Another in the continuing series of thought-provoking essays from Terra Cognita.
TC’s previous posts: The Survival Rundown – The Latest Scam, Communication in Scientology… Or Not, Am I Still A Thetan?, To Be Or Not To Be, An Evaluation of Scientology, Fear: That Which Drives Scientology and Justification and Rationalization.
A few weeks ago, a person contributed an essay to this blog in which he talked about respecting a friend still firmly involved in the Church of Scientology. Over the years, I’ve wrestled with the concept of “respect” and how to apply it to the people in my life—both to friends and to those who no longer are.
On one hand, I respect “our troops” and the purpose of protecting America. On the other, I don’t agree with—or respect—the country’s foreign policy, and these troops’ decision to play that game. Especially when that game translates into invading other countries and murdering thousands of innocents.
Political correctness notwithstanding, respecting others’ beliefs unequivocally can be a difficult task. Some beliefs make little sense. Some seem like they were fermented inside the depths of a delusional mind. Still other beliefs, such as “disconnection,” are pointblank evil. Conviction and faith in the name of religion can be especially dangerous.
The word “respect” has several different meaning—which makes a big difference and can be confusing.
Definition 1: “To show regard or consideration for”
Showing regard and consideration for others is a good thing, right? I respect a person’s right to dress the way he chooses or listen to the music of his choice. Or to drive a shit-brown-colored Ford.
A classic example, and founding principle of America, is respecting others’ rights to practice the religion of their choice. I’m fine with people worshiping imaginary gods and believing evolution is a hoax, even if my philosophic tendencies lean more toward hardcore science fiction.
But what if their religion does more harm than good? Do I still respect a person’s right to engage in activities which hurt others? And what about the person himself? Should I respect him? Even just a little? More often than not, people like this wear blinders and think they’re saving the world. Respect is hard to earn without lines of open communication
Definition 2: “To refrain from intruding upon or interfering with”
Few appreciate others getting in our business. “Respecting a person’s right to privacy,” or again, “practicing the religion of one’s choice,” are two examples. The right to privacy has even been written into law. Everyone likes their privacy. The Church of Scientology is no exception. I doubt there’s a more secretive religious sect on the planet. I can’t help but think that those which are the most private and guarded, are those covering up the most crimes and have the most to lose.
Right to privacy aside, should I not interfere with a religious practice that is harming others? Would I not be obligated to at least speak out against harmful practices? Scientologists call “doing nothing,” an overt of omission.
Helping others is human nature; preventing harm is a close corollary.
Definition 3: “To hold in esteem or honor”
By this definition, it seems possible to respect a person, while at the same time, not respect his practices. I might respect our president but not necessarily his decision to invade Asskikastan. Others would withhold their respect for him AND for his actions. Can I really separate the two, though? It’s damn hard to respect a person involved in questionable practices.
I don’t always agree with my spouse’s recall of past events, but in no way has this diminished my love and respect.
Do No Harm
Before respecting a person’s beliefs, one should make sure these practices make sense, and determine if they’re beneficial or destructive. Which can be hard to do because life isn’t always painted black and white. What if their religion does more good than harm? Does the good outweigh the bad? Eating fish on Friday is fairly benign. And I like salmon. Stoning adulterers to death is rather severe.
What if a religion’s practices were seventy percent good to thirty percent bad? Do I respect the good and ignore the bad? Or do I withhold my respect altogether? Examining practices and beliefs, case by case, might be wise.
At the least, open and honest discussion of these practices and beliefs is mandatory for my respect.
An all too recent example is the suicide bomber who blows up innocent people in the name of Allah and the promise of a harem-full of virgins. Can I with good conscience respect this man’s right to practice this religion? And can I be expected to separate the “right” from the “practice”?
Respect, Religion, and Those Still In
I just can’t respect a person’s right to practice “any” religion. Some are just too harmful and hateful. By extension, I don’t respect those who do harm in the name of religious conviction. This would include blind followers, who, even if they don’t directly participate in the damage, give tacit consent by not doing anything to prevent the harm.
It’s hard to fully respect a person when I don’t respect his actions—even if those actions aren’t harmful to others, but only to himself. It’s especially hard to respect a person who won’t communicate and refuses to look at alternative points of view.
I narrowly respect friends still inside Scientology with regards to their right to do whatever the fuck they want, but I don’t respect their decisions to support, not just the harmful practices, but those based on fantasy. I’m cool with Jack and Sally auditing themselves up to the state of “Clear.” I’m not cool with charging outrageous sums of money for the privilege. And I’m certainly not cool with the practice of disconnection and Fair Game.
Just like most everything else in life, “respect” isn’t static, but can be scaled and is subject to change. Respect varies depending on a person’s actions. My respect for Joe rises due to his volunteer work in the community. Respect for Joe climbs from 7.0 to 8.5. My respect for Sal plummets when I learn he’s selling heroin to kids. Sal drops from 6.0 to 1.2. I wholly don’t respect David Miscavige—in every sense of the word. Little Davey is assigned a minus 1.1.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
P.S. I love all the names you’ve coined for DM and Scientology. Two of my favorites are “the Little Fuhrer,” and the “Clampire.”
“respecting others’ beliefs”
Nope. I respect others right to have their own beliefs. I in no way respect what those beliefs are, if they violate rules of life I consider fundamental to existence as a human being.
In considering whether to respect the religious beliefs of Scientology, perhaps one should consider whether or not Scientology/Scientologists, in reality – as opposed to lip service – respect the religious beliefs of anyone else, including persons who once believed in Scientology, but no longer hold those beliefs or remain in the Church. In that light, I can’t respect Scientology, due to the utter hypocrisy they practice when it comes to respecting beliefs.
Hi Terra Cognita, Thank you for all your pieces here.You have given another perspective on the cult and forged another link in the SP chain of us bitter defrocked apostates on yhe fringes of the Internet! Still love saying that! Thank you from my heart.XO AnnB.
Thanks, Ann!
Respect is earned by doing good works, of which Scientology makes claims to, but in actual fact does the opposite. A vital step for those still in would be in finding their ruin. When they realize it’s Scientology, they’ll start gaining some self-respect.
Member about to become an ex: Hey, John! I finally found my ruin!
John: Hey, that’s great, Nick! What is it?
Nick: Scientology! And I am soooooo out of here!
The word “Scientology” is a beautiful word; the study of wisdom, knowing how to know.
The problem is this; Scientology is not Scientology. In fact, Scientology is the study of what Ron knows. And if you move off that line you become an evil demon.
If Scientology was actually Scientology, the subject would grow as a result of new findings. And new findings would imply strongly that methods would change as a result of increasing “knowing.” And methods change with constructive criticism.
