This page is now divided in two
parts. Part 1 is the original page I webbed in the summer of 1998. Part 2 are
the two posts Claire made in the fall of 2001 when, after posting for more than
three years in ARS, she was expelled and declared by the CoS. Hopefully she will
one day send me her comments on how her expulsion changes (or not) what she was
saying here in 1998.
Claire is a Scientologist and gives here
another viewpoint on disconnection, balancing the unilateral negative aspects on
which critics focus. I caught this thread in the middle, having lost some posts
between Belgium and Switzerland. The context, however, should become clear as
one keeps on reading.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Tashback:
> >> Claire, you're not responding to my post, although you seem to
think you are. Certainly incest and abuse are reasons to disconnect from
folks. Impedence of spiritual progress is another matter.
> >> We're not talking about abusers. We're
talking about folks antagonistic to your church. And, as ydrrisil pointed out, we're also talking
about family members and friends who have been declared by the church.
> >> You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from
abusers and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
Claire:
> >I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to disconnect from them. I have been around in alot of orgs & missions
and I am telling you that I have rarely seen incidents of disconnection. And, one of the points I DID make in the afore-mentioned post is that when people DO disconnect when they should not have,when they could
have just live and let live, that this is not Scn policy.As a former staff member and a course supervisor I know whereof I speak. Please have the goodness to not attribute "knowledge" to me that I do not
possess.
H Alan Montgomery:
> This is a really strange concept to me. I read the Anderson Report from the 1960's and the disconnection policy is tearing families apart. I see the mention of it in Bare Faced Messiah and it is tearing families apart. I see a post on this NG about a girl who had a sister that disconnect from her when she had not even SAID anything about Co$. Then Claire comes along and and says, "I personally have not experieneced this. I have been in alot of orgs and it was not mentioned there. It thus follows that the disconnection policy is as I perceive it, not as how the external world perceives."
> The problem with that type of analysis is that you
can NEVER disprove an assertion. It always comes back to "What is true for me, is true." Claire, if you choose to believe that the disconnection policy is as you describe, that is fine, but other people have had different experiences. By saying that you have the final word you invalidate their experiences by saying that they are wrong or misguided or just plain lying. Have you considered that the reason you have no conflicting information is because people at the orgs you were with would be frightened or ashamed of talking about their disconnection experiences? The only way you could defend you position is to say, "Hey! At every org I was in I asked around and the disconnection policy was applied in an evenhanded, fair way." Even then it would not adequately invalidate the experiences of other people.
Claire:
I don't ask around all that much, I keep my eyes and ears open. I find out alot more that way, truly.
If management habitually in an arbitrary manner told people to
disconnect from family when all that was needed was a little
communications- if that *really* was common, it certainly would have
happened to me. Yet out of 7 orgs and missions where I've been on
lines- 0 asked or told me to do so. I think that says something.
I realize that abuses may happen and I have seen some accounts of
improper disconnection posted here and webbed as well. All I can say is
that when such things occur, (improperly, I mean) that this is not
right. It is not Scientology. I think we have all seen people and
organizations who did not act in accordance with
policies,beliefs,creeds,standards,mores, etc, that they supposedly
subscribed to, both in and outside Scientology. But I do not think that
the majority of people and organizations betray their standards as a
regular course of events. But it does happen, both in the
non-Scientology world and in Scientology. But I believe,based on my
experiences and knowing the people I know and have known, that abuse of
disconnection is not encouraged or wanted in Scientology. I know a man
whose wife is a non-Scientologist. The man is a dyed in the wool
Scientologist. The wife has trouble seeing the attraction. For a while
there was some disharmony on the home front. Even then, the Org did not
order the guy to disconnect from his wife. They suggested better
communication. I think this must have worked as they are still
together. She is still a non-Scientologist but they are happy together
and no one's pressuring them to split up.
[I can confirm this with my own experience.
