Really, we moved.

I do apologize to anyone who has posted a comment in the last year or so.  We really did move and I also haven't been very active on this blog.

I just went through and released a bunch of pending comments from months ago.  I apologize for this delay.

But, to be honest, comments and questions need to be posted on the new WordPress blog as mentioned in my last post.

Because of problems with Blogspot, I am unable to answer any questions or respond to any comments.

Thanks.

We Are Moving!

I'm totally fed up with Blogger.  It seems to just get worse and worse, month by month.

People are telling me that they can't read my blog, can't post comments and sometimes can't do anything at all.  Even I'm having trouble getting things done.

So, I'm moving Ask the Scientologist over to WordPress.

Unfortunately, some silly True Believer has stolen my preferred URL for Scientology propaganda, so I have to use a different URL.

I'm in the process of moving, so it really isn't fully set up but, for now, I've mirrored all the old articles and comments over there.  You can leave comments there now.

You can still ask questions and leave comments here as well for the time being.

The new address is http://theRealAskTheScientologist.wordpress.com/.

I should have it set up the way I want in a week or so.

Thanks to everyone for their patience.

Bill
-

Scientology Logic™

I have often sarcastically referred to "Scientology Logic™" when discussing various statements and arguments made by the Church of Scientology and Scientology's true believers.  It is very true that Scientology's version of "logic" is very, very strange, but what you might not know is that Scientology Logic is deliberately built into the Scientology belief system itself by L. Ron Hubbard.

Note that I am not talking here about how logical or illogical Hubbard's actual "technology" is.  I am talking about the actual "logic" mechanisms themselves that exist and are used throughout Scientology.

Note, also, that this "logic" exists inside Scientology and only rarely shows up on the outside.  This is why discussing Scientology with a Scientologist can be so weird.

Technically, Scientology Logic is made up of a number of logical fallacies which Hubbard used extensively in his lectures and writings.
Here is a partial list:

Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is the argument that a person judged to be an authority verifies that the statement is true -- therefore it must be true.

In Scientology's case, the authority is, of course, L. Ron Hubbard.  Scientology claims that all their "solutions" are "highly effective".  What is the basis of their claims?  "Ron said so".

When the raw facts show their "solutions" are failures, it is quickly agreed by all Scientologists involved to cover the failures up, because "Ron said his solutions were highly effective".

They won't look any further for any facts or hard evidence because "they don't need to, Ron said it, so it's true".  This is the absolute, bedrock foundation of Scientology:  If L. Ron Hubbard said it, then it is completely true.

While this theme of "Hubbard's Infallibility" crops up in Hubbard's teachings from the very beginning, it became cast in stone with his infamous "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW) policy letter.  In that policy, Hubbard denied that anyone else had contributed anything of value to Scientology and that he, and he alone, had created this "miraculous tech" that was "100% workable".  From then on, it became a High Crime for any Scientologist to deny Hubbard's perfection.

In any disagreement between Scientologists, the one who can find the best L. Ron Hubbard quote to support their side is automatically the winner.  No logic is ever applied.

As non-church Scientologists discover how many of Ron's statements have been irrefutably debunked, they struggle to fit that into Scientology's Absolutism.  The most popular approach is to label all of Ron's lies as "allegories, not to be taken literally." This, however, puts them on very shaky ground as more and more of Scientology's "truths" become "allegories".

In an odd and completely bizarre twist to this illogic, some Scientologists will insist that, if L. Ron Hubbard didn't say something, it isn't true.  So, for instance, because Hubbard never talked about the dangers and effects of asbestos, there is no danger or bad effects from breathing asbestos.

Ad Hominem
This logical fallacy attempts to use personal attacks to discredit the source of contrary evidence.

This was, by far, Hubbard's favorite and most effective logical fallacy and has become woven throughout Scientology's belief system.

In Scientology, anyone possessing and disseminating any facts that are contrary to Hubbard's words is automatically "evil".  This is one "truth" that is hammered into Scientologists again and again throughout their studies.

Even in its press releases, the Church of Scientology carefully refers to the Scientology whistle-blowers as "apostates" -- and they do intend all the negative connotations of that word: "traitor", "heretic", "untrustworthy", etc.  The outside Scientologists aren't much better, refering to critics as "haters" and worse.

Because they are labelled "evil" by Scientology, any source of contrary information is automatically "invalid" and any statements coming from that source must be automatically and quickly discarded lest one become "contaminated" by it.

This automatic, built-in ad hominem attack is marvellous to behold.  One "bad" word and the Scientologist immediately shuts down and runs away, never to accept any data from that source again.

Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

In Scientology, this follows directly from both the ad hominem and the appeal to authority fallacies, above.

Hubbard has assured his faithful followers that anyone who dares to criticize him or Scientology is guilty of horrendous crimes "for which they could be arrested." Hubbard even instructed his secret police to dig up or manufacture evidence of crimes on every critic -- and they have done so with enthusiasm.  The church's attempts to frame their critics for crimes they did not commit are quite well documented.

Scientologists completely believe this characterization of Scientology critics.  Given the allegations of such crimes, Scientologists automatically reject all criticisms of Hubbard and Scientology from any source.  No logic required.

In a more generic form, Scientologists pretty much distrust any source that isn't L. Ron Hubbard (or, in the church, David Miscavige).

Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted

Scientologists work very hard to pervert and obfuscate the very simple and clear messages that the Scientology critics and whistle-blowers present.

Any criticism of one of Scientology's "solutions" is misrepresented by Scientology as an attempt to halt all efforts to help anyone.  You will often find Scientologists claiming that critics' messages are "No one can be helped" and "All help is bad" -- but no serious Scientology critic ever said that.

Red Herring
The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of sabotaging a fox hunt by using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry.  It is simply an attempt to distract one from the current subject.

Hubbard famously said, regarding attacks against himself or Scientology, "Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail. Always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack."

Because of this policy, Scientologists work very hard to distract any discussion away from the lies, crimes and abuses of the Church of Scientology and onto anything else.  "Look over there!  Look how bad those other people are, over there!"

This is the primary motivation for the creation of many of Scientology's front groups such as CCHR, "Youth for Human Rights", etc.

As a bonus for Scientology, the general public tends to think that any organization "promoting Human Rights", for instance, is unlikely to be violating those exact same Human Rights.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case.

This is the most common response by a Scientologist when confronted with Scientology's consistent failure to deliver any of its promised results.  Scientologists will inevitably say, "I got wonderful gains from Scientology!" This ignores the primary point that none of these "wonderful gains" were what was actually promised -- or even expected.

This also ignores all the other times when Scientology didn't deliver any "gains" at all to the Scientologist.  It is very much like the compulsive gambler who remembers every time they won some money but ignores the huge amount of money they've lost.

