Should Scientologists have the right to practice Scientology?

[Caroline]

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 SP doctrine is evident in the Hubbard literature as early as 1953 with PAB 13 On Human Behavior, which is studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression course. The SP doctrine cannot be excised from the overall body of literature, any more than the ethics system or the admin system can be excised from the literature.

The SP doctrine requires, but does not limit itself to the practice of disconnection. The SP doctrine is not the "SP doctrine of disconnection." One of the big arguments between the Dependents and the Independents is whether or not DM applies the SP doctrine properly. They don't argue about the doctrine itself. In fact, all factions of Scientology insist on applying the SP doctrine, to their disputed ("squirrels") and undisputed targets.

A citizen has little standing to protest what Scientologists practice inside their orgs and missions. What I care about, and what I think thinking wogs should care about is what Scientologists practice on the rest of us. They have no right to practice the SP doctrine on me. I'm not a Scientologist. They have no right to scam wogs, just as wogs have no right to scam wogs. The Scientologists have no right to take away my children. They have no right to hound and abuse and sue, cheat, lie to or steal from me or my family.

It is, however, inherent within the practice of Scientology that they should practice outside their walls, and on wogs. Because Scientologists actively suck people into Scientology with false promises, it is wrong to put the evils that befall the suckers on the suckers.

Our justice really rehabilitates in the long run. It only disciplines those who are hurting others and gives them a way to change so they can eventually win too-but not by hurting us.

A Scientologist who fails to use Scientology technology and its administrative and justice procedures on the world around him will continue to be too enturbulated to do his job.

That sounds extreme to anyone.

But if you look it over, you will find that the "power" of the "society" and "state" is pretended and is made from an effort to be powerful where they actually lack power. Our situation is quite the reverse. Ours is the power of truth and we are capable of power as a group, having power as individuals due to processing and power of wisdom due to superior technology.

[...]

Don't react to Scientology justice as though it were wog law. In society's "courts" one is given the works, and truth has little bearing on the findings. A mean judge or clever attorney and small legal errors decide a lot of their cases. Wog courts are like throwing dice. There is huge cost and publicity and punishment galore even for the innocent.

So we must preserve our justice.

And use it.

That's the main lesson. If we don't use it in all questions where the truth of the matter is in doubt, we'll just go on being wogs.

Hubbard, L. 1965, 27 March. The Justice of Scientology Its Use and Purpose Being a Scientologist Organization Executive Course (1991 ed., Vol 0, Basic Staff Volume, pp. 483-5) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Should the psychiatrists, which, of course, comprise a sub-set of the SP class, allow Scientologists to black PR and fair game them just because it is their religious right? I don't think so.

This business about "Well, as long as they don't ____(practice disconnection; lock people up; hurt anyone, etc.)" I'm okay with the Scientologists" is foolish. These practices are inherent in the SP doctrine.

 

[Gadfly]

Yes scientologist should have a right to practice.

Not all scientologists are practicing scientology, few if any can in C of S environment.

The C of S environment is the most "standard" of all applications of the total subject of Scientology, as it does NOT allow pick & choosing, and the whole subject MUST be applied as written and designed by Hubbard. Granted, DM has altered some here and there - but so what? Hubbard himself was altering (adding to, changing, taking away from) the subject materials of Scientology right from when he first started in with Dianetics!

Within the C of S environment is where you will find the most exact fanatical application of KSW, which demands that everything Hubbard ever said be duplicated, understood, and applied (or else).

Scientology is "practiced" most exactly within the Church of Scientology.

All of this talk that Scientology is misapplied and incorrectly used within the Church of Scientology is nonsense. Scientology doesn't deliver what it promises and it causes harm to people BECAUSE Hubbard's data is applied "standardly". To the degree that Hubbard's words are ignored, especially regarding ethics, justice, and organizational functioning, is the degree to which it will cause less harm. And that is true anywhere, in or out of the official Church of Scientology.

 

[Bill]

This is a tricky question to ask. Not because the answer is complex but because the question is complex.

I'm not asking if Scientology should be above the law. It should not. Any activities that break the law should be condemned & dealt with by law enforcement, e.g false imprisonment, using child labour etc. But what about Joe Public who wants to get auditing? What about the guy who wants to train to become an auditor? Should he be stopped from doing that?

