Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Questions Scientology Should Answer, but Won't

In the same vein as Seven Questions Every Scientologist Has a Right to Ask here are some more, but different, questions.

Like the Seven Questions, these are not esoteric or philosophically unanswerable questions, these are just simple, obvious and important questions -- but the Church of Scientology will not be able to answer them.

These are questions that are on the minds of most Scientologists. These are the questions that should be answered by the church.

First question: When the Church of Scientology has made a mistake, why do the parishioners have to pay?

The biggest example is the so-called "Golden Age of Tech". David Miscavige announced that all previous training had been horribly flawed, so bad that every person trained under the previous system -- including those trained personally by L. Ron Hubbard -- were incompetent. Everyone was ordered to retrain from the very beginning at their own expense.

It was the church's error. It was the church's "horrible training". Why would the "victims" of the church's mistake be required to pay for the retraining?

The most common example is auditing. The Scientologist gets auditing, and the auditor, for whatever reason, goofs it all up. Now the Scientologist is in trouble, sick, failing. The church calls them in for "correction auditing" which they must pay full price for.

But that's not all. Then the church announces some technical change or some new requirement and the Scientologist is now required to re-do all their previous auditing all over again -- and pay for it all over again.

This never ends. The church announces major errors in auditing, training, books, lectures -- and requires all Scientologists to pay all over again for the church's mistakes.

Why does the Church of Scientology do this? Why does the Church of Scientology think this is OK?

Question: If "man is basically good" as L. Ron Hubbard said, why is so much of the Bridge based on the premise "Scientologists are evil"?

A Scientologist is, at almost every step of the Bridge, required to purchase, at great expense, a large block of auditing hours to prove that the Scientologist has done no evil, thought no evil, spoken no evil (as extensively defined by the Church of Scientology).

Then, at the very next step, the Scientologist is required to purchase yet another large block of auditing hours to, yet again, prove that the Scientologist is not evil.

And again. And again.

Sometimes the Scientologist can't actually get to the next proper step of The Bridge, because they are caught in this endless search for evil.

Are Scientologists that evil? Are Scientologists prone to suddenly become evil? Why is so much of The Bridge now spent on Scientologists attempting, endlessly, to prove they are not evil?

This is "inspection before the fact", a basic no-no of LRH's. Why doesn't Scientology management follow basic Scientology principles?

Why aren't Scientologists trusted at all by the Church of Scientology?
Question: Why is Scientology now all about threat and punishment?

Participation in Scientology used to be voluntary. Participation in Scientology used to be fun. Scientology used to be what you did because you wanted to do it.

Now, everything is done by threat of punishment. Now, we are forced to buy things -- or else. Now we are forced to re-do levels and courses -- even when we don't think anything is wrong in the first place. Now we are forced to abandon the courses and levels we were on and take other courses -- we have no choice.

Now, we are required to go out to other Scientologist's houses to force them to buy things.

Now, we are hounded, day and night, to give money -- and more money -- until we are deeply in debt. Ron said to never, ever go into debt. This is one of his most important financial policies -- and yet the church demands that we go deeper and deeper into debt -- even to the point of losing our homes and bankruptcy.

Why are threats, force and punishment now the primary characteristics of the Church of Scientology? That isn't Scientology!

Question: Why are the current church programs so horrible?

Today, when every available penny is being squeezed from Scientologists to pay for new buildings, and the IAS, and library donations, and the archive project, and CCHR, and LRH homes, and-and-and -- there is very little money left for local Scientologists to take the courses or auditing they might have taken locally.

All these current Church of Scientology programs seem designed to suck every last penny from every Scientologist. This leaves every Scientologist dead broke, deeply in debt and struggling. How is this a good thing?

This means they don't have any money to take courses or buy auditing. This destroys the viability of all the local churches. The local churches were already having a real tough time, now they are facing a catastrophe.

Most of this money just disappears, leaving the local area entirely. The new building monies, at least, go to buying some new property -- but LRH would call that "having to have before you can do". Buying new property first is not the correct sequence. First you put the church there in its existing location (be), then you expand (do), then you use the additional money to buy things, like a new building (have). LRH knew this -- why doesn't Scientology management? This is completely backwards!