After all that time, all that effort and all that money, instead of the promised miraculous results, the Scientologist once or twice got "wonderful gains" that are only a memory now.  From those few, fleeting moments, the Scientologist makes the very general statement that "Scientology works!"

---

The situation isn't necessarily that illogical people are drawn to Scientology.   The situation is that bad logic is intrinsic to the core teachings of Scientology and that not enough people are educated so as to recognize this when they run into it.  Once someone has accepted the core teachings of Scientology, they have automatically accepted all of Hubbard's illogics as well.

(Yes, such an education would help people as consumers and as voters.)
-

Scientology: It's All About Threats and Fear

As the implosion of the Church of Scientology continues, I have had more contact with newly-out Scientologists than ever before.  And I have noticed that one of the common characteristics of newly-out Scientologists is fear.

This isn't just fear of what the church will do to them because they just left, it is the reaction to living for years under the constant threats, explicit and implicit, from the Church of Scientology. After a while, it just becomes normal to live in fear.

Once Scientology has convinced a person that "Scientology has all the answers" and that "Scientology is the only road to 'Total Freedom'", the church spends the rest of the time threatening to deny the Scientologist that "only road out".  This threat hangs over the head of every Scientologist.  This is the basis of the church's power and control.

(It really is ironic that the Church of Scientology's power comes from the threat to take away that which it never had the power to give in the first place.)

As a Scientologist, you must follow all of the church's rules, requirements, demands and dictates or you will be denied Scientology services.  In the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book there is a list of "High Crimes" for which a Scientologist will be declared a  "Suppressive Person", and kicked out.  If you carefully review that list of High Crimes, you will quickly realize that many of these "crimes" are so very, very vague, that anyone could be found guilty of violating them.

And, indeed, many Scientologists are accused and found guilty under these High Crimes when they have done nothing that normal society would consider wrong.

Usually, a Scientologist is "declared suppressive" as a result of something Hubbard made up called a "Committee of Evidence" (or "CommEv").  A CommEv is an amazing bit of Hubbard-created injustice:

• The "Convening Authority" who calls for the CommEv is the same person who wants you found guilty.
• The Convening Authority gets to choose whoever he or she wants for the "members" of the CommEv who will sit in judgement of you.  Anyone.
• The Convening Authority writes the charges and the Scientologist is, pretty much, presumed guilty unless he or she can produce convincing evidence of innocence on every point.
• There are no rules of evidence -- anything can be used as "evidence" against the accused and it is up to the committee members to accept or reject evidence on whatever basis they choose.  No one is required to verify that the "evidence" is actually valid.
• The accused may not have a lawyer or any other assistance in defending him or herself.
• There is no stipulation that the accused can see the evidence or the accusers and challenge them.
• The accused is not required to be present during testimony against him or her and, in fact, is often deliberately excluded.  These days, the entire CommEv is often held without the accused even being present.

As you can tell from all this, if the Convening Authority wants you declared suppressive, that's pretty much exactly what's going to happen.

And the punishments for being found guilty can be severe.  If one is "declared suppressive" and kicked out, all other Scientologists are required to disconnect from the "suppressive".  This can result in divorce, total separation from family and friends, loss of one's job and more.  As Scientologists usually associate with, work with and work for other Scientologists, such disconnection can be devastating.

But there is more.  According to Hubbard, someone "declared suppressive" may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed".  The laws, morals and ethics of normal society no longer protect the declared person from all manner of attacks from other Scientologists.

If one desires to "work oneself back into good standing", the road is long and degrading and the chances of being declared again are pretty high. 

Under Scientology "Ethics", all Scientologists are required to spy on all other Scientologists and report any "incorrect" behavior.  If another Scientologist they know is found to be "suppressive", it is likely that they, too, will be punished for "not reporting the crimes".  Therefore, many Scientologists do spy and do report on other Scientologists.

Even in the supposedly "confidential" auditing sessions, Scientologists are not safe from the spying eyes of the church.  Everything they say is written down and often recorded, to be reviewed by others.  At any time, the Scientologist could be ordered to a "Security Check" or "SecCheck" where everything they say will be reported to the "Ethics Officer" for evaluation and, perhaps, punishment.  There are few Scientologists who have not felt the dread upon hearing the phrase "Report to Ethics".

As you can see, if a Scientologist lives in almost constant fear, they have every reason to feel that way.

And don't doubt for an instant that the church fully understands the power that it holds over all Scientologists.  Scientologists believe that Scientology is the only way to rise to the higher levels of existence and if they are kicked out of the church, they will be doomed to horrible suffering and degradation forever.  With this threat of expulsion and disconnection, the Church of Scientology can and does demand more and more.  More money, more time, more participation, more obedience.  For those who believe the church controls their future salvation forever, there is no choice but to comply.

Luckily, the news that the Church of Scientology's power has been broken is filtering in to the believers.  The fear is easing and, with it, the church's power to force obedience is fading.  The church doesn't know what to do about it.  Without this constant fear, they no longer have the same absolute control over their Scientologists.  Oh, dear!
-

Ask a Question

I’m a bit late on a new Ask a Question.  I’ve found that some browsers don’t work too well with Blogger once the comments have gone past 200 and you have to go to another page.  On some browsers, you just can’t get to the next page.  So, here is another Ask a Question thread.

There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3, 4 and the one just before this one 5.  I always enjoy going back and reading them.

You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology?  Ask here!  You have a suggestion?  Put it here.  You want to start an argument or discussion?  Here is the place.  All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.

Current Scientologist's contributions are, as always, very welcome.  Trust me, I don't bite.

As always, I love to hear from you.
-

Tom, Katie, Suri and the Media Reaction

When I first started this blog, my primary intention was to clear up the misinformation about Scientology, the Church of Scientology and ex-Scientologists.  Sometimes I think I've done a good job.  Then there are times, like recently, when I'm amazed at how much misinformation still persists.

Katie recently had her dad fire all her Scientology "handlers" and help her file for divorce from Tom Cruise in New York.

The media has gone absolutely crazy with the news and got some very important things totally wrong.  Don't they do research any more?

What the media got right:
The media has rather consistently framed Katie's actions as an "escape from Scientology".  Correct, it is.

The media has viewed Scientology as weird and dangerous.  Again, correct.

The media appears to consider Suri turning six as the primary trigger for the divorce and Katie asking for sole custody of Suri.  I also believe this is correct.

There are other, less important things, that the media got mostly right.

What the media got wrong:
No, Suri was not in any danger of being "sent to the Sea Org".  That outcome is not and was not in the cards.  While I have never seen or heard of a six year old in the Sea Org,  that isn't the point.  Celebrities do not get sent to the Sea Org and Suri, because of her parents, is a celebrity.

