From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Freedom of speech and association
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:08:21 GMT

One indent is Jonathon Barbera.  Two indents and new text are Mary
Kuhner.

[By the way, I use Wicca as an example because it's what I know, not
because I think Wicca or Wiccans are necessarily better than other
religions or organizations.  I just like to use real-world
examples--I think they're more convincing than hypothetical ones.]

>>I guess I'm just more of a worrier.  I'm a pretty rebellious,
>>independent person, and I'd be afraid to get involved with Scientology
>>given what I've read about its laws.

>The only reason to worry is if you are generally out-ethics.  Otherwise,
>if you're fairly ethical, you won't have any problems.

I suspect I am not very ethical by Scientology standards.  We disagree
on a fundamental point:  I feel that, compared to individual people,
organizations have practically no rights.  They are less important and
"real" than people.  A person should never be sacrificed so that an
organization can survive; only so other people can survive.  If my
Wiccan ritual group decided on a course of action that harmed its
individual members (or outsiders, for that matter) so that it could
prosper, I would leave it.  (We discussed this at a recent meeting.)
If my University adopted policies that promoted its own welfare at the
expense of students, teachers, and the public, I would quit working
here.

In Scientologese, I don't accept the legitimacy of the Third Dynamic as
equal to the First, Second or Fourth (do I have that right?)

It seems to me that, holding this view, I should be wary of Scientology;
that I might well be generally "out-ethics" and in danger of
punishment.  One of the High Crimes in ISE is quitting your position as
a moral protest.  I would feel morally obliged to do so if the
organization took steps I disagreed with and could not stop; and then 
it sounds like I could end up owing thousands of dollars to the CoS.

>>The occultist Isaac Bonewits made a list of 14 danger signs to consider
>>when joining an organization.  Scientology, according to what I've read
>>in its own publications, rings several of those warning bells:  attempt
>>to control communication, intolerance of criticism, lack of humor,

>Control communication?  Only intolerance of public statements against Scn.

There are numerous statements in ISE to the effect of "If the
student/pre-clear asks such and such a question, you must give such and
such an answer.  It is forbidden to give any other answer."  I can't 
quote them because I returned the book to the library, but you should 
be able to find them easily.  This certainly seems like a strong attempt 
to control communication.....

The usual required answer is "Read the book", by the way--which
explains a lot of what goes on on this newsgroup, I think.

>Criticism within the organization isn't intolerable.  The intolerance
>arrives with public publication of criticism (the intent being to harm
>Scn not to help fix it).

A couple of the rules in ISE dealt with "causing a superior to come
under question or suspicion" which is censured even if there is
cause, as far as I can tell.  (I.e., causing a superior to come before
a Board of Evidence is a Misdemeanor.  Causing him/her to come before a
B of E based on false evidence is a High Crime.  I can only deduce
that the Misdemeanor is presenting *true* evidence of wrongdoing....)

>Lack of humor?  That doesn't apply to LRH or Scientologists in general.
>Most certainly not.

Didn't someone post recently that humor at the expense of LRH is
inappropriate?  Some Scn jokes were posted, but only one was at the
expense of Scientologists or Scientology; the rest poked fun at other
religions or at the press.  (I really did like the one about LRH not
knowing how to swim, though; quite funny.)

One of the moments that convinced me my Wiccan acquaintences were all
right was when one of them, during a final rehearsal for a public
ritual, recited with a perfectly straight face a completely
obscene parody of his own lines.  It took people a few seconds to 
catch on, and then we all burst out laughing so hard we had to sit down.

>>obsession with money, emphasis on the leader, claims of infallibility.

>Obsession with money?  The money is needed for organization survival.
>The obsession is with survival if anything.

Why is the survival of the CoS such an obsession?  Under some
circumstances, wouldn't it be better if the CoS disbanded and Dianetics/
Scientology was taught privately by individuals?

>Leader?  Yes.  True not only for the founder but for any leader.

Why is there such an emphasis on leaders?  If Clears are entirely
rational, why isn't power shared democratically among all of them?

>Infallibility?  There have been a lot of changes in Scn tech since 1952.

I am puzzled how changes can be made.  It says at many points in the
books that only approved Tech can be used; no experimentation, no
variation.  How does Scientology ever test a new procedure?

"No subject on earth except physics and chemistry has been better
tested" certainly approaches a claim to infallibility, and so far I
haven't seen much reason to believe it.  So does "Scientology always
works when properly applied."

>>I spent a very cautious couple of months investigating Wicca before I
>>decided that the Wiccans I was dealing with were trustworthy.  My
>>efforts to decide about Scientology haven't met with nearly as much
>>cooperation.

>Check out the new edition of What is Scientology? from your local
>library when available.

I don't think I can evaluate an organization based solely on its books; 
I need to talk to *people*.  You can say anything in a book--who's to know 
if it's true?  Talking to a person gives you a much better intuitive sense
for what's going on.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology