember.


1. Scientology cannot exist without a strong central organization.

2. If you don’t get in ethics, tech won’t go in. And KRs (including session KRs), people reporting on each other for the sake of “the group” and everything that comes with it are part of “ethics going in”.

3. Scientology will never survive unless KSW is followed to the letter. And KSW specifically says: you buy all of it or none of it. You don’t get to pick and choose.

4. Following point 2, the Sea Org was created to get in ethics and to ensure the strong central organization exists.

5. The organization needs to be protected using 1) PR, 2) Investigation and 3) Legal.


I read this stuff about Freezone auditors claiming they “deliver 100% standard tech” ... in their apartment, or whatever.

How is it that they can say it’s “100% LRH standard tech” if LRH says you can’t have standard tech without the whole ethics thing and a strong central organization? That you need an ethics department? That you need orgs? That you need the Sea Org? That you need Legal and PR?

This is making the assumption that Scientology is an ala carte menu where you can pick out certain things you like and not have to get the broccoli.

LRH wrote volumes to say “it doesn’t work that way”.

That’s the whole thrust behind administrative policy. That's why hundreds of Flag Orders. That’s why Ethics and the C/S. That’s why there was a legal arm. That’s why there’s an SO.

He said, you need all of it or none of it works.

So, who gets to draw this imaginary line about the part that you can do and leave out the part you aren’t doing and decide it’s Scientology?

OK, so don't call it Scientology, say it's derived from Scn.

Meanwhile, the period of greatest growth in Scn appears to have been when they had lots of field auditors operating far away from any day-to-day control of Central HQ, where the role of Central Orgs was just to deliver standard training.

As the cost of long-distance telephone went down, and email became essentially free, enabling more and more direct micro-management from Central HQ, Scn went into collapse in proportion to the amount of direct control exercised by HQ.

 

[Lulu Belle]

You bring up a great point. At some point in the late 1950s or early 1960s, Hubbard came up with this word, "Scientology".

Then, day after day, month after month, and year after year, he added some things and took out other things, and still always called this mixture "Scientology".

It always seemed so weird to me that since 1965 and the advent of KSW, that Scientologists were told to accept and believe that "we have the technology" and that the "technology always works when correctly applied". But at the same time Hubbard was ALWAYS greatly changing the content of this supposed subject called "Scientology".

Hubbard was constantly coming up with new processes to "undercut" WHY the earlier stuff wasn't "getting the results" (which he never stated or actually admitted).

It always floored me that we were supposed to accept and believe that "Scientology was the only valid workable mental & spiritual technology", yet it was ALWAYS being added to and taken away from by Hubbard - yet he always claimed that it was fine and perfect at any time, and that Scientologists should NEVER alter it in any way because it HAD to be "applied exactly to get the exact results". What Hubbard basically admitted by his endless additions to the "tech" is that it DID NOT WORK at the earlier points of time, even though at every earlier time he claimed that it did work as it should!

I really liked how you put it:

"Scientology was simply whatever extortion scheme Hubbard determined he preferred at any given time. Scientology was whatever Hubbard was even paying attention to at the time. Scientology was his insanity that became OUR group insanity".

now we're getting somewhere...

 

[La La Lou Lou]

The main thing that allowed Scn to be actively harmful was the tactics of the GO and OSA: dirty tricks, harassment, and active criminal activities against anybody who spoke up about abuses, or who tried to practice Dianetics or Scn outside of the control of official Scn.

If Scn had competition, if people could just walk out of the org at the first "face ripping" and go get Scn delivered elsewhere, orgs would either change behavior or go bust. Most likely they would go bust, they way they are doing now.

Well in that case indi scientology must be booming like crazy!

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

OK, so don't call it Scientology, say it's derived from Scn.

Meanwhile, the period of greatest growth in Scn appears to have been when they had lots of field auditors operating far away from any day-to-day control of Central HQ, where the role of Central Orgs was just to deliver standard training.

