What Questions About Scientology Should Not Be Asked?

(Originally published by OldAuditor on February 13, 2010)

In the course of dealing with the confusions of life, we find answers that appear to be workable and we use them as stable data to bring life under control. As we bring more data into alignment, we develop a certainty that we have found the solution for our problems in life.

While we are doing this, we can be coaxed into avoiding or refusing to look at anything that might upset any part of our stable data.

Let’s say that our initial contacts with Scientology provide answers to questions that have plagued us for a very long time or we gain some ability that means a great deal to us. It is relatively easy to convince us that there is more to be gained if we join the group and contribute to the motion of the group by joining staff or by buying services.

If our expectations are met and we continue to benefit from our relationship to the group, we feel a sense of loyalty to the group and we reject criticism of the group. If management plays skillfully on on our guilt in not supporting the group, we can be persuaded to not look outside of the group for information of any kind.

It is a short step from this to instilling disgust at the very mention of disloyal thoughts. This is the level of curiosity that exists in loyal scientology staff and most active Scientologists also. I know, because I was among this group for many years.

 

After repeated exposure to out-tech and squirrel administration by the church, most public and some staff realize they are being betrayed and find a way to withdraw from active participation in the church. The target of their anger is usually limited to the people responsible for betraying their trust, but it can be generalized so that everything about Scientiology is viewed as a fraud or worse.

Usually these people find their way to the world of Independent Scientologists and start learning the true extent of Scientology abuses by reading the Internet. Most find that there is more information than they can confront and find a group of independents with similar interests who will talk about “safe subjects” and ignore the sites that are critical of Scientology Tech, or Policy, or are critical of Ron. They acknowledge that the church of scientology is corrupt and are comfortable assigning the blame to David Miscavige and a few executives.

Basically, these people are enjoying a more relaxed version of the church’s censorship of data that does not agree with the preferred narrative. They have established a new set of stable data and By God they are going to run with this and create a new civilization. They are no longer “Churchies”, but they have not fallen into the clutches of the “Anarchists” who challenge the infallibility of LRH.

Unfortunately for those who seek to put out the light of inquiry, the Internet is a vast repository of data, observations and opinion covering almost every aspect of the history of Scientology and of L Ron Hubbard. The sanitized version of Ron’s life and career published by the church is a faint shadow of the actual story.

Almost every week we see more first person accounts about life in the Sea Org or life with Ron. There is verifiable data about every aspect of Ron’s triumphs, his increasingly erratic behavior, and his eventual downfall and death.

There is more information than you would believe about the sources of the technology that LRH claimed as his own creation.

There is an abundance of information on the case phenomena exhibited by LRH during his career and the efforts made to help him and harm him during this period.

Failure to ask questions and pursue answers about scientology and its founder will result in conclusions that will not contribute to creating a viable future for this spiritual technology. There are flaws in the technology and flaws in the policies that created the church of Scientology which must be addressed if there is to be any hope of creating a future track for Scientology.

There are open discussions on what technology should be preserved and what should be discarded. These discussions involve many highly trained auditors and Case Supervisors.

There are similar discussions on what policies should be preserved and what forms of organization are appropriate for the 21st Century. The top-down model of the existing church has some built-in weaknesses that make it easy for SPs to exploit.

There are some who see a future that does not favor institutionalized spirituality. I tend to agree that enforced spirituality is as destructive as any enforced communication.

It all comes back to asking questions and finding answers. If you are not permitted to ask questions or seek answers wherever you wish to look, you are being constrained to follow someone else’s goals and you will suffer for it.

The truth is not what you agree with, it is what is. Deciding to remain ignorant of the truth in any area is not a survival trait. Ask questions and increase your potential for survival.

Number of views:222

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *