I am going through withdrawl, of sorts, since I'm not in a position
where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
touch til I can get back to a normal situation.

Friends have called me and related a number of the responses to my
post made earlier today about the expell/declare.

I appreciate the kind words.

I can't pull that thread up yet through Google, so I'm just making
this a separate post.

In answer to the question (posed by, I think, Shark) as to whether I
plan to do my A-E steps. Absolutely not.  I have been facing the fact
that this would probably eventually happen and have planned out some
things. One thing is that I am not interested in applying for reentry
to CofS. Were the abuses anomalies, and had they treated me only with
strictness but no contempt- I'd view this differently. But these
elements are just not there.  And therein lies the rub. Were they just
strict/fundamentalist type thing, there'd be far less to criticize.
And someone like me would stick around, hoping to change their minds
about things. And there'd actually be some hope. But I've noticed-
even when I was pretty convinced that they were the only game in town,
metaphysically speaking, again and again- that the church makes more
and more demands on its members while at the same time delivering less
and less in return and while treating people in a contemptuous manner.
The latter feeds the former, anyway, doesn't it.

Were it not for the contempt, some of the most highly outspoken
critics who also were once CofS members, would not even be critics.
But the contempt was there and the critics knew this and know that
now. Others who've never been members have seen this, as well.

I have seen it, too. I remember once a long time ago after being told
in a D of P interview that I had no right to ever question anything an
SO member ever did or said to me because they work so hard and
everything, becoming very upset that the only people who had the
information and metaphysical approach that I wanted was CofS. And that
was LONG before I ever started posting here. Members are conditioned
to believe that they can never get this particular metaphysical
approach, body of tech, whatever you want to call it- anywhere else.
This is not true.

And even if it was, I see it that the church is playing the "you'll
lose salvation" card. Well, that's blackmail of a sort. Blackmail and
idealism do not go well together, to put it mildly.

I don't need this blackmail. I don't want it. I do not believe for one
minute that anybody's going to go into a dwindling spiral onward to an
eternity of blackness and pain just because they may lose access or
cut access to this metaphysical approach.

Many of you are skeptics- you think this stuff's for the birds anyway.
Well, as it happens, I do not think all of it is, although I've
observed before and will again that Hubbard inculcated much of his own
fixed ideas, prejudices, paranoia and other unsavory stuff into Scn
and that this was irresponsible of him, to say the least. But even
though I find much use for many of the ideas in Scn, I do not think
for one minute that someone isn't better off being cut off from
emotional blackmail and contempt and people who do not practice what
they preach than to just go off and do something different, and to
live life in a manner in which he chose.

Scn is mystical in origin in some respects. The idea that one can
deteriorate spiritually is very much extant in mysticism and in Scn.
Well, fine, so one can. But it does not always mean that one WILL
deteriorate as soon as he stops doing a particular thing or even if
he, for a time, stops doing anything on the metaphysical/philosophical
front. One can be involved in spiritual activities and be very
irresponsible and harmful to others and oneself. And one can be
involved in mundane, "MEST" centered, every day activities and be
leading a very fine life with no resulting detriment to his or her
soul or spirituality or mental frame of mind or anything else.

I think much of Scn is just fine. I like that path. I pick and choose
as to how I want to walk that path. So be it.

But I tell you now that I'd rather be off that path completely than to
stick around for any emotional blackmail, fair game thingies or
whatnot. (fortunately I don't have to. The ideas I like still exist,
in or out of the church.)

These things, while done under the aegis and auspices of a group that
supposedly fosters spirituality just compromise the ideology that the
group purports to espouse.

Huh!! One would be better off being a janitor during the day, and
doing sports, and barhopping in one's free time- IOW, one can be
involved in some pretty mundane and ordinary stuff and still, as long
as one does not compromise himself, find himself being chipped at day
by day, have his wishes, thoughts and "determinism" overridden all the
time- be much better off than to give his all to a group that wishes
to give little or nothing in return.

Scn centers find more and more excuses to not deliver auditing.
Auditing's supposed to be THEIR deal. Their main thing. One doesn't
get what one came for, then.

I repeat something I said once before: There was once a novel called
"I love the person you were meant to be". Well, that's mawkish but
it's more or less how I feel. I love the vision of Scn that Hubbard
seems to have had, especially earlier on than later. I do not love the
way the church and individual Scn'ists (some of them) treat their
members, their ex members and critics and others with whom they
concern themselves. I do not love the fact that Hubbard fostered these
ideas. Anyone reading the PR series will know what I mean.

Another thought- I thought that I'd ditched all self-censoring maybe
about a year or 10 months ago.  I now think that this might have only
been MOSTLY true.

I think I may be, therefore, even more outspoken in the future about
things that the church says and does and what Hubbard did and said,
too.

I will still demur and continue to be a devil's advocate of sorts (is
that an unfortunate choice of words? Probably) if I think I see some
generalizations here about Scn'ists. But then again, a.r.s. wouldn't
be a.r.s. without me coming in every now and again and being
argumentative, now would it.

I'll end this post with another thought: any religion or methodology
which prefers dishonesty, the stifling of candid express of thought
over telling the truth - even when the truth is mighty embarrassing
has some MAJOR housecleaning to do.

And since the thought is father to the deed, then the first thing to
get cleane d up would have to be some ideas that fostered these
embarrassing things they don't want people discussing.  This would
include some of Hubbard's policies and of course, directives and
projects put forth by post-LRH management.

Talk to ya later.

Claire Swazey
Ornery Do-It-Yourself Scientologist