From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:24:30 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov15.165449.26205@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>
>[quoting from Scientology materials supporting freedom of speech, choice
>and association]
>
>>>However, there are many passages which seem to me to contradict this
>>>directly:
>
>>>0-8, The Auditor's Code:
>>>I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism (p.
>>>39).
>
>>The pc's betterment is at stake so naturally the auditor
>>must not allow him to run away before something has been gotten through.
>
>Perhaps a warning to the student would be appropriate?  "Once you begin
>individual sessions of this course, you will not be allowed to leave
>until the instructor is satisfied with your progress.  Once you begin
>the course as a whole, you will be strongly discouraged from withdrawing
>until the end."  This might help people who disapprove of such coercion
>avoid putting themselves in this situation.

Students and pcs are made aware of this.

>I'm bothered by the idea that "naturally" the auditor, not the student,
>makes the decisions about what is good for the student.  As a free
>adult, I feel that should be my own decision, even if someone else feels
>that it's harming me.

First, clarification: a student is someone studying on a course.  A pc
(preclear) is someone receiving auditing.

Second, the auditor is responsible for the pc.  You wouldn't let someone
(a child or adult) walk off a cliff without trying to stop them.  This
is part of the auditor's job.  He makes sure that the pc gets through
the sessions standardly without going off and doing something else.  There
is a lot of data on this.  If you have access to a Dianetics: MSMH, you
should read sections dealing with the reactive mind, key-in, key-out, and
information for the auditor.  (I don't have my copy readily available at
this time.  Sorry for being vague.)

>What kinds of actions fall under "must not allow him to run away"?
>Verbal argument?  Physical force?  Locked doors?  The latter two are
>illegal, and if I were to consider becoming a student I would certainly
>want an assurance that they would *never* be used.

No locked doors.  Physical force?  No.  If the PC *really* wanted to leave
and got pushed the auditor out of the way and left, then they'd probably
only be able to use verbal argument.  The PC is informed previous to his
first session about why sessions should be completed and so forth.

>As a University student, I knew that the penalties for dropping a course
>were (a) failing grade, (b) possible removal from the University, (c)
>non-refunding of my course fees (all assuming I did it too late in the
>quarter).  But the University wouldn't try to force me to stay if I
>chose not to stay.  I feel this is an appropriate way to treat adults--
>that you should assume they are competant to make their own decisions.
>And this is what the Code of Honor seems to be saying.  I'm puzzled by
>the contradiction.

If someone wanted to drop a course, the Course Supervisor would try to talk
them out of it.  However, if they insisted to drop it, they drop it.  That's
it.

>>>ISE, list of High Crimes:
>
>>>Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists [...].  Writing
>>>anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or
>>>anti-Scientologist evidence to the press.  Publicly resigning staff or
>>>executive position in protest [..].  Announcing departure from
>>>Scientology [...].  Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and
>>>refusing to return despite normal efforts. (pp. 50-52)
>
>>Supressive speech and association is discouraged.  However, the person
>>can still do want they want to do.  Being a Supressive Person is your
>>right.  However, don't be upset when you're penalized for it.
>
>I don't quite see how this goes along with "Freedom of speech will be
>encouraged" in the Scientologist's Code.  Penalizing people when they
>speak freely is hardly encouraging free speech.  I have also seen
>records of court cases in which Scientology organizations tried to
>prevent dissemination of writings critical of Scientology--about as
>direct an attempt to prevent free speech as is possible.

You're missing something.  The Church of Scientology has rights too.  They
can penalize people for being suppressive to Scientology.  To understand
this, you'd need a better understanding of the Dynamics (was it in ISE?
If not, the first four are in Dianetics: MSMH) and how ethics work along
with the Dynamics (ISE explains this).

>I'm also puzzled by the intense dislike of criticism.  Let me tell a
>small story.  I'm Wiccan by faith, and last summer I was preparing for a
>spiritual retreat.  Two Christian friends of mine expressed concern
>about this, and spent about a month grilling me by email over my
>motives, plans, safety precautions, and general reasons for doing what I
>was doing.  They were intensely critical of many of my ideas.  It was
>rather exasperating at the time, but the criticism helped me a great
>deal when I came to actually doing the retreat, because it had given me
>opportunity to think hard about what I was doing and satisfy myself it
>was correct.  If I had refused to hear them because they were somewhat
>hostile to Wicca (as indeed one of them was), I would have been the
>poorer for it.

