"Human Rights Defense (ShyDavid)" <HR-Defense@aol.com> wrote in message news:3bf02c02.7570342@localhost...

> This is a recurring thought I've had for a few years, of which I
> have tried to determine an answer to but have had little success.
> My question is, are the leader(s) of Scientology aware they are
> engaged in evil, criminal practices, or do they believe they are
> "doing good" by their criminal activities?
Dear David, I suspect it's a combination of both. Yes, I know that sounds contradictory but I would compare modern-day (and to some extent Hubbard, even, regarding some things) CofS management to various Puritan leaders, Taliban leaders and high ranking medieval RCC clergy, especially the Dominican high level clergy during the Inquisition.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Puritan leaders who trumped up the witchhunts really believed in Puritanism. (I have heard that almost everyone hanged as a witch during the Salem Witch Trials either hadn't supported to installation of the current Minister - or their family hadn't- or their land was in a certain area. There's an idea that someone wanted that land.No religion mentioned there, huh!!) I have no doubt that the Taliban heads really worship Allah. Or that the medieval RCC clergy who supported the Inquisition, the selling of indulgences and other outrages really believed in Catholicism.

They did things that were very very bad. So does CofS management. The old time Ministers and Bishops and Popes who did so were convinced that they set the rules. So when they set the rules (church and state not being separate) they called the shots. And they set the rules with their own self interest in mind. And they persuaded themselves this wasn't so. It's called "rationalization". People do this. Certain corrupt CEOs have done that, too.

Well, CofS would like to have a theocracy. They aren't enamoured of the democratic process, this can be seen in Hubbard's writings and also the practices of CofS. They want to be the only authority, the sole arbiter of what's right and what's legal. This is remarked on here on an almost daily basis.

Well, then you have no checks and balances like you do in American, Candian, European and many other governments. You don't with any kind of monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship. One's totally at the mercy of the dictator or head Clerical thingie guy.

Good men go bad in those situations. And if the men weren't so good to start with (which is probably more likely to be the case vis a vis David Miscavige. I say this because he was acting this way in 1980 from all accounts. Read about the Missionholder's conference- as I'm sure you have- and you'll see what I mean.) well, then their rules will be redolent with corruption and self interest.

But all the while they'll be rationalizing that they're really right. Just as others have done, so does Miscavige, Starkey and others do.

They AREN'T right. They AREN'T ethical. But they won't face up to that fact.

I spoke to someone who used to be a prison guard. He said all the prisoners in there were innocent. He meant they all SAID they were. Nobody would admit they were guilty. It's a given that in most prisons, almost everybody there did the thing for which they were convicted. There're some exceptions, sure, but most are guilty. Yet NONE would admit this.

People rationalize.

If Miscavige really admitted- even privately- to these things, the illegality, the bad, the erroneous, the stupidity,the cupidity, any of that, he'd have to face up to his role.

He's just not likely to want to do that. And the longer it goes on- and it's been 20 years already- the more he'll rationalize and compartmentalize.

I'm not condoning anything, I'm just saying how I think it works.

Ya know what I mean?

C

> "Human Rights Defense (ShyDavid)" <HR-Defense@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3bf02c02.7570342@localhost...
> > This is a recurring thought I've had for a few years, of which I
> > have tried to determine an answer to but have had little success.
> > My question is, are the leader(s) of Scientology aware they are
> > engaged in evil, criminal practices, or do they believe they are
> > "doing good" by their criminal activities?
> Dear David,
>
> I suspect it's a combination of both. Yes, I know that sounds contradictory
> but I would compare modern-day (and to some extent Hubbard, even, regarding
> some things) CofS management to various Puritan leaders, Taliban leaders and
> high ranking medieval RCC clergy, especially the Dominican high level clergy
> during the Inquisition.
The contradictions are typical of Hubbard and Scientology in general. As a matter of fact, the ability to 'believe' contradictory things simultaneously is one of the objectively observable 'successes' of 'the Tech'.

Like most other parts of 'the Tech' however, it's not 'original' and, like much of the rest of Scientology®, bears a striking resemblence to Orwell's much earlier '1984', specifically 'doublethink', but, not observed and abstracted as a warning like Orwell's masterpiece, but merely implemented and indoctrinated.

Zinj

>This is a recurring thought I've had for a few years, of which I
>have tried to determine an answer to but have had little success.
>My question is, are the leader(s) of Scientology aware they are
>engaged in evil, criminal practices, or do they believe they are
>"doing good" by their criminal activities?
They are aware of what they do but no more consider it evil than the Taliban considers it evil to beat a woman with a stick until she is prostrate because she wore white socks or carelessly allowed an ankle to show.

The more extreme and far from the norms of the civilized word a group gets, the less likely are they to reflect that their behavior may be wrong.

In fact, many such groups will revel in the fact that their acts are seen as over the top by the world at large.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!

Surely many if not most of them are fairly nice people. Are they totally unaware of the corrupt behavior and even crimes the COS has been accused of? Don't they know that there are all these former members speaking out against them? Do they choose to ignore it, tell themselves it's not true, that all these people just have sour grapes against the COS for some reason? What do those hotshot celebrities like John Travolta and Tom Cruise think about the allegations? How can they justify being involved with an organization like that?