Many years ago, Yvonne Jentzsch, who ran Scientology's "Celebrity Centre" used to make some celebrities "honorary Sea Org members".  These people never did any Sea Org things, they just continued whatever they were famous for, but that idea died with Yvonne.

Today, celebrities, and their children, are coddled and, if they are top tier like Tom or Katie, they are assigned "handlers" to spy on them and keep them isolated.

No, Suri going to the Sea Org wasn't what Katie feared.

Suri was not in danger of being "sent to the RPF".  That's just stupid.

Suri was not going to be "interrogated" (Sec Checked), at least not right away.

None of the media understood the very real danger Suri was in.

Suri's actual danger:
L. Ron Hubbard said that you don't "audit" a child before they turn six.  Auditing, in this case, means all the Scientology activities that use the "e-meter".

So, that meant no "counselling sessions", no "word clearing" (no Scientology courses) and no "Sec Checks".  And that meant that Suri wasn't getting any of the standard Scientology indoctrination.

But that was just about to end.  Suri was six.  Time to get her "in session" and "on course". You just know that Tom was heavily pressuring Katie to get Suri active in Scientology.

The divorce is Katie's unequivocal answer.

Good for you Katie, you did exactly the right thing: get Suri somewhere safe where the cult can't indoctrinate her.

UPDATE
It has now been reported (July 9th) that Katie and Tom have reached a settlement in this divorce.

This was completely expected.  Tom Cruise would have received strict, emergency instructions, directly from David Miscavige, to "keep Scientology out of this!"  The divorce was tied directly to Scientology and every report was mentioning all the reasons why Katie needed to get Suri away from "Scientology's evil, abusive, cultic influence" (or something like that).  Miscavige would have been going insane.

So, Tom needed all this to go away.  Details have not been announced, but IMHO Tom pretty much had to give Katie what she was asking for to make this settlement happen so quickly.

UPDATE 2
I hate to brag but, as the details have been leaked about the settlement, it looks like my prediction was the only one that called it 100%.  Katie got everything she asked for and Tom got the "shore story" that this had "absolutely nothing to do with Scientology", just as I predicted.
-

Endings

The recent announcement from "Emma" of Ex-Scientology Message Board that, after October, she is no longer going to run the message board, has gotten me thinking about those on the front lines.

First, I think this is a very good thing for Emma to do.  God! What an incredible job she has done over the years maintaining some control over that herd of cats while under continuous attack from the Church of Scientology.  In 2010, when the church uncovered her real name, the attacks got considerably worse with bogus legal actions.  Then, as if that wasn't hard enough, recently, her mother passed away.

Emma's message board has helped thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people recover from Scientology's thought control and abuse.  Her board has been read by millions.  She is awesome.  And, while she will be greatly missed,  there comes a time when a fighter should retire -- undefeated and victorious, for sure -- but enough is enough.

At its core, the Church of Scientology is evil, degraded, abusive and destructive.  Those who help people escape from, and recover from, Scientology's abuses and thought control methods and who work to expose the crimes and abuse, are directly connected to this evil.  How much can a person take of such evil?  How much should a person put up with before they back off and someone else takes their place?

It is amazing to me that one single person can do so much against everything the insane, wealthy Church of Scientology can throw at them.  Emma is not the only such person, and they all deserve our gratitude, our thanks and our admiration.  The ability of these single individuals to defeat the Church of Scientology shows how decency, goodness and truth can defeat evil.

And don't doubt we all have defeated the Church of Scientology -- especially folks like Emma who have borne the brunt of Scientology's attacks.

Today, Scientology's secrets are all well-known.  Today, Hubbard is known in the real world for exactly what he was.  Today, Scientology has very few adherents and virtually no new recruits.  Today, every Scientology "church" is empty and struggling -- or closed.

Yes, Scientology's few remaining, hard-core believers are still fighting, lying, abusing and attacking but their teeth have been pulled.  For the most part, police and the courts recognize their lies and quickly shut down their bogus, desperate attacks.

New allies are showing up to see that Scientology's lies, abuse, crimes and fraud are exposed and the guilty are brought to justice.  The opposition to the Church of Scientology actually grows daily.

So, some of the fighters are taking a well-earned break.  Some of the blogs and message boards are quieter now, like this one, or even dormant, like Leaving Scientology.  These fighters have earned a respite from the front lines.  Don't worry, there are lots and lots of fighters on the job, and more to come.

Those fighters who are withdrawing from the front lines do so as victors and those who take over the fight are grateful and thankful.
--

Scientology in the Real World

Recently, I've just been watching.  Scientology watching has become one of my entertainments.  There's David Miscavige and the Church of Scientology, there's all the secrets, lies, crimes, abuses and fraud getting almost daily exposure and then there is the "Independent Scientology movement".

I find the Independent Scientologists to be the most fascinating.  Here we have a perfect test of Scientology's workability unfolding right before our eyes.  How can Scientology exist outside of the tightly controlled environment of the cult?

Enough time has passed for us to be able to see what Scientology is going to be like in a free and open environment.

Inside the Church of Scientology, the environment is very, very tightly controlled -- exactly as L. Ron Hubbard designed it to be.  Anything negative about Hubbard or Scientology is condemned as "entheta" and is off limits.   As a "good Scientologist", one cannot and will not talk to people who speak entheta.  One cannot read entheta articles or listen to any entheta.  That is thought control and is one of the cult's mechanisms for keeping the True Believers from straying from the approved path.

But now we have the Independent Scientology movement.  They have much, much less control.  If you talk to the "wrong people" according to one Scientology practitioner -- who then refuses to audit you (because you are a "bad person") -- why you can just go elsewhere.

The leaders of the Independent movement do not have enough control to stop a Scientologist from talking to anyone or reading anything.

And now we can see what happens to Scientology when the cultic thought control has been removed and when the standard threats have no weight.  Can Scientology survive in a free environment?

Well, what is happening?

If you've perused the various Independent Scientology blogs, you will see Scientologists desperately attempting to enforce the old thought control.  Any disagreement or entheta posted on one of their blogs gets shouted down or simply blocked.  Many posts and comments on ESMB and Censored by Marty attest to the censoring that goes on at that blog.

The people running the blogs try to keep the movement clean of such entheta but, as I said earlier, they simply don't have the power to enforce it.

Scientologists outside of the church can read and can talk without fear of any meaningful punishment.  Any normal person will absolutely hate and rebel against the kind of totalitarian thought-control as practiced by Scientology.  You can't stop people from wanting to know more, to know the truth.  And so people will look.

The more the leading voices of the Independent Scientology movement try to suppress other voices and dissenting opinions, the more people will resist.  And rebel.  And look.

That is happening more and more.

What has happened as a result of all this?  How is the Independent Scientology movement doing without the ability to control believer's thoughts, communication and actions?

