About the Scientology "creed"
Warior
Date: 11 Jun 1997
From: Warrior
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology,
alt.religion.christianity
References: <339CBB...@unr.edu> <5nioof$m...@drn.zippo.com>
>In article <339CBB...@unr.edu>, "Val wrote:
>
> The creed of the church of Scientology:
> WE (they) of the church believe:
> That all men of whatever race,color or creed were created with equal
> rights.
>
But Hubbard did write in _Science of Survival_:
"While all men are created with equal rights under the law, an
examination of the individuals in the society rapidly demonstrates
that all men are not created with equal potential value to their
fellows."
and
"In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should
not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind,
because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and
strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such
restraints."
And believe me, Scientologists believe that they need no restraints,
but do believe that they should decide what is legal.
> That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices
> and their performance.
Just do not attempt to practice your religion *and* Scientology at
the same time. If you do, we will declare you 'PTS Type H' ('open-
minded') and we will bar you from any future Scientology 'services'
until you 'handle' your 'low-toned, open-minded, wog condition'.
> That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.
Unless you are critical (a vocal opponent) of Scientology, in
which case we will probably attempt to frame you for a crime you
did not commit, just as we did to Paulette Cooper for writing her
book, and as we attempted to frame the former Mayor of Clearwater
Florida, Gabriel Cazares, for being a vocal opponent to our
presence in Clearwater in 1975 when we covertly moved into
Clearwater under the name of 'the United Churches'.
> That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
And if you go 'PTS Type III' (psychotic) while in Scientology,
we will lock you up in isolation, as we did to Lisa McPherson,
who died 17 days later while in our 'church' under our 'care'.
> That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.
Just realize that we have way more money than you do, and we
will most likely keep bringing legal actions against you in
an attempt, as our founder Hubbard dictated: "...if possible
of course, RUIN them utterly."
> That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist and
> support their own organizations, churches and governments.
Unless your organization is an 'enemy' of Scientology, in which case
we will infiltrate it in order to sabotage it, or sue it for the
purpose of ruining iy financially, thus causing its' collapse and
demise.
> That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely
> their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of
> others.
Unless you are a 'SUPPRESSIVE PERSON' who is exposing the actual
abuses, lies, half-truths, dangerous practices, deception, fraud
or any other evil of Scientology. In the event that you try to
exercise your freedom of speech, and attack Scientology in the
process, we will treat you as 'FAIR GAME'. After we are done
dealing with you, you will be lucky if you have any peace of mind
or sanity left. You certainly will not have any money left, because
you will have spent it all on legal bills. And don't forget you
reputation. We will have ruined that too! Our founder L. Ron
Hubbard dictates that we *MUST* ruin you *utterly*! In this regard
we will create 'Dead Agent' packs of material, and we will smear
your name through a 'BLACK PROPAGANDA' campaign. Your neighbors,
friends, co-workers, boss, and relatives will think you are a
sex criminal or a psycho after they are through reading the
'information' we distribute far and wide on you!
> That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.
But be forewarned that as a Sea Org member you may not have a child.
If you do, we will have to hold a 'Fitness Board' as per LRH Comm
Network International Executive Directive NW 26 PAC of 29 June 1979
entitled 'Pregnancies and Babies in PAC' to determine your *worth*
as a staff member. We most likely will determine that you are not
'upstat' enough to warrant the expense and burden of providing child
care facilities for you child.
> That the souls of men have the rights of men.
All the *millions* of souls (what we call 'Body Thetans') that
infest you have a right to be commanded to find somewhere else
to go to. If you have difficulty getting them to leave your body,
we of course will charge you exhorbitant fees, subject you to
endless 'review handling' and do all we can to convince you that
you are wrong to have believed your body possessed only one soul.
If you run out of money during the attempt to handle your 'BTs',
you may be left to experience a psychotic break, in which case
we will lock you up in isolation until you promise to calm down.
After all, *YOU* are responsible for your *OWN* condition!
> That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills
> should not be alienated from the religion or condoned in nonreligious
> fields.
We want religion to have a monopoly of the healing of mentally
caused ills. Actually, our founder Hubbard forbids us from helping
the institutionally insane, persons with psychiatric histories and
even those with *connections* to 'psychs'. We just want the 'psychs'
and mental health professionals and institutions eliminated so that
they are no longer a threat to our financial well-being, since we
have no intention of helping the mentally ill anyway. In fact, in
many cases we have actually made people insane through our practices.
> And that no agency less than GOD has the power to suspend or set aside
> these rights,overtly or covertly.
We just through this in for good measure to dupe you into believing
that we are a bona fide religion. We want the general public to
believe that we allow persons of all faiths to practice Scientology.
In actual fact, our true goal is to convert you into a robot who
will give us all your time, money and energy. Our organization will
set your head straight. You will learn from L RON HUBBARD - *SOURCE* -
The man on the cross, Jesus Christ, was JUST AN IMPLANT!!!
We will have you clapping and giving three cheers to HUBBARD in no
time at all. And if you *DO NOT* or if you exhibit 'BIs', we will
send you to the ETHICS OFFICER and there YOU WILL WRITE UP ALL YOUR
OVERTS. We will give you a SECURITY CHECK with a LIE DETECTOR to
ENSURE you tell us ALL the crimes and sins and transgressions and
impure thoughts you have *ever* had. And if this doesn't handle you
we will order you onto an AMENDS PROJECT until you cave in completely.
Now, we want you to donate to the International Association of
Scientologists. Will that be cash, check or credit card??
Warrior -- an 'SP' is as valuable as he can help others...
>REF: What is scientology/ the creed of the church of scientology (first
>printing 1978)
>
> Well, What if the church followed their own creed? It seems if
>they "got the tech in" their would be NO attackes on people who excerise
>their rights?!?
>
>What up wit dat???
>
>EXcmo lurkdog.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
basicbasic
> Subject: About the Scientology creed
> Date: 11 Jun 1997
> From: Warrior
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology,
> alt.religion.christianity
> References: <339CBB...@unr.edu> <5nioof$m...@drn.zippo.com>
>
> >In article <339CBB...@unr.edu>, "Val wrote:
> >
> > The creed of the church of Scientology:
> > WE (they) of the church believe:
> > That all men of whatever race,color or creed were created with equal
> > rights.
> >
> But Hubbard did write in _Science of Survival_:
>
> "While all men are created with equal rights under the law, an
> examination of the individuals in the society rapidly demonstrates
> that all men are not created with equal potential value to their
> fellows."
>
> and
>
> "In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should
> not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind,
> because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and
> strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such
> restraints."
[snip]
This is not bad criticism. Or call for reform. I could
contradict statements here and there.
However, No matter what mother church does, I follow the creed.
I am free. And am source. To the best of my ability. :)
bb
basicbasic
Incidently the creed IS policy. Believe it or not it is the first
policy in the section Dept 20. :) ( new OEC)
I believe the phrase cognitive dissonence was invented for this
sort of experience. :)
bb
Warrior
basicbasic says...
>
> Incidently the creed IS policy. Believe it or not it is the first
>policy in the section Dept 20. :) ( new OEC)
If you are talking about the "Creed" as may be found on page 965
of the 1991 _OEC Volume 7_, it is not a policy letter. Take a look.
And by the way, did you realize that the "Creed" isn't even defined
in the _Admin. Dictionary_ or the _Technical Dictionary_?
Warrior
>>basicbasic says...
>>>
>>> Incidently the creed IS policy. Believe it or not it is the first
>>>policy in the section Dept 20. :) ( new OEC)
>In article <br0na...@drn.newsguy.com>, Warrior says...
>>
>>If you are talking about the "Creed" as may be found on page 965
>>of the 1991 _OEC Volume 7_, it is not a policy letter. Take a look.
>>And by the way, did you realize that the "Creed" isn't even defined
>>in the _Admin. Dictionary_ or the _Technical Dictionary_?
In article <br12d...@drn.newsguy.com>, ladayla says...
>
>Yeah. I went looking for it and ended up in The Book of Ceremonies.
>The only course that the Creed is on is the Minister's Course. That's
>how 'Senior' it is.
>
>la
:)
I completed that course in February of 1980:
http://warrior.xenu.ca/19800207ministercert.jpg
http://warrior.xenu.ca/19800207ministercard.jpg
You know what really makes me laugh, La? You're FEBC and Class VIII
trained, and I'm certified a "Fully Qualified and Trained Staff Member", a
"Minister" and a "Founding Scientologist". We can cite policy to back up
our positions. All the others do is *assert* "it's policy", but they don't
post the references. Nor do they state their training qualifications.
Phil Chitester
> Date: 11 Jun 1997
> From: Warrior
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology,
> alt.religion.christianity
> References: <339CBB...@unr.edu> <5nioof$m...@drn.zippo.com>
>
> >In article <339CBB...@unr.edu>, "Val wrote:
> >
> > The creed of the church of Scientology:
> > WE (they) of the church believe:
> > That all men of whatever race,color or creed were created with equal
> > rights.
> >
> But Hubbard did write in _Science of Survival_:
>
> "While all men are created with equal rights under the law, an
> examination of the individuals in the society rapidly demonstrates
> that all men are not created with equal potential value to their
> fellows."
>
> and
>
> "In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should
> not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind,
> because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and
> strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such
> restraints."
>
> And believe me, Scientologists believe that they need no restraints,
> but do believe that they should decide what is legal.
There is a tendency among the much more competent society members to
believe such things. But that is natural and normal. A person who is
inherently very ethical seldom needs restraints.
> > That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices
> > and their performance.
>
> Just do not attempt to practice your religion *and* Scientology at
> the same time. If you do, we will declare you 'PTS Type H' ('open-
> minded') and we will bar you from any future Scientology 'services'
> until you 'handle' your 'low-toned, open-minded, wog condition'.
Just read the above and that isn't what it says at all. It says
religious practices, not squirrel practices, anti-religious or
anti-life or destructive practices. It just says RELIGIOUS practices
and performance. It doesn't say destructive practices or psychiatry
or anything else.
> > That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.
>
> Unless you are critical (a vocal opponent) of Scientology, in
> which case we will probably attempt to frame you for a crime you
> did not commit, just as we did to Paulette Cooper for writing her
> book, and as we attempted to frame the former Mayor of Clearwater
> Florida, Gabriel Cazares, for being a vocal opponent to our
> presence in Clearwater in 1975 when we covertly moved into
> Clearwater under the name of 'the United Churches'.