Some of you are ex-members. Were you aware of the allegations about the COS when you were in it?

> Aside from the leaders, I wonder how much the followers are aware of.
> Surely many if not most of them are fairly nice people. Are they
> totally unaware of the corrupt behavior and even crimes the COS has
> been accused of?
More or less unaware, yes.

They are told that the very little they hear about it is incorrect, that it's all lies.

Now, who's going to have more credibility with a religious person:

the people who married them, christened their babies, comforted them when a family member died, made them feel better when they were ill, listened to them when they were upset, where all their friends are...

or Some critic with a Xenu leaflet who may or may not be one of the oh so sterling individuals who write things here like "you stupid clam." "Boy, these people are so fucking retarded, I can't believe they believe that. I like to laugh at them."

Some critics are about half drowned in their own vindictiveness and self importance.

Compare that with Susie Scientologist's friend Reverend So and So whom she's known for years and years who interacted with her as I've described above.

Or, take me, for example. For years I took the church's word on everything they told me. My friend whom I'll call "Joe" (not his real name) had been my roommate, had been there for me when I had to face some tough things, I'd cried on his shoulder a number of times and he'd come to me a number of times, too, when he needed something. Joe and the other people at the Org were known quantities to me. And they were a lot more polite than some of the people who post here, let me tell you!

It took awhile before I was able to look at the idea that the church does anything wrong and it wasn't just because I talked to some critics. Actually I talked to some other Scientologists who also had some things to say that corroborated much of what the critics were saying.

Hard to find Scn'ists who are willing to do that! The risk is too great!

So when a CofS member encounters a problem in CofS, he's told, "hey, you can write it up. We want to hear from you." he does this, and goes on his merry way.

Then he encounters a critic and maybe the critic isn't very user-friendly.

Maybe he's rude. And he's babbling about Xenu whom the CofS member has probably never heard about. And maybe he's being a bit confrontational, and the CofS member is just going to consider "I've just met a jerk." And how is he going to know any differently?
> Don't they know that there are all these former
> members speaking out against them? Do they choose to ignore it, tell
> themselves it's not true, that all these people just have sour grapes
> against the COS for some reason?
A lot gets filtered. They only know about some of the ex members. Before I got on this forum, I never heard of Lisa McPherson. I never heard of the real story behind the dissolving of the GO. I never heard of Margery Wakefield. Or of Stacy and Vaughn Young. Or of what was done to Paulette Cooper. (I was just told her publisher was made to burn all the copies of The Scandal of Scientology, nothing about the other things the church did to her.) Never. And considering that they, for a time, did not live far from where I have a house, that's pretty odd. I NEVER heard of those people til I got on a.r.s. I'd see the occasional negative article in Time or People but those were riddled with a number of inconsistencies and lies. I used to pick them out. Then, I'd be told about the stuff that I DIDN'T know about- by the church- that THOSE, too, were lies. And, remember what I said about the church having more credibility with a church member than some critics would and why.

After a while it became easy to perceive EVERYTHING critics said as lies, even when they weren't lies.

There are people right here on this forum who do that about Scn'ists.

Anything a Scn'ist says is questionable, but let someone else say it, and it's maybe ok.

People close their minds in accordance with their own frames of reference and it's not always easy to step out of that.
> What do those hotshot celebrities
> like John Travolta and Tom Cruise think about the allegations? How can
> they justify being involved with an organization like that?
Answer: they think those are just allegations. Period.

Look at what thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Islamic fundamentalists think about the US. You think the US is seriously thinking about listening to those? Guess again.

Allegations are allegations. Sometimes they are true, sometimes not.

Sometimes some are true and others aren't. And sometimes the truth is not paid attention to.

Also, too, celebrities are insulated and treated better than the average public CofS member and certainly treated a thousand times better than staff.

Their frame of reference is not going to include abuses, then.

>
> Some of you are ex-members. Were you aware of the allegations about
> the COS when you were in it?
See above.

C

And as far as auditing goes, there are lots of people who tell all sorts of things for many hours to their therapists- any sort of therapist, so what you bring up really isn't germane.

One may have a certain degree of trust in one's therapist because he or she is the therapist who took the person through all sorts of things. However, in CofS, as with other churches and/or cults (I maintain that it is both) you get the sense of community. One's friends belong, one may have had one's marriage performed there (I did), christenings, even memorial services. And it is that sense of community that causes one to go and close ranks against outsiders and to not consider that certain people have much credibility.

One gets that with political parties and other groups, too, not just churches and cults.

If it was just the therapy, there'd be a degree of what I've described, sure. Especially if the person was pleased with the therapy. But that alone is not why CofS members do not give critics a great deal of credibility.

Like I said, there's the community aspect,too.Can really lead to some them'n'us-ing.

And also you have to look at the fact that although it can be said that many CofS members are avoiding certain issues, there's stuff they don't even HAVE to try to avoid, 'cuz THEY NEVER EVER HEARD OF IT.

