From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Coercion
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:10:03 GMT

John Holifeld 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".

>   If the PC does jump up and want to leave, the auditor should be able
>to handle it with special techniques known to auditors as Upper Indoc TRs.
>He can keep the PC in session and interested in his case without any
>confrontation, such as you fear, occuring.  If a confrontation like
>you fear does occur, something is very wrong and that auditor should be
>in ethics himself, not the PC.

Hmm.  Is "Indoc" short for "indoctrination"?  What does "TR" stand for?
"Training Routine"?  I'm having a lot of trouble with the jargon.

I know there are sales institutes and the like which promise to teach
you how to do this (keep people talking even when they'd ordinarily want
to leave) but I never heard of one promising 100% success.  I'd feel
rather uncomfortable about putting myself within the reach of such a
person, if I thought he could really do what you say.

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

>   Actually Mary, if the person really intended to leave the course,
>the most severe action that could ever occur against him would be 
>expulsion from Scientology.  Kind of like being ex-communicated.  While
>I might view that as really awful, I doubt someone who wants to blow
>(leave without authorization) would really be in much pain about it.

What if the person was sincerely interested in Scientology, but had 
pressing issues elsewhere that caused him to drop the course?  I 
have a friend who is dedicated to Wicca, but who is having to cut 
back on some of his committments to it for the sake of his
children.  The rules in ISE seem to imply that it's not acceptable to
have anything in your life that is more important to you than
Scientology.  That strikes me as a rather inhumane attitude.

And doesn't the person who leaves often get billed for "free" services?

>You shouldn't be afraid to get involved
>with Scientology.  I can understand where your coming from though,
>because ISE would probably seem authoritarian to me also, if I didn't
>know more about the subject.  I'd really hate for you to judge the
>subject based on ISE alone.  What other books have you read?

ISE, Scientology 0-8, the first 100 pages of Dianetics:MSMH, and small
excerpts from other books (such as have been posted to the Net).
I'm unlikely to read much more without some pretty good reason, as I
find LRH's writing style very tiresome; though if you could suggest a
specific part of MSMH (no more than about another 100 pages) that you
think would clarify matters, I'd be willing to give it a try.

But I was particularly interested in ethics--in comparing and
contrasting Scientology ethics to Wiccan ethics--so I think ISE was a
reasonable book to look at.

[Mary]
>>>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,

>   Mary, that's a little bit unfair to us.  I guess there could be some
>truth in that we use TRs to control communication, but not that we
>would censor free speach or anything.  

What about the lawsuit brought by Scientology to prevent publication of 
Atack's _A Piece of Blue Sky_?  I realize that the book is very critical
of Scientology and I understand why you don't like it, but supporting
freedom of speech has to mean supporting freedom of unpopular speech.
Everyone's in favor of free speech when they agree with what's being said;
the test is how you behave when you disagree.

There are also a *lot* of rules in ISE which state the allowed answers
to certain questions, and assign punishments if any other answer is
given.  This is not free speech.

>   Its just that there is a right way to handle things, and a wrong
>way.  Attacking Scientology because you feel the Church has wronged
>you in some way isn't the right way to handle it.

Free speech means the freedom to say the wrong thing.

>   Lack of Humor?  I've never noticed a lack of humor.  In fact, sometimes
>I wish there were less humor and more getting the show on the road.

Bonewits draws a distinction between humor at the expense of the
organization or its leaders, and humor at the expense of outsiders.  I
haven't heard very much of the former, but I may just not have been
talking to the right people.

_Dianetics_ makes fun of outside organizations and ideas a good deal,
but not of itself.

>   Have you ever visited the org?  My guess is that they probably tried
>to sell you something and it turned you off.

Nope.  My acquaintence with Scientology consists of having heard one
public talk by a Scientologist (I was favorably impressed with her; she
seemed very careful, skeptical, and un-dogmatic); reading a few books;
and following this newsgroup.  But you're right that if I had gone to an
org and gotten the kind of hard sell you describe I would certainly
never have gone back.

>Just remember that the people in the org are there to help you
>get what you want out of life.  

But if they were to decide I *didn't* need their services, their
statistics would suffer, wouldn't they?  When people are judged based on
their sales performance it's no wonder that you hear complaints about
a "hard sell".

>   Go into the org and see the Chaplain.  He can explain the ethics to
>you better than Jonathon or I can.  Talk to the students when they are
>off course.  Ask them some questions.

Well, it's safer and more convenient for me to talk to you and Jonathon;
and I think the opinions of rank-and-file Scientology members are just
as interesting as the official positions.

Thanks for the information!

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