Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"

> <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in message
> news:972520525.39f77c4d1951e@webmail.cotse.com

> > Well, I'm not a OSA volunteer - I'm just a plain old
> > Scientologist. But I'll have a go at answering.

> Thanks for doing this. I enjoy reading a scientologist's
> views on issues expressed here.

>>> 1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees something as
>>> wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth?? (snip)

> > Well ... there are of course a lot of things that the
> > majority of people once believed which later turned out to
> > be false (see the history of Science).   (snipped)

> I'd say that new theories prove to be totally false more
> often than old ones. Newton's theories were not totally
> discarded by Einstein.

You're right. But it's incidental to the point of my reply.

> One of the more effective arguments by critics is to call
> upon these Operating Thetans to demonstrate the new powers
> they claim they have. (e.g. being able to leave their body
> and read a sign they have never seen before.) To date,
> nobody has been able to prove these super human abilities.

A few points. Firstly, there is a difference between a stable and an unstable
paranormal ability. The latter being appreciably more difficult to demonstrate.
Secondly, the OT levels proper only _start_ at OT8 - the preceding levels after
Clear being known as pre-OT levels. Finally I would refer you to chapter two (I
think) in an LRH book called History of Man; and to an excellent essay on the
same subject by Homer Smith:

ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm20.memo

Oh,one more point just occurs to me. If you are still interested you might have
a look at some of the data on the time lines posted by The Librarian and then
revisited by CL a few months ago.

> Many critics (including many psychologists) agree that
> something can be gained by the lower levels of scientology.

Well, that's nice! I don't suppose you could tell me which psychologists?

> For me, even these levels are not worth the cost. I can get
> the same gain by talking to a priest (with the added
> security of knowing my "secrets" are not taken down and
> read by other members of the organisation).

No problem. Good for you.

> >> 2) How is it a 30 year member who has dedicated most of
> >>    her adult life to helping Scientology is suddenly
> >>    turned from a highly respected person into a
> >>    "criminal" and a suppressive person in two months?
> >>    Do you REALLY agree with this?

> > I don't think there would be a problem. Particularly if
> > she kept up her interest in the social events and the
> > tennis afternoons. If she didn't, then without any shared
> > interests they might drift apart.

> In this case it is not just drifting apart. Adherents to
> Scientology are instructed not to talk to anyone the
> organisation believes are a threat to it (SPs). The
> organisation therefore protects itself from being proven
> wrong. The adherents live in blissful ignorance.

If you look back at the context you snipped, you'll see that in my example the
lady had simply stopped working at the butcher's shop. A parallel in
Scientology could be that she had decided she didn't want to do any more
services.

It does happen.

I know now and have known in the past people who did that. And either we drift
apart beause we have no other shared interests, or we keep up our friendship
because we do.

However this situation _is_ different. If a former member was picketing a
Christian Church as a satanist (or a butcher's shop as a vegetarian) and
persuading people not to join it, it is entirely possible that the vicar (or
the butcher) would instruct his or her flock (or staff) not to talk to the
person trying to cause trouble. They would try and protect their group.

There are all kinds of Scientologists. Some like myself are quite interested in
its public image and in the nature of the attacks. Others don't really care to
know. They have other interests.

> >> Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards
> >> together.

> > In my opinion it would be agreement plus the applicability
> > of the basic philosophy to real life and the workability
> > of individual processes.

> This is good, however I would caution against using the
> workability of one process as justification for the
> "realness" of another.

Absolutely. I agree.

> > Nothing wrong with asking questions.

> According to HCO Policy Letter 5 March 1965:

>   "If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy."

> What HCO Policy Letter or Bulletin authorises:

>   "Scientology Policy Directives"?

This is away from the title of the thread. And I could answer it far better if
I had access to a full Scientology library. If you want a good answer I would
recommend writing a polite letter to the Executive Director International.

However I'll tell you my opinion:

We used to have isses that were junior to HCOPLs called Board Policy Letters
but these were all scrubbed in the mid-80s. SPDs have a similar junior status
and are 'directives" which direct rather than set policy. I've seen a few and
they weren't very exciting.   An interesting issue I did see was in the
technical counterpart of the SPDs. I think they are called Inspector General
for Tech bulletins. Anyway this issue reported that people were shaking their
hands before doing a can squeeze - but that this was just something that had
grown up out of tradition and there wasn't any LRH reference which advised
doing this.  

(snip)

Freddie T