It all depends on how one defines "practice Scientology". The bottom line, to me, is simply, are they harming others? Like a Christian Scientist who eschews medical treatment -- and then dies -- oh, well, that's their choice. But the Christian Scientist who denies their child life-saving medical treatments -- and the child dies -- that's terribly wrong. That's criminal. And people have been prosecuted for exactly that.

A Scientologist who convinces someone else to choose auditing as a solution to a medical problem -- and the person dies or becomes seriously ill -- that's fraud and they should be prosecuted and punished appropriately under existing laws. Likewise for a mental problem when the lack of known, appropriate handling results in injury or suicide/murder.

There are already laws regarding fraud and harming others. With Scientology, of course, the fraud is an intrinsic part of their "religion" so it will be very hard for a Scientologist to "practice Scientology" without committing fraud.

Bill

 

[La La Lou Lou]

It all depends on how one defines "practice Scientology". The bottom line, to me, is simply, are they harming others? Like a Christian Scientist who eschews medical treatment -- and then dies -- oh, well, that's their choice. But the Christian Scientist who denies their child life-saving medical treatments -- and the child dies -- that's terribly wrong. That's criminal. And people have been prosecuted for exactly that.

A Scientologist who convinces someone else to choose auditing as a solution to a medical problem -- and the person dies or becomes seriously ill -- that's fraud and they should be prosecuted and punished appropriately under existing laws. Likewise for a mental problem when the lack of known, appropriate handling results in injury or suicide/murder.

There are already laws regarding fraud and harming others. With Scientology, of course, the fraud is an intrinsic part of their "religion" so it will be very hard for a Scientologist to "practice Scientology" without committing fraud.

Bill

Bill on how one practices one point is that I would put a foot back to the bed if I kicked it and it hurt. Not practising scientology, but where ever he stole the idea from. Likewise getting a person to look around them rather than blubber uncontrollably can be good for them, it isn't practising a cult, but just helping them look outside of their problems as people have done for millennia.

Actually calling a doctor when someone is ill is also standard practice for scientologists, not always done of course, but I bet there's a policy letter somewhere that says to get medical attention for people who are very ill. Hence the post Medical Liaison Officer. The problem is mostly where it comes to the mind and the scientolgy know best attitude that lead to the infamous McPherson case, where the idiots couldn't see that the problem was not going to be handled with the tech. The tragedy is that they believed the tech would suddenly make her leap up and smell the coffee. At that point all the guys involved must have realised that the tech was bullshit. Up to that point they were believers, after that they were scammers because they know it didn't work, it did the opposite. That actually was the moment that KSW went out, and yet the management carried on knowing that the 'correct' technology was not correct.

 

[TG1]

I'm often overly optimistic about court cases against the Church, hoping the Church will finally get its comeuppance. However, I do feel optimistic about the Garcia case now underway in Florida.

In asking for relief, the Garcias have invited the court to focus on the blatant fraud perpetrated by the Church in its circular, Catch-22 SP policies that essentially assert that "you lost your rights to request a refund when you left the church, allowing us to call you an SP, thereby making you ineligible to assert your rights to a refund" bullshit.

The Garcias are not challenging the Church's religious rights. However, they are asserting their rights not allow the Church to perpetrate a fraud and are asking the court to call the Church's Catch-22 out for the blatant fraud that it is.

If the Church's "SP defense" is found wanting in the Garcia matter, then the "SP defense" could (maybe?) become a target for other plaintiffs with different grievances against the Church who have been harmed by the Church's SP policy.

Judge Whittemore is described as a no-nonsense lawyer. He has ruled against the cult's interests at least once before (scroll a quarter down the page at http://tonyortega.org/2013/04/04/the-secret-to-scientologys-wins-revealed/ to read "Federal Judge James Whittemore Tells Narconon to Go Fish").

Now heading back to my private chapel where I'll be praying that Judge Whittemore sees his way clear to making the right decision.

TG1

 

[Terril park]

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.

Usually I find your posts insightful and incisive. IMO you've not quite got

a handle on this area.



Scientology exists independentally with NO central organisation, and by available stats

produces more auditors than CO$. In fact Recent CO$ mags don't seem to list any auditor completions.

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”.