But criticism, constructive or destructive, is a punishable offense in “Scientology.”
So, Scientology is not what the word means. In actual fact the word Scientology really means the study of what Ron knows and the harsh punishment of those that disagree.
Scientology is really the belief in Ron’s fallacious scientism, with a smattering of blown charge from looking within at the mind to find root causes of suffering.
And in that regard Scientology is a fundamentalist belief system masquerading as reasonable.
And tell me this:
If Scientology was a science, it is the first science that only has one person revealing new findings.
That’s like saying that only Kepler is the only person who can discover new astronomical theories.
And because the “science” called Scientology only allows one person to know anything about life and the mind, it proves that Ron’s technique at thought control is based on his writing “Altitude Instruction”, which states that the hypnotic operator will always know a little more than anyone else can know.
Scientology is the study of Ron’s knowing, Ron’s subconscious imagination.
In a true science you will always have individuals contributing to the knowing.
In Scientology, anyone contributing to the knowing is violating KSW. And in that regard Scientology is destructive to real knowing how to know.
It’s knowing how Ron knows.
And what Ron knows:
Farsec, I’m Buddha, I’m Lucifer, a charmer of vestal virgins, the gay man Cecil Rhodes, Ron’s trip to heaven, don’t tell me about those pink legs, all critics are murderous evil people…………………………
Is the result of Ron’s manic personality with paranoid tendencies.
Have you ever thought that you have given your sovereign thinking capacity over to a madman?
Albeit a genius, yet a madman
Hi Brian, A great post,thank you.Yes I knew toward the end I had given over my soul to Ron who was in another place.I am so glad I was able to turn the car around,that was myself,and get the hell away from all of it.Fast.Love to you 2 always XO Ann B
Call it Science-apology.
Lots of truth in your words, Brian.
I’d just like to point out that LRH had an opinion on this topic. This is from Way To Happiness page 151.
“RESPECT THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF OTHERS”
“Tolerance is a good corner stone on which to build human relationships. When one views the slaughter and suffering caused by religious intolerance down all the history of Man and into modern times, one can see that intolerance is a very non-survival activity.
Religious intolerance does not mean one cannot express his own beliefs. It does mean that seeking to undermine or attack the religious faiths and beliefs of another has always been the short road to trouble.”
…
“If all the brightest minds since the fifth century B.C. or before have never been able to agree on the subject of religion or anti-religion, it is an arena of combat that one would do well to stay out of.
In this area of contention, one bright principle has emerged: the right to believe as one chooses.
“Faith” and “belief” do not necessarily surrender to logic: they cannot even be declared to be illogical.
They can be things quite apart.
“Any advice one might give another on this subject is safest when it simply asserts the right to believe as one chooses. One is at liberty to hold up up his own beliefs for acceptance. One is at risk when he seeks to assault the beliefs of of others, much more so when he attacks and seeks to harm them because of their religious convictions.”
“People have a right to believe whatever they like, obviously. They also have a right to laugh at peoples’ beliefs when those people reveal them publicly. It doesn’t matter if the beliefs are religious or political or scientific.” Roger Hornaday (quoting myself for added authoritativeness)
“RESPECT THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF OTHERS”
With all do disrespect to Ron Hubbard, I prefer to agree, disagree, ridicule or ignore any ideas entering the public domain either verbally or in writing, as I see fit and according to my pleasure. I don’t have to respect anything but I do have to stay out of the way of other peoples’ rights.
Great post, roger! I like having a belief. And…I believe I’ll have another beer!
Thanks Surfer Dude. I KNOW I’m going to have another beer. Isn’t knowledge wonderful?
Thanks for the reminder. The guy’s right: it isn’t religious beliefs that cause problems, it is the intolerance of others that cause problems. My guess is that religion is just an excuse used to mask underlying hatreds.
Nickname. Some religions have as a pillar, intolerance of others (who aren’t of that religion) and/or those who commit what said religion defines as “sins” … 😉
Scientology is definitely one of those I just described.
Dan: I like how you introduced “tolerance” into the discussion.
Sure Dan, Ron wrote his opinion about religious tolerance just like he wrote countless opinions about everything else. He also stated that “there is no Christ”, wrote that the man on the cross is an implant, and that Jesus was a lover of young boys (apparently he knew this too. So I beg to differ. Christians would find these ‘opinions’ to be false, or at the very least, offensive. Just because Ron wrote an opinion on religious tolerance doesn’t mean he followed it by his own statements, and it therefore appears that he wrote this ‘opinion’ to serve himself and his own religion, Scientology.
My standard position on religion is to say, “As a humanist, I respect religion where it is humanistic and I disrespect religion where it is not humanistic.” As far as practices go, “I respect religions where the practice is effective and gives positive results and disrespect religion where the practice yields no or negative results.” While the stated aims of Scientology are humanistic, the practice yields very little positive results. Hence, there is not much to respect in it.
I have a lot of respect for TC (Terra Cognita) and I have lost all respect for TC (Tom Cruise). The first because it exhorts to reflection and wisdom the second because it exudes arrogance and condo nes a factory of forfeited dreams which abuses its members in the name of “religion”. Thank you for all your excellent posts.
Scientology targets the very personal YOU.
And that fact bears the true weight of their crime, this “church”.
Isolated, you are easy meat. First to go is your identity. You are now, rather, a scientologist.
The change comes subtly, unnoticed even, that your personal thoughts of future possibilities have been completely altered. A brand new set of possibilities have been aptly mapped out for you now…
And you “think” you are thinking for yourself.
No longer comes the idea, the one you had initially, that maybe this won’t work. This cult is the master at blasting that thought right out of your head and every idea similar to it. Doubt is not allowed. It is certainly not “OT”.
And from that point on you are no longer really a person any more than you are a token of designated value. That is, something to wager. Hubbard bets that he can have all of you, every last particle along with the rest of your life – and if he doesn’t get the whole banana, well, he is sure to throw you along with your butt right back out onto the street or whatever, the wilderness, with total disregard for the outcome,
yours.
Now that’s the honest Truth. Nary the best example of real and genuine, total disrespect for a human being; it is a void of respect and compassion altogether.
Scientology is an aggressive, profit-oriented cult of persuasion. And that’s all they were ever really good at. They are certainly not “the answer”. Do I take that seriously? You bet.
After all, they made it personal.
Hi bug, Thank you for this post.You came and in one instant gave a concise and for me,very understandable view on Scientology.As of now in my life,I have no problem with worship of whatever or nothing at all or in between .The problem for me becomes an ethical and spiritual one,when those categories cross over into,harm,hurt and death.And those in,the celebs,the whales, the SO slaves refuse to see the harm done.I just cannot respect that outlook.Even with Ron spinning on Target 2 and David having difficulties,the titanium carved beliefs that Ron’s Words are Law becomes their Trap.Love your comments.XO Ann B
Absolutely NOTHING good can come of being a member of the Cult of Scientology. Nothing….
A difficulty is that the people who most stridently demand “Ree-Spect” are often those least worthy of it, at least in their current condition.
The late Ian Tampion often pointed out that a being always remains themself, a static, beyond whatever craziness they’ve built around themselves in the course of living. We can respect the person themself – in other words, grant them beingness – without having to do the same to their aberrations. This is the attitude of any good auditor to their preclears. It’s probably also what Christians mean by ‘loving the sinner, but not the sin’.
Religion and faith is one thing, (yes, I know that’s a bit off, but one can have a faith without subscribing to a religion), Fanaticism is another. Most of the harmful effects of a religion are the result of people taking whatever the tenets of their chosen faith to a point beyond reason or tolerance for others. this is as true in Scientology as it is in Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions. One may argue that LRH sowed the seeds of fanaticism deep in the beginnings of scientology. a cult is by definition a fanatical enterprise, and many of the practices put forth in Scn are designed to make people as deeply entrenched as possible, to stop them thinking critically and to act in a manner that considers the whole rather than the individual. but there are many other examples of such cultic thought processes in the more mainstream religions as well; the Hassidic and Ultra Orthodox Jews, the Quiverfull movements, the radical Muslim extremist sects, even political groups are subject to this fanatical response.
I am okay with respecting someone’s beliefs if they are willing to respect mine. And those people who do respect others’ beliefs are not the ones killing people in the name of their God or shunning their families etc. Fanatics do not believe in respecting others right to be, they want to bend one to their will or break them. That is not something worthy of respect. That is dangerous and harmful.
Hi sashiebgood,Good to see you.I liked your post.I have felt along the same lines.Although it did take me many years to shake the last of the Ron Aid out! Very potent stuff. And what they are doing to the little ones in the promo pieces,turns my tummy!XOXO
For a technology so steeped in the meanings of words and what happening when they’re misunderstood – Scientology sure fails on all counts to relate that to their environment (there’s nothing wrong with being literate, but there’s everything wrong about with being stupid about it). Also, what they call dynamics, they don’t recognize them for what they actually are and do. Silly people Scientologists, very silly and they have lost all humanity and put some sort of insanity, even they can’t define nor see in it’s place.
Trusting a Scientologist is akin to trusting a heroin addict. They’ll betray you no matter what you do for them.
Sorry about the typos, my head went “nuts” recalling so many stupid M9s I was forced to do against my will. Especially KSW1 over and over and the equally ridiculous M9ing of the story of Simon Bolivar. I believe they enforced the ‘law of diminishing returns’ with their stupidly enforced so called learning procedures, exampled by time pressure associated with a statistical deadline ie Thursday 2pm on students, let alone PCs, but that’s too gruesome to contemplate.
I quite enjoyed the study tech when I was first introduced to it, but like everything else in the Orgs they fucked it up by dehumanizing & suppression from above.
Hi I Yawnalot,I like both your posts.Simon Bolivar! That was drilled into my head too! When I was on the Excal a double gangway was installed next to ours.It had Simon Bolivar on it and a huge Sea Org symbol in sparkles on the treads.We were wanting to see her as we were waiting on a part for the engine,so we’re stuck dockside.But like those OT Levels when I was shipboard at least The SB never showed up.An excellent point about Sci knowing and Chinese schooling,thank you Ron, the dynamics but not doing them.Very astute.XO Ann B
I Yawnalot: I hated M9ing with a passion!!! Didn’t make sense then; doesn’t make sense now.
Been having an issue with the R word here of late as well. Took it to it’s lowest common denominator. I don’t have to respect people, others don’t have to respect me, not my person, my ideas, my choices. What people do Have to do is not threaten, harm, touch, including (spit on) other people. I don’t have to “respect” anyone good or bad. Respect is a concept and as such is just my thoughts of them and hold no solid value. But it is a very cautionary note on this, for dropping respect can sometimes lead to dropping humanity and this can be very dangerous.
People need to remember that their own opinions on or about other people ends at the other persons physical being, and in this country, making threats for doing harm to another, either bodily or financially, socially or actually damaging their personal property is illegal.
This is a big country, you don’t have to like everyone, you don’t even have to “tolerate” them, that is a word that calls up a great deal of hubris in my mind, where do you get off tolerating me? Tolerance is also you making a choice about your personal opinion. You are “just putting up with me?” or else what? Now if tolerance meant minding your own damn business…
Now this view is coming from me, someone who walks down the street and experiences social harassment on a regular basis. Guess what screaming bullies, you are allowed to target me with your vitriol…unless you threaten me with violence or try to assault me physically. Oh And I have absolutely zero respect for you too.
Ultimately, we need the laws behind the concepts becasue so many people can not be trusted to behave with the “simple human decency” that the morals of respect and tolerance supposedly represent.
J: “social harassment on a regular basis”? What’s going on?
Terra Cognita hits several nails on the head and helps seal the lid on the Clampire’s coffin. There is a huge difference between ‘respect’ and ‘tolerate’. As Americans we have to tolerate different religions, not respect them. For too much of our nations history, Jews, Catholics and others have been the butt of mean spirited jokes, and much worse. As late as the 1960’s the KKK was bombing synagogues and black churches in the south. Intolerance can and does cost live. Being Shia in a Sunni area can be a recipe for death, if you’re in the wrong country.
No, you don’t have to ‘respect’ most behaviors caused by ‘religions’. But you may have to tolerate it.
As inventor of ‘clampire’ and ‘dwarfenführer’ I thank you for your kind words. I coined them to protest the behavior of $cientology. Not their beliefs. Their beliefs are bat shit crazy.
zemooo: I like your distinction between respect and tolerance. (and “dwarfenfuhrer”)
The Dworf is Lord and Master over the ‘Clampire’! This is too absolutely disgustingly rich!
Hi ClearMF, It is good to meet you.Love your post.Absolutely Disgusting is so perfect an image of dm! Thank you.XO Ann B
Terra Cognita, this is a powerful essay and I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
When I was younger, I used to say “I respect all religions” but over time, after giving it more thought, this changed to my saying: “I respect your right to choose any religion you feel is right for you, or to have no religion if you so choose.” Because the difference is I am respecting their right, not their religion.
But as time goes on, I find that my view has changed. As an advocate of human rights, as much as I have fought this idea, I’ve come to the understanding that the rights of the many may sometimes need to supercede the rights of the individual. So, what does this mean. I want to, theologically, assert than an individual can follow whatever practice their conscience dictates, that they have that right. But when I examine this more closely, I cannot reconcile myself with defending a person’s right to practice a religion whose custom it is to deny human rights to others.
