Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"

> These are interesting examples; however, one thing you failed to mention
> is
> what happens to a person who is declared by scientology - no one is
> supposed
> to talk to them - they are  to be disconnected from.  If there is a case
> of a family member being declared then, in effect, scientology is saying
> that
> one must disconnect from family.

I'm sure it's a very difficult situation. I'm sure that other religions which
excommunicate their members have similar problems.

I knew one family who had a member declared suppressive for a while (he got
reinstated later). I don't know them very well but I do know that the family
continued living together.

It's possible that they split the house down the middle and had different
halves of the kitchen and the fridge, but I suspect that they merely avoided
talking about Scientology during that time.

> You also don't address the issue of the attacks that are launched
> against critics simply because they are critics.  Scientology has sued
> Time Magazine for its article - it tried to ruin Paulette Cooper.
> Scientology has done
> many horrible things to people who have taken a stand against its
> dangerous and unethical practices.  In effect - causing many people, who
> might have otherwise never even known about Scientology, to become
> critics.  Scientology has "pulled it in" by acting like a school yard
> bully and threatening people with lies, law suits, harassment, and
> disrupting families.  This is what we are against - the abusive
> behaviour of Management towards everyone and anyone who dares criticize
> its policies.
> Think about it for a minute.  Look at the history of what Scientology
> has done - criminal convictions in the US for stealing files from the
> IRS, criminal conviction in Canada for breach of the public trust for
> stealing files from Government and police Agencies.  Is this a religion
> or a crime syndicate?  From outside looking in it is the latter.
> Y

Alright, but I think that things are getting better.This next section is a kind
of rehash of something I wrote in an earlier thread. In the early eighties and
during certain periods before that it was very easy to get declared.
Particularly if you had a position of authority.

A number of reasons for the harsh ethics and unreasonable responses to attacks
have been argued for - one of the most interesting to me is the idea that a lot
of the problems stemmed from covert infiltration. Variations of this idea have
been suggested by a number of diverse people:

Bill Robertson; by the Ace of Clubs (fantastic prose style by the way, if
you're reading - one of the best I've ever read); in the time line put out
by "The Librarian" (and revisited recently by CL);  the rumor line; and finally
by David Miscavige (in the satellite broadcast announcing the deal with the
IRS).

To summarise, the theory is that the church was infiltrated by its enemies;
this caused a lot of problems with things like false reports, sabotage and
plenty of injustices. The damage was not just in what those people did, but in
the ripples that were created  -  the mis-training of outer-org executives who
then went back and messed up their areas. Also because of the subsequent
paranoia and witch hunts.

Of course the different people above have divergent views whether the plants
within the church have been fully cleared out and the degree to which the
damage has been repaired.

Hardly anybody knows for sure, but once more I try to go by my own observations:

1. Justice is working better than it used to. Since the late eighties it has
been much more difficult get somebody declared. One of my friends was something
of a rogue (he was a reg in the mid-80s) and eventually had a lot of people
baying for his blood. He very nearly got declared, but it was too difficult.
There is a long form to go through to check that no gradient steps  - like
warnings and suspensions - have been missed. Also a review of the good things
the person has done. Finally the declare proposition was disapproved (more than
once I think) and he escaped with being routed off staff (fired).

I don't know for sure but I think that previously missionaires could more or
less declare people at their discretion. Now, sensibly, the final decision
is with someone up lines and its a laborious business.

2. I've written about this more fully before, but the three orgs I know
something about are doing well, much better than previously. This is
important.

3. I evaluate the upper management terminals such as David Miscavige, Ray
Mitthof and Guillaume Lesevre by things that people tell me about them,
things I read and whenever I see them on video at org events. I like 'em.
They seem sincere to me.

Freddie T