Why assume ethics are out in the first place? Ethics can be one of the tools to help

tech get back in. Tech usually does this fine though. There is very little ethics used in

the FZ. Partly because people want to be there and get tech without having been regged,

blackmailed, threatened, heavily sold, ect.



fro HCOPL 17 april 1970



VITAL DEPT 1



" ....HCO could be otherwise unmanned but if dept 1 were well manned and

did its duty the org would prosper."



" To the degree dept 1 fell out, Ethics crept in and orgs shrank."

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.

This is an angry polemic. The 10 points are fair enough but would work

better if given moderate language. Auditors mistakes get them RPFed retrained

and other gruesome penalties in CO$. Thats NOT KSW. A visit to your friendly local cramming officer is.

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

How do you think they're doing on that?

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

This is OSA Also includes Finance, see Debbie Cook.



How do you think they're doing?

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.

He also had agendas specially rapid expansion



All the above has ended, or nearly so in failure.

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?

Anyone with some common sense.



Below some humour,with first a section of the PL that is

satired, and then a near duplicated parody with the term "Org" and "Field"

transposed. It is a good description of how things are.









---------------------------

SUPERIOR SERVICE IMAGE

(Originally written by LRH as LRH ED 54 Int on 10 Dec. 69.

Issues as an HCO Policy Letter on 27 May 75.)



"It is an old maxim IF AUDITING IS OCCURRING IN THE FIELD THE ORGS WILL BOOM.

It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the field versions standard. They mess up pcs and students. They always will. A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to control something you cannot. You can only do the best you can by teaching the best you can in the org."

______________________________________________________________________________

LEC COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Hayden Lake, Idaho, USA

LEC POLICY LETTER OF 17 NOVEMBER 2007

Remimeo

Orgs

Missions

Field Groups

SUPERIOR SERVICE IMAGE

(Originally written by LRH on 10 Dec. 69.

Revised 17 Nov. 2007 to reflect reversal of standard tech and policy.)



It is a new maxim IF AUDITING IS OCCURRING IN THE ORGS THE FIELD WILL BOOM.

It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the org versions standard. They mess up pcs and students. They always will. A militant field attitude to keep the orgs straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to control something you cannot. You can only do the best you can by teaching the best you can in the field.

The real field action is to put it out that IN THE FIELD WE USE AND TEACH HIGH-GRADE STANDARD TECH IN DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY.

The whole field message is, if anyone gets roughed up in org training or processing, THE INDEPENDENT FIELD EXISTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE STUDENT OR PC. ALL HE NEEDS TO DO IS COME TO AN INDEPENDENT FIELD GROUP.

If a field group is trying to guarantee their training and processing in some org or mission (and it can’t), then it gets a black eye.

If the field exists to handle the rough cases, then it is the place to go.

A line to orgs and missions to the effect that the field will be happy to handle their rough cases or pcs if they send them out to the field (at the student or pc’s own expense) will be received as very welcome news.

A field group is not just another org and competitor and MUST NOT GIVE THAT IMAGE.

The field is the benign source of the orgs and missions and helps them out.

THIS IMAGE MUST BE REBUILT FAST BY EVERY PES WITH MISSIONS AND PUBLIC.

It’s all standard in the independent field. If the org needs help, the field auditor gives it by straightening up the individual students and pcs if they’ll just come out.

The image is that field service is superior because it is.

The independent field must be more standard than anything happening in the orgs or in missions.



L. RON HUBBARD

Founder

Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research in the Field

 

[Caroline]

Bill on how one practices one point is that I would put a foot back to the bed if I kicked it and it hurt. Not practising scientology, but where ever he stole the idea from. Likewise getting a person to look around them rather than blubber uncontrollably can be good for them, it isn't practising a cult, but just helping them look outside of their problems as people have done for millennia.

Actually calling a doctor when someone is ill is also standard practice for scientologists, not always done of course, but I bet there's a policy letter somewhere that says to get medical attention for people who are very ill. Hence the post Medical Liaison Officer. The problem is mostly where it comes to the mind and the scientolgy know best attitude that lead to the infamous McPherson case, where the idiots couldn't see that the problem was not going to be handled with the tech.