So a religion that relegates an entire gender to the category of “subspecies” and views them as property, able to be sold, to be forced to marry someone not of their choosing, denied their children if they leave an abusive spouse, withheld from medical care, denied basic rights and free will over their lives, denies them their choice of housing, education, career, a bank account, the right to drive, to be in public by themself, or without wearing a restrictive covering, or any right afforded to the other gender, then I have difficulty saying “I respect your right to your religion” when your religion has customs and practices that severely infringe on the rights of others. When your religion, your belief system, is basically flawed and harmful. The same if your faith calls for you to convert or destroy others who don’t share your belief, if your faith calls for you to kill. So, if I am truly for human rights, it looks like I have to place that above an individual’s rights.
But where to draw the line? When is a practice or custom too harmful? How do we avoid going too far in the other direction so that we start disallowing rights that should be afforded? Use Scientology as an example. Shouldn’t people have the right to choose this belief system and explore aspects of their self, being and faith? If you deny this, won’t it just push it underground, to be done secretively, and then we are even less able to counteract the harmful aspects of it? What about similar faiths and groups? There is no definitive answer to this, and that’s why it’s important to explore these issues, as you have in your essay today.
So your essay today is on a topic I’ve recently been giving a lot of thought to, and I thank you for sharing your views and encouraging others to think about this also.
the reason why I got involved because I was convinced it was a science of the mind and life itself.
My bad. LOL
Hi singanddanceall, Good to meet you.I echo your post.I also thought the love-bombing was genuine and spoke to me.Boy did it,right onto my sig on that billion year servitude paper!xo Ann B.
T.J.: My views have changed over the years as well. Thanks.
I agree with almost all the points except this comment, “I don’t agree with—or respect—the country’s foreign policy, and these troops’ decision to play that game.”
Troops don’t make ‘a decision to play that game’. They are there because they are needed. Sometimes it’s a good cause and sometimes it isn’t. They put their lives on the line by the orders of those elected.
You can’t eliminate the military in a world full of threats and just reconstitute it when necessary.
Absolutely, thank you
I dunno. Personally I never agreed with the phrase, “I support the military but not the war”. I figured it was an asinine statement. If I don’t support the killing I don’t support those who are doing it.
You don’t support the killing until someone is about to kill you and your family and friends. Then you want some trained soldiers to defend you. Questions about good and evil disappear when one is personally under physical attack.
It isn’t just killing, either – it’s oppression, corruption, ignorance, vandalism and such that threaten freedom. Cuba has been in the news recently, but how many know of the true conditions in that country? Beside those who have to live there, that is. Fifty years of Castro and its population is still impoverished and deprived.
Capitalism and free markets have been continually proving themselves since the Renaissance in the 1600’s. So maybe that’s not Absolute Good and Heaven on Earth, but as Winston Churchill pointed out, we don’t have anything better.
“And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they themselves be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round.” (Winston Churchill, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill – the quote is under the heading in bold, “A history of the English-Speaking Peoples (1956-58),” a bit more than half-way down the article.)
Secretfornow: I agree with you. I contend the phrase “support our troops,” is pure propaganda intended to sway the American public away from looking at the real issues.
Which are …? A reactive mind, perhaps?
And you get people who do not want to look at that. Socrates spoke of it, Freud wrote extensively about it, Hubbard went deeper into the actual mechanics of a being, and deciphered it, yet you get people who do not want to look at it (e.g. a U.S. Executive who wanted to try to shut a real solution down because it was “presumptively dangerous,” sort of like Jesus was). Or, on the optimistic side, you get people who know it’s there, but are waiting for this to sort itself out, and are understandably confused about the lack or organization, which in turn was disorganized by “the real issues” which were, as always, a personal knife fight of words and intentions. Isn’t responsibility what we are trying to address?
If someone reads this, I will a) get ignored, or b) get slammed again with some negative assertion.
The really funny thing is, that if you think in terms of an admin scale, and you ask anyone from any walk of life what they want as an ideal scene for the world, you get things like “peace, happiness, prosperity,” and variations thereof. Maybe you have to dig a little to unravel the false purposes, but even the evil man wants to improve his Conditions, he just donno how. Upper strata will talk in terms of “We know what we want, the question is about how to achieve it.” You get lower strata who will start with being in a position of a tyrant lording everything over all – and you have to debug that and handle the excuses and justifiers such as “but they won’t let me advance, it’s all rigged by criminals.”
For sure, the militaries of the world make mistakes (blunders). “The Charge of the Light Brigade” comes to mind. Media is guilty of more mistakes than the military. The “pure propaganda” came from Nazi’s and Communists, not the U.S..
Bingo Nickname.
AFAIK, American soldiers still take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. When U.S. soldiers wage war outside the bounds of that Constitution, they don’t have my respect, although I still respect their desire to serve & protect the country.
The no. killed by governments is far, far greater than those killed by religion. Unbounded respect for the military is as illogical as unbounded respect for gov’t officials, LRH, Miscavige and Scientology.
WhatWall, give some RECENT examples of US soldiers waging war “outside” of the US Constitution (cite clause violating). I know of one example in the last 16 years that applies somewhat broadly but, no more.
I don’t care too much about respect but I do care about good manners and people staying out of each others’ way. Except of course when you’re compelled to point and laugh at ridiculous things and the people behind them.
Hi Roger,Good to see you.May I add,if the entity we are pointing at is a Sea Org member,Whoops our bad!! LOLXXOO
Hi Ann, the last time I talked to a Sea Org member was a few months ago at the Atlanta Ideal Org ribbon cutting. I didn’t laugh at him but I did make a comment about the “front porch of infinity” and I laughed at that. He didn’t laugh. I cracked another joke but he didn’t laugh at that one either. I was batting zero!
Perhaps you should try a different audience. Scientology humor is an oxymoron to scientologists.
Hi Mike, Very true that.Now there is absolutely no laughter allowed.xo.
They don’t even get this joke:
How does a Scientologist tell someone to fuck off?
Oh-kayyyy. I got thaaat. Thaaaank Youuuuu.
(punchline delivered in a condescending tone of voice)
Hi alcoboy, Like your style!XO
Little Fuhrer and Clampire
Yup that sums it up.
Terra Cognita,
Yes, you have cognited.
You do some very high quality and honest thinking. I appreciate a good mind. Those kinds are difficult to come by.
But I want to add this:
Hubbard said (or at least something to the effect): Not knowing the difference between a belief and a fact, is the basis for all insanity and incompetence.
I would change that to:
Not knowing the difference between a belief and a fact is the basis for much insanity, much incompetence and much conflict.
