From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:25:27 GMT

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

By the way, Jonathon, could you trim articles a little more?  They are
getting awfully long.

For those who tuned in late:  "ISE" refers to the book "Introduction to
Scientology Ethics".

[Jonathon]
>In auditing session, if the person insisted on leaving, the auditor could
>not do anything other than try to talk them out of it.

Why is the auditor asked to promise never to allow the pre-clear to leave 
on his own determinism [ISE] if that promise cannot be kept?  Why is there
no discussion in this Ethics book about what actions are and are not
allowed?  This scares me, frankly.

[Mary quotes ISE stating that leaving a course without 'due cause' leads
to being assigned an Enemy Condition, and asks what the penalties are.]

>The penalties are listed in the ISE book.  The person has to work their
>way up from the Enemy condition.  Believe it or not, this isn't an
>extremely difficult task.  In fact, it's more of an inconvenience than
>anything.

The formula for Condition of Enemy says simply "Find out who you are."
Various people through the ages have commented that this is *not* a
simple task, and convincing someone else that you have accomplished it
could be even more difficult. 

What if the person sincerely believes his/her criticisms of Scientology,
and is not willing to 'work their way up' from them?  Doesn't 'working
your way up' involve recanting your earlier criticisms, and making some
sacrifice on behalf of Scientology?  What if a person simply wants to
leave?

>Ethics deals with the greater number of the eight dynamics.  In your
>example, you're are proposing that there are only two that are
>effected.  However, in a more specific example (what is the group and
>why is the person opposed, etc.) it may be found that more dynamics
>are involved.  Also, there are several condition formulas that can be
>worked (in ISE) to help a person make a decision.

Would you mind going over a specific example with me?

I'll use one outside Scientology to avoid stepping on any toes.  The
principles should be the same.

A junior scientist is accused by outside investigators of falsifying her
research results.  She claims to be innocent.  What should the head of
her laboratory do?  Should he use his influence (imagine that he is a
very influential scientist) to try to have the charges dismissed?  How
far should he go in protecting his junior?  Should he be willing to
threaten or blacklist her accusers?  Conversely, should he be willing to
fire her in order to protect himself from criticism?  How does he
balance her needs, his lab's needs (as an organization), his own needs,
and the scientific community's needs?

[Mary asks why criticism of Scientology is forbidden, while criticism of
psychiatry is allowable]

>In the various campaigns against psychiatry, evidence (from independent
>sources such as past reports made within psychiatry itself) were presented
>to reveal some of psychiatry's more controversial nature.

Would criticism of Scientology which presented evidence of this kind be
acceptable?  ISE assigns the condition of Enemy for any public criticism
of Scientology.  It does not talk about differentiating 'good' from
'bad' criticism at all.

It's my understanding that people who have presented evidence against
Scientology have been taken to court in an attempt to stop them.  Do you
feel this would have been acceptable behavior if the positions were
reversed--should psychiatrists sue Scientology or Scientologists to 
stop them from criticizing psychiatry?

[participation in non-mainstream religion]

>However, the enemy thing aside (?) ... haven't you been troubled by
>friends or family who have been antagonistic to your beliefs?

Skeptical and worried, yes.  Antagonistic, no.  Some of my relatives
were concerned about my safety and mental health, and we had long
discussions in which I tried to explain what I was doing and why I was
doing it.  I wasn't troubled by this; I would have been troubled if they
didn't care enough about me to check things out when I was getting
involved in something they mistrusted. 

I was lucky; not all pagans have it so easy.  I do appreciate the kind
of problems you get when your family doesn't approve.  But I don't see
how ISE addresses those problems.  Suppose my family had been critical
of my decision.  Would attempting to silence them have helped me?  I
think it would have convinced them that something was really wrong.

[Leaving a course due to personal problems]

>In which case the person would leave the course or service.  No one
>will force them to remain.

But ISE says that the only acceptable reasons for leaving a course or
service are moving, changing orgs, or death.  If the person is a
Scientology employee, s/he will presumably be subject to penalties.
I can't understand ISE's description of the penalties for Condition of 
Enemy, but it seems clear that at very least they include loss of pay.
This could be a survival threat, if you need that money to eat.

>Ethics conditions aren't punishment.  Re-read the section.  The formulas
>are for the person to use to help themself.

But earlier you said that Scientology assigned the Enemy condition in
order to punish people who threaten it (the quote's been deleted, but
I'm sure you can find it).

Loss of pay certainly strikes me as a punishment.

>I've only been assigned a condition once and that was Doubt when I
>had doubts about being on staff at the PHX Org.  So I worked up from
>Doubt.  In the end I decided to stay on staff.  Not because anyone
>forced me to or because I was afraid of what would happen if I didn't,
>I benefited from the Doubt formula and having worked back up from Doubt.

What did you do?  In particular, what were your doubts (if you don't
mind me asking) and how did you resolve them?

[did Jonathon know the consequences of withdrawal?]
>It's been too long.  In any case, I've never been assigned the condition
>of enemy, so I hadn't worried about it.

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 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,
obsession with money, emphasis on the leader, claims of infallibility.
Before becoming involved with it, I'd want some solid reason to 
disregard those danger signs.  I didn't find one in ISE or 0-8.

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.

(I won't have posting access for about a week; apologies if I'm slow in
responding.)

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