Those people (critics) who you refer to didn't have 'lives.' Those
aren't lives. Those are merely attempts to destroy others' lives,
after their own have ceased to have value or meaning.
Now such people just specialize in trying to deny others the right to
their own lives. Everywhere one looks that is the action which they
are attempting to undertake. It is no wonder then that the Church
responds as it does.
It is a natural protective and defensive response. The Church of
Scientology merely demonstrates more courage and willingness to
protect others who it does not even particularly owe. That is an
outstanding characteristic and it should be supported to the maximum
extent possible.
> > That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
>
> And if you go 'PTS Type III' (psychotic) while in Scientology,
> we will lock you up in isolation, as we did to Lisa McPherson,
> who died 17 days later while in our 'church' under our 'care'.
She lost out on the above creed section. She disbelieved that and one
of the eventual consequences of doing that can be that one loses one's
own sanity.
> > That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.
>
> Just realize that we have way more money than you do, and we
> will most likely keep bringing legal actions against you in
> an attempt, as our founder Hubbard dictated: "...if possible
> of course, RUIN them utterly."
It says men. Not madmen. But even so, if one's defense consists only
of lies, denials and obfuscation, it does not qualify under that term
anyway. It is not what is referred to by that.
Critics may have little if any valid defense for their evil misdeeds.
If that is so, perhaps one should only pity them.
> > That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist and
> > support their own organizations, churches and governments.
>
> Unless your organization is an 'enemy' of Scientology, in which case
> we will infiltrate it in order to sabotage it, or sue it for the
> purpose of ruining iy financially, thus causing its' collapse and
> demise.
But that sort of thing goes to Church and 'broader dynamics' defense
and support only, so it is actually covered by that creed part. It is
certainly a right of the Church to defend itself and the world at
large from madmen who only wish to destroy it. The Church is always
seen to be within its rights.
> > That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely
> > their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of
> > others.
>
> Unless you are a 'SUPPRESSIVE PERSON' who is exposing the actual
> abuses, lies, half-truths, dangerous practices, deception, fraud
> or any other evil of Scientology.
There are no such evil things there to expose. That has been proven
time and time again. It is merely the SP who has such things and
wishes to distract one and all from that truth.
> In the event that you try to exercise your freedom of speech,
It is not 'freedom of speech' which the SP wants, it is the freedom to
wreck and destroy others' lives.
> and attack Scientology in the process, we will treat you as 'FAIR GAME'.
Anyone attacking Scientology (an entirely good thing) is just cutting
his own throat and that of his fellows. Suicides belong in the proper
care of professionals. Not necessarily on a public internet forum.
> After we are done dealing with you, you will be lucky if you have any
> peace of mind or sanity left.
Where there is such an evil as anti-Scientologists typically display,
getting rid of it, by whatever means, is a good thing.
The fact that they simply won't cooperate with Scientology is entirely
their own failing and not that of the Church.
> You certainly will not have any money left, because
> you will have spent it all on legal bills. And don't forget you
> reputation. We will have ruined that too! Our founder L. Ron
> Hubbard dictates that we *MUST* ruin you *utterly*!
As a purely public service type of activity, the Church contributes to
and helps to safeguard the health and sanity of the rest of the
population.
Who would have a problem with that? Certainly not law enforcement.
> In this regard
> we will create 'Dead Agent' packs of material, and we will smear
> your name through a 'BLACK PROPAGANDA' campaign. Your neighbors,
> friends, co-workers, boss, and relatives will think you are a
> sex criminal or a psycho after they are through reading the
> 'information' we distribute far and wide on you!
It is the SP who doesn't desire that people to be allowed to think
freely, talk freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or
write upon the opinions of others. And so even though such things as
the Church does, in defense of us all, always fall into that category,
SPs would like to deny everyone all such things. They would actually
wish to deny everyone all the rights listed in the Creed also.
The Church simply doesn't have a death wish (for itself or others).
That is all we see being complained about on this forum. It is quite
the sick scenario here and it is no wonder the FBI has to monitor it.
> > That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.
>
> But be forewarned that as a Sea Org member you may not have a child.
> If you do, we will have to hold a 'Fitness Board' as per LRH Comm
> Network International Executive Directive NW 26 PAC of 29 June 1979
> entitled 'Pregnancies and Babies in PAC' to determine your *worth*
> as a staff member. We most likely will determine that you are not
> 'upstat' enough to warrant the expense and burden of providing child
> care facilities for you child.
Having a child in the Sea Org is like gambling on bringing in a
personnel who is not equipped to handle the harsh conditions in it.
It is better to forgo such a gamble.
> > That the souls of men have the rights of men.
>
> All the *millions* of souls (what we call 'Body Thetans') that
> infest you have a right to be commanded to find somewhere else
> to go to.
That isn't what occurs at all except perhaps in squirrel groups.
> If you have difficulty getting them to leave your body,
> we of course will charge you exhorbitant fees, subject you to
> endless 'review handling' and do all we can to convince you that
> you are wrong to have believed your body possessed only one soul.
The Church is only seen endeavoring to improve conditions for
everyone.
> If you run out of money during the attempt to handle your 'BTs',
> you may be left to experience a psychotic break, in which case
> we will lock you up in isolation until you promise to calm down.
> After all, *YOU* are responsible for your *OWN* condition!
The Church is never found to truly be ultimately responsible for
anyone's personal condition (physical, mental or spiritual)
particularly. But they certainly are found to be endeavoring to help
good people to the best of their ability each and every day. That is
a rare phenomenon given the existing conditions.
Psychotic breaks among Church parishioners taking advanced courses
aren't anything but extremely rare and never typify the situations
most such people find themselves in as a general rule on any course in
Scientology. And it is never found that Scientology is the cause of
such, but rather such are more likely to be caused by pre-existing
personal situations.
> > That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills
> > should not be alienated from the religion or condoned in nonreligious
> > fields.
The purposes of such non-religious fields are specious and inadequate
for the study. Mainly they are dedicated to making mankind worse
instead of better.
> We want religion to have a monopoly on the healing of mentally
> caused ills.
The Church merely wishes that technology designed for spiritual
improvement be in the hands of those who honestly desire to help
others to improve their lives, not in the hands of those who are
destructive, such as psychiatrists.
It is just too simple for some minds to grasp.
> Actually, our founder Hubbard forbids us from helping
> the institutionally insane, persons with psychiatric histories and
> even those with *connections* to 'psychs'. We just want the 'psychs'
> and mental health professionals and institutions eliminated so that
> they are no longer a threat to our financial well-being, since we
> have no intention of helping the mentally ill anyway. In fact, in
> many cases we have actually made people insane through our practices.
The whole psychiatric field is deluged with destructive intent and
corrupt individuals and organizations. It is a wasteland of vested
interests and false purposes and evil and invalid goals. People
victimized by it are seldom in good enough shape for the Church to
handle any longer, it is that bad, and there are way too many risks
involved, such that often it is already too dangerous for the Church
to get involved in handling certain individuals.
The money motivation is entirely psychiatry's, not the Church's.
> > And that no agency less than GOD has the power to suspend or set aside
> > these rights, overtly or covertly.
>
> We just through this in for good measure to dupe you into believing
> that we are a bona fide religion.
The truth, however, is just as it says, and as stated it serves as a
reminder that mankind members (and especially others such as
psychiatrists and critics) are not allowed to do any such thing.
But what is attempted on critical sites and here is entirely that. No
critical poster isn't attempting to block or hinder people's right to
think freely and indeed all the other rights the Creed puts forth are
threatened constantly here.
It just isn't so obvious when it is done this covertly with lies and
innuendo, distortions and mischaracterizations of honest,
good-intentioned, dedicated, forthright and highly virtuous
individuals and organizations such as the Church of Scientology and
its members.
Reference: all the critical posts in existence.
Nazis, psychiatrists. That's who thinks that they have a right to set
aside the rights of men, overtly or covertly. Holocaust. WWII.
Etc., etc.
> We want the general public to
> believe that we allow persons of all faiths to practice Scientology.
> In actual fact, our true goal is to convert you into a robot who
> will give us all your time, money and energy.
No, it is psychiatry which wishes to destroy people's religious
practice. And psychiatry which wishes to make people into criminals.
And psychiatry which wishes to capture everyone's time, money and
energy. This newsgroup endeavors to do so to Scientologists.
> Our organization will
> set your head straight. You will learn from L RON HUBBARD - *SOURCE* -
> The man on the cross, Jesus Christ, was JUST AN IMPLANT!!!
Whatever the truth of that, there certainly isn't any religious belief
which the Church ever forbids anyone to have.
> We will have you clapping and giving three cheers to HUBBARD in no
> time at all.
No one is ever forced or coerced into praising the man. It's just
possible he deserves the admiration.
> And if you *DO NOT* or if you exhibit 'BIs', we will
> send you to the ETHICS OFFICER and there YOU WILL WRITE UP ALL YOUR
> OVERTS. We will give you a SECURITY CHECK with a LIE DETECTOR to
> ENSURE you tell us ALL the crimes and sins and transgressions and
> impure thoughts you have *ever* had. And if this doesn't handle you
> we will order you onto an AMENDS PROJECT until you cave in completely.
That simply isn't true at all. There is no requirement to falsely
praise anyone.
> Now, we want you to donate to the International Association of
> Scientologists. Will that be cash, check or credit card??
Let's hope that it is sufficient to broadly help the people to see the
truth, which is nothing the critics here ever write.
Let's hope that the exceedingly beneficial works of LRH and
Scientology get out there, are understood and applied before a
criminal few manage to undermine all our good efforts (centuries-worth
to be sure) to promote, produce, and effect long-term survival for
ourselves, our families, our fellows and all of life on this planet.
Let's hope we educate everyone to block, thwart or hinder those who
only wish to block or hinder our positive survival efforts.
> Warrior -- an 'SP' is as valuable as he can help others...
>
> >REF: What is scientology/ the creed of the church of scientology (first
> >printing 1978)
> >
> > Well, What if the church followed their own creed? It seems if
> >they "got the tech in" their would be NO attackes on people who excerise
> >their rights?!?