To believe something is: 1. to accept something as true without proof. 2. to raise an assumption, a hearsay, an opinion, a fabrication to the level of a fact (the truth) without proof.
The function of believing is intellectual dishonesty.
The act of believing is a function of the intellectually inept.
It is intellectual incompetence.
A belief is an assumption.
No one in their right mind, or properly informed, or sufficiently conscious would believe anything.
A belief is a confession of ignorance.
Believing in something, means that you do not KNOW the facts.
There are only three states of knowingness:
1. You know something with certainty. You can prove it.
2. You don’t know.
3. You are not sure.
Beliefs and opinions fall under two and three.
A fact is something that can be proven, or has been proven.
Now here is the problem:
Scientology is the science of knowing how to know the truth of something.
(At least supposed to be.)
That begs the question:
Why should a scientologist believe anything?
If a scientologist believes something, that means he does not KNOW the truth.
It means that he is phony scientologist, or a puppet or a robot scientologist.
Or it means that he flunked scientology.
Or is incompetent as a scientologist.
Dio
Dio, There is nothing in Scientology that is a “fact”. The entire system is based on the beliefs of one man. The evidence of a fact would be the demonstration of a Clear. Until then, every scientologist is a ring on belief.
True words were never spoken, Eileen….According to Hubbard’s view, there’s NEVER been a Clear, let alone, an OT. Ever……
Eileen,
You took me entirely out of context.
Where should that fall on the Hubbard chart of human evaluation, in regards to handling data?
Dio
TC, well stated. Here is the First Amendment to the Constitution, number one of the Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
You will notice this does NOT say that all citizens must personally respect the religious beliefs of all other citizens. It merely restricts Congress from passing laws that establish a state religion or restrict religious believers from practicing their beliefs.
This leaves an interesting loophole that some have exploited, for example someone said they took peyote for religious purposes so the law restricting illegal substances did not apply to them.
However in general this works out pretty well. But Scientology sneaks in by falsely pretending to be a religion and demanding all kinds of First Amendment protections for blatantly illegal acts. Like setting PIs to harass former members and setting up slave labor camps.
My take on it is that they have the right to their weird beliefs. If some government authority had to rule on who believes what we would have nothing but a totalitarian state. And don’t forget, almost all the great scientific discoveries spent some time being mocked as being “weird beliefs”. Circulation of the blood, the law of gravity, the heliocentric solar system, tectonic plate movement, that the earth is a sphere, you could list hundreds of examples. So some of the crazies out there are onto something. Which ones? Who knows?
The idea that some huge organization, with hundreds of very educated serious folks in white lab coats doing intensive research, creates all the new ideas is simply false. New ideas come out of the woodwork in weird places, like the Patent Office Examiner (Einstein) or someone putting some photo film in the same drawer as a sample of pitchblende (Madam Curie). Any new idea challenges the old ideas. Without new ideas there would be no progress. All you can do is ask for testable evidence of a new idea, you can’t reject it simply because it is new.
Having weird beliefs is not a crime. Proselytizing those weird beliefs is almost an American tradition. In a First Amendment protected country you have the right to your say. And I have the right to say you are wrong. Somehow it all works out.
Scientology does not however have the right to inflict its weird beliefs on others by coercion, threat or physical restraint. The principle of “undue influence” needs to be better defined in the law, so fraudsters like the Scientologists don’t have free reign to withhold passports from their staff etc. That is where the First Amendment protections get abused.
Bruce Ploetz, excellent post. Thanks much, that really spoke to me. I appreciate reading commentary by people who give the issues a lot of thought and analysis, then phrase their conclusions so well. I hope to be able to do the same myself one day, but have a ways to go still.
It’s easier to encourage someone to think about issues when one presents ideas logically and persuasively, as you have done (and Terra Cognita has done) than by those who rant, or forcefully assert that their opinion is right. They are firmly convinced of their ‘rightness’ but have failed to convince anyone else, merely by the way they present their opinion.
Time to drag out my favorite Aristotle quote: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”. I’d change it to “an intelligent mind” instead of educated, personally… but who am I to try to improve on Aristotle! no way, lol. :p
This blog has had really good commentary recently, such a pleasure to read. To all who participate here, thank you, your comments are valued, I’m sure by many.
wow, thanks Bruce. I never realized that before, Me thumbs up.
Here is number one of the U.S. Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
MY interpretation includes that Congress will make no laws determining what constitutes a religion, what features must or must not be present for a religion to be established. That said….. Just as there are limits on “free speach”(not falsely yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, for instance), there are times when a “religious practice” is too heinous to be allowed by the larger society; Jeffs and the FLDS cult springs to mind; Many $cn practices also pop up and have been well discussed on this and other sites
That’s really good Bruce, nicely stated.
Something along the lines of being able to have a choice and not be ridiculed for whatever choice you choose is something unfortunately many in power don’t grant others but are absolute in demanding it for themselves. Those that wrote the Constitution were pretty switched on back in those turbulent days, but couldn’t cover every aspect the future would present. Sneaky assholes like those that run Scientology saw loopholes and pounced.
One should to be free to think whatever they like and act within guidelines of not hurting or disrespecting others but that’s a tough ask.
I am always wary of those that simply know how right they are and are very quick to condemn others who don’t agree.
Good thought provoking comment, Bruce! Below are some that you provoked in me.
When a religion harms the property, livelihood, person and/or relationships of people, who is to protect those harmed?
Right now individuals are informing others about the dangers of Scientology through blogs, forums and other communications media. Some are defending themselves in the legal system. Groups publicly protest against Scientology.
Although the U.S. government has investigated Scientology, it also protects it with a tax exempt status which is accepted as religious certification.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service recognizes Scientology as a charitable religious organization, “charitable” being the key word. The U.S. gov’t doesn’t certify or validate religions, but revoking the IRS-granted 501c3 status would probably be a fatal blow for Scientology because of what it means to the public.
Note: Anyone can start a religion and claim 1st Amendment protection without IRS certification as a charitable organization. However, most people believe that the IRS determines religious validity, as Scientology loudly proclaims in print, in public and in court.
Bruce: Thanks for quoting the First Amendment and raising so many good points.
In my book, respect is earned. It doesn’t exist by default. No one is automatically entitled to it. I do have enormous respect for ex-Scientologists who stood up and said “enough,” then walked away. It’s not always as easy as it sounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irhHZfi6ZdY
I prefer to give all people respect until they un-earn it. (and even then, oft times they’ll get a few chances to fix it up)
Hi secretfornow,That is why I love that you are here.XO Ann B
You’re a good and loving soul, secretfornow. “Love, for no reason.” Remember, you are separate from nothing, and, apart of everything. And unbridled, unconditional love is your true nature.