As the cost of long-distance telephone went down, and email became essentially free, enabling more and more direct micro-management from Central HQ, Scn went into collapse in proportion to the amount of direct control exercised by HQ.

Scientology went into collapse in proportion to the amount of access to the truth.

 

[Enthetan]

No. Psychopathy (or "sociopathy" as some mental health professionals prefer) doesn't depend on the psychopath having knowledge or insights into his or her disorder. But they sometimes do have such insights. Hubbard used what he knew of the disorder to serve his psychopathic purposes.

No. Psychopathy does not mean "crazy," in the sense of mental illness.

Hubbard attempted to conflate "insanity" with "evil intentions," but he was completely wrong.

The psychopath is not necessarily irrational, in the sense of being unable to know what the consequences of actions are. He is not necessarily crazy, in the sense of not seeing the world the way the rest of us do.

The essence of the psychopath is that he is willing to harm others in order to get what he wants, and harming others in pursuit of his objectives doesn't bother him.

There needs to be a balance between compassion (being concerned about the well-being of others) and self-interest.

Too far to the "self-interest" side, we have what people call psychopaths: self-interested predators who will not hesitate to harm others in order to get what they want. They can turn into remorseless predators. They are the wolves of the environment.

Too far to the compassionate side, we have people unable to harm others, even in defense of themselves and their families. They can turn into defenseless prey. They are the sheep of the environment.

Somewhere in the middle, we have the people who are needed to protect the too-empathic from the predators. As Orwell is said to have put it: "People sleep soundly in their beds because rough men stand ready to perform violence on their behalf". They are the sheepdogs of the environment.

My main issue with Martha Stout's book is that she neglected studying the third category.

 

[Enthetan]

To me, with a higher use of the term "love" (in the unconditional sense), one never attempts or aims to change anything. You accept it just as it is, and LOVE it just as it is. Love rains down upon us like the rain on the flowers.

Sometimes love requires you to try to change somebody. If you discovered your friend was becoming addicted to heroin, would you try your best to change that, or would you accept your friend's addiction and help him find clean needles?

When I notice my kids' behavior is going to lead them into a bad situation, I can get quite emphatic in aiming to change things. When my oldest was a teen, she got very upset at some of what I did. Lately she's come around.

 

[Gadfly]

Sometimes love requires you to try to change somebody. If you discovered your friend was becoming addicted to heroin, would you try your best to change that, or would you accept your friend's addiction and help him find clean needles?

When I notice my kids' behavior is going to lead them into a bad situation, I can get quite emphatic in aiming to change things. When my oldest was a teen, she got very upset at some of what I did. Lately she's come around.

On the surface, of course, I would attempt to get them to change their behavior (based on their own free will and choice). No, I wouldn't help clean the needles. I would let them know what I thought, with no exaggerated emotional BS, and just calm sane communication. I would do my best to steer them along a better path. But sometimes people don't want to go where you suggest, no matter how strongly and well you might do the suggesting.

But, if that failed, and they continued to be a destructive person, who also might hurt others whom I know, I would be sure to keep this person AWAY from other people who he or she might harm, and also, on the deeper level, I would "let it be" whatever it ends up being. I would love the person, continue to care, but also know that sometimes reality does not conform to even my best wishes, persistence and hopes. :confused2:

I suppose the best way to explain this is that my deepest, most basic "ground of being" is settled within serenity and peace, love and compassion. From THAT viewpoint I "go with the flow", BUT on a surface level, where I deal with day-to-day living, I do my best to help wherever I can in the best way that is real to me at the moment. But in the end, I accept, as best I can, whatever will be - will be.

Knock on wood - my kids have never had any interest in drugs, booze, smoking cigarettes, or other "less-than-desirable" habits and behaviors. I am very grateful for THAT!

