I can't talk from experience about either good or bad in Scientology, but it suddenly struck me that if we're distinguishing two kinds of stuff in Scientology, we should also be distinguishing two kinds of criticism of Scientology. If there's good and bad in Scn, then there is criticism of the bad for being bad, and criticism of the good for not being good enough. Distinguishing between the two kinds of criticism helps avoid the straw man fallacy of pretending that critics never see any good in the subject at all.
If somebody buys some frozen beef lasagne that is really made with horse meat, the point of the complaint is the false labeling. Nobody's saying that horse meat isn't safe to consume. Pointing out that horse meat is healthy enough is not a valid defense for false labeling. And of course the reason for the false labeling is that most western consumers prefer beef to horse. Horse lasagne wouldn't sell. So the problem isn't that horse lasagne is bad, but that it isn't good enough, and in particular, isn't as good as what it claims to be on the box.
Now if some of the other products in the horse lasagne company's line contain actual toxins, that would be a different complaint. A more serious one, of course. But the fact that the horse lasagne wasn't actually poisonous still wouldn't be a defense against the charge that it wasn't as good as it was made out to be. In the same way, critics have two separate and different criticisms of Scientology's products. Some are bad, and some just aren't good enough. If somebody expresses interest in Scientology, then warning them away from the actively bad parts is urgent, but warning them about mediocre stuff being oversold, when you can get better stuff cheaper elsewhere, is also decent behavior. It's not just obsessive negativity or prejudice.
Or are there really three classes of things in Scientology: the bad, the not-good-enough, and the outstandingly good? If there were any really outstandingly good parts, that would be another story. The thing is that I just haven't heard much about this. The things I've seen presented as 'good parts' in Scientology have always struck me as more not-too-bad than outstandingly good — horse instead of poison, so to speak.
I think I get where you're going here, Student. To use your analogy, someone tells you they are serving Filet Mignon in a restaurant. You go in, sit down and they charge you the Filet Mignon price. Then they switch the meat on you and give you horse instead. When you complain and say, "Wait a minute, I paid for Filet Mignon, this isn't fair!" someone says, "Well, maybe you didn't get what we promised, but hey, horse meat has protein too."
So basically, the protein from the horse is considered a "win", even though deception was involved to get it and it wasn't what was promised.
I appreciate this analogy because it brings up an important point for me which I often forget: if CoS was free, if auditing and moving up the bridge were free, then maybe it wouldn't make such a difference when Scientology doesn't deliver what it promises. If you're not happy with Buddhism, or Christianity, go find another religion.
But the fact that the Church of Scientology makes you
pay, and pay very high prices for their product, means that they have a responsibly to deliver to the consumer what they say their product will do. (It's amazing how their religious designation let's them off the hook.)
You couldn't sell someone a Mercedes that drove like a Big Wheel. You would be taken to court and put out of business. But somehow (and I've learned this from the opinions I've read in this forum) the church continues to crank out "Clears" and "OT's" knowing damn well that there is no such thing as a Clear and that OT's have no special powers. This would seem a direct violation of a consumer's trust. But they get away with it, over and over again.
So, to a certain degree, who gives a fuck if you get some incidentals wins here and there - like free samples when you buy an expensive bottle of perfume. If you came home and found that the bottle was empty and called the store, you'd be pissed. you wouldn't expect to hear - we know the bottle's empty, but hey, the samples are nice, aren't they? The samples only matter in the context of the perfume, otherwise they are a slap in the face and offensive.
So, my point is, incidental wins are great, but can they justify being fucked-over and paying all that money to buy "Clear" or a particular OT level and ending up with someone who has no abilities over MEST, no abilities to turn off their reactive mind, no abilities to avoid sickness, no abilities to leave their body - all the things that Scientology advertises and takes people's money for? It's like putting someone on the RPF and when they complain later in court about abuse, saying, "Hey, at least you dropped the extra ten pounds you wanted to lose from all the running and the rice and beans." Hey look, a win!
It may not be my place to say it, but I'm going to fucking say it anyway.
It's time to stop focusing on Scientology wins. It really messes up the argument that Scientology is a destructive cult that needs to be stopped. The way some people go on about wins, it makes Scientology in the public eye seem like a slightly demonic version of "Mary Kay".
