From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:31:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Mary Kuhner writes:

[Jonathon]
>[...T]he 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. 

Here is where I guess we'll just have to disagree.  I wouldn't let
someone walk off a cliff because the harm is very great and irrevocable
(i.e. no chance to change your mind).  If someone walks out of an
auditing session, he can come back.  Things may slow down, some time may
be wasted, but I don't see any evidence for great irrevocable harm, and
so I don't see the justification.

My Wiccan circle had a long discussion about this.  It is indeed
disruptive to have someone walk out of a ritual halfway through, but we
decided that in order to respect peoples' rights we had to allow it
anyway, so we start all rituals by saying "You are free to leave at any
time."  People sometimes do.  Maybe they remembered they left the oven
on....It's their business, not mine.  Letting them leave quietly
minimizes the distraction to everyone else.  Trying to make them stay
leads to bad feelings and sometimes actively dangerous situations.
(We don't feel it's safe to have someone participating in a ritual with
which s/he strongly disagrees.)

>>What kinds of actions fall under "must not allow him to run away"?

>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. 

That doesn't make me feel much safer!  I am not very strong and someone
could easily stop me from pushing them out of the way.  I don't want to 
hear that they "probably" won't be able to use physical force.

How can you effectively teach or heal someone who doesn't want to be
there?  Doesn't it require cooperation?

>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.

But the ISE says that they will be assigned an Enemy Condition, and
presumably that carries some penalties?

>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 feel I understand the Dynamics fairly well:  let me paraphrase.  The
first four are survival as individual, as offspring, as organizations
and as a species, right?

What I don't understand is how you decide priorities among the four
dynamics.  For example, if an individual opposes an organization, which
takes precedence; the survival of the individual, or the survival of the
organization?  What does Scientology say about this kind of issue?

>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.

I notice that Scientologists are quite willing to criticize other
peoples' belief systems (for example, those who believe in psychiatry).
Why is this not bad, if criticism is bad in general?  Why is it wrong
for psychiatrists' organizations to challenge Scientology, if it is
right for Scientology to challenge psychiatry?  Shouldn't ethics work in
both directions?  I wouldn't want to trust someone who had one set of
rules for himself, and another set for other people.

I have experienced plenty of criticism from following a non-mainstream
religion.  One of the things I've noticed in pagan groups is that we
have to constantly guard against paranoia--against assigning enemies and
getting the feeling that everyone is out to get us.  It's destructive
and counter-productive to feel this way, in my experience.  Yes, there
are people who are hostile to Wicca.  Being hostile to them in return
causes escalation--causes a series of hostilities in both directions
which will just get worse and worse.  I've had much better luck with
things like explaining my views carefully, providing true information if
others are putting forth false information, and appealing to peoples'
better natures.

Also, if you decide that criticism is bad, you prevent yourself
from hearing constructive suggestions that might improve your situation.
This is why businesses hire outside auditors, for example.  They hope
that by subjecting themselves to strong criticism, they will improve
their ways of handling their money.  It seems to work.

I've seen Wiccans get caught up in enemy relationships, and it seems to
do them a lot of harm.  They become bitter, suspicious and aggressive.
They get more and more enemies, because they're looking for them.  They
start rejecting any and all suggestions, and get locked into what
they're doing; they lose the ability to grow and change.

Here is an Islamic parable on the same topic (apologies if I am warping
it in the telling):

A man heard that a certain city was full of evil people.  Unfortunately,
he had to go there anyway, but he went resolved that they wouldn't take
him in.  After he had been there a few months, someone asked him how he
had found the city.  "Terrible," he replied.  "People are suspicious and
mistrustful, they are continually looking out for their own interests. I
hate this place."

Another man heard that a certain city was full of good people.  He was
sent there on business, and went with delight.  After he had been there
a few months, someone asked him how he had found the city.  "Wonderful,"
he replied.  "Everyone is friendly and outgoing, they are always willing
to help me out if I ask.  I love this place."

Could it be that the two men went to the same city?  If so, what is the
difference between them?

I think you should be very, very reluctant to decide that someone is your 
enemy.  It tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I'd rather face
criticism and the resulting turmoil, from which I might actually
improve, rather than make an enemy by trying to silence someone.

>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?  

Decide that they need to think things over first?  Deal with personal or
family situations that demand their time?  Do some background reading to
understand the process better?  I can think of lots of reasons that
don't involve changing your place of residence or dying.

And if the person does decide to change to another service, is that so
bad?  Presumably you once belonged to some other group, and left it to
join Scientology.  Should the other group have tried to force you to
stay?  Would that have been good for you? for the other group?

>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.

On the other hand, s/he presumably asked you in advance if the surgery
was okay, and wouldn't operate if you disagree.  Even in the middle of a
series of operations, if the patient says Stop (between operations) the
physician is expected to respect that.  I understand that there are
points at which backing out is a bad idea, but I wonder about how
Scientology decides on these points.

And s/he wouldn't try to punish you for wanting to stop, which is what
ISE seems to recommend; and you would always have the right to other
opinions about whether the surgery was necessary.

The courts have upheld the right of sick people to refuse treatment even
if it means they may die, and I agree with this law.  There are some
decisions you just have to make for yourself.

>The only book you've mentioned which you had doubts about was ISE.

No, that's not true.  I found _Scientology 0-8_ upsetting also, though
the statements there were less specific and clear.  But all the stuff
about auditors and course supervisors controlling their students/
pre-clears was in 0-8.

>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.

I would be very interested in hearing about this, if that's okay.

Do things really go without trouble?  It seems to me that Scientology
has had a good deal of trouble.

>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.

Did you know it would make Scientology consider you an Enemy?  Did you
know it was listed as a High Crime?

Mary