 

[Idle Morgue]

It is indeed an excellent read. How you think it speaks to the question regarding a scientologist's right to practice scientology escapes me. We're talking about freedom of choice and individual rights here, aren't we?

Got a point Panda - Maybe we need to rephrase the question?

Should Scientologist's practice Scientology?

 

[Panda Termint]

I said, in reference to the Lawrence Brennan document;

It is indeed an excellent read. How you think it speaks to the question regarding a scientologist's right to practice scientology escapes me. We're talking about freedom of choice and individual rights here, aren't we?

To which, you said;

Ahhh . . . Human Rights. Is it a human right to have your mind fucked by some kitchen hypnotist who believes in Engrams?

To which I said;

Personally, I'd advise against it but if that's what you really want to do with your life, Infinite, I support your right to do such things.

To which you said:

Really - you would advise against it? Why's that? Genuine question, if you don't mind me asking.

To which, I said;

I think you've already spent way too much of your life thinking about "kitchen hypnotists" and the existence of "engrams". (just kidding)

If someone mentioned to me that they were thinking of trying Dianetics as a therapy, I'd advise them to get themselves fully informed about the theory and consider alternatives as a more beneficial possibility. If they were insistent on going the Dianetics route I'd advise them to find a capable, caring auditor with a proven track record and to avoid, like the plague, any involvement with the CofS. Honest answer.

You then asked, "Ummm . . . where's the advise to AVOID?"

That question tells me that your sarcasm detector is on the blink. I advised that you avoid "kitchen hypnotists" and concerning yourself too much about people who "believe in engrams".

Your implied definition of what an Auditor is and what is occurring in auditing certainly isn't mine. As I've said before in answer to the "what is scientology?" question, there are possibly as many scientologies as there are scientologists (and critics taking time invent definitions of it). For scientologists there are of, course, many points of agreement and similarity in how they define it but ultimately it is always a mental construct, something created and thought of as that thing. The same can probably be said of the mental construct that is scientology to critics.

As I've said many times before, "Scientology: it's never going to be what you wish it was."

What is NOT a mental construct is the physical actuality that is the CofS and it's various forms and the activities thereof. The crimes and abuse perpetrated by that corporate entity and individuals in the name of scientology are the thing I wish to see curtailed and gone from this world. The Belief System? Meh, people believe weird shit all the time. I think people have a right to believe as they choose.

 

[Anonycat]

Dammit, I stuck my nose in this thread again!

Just for the record, I am a little surprised at the perspective I am getting now. Panda, who I have met in person, and also have been in touch for both fun & hijinks over these past years since Chanology, he is one who is an ex, and totally free of it. I had him hold the cans on a non-calibrated anonymeter, and he came up with flying colors. Seriously ... and I say this with 40+ years of exposure to the cult - Panda T. is the best example I have seen of unpolluted souls. I don't know how or why, nor do I need to. It was so obvious that he is one of the most fantastic people I have ever met, that I still talk about it today.

[edit] PS - and I have never ever known him to push a benefit of scientology.

 

[Lone Star]

Should Christians have the right to practice Christianity?

Should Muslims have the right to practice Islam?

Should Jews have the right to practice Judaism?

Should Buddhists have the right to practice Buddhism?

Should Hindus have the right to practice Hinduism?

Should Satanists have the right to practice Satanism?

Should Shamans have the right to practice Shamanism?

Should Wiccans have the right to practice Wicca/Witchcraft?

Should Astrologers have the right to practice Astrology?

Should Critics have the right to Criticize?

Should Skeptics have the right to be Right?

 

[Infinite]

I said, in reference to the Lawrence Brennan document;


To which, you said;


To which I said;


To which you said:


To which, I said;


You then asked, "Ummm . . . where's the advise to AVOID?"

That question tells me that your sarcasm detector is on the blink. I advised that you avoid "kitchen hypnotists" and concerning yourself too much about people who "believe in engrams".