However, criticising a person's beliefs (as you must have experienced in
a somewhat controversial belief-system) is suppressive and can create
turmoil for the person: having them question their beliefs without
necessarily giving them up, but weakening their involvement and enthusiasm.
This is also in ISE in the section on PTS'ness.

>>Someone *can* leave a course without being assigned an Enemy Condition.
>>The circumstances are important for the distinction (re-read your
>>statement from ISE on this).
>
>I re-read it.  Here is the full quotation:  entry #3 in the High Crimes:
>
>3.  Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to
>return despite normal efforts.
>
>It does not say anything about circumstances under which one can leave a
>course without becoming an Enemy.  From surrounding text, however
>(particularly entry #2) one might conclude that "leaving an
>organization, a location or situation, or death" would be acceptable
>circumstances.  It's clear, however, that "Because I choose to" is not
>an acceptable circumstance.

People can route off of courses for various reasons.  However, you're
right, leaving a course or an auditing step for no reason other than
just because would be not good.  Besides, what does the person intend to
do if they stopped in the middle of an auditing level, for instance?  Jump
to some other service to see if that's more fun?  A greater understanding
of Scn tech is recommended to fully grasp why people are discouraged from
just stopping auditing.

>>A course supervisor must control the courseroom.  That's his job.
>>Allowing people to do whatever they wanted would reduce their progress
>>on courses and possibly reduce the progress of others.
>
>I understand that freedom is inefficient, awkward, and sometimes
>actively harmful.  Personally, I don't think that's a sufficient reason
>to sacrifice it.  If a person is disrupting the progress of others, it
>would be reasonable to ask him to stop, and to ask him to leave if he
>doesn't stop--I have no problem with that.  But requiring him to stay
>*and* to behave as you want seems very coercive.

First, refer back to my walking off a cliff analogy.

Second, Course Supervisors, for the most part, aren't "coercive" or
suppressive.  They have a job to do.  That job is make sure everyone
progresses appropriately on their courses and that they complete the
courses.

I've been at several Scn organizations and observed a few people who'd
occassionally get bogged down in a particular course and want to quit.  The
Course Sup gave them a "pep-talk" or helped them to find what they had
gotten bogged down on and helped them get going again.  In the end, the
students were grateful.  If it wasn't this, people would go along several
courses until they came to one where they missed some misunderstood words
and so forth and *pop*, right off the course.  Then what?  You'd have *many*
people halfway through courses which they refuse to complete.  *That'd*
be suppressive to them and to Scientology.

Another analogy: I've had RK surgery 4 times.  Now, what would the doctor
do if, in the middle of surgery, I requested that it be stopped because
I was uncomfortable?  He'd certainly try to talk me into staying!  Why?
Because I'd be putting myself into jeopardy otherwise.

>I subscribed to this newsgroup with a fairly high opinion of the one
>Scientologist whom I'd met, and because of her, of her practices.  But
>the reading I've been doing (in Scientology books only) has been very 
>distressing.

The only book you've mentioned which you had doubts about was ISE.
Believe it or not, there are people out there who became discouraged with
Scn not because they disliked the tech (most still hold it up in awe and
use it), but because they didn't fully understand the ethics system.
I was like that once.  Ethics got rough and I didn't like it.  However,
since then I've stepped back and viewed the whole and how this ethics
system can keep things going without trouble, etc.

Also, read some other books.  The two you read really weren't intended
as an overview of Scientology.  Read The Fundamentals of Thought and
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health for more information.

>Do Scientologists ever tell their students that asking for the promised
>refund for courses that don't work is a High Crime and will assign them 
>the Condition of Enemy? (ISE p. 52)  Jonathon, were you told that before
>you agreed to the terms of the courses?  Do you think you should have
>been?

People are aware of what happens if they request a refund (refund granted
upon agreement that the person will no longer be able to receive other
services).  It's been a long time since I took a course as a public, but
I recall signing something which detailed everything I needed to know
about such things.

Jonathon
Barbera