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.
-