From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:51:28 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov20.072527.6542@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:

>
>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.

The ethics book is not an auditor's guide.  Other information is provided
to auditors as part of their training.

>
>[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.

Actually, it is a simple task if applied in a simple way.

>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?

Then the person leaves.

>>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?

This doesn't sound like a situation where the ethics of the situation
is in question.  However, there is Scn data on a vaguely similiar topic
where additional evidence should be gathered, esp. here to discover if
the research results were indeed falsified.  The head of the lab should
discover this before doing the other things.

>[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.

I don't recall exactly the reference, but doesn't it say something about
providing the criticism to the press or public in general?  I don't
think it says that writing a criticism letter to an organization is
wrong.  (In fact, it's been done.)

>
>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?

I'm not positive, but I think there are law suits going on between
Scientologists and 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.

There is a lot of data available on handling PTS'ness.  Silencing them
is not the proper handling.  Doing things like you did (discussing it, etc.)
is described in detail.

>[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.

If a staff member dropped a course just because, then, yes, they would
be penalized.

>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).

I don't recall using the word "punish".  In any case, the penalty for
threatening Scientology (regarding an ex-Scientologist) wouldn't be
assigning a condition.  However, when they returned, they would probably
work up from Enemy.

>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?

I told them I wanted to route-off from staff.  I began routing-off
procedures.  After my leaving staff Confessional (to see if any overts
committed on post were causing my wish to leave), I felt better and
chose to remain on staff.  I had to work up from Doubt as a handling for
*why* I wanted to leave.  This wasn't a "punishment".

My doubts?  I had trouble with my post and became rather down.  Then
one day I decided I didn't want to do it anymore.

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

>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.

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).

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

>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.

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

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

>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.

Jonathon
Barbera