Yes, and the hat of the MLO is part of the problem. Emma Schamehorn was the MLO in the Lisa McPherson case. Here is her sworn testimony. What the MLO and the rest of Lisa's handlers "knew best" about was Hubbard's SP doctrine on the subject of psychosis. The MLO of course applies Hubbard's PTS/SP tech to PTS Type IIIs, just like the case supervisors, security personnel and every other terminal involved.

There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.

These data are:

1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or disconnect.

Hubbard, L. R., (1973, 10 August). PTS Handling. How To Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

The tragedy is that they believed the tech would suddenly make her leap up and smell the coffee. At that point all the guys involved must have realised that the tech was bullshit. Up to that point they were believers, after that they were scammers because they know it didn't work, it did the opposite. That actually was the moment that KSW went out, and yet the management carried on knowing that the 'correct' technology was not correct.

I don't know whether any or all of the Scientologists believed that. I am sure that none of them actually believed that preventing a seriously ill person from getting medical attention was pro-survival, or even sane. Yet they all did it. So really, beliefs might very well have little to do with what Scientologists do, or even what a Scientologist is. Scientologists comply, and it is what they comply with that makes them Scientologists. They all complied with the orders and command intention that Lisa be locked up and denied actual medical attention.

After Lisa died, Mark Rathbun handled the personnel involved with her "service." No one turned. No one told the truth about it. They complied.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Yes, and the hat of the MLO is part of the problem. Emma Schamehorn was the MLO in the Lisa McPherson case. Here is her sworn testimony. What the MLO and the rest of Lisa's handlers "knew best" about was Hubbard's SP doctrine on the subject of psychosis. The MLO of course applies Hubbard's PTS/SP tech to PTS Type IIIs, just like the case supervisors, security personnel and every other terminal involved.





I don't know whether any or all of the Scientologists believed that. I am sure that none of them actually believed that preventing a seriously ill person from getting medical attention was pro-survival, or even sane. Yet they all did it. So really, beliefs might very well have little to do with what Scientologists do, or even what a Scientologist is. Scientologists comply, and it is what they comply with that makes them Scientologists. They all complied with the orders and command intention that Lisa be locked up and denied actual medical attention.

After Lisa died, Mark Rathbun handled the personnel involved with her "service." No one turned. No one told the truth about it. They complied.

Reading her answers was harrowing. It was like being back on staff, I really got the scene. OSA and top guys barge in knocking the actual staff whose responsibility it was out of the way, the MLO herself, loosing her memory from advanced age and confused by what they were doing and why. Someone handing out ant-psyche promo in a mental hospital. The policy and the tech all totally inadequate for the job. Everyone hoping that someone else knew what was going on and had the knowledge to help. Horrendous stuff. Certainly scientology should not be allowed to touch anything that they would call type 3. Debbie Cook happy that the right thing was being done. How many of these handlings have ever produced a good result? How many deaths? How many people hidden away or under psychiatric are?
I know there was an old man locked away at flag who threw shit around, I heard Peter Roemer lost it when he was there, but there must have been many many more.

She talked about Daphne someone being a room mate, was that Daphne Farrow Lesley Woolcraft's (nee Farrow, then Simons etc) mother?

 

[TG1]

Scientologists are people who think they know best who don't.

That's obviously not a "real" definition, but it's not bad as an empirical guide for how to recognize a Scientologist.

Nor is it a bad guide for how to spot posters at ESMB who are still suffering from Scientological influences.

TG1

 

[Lulu Belle]

Usually I find your posts insightful and incisive. IMO you've not quite got

a handle on this area.



Scientology exists independentally with NO central organisation, and by available stats

produces more auditors than CO$. In fact Recent CO$ mags don't seem to list any auditor completions.

Terrill, I think you missed my point.

This has nothing to do with what is and isn't actually successful in the "independent field".

It's simply this.


1) There are indies out there who say they are applying and delivering "100% Standard LRH Tech".

2) LRH says that "100% Standard LRH Tech" can't be achieved without a lot of other things that exist outside the auditing room, including ethics and a strong central organization.

3) If an indie is operating without these things, per LRH, he's not applying and delivering 100% Standard Tech.


If you say you're doing everything the way LRH says, then you have to buy into the whole shebang.

You can't just cut off a little piece of crust and say you've got the whole pie.

 

[Terril park]

Terrill, I think you missed my point.

This has nothing to do with what is and isn't actually successful in the "independent field".

It's simply this.


1) There are indies out there who say they are applying and delivering "100% Standard LRH Tech".

2) LRH says that "100% Standard LRH Tech" can't be achieved without a lot of other things that exist outside the auditing room, including ethics and a strong central organization.

3) If an indie is operating without these things, per LRH, he's not applying and delivering 100% Standard Tech.


If you say you're doing everything the way LRH says, then you have to buy into the whole shebang.

You can't just cut off a little piece of crust and say you've got the whole pie.

I don't say I'm doing everything the way LRH says.

Not even Marty does! Or at least its implied in some of his recent blog posts.

My experience is that those who claim to do 100% "standard tech" are often
of a fundamentalist nature. I don't get on with fundamentalists and they don't
get on with me generally. However anyone genuinely trying to do the best for their clients
usually get good results, fundamentalist or not. And they don't have a strong
central organisation!

The full panopoly of LRH instructions advices etc have clearly not worked, so
why be a slave to them?

What scientologists outside CO$ do usually does.

 

[TG1]

Terril,

How are you going to feel about your friend Marty when he finally says, "Fuck it!"

TG1

 

[SpecialFrog]

The full panopoly of LRH instructions advices etc have clearly not worked, so why be a slave to them?

What scientologists outside CO$ do usually does.

Usually does work? Only if you redefine "work" in some way so as to not mean "deliver the promised EP", right?

 

[Lulu Belle]

The SP doctrine is evident in the Hubbard literature as early as 1953 with PAB 13 On Human Behavior, which is studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression course. The SP doctrine cannot be excised from the overall body of literature, any more than the ethics system or the admin system can be excised from the literature.

The SP doctrine requires, but does not limit itself to the practice of disconnection. The SP doctrine is not the "SP doctrine of disconnection." One of the big arguments between the Dependents and the Independents is whether or not DM applies the SP doctrine properly. They don't argue about the doctrine itself. In fact, all factions of Scientology insist on applying the SP doctrine, to their disputed ("squirrels") and undisputed targets.

A citizen has little standing to protest what Scientologists practice inside their orgs and missions. What I care about, and what I think thinking wogs should care about is what Scientologists practice on the rest of us. They have no right to practice the SP doctrine on me. I'm not a Scientologist. They have no right to scam wogs, just as wogs have no right to scam wogs. The Scientologists have no right to take away my children. They have no right to hound and abuse and sue, cheat, lie to or steal from me or my family.

It is, however, inherent within the practice of Scientology that they should practice outside their walls, and on wogs. Because Scientologists actively suck people into Scientology with false promises, it is wrong to put the evils that befall the suckers on the suckers.



Should the psychiatrists, which, of course, comprise a sub-set of the SP class, allow Scientologists to black PR and fair game them just because it is their religious right? I don't think so.

This business about "Well, as long as they don't ____(practice disconnection; lock people up; hurt anyone, etc.)" I'm okay with the Scientologists" is foolish. These practices are inherent in the SP doctrine.

You know, Caroline (and, honestly, I think it is Caroline here)...

I actually agree with this post.

What I think you're saying is that if Scientologists want to do this shit with each other than that's their right, but as soon as they push their crap on the outside world, and people who don't buy into their bullshit, that's another thing entirely.

And that the abuses are inherent in Scientology, and it's kind of ridiculous to think you can sift them out.

I'm down with that.

You know, you should really tell your guy friend to post under his own name and post as yourself more often. You still need some work in the "relating to people" department and saying things in a way people can understand, but your points are valid. And I'm willing to acknowledge this.

 

[Lulu Belle]

I don't say I'm doing everything the way LRH says.

No, sweetie, but that's what a lot of your FZ buddies say they are doing.

Please don't make me dredge up their crazy ass websites to make my point.

 

[Idle Morgue]

I don't say I'm doing everything the way LRH says.

Not even Marty does! Or at least its implied in some of his recent blog posts.

My experience is that those who claim to do 100% "standard tech" are often
of a fundamentalist nature. I don't get on with fundamentalists and they don't
get on with me generally. However anyone genuinely trying to do the best for their clients
usually get good results, fundamentalist or not. And they don't have a strong
central organisation!