As near as I can tell, back in very early 2010, Marty Rathbun and Steve Hall had this "bright idea".  They called it the "Indie 500".  The idea was to get 500 Independent Scientologists to "come out" and declare their independence from the Church of Scientology.  The website's definition of exactly who was an "Independent Scientologist" was extremely broad: "Anyone who uses any part of Scientology Tech, even if other parts are not true for you."

Now, over two years later, the list stands at a little over 300.  It is obvious to me that someone created the original few hundred entries without getting approval from the people they were listing: In reading through the list, I see a number who do not now consider themselves "Scientologists" in any way.  In addition, I know of more who's names appeared on the list and asked them to be removed.

After two years, even with those false entries, the Independent Scientology movement can't find 500 people who use "any part of Scientology Tech" who want to be associated with the movement.  Why?  Certainly many, many more than 500 people have left the Church of Scientology.

The reason that Scientology outside of the totalitarian control of the Church of Scientology cannot and will never thrive is because Scientology cannot coexist with open communication.  Scientology cannot coexist with full access to all the information.  Scientology cannot exist without its cultic thought-control.

My only question is: Can any part of Scientology exist in an open and free environment?  I certainly don't know, only time will tell.

What do you think?  If you are out of the church, what is your experience with the Independent Movement?
-

Laughing at Scientology

We really have entered into a new stage in the fight against the Church of Scientology's crimes, abuse and fraud.

For the most part, previous exposure of the church's evil has been brought about by outsiders -- ex-Scientologists, reporters, critics and various victims.  Marty and the Independents have been exposing carefully selected abuses (making sure that nothing is exposed that might reflect badly on L. Ron Hubbard himself) but they are, by their own statements, outsiders to the church.

With Debbie Cook's email and subsequent reactions, we have exposure of abuses coming from inside the church.  The battle is now also between the Church of Scientology leadership and people who still consider themselves members of the church.

In addition, there are, today, a number of other very serious actions going on.  There are serious books about Scientology, serious newspaper, TV and magazine exposés about Scientology and other serious court cases involving the church.

All this is good and necessary to the exposure of the Church of Scientology's crimes and eventual bringing to justice of David Miscavige and other Scientology criminals.  Pop the popcorn and pull up a chair, this show is getting very interesting.

But I don't think we should take any particular event too seriously.  No one court case is that important.  Inevitably, the church will still win some while it loses others.  It will be the mass of exposure and court losses for the church that count.  Bit by bit the crimes and abuses are being exposed and documented.  Things proven in court cannot be "unproven".

However, speaking of all this serious business reminds me: Let us not forget what was key in helping destroy the myth of the "great and powerful" Church of Scientology -- laughter!

It was, more than anything else, Anonymous and their monthly protest-parties that destroyed the Church of Scientology's mythical shield that protected them for so long.  It was Anonymous that showed us that the church had no answer to laughter, happiness and fun.

Certainly, the seriousness is important in the court and in well-researched book, newspaper or TV exposés -- but if we become too serious, we will have abandoned our best weapon against the Church of Scientology and David Miscavige.

Happily, the irrepressible Tony Ortega at the Village Voice and a few others continue the tradition of laughing at Miscavige, Hubbard and the Church of Scientology.  And, yes, some Anonymous are still protesting.  With all this seriousness going on, we shouldn't forget to also keep laughing -- it's good for the soul and bad for the church.
--

Scientology's Peril Sensitive Sunglasses

He... put on the sunglasses, annoyed to discover that the metal object had scratched one of the lenses. Nevertheless, he felt much more comfortable with them on. They were a double pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, which had been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude toward danger. At the first hint of trouble they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.

From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams. 

I must admit that I am a fan of Douglas Adams.  I find his very quirky British humor refreshing and delightful.  The above is a sample of his type of humor: Sunglasses that "help" you when danger looms by becoming completely opaque.

Ridiculous! Absurd! Hilarious!

Such an object makes no sense and would never exist.

Unless you are a Scientologist.

Danger is certainly looming for all Scientologists.  Every year, every month, heck, every day it seems like, there is more bad news for the Church of Scientology.  Secret documents are leaked; crimes are exposed in detail with lots of confirmation; lies are debunked; abuses documented.  It just doesn't stop.

It used to be somewhat obscure websites only visited by the few.  Today it is major media -- newspapers, magazines, television, radio and books by major publishers.  Scientologists are leaving the church and telling their stories.

It just doesn't stop.  Danger looms from every side.

And this is where Scientology's Peril Sensitive Sunglasses kick in.  You can't see them but every Scientologist has a trusty pair firmly clamped on their faces.  These sunglasses have been installed over many months and years of Scientology indoctrination.

When danger looms and Scientology is in peril, Scientologists' minds go opaque.  They cannot and do not read.  They cannot and do not look.  They cannot and do not think.

Then they are safe.  Totally safe.  They look, childlike, at David Miscavige, who tells them "Everything is OK!  Scientology is expanding!  Scientology is winning!"

And the Scientologists, with their Scientology Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, set to totally black, can relax.

All is OK.
-

Happy New Year 2012

It has been a considerable time since I posted any significant article.  It isn't that nothing was going on, obviously, but it was, instead, a combination of too much going on for me personally (good things) and things going incredibly well in exposing the crimes, lies, abuse and fraud of the Church of Scientology.

All I could say was "Well done!"

But, here it is, a new year and I had in mind doing a pretty ordinary look back and then make predictions.  It's fun to do.

But there is a new and significant event that just happened which changed my plans for what would probably have been a predictable and boring article.

I am, of course, referring to the Debbie Cook email.

This is significant.  While it is true that Scientologists "in good standing" have been talking with each other about some of the problems and it is true that prominent Scientologists have spoken out after leaving the church, there has never been a prominent Scientologist speaking out while still, technically, "in good standing".

This email went to a lot of well connected Scientologists who have no reason to doubt that Debbie Cook is still in good standing.

Let's take a look at what Debbie says.  She is not attacking Scientology or Hubbard in any way.  She uses the line "The truth is that as a Scientologist you are more able, more perceptive and have a higher integrity" to appeal to the Scientology ego.  While she names David Miscavige, she doesn't personally attack him (i.e. call him "suppressive").  She quotes Hubbard appropriately to make her points.  While lengthy, her email does not get bogged down in too much detail as so many other "doubt formulas" have.  She has done a good job talking to Scientologists in their terms.

I believe this will be effective.  I'm guessing that speaking freely about everything Debbie has brought up will become common within Scientology.  That is all to the good.

I read a concerned comment by someone to the effect that we don't want Scientologists to rebel and reform Scientology as Debbie urges.  We want, the commenter insists, the church to continue to abuse and defraud Scientologists in order to speed up its collapse.

I'd say that this email will greatly speed up the church's collapse.  First, Debbie urges all Scientologists to stop sending any money to the church except for donations for services -- which monies remain (mostly) local.  This cuts off Miscavige's lucrative income from all his bogus fundraising tricks.