Your implied definition of what an Auditor is and what is occurring in auditing certainly isn't mine. As I've said before in answer to the "what is scientology?" question, there are possibly as many scientologies as there are scientologists (and critics taking time invent definitions of it). For scientologists there are of, course, many points of agreement and similarity in how they define it but ultimately it is always a mental construct, something created and thought of as that thing. The same can probably be said of the mental construct that is scientology to critics.

As I've said many times before, "Scientology: it's never going to be what you wish it was."

What is NOT a mental construct is the physical actuality that is the CofS and it's various forms and the activities thereof. The crimes and abuse perpetrated by that corporate entity and individuals in the name of scientology are the thing I wish to see curtailed and gone from this world. The Belief System? Meh, people believe weird shit all the time. I think people have a right to believe as they choose.

If you're not going to advise people against doing Scientology, then please don't say that you do. To answer your initial question

It is indeed an excellent read. How you think it speaks to the question regarding a scientologist's right to practice scientology escapes me. We're talking about freedom of choice and individual rights here, aren't we?

. . . I suggest that a read of the Brennan Document would make it clear that Scientology is anti-Human Rights and peels back the mendacity which underpins it. It speaks to the question regarding a scientology's right to practise by providing sufficient information which might prompt the scientologist to consider whether or not it is, indeed, their right to further a fraud.

 

[In present time]

If you're not going to advise people against doing Scientology, then please don't say that you do.

where is the wanker icon? i cant find it.

 

[Gib]

I said, in reference to the Lawrence Brennan document;


To which, you said;


To which I said;


To which you said:


To which, I said;


You then asked, "Ummm . . . where's the advise to AVOID?"

That question tells me that your sarcasm detector is on the blink. I advised that you avoid "kitchen hypnotists" and concerning yourself too much about people who "believe in engrams".

Your implied definition of what an Auditor is and what is occurring in auditing certainly isn't mine. As I've said before in answer to the "what is scientology?" question, there are possibly as many scientologies as there are scientologists (and critics taking time invent definitions of it). For scientologists there are of, course, many points of agreement and similarity in how they define it but ultimately it is always a mental construct, something created and thought of as that thing. The same can probably be said of the mental construct that is scientology to critics.

As I've said many times before, "Scientology: it's never going to be what you wish it was."

What is NOT a mental construct is the physical actuality that is the CofS and it's various forms and the activities thereof. The crimes and abuse perpetrated by that corporate entity and individuals in the name of scientology are the thing I wish to see curtailed and gone from this world. The Belief System? Meh, people believe weird shit all the time. I think people have a right to believe as they choose.

true dat.

It says in KSW

you can only be upbraided for NO results.

KSW doesn't say SOME results, or a FEW results.

Hey, what's the problem. You got a result, right, you wrote a success story.

KSW doesn't say it will last, just you got "a result".

He, hubbard, was right.

 

[Free to shine]

Well in that case indi scientology must be booming like crazy!

That "booming" word always got me.

It creates pictures of people striding along with big bass drums. Or the echo of a mining explosion down windswept valleys. It is a loud word, a chaotic word. Certainly not a spiritual one.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Ahhh . . . Human Rights. Is it a human right to have your mind fucked by some kitchen hypnotist who believes in Engrams?

LOL ---- YUP

 

[Infinite]

If you're not going to advise people against doing Scientology, then please don't say that you do . . .

Upon reflection, I take this statement back and apologise. Toad helped me see the light. Yes, for a person already imbued with the KoolAid and intent on pursuing that, advising them to read *all* (or at least a diverse range of) the available information with a view to considering other possibilities amounts, fairly and squarely, to "advising against". Especially if it is a good friend one wants to maintain contact with. My confusion stemmed from my mental image picture (lol) of who the person seeking advice might be. In my mind, that would be a person who had never had much to do with the subject and, in that case, a more strident approach may be warranted so as to qualify as "advising against". And then, of course, there are personal styles . . . etc etc.

As you were.