But, hey, what do I know! I’m just an Old Surfer Dude……
“treat others with kindness, even if they are impolite… not because they are nice, but because you are.”
Secretfornow: “un-earn” it. Beautiful.
You guys are all great. Thank you for the sweet words. It’s funny, just today/ tonight I got to meet all kinds of new people – and I was especially kind to a little girl and then later to her dad. She was so blown away by simple kindness, paying attention, a bit of love, and lots of listening. It was such a great day. 🙂 I know this is a good thing to do. These things matter. I so well recall people who were kind to me.
Well done, Terra.
Thank you, TP.
You have eloquently tackled a subject that makes me tired just thinking about! Thank you.
You’re welcome Brains.
Out of the points that Terra mentioned, the most important in my mind is Do No Harm. There are two basic questions that need to be evaluated in this area: 1) Does the belief system cause harm to people inside the belief system? and 2) Have the “owners” and/or believers of the belief system acted in a general sense to cause harm to non-believers and attempted to impress their beliefs upon non-believers against their will?
Scientology, of course, fails on both counts. Everyone, including never-ins, knows the laundry list of things that Scientology has done to people inside, from Disconnection to coerced abortions. I don’t think I need to go over those. As for the second, Scientology’s attitude toward non-believers is clear from the vocabulary they use to describe them: wogs, DBs, 1.1s, etc. I would have adopted a live-and-let-live attitude if not for their two overt acts in 2008 where they attempted to impose their beliefs on non-believers: the attempted censorship of the Tom Cruise video and San Diego Morgue donating money to Prop 8 in a very public fashion.
How well did those two actions turn out for you, Dave? The first one riled up Anonymous, pulling the trigger on hacktivism of all sorts. The second was the proximate cause of Paul Haggis leaving, which dominoed into Going Clear. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Those actions brought me into the game and I’ve stayed in it since. After I did my research, I came to the belief that the philosophy has no right to survive in today’s society. If there’s any good in the belief system, it’s a pebble to the boulder of things that are wrong. The baby’s already drowned in the bath water, folks.
The worst action, though, is using a belief system to cause harm and attempting to disguise the fact that the belief system is responsible, or lying outright and saying that the belief system has nothing to do with the harm. Tommy Davis’ outright lie on CNN about Disconnection was pure Streisand Effect; if he just simply told the truth and said, “Hey, that’s how we roll”, it wouldn’t have decreased the fact that Disconnection is repulsive, but at least we could appreciate the fact that he was honest about it. I get the same vibe from the yahoo Christians who attempt to use “women’s health” as a smokescreen for restricting a woman’s right to choose or Think Of The Children as an excuse to restrict LGBT rights (like with the North Carolina bathroom bill).
There’s one more particular layer of this that’s even lower on the scale, but it’s something that Scientology, thank FSM, hasn’t had the power to do: using a belief system as blackmail to impose religious beliefs on non-believers. I will never forgive the pastors of black churches in Chicago for what they did during the fight for same-sex marriage here in Illinois, coming out and saying that they’d preach against any elected representative who dared to vote in favor of the measure. It delayed passage of the bill for at least two years. Scientology, of course, practices this internally, with the threat of “losing your eternity” if you don’t toe the line. Apparently, they haven’t realized that non-believers have “eternity” as well. May they never make that connection.
Scientology may realize that others have “their eternity”, hence the lip-service to “clearing the planet”, but has its hands full with keeping the people in line who they have groomed and conditioned to make them think that how they do things is normal. Which is better to try to browbeat someone into taking a $50 course, possibly many someones, to get ONE person to take that course, or spend that time on a current member to get them to spend upwards of $300 on 25 copies of Battlefield Earth, with a much higher success rate guaranteed? I’m using the amazon price of $14.36. For all that I know, the “approved” version is much more expensive or prices elsewhere are higher.
It’s not like they have enough people to go out two by two like the Mormons do to proselytize to people. Mormons pay for their children to go on mission for two years, but Scientology is too busy draining people financially for families to be able to afford such a thing, even if it existed.
Hi Espiando, Your post is on Fire and I archived it for rainy days in my life.Will feel my soul fire lit when I get down.Thank you XO Ann B
Hi Espiando ,OK Siri and spell-kill I’m coming over there! Last sentence should read,Will keep my soul fire lit when I get down.xo
Good take on the Mormons but you should also know that some of these missionaries earn and save up money to finance their mission before they go.
“may they never make that connection”
I am very forgiving and tend to just like people. Almost no matter what. But, there are some who are IN.. and you know…I just …hope they never “cognite’. Screw ’em. I hope they STAY in. (*bows head and acknowledges she’s evil)
Espiando: Good points.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to respect a persons desire to help himself with the outer Div 6 layers of the Scientological onion as he/she see’s fit. And I also respect a person just as readily when they realize the outer layers do not match the inner core of the onion. I don’t disrespect a Scientologist just because he is uninformed.
I am also an onion person and have been using this analogy. 🙂
I’m more of a turnip person…..
I wouldn’t turnip to another Scientology event.
oh, it’s soooooo great to think of never ever ever going to another event. I get a little giddy just thinking about it.
Thank you for writing this and for speaking about respect.
As written in The Way to Happiness, the Creed, The code of Honor, and many other places, scientology purports to respect the religious beliefs of others and to stand behind the rights of men to speak and choose.
And yet, through the body of data of ethics – PTS ‘tech’, disconnection, and declaration of SP, scn actually practices nothing other than a vicious totalitarian system of control.
As a new out and standing back to look, I can’t wrap my mind around the concept that to speak out means I am evil, that I am possessed by an obsessive desire to stop. That I am an SP, which means I am psychotic. That I’m not in PT, I’m stuck on the back track fighting unseen enemies in present time. If one compiles all of the descriptives of what an SP is, it amounts to a stunning damnation of a being in totality. All actions, thoughts desires are evil, nuts and bad.
And that label is given out handily for the simple act of saying “I disagree, I find this tract, this action, to be harmful”.
I would respect the group more if they copped to their actual procedures and beliefs and didn’t dress it up with “acceptable truths”. (gak)
“disagree with us and we will Fuck You Up”. Good, now the world knows, and we can treat you accordingly. We’ll let you keep the tee shirts, but the religion part is going to have to go. You can claim to be the ‘coolest bunch of clams’ or something. Sorry, no tax status for them folk.
secretfornow, you nailed it. Thank you.
vvv This! vvv
“disagree with us and we will Fuck You Up”. Good, now the world knows, and we can treat you accordingly. We’ll let you keep the tee shirts, but the religion part is going to have to go. You can claim to be the ‘coolest bunch of clams’ or something. Sorry, no tax status for them folk.