You see my example above. I never heard of RVY and Stacy Brooks Young although they must have lived not too far from me at one point in time. I NEVER heard of them before I got on a.r.s. Even though apparently my Org had been involved in some kind of picket or something. I mean, you'd THINK I'd have heard of them, but I really hadn't. I was fascinated to learn that, for a time, not only were they living in Seattle, but it must have been roughly the same PART of Seattle as my primary residence.

CofS members are insulated. They often are in denial about stuff but also they just don't have to even try to deny much if they don't even know about it, and they often don't.

So very little gets through and then what does get through seems fragmented.

It also can sound as idiotic as Scn does to *you*, when disseminated by a shrill sounding Xenu pamphlet-waving crackpot (or so he or she may be perceived) who may be looking to find fault with every single person who walks into a Scn center. It is very easy to dismiss such a person; to the extent that when one finally does meet a friendly fair-minded picketer with some legitimate things to say, which also happens quite a bit, one thinks, Oh well, another nut, without even listening to him. Once bitten, twice shy.

You guys really should understand this mindset as I see Scn'ists- in or out of the church- dismissed here often. No, not by everybody, but it's a mindset that is sometimes exhibited here and which everyone's at least seen.

C

> 'Cuz they never looked at after they heard the stuff they ignored.
> That's not "normal" behavior. Scientologists are "drilled" in not
> looking.
That is not true.

Our drills have nothing to do with that.

Howeve, what the church does do is encourage their members to only believe the church about anything said by others. That's not a drill, that's something different.

And it's not a not looking so much as a denial type thing.

And it works exactly as I've already described.
> That in itself should be enough of a clue to look.
No, actually, it's not. Back when I was a staunch church member who believed everything I was told, I didn't even know a lot of this stuff was out there. to LOOK, you have to have a pretty good idea theres something legitimate to look for.

Whenever I did tune in to some TV thing about Scn or an article, I could find all kinds of purple prose,yellow journalism and inaccuracies. This did not instill a great deal of confidence in me.

What finally changed for me was finding this ng and the websites that a number of people have put up. But that wasn't all of it, either. Because I could still (and it continues to be like that) find all kinds of irresponsible claims and comments made that I could poke my fingers right through. So, what did it for me was that Scn'ists I knew who loved Scn, even some who still cared about the church, corroborated a number of things.

People came to know they could tell me these things because they'd lurk here or whatever, and then they'd tell me things. In the words of one, "I have nobody else I can talk to about these things."

That was definitely a factor. The corroboration. I'd had some disagreeable experiences in CofS, yeah, but I'd never been in the SO, so I hadn't had some of the really dramatically icky ones others have had. So what I had experienced, I was able to dismiss or sweep under the carpet a bit.

Then I read things here. Like the coerced abortion situatiion extant in the SO. I wasn't willing to believe it, but church friends confirmed it for me and they could not be said to have a vested interest in the critic scene 'cuz they weren't IN the critic scene.

Anyway, one of my points is, that once a CofS member finds (inevitably) some lies and exaggerations and out of context things in an article or tv special or two, they will use that to decide that all of them are going to be that way.And, well, they DO tend to be riddled with a certain bias.

The thing people- critics and CofS members alike- often are unwilling to do- is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to analyze these articles, tv specials, websites, and whatnot.

But most people I know tend to view other people's- whether this be about Scn, a political party or what's a good movie to watch,doesn't matter- opinions as being either creditable or not. No in between.
> Suggesting that the members of any group (like political parties)
> will ignore criminal behavior by their leadership, even when there
> is ample evidence, and therefore will not believe it or look at it
> simply is NOT the case.
They don't KNOW about the alleged criminal behavior, Brent.

I keep telling ya, I never HEARD of 99% of this stuff before I got on the ng. Why would I have? The only cues I had were some articles and I was (and still am!!) ALWAYS able to find errors, inconsistencies and bias in them, which did not give me any reason to start any research campaign.

And you know, people we know have greater credibility than strangers.

Had you asked me 4 years ago if I truthfully suspected ANY problems in CofS and if so, what they were, and if I'd been willing to talk to you (which I would not have been), I'd have said that they were too bossy, the prices might be too high, some of the rules were too strict. I'd have not even have thought about anything else. I wouldn't have evaded the other things, I wouldn't even have known anything about them.

I had read some critical articles about CofS and Scn. But I'd NEVER heard of most of the stuff I've learned in the past three and a half or so years.

This is exactly why the standard of criticism must be raised.

As long as there are people just stubbornly saying "Well, you should have known somehow,even though you had no way to know." and as long as there are people jeering at and deriding Scn'ists, and idiots writing in here and saying things like "I've been observing your group with interest. Boy, I'd really like to get those clams. Boy, those people are such fucking idiots.

They must be retards."- people will NOT listen to you. Not the ones you'd most like to reach- not the members.

Although it is true that church members tend to be in denial about some things, it's mainly things that they've experienced or seen and they kind of sweep them under the carpet or repress them. But there's an awful lot of stuff they don't have to do that about because they just don't know. And given the quality of the criticism I often see here and elsewhere I can see why some of you guys don't enjoy much credibility with CofS members.

C

Go Back