The rights which you refer to aren't listed, because those aren't
anyone's rights.
The right to impugn or undermine the innocent with false data,
distortions and lies isn't in there because it doesn't exist.
> >
> >What up wit dat???
Critics lie about Scientology and the Church and there is no right to
do that.
> >
> >EXcmo lurkdog.
>
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> http://warrior.xenu.ca
One doesn't have a right to lie about a Church.
Phil
basicbasic
> trained, and I'm certified a "Fully Qualified and Trained Staff Member", a
> "Minister" and a "Founding Scientologist". We can cite policy to back up
> our positions. All the others do is *assert* "it's policy", but they don't
> post the references. Nor do they state their training qualifications.
>
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> http://warrior.xenu.ca
In the ministers course, hanging up in every org,
in OEC vol 7, in "What is Scientology", widely used in Church
services. This is all done for what purpose?
From 1978 WIS, " In our creeds and codes we have a number of
signposts, and if their directions are persued a maximum of
result will result. If they are not persued, one is liable to
find oneself over in the ditch, in need of a towtruck."
Thats exactly what has happened to COS.
One can look from the viewpoint of Senior policy. A creed was
promised, but not delivered.
One can look from the viewpoint of First Policy, "Maintain
friendly relations with the environment." This was not done,
instead the creed was violated.
The issue is not whether the creed has been upheld, it has
not. The issue is that it should have been.
Instead COS is left to resort to surveying its neighbours to prove
to the courts that it is hated.
bb
Warrior
>>
>> You know what really makes me laugh, La? You're FEBC and Class VIII
>> trained, and I'm certified a "Fully Qualified and Trained Staff Member", a
>> "Minister" and a "Founding Scientologist". We can cite policy to back up
>> our positions. All the others do is *assert* "it's policy", but they don't
>> post the references. Nor do they state their training qualifications.
In article <7acb5afd.03120...@posting.google.com>,
basicbasic says...
>
> In the ministers course, hanging up in every org, in OEC vol 7, in
>"What is Scientology", widely used in Church services. This is all
>done for what purpose?
I say it's done in an attempt to create an appearance of religiosity
for 501(c)(3) purposes.
> From 1978 WIS, " In our creeds and codes we have a number of
>signposts, and if their directions are persued a maximum of
>result will result. If they are not persued, one is liable to
>find oneself over in the ditch, in need of a towtruck."
>
> Thats exactly what has happened to COS.
Worse. :)
> One can look from the viewpoint of Senior policy. A creed was
>promised, but not delivered.
Yes. I agree.
> One can look from the viewpoint of First Policy, "Maintain
>friendly relations with the environment." This was not done,
>instead the creed was violated.
Exactly.
> The issue is not whether the creed has been upheld, it has
>not. The issue is that it should have been.
Actions speak louder than words. By not following their own creed
the cult shows its actual intentions.
> Instead COS is left to resort to surveying its neighbours to prove
>to the courts that it is hated.
Yup. Scientology Inc. proves over and over they have no intention
of following their own "Creed".
Warrior
>
>I don't have a new OEC volume, so I can only say that if the
>Creed of the church is there as policy, then it has become
>policy since Miscavige took over. I will have to leave the proof
>of the Creed being listed an an HCOP/L to someone else.
I have a set of the 1991 OEC volumes. The Creed is in volume
7 on page 965. It's not an HCO PL. Nor is it an HCOB. It's the
1954 Creed all by itself, with no exact date on it (it just has the
year), and it was printed with black ink on white paper.
And *thanks* to the VERY NICE lady who sent me the complete
set of 1991 OEC Volumes, Management Series and Policy Index.
They are VERY MUCH appreciated!
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
=====================
>"Be honest and not an idiot like me."
> -- edo in <cbab00435a599e64...@cryptorebels.net>
Zinj
ladayla...@newsguy.com says...
<snip>
> I sure agree that the Creed should be upheld.
My objection to this Ladayla is that there is *nothing* in the
'Creed' that negates the actual abusive *core* of Scientology.
At best, and like the axioms, the tone-scale, the dynamics and
everything else in the mealy-mouthed yet evasive Scientology
Dogma, it serves to hide the vicious authoritarianism behind a
sweetness and light veil.
Never fear to hurt someone in a just cause... especially if
they're not of 'good-will'.
Don't know what 'good cause' or 'good-will' mean?
Look them up in the 'Tech Dictionary'
There is nothing in the way of abuse that Scientology has or can
do that can't be 'justified' under the Scientologist Creed.
Zinj
--
ScientologyŽ - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953
Gerry Armstrong
>In article <br3ps...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>ladayla...@newsguy.com says...
>
><snip>
>
>> I sure agree that the Creed should be upheld.
>
>My objection to this Ladayla is that there is *nothing* in the
>'Creed' that negates the actual abusive *core* of Scientology.
>At best, and like the axioms, the tone-scale, the dynamics and
>everything else in the mealy-mouthed yet evasive Scientology
>Dogma, it serves to hide the vicious authoritarianism behind a
>sweetness and light veil.
>
>Never fear to hurt someone in a just cause... especially if
>they're not of 'good-will'.
>
>Don't know what 'good cause' or 'good-will' mean?
>Look them up in the 'Tech Dictionary'
You have the "creed" mixed up with the "code of honor."
Scientology actually adhering to the "creed" would radically alter the
cult and the cultists.
The "creed" most definitely negates the abusive "core" of Scientology.
>
>There is nothing in the way of abuse that Scientology has or can
>do that can't be 'justified' under the Scientologist Creed.
>
>Zinj
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Zinj
ge...@gerryarmstrong.org says...
Isn't *this* the creed?
We of the Church believe:
That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with
equal rights;
That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious
practices and their performance;
That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives;
That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity;
That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense;
That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist
or support their own organizations, churches and governments;
That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk
freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or
utter or write upon the opinions of others;
That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their
own kind;
That the souls of men have the rights of men;
That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused
ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in
nonreligious fields;
And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set
aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
And we of the Church believe:
That man is basically good;
That he is seeking to survive;
That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and
his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.
And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid man:
To destroy his own kind;
To destroy the sanity of another;
To destroy or enslave another’s soul;
To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s
group.
And we of the Church believe:
That the spirit can be saved and
That the spirit alone may save or heal the body.
What there could not be 'alloyed' to support any element of
Scientology abuse? Mind you, I'm speaking the 'spirit' of the
'Creed', and considering what that spirit is in 'Scientology'
terms.
Zinj
--
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953
Hartley Patterson
> It is a sad fact that cos does not respect the Creed. It is a lovely thing.
IMHO the 'Creed' is a piece of PR fluff that Hubbard scribbled out
because it occured to him in an idle moment that his 'Church' ought to
have one. It contradicts his own teachings, and that's why the CoS
ignores it.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and
how to outrun Thread.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
Gerry Armstrong
Yes. And "never fear to hurt another in a just cause" is from the
"code of honor."
Oh, if you're not considering at all the letter of the language in the
"creed" then of course.
basicbasic
> ladayla:
> > It is a sad fact that cos does not respect the Creed. It is a lovely thing.
>
> IMHO the 'Creed' is a piece of PR fluff that Hubbard scribbled out
> because it occured to him in an idle moment that his 'Church' ought to
> have one. It contradicts his own teachings, and that's why the CoS
> ignores it.
I'm afraid I can't read your posts Jana on google where I post
from.
I do believe that there was probably an element of PR with
regard to the Code. Possibly showing great foresight. LRH had
just lost control of Dianetics, and set the path for scientology
as a religion. IMO quite valid. Below 2 quotes and I'll comment
more below them.
LRH original PDC tape 20 -
Therefore, we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is
produced.
Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes,yes, that's
wonderful.
That would be--- could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world
would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no
remedy in existence.............
It's a very simple remedy. And that's-just make sure that the remedy
is passed along. That's all. Don't horde it, don't hold it; and if you
ever do use any Black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled
Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn't available. Because
he's the boy who would be electing himself "The New Order." And we
don't need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am
concerned, have been filled.
PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY
The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn
about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or
later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it
to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve
got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan - this is one time that
curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your
help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve
some special interest for the subjugation of man.
All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic
spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that
it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and
principal truths of man be know, merely as truths - not as pitches and
curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information
is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if
it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the
only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing
anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and
Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of
man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up - that a
subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.
We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a
tremendous numbers of 'now-I’m-supposed-tos.'
L.Ron Hubbard, c59118c, Final Lecture
-----------
We have seen, in particular in the posts of Lulubelle and Dan
Garvin recently, the secret use of scientology in the endless
dossiers, sec checks, and totalitarian control of staff members,
and public when at all possible. And for them there is "no remedy
in existence." We see as "Pilot " predicted, an organisation
that has descended to ritual sec-checking, and seems to be on a slow
agonising course of destruction by attrition.
I would say most admin aligns with the creed and codes.
Where it dosn't the admin should be cancelled.
The COS has pulled material out of sight. It It has put
a curve on the subject so as to make more slaves. Wherever
the Church has trouble, violation of the creed
would IMO be at least part of the problem. That would include the
use of policies, especially justice PLs that violate creed. The
church even does it's best to stop sales of meters on e-bay on
a routine basis. It't probably the only organisation in the world
that try's to routinely prevent people doing as they will with
their own property.
You could consider this KSW. That should apply to creed as much
as first, and senior policy. Probably the three most violated
guidelines for the Church. And the three most important to keep in.
The Church has not corrected itself, or shown signs of wanting to.
Society will, and has been, applying ethics and justice. Happenings
in Europe are a good example.
bb
Desertphile
wrote:
> Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message news:<br1ab...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >>In article <7acb5afd.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> > >>basicbasic says...
> > You know what really makes me laugh, La? You're FEBC and Class VIII
> > trained, and I'm certified a "Fully Qualified and Trained Staff Member", a
> > "Minister" and a "Founding Scientologist". We can cite policy to back up
> > our positions. All the others do is *assert* "it's policy", but they don't
> > post the references. Nor do they state their training qualifications.
When Hubbard was alive, "policy" was whatever he said it was,
regardless. There is conclusive, convincing evidence that Miscavige
changed many of Hubbard's policy letters, many of which governed OT-7
sales and practices. In all things Scientological, "policy," as well
as "creed," is written by not followed.
> > Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> > http://warrior.xenu.ca
> In the ministers course, hanging up in every org,
> in OEC vol 7, in "What is Scientology", widely used in Church
> services. This is all done for what purpose?
Tax-exemption status. Isn't this obvious? Hubbard said so.
> From 1978 WIS, " In our creeds and codes we have a number of
> signposts, and if their directions are persued a maximum of
> result will result. If they are not persued, one is liable to
> find oneself over in the ditch, in need of a towtruck."
> Thats exactly what has happened to COS.
Scientology Inc. doesn't follow its published "creed:" it follows
whatever avenue yields the highest wealth and power.
> One can look from the viewpoint of Senior policy. A creed was
> promised, but not delivered.
A "creed" was delivered, but *NEVER* followed. Hubbard wrote his
various "creeds" for recruitment and public relations reasons: he and
his business never followed the "creed," nor have I seen any evidence
that Scientology staff follow Hubbard's/Scientology's written "creed."
Indeed, I've not seen many Scientology customers follow it either.
> One can look from the viewpoint of First Policy, "Maintain
> friendly relations with the environment." This was not done,
> instead the creed was violated.
Violated by L.R. Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, and all of Hubbard's
staff. Hubbard never expected, nor wanted, his "creeds" to be
followed.
> The issue is not whether the creed has been upheld, it has
> not. The issue is that it should have been.
Part of Hubbard's "creed" was evil: such as hurting people "for a just
cause." My religion teaches that the more just a cause it, the more
one must avoid hurting people in support of that cause--- an obvious
fact which I take to be self-evident.
> Instead COS is left to resort to surveying its neighbours to prove
> to the courts that it is hated.
The Scientology crime syndicate is only "hated" to the extent that it
hurts people. If it followed its published "creed," it would cease
hurting people..... and it would also cease to exist. Scientology and
Scientology Inc. exists *ONLY* to take advantage of people---- if they
were to cease doing so, they would cease to exist.
> bb
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile
> In article <7acb5afd.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> basicbasic says...
> > In the ministers course, hanging up in every org, in OEC vol 7, in
> >"What is Scientology", widely used in Church services. This is all
> >done for what purpose?
> I say it's done in an attempt to create an appearance of religiosity
> for 501(c)(3) purposes.
So did L.R. Hubbard. Unlike the other self-conflicting things Hubbard
said, he backed up his "religious angle" with behavior to show he
meant it. The IRS took Hubbard at his word, and denied his business
tax-exemption status for decades. The United States Supreme Court
backed up the IRS. It was only, apparently, an act of extortion that
rendered tax-exemption status for the crime syndicate.
> > The issue is not whether the creed has been upheld, it has
> > not. The issue is that it should have been.
> Actions speak louder than words. By not following their own creed
> the cult shows its actual intentions.
Hubbard had no intention of following his "creed."
> > Instead COS is left to resort to surveying its neighbours to prove
> >to the courts that it is hated.
>
> Yup. Scientology Inc. proves over and over they have no intention
> of following their own "Creed".
>
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> http://warrior.xenu.ca
Jommy Cross
<MPG.1a3f4045...@news2.lightlink.com>:
<snip>
>And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set
>aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
>And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid man:
Does *anybody* know which God this is?
Incident zero: Ron trolled them
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Jommy Cross
msg <br4up...@drn.newsguy.com>:
<snip>
>Look up the Creed , asshole.
<snip>
Ahhhh, $cientology - constantly creating higher beings.
Please forgive us poor primitives who haven't had the benefit of shipping
out in Hubbard's navy, ladayla.
We need this stuff explained to us.
Warrior
Zinj says...
>
>My objection to this Ladayla is that there is *nothing* in the
>'Creed' that negates the actual abusive *core* of Scientology.
>At best, and like the axioms, the tone-scale, the dynamics and
>everything else in the mealy-mouthed yet evasive Scientology
>Dogma, it serves to hide the vicious authoritarianism behind a
>sweetness and light veil.
>
>Never fear to hurt someone in a just cause...
This isn't from the "Creed".
>especially if they're not of 'good-will'.
>
>Don't know what 'good cause' or 'good-will' mean?
>Look them up in the 'Tech Dictionary'
Neither "good cause" nor "good will" nor "will" are in the Technical
Dictionary. "Cause" is, but not for the way it is used in The Code
of Honor.
>There is nothing in the way of abuse that Scientology has or can
>do that can't be 'justified' under the Scientologist Creed.
How is Fair Game "justified" under the "Creed"?
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Warrior
Jommy Cross says...
>
>Please forgive us poor primitives who haven't had the benefit
>of shipping out in Hubbard's navy, ladayla.
I hope you don't think Ladayla was ever a Sea Org member, Jommy.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
======================
Grundoon
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:25:34 -0800, Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Never fear to hurt someone in a just cause... especially if
> >they're not of 'good-will'.
> You have the "creed" mixed up with the "code of honor."
Woops! I'm another one who habitually makes that mistake.
Thanks for the correction.
I have yet to grasp the essential distinction, if any, between
the "creed", "code of honor", and "auditor's code". They all
impress me as sinister bait with more or less hidden significance
that is the opposite of their theetie-weetie nice surface.
Dan Garwin pointed out that Hubbard's promise, "we will never
betray your trust in us *so long as you are one of us*", is a
plain declaration that he does in fact intend to betray you
immediately if possible, if you cease to be "one of us".
Readers will be misled if they absorb only the first part
of the sentence -- the bait -- without noticing that its
comforting reassurance is negated by the last part of the
sentence. What one hand gives, the other takes away.
Hubbard thought he was smarter than everybody. He must have
laughed out loud at how he could put this stuff out in plain
sight without any of the suckers noticing the dual meanings.
The lower level materials, shown to the raw meat, must be
read with special care. Hubbard tries to plant the hook
starting with a new person's very first contact. Certainly
the "creed" must be part of this.
The "creed" does not necessarily negate the abusive core of
Scientology as completely as one might think, depending on
how you understand its references to "God".
The key to the "creed", I think, is the word "God".
What can L. Ron Hubbard possibly mean by that?
Certainly not the "God" of Christian, Jewish or Islamic
faiths. He intends readers to jump to the conclusion
that he is referring to the same sort of "God" that they
themselves may believe in.
When he says "no agency", he could just leave it at that.
Why did he add the qualifying words, "less than God"?
He did not say "no agency at all", or "no agency *but*
God"... he said "no agency *less than* God". Hubbard is
renowned for perverse syntax, but in the "creed" I think
he chose his words with extreme care. There is a hidden
meaning in the words "no agency less than God".
Whenever the "creed" mentions "God", it must be understood
as referring to Hubbard's private conception of God. Hubbard
relies on readers dubbing in *their own* conceptions of "God"
and thus missing his private meaning.
Ok, you may ask, so what is my gripe with the "auditor's code"?
It is the fact that these words:
"I am not auditing you."
make plain that the "auditor's code" is to be taken seriously
only in session.
One can infer that at all other times it may be permissible or
even mandatory to apply the "code" in reverse, point by point,
with as much force as seems useful. What would be most
surprising would be to find that the "code" is not, in fact,
exploited as a catalog of reverse handlings, and that CoS has
no one "hatted" to do so.
Although it has been established that the "creed" is not
policy, isn't it part of the bylaws of CST and other CoS
corporations? I wonder if that might give it some force
in wog law somehow, since trustees, directors and officers
are required by the bylaws to uphold the "creed".
Does anyone happen to know if the "code of honor" and
"auditor's code" are policy?
--
Grundoon
Read about Scientology at http://www.xenu.net
Warrior
>>>
>>>Never fear to hurt someone in a just cause... especially if
>>>they're not of 'good-will'.
>Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> You have the "creed" mixed up with the "code of honor."
In article <XD3B8JOA37965.3213310185@anonymous.poster>,
Grundoon says...
>
>Woops! I'm another one who habitually makes that mistake.
>Thanks for the correction.
>
>I have yet to grasp the essential distinction, if any, between
>the "creed", "code of honor", and "auditor's code". They all
>impress me as sinister bait with more or less hidden significance
>that is the opposite of their theetie-weetie nice surface.
>
>Dan Garwin pointed out that Hubbard's promise, "we will never
>betray your trust in us *so long as you are one of us*", is a
>plain declaration that he does in fact intend to betray you
>immediately if possible, if you cease to be "one of us".
It's in "The Aims of Scientology":
http://www.freedommag.org/english/LA/issue01/page20.htm
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Dan Garvin
"Grundoon" <grundoon@localhost> wrote in message
news:XD3B8JOA37965.3213310185@anonymous.poster...
> Gerry Armstrong wrote in <eouatv0govjj1tt93...@4ax.com> ...
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:25:34 -0800, Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Never fear to hurt someone in a just cause... especially if
> > >they're not of 'good-will'.
> --snip--
> > You have the "creed" mixed up with the "code of honor."
>
> Woops! I'm another one who habitually makes that mistake.
> Thanks for the correction.
>
> I have yet to grasp the essential distinction, if any, between
> the "creed", "code of honor", and "auditor's code". They all
> impress me as sinister bait with more or less hidden significance
> that is the opposite of their theetie-weetie nice surface.
>
> Dan Garwin pointed out that Hubbard's promise, "we will never
> betray your trust in us *so long as you are one of us*", is a
> plain declaration that he does in fact intend to betray you
> immediately if possible, if you cease to be "one of us".
Actually, I think someone else pointed that out, but I heartily endorse its
out-pointing! :-)
> Readers will be misled if they absorb only the first part
> of the sentence -- the bait -- without noticing that its
> comforting reassurance is negated by the last part of the
> sentence. What one hand gives, the other takes away.
>
> Hubbard thought he was smarter than everybody. He must have
> laughed out loud at how he could put this stuff out in plain
> sight without any of the suckers noticing the dual meanings.
>
> The lower level materials, shown to the raw meat, must be
> read with special care. Hubbard tries to plant the hook
> starting with a new person's very first contact. Certainly
> the "creed" must be part of this.