Why doesn't Scientology management know and use the basic principles of Scientology?

All these projects are killing the local churches. Why is this being done? Why isn't International Management supporting projects that help Scientologists and the local churches.

Why do these programs exist? Why are these programs pushed so hard? Why do such destructive programs even exist in Scientology?

Question: For the second time in a few years, David Miscavige has extensively rewritten L. Ron Hubbard's books. How is this justified?

Hubbard considered his books on Dianetics and Scientology to be the most important things he had ever done. He spent much time, over thirty years, making sure the books were up to date, in good shape and were available.

Over those thirty years, his attention was often on his books. They were, he said, vital.

Now, Miscavige claims that Hubbard missed some very major errors in the publication of his books. Miscavige claims that Hubbard completely missed these huge, significant errors for over thirty years!

That means Miscavige is saying that L. Ron Hubbard was very stupid -- missing so many "significant errors" in his most important works? That's really stupid!

So, was Hubbard really stupid, as Miscavige claims?

On the other hand, if Hubbard wasn't stupid, then he didn't miss anything in his books. But if that's the case, Miscavige drastically altered Hubbard's works without authorization and without reason. That means David Miscavige is a squirrel (altering LRH).

Which is it? Hubbard was really stupid -- or Miscavige is a squirrel? It is simply one or the other.

Question: Why have Scientologists who have attempted to uphold Keeping Scientology Working been expelled?

Why is that a crime in today's Church of Scientology?

Question: Why have so many important projects, like SuperPower, Saint Hill Size Orgs, Global Dissemination, been abandoned?

And where did the money go that we gave to all those projects?

Question: David Miscavige continues to make major changes to the books, the technology and administration of the church. What are his qualifications to do so?

And why is it OK, anyway?

Question: Why is asking such simple, obvious and important questions considered a crime by the Church of Scientology?

I could go on. There are so many more questions that bother, or should bother, Scientologists.

Scientologists asking such questions will be punished by the Church of Scientology, so these questions will not be asked, and they would not be answered.

And you know why.


  1. All very good questions. Ones that us in the WOG (read: free) world are allowed to evaluate, and agree or disagree with.

    Also, bringing up the idea of "questions," KESQ in the So Cal desert have been asking some questions unpopular to Scn. As of now, they have 4 segments up, with at least one more on it's way, and a 45 minute interview with Tommy Davis promised to be published at the end of this week.
    You can find some of them with a simple search:

    I feel bad for the people who truly do have to answer, as opposed to those who can choose non-confront. For example, when the reporter inquired to Mr. Davis about the spikes on the *inside* of the gate at the Gold compound in San Jacinto:

    "Why are the spikes facing inward?"
    "...s'Just how they were installed."

    Poor broken down Tommy.

  2. A great post, Bill. Scientology has gotten quite grim since Miscavige took over, hasn't it? For all of Scientology's intrinsic flaws, and as upset with them as I am now, it is true that it used to be fun. I ran an Academy back in the late 70's and I did my best to make it friendly, warm and fun. I wanted it to be a place where people could come in after work and learn something that might help them get on with their lives better and socialize with other like-minded people afterwards. There were no "flavor-of-the-month" new courses that I had to suddenly pile everybody onto. We just got on with it and had a good time and the students got what they wanted out of the training. Even though I am no longer a True Believer, it is true that Scientology used to be more fun than it is now (at least I tried to make it that way in my Academy) and now it's more like the Spanish Inquisition -- everybody's "on edge" wondering who will be the next victim of the Authorities. These questions are great. But you are right, they will never be answered by the people who should be answering them.

  3. Thanks. I think a lot of Scientologists tried to make things better, more fun, in the earlier days.

    But the seeds of the church's destruction were built into its very fabric. The paranoia, the draconian punishments, the thought control was already built in, even back then. As long as relatively sane and good-hearted people had some control, those factors were not enforced.