People that do not belong to the Church of Scientology are people that do not belong to the Church of Scientology for whatever the reason and people that do belong, belong for whatever reason as well. The difficulty here is for people to learn to treat other people with the same respect one would want others to treat one’s self with. If one being treated with respect in return becomes impossible (as in the case of David Miscavige) then it stands to reason, some people take an interest in morals and ethics and some don’t. So, try to treat people they way one would want those people to treat one’s self. 🙂
Excellent
Yea, of course one shouldn’t respect sentiments and rules and dogma that is debilitating and evil and harmful.
Scientologists believing in all their Div 6 Courses simpler data and ideas, when those people use their “beliefs” in life to get on with their lives and seem to themselves “happy”, to me there is so much “intro” Scientology beliefs that are so tame and which Scientology intro services put so much inflated emphasis on, that I can’t myself rail against the intro Scientology ideas.
It’s of course the way more dogmatic problematic controversial and downright vicious petty irrational and fanatical behaviors Scientologists play out which no one can respect.
I think in their minds, they think of their “good” they mistakenly think they are doing. Intro person to person helping they do, they don’t see that it is their human innate goodness that is doing the “good” and NOT the Hubbard bric a brack BS “knowledge”.
Hubbard’s two “products” per “Tech Degrades” policy, are “well trained students and thoroughly audited pcs.”
Knowledge and “case gain” is what Scientology’s products were supposed to be. Who can argue with that general thrust of the movement?
Everyone hates disconnection, the ethics formulas (which Hubbard never in his life every applied “lower conditions” to himself for instance, so Hubbard was a massive hypocrite).
Scientology/Hubbard’s brick-a-brack “knowledge” steps are intrusive and unnatural and dogmatic, and no one should shackle their minds in Hubbard’s rules and regulations.
If “OT” were real, if people could soul-fly for real, and souls were even real and souls had the power that Scientologists/Hubbard imagine souls have, but that’s not the case.
No one is soul-flying exteriorizing, and the OT Scientologists are not civilization changing the world as intended and promised.
All for naught.
Can’t make a silk purse world out of a shoddy pig’s ear “knowledge/case-gain” selling operation.
Hubbard admitted failure in moments of depair near the end of his life, that is such massively unappreciated and unshared widely new news!
Scientology is a pumped up hype operation of hope, and who doesn’t wish to instill hope in their fellow human?
Scientology when unfamilar people I meet when I tell them a brief history of Scientology, they summarize correctly Scientology as “false hope.”
And of course it is worse than all the media and TV shows and books show it.
When Hubbard was in despair that he’d failed, at the end of his life, he was so hypocritically deep violating his own “forumlas” for “success”, he was in “Confusion” and needed to be run on his own “Confusion” formula. His “tech” solution was the delusional plan he said he planned to do next, which is the running in circles in outer space, the “OT running program” theory.
Tech before ethics, and use ethics to get his own tech in on himself, I guess he lived out his old Class 8 theory of the back and forth relationship of tech and ethics. Which itself is such a bogus mumbo jumbo waste of time to even compare those principles to human history of ethics and self discipline and getting on with one’s life in a positive manner.
Hubbard was so unswayed by anyone after Mary Sue left his life, he didn’t have an “Ethics Officer” or case supervisor to tame his badness with Hubbard’s own supposed tech and ethics.
And of course Hubbard, like everyone, does NOT need Hubbard’s tech and ethics to live a better life, so Hubbard using his own brick-a-brack should not be wished on him either. Hubbard needed out of his own mess and he ought to have recanted publicly what he despairingly stated to Sarge Steven Pfauth and let everyone in the movement get OUT of the mess he created!
Chuck…what do you think it would take for a devout “in” to believe the information about hubbard’s last days and the truth of his death and all?
I read it as a devout and it stuck with me and planted seeds, but the brainwashing against all the words and evidence of our ‘enemies’ was strong and kept me doubtful of the veracity. (but that pic of hubbard looking so filthy and disheveled was a bit hard to ignore)
What do you think it would take to have the truth be strong enough to overcome the party line?
A TV documentary including interviewing Sarge Steven Pfauth and all of the still living ex Commodore’s Messengers, and ex LRH Pers Office staffers who all the final years of LRH’s personal orders.
Sarge and Terri Gamboa, Janis Grady, David Mayo, and on and on all those that spent face time with LRH, just an expanded no holds barred documentary.
Ken Urquhart.
We’d need a full no holds barred face time in depth multi houred documentary and not to some theme, but to get all of the raw details.
I like the unedited interviewing when the full uncut interviewing is released, questions asked and all of the person’s answers.
If pictures tell a thousand words, then LOTS of video interviewing of all those still alive who tell the full truth and all details of their interactions with Hubbard, including LRH’s kids still alive!
A big long detailed full unedited lot of videoing.
Scientology is Hubbard’s creation.
The documenting with video interviews ALL of those who really lived and did Hubbard’s final years of bidding ought to be inteviewed for the truth.
Sarge and Terri Gamboa most importantly, and Janis Grady, and any people those 3 ought to tell all their Hubbard final years’ incidents.
I wish this could happen.
totally agree Chuck.
Terra Incognito hits the bullseye once more. My own take on privacy is pretty severe, but applies pretty much to myself. And if I’m doing harm to others, that privacy will soon be taken away..with good reason. As it has with scio.
As an aside, TI mentions that privacy is written into the law…routinely violated by the lawgivers, unfortunately, and getting worse. What applies to us does not apply to them. That makes privacy a tough issue.
In scio, privacy got more and more endemic as the revelations and attacks expanded. The fortress mentality gained virtually epidemic proportions. At the same time, the revelations have gain epidemic proportions and all they can do is cower behind the walls and venture out only with words, letters written by people who may no longer even be “real”. Miscavige himself has locked himself into a closet. A luxurious one, I admit, but a closet nevertheless. No matter the wealth, I do not envy anything about him. At the same time, I’m not going to get angry since my anger serves no purpose other than to make ME feel bad. And that’s not what I’m living my life for.
thegman77: And on the other hand, the church has no problem revealing confidential auditing session material. How’s that for hypocrisy?
I’m wondering if this really happens. It would be just evil incarnate if so. If such things as spirits exist, it would be the lowest form of betrayal spiritually.
As we know, while getting a sec check one is told, “I am not auditing you” and all of the information gleaned in those sec checks – all o/ws gotten off – are actionable, written up, discussed, and handled in ethics. They can be quoted and used in Ethics Hearings, Courts, and Comm Evs.
But O/Ws gotten off in regular sessions are to be kept confidential.
It has been my experience that some of the tailor made sec checks have seemed to be suspiciously of a ‘fishing expedition’ to get me to RE-CONFESS things that we had already ‘run’ in a protected regular session.