This is absolutely correct, and the cleverest and most egregious example of
this is the assertion
"That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious
practices and their performance;"
Remember, *everything* an authorized, "standard" Scientology church does is
a "religious practice." That includes Fair Game, disconnection, the
Introspection Rundown and the accompanying imprisonment, the RPF, harassive
litigation, child abuse, lying, Dead Agenting, attempting to overwhelm
governments, and everything else Scientology does as a matter of
organizational policy. Even the IRS officially agreed, in essence, that
COS's financial policies were "religious" and acceptable instead of standard
accounting procedures for tax exemption purposes. That Hubbard worded it
this way is no accident. Contrast it with the US Constitution, which simply
says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion ...." That wording was no accident, either. Religions have no
special status placing them above the law, and if religions or their members
break the law, they are liable. Hubbard wanted his "religion" to have the
right to perform whatever he said was a religious practice, without being
bound by society's laws. By his Creed, members of the hypothetical Church of
Pederasty would have the right to sexually assault young boys in performance
of their "religious practices."
Also conspicuously absent are any references to "liberty" or the "pursuit of
happiness." As long as he's cribbing from founding documents of the US, why
leave out those? I think you, Gentle Reader, can answer that one without my
help.
> The "creed" does not necessarily negate the abusive core of
> Scientology as completely as one might think, depending on
> how you understand its references to "God".
>
> The key to the "creed", I think, is the word "God".
> What can L. Ron Hubbard possibly mean by that?
>
> Certainly not the "God" of Christian, Jewish or Islamic
> faiths. He intends readers to jump to the conclusion
> that he is referring to the same sort of "God" that they
> themselves may believe in.
>
> When he says "no agency", he could just leave it at that.
>
> Why did he add the qualifying words, "less than God"?
> He did not say "no agency at all", or "no agency *but*
> God"... he said "no agency *less than* God". Hubbard is
> renowned for perverse syntax, but in the "creed" I think
> he chose his words with extreme care.
Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! What other than Fair Game did he mean when he said
"We of the Church believe:"
"That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense;"?
After all, it's the SP who is the aggressor. That's Standard Tech. And when
he says
"And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid man:"
"To destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or one's
group."
... why do you think he *didn't* forbid destroying or reducing the survival
of one's non-companions or non-group?
There is a hidden
> meaning in the words "no agency less than God".
>
> Whenever the "creed" mentions "God", it must be understood
> as referring to Hubbard's private conception of God. Hubbard
> relies on readers dubbing in *their own* conceptions of "God"
> and thus missing his private meaning.
>
> Ok, you may ask, so what is my gripe with the "auditor's code"?
> It is the fact that these words:
> "I am not auditing you."
> make plain that the "auditor's code" is to be taken seriously
> only in session.
>
> One can infer that at all other times it may be permissible or
> even mandatory to apply the "code" in reverse, point by point,
> with as much force as seems useful. What would be most
> surprising would be to find that the "code" is not, in fact,
> exploited as a catalog of reverse handlings, and that CoS has
> no one "hatted" to do so.
>
> Although it has been established that the "creed" is not
> policy, isn't it part of the bylaws of CST and other CoS
> corporations? I wonder if that might give it some force
> in wog law somehow, since trustees, directors and officers
> are required by the bylaws to uphold the "creed".
>
> Does anyone happen to know if the "code of honor" and
> "auditor's code" are policy?
The Auditor's Code is definitely an HCO Policy Letter. I don't think the
Code of Honor is. But there's one thing everyone is overlooking on this
argument over what is and isn't policy. LRH Technical Bulletins, Policies,
and *Books* all have equal (i.e., absolute) authority. And all these codes
and the Creed are in LRH books. Later references supersede earlier ones if
there is a conflict, so a lot of what's in the books is defunct (like How to
Live Though an Executive or Scientology: 8-80), but if it's in a book and
isn't canceled or superseded, it's just as valid as any PL or HCOB, and has
just as much force. Try telling an Ethics Officer that what's in
Introduction to Scientology Ethics isn't policy so you don't have to do it
(even before much of ISE was reissued as PLs or HCOBs)!
Good post, Grundoon.
--
Dan Garvin
Sea Org member for 25 years
Free for 2 years!
"Wasn't the S.O. much gentler than a wog prison system where you would be
exposed to large quantities of insanity and suppression, and
butt-fucking?" -- Phil Chitester, Church of Scientology defender
Zinj
says...
> In article <MPG.1a3f18cb6...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> Zinj says...
> >
> >My objection to this Ladayla is that there is *nothing* in the
> >'Creed' that negates the actual abusive *core* of Scientology.
> >At best, and like the axioms, the tone-scale, the dynamics and
> >everything else in the mealy-mouthed yet evasive Scientology
> >Dogma, it serves to hide the vicious authoritarianism behind a
> >sweetness and light veil.
> >
> >Never fear to hurt someone in a just cause...
>
> This isn't from the "Creed".
>
> >especially if they're not of 'good-will'.
> >
> >Don't know what 'good cause' or 'good-will' mean?
> >Look them up in the 'Tech Dictionary'
>
> Neither "good cause" nor "good will" nor "will" are in the Technical
> Dictionary. "Cause" is, but not for the way it is used in The Code
> of Honor.
>
> >There is nothing in the way of abuse that Scientology has or can
> >do that can't be 'justified' under the Scientologist Creed.
>
> How is Fair Game "justified" under the "Creed"?
>
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
Actually, my reason for bringing up 'never fear to hurt.. just
cause' and 'men of good will' was to point to the weasel words
to negate the otherwise 'positive' sounding mandates of
Scientology 'creeds', 'codes', 'scales' etc., not because
they're part of the 'Creed' itself.
Both Gundroon and Dan have gone into better and more detailed
explainations of *how* the weasel words are used, and the point
is that whether 'PR Fluff' or 'policy', the 'Creed' is so set up
that it easily *could* be adopted as 'policy' without in any way
restraining the 'Church' from business as usual, including fair
game, disconnection, shuddering into silence, or ruining
utterly.
As for how the 'Creed' justifies 'Fair Game', Fair Game is
itself a religious practice implicitly 'protected' by these
items:
That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious
practices and their performance;
That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense;
and under the 'forbidden' crimes that justify application of
Fair Game:
To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s
group.
Zinj
--
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953
basicbasic
> >the "creed", "code of honor", and "auditor's code". They all
> >impress me as sinister bait with more or less hidden significance
> >that is the opposite of their theetie-weetie nice surface.
I accept these. They are fairly straightforward. That COS
only pays lip service is their problem.
> >Dan Garwin pointed out that Hubbard's promise, "we will never
> >betray your trust in us *so long as you are one of us*", is a
> >plain declaration that he does in fact intend to betray you
> >immediately if possible, if you cease to be "one of us".
" Reverse criticism." :) You can only be betrayed if you are
"one of us". :)
> >Although it has been established that the "creed" is not
> >policy,
No it has not. It is above policy, as is purpose.
isn't it part of the bylaws of CST and other CoS
> >corporations? I wonder if that might give it some force
> >in wog law somehow, since trustees, directors and officers
> >are required by the bylaws to uphold the "creed".
They are? You may have a point.
> >Does anyone happen to know if the "code of honor" and
> >"auditor's code" are policy?
They are senior to policy. It is a matter of record that
illegal orders have been given to violate that.
bb
Grundoon
Thank you, bb. I appreciate your comments.
Warrior
>> Grundoon says...
>>
>> >I have yet to grasp the essential distinction, if any, between
>> >the "creed", "code of honor", and "auditor's code". They all
>> >impress me as sinister bait with more or less hidden significance
>> >that is the opposite of their theetie-weetie nice surface.
I'm glad you realize that. :)
>> >Dan Garwin pointed out that Hubbard's promise, "we will never
>> >betray your trust in us *so long as you are one of us*", is a
>> >plain declaration that he does in fact intend to betray you
>> >immediately if possible, if you cease to be "one of us".
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/yl4u
>> >
>> >Although it has been established that the "creed" is not
>> >policy,
Correct. It definitely is not policy. If Hubbard had intended for it
to be policy, he would have issued it as a policy letter, or perhaps
as an HCO bulletin.
In HCO PL 5 March 1965 Issue II "Policy: Source Of", Hubbard defined
"policy" as "a plan of action; way of management". In this same
issue, he wrote, "The sense in which we use policy is the rules and
administrative formulas by which we agree on action and conduct
our affairs." and "If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy."
Does Scientology conduct its affairs according to the "Creed"? I
say the organization clearly does not.
On the other hand, Fair Game is policy. Ruining enemies is policy.
Declaring people "SP" is policy. Ordered disconnection is policy.
There activities have rules of conduct that mandate and regulate
them.
The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
The "Creed" is a PR fluff piece written for income tax reasons and
in an attempt to make Scientology appear to be a benevolent and
humanitarian organization.
In article <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
basicbasic says...
>
> No it has not. It is above policy, as is purpose.
I'd like to hear the basis on which you make this statement. I don't
see any reasoning for, or evidence on Scientology's part supporting
your assertion. Care to explain the basis on which you assert the
"Creed" to be above policy?
Jommy Cross
<br6j0...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>In article <PF7BUOLL3796...@anonymous.poster>,
>Jommy Cross says...
>>
>>Please forgive us poor primitives who haven't had the benefit
>>of shipping out in Hubbard's navy, ladayla.
>
>I hope you don't think Ladayla was ever a Sea Org member, Jommy.
Like that guy with the cigar? No.
Maybe I should have said "who haven't had the benefit of enlisting with
Hubbard's buccaneers"?
Grundoon
> "Grundoon" <grundoon@localhost> wrote in message
> news:XD3B8JOA37965.3213310185@anonymous.poster...
> > Dan Garwin pointed out that Hubbard's promise, "we will never
> > betray your trust in us *so long as you are one of us*", is a
> > plain declaration that he does in fact intend to betray you
> > immediately if possible, if you cease to be "one of us".
>
> Actually, I think someone else pointed that out, but I heartily endorse its
> out-pointing! :-)
OK, time to write up my O/Ws.
1. I mix up the "creed" with the "code of honor".
2. I thought I had misquoted George Orwell in another post
today, but it seems it was actually T.H White whom I
misquoted.