    The sane people are gone. The sociopaths are in charge. You would not be allowed to make anything fun any more. Scientology is not fun, ask any Scientologist.

  4. When were the "early days"?

    'Hard sell' was very much in practice by 1970.

    Sea Org was started in 1967, total fanaticism.

    The Guardian's Office was Fair Gaming people since its inception in 1966.

    And the Fair Game was written in 1965.

    It has, no doubt, become worse, in some ways. The "fundraising" is over the top, but the idea that Miscavige is "altering LRH's writings" in any significant way is inaccurate. The books are pretty much the same. The changes are few. Miscavige changed slightly the definition of an "FN," and things like "six month sec checks" on "NOTs" have upset some people, but for all we know, these changed (which are not that much different from the types of things that have been occurring in Scientology since the 1960s) were from Hubbard's notes.

    So, I appreciate your effort to liberate those still in, but it's not entirely realistic to say that Scientology was "fun" (when?). I mean, *really*.

    How deep in the sand did one have to have ones head for it to have been "fun" while people were hard sold out of their life savings - 1970 - or on the RPF - 1974 - or children were in the Apollo's chain locker - 1968 - or Paulette Cooper was having her life destroyed?

    Hey, it was a cult for a long time, long before "DM."

    My 2 cents, actually my 57 cents...

  5. Re: "Fun"

    I understand what you are saying. The abuses, and fraud, were built into the very fabric of Scientology -- and the abuses and fraud were present quite early.

    But I remember, and others do too, that for the average Scientologist, happily taking a service or two at a mission or local church, the earlier days did have moments of fun.

    For the average and ignorant Scientologist back then, there was no money-money-money pressure, or very little. There was no heavy ethics. Sure, there was pressure to take their next step -- but it was nothing like the pressure, threats and guilt of today.

    But, as you said, for some, the abuses, the crimes, the fraud started early and it wasn't "fun".

    My intention was not to ignore or whitewash those early abuses -- it was just invisible to the average Scientologist. For them, it was fun sometimes.

  6. I like that you acknowledge that "the seeds of the church's destruction were built into its very fabric. The paranoia, the draconian punishments, the thought control was already built in, even back then." I like that you say it because to me it is very true. I was around in 1978 and 79 and it was true then. And yes, I have also had wins and fun since then.
    You are the only voice in the "outsiders who were once inside" crowd who seem to get that point. That the abuses are really hard wired into the Technology. You said it more gently. But that is my take. Critics simply bash Scientology ignoring the good. Independents simply bash DM and ignore LRH's clay feet. To me your view point is very balanced and very real and I appreciate it.
    My question, my nagging question which I believe I know the answer to but don't want to admit, is why would this be? Why would paranoia, draconian punishments and thought control be part of the Tech of a philosophy written to set man free, a philosophy that is mankind's only hope, a philosophy that was written by the best friend man has ever had? That it is hardwired into the fabric is not even a question. The question is why? I believe I know the answer, but I would like your take.

  7. @Ann

    That's a very good bunch of questions, and I'm sure you do know the answers.

    And it is sad. This is just one more religion/philosophy in the endless chain of such that have promised miraculous good, and delivered so much less -- often the direct opposite. Such an agenda requires paranoia, draconian punishments and thought control or its failures. lies and fraud become exposed.

    I would love to see what good there is salvaged from the evil fabric that entraps it. I don't believe that the evil fabric is essential to the parts that seem to work. I believe that the good can be separated out and then, and only then, could it be made better.

  8. Once again, I think you have hit the nail on the head. And you offer hope. Phoenix rising from the ashes. I like that. I still like the good stuff and there is a lot of it.

  9. Well, all of them are indeed very good questions, especially the question about "Why have so many important projects, like SuperPower, Saint Hill Size Orgs, Global Dissemination, been abandoned?"

    It really made me to think about it.


Comments will be moderated. Have patience, I get around to it pretty quick. As a rule of thumb, I won't approve spam, off-topic, trolling or abusive stuff. The rest is usually OK. Yes, you can disagree with me.