But wait!  By pointing out all the "out-tech" now being enforced by the church, she is discouraging Scientologists from actually taking services.

And, finally, by detailing the total destruction of the upper management of the church, Debbie is making it perfectly "legal" to ignore the dictates coming from "management".

UPDATE: I see some speculation as to why Debbie emphasized that she hasn't spoken to the media and then says "Please keep this email among us, the Scientologists. The media have no place in this" when she must know it would be quickly spread everywhere.

I assume this has to do with her gag agreement with the Church of Scientology when she left the Sea Org.  She is, undoubtedly, forbidden from talking to the media.  By saying what she says, she is abiding by the agreement.  If others ignore her request and spread it about, it's not her fault.

If this doesn't cause a majority of the remaining churchies to disassociate from the Church of Scientology, I'll be very surprised.

They may remain True Believers, and they may then be captured by the Independent Movement, but that group is not organized and is not effective.

And remember this:  True Believers must use Scientology and only Scientology for all their endeavors.  They must use the Admin and Ethics "tech".  The built-in flaws in all of that ensure that any future Scientology organization will not succeed.

This certainly is a good way to start a New Year.
-

Ask a Question

I find it inconvenient when the questions go past 200 and I have to click to go to the next page to see the most recent questions and answers.  I'm sure you do too.  So, I'm starting yet another Ask a Question thread.

There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3 and the just-retired one, 4.  I always enjoy going back and reading them.

You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology, ask here!  You have a suggestion?  Put it here.  You want to start an argument or discussion?  Here is the place.  All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.

Scientologist's contributions are still welcome.  Trust me, I don't bite.

As always, I love to hear from you.
-

Scientology and the Amazing Psychiatric Conspiracy

My attention was drawn to Scientology's Amazing Psychiatric Conspiracy recently.   As a Scientologist, I had just accepted it.  As an ex-Scientologist, I had simply rejected it -- but I really hadn't thought about it.

Scientologists have been indoctrinated into a complete, fanatic hatred of all psychiatrists.  They have concocted a whole raft of "reasons why" they hate psychiatrists but those reasons don't really explain Scientologists' extreme, compulsive and absolute hatred.

They originally pointed to a number of reported abuses by psychiatrists and even created "Psych Busters" who would go out and dig up proof and have such psychiatrists put in prison.  I've noticed that they've quit that and it appears that, ironically, they quit it because they were cleaning up the profession and giving psychiatry a good name.

Then CCHR started rewriting history so that psychiatry was behind every evil that has ever existed on Earth.  Psychiatrists, in some mysterious way, have been behind every war, every mass murderer and every other horrible event.  Evidence was lacking -- you had to just believe.

That hasn't been persuasive except for the gullible who don't check facts.

The latest "reason" is that psychiatrists are "over-prescribing dangerous drugs for children!"

That's actually a good reason to hate those who over-prescribe dangerous drugs, but doesn't hold up as a reason for extreme hatred of all psychiatrists.  After all, some medical doctors are just as guilty, the psychiatric profession itself has condemned the practice and many doctors in both professions are not guilty of that at all.

And yet, Scientologists condemn ALL psychiatrists, the guilty and the innocent, and demand that the practice of psychiatry be banned.

I've asked Scientologists, "Given that some Scientologists are guilty of crimes and abuses, should we condemn ALL Scientologists and demand the practice of Scientology be banned?"  But they don't get the point.

Why don't they get the point?  Why are they unable to think logically and rationally on this subject?

Well, as you undoubtedly know, Scientologists believe that psychiatrists are the leaders of the Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy against L. Ron Hubbard and the Loyal Officers.

We all know that and we laugh and laugh.  But think about what that actually means for Scientologists.  For such a conspiracy to be true, for all psychiatrists to be part of such a conspiracy, the following must be true:

• All psychiatrists are in on this Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy.  Every single one.  That's what Hubbard said and that's what Scientologists are required to believe.  There are no good psychiatrists.
• This means that all psychiatrists can remember their "past lives" when they were battling the Forces of Good all over the galaxy for quadrillions of years.  You can't remember your past life.  Scientologists may pretend but they can't remember their past lives either.  But all psychiatrists must be able to so they know they must grow up and become psychiatrists, right?
• In addition, obviously, no "normal" person can be allowed to become a psychiatrist.  Apparently there is a review board in every psychiatric school that checks every applicant to ensure they are a card-carrying member of the Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy.  Anyone who isn't a member is rejected and cannot become a psychiatrist.
• And finally, psychiatrists, apparently, have extremely advanced communication technology so they can discuss their Evil Plans without ever being detected.  Otherwise they would be some evidence somewhere.

Scientologists seem to believe that we already have Evil Alien Beings living among us today.  They have phenomenal memory and technology.  And only Scientologists stand between all these Evil Alien Beings and their conquest of Earth.

This is what Scientologists have to believe or their Evil Galactic Conspiracy led by psychiatrists doesn't stand up to the briefest of thought.

It's another fine example of Scientology Logic™ in action.
-

"Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman

I do apologize for coming late to this.  I wanted to read this book when it first came out but I was in the middle of a couple of very large projects.  Now that they are successfully completed, I've finally had time to read this wonderful book.

If anyone has not yet read this book and, if they have any interest at all in Scientology and the Church of Scientology, I highly recommend it.

In her Introduction, Ms. Reitman says:

It has been my goal to write the first objective modern history of the Church of Scientology.

To say that Ms. Reitman succeeded would be an understatement.  I, personally, could not have done that -- as an ex-Scientologist, I am definitely not objective about Scientology.   Most people who have been touched in any way by Scientology cannot be objective about it.  Scientology is a completely black and white belief system -- there is no grey.  You are either completely pro-Scientology or you are an Enemy.  Those who become opposed to the Church of Scientology often, in reaction to Scientology's absolutism, take an opposite, and just as absolute, negative position.  It's hard not to.

Yet, without a doubt, Ms. Reitman has produced an objective book.  Since I know she too was attacked by the Church of Scientology for her earlier piece in The Rolling Stone, my admiration for her journalistic integrity is boundless.

But don't let the term "objective" mislead you.  This is not a dry dissertation, it is not boring and it doesn't indulge in that false "journalistically neutral" rhetoric.  You will get the facts surrounding the real events -- untouched by the Church of Scientology's spin, cover-up and lies.

Scientology is, ultimately, about people and Ms. Reitman brings the story of Scientology alive by bringing alive the people who have been involved in Scientology -- from L. Ron Hubbard, struggling to find his path to fame, to those who have struggled in and out of the church, to the latest wide-eyed, ever-hopeful new Scientologist.  This is a book about how people were changed by Scientology -- and how Scientology has been changed by people.