The full panopoly of LRH instructions advices etc have clearly not worked, so
why be a slave to them?

What scientologists outside CO$ do usually does.

What is a scientologist? Outside the Co$? Inside the Co$?

What is scientology in the freezone - definition? What is scientology inside the cult?

 

[Emma]

A citizen has little standing to protest what Scientologists practice inside their orgs and missions. What I care about, and what I think thinking wogs should care about is what Scientologists practice on the rest of us. They have no right to practice the SP doctrine on me. I'm not a Scientologist. They have no right to scam wogs, just as wogs have no right to scam wogs. The Scientologists have no right to take away my children. They have no right to hound and abuse and sue, cheat, lie to or steal from me or my family.

It is, however, inherent within the practice of Scientology that they should practice outside their walls, and on wogs. Because Scientologists actively suck people into Scientology with false promises, it is wrong to put the evils that befall the suckers on the suckers.

Should the psychiatrists, which, of course, comprise a sub-set of the SP class, allow Scientologists to black PR and fair game them just because it is their religious right? I don't think so.

Nothing here I disagree with.

This business about "Well, as long as they don't ____(practice disconnection; lock people up; hurt anyone, etc.)" I'm okay with the Scientologists" is foolish. These practices are inherent in the SP doctrine.

I'm not sure you can say this with any certainty. As far as I know the christians stopped burning witches some time ago. Maybe Scientologists (Indies & FZ) can stop using the SP doctrine too.

 

[Purple Rain]

Nothing here I disagree with.



I'm not sure you can say this with any certainty. As far as I know the christians stopped burning witches some time ago. Maybe Scientologists (Indies & FZ) can stop using the SP doctrine too.

Re: quoted post from Caroline.

Oh, the hysteria!

Show me ONE Indie or FZer that is doing these things: "practicing the SP doctrine" on non-Scientologists, scamming "wogs" and "taking away their children", or hounding and abusing and suing, cheating, lying to or stealing from Caroline or her family?

Just one frigging indie that is doing this to her.

Show me ONE Indie or FZer that is "practicing this on the rest of us".

My breath is not bated.

It's just not happening. Or if it is PROVE it.

Anyone can sit in their little glass house and cast stones and throw mud. It doesn't mean they're right. And I have not seen this backed up by one case or example. Just endless ranting on about a nebulous group of people to create FUD - stir up fear, uncertainty and doubt against them - to really make sure we're all good and scared of the reds under the beds. And I despise that whole approach.

Who? Who exactly is doing this? What exactly are they doing? To whom?

And that's a question that Caroline can't or won't answer. God, get over it.

Edit: And if they are doing this to you, Caroline, quit sitting here whining about it on a message board and call the police.

 

[Andtheyalllived]

Emma,

Trouble is, once you get rid of religion that doesn't solve the dogma or ideology or asshat problem.
<snip>

As you might imagine, Americans are amped up these days about the Boston Marathon bombings. Stewart showed clips from a variety of Fox News (Murdoch) political programs in which (mostly) right-wing people were making very sincere suggestions about how to deal with the situation and how to avoid future problems. One by one, they made passionate suggestions that, if followed, would remove almost every Constitutionally granted freedom of US citizens found in the Bill of Rights, including:

Freedom from unlawful search and seizure
Freedom from self-incrimination and right to due process
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom of assembly
Right to confront one's accusers
<snip>

Usually before I feel comfortable commenting on a thread, I feel like I have to read every single comment by everyone else. Wanna not repeat somebody else or backtrack, and just generally not suck.

This comment stopped me in my tracks. I am an American, and if I could afford it and thought it would sink in, I'd buy advertisement everywhere to repeat what you said.

US citizens are at their best and worst when big shit goes down. This post was sweet and fair.

 

[Gib]

Nothing here I disagree with.



I'm not sure you can say this with any certainty. As far as I know the christians stopped burning witches some time ago.

Maybe Scientologists (Indies & FZ) can stop using the SP doctrine too.

but how?

somebody in the idie field gets sick or roller coasters, means they are PTS/SP. Handle or disconnect. That would affect 'wogs" connected to folks getting indie field auditing.

And as Caroline says, PTS/SP tech is a part of the whole tech of scientology, the whole bridge to total freedom.