From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:08:07 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov16.233132.5689@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>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.)

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

>
>>>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.

If you were in an auditing session and strongly felt the need to leave,
they'd have to let you.  Verbal argument, however, would be used in order
to make sure you are aware of the problems that may arise (becoming
keyed-in without running through the process to key you out).

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

It does require cooperation.  If any wants to leave, they leave.

>>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?

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.

>>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?

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.

>>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.

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.

>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.
>

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

>>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.

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

>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?

Scientology doesn't force people to stay.  My point about jumping between
services is that if a person cannot stick to one thing long enough to
reach the gains, why should they expect to be able to follow through on
another service?  By using verbal arguement to keep someone on a service,
the auditor or whoever is looking out for the PC's interests.

>>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.

First, a person is given data on auditing prior to going in an auditing
session.  And no one goes into session if they don't want to: auditing
is always the PC's option.

Second, Scientology details the points where a person shouldn't stop.
The primary point is in the middle of a particular auditing process.
However, once a particular step (or rundown) is completed, then the
person can stop and never return to auditing ever if that's what they
want.

>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.

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

>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.

Again: auditing is optional.  Even staff members (who receive auditing
free) are not obligated to receive it.

>>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.

Oh, my mistake.

>>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.

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.

As far as stepping back and viewing the whole: anyone could do this
for any form of organization or group.  Determine how an effort to do
something can be assisted even when some of the participants start having
out-ethics problems.  Then compare with the ethics system used within
Scientology.  Be honest regarding workability and effectiveness.

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

I'm speaking internally.  Yes, externally there have been annoyances for
Scientology.  Internally things have been relatively smooth.  The exception
would be someone new who unknowingly or knowingly caused some trouble.
That person and the organization would then benefit from the ethics tech.

>>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?

It's been too long.  In any case, I've never been assigned the condition
of enemy, so I hadn't worried about it.

Jonathon
Barbera