I found it a bit disturbing to read this long history of Scientology from L. Ron Hubbard's troubled life, through the heady early days of hope and excitement and finally to the logical conclusion of Hubbard's paranoia and greed.  It was disturbing because it was true.  It stirred up memories of my own hopes -- and my own disappointments.

In case you might want to question how very thoroughly and diligently Ms. Reitman has researched and fact-checked the stories in this book, her extensive Notes section detailing the exact sources for each chapter is beyond impressive.  This section alone makes the Church of Scientology's cries of "sloppy journalism" completely laughable.

All-in-all, this book was a great read, enlightening, fascinating, informative and with the ring of truth in every page.  This book is now at the top of my list for anyone interested in Scientology and I would highly recommend this book for anyone currently in or recently out of Scientology.
-

Scientology "Betrayal"

I was having a conversation with a Scientology troll the other day.  Well, I was trying to have a conversation, but the troll wasn't able to handle that and ended up just ranting insane gibberish.

However, something the troll said struck me.  This Scientologist was insisting that the ex-Scientologist whistle-blowers had "betrayed Scientology".  And, because of this "betrayal" the Church of Scientology was "justified" in its very vicious, unethical and illegal attacks against them.

"Betrayed?" Really? That's pretty harsh.  What, exactly, did the whistle-blowers actually do?

They told the truth.

The fact that stories of abuse and lies are totally true was confirmed by the Church of Scientology itself in the Headley trials.  The significance of the trials was summarized quite nicely in the article on Examiner.com: Scientology wins legal victory, loses public image war.

So, in spite of the fact that the whistle-blowers told the truth, they had, according to the Church of Scientology, betrayed the church!

This sounded familiar.  Where had I heard something like that before?

A little research and I found this:

The Blue Code of Silence (also known as the "Blue Shield") is an unwritten rule among police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes.  If questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer (e.g. during the course of an official inquiry), while following the Blue Code of Silence, the officer being questioned would claim ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing. [Wikipedia]

That's close, but not exactly it.

Then I found an even closer match:

Omertà is the mafia code of silence and secrecy that forbids mafiosi from betraying their comrades to the authorities. The penalty for transgression is death, and relatives of the turncoat may also be murdered.  For instance, a mafioso will not call the police when he is a victim of a crime. He is expected to take care of the problem himself. [Wikipedia]

There it is!  That's what the Scientology troll was talking about.  That is Scientology's definition of "betrayal".

Compare the above definition of omertà with the following excepts from Introduction to Scientology Ethics under the "High Crimes" section.  ("High Crimes" are the very, very worst crimes in Scientology):

It is a high crime if a Scientologist does:

• "Public disavowal of Scientology"
• "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists"
• "Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology"
• "Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist"
• "Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press."
• "Delivering up the person of a Scientologist ... to the demands of civil or criminal law."

Note that absolutely none of these "High Crimes" say anything about whether the accusations against Scientology or a Scientologist are true or not.  Scientologists may not report any crimes by other Scientologists to the police.

Scientologists are required to handle it all internally, within the church.

"But," you are asking, "what if the church doesn't handle it?  What if it is the leaders of the Church of Scientology who are committing the crimes and abuse?  What if the Church of Scientology blames you for being a 'victim' and punishes you and lets the perpetrator go unpunished?"

Makes no difference.  Scientologists may not report any crimes by other Scientologists to the police.

Take a look at these ex-Scientologists committing "High Crimes" by reporting Jan Eastgate (Senior Scientologist and President of CCHR) for covering up child abuse.  Yes, according to the Church of Scientology, Jan Eastgate is a "good Scientologist" and those who reported her crimes have "betrayed Scientology".

Does this sound like omertà?  Does this sound like a criminal organization "protecting its own"?

Time and time again, the Church of Scientology protects the criminals within its organization and attacks the whistle-blowers.

No matter how evil and corrupt a Scientologist is, you may not report him or her to the police.  Ever.  You may not sue them.  You may not speak of their crimes to the press.  You must remain silent or you will "betray" the Church of Scientology and they will viciously attack you and they will try to destroy you.  Just like the Mafia.

This is Scientology.  This is exactly how L. Ron Hubbard designed it.  This is exactly how David Miscavige runs it.  This is "Standard Scientology", straight out of Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
-

Who Will Lead the "Independents"?

Grown men do not need leaders.

                                                        Edward Abbey

Anyone who has read much in this blog will already know that I'm no longer a True Believer of Scientology.  If they have been paying attention, they would also realize that I am not, in actual fact, anti-Scientology (specifically, the belief system) either.

I think that some of Scientology can provide benefit to some people.  If a person wants to practice Scientology (and if they can avoid the abuses and fraud that Scientology seems to engender), then they should be allowed to do so.

Also, readers of this blog will know that I consider the Church of Scientology, and its leaders, to be criminal and fraudulent.

But now we have the self-named "Independents" who appear to want to reconstitute the Church of Scientology in a "reformed" version.  They want an organization.  They want a leader.

OK, so looking at this from the viewpoint of a Scientologist, how could one go about picking a good leader for Scientology?

Scientologists have a limited but lousy record in their choice of leaders -- specifically David Miscavige.  So far, they've "chosen" their leader by accepting whoever declared themselves leader.  To put it bluntly: They have been sheep.

If we pretend they have a choice and they have the will and power to choose their own leader, what qualifications should they look for in their new leader?

Let's try to be serious here and list what a sane group of Scientologists would see as important qualifications for their leader, shall we?  If I were a True Believer and if I were selecting a leader, I would want:

1. Someone who was personally trained by L. Ron Hubbard or, if no one was available, then someone who was directly trained by such a person.
2. Someone who has successfully completed all training and processing with excellent results and who has not been indoctrinated in any of Miscavige's "altered tech".
3. Someone who has successfully run a mission, an org and a Scientology "Continent" (group of churches/missions in one geographic area).
4. Someone who has a track record of successfully running a business in the real world.
5. Someone who has always fought David Miscavige and upheld "Standard Scientology" against Miscavige's rewrites, edits and corruption.
6. Someone who has never allowed or participated in any of the Church of Scientology's crimes, abuses or corruption.

Even with these qualifications, I see Scientology as doomed unless their new leader also is:

7. Someone who explicitly repudiates and rejects any and all Scientology policy that promotes the Scientology abuses, crimes, lies and fraud -- including disconnection, "Enemy" lists, "fair game" and all such anti-social policies.
8. Someone who acknowledges the crimes, abuses, lies and fraud committed previously by Scientology -- even those ordered or condoned by L. Ron Hubbard himself.

Not surprisingly, there do not appear to be any aspirants to leadership in the "Independents" movement who meet the criteria 1-6 and certainly none who meet the last two points.