... in T. H. White's _The Sword in the Stone_ (1938). As
part of his education, Merlin transforms King Arthur into
several different kinds of animal. He becomes an ant and
lives in an ant colony, whose motto is "EVERYTHING NOT
COMPULSORY IS FORBIDDEN." - according to Daniel P. B. Smith
in <dpbsmith-A48218...@news.cis.dfn.de>
3. I spelled Dan Garvin's name wrong. (Sorry, Dan.)
4. Hubbard said "betray your faith", not "betray your trust".
5. I failed to give proper credit to Dave Sweetland for his
explication of the Hubbard quote. (Sorry, Dave.)
For amends, I'm repeating his post below.
6. Overt product maker.
7. Low OCA non-producer.
8. Joker & degrader.
9. Aggravated mopery.
The time, place, form and event are left as an
exercise for the reader. (As if!)
Can anyone help me think of a proper motivator?
None of my old ones hold a decent charge anymore.
--
Grundoon
Read about Scientology at http://www.xenu.net
And read this great post by Dave Sweetland:
Dave Sweetland wrote in <4b543bdd.03111...@posting.google.com>
...
> November 16, 2003
>
> Dear Tory,
>
> The words "Fair Game" have been canceled in the COS.
>
> By way of analoigy, in the Roman Catholic Church the words "Holy
> Ghost" were cancelled and replaced with "Holy Spirit". The RCC did
> this because "Ghost" had come to mean gobblins, Casper the Friendly
> Ghost; Haloween; Horror Moveis, etc. All of the "true meaning" behind
> Ghost remains exactly as it was before, but the word "spirit" is used.
>
> The Church of Scientology has consistently maintained that BETRAYAL of
> former members is part of its Scriptures. It is front and center in
> "The AIms of Scientology". "we will never betray your faith in us so
> long as you are one of us"!!!! How much more clearly can it be
> spelled out?? You may be betrayed if you are a former member. No
> surprise here!! This is fully disclosed!!! You have been betrayed,
> just like you were told you might be.
>
> Keep in mind also that Scientology is the sole agaency in existence
> that can prevent the destruction of civilization or bring about a new
> better one.
> Keep in mind that the proper attitude for an instructor to take is "we
> would rather see you dead tha incapabale".
> Keep in mind that Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter 17 March
> 1965 then titled FAIR GAME LAW - ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPRESSIVE ACTS - THE
> SOURCE OF THE FAIR GAME LAW was latter reissued as Issue IV, and is
> identical to the former issue except the title has been changed to be
> only ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPRESSIVE ACTS and the sentence "Hence we have
> a Fair Game Law." was deleted. In other words, the source of the fair
> game law remains while the term has been canceled.
>
> We would all be better off if we simply replace the term "fair game"
> with "betrayed". After all "Fair Game" was simply another way of
> saying betrayed. What greater betrayal is there tahn to be
> "destroyed" especially by ones formerly trusted.
>
> I had a high rankiong Scientology official insist that "we will never
> betray your faith in us so long as you are one of us" meant the same
> as "we will never betray your faith in us." When I asked her if "I
> will never wear a cap meant the same as I will never wear a cap on
> Tuesday" her angry response was to refuse to answer and say, "I will
> not fal for your tricks, David Sweetland!!!"
>
> Orwelian double think is a nasty thing.
>
> It's probably perfectly legal for the COS to betray every trust any
> former member has ever placed by posting all of their files on the
> internet. Priest/Penitent privildge is far more for the protection of
> the "priest" than the "penitent".
>
> -- Dave Sweetland
>
> 805.582.0514
Dan Garvin
"Grundoon" <grundoon@localhost> wrote in message
No motivator will be necessary. Your amends are accepted and all your sins,
past, present, future, and merely contemplated, are forgiven, forever and
irrevocably.
And guess what? I can do this, with full authority from the Churches (heh)
of Scientology. It seems they forgot to suspend or cancel any of my
certificates, including my Minister's cert, or revoke my ordination as a
Scientology minister. And they won't send me my SP declare no matter how
nicely I ask for it. Hey, if it isn't written, it isn't true. That's Source!
Hee hee. Anybody want a Genuine Scientology(R) Wedding(TM)? For a reasonable
fee, and unlimited expenses, I can do it! Perhaps a pair of your pets? Some
squirrels in your yard?
In the name of the Father, the Son, and Casper the Friendly Ghost -- er,
Spirit. Amen.
Xenu bless.
--
Dan Garvin
Sea Org member for 25 years
Free for 2 years!
"Wasn't the S.O. much gentler than a wog prison system where you would be
exposed to large quantities of insanity and suppression, and
butt-fucking?" -- Phil Chitester, Church of Scientology defender
basicbasic
> In article <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> basicbasic says...
> >
> > No it has not. It is above policy, as is purpose.
>
> I'd like to hear the basis on which you make this statement. I don't
> see any reasoning for, or evidence on Scientology's part supporting
> your assertion. Care to explain the basis on which you assert the
> "Creed" to be above policy?
>
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
I am going more by logic than scriptural reference. A Creed is
essential or fundamental belief. If you don't agree with it, at
least broadly, you're in the wrong church. It is at purpose level.
Similar to constitutional law which is above other law.
PL 31 jan 1983 "The reasons for orgs"
" THE OBJECT IS TOTALLY FREED BEINGS.......The first and all
subsequent organisations of the Church were founded for this
purpose ONLY."
The creed is an expression of that purpose as relates to Third
dynamic primarily rather than first.
From FOT " The goal of scientology is making the individual
capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with
his fellows, and the playing of a better game."
Quite close to:-
" We of the Church believe that his survival
depends on himself and upon his fellows, and his attainment
of brotherhood with the universe."
US constitution.. "Life liberty, and the persuit of
happiness."
All these are senior to civil law, org boards etc, which are
merely tools to bring the above about.
bb
Warrior
to be policy, he would have issued it as a policy letter, or perhaps as
an HCO bulletin.
In HCO PL 5 March 1965 Issue II "Policy: Source Of", Hubbard defined
"policy" as "a plan of action; way of management". In this same
issue, he wrote, "The sense in which we use policy is the rules and
administrative formulas by which we agree on action and conduct
our affairs." and "If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy."
Does Scientology conduct its affairs according to the "Creed"? I
say the organization clearly does not.
On the other hand, Fair Game is policy. Ruining enemies is policy.
Declaring people "SP" is policy. Ordered disconnection is policy.
These activities have rules of conduct that mandate and regulate
them.
The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
The "Creed" is a PR fluff piece written for income tax reasons and
in an attempt to make Scientology appear to be a benevolent and
humanitarian organization.
>> In <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
>> basicbasic says...
>> >
>> > No it has not. It is above policy, as is purpose.
>Warrior wrote in message news:<br8p1...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>>
>> I'd like to hear the basis on which you make this statement. I don't
>> see any reasoning for, or evidence on Scientology's part supporting
>> your assertion. Care to explain the basis on which you assert the
>> "Creed" to be above policy?
In article <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
basicbasic says:
>
> I am going more by logic than scriptural reference.
Okay. Applying logic to the "Creed" and whether Scientology
actually practices the "Creed", I say it's obvious Scientology
does not.
Do _you_ think Scientology (e.g., CSI, OSA, CMO, WDC, FSO, ASHO,
AOLA, and RTC) actually practices the "Creed"?
>A Creed is essential or fundamental belief.
I understand the definition of "creed". Does Scientology conduct its
affairs according to the "Creed"? I say the organization clearly does
not. And this is exactly why I say the "Creed" is not "senior to
policy".
>If you don't agree with it, at least broadly, you're in the wrong
>church.
If I don't agree with the Creed, at least broadly, I am in the wrong
church? What church am I in? How do you know if I am in any
church at all? And how does whether I belong to any church
have anything to do with whether Scientology practices *their*
so-called "Creed"? I ask these questions in all seriousness.
>It is at purpose level.
Hubbard wrote, for example, that the purpose of law is not to
win but to harass, and ruin people utterly. How can you with a
straight face say the "Creed" exists at a level above policy?
>Similar to constitutional law which is above other law.
You're saying it is logical to compare Scientology's purposes
and "Creed" to Constitutional law?
> PL 31 jan 1983 "The reasons for orgs"
>
> " THE OBJECT IS TOTALLY FREED BEINGS.......The first and all
>subsequent organisations of the Church were founded for this
>purpose ONLY."
>
> The creed is an expression of that purpose as relates to Third
>dynamic primarily rather than first.
>
> From FOT " The goal of scientology is making the individual
>capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with
>his fellows, and the playing of a better game."
>
>Quite close to:-
>
> " We of the Church believe that his survival depends on himself
>and upon his fellows, and his attainment of brotherhood with the
>universe."
>
> US constitution.. "Life liberty, and the persuit [sic] of
>happiness."
>
> All these are senior to civil law, org boards etc, which are
>merely tools to bring the above about.
The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
On the other hand, Fair Game is policy. Ruining enemies is policy.
Declaring people "SP" is policy. Ordered disconnection is policy.
These things are not only policy, they are practiced by Scientology.
These activities have rules of conduct that mandate and regulate
them.
I think you're arguing some theoretical position. I say look look at
_reality_. Then answer this: Does Scientology practice the "Creed"?
grouchomatic
Warrior wrote:
> The "Creed" definitely is not policy. If Hubbard had intended for it
> to be policy, he would have issued it as a policy letter, or perhaps as
> an HCO bulletin.
>
> In HCO PL 5 March 1965 Issue II "Policy: Source Of", Hubbard defined
> "policy" as "a plan of action; way of management". In this same
> issue, he wrote, "The sense in which we use policy is the rules and
> administrative formulas by which we agree on action and conduct
> our affairs." and "If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy."
>
> Does Scientology conduct its affairs according to the "Creed"? I
> say the organization clearly does not.
>
> On the other hand, Fair Game is policy. Ruining enemies is policy.
> Declaring people "SP" is policy. Ordered disconnection is policy.
> These activities have rules of conduct that mandate and regulate
> them.
>
> The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
> By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
> men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
> because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
> Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
> or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
>
> The "Creed" is a PR fluff piece written for income tax reasons and
> in an attempt to make Scientology appear to be a benevolent and
> humanitarian organization.
The Nicene Creed is recited by millions of Catholics and Orthodox
Christians (well, slightly different versions) everyday as a part of
their liturgy. The Nicene Creed is an integral part of Canon Law. It
is specifically referenced in Canon Law (Canon 750).