While disconnection do occur, most of the time it does not, and in case of
family disagreement, the effort is put towards improving communication,
and this often is enough to resolve the situation, albeit not always.]
As far as being sent to Ethics, that, in my opinion is really not a big
deal. (shall I get my flame suit ready?) Really. In the occasions I
have seen an Ethics Officer, the first thing (s)he did was just to ask
me what was going on. I have found the experience to be generally
painless. In fact, I know of someone (my husband) who has been told a
certain thing by an Ethics Officer (this has happened to John a couple
times) and given a certain indication and John explained that this was
not the case. And he was *listened* to seriously.
Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to
Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member
did not like something a person did and for whatever reason, sent the
person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation
cleared up. The person can then explain to the Ethics Officer what did
happen. I know at my Org, the Ethics Officer takes such things
seriously and listens to the person. The treatment is fair.
> As I have said in another post, it is not that
disconnection IS abused, but that it can easily be abused. ALl a member of the management of an org would have to do is demand that you disconnect from someone. If you refused, they could send you to ethics. If the management was adament about sending you to ethics and would not allow you receive auditing until you disconnected, what would you do? Appeal their decision? How? Overe and over again it has been shown that the justice system within Co$ does not actually provide justice.
See prev paragraph- I forgot I wasn't at the bottom of the posting and
put everything up there...
> Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
>Objective reality conflicts with your experiences. You could if you wanted test what I have said by asking around current members at your org, but it would be rather dangerous to do so.
Regards,
Claire
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Claire:
> > Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with
the person and restore harmony.
<snip>
> > I have (non-Scientology) friends who disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with them.
Cat O'Blivion
> Excuse me, Claire? Are you attempting to equate disagreement with the "church" of scientology and incest???
> Here's a clue, Claire: incest, just like all other forms of child sexual abuse is illegal, not to mention profoundly psychologically damaging (although apparently L. Ron Hubbard didn't seem to think it was that traumatic, so you may not, either). A person disagreeing with the official teachings of a particular "church" is, at the worst, merely annoying.
> Refusing to have any contact with someone because of their history of abusive and/or exploitative behaviour is not the same as refusing to have any contact with someone because your "church" says so.
> Let's not confuse the issue, here. It trivializes the experiences of survivors of sexual abuse and only proves your insensitivity and inability to evaluate data.
Not confusing or trivializing anything. I just was giving an example of
an appropriate cause for disconnection.
[Furthermore, saying that "a person
disagreeing with the official teachings of a particular 'church' is, at the
worst, merely annoying" is inexact and Claire's comparison is much closer
to what really happens. People who really believe in their faith can recent
constant attacks, challenges, and invalidations of their religion very deeply.
Countless religious wars are here to attest to this fact. This is different than
mere disagreement.
In addition, the general situation can be further complicated by prior family
problems, as I illustrated in the case of Katleen
Wilson (something that is often ignored by anticultists in their primitive
understanding of a dual concept between a "loving family" and the
"evil cult"). Not to speak, of course, of the increase in parent's
distress brought about by the anticult doctrine and demonizations.
mabel@clear.net.nz
> I have experienced situations where the victims will maintain a contact with outsiders only on the grounds that
none of the new-found beliefs of the victim are discussed.
Judy Stein:
In some cases this may be entirely justified, i.e., if contact
tends to involve endless challenges to the cult member. Who
wants to have to be continually defending their beliefs?
[...]
> If sects and cults encouraged all members to openly debate the group’s philosophy with
outsiders, then some of the friction that exists today between cult members and
outsiders might be avoided.
Such debate could prove useful in many cases,
but in others it
could lead to a situation in which the only interaction between
cult members and outsiders consisted of endless challenges, as I
suggested above, especially if the outsiders have already bought
into the anticult doctrine.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
> Claire:
> > > I have (non-Scientology) friends who disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with them.Naturally the friends objected to this and tried to get
Daddy dearest to stop.Wouldn't stop. (here's a charming direct quote
from one of the afore-mentioned Daddies: "I made 'em,I can touch
'em") And here's a big surprise, my friend "disconnected".And so
would I have (after pouring a pound of sugar in the f**kers gastank). This is
the type of thing disconnection is for. It would much sadder to stay
in contact with such a creep.