Of course, these would be my criteria if I were a Scientologist and, before the "Independents" get their knickers in a twist, I would never tell them what to do.  Besides, there is no indication that any of these are actually desirable to the "Independents".

No, this is just an exercise in logical thinking.  I actually expect the "Independents" to use their previous method of choosing their leader: Don't look at a person's track record, don't look at what they've actually done, just accept whoever wants it the most and who says the correct-sounding things.  After all, that worked so well in the past.
-

Is It Over Yet?

Sometimes, when I am reading a novel or watching a movie, I realize that I simply don't care about any of the characters.  Are they going to succeed?  Are they going to fail?  Who cares?

If I find I don't care, I'll put that book down or walk out of that movie.  Why waste my time?  There are too many excellent books and excellent movies for me to waste my time trudging through a boring one.

And so we get to the Glorious Battle between the mighty Church of Scientology and the bold rebels of the Independent Movement -- with the fate of "every man, woman and child for the next endless trillions of years" at stake.

Boring.

Really boring.

Really, really boring.

It appears that all the characters in this badly written drama are very excited, worried, angry and whatnot but I don't care -- and I don't see how anyone not directly involved cares one tiniest bit.

Certainly I care about all the victims of the Church of Scientology, but that isn't what they are fighting about.  They are fighting over control of Scientology.

Is it important to "every man, woman and child" on this planet?  No, of course not.

Is the fate of the Church of Scientology hanging in the balance?  Nope.  The church has been destroyed and all you see is the after-image after the implosion.  The old image of the powerful and dangerous Church of Scientology has been shattered by David Miscavige's recent stupid, immature and idiotic orders to his mindless followers.  It's a bad joke.

Is the fate of Scientology itself, hanging in the balance?  Again, nope.  All the facts and all the failures of Hubbard and Scientology are well known.   Scientology doesn't produce "homo novis", it doesn't solve any of the world's problems and it isn't a miraculous solution to anything.  People may still use Scientology but, since Scientology doesn't produce anything significant, its continued existence is of no importance.

So we have people of no particular importance battling over an insignificant "church" and an ineffective "tech" with nothing of any significance hanging in the balance.

I've walked out of better movies than this.
-

Scientology Has Failed

One of the things a Scientologist must confront and must acknowledge is that Scientology has failed.

That is simply a fact.  Until a Scientologist confronts and acknowledges this, they will not be able to move on.  Even if they believe that "Scientology works", they cannot deny that Scientology has failed.

It could be said with considerable truth that failure actually defines the history and evolution of Scientology.

Scientology came into being when Dianetics failed.  Certainly, Dianetics appeared to have promise and some interesting results were reported, but Hubbard promised miracles and, beyond rare, anecdotal stories, none of his promised miracles ever appeared.  Worse, from Hubbard's point of view, his promised, miraculous state of Clear never appeared.  Dianetics was a failure.

Scientology arose from the ashes of Dianetics and promised even more miracles.  Not only was Scientology going to produce "Releases" with abilities far beyond the human state, not only was Scientology going to finally produce "real Clears", but Scientology was ultimately going to produce a god-like state Hubbard called "Operating Thetan".

And Scientology failed.

Along came "the Grade Chart” to fix those failures.  The problem was, Hubbard explained, “out gradients” and “missing actions”.  The Grade Chart was going to fix all that ... and failed.  Still none of the promised results appeared.

The lack of results, Hubbard justified, was still due to “out gradients”, and so tons of new processes were added to the “lower Bridge”.  And sold.  And still the promised results failed to appear.

The next excuse for failure was “illiteracy” which led to Hubbard’s “Study Technology”.

Another excuse for failure was “drugs” which ended up with the “Purification Rundown” and Narconon.

One continuing excuse for failure was “out ethics” which engendered a whole raft of new products and controls:  Ethics, Security Checks, FPRD, Criminon and so much more.

And still Scientology failed and failed and failed.  Even those “solutions” were failing.  In real-world, independent tests, Hubbard’s “Study Technology” was a failure. Doctors confirmed that the Purification Rundown failed to “detoxify” anyone.  Criminon and Narconon were exposed as ineffective frauds.

And still there are no Releases, no Clears and no OTs.  To this day, Scientology continues to fail to provide any of the results promised.

Each of Scientology’s failures engendered more excuses, more "reasons why", more justifications -- and more “services” to sell to “solve” those failures.  And so Scientology became the “Science of justifications for failure”.

What does a Scientologist do with all these failures when they cannot confront them?

• Ignore it.  This is a Scientology Standard Tech method of dealing with it.  Pretend you don’t notice the complete lack of results.  Pretend that somewhere, someone is “winning”.  Pretend that the temporary euphoria after a session means “real case gain”.
• “Fix” it.  That’s what the history of Scientology is all about:  One “solution” to failure after another -- with each “solution”, in turn, failing.
• Sell it.  This is another Scientology “solution”.  Ignore the failures and keep selling the promised results.  In the real world, we call that “fraud”.
• Try harder.  Believe it would work if only you could “do it right” and so, Scientologists keep trying the same “solutions” over and over in hopes that some day the promised results will magically appear.
• Give up.  Accept the ultimate Scientology reason for all its failures: That all Scientology’s failures are your fault.  You are too awful a being for Scientology to ever work on you.

These are all the standard Scientology solutions, they are built into Scientology itself.  Scientologists are very familiar with all these, but may I suggest one additional choice that a Scientologist could make:

• Reality.  Recognize that Scientology has failed and cannot and will not ever deliver what Hubbard promised.  Recognize that each “solution” just results in more failure.  Take whatever bits you might have found useful and leave the rest.  Step off the Bridge to Total Failure.  Stop wasting your time, your money and your life on such consistent and continual failure.  Start winning by deliberately not using Scientology.

Just because Scientology has failed doesn’t mean you have to.
-

How to Talk to a Scientologist

I don't have the conceit that I'm an expert in this subject, but I think I can offer some advice and possibly point to other sources for more information.

This is an important subject.  If a family member or friend has become a Scientologist, you can still talk to them, you can help, but you need to be careful.

You need to educate yourself on what is going on with the Scientologist. There are a number of good people with insight and great advice:

• Steve Hassan's Freedom of Mind Center, especially his book, Combating Cult Mind Control.
  
• Cult Information and Awareness Library
  
• Wikipedia [cult]. Some good information and references.
  
• Google is your friend.
  

The most important thing for you to know about Scientologists is that Hubbard has installed a minefield around them to “protect” them from outside influences. You need to avoid this minefield if you want to help them.

So the very first rule is: Do not say anything that will cause the Scientologist to disconnect from you. This means you should not say anything critical or negative about Scientology at this stage.  This is one of the mines. If you have already moved in that direction you need to stop.

The reason for this is that you can't do them any good if you can't talk to them. That's why Scientology enforces disconnection so vigorously.