When this has happened it tarnished things and made me a bit sad/suspicious. It sounds like they want to get this stuff to hang me with! 🙁
All along I really had Faith in the C/S and I tried to protect that.
But then I was subjected to the truth rundown. It was awful. (and expensive) and unending, and grinding and it drove me nuts. It harmed me. Made me feel insane.
I didn’t know what it was – just thought it was a bad and too thorough attempt at sec check – until I secretly quit and started reading. 🙂
So….
from your knowledge, do you think they actually take stuff straight from PC folders, or do they manipulate the person into getting off the same stuff later in actionable sec checks so that they can hide behind the Lie of not using PC folder Confidential information?
Or maybe also take things from O/W write ups, or things they make people sign when leaving the SO?
Is it all an ‘acceptable truth?’. (gak)
<3
Secretfornow: Hmm? For sure, auditors, C/S’s, DofP’s, and MAA’s all read what’s in these folders and talk among themselves. I suspect things get leaked.
Morally speaking, though, everything should be held in the strictest confidence: both from PC folders and ethics folders, alike. I hate that confessionals intended to heal have turned into sec-checking orgies intended to mine dirt to be used against one. Anything discussed in Div 4 or Div 1 between staff and public should be confidential. Period.
Seemingly benign “interviews,” too, have become a way of life inside the church. Supervisors, DofT’s–anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the e-meter–conduct these when students begin to ask probing questions.
They get away with maintaining confidentiality by beginning each “session” with “I’m not auditing you.” Nothing is sacred anymore.
As for “acceptable truth,” I feel so much freer now that I’ve divorced myself from the church’s perverted mindset. An advanced org reg called me just the other day to get me back on the bridge. I lied my ass off, and not only felt perfectly fine, but felt proud! She wouldn’t have been able to “have” the truth, anyway.
Thank you. I was wondering if you had had the first hand experience of or knowledge of MAA’s taking confidential information from protected non-sec check sessions and publishing it in a declare or comm ev or some such thing.
I would not put it past them. But… I’ve not seen it yet myself, hence, I ask.
I read something here or on Marty’s blog from a trained C/S who told of being pushed and caving to c/sing for the reg. C/Sing extra sec check questions/auditing actions just to get the intensive comp and the re-sign before 2:00. C/Sing for extra steps just to use ints paid for. This is the sort of nightmare thing one worried about as a PC, but could not believe if one was to go forward.
Back in the day I recall things discussed at product conference that had no business out side of a pc folder. I recall ridicule, insensitiveness, and utter disregard of privacy. I’m sure it goes on on to this day on many levels.
..
and congrats on getting out and beginning the long divorce proceedings. I’m newly UTR and out myself and it’s very freeing and magical and scary and things. Pretty wild, eh? Someday I’d like to get together in person with the Outs from my old gang. My wish now is for everyone I ever loved to be out.
*phew.
🙂
(and I know what you mean about the calls – I’m still having conversations with various people.) (I’m having conversations, I”m NOT “in comm”. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Hi Terra Cognita, A point you made about the hypocrasy of divulging confidential PC materials has bern around when I was in Sea Org.Yes it was done with me quite frequently.An example I was being audited on Grade 4 at Asho by a person on SHSBC.My really good auditor went to Flag.So I am in session and I can’t see to respond to the auditor because I am seeing a complete life scene but not my body in it.So out of the blue my auditor pipes up ” Oh is this incident from when you were living in a paralell universe on another planet before you died there ? wtf? She merrily goes on That is in another folder of yours.Huh! The start of the nude fissures in the cult that widen by the second as I realized the truth of the matter over months of subtle abuse.So admiring of all your writing.Thank you Always.XXOO Ann B.
Hi all.Ann I type one thing and it comes up another word…Nude fissures should be new cracks in the cult that widen by the second….Although all SO running around with no uniforms on is pretty funny to me!! XO Ann B.
Ann B: I am not surprised. Little is sacred inside the church anymore.
I like your vibe, Ann.
Hi Terra Cognita, Thank you so very much for your support.I like your vibe too.In fact you are on my heroes list.XXOO
My favorite name for Miscaviage is “Misavage.” 😛
Which is why the Cult of Scientology is: The Cruelest Religion on the Planet.
It’s true that respecting the founders / gurus of groups defrauding or worse, killing people not sharing their views can’t ever be supported.
It’s in part one of the very major errors of US 1st amendment and of many laws from other countries going toward similar directions.
That can’t be allowed.
The problem is individual: people – gurus or not – are inevitably allowed to think whaterver they want, but allowing them to share and force other to share thei beliefs can’t be allowed.
Since every belief pulled to its extremities can lead to wars or at least to disrepect of others properties or lives, no opinion should becomre a cult, a religion or whatever further than respecting others!
roger, by definition ALL religions that collect $ from their followers while pronouncing beliefs that cannot be proven are defrauding people. Also, the the 1st Amend doesn’t allow for murder. Don’t know what cereal box you got that fron
Mike W, “Don’t know what cereal box you got that fron”
Was this disrespectful?
No Tommy, that was my best guess at where he could have got a complete piece of garbage info like that from.
The church of scientology deserves no respect – too much damage – too much potential to harm. People who have never been in a damaging group, give respect to the “good” people in their lives who are in one and never say a word (out of respect) or do anything (it’s none of their business) about there own personal disagreements with that group. Makes sense but it’s a major factor which allows a bad group or person to continue.
You’ve made the arguments as to why this is so, just adding my two cents.
The cult of scientology deserves to be pissed on…
After a good feed of asparagus.
Correction: The cult of scientology deserves to be pissed on…after a good feed of asparagus, which, I happen to love.
Hi OSD, I love asparagus too.I put the tips in pasta or salads or eat them with honey Greek yogurt.Scientology,well I agree100% with your post on that crowd.XO Ann B.
They lost my respect not for POTENTIAL for harm, but for actual, documented harm.
Harm that’s been going on for how many decades? Over 5?
Terra Cognita, have you heard of the name “Der Dwarfenfuhrer”?
I have! He’s that little piece of shit that runs a very toxic, militant & evil cult that destroys families and forces SO woman and UNDERAGE girls to have abortions. So, yeah, I know him…
Katniss: I’m not sure if I’ve heard that name…but it sure is fitting!
Well written.
Not really anything I could add to that. Well spoken.
The definition of “respect” for a died in the wool Scientologist is…
IMPINGE upon their bank account, their family, their career, their beliefs, their definitions of words, their mind, their memory and their dreams….then SHATTER them.
The died in the wooler’s are currently working it out, not in clay, but with real human beings having a TERRIBLE experience in Scientology.