DeoMorto:
> I had refrained from posting on this until this disingenuous posting
of yours. You are equating disconnection with the handling of sexual abuse - the two are neither similar nor even in the same category of thing and your attempt
to try and draw a parallel is odious in the extreme. My step son disconnected from his mother on new years day - he did it by phoning to her and telling her that because I was delcared, he was disconnecting from her as part of a "handling" from an ethics
office. Notwithstanding the fact that my has not been declared - the other fact is that as a family we have never objected to his being involved in
scientology - and in fact I kept communication at a bare minimum between us so that his progress would not be impeded. So you posting is a fabrication - this is not the way it works at all.
Claire:
No, is not a fabrication. This is the way it works in general. I have
been around enough and been a student and staff member at enough centers
to know this. But this is not to say abuses do not happen. People are
not perfect, people do not always do what is right.
> What it takes if for the church to decide that
someone is a suppressive and thus enforec the disconnection - there is no doubt about it Clare and your attempts to make it appear as if it is only used when there is some
desperate situation are obfuscation and attempts to disguise this malevolent practice
as something other than the controlling manipulation that it is. How would you descriobe an organization that labels people for its own ends
No obfuscation here. Look at my own unusual family history. This was
not exaggerated. In fact it (the family history,I mean) was even worse
than that-- 7 Scn Ctrs did not find it necessary to ask me to
disconnect.That is fact,not fiction.
> and then enforces communication or non-communication
upon its own members based on diktat? A NAZI organization - and that would be being charitable. You are shilling for scum
I am not shilling.I am a person putting in her two cents via usenet,as
you are doing.
I am sorry we are not in accord, and obviously your experiences have
been very different from mine and I am more sorry than I can possibly
say about that.
Best wishes,
Claire Swazey
In the following post, DeoMorto, who usually is
a relatively moderate poster, gets upset with the fact that Claire's experience
isn't the same as his. His upset stems, IMO, from his personal involvement (and
I think he has some right to be upset in such a situation). However, in his
upset, he displays some of the cultic behavior we have seen through other
anti-Scn posters: accusations that Claire is either lying, an OSA agent, pushing
the CoS PR line, being duped by the CoS propaganda, etc... Anything rather than
taking her account as a sincere recounting of her own experience.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
> Claire:
>> Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with
the person and restore harmony
DeoMorto:
> This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing
to do with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
Claire:
Not true.
> What you wrote is a lie - pure and simple.
I do not lie to this newsgroup and I do not PR,either. No one's feeding
me anything.I post on my own.
> It is not "from your personal knowledge" it is a PR line that has been fed to you.
> Either you have had so little to do with scientology that you really have
not had anything to do with its odious nature - inwhich case you are in no
position at all to talk about disconnection for or against or you are running a PR
line on behalf of OSA.
neither is true.
> Disconnection is used by the CofS to force people to
conform. It was used to break up my family - when there was no situation to handle - I had made no objection at all to my stepson following his own path as he saw fit. He
was, at the time of disconnection - living over 4,000 miles from my wife and I and
we had not physically met in the past twelve months.
> So, pray tell how
does your paragraph cover this?
See previous postings.
The following is a very strange reaction from
Barbara Ceon Ramon, who usually is very level headed. Apparently, Barbara
doesn't like the fact that Claire's experience contradicts the demonized version
of disconnection propagated by anti-scios and refuses to buy the
"documented cases" as a representation of what happens in general
(which also had been my point and the one of other moderate ex-members). If
things are brought in their proper perspective, there really is no contradiction
between Claire's account and the one of disgruntled ex-members, but anti-scios
often insists that these dramatic accounts are representative of Scn as
whole. That's the fallacy of their arguments, and tend to discredit the valid
points they may have otherwise.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Claire:
> >If management habitually in an arbitrary manner told people to disconnect from family when all that was needed was a little communications- if that *really* was common, it certainly would have happened to me. Yet out of 7 orgs and missions where I've been on lines- 0 asked or told me to do so. I think that says something.