If the scientology creed has any relevance whatsoever it would be
incorporated into a Hubbard policy would it not? AFAIK, there is no
such reference anywhere in any bulletin or policy. AFAIK, there is no
command that a scientologist actually believe in the creed. AFAIK, the
scientology creed is rarely, if ever, recited by scientologists as a
part of any "church" activity. It would appear that regardless of where
one thinks it belongs in the pecking order of the CofS, it is irrelevant
to the day to day activities of the organization. Perhaps, most telling
of all is that Hubbard did not live by his own creed.
Grouch
Dan Garvin
"grouchomatic" <grouch...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3FD8C8B8...@cox.net...
It is now. For the last few months, maybe a whole year, before I started
routing out in April, 2001, CLO WUS had been strictly enforcing attendance
at a mandatory Sunday Service (Sunday night, just for the crew). The Creed
is recited by everyone at each such service. This was enforced even earlier
at higher levels, or at least at the HGB. The reason why is obvious.
Reciting it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, also obviously. If it's
thought about at all, it's thought about through the filter of COS-think,
which justifies everything perfectly if applied 100% standardly.
> It would appear that regardless of where
> one thinks it belongs in the pecking order of the CofS, it is irrelevant
> to the day to day activities of the organization. Perhaps, most telling
> of all is that Hubbard did not live by his own creed.
Quite right, both points.
--
Dan Garvin
Sea Org member for 25 years
Free for 2 years!
"Wasn't the S.O. much gentler than a wog prison system where you would be
exposed to large quantities of insanity and suppression, and
butt-fucking?" -- Phil Chitester, Church of Scientology defender
>
Dave Bird
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> The "Creed" definitely is not policy. If Hubbard had intended for it
>> to be policy, he would have issued it as a policy letter, or perhaps as
>> an HCO bulletin.
>> In HCO PL 5 March 1965 Issue II "Policy: Source Of", Hubbard defined
>> "policy" as "a plan of action; way of management". In this same
>> issue, he wrote, "The sense in which we use policy is the rules and
>> administrative formulas by which we agree on action and conduct
>> our affairs." and "If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy."
>> Does Scientology conduct its affairs according to the "Creed"? I
>> say the organization clearly does not.
>> The "Creed" is a PR fluff piece written for income tax reasons and
>> in an attempt to make Scientology appear to be a benevolent and
>> humanitarian organization.
>
>The Nicene Creed is recited by millions of Catholics and Orthodox
>Christians (well, slightly different versions) everyday as a part of
>their liturgy. The Nicene Creed is an integral part of Canon Law. It
>is specifically referenced in Canon Law (Canon 750).
>If the scientology creed has any relevance whatsoever it would be
>incorporated into a Hubbard policy would it not? AFAIK, there is no
>such reference anywhere in any bulletin or policy. AFAIK, there is no
>command that a scientologist actually believe in the creed. AFAIK, the
>scientology creed is rarely, if ever, recited by scientologists as a
>part of any "church" activity.
This in a sure indicator that the "creed" is bullshit, that it does
not connect to any real part of scientology or its daily practice.
It even misunderstands what a "creed" is. The early Christian church
did not issue the creed about its views of morals and social conduct
(although I'm sure it had some), but about what it believed to be
the spiritual realty -- in Scientology terms, a statement of TECH
rather than ADMIN POLICY.
>It would appear that regardless of where
>one thinks it belongs in the pecking order of the CofS, it is irrelevant
>to the day to day activities of the organization. Perhaps, most telling
>of all is that Hubbard did not live by his own creed.
The Xian creed takes its name from the first word, "credo": I believe.
Scientology would prefer to think it "knows" about spiritual truths.
If CoS had a creed to summarise belief, it would read something like:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"As a Scientologist I know that man IS a spirit who HAS a body,
but is held back from perfect knowledge and intelligence by
harmful memories of past incidents which must be cleared away
though the technology of auditing; and I know that L Ron Hubbard
and the Church of Scientology are the only true and accurate
source of this technology. I know that I must clear the incidents
from all my previous lives, and from all the other spirits made
parasitic upon my body when the Galactic Emperor XEMU blew them
up with H-Bombs in volcanoes. I know that I am responsible for
everything that happens to me whatever the outward cause, and
that if I do not succeed in this then I will, though immortal,
finally be immortal only as a piece of rock without freedom to act.
I know that I must pay the registrar everything I have for this,
and that the Church takes access, visa, and american express."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>Grouch
_
' _{_\
/'/o)o)
\ \_/\/ ,-----------------.
-- ,.-=--.-. |.(____\ |VOTE AGAINST XMAS!
;:_ \ | `:.`---' | turkeys |
,-' `. ' \ \\ / | | say: |
.' -. `_ __'|/ '| | "it's murder |
,' `. ,,-' | | | | most fowl!" |
|'` .__ ,--' | '`'\ `-----------------'
`._ _/' ,/ | ||_
| `...' |--....,-'__\.__
` | art by ,' \ -|| -:;
| | MJP `-' ; ||_;--"
`. | | | ;-''
`. \___ / /-._;,'
;,-' , / /Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk
/ ,-'_ / _' | ,'
| ,' ,' / : \_,,'
| .'_' ,' || '.
'/',;-' _ /\ --.` ..___
' ; .`--. `\ _ .
. ,' `\'. \\'''
' -' '
Zinj
@skyenet.net says...
> > If the scientology creed has any relevance whatsoever it would be
> > incorporated into a Hubbard policy would it not? AFAIK, there is no
> > such reference anywhere in any bulletin or policy. AFAIK, there is no
> > command that a scientologist actually believe in the creed. AFAIK, the
> > scientology creed is rarely, if ever, recited by scientologists as a
> > part of any "church" activity.
>
> It is now. For the last few months, maybe a whole year, before I started
> routing out in April, 2001, CLO WUS had been strictly enforcing attendance
> at a mandatory Sunday Service (Sunday night, just for the crew). The Creed
> is recited by everyone at each such service. This was enforced even earlier
> at higher levels, or at least at the HGB. The reason why is obvious.
>
> Reciting it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, also obviously. If it's
> thought about at all, it's thought about through the filter of COS-think,
> which justifies everything perfectly if applied 100% standardly.
>
> > It would appear that regardless of where
> > one thinks it belongs in the pecking order of the CofS, it is irrelevant
> > to the day to day activities of the organization. Perhaps, most telling
> > of all is that Hubbard did not live by his own creed.
>
> Quite right, both points.
Pretty obviously, policy here; policy there, KSW is the *Prime
Directive*, and KSW can justify *anything*.
Zinj
--
ScientologyŽ - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953
basicbasic
> The "Creed" definitely is not policy. If Hubbard had intended for it
> to be policy, he would have issued it as a policy letter, or perhaps as
> an HCO bulletin.
>
> say the organization clearly does not.
We agree.
> On the other hand, Fair Game is policy. Ruining enemies is policy.
> Declaring people "SP" is policy. Ordered disconnection is policy.
> These activities have rules of conduct that mandate and regulate
> them.
Perhaps any new belief system, initially is idealistic, and
progressive. Has balls, guts and rights wrong. Lets take the parable
of the good Samaritan, perhaps the most beautifull statement of
the universal truth of granting beingness and the brotherhood of man.
When you descend to policy, things can go wrong. Witch burnings,
crusades... and so on.
> The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
> By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
> men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
> because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
> Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
> or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
> The "Creed" is a PR fluff piece written for income tax reasons and
> in an attempt to make Scientology appear to be a benevolent and
> humanitarian organization.
Perhaps it was sincerely meant when written in 1954. Certainly
preceeds any tax considerations. You are here putting it at the level
of purpose. ( Ideal scene) and we agree again here.
> >> In <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> >> basicbasic says...
> >> >
> >> > No it has not. It is above policy, as is purpose.
>
> Warrior wrote in message news:<br8p1...@drn.newsguy.com>:
> >>
> >> I'd like to hear the basis on which you make this statement. I don't
> >> see any reasoning for, or evidence on Scientology's part supporting
> >> your assertion. Care to explain the basis on which you assert the
> >> "Creed" to be above policy?
>
> In article <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> basicbasic says:
> >
> > I am going more by logic than scriptural reference.
>
> Okay. Applying logic to the "Creed" and whether Scientology
> actually practices the "Creed", I say it's obvious Scientology
> does not.
I agree.
> >A Creed is essential or fundamental belief.
>
> I understand the definition of "creed". Does Scientology conduct its
> affairs according to the "Creed"? I say the organization clearly does
> not. And this is exactly why I say the "Creed" is not "senior to
> policy".
I would say that is a string to pull. You've pointed to a massive
outpoint. Perhaps a situation. IMO you are in error to target
creed here.
> >If you don't agree with it, at least broadly, you're in the wrong
> >church.
>
> If I don't agree with the Creed, at least broadly, I am in the wrong
> church? What church am I in? How do you know if I am in any
> church at all? And how does whether I belong to any church
> have anything to do with whether Scientology practices *their*
> so-called "Creed"? I ask these questions in all seriousness.
Was speaking theoretically. I know you no longer follow scn.
> >It is at purpose level.
>
> Hubbard wrote, for example, that the purpose of law is not to
> win but to harass, and ruin people utterly. How can you with a
> straight face say the "Creed" exists at a level above policy?
That is an incorrect statement of the Law and Hubbard. He said
the law can be used for such. That is his policy.
> >Similar to constitutional law which is above other law.
>
> You're saying it is logical to compare Scientology's purposes
> and "Creed" to Constitutional law?
Yes.
> > PL 31 jan 1983 "The reasons for orgs"
> >
> > " THE OBJECT IS TOTALLY FREED BEINGS.......The first and all
> >subsequent organisations of the Church were founded for this
> >purpose ONLY."
> >
> > The creed is an expression of that purpose as relates to Third
> >dynamic primarily rather than first.
> >
> > From FOT " The goal of scientology is making the individual
> >capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with
> >his fellows, and the playing of a better game."
> >
> >Quite close to:-
> >
> > " We of the Church believe that his survival depends on himself
> >and upon his fellows, and his attainment of brotherhood with the
> >universe."
> >
> > US constitution.. "Life liberty, and the persuit [sic] of
> >happiness."
> >
> > All these are senior to civil law, org boards etc, which are
> >merely tools to bring the above about.
>
> The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
> By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
> men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
> because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
> Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
> or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
Again we agree.