That doesn't mean you can't help them. You can help them leave the cult, you just need to avoid the minefield.

This may be difficult if you are aware of how dangerous and destructive the church is, but you must avoid disconnection to have them remain willing to talk to you.

You need to create a safe atmosphere for the Scientologist to talk and for you to listen. At first, that is the best thing. Do not comment or criticize at this point – just be a sympathetic listener. One of the key elements of listening is staying silent. The less you say, the better. Use “Uh huh?”, “Really?”, “I didn't know that” and anything else that is non-committal but encouraging. Allow the conversation to drift to other subjects but encourage them to talk about their experiences and hopes in Scientology.

Once this safe space has been established, you can ask carefully planned questions. You will know what questions, but along the lines of, "What do you want to accomplish?", "What do you hope for?" You don't have to sarcastically ask the obvious, "... and how's that going for you?" – they will automatically think that themselves. Try to be as non-judgemental as possible. The minute you scoff, criticize, roll your eyes or laugh at the wrong point, they will stop opening up to you.

The Scientologist may ask you “What have you heard about Scientology?” or “What do you think about Scientology?” Do not go into what you have heard or any criticism of Scientology. This puts the Scientologist into “handle the Enemy mode", another of the mines, and then you are no longer talking to the Scientologist but to automatic and carefully coached patter.

Say, instead, “Oh, you know, there are lots of rumors and stuff out there. It isn't important – I want to know about you. What have you been doing?” They may try to persist in their “handling” so you will need to persist as well. “Really, I'm not interested in what others say about Scientology. I just want to hear how you're doing.” Whatever happens, do not let them go into “handle the Enemy mode". That will not help them.

Note that you do not say "I want to hear about Scientology".   That would be very, very wrong.  You want to say something like, "I want to hear about your experiences."  You want them to talk about themselves.

They may go into “recruitment mode". This may be inevitable and you may need some patience to get through this stage. This one may be harder to avoid since you have said you want to hear what they are doing. They will usually start talking about how everything is wonderful and Scientology is perfect and solved all their problems. Do not express any negative attitudes but do not express any interest in doing any Scientology. If they try to press you into taking a course or buying a book just say something like, "I'm doing fine, I'm not interested right now" and leave it at that. Be patient. Trust me, it's as boring to them as it is to you. They will soon move on.

What you are waiting for is for them to relax and just start talking. If you are patient and non-judgemental, this will happen.

You need to understand that the Scientologist already does know that something is very wrong with their church. True, they have no idea how wrong things are, and they don't know how corrupt the leadership is, but they are definitely aware that things are not right. You don't have to convince them of this. You are trying to create a safe space for them to talk about those things.

When they start talking about the stuff they have noticed that is wrong with the Church of Scientology, do not be too enthusiastic in your agreement. Be interested. Say things like “I didn't know that!”, "What happened next?"  This is what you've been waiting for so just listening at this point is vital.  If you immediately bring up all the negative things you know about Scientology, you will undoubtedly push them right back into “handle the Enemy mode" – and destroy any progress you've made.

Note that, at this stage, they will start to disagree with the church but will still consider Scientology to be "wonderful". Don't worry, almost all Scientologists go through this stage. For most, this is just a temporary stage.  Note, also, that attacks against the Scientology belief system aren't very useful.  For now, the Scientologist will start to blame everything on David Miscavige.  Don't worry, this is OK at this stage.

After they have expressed some criticism of their own about the Church of Scientology, they might then ask you what you know. This is an entirely different question than the “handle the Enemy mode" earlier. Now, they really do want to know. Be careful. Do not, at that moment, bring up everything you know about the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard – this might trigger “handle the Enemy mode". Answer any specific questions with specific answers and direct them to a specific Internet site. In my opinion, Wikipedia may be the best initial site for them. It really is one of the most balanced presentations about Scientology on the Internet – no ranting and each assertion, both pro- and anti-, must be documented.

If you want to know the attitude you should present to the Scientologist at this stage, read how the Wikipedia information is presented.  Nothing extreme, nothing accusative, some acknowledgement of good aspects while calmly presenting the negatives as well.

Other good sites for newly-awakening Scientologists are those that present Scientologists' "Doubt Formulas".  These are true believer Scientologists who are applying Scientology itself to decide about the Church of Scientology.  Examples: Leaving Scientology, Geir Isene, Michael Tilse, Luis Garcia.  As I've said, these people are using "standard Scientology" to determine that David Miscavige and his Church of Scientology are extremely bad and should not be supported.  This may seem silly to you but, to a Scientologist, these are very persuasive arguments.

At this point, they will probably continue to investigate on their own. They will need your help and support. Your best bet is to continue to listen and help them find good sources of information – keeping in mind that they can't go from Scientologist to non-Scientologist in one leap.

It is normal for them to be very, very afraid of what the church will “to do them”. This is no idle fear.  If they work for a Scientologist, they could lose their job.  If they have friends or family who are Scientologists, they could be disconnected.  Often, they need to keep their doubts secret from other Scientologists.  Assure them that this is quite common and is being done by many Scientologists.

As more and more people leave the Church of Scientology, this becomes less important.

Good luck.
-

Easy There!

I have noticed that some of the more enthusiastic whistle-blowers against the Church of Scientology tend to jump on comments and articles that are not, actually, all that pro-Scientology.

The fact that an article or comment isn't completely negative about Scientology does not warrant an attack.

The fact that a person might say something nice about Scientology or might protest against "attacking a religion" does not necessarily mean they are a Scientologist.   With fewer and fewer actual Scientologists, it is more likely this will be the case as time goes on.

To viciously attack some article or comment when a more reasonable response would be more appropriate, makes us Scientology critics look like the insane fanatics.  To attack a commenter, who really isn't pro-Scientology, looks very bad.  A vicious anti-Scientology attack can invalidate everything a more reasonable whistle-blower might be trying to say.

Err, if you will, on the side of milder, more reasonable responses to articles and comments about Scientology.  You can say the same things, but from the viewpoint that the author is merely misinformed.  This is tremendously effective.  When some Scientology sock-puppet attacks you, you own the high ground.  When a Scientology apologist insults you and makes crazy accusations, you come out far, far above them.

If the author is not a Scientologist, you will get back an intelligent response and will, perhaps, change their mind about the Church of Scientology.   If you attack the author, you will solidify in their mind the idea that critics of Scientology are insane fanatics.

Understand that you cannot change a Scientologist's mindset, but you will influence the lurkers.  Keep that in mind.  Do not engage in a battle with a Scientologist, just expose their lies.

Certainly, every single Scientology lie should be debunked, but it is most effective when done calmly, reasonably and with as much respect as you can muster.

Let the Scientologist froth and foam, insult and accuse.  Let us take the high road, always -- because it makes them look horrible.
-