Barbara:
> What it says to me is that you've had a good experience with scientology. What all the rest of your posts say to me is that whenever an issue is raised to challenge your understanding of scientology, you are going to reply that you haven't experienced it and no one you know has ever experienced it.
Claire:
I have said plenty of other things.Perhaps you were not paying
attention.
> You're too smart to go so far as to assert that
therefore such abuses don't occur.
> However, your personal testimony does absolutely nothing to invalidate the hundreds of personal stories that have been posted and webbed by those who have experienced scientology in significantly different ways. Sorry, I don't mean to be reductive or dismissive, but I can't quite grasp why you're here -- I mean, after you've said a dozen times that your involvement with scientology has satisfied you and you never saw, experienced, or even heard of any of the abuses that have been so well documented here and elsewhere, I don't see what else you have to offer. You reply to every post that your personal experiences with scientology have been completely satisfactory.
Would you rather I came from a vantage point of no experience whatsoever
and just promoted hearsay? That is a tactic I have seen here on
occasion. (And,no, I don't mean everybody on a.r.s)
> Good. I'm glad for you. But, and excuse me if this is
an impertinent question, what are you doing here?
Same thing everyone else is doing here.Putting in my two cents.This *is*
usenet,after all.
> Once you have "witnessed" for your
religion,
I do not "witness"
>once you've told us that you have found a way to happiness and fulfillment in it, once you've said that you've never personally experienced any of the abuses that have been documented in first-hand testimony and affidavits and books and posts, what else do you have to share with us?
I have never claimed that there are no abuses or that CofS is a
perfect
organization. It is plain to see that you either have not read all my
posts or that you have but did not really pay attention to what was in
them.
> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful
analysis,
Thank you.
> or a thoughtful defense of practices that are
commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted. All I see you doing is meeting every question, objection, or issue with a post that reduced to its basic component is, "I never experienced that."
Not every question. Not even close.
> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads,
fair weather" talk.
No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to
you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no
offense when clearly such is intended?
More of the same
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
> > > You can't base your entire perception of reality on your own
personal first-hand experiences.
Claire:
> > Yes,actually I can, but I know that you do not think this is a good idea.
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin:
> Claire prefers to lead a blinkered existence. Rather than take full advantage of her intellect, the ability to do research on subjects, to take advantage of the lessons learned from the past and from others, she confines herself to one little aspect - her personal experience. How sad. How narrow. What an enormous indictment of Scientology.
Actually I did write the other post and press enter more quickly than Ibmeant to,being somewhat of a novice to usenet,still. So let me
clarify: I do mainly go by my experiences because they are broad and
varied. However, (and this did not come out right in my last posting on
this) I do study history,take courses,watch the news,read the
papers,etc. I do think to some degree anyway that one must listen to
data and opinions collated by others and combine these things with
experience. I would not advocate an ivory tower existence in which one
never got out and experienced things but I would also say that one's
studies are important as well, as well as enjoyable,too. But you are
right in that this is not what I said in the previous post,because what
happened was I went typitty type,clickety click, send- oops!
I have just recently finished some interesting books on the integration
of moslems into european society and some books on paleoanthropology, in
fact. Nice change from murder mysteries. :-)
Do not be too quick to attribute my own failings (which are not in short
supply) to the CofS.
C
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Claire:
> > Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member did not like something a person did and for whatever reason,sent the person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation cleared up.
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
> So - guilty until proven innocent, eh?
Someone:
> > > As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
> > Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
> She only