> I think you're arguing some theoretical position. I say look look at
> _reality_. Then answer this: Does Scientology practice the "Creed"?
COS dosn't much, if at all. I an FZ scientologist do,best I
can. My observation is that most good hearted people anywhere,
of any faith follow similar ideals. Even critics of
scientology.
Such ideals IMO are senior to policies, orders, and so on
no matter who originates them.
To restate, we can all be source. :)
bb
Zinj
da...@nospam.xemu.demon.co.uk says...
<snip>
> The Xian creed takes its name from the first word, "credo": I believe.
> Scientology would prefer to think it "knows" about spiritual truths.
> If CoS had a creed to summarise belief, it would read something like:
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> "As a Scientologist I know that man IS a spirit who HAS a body,
> but is held back from perfect knowledge and intelligence by
> harmful memories of past incidents which must be cleared away
> though the technology of auditing; and I know that L Ron Hubbard
> and the Church of Scientology are the only true and accurate
> source of this technology. I know that I must clear the incidents
> from all my previous lives, and from all the other spirits made
> parasitic upon my body when the Galactic Emperor XEMU blew them
> up with H-Bombs in volcanoes. I know that I am responsible for
> everything that happens to me whatever the outward cause, and
> that if I do not succeed in this then I will, though immortal,
> finally be immortal only as a piece of rock without freedom to act.
> I know that I must pay the registrar everything I have for this,
> and that the Church takes access, visa, and american express."
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Good, let's all try to help ScientologyŽ find a bigger, longer
and uncut Creed that better expresses the will of its's 'Source'
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As a Scientologist, I believe:
That L. Ron Hubbard discovered essential truths about reality;
That the only test necessary for these truths is whether I find
them applicable;
Since I find them applicable for me, I believe that they are
applicable for all, if they are correctly applied, since L. Ron
Hubbard discovered that they were;
I believe that:
Until L. Ron Hubbard made his discoveries, reality was a
hopeless trap, and that without application of His discovered
'technologies' that reality, the universe and all spiritual
beings were doomed to an endless spiral leading to insanity and
death.
I therefore believe that:
Scientology is Mankind's only hope; that to exist in opposition
to Scientology's universal application is to be criminal, and
that to be criminal is to forsake all rights and protections
granted to men of good will.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Warrior
>Warrior wrote in <brae1...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>>
>> The "Creed" definitely is not policy. If Hubbard had intended for it
>> to be policy, he would have issued it as a policy letter, or perhaps as
>> an HCO bulletin.
>>
>> Does Scientology conduct its affairs according to the "Creed"? I
>> say the organization clearly does not.
In article <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
basicbasic says...
>
> We agree.
Good. I thought you did. Remember, this discussion began with the
"Creed" in relation to posting to a.r.s., and within this discussion I am
speaking of Scientologists who wish to remain in good standing.
>> On the other hand, Fair Game is policy. Ruining enemies is policy.
>> Declaring people "SP" is policy. Ordered disconnection is policy.
>> These activities have rules of conduct that mandate and regulate
>> them.
> Perhaps any new belief system, initially is idealistic, and
>progressive. Has balls, guts and rights wrong. Lets take the parable
>of the good Samaritan, perhaps the most beautifull statement of
>the universal truth of granting beingness and the brotherhood of man.
>
> When you descend to policy, things can go wrong. Witch burnings,
>crusades... and so on.
>> The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
>> By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
>> men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
>> because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
>> Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
>> or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
>>
>> The "Creed" is a PR fluff piece written for income tax reasons and
>> in an attempt to make Scientology appear to be a benevolent and
>> humanitarian organization.
> Perhaps it was sincerely meant when written in 1954. Certainly
>preceeds any tax considerations.
I don't think so! Did you forget about this?
=== begin quote of Hubbard's *1953* letter to Helen O'Brien ===
DEAR HELEN APRIL 10
RE CLINIC, HAS
The arrangements that have been made seem a good temporary
measure. On a longer look, however, something more equitable will
have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the
place - probably not a clinic - but I am sure that it ought to be a
company, independent of the HAS but fed by the HAS.
We don't want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in
name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up
its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in
neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into
history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3.
keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business.
I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion,
we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less
customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be
necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could
make it stick. We're treating the present time beingness,
psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that's
religion, not mental science.
Best Regards,
Ron
=== end quote ===
>You are here putting it at the level of purpose. ( Ideal scene) and we
>agree again here.
It's a pretended "ideal scene". I don't think Hubbard would have
bothered to write the "Creed" if he hadn't been concerned with
taxes and creating an appearance of religiosity.
>> >> In <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
>> >> basicbasic says...
>> >> >
>> >> > No it has not. It is above policy, as is purpose.
>> Warrior wrote in message news:<br8p1...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to hear the basis on which you make this statement. I don't
>> >> see any reasoning for, or evidence on Scientology's part supporting
>> >> your assertion. Care to explain the basis on which you assert the
>> >> "Creed" to be above policy?
>> In article <7acb5afd.03121...@posting.google.com>,
>> basicbasic says:
>> >
>> > I am going more by logic than scriptural reference.
>> Okay. Applying logic to the "Creed" and whether Scientology
>> actually practices the "Creed", I say it's obvious Scientology
>> does not.
> I agree.
>> >A Creed is essential or fundamental belief.
>> I understand the definition of "creed". Does Scientology conduct its
>> affairs according to the "Creed"? I say the organization clearly does
>> not. And this is exactly why I say the "Creed" is not "senior to
>> policy".
> I would say that is a string to pull. You've pointed to a massive
>outpoint. Perhaps a situation. IMO you are in error to target
>creed here.
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "to target". This is
a Hubbarian use of "target" which is a noun. My argument is that
the "Creed" is the "outpoint" (to use your term), in the sense that
it does not align with the other points on the "Sanity Scale" or
"Admin Scale". I use these scales since I believe this is the frame-
work in which you speak of such things like "an outpoint", and "a
situation", and "purpose is senior to policy". This is why I said the
"Creed" is a *pretended* "ideal scene". It doesn't fit.
Now one could evaluate the "situation", which Hubbard defined as
"a major departure from the ideal scene". After doing this, one
would have to chuck an awful lot of policy, in order for the "Creed"
to be in "alignment" with everything left.
>> >If you don't agree with it, at least broadly, you're in the wrong
>> >church.
>> If I don't agree with the Creed, at least broadly, I am in the wrong
>> church? What church am I in? How do you know if I am in any
>> church at all? And how does whether I belong to any church
>> have anything to do with whether Scientology practices *their*
>> so-called "Creed"? I ask these questions in all seriousness.
> Was speaking theoretically. I know you no longer follow scn.
Okay.
>> >It is at purpose level.
>> Hubbard wrote, for example, that the purpose of law is not to
>> win but to harass, and ruin people utterly. How can you with a
>> straight face say the "Creed" exists at a level above policy?
> That is an incorrect statement of the Law and Hubbard. He said
>the law can be used for such. That is his policy.
Here's what Hubbard said:
"The purpose of the lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather
than to win."
-- HCOPL 30 May 1974
"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough
harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge
anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally
be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of
course, ruin him utterly."
-- _A Manual on the Dissemination of Material_
>> >Similar to constitutional law which is above other law.
>> > PL 31 jan 1983 "The reasons for orgs"
>> >
>> > " THE OBJECT IS TOTALLY FREED BEINGS.......The first and all
>> >subsequent organisations of the Church were founded for this
>> >purpose ONLY."
>> >
>> > The creed is an expression of that purpose as relates to Third
>> >dynamic primarily rather than first.
>> >
>> > From FOT " The goal of scientology is making the individual
>> >capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with
>> >his fellows, and the playing of a better game."
>> >
>> >Quite close to:-
>> >
>> > " We of the Church believe that his survival depends on himself
>> >and upon his fellows, and his attainment of brotherhood with the
>> >universe."
>> >
>> > US constitution.. "Life liberty, and the persuit [sic] of
>> >happiness."
>> >
>> > All these are senior to civil law, org boards etc, which are
>> >merely tools to bring the above about.
>> The "Creed" is Hubbard's statement of a *pretended* "ideal scene".
>> By its actions, Scientology does not demonstrate it really believes all
>> men have equal rights. The "Creed" is a _pretended_ "ideal scene"
>> because when one honestly evaluates the "Creed" as an "ideal scene",
>> Scientology's *actions* are miles away from fulfilling, demonstrating
>> or aligning with the beliefs expressed in the "Creed".
> Again we agree.
I thought so. :)
>> I think you're arguing some theoretical position. I say look look at
>> _reality_. Then answer this: Does Scientology practice the "Creed"?
> COS dosn't much, if at all. I an FZ scientologist do, best I
>can. My observation is that most good hearted people anywhere,
>of any faith follow similar ideals. Even critics of scientology.
Yes.
> Such ideals IMO are senior to policies, orders, and so on
>no matter who originates them.
I think I understand what you've said, but it's obvious that they are
not a senior consideration when it comes to the practical reality as
practiced by Scientology.
> To restate, we can all be source. :)
> bb
Thanks, bb.
grouchomatic
Interesting. I've read first hand accounts on ARS and I have friends
who've attended a few Sunday's just to see what they are up to and IIRC
none of them have reported a group recitation of the creed. Yes, the
resin is obvious, I'm just wondering how well enforced it is in outer
orgs. Even at CCLA I know they don't do it, at least not very often
*if* what I'm told is accurate.
>
> Reciting it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, also obviously. If it's
> thought about at all, it's thought about through the filter of COS-think,
> which justifies everything perfectly if applied 100% standardly.
I agree. Thanks for your report. I'll ask a few friends to tell me
what happens this Sunday.
Grouch
grouchomatic
:-) I think this version makes a lot more sense out of the CofS then
their version.
Grouch
Dan Garvin
Things that are a huge waste of production time (hence sleep) tend to be
dropped out by the less on-Source orgs when it stops being enforced so
rigidly by the higher-ups. In CLO, we had a D/CO for Ethics and Image, plus
an entire security force, to go after no-shows, so perhaps it is not so
uniformly enforced elsewhere.
I don't remember for sure, but I suspect it is now part of the Port
Captain's GDS, which would affect the whole org's stats and the standing in
the Birthday Game.
I am very interested to know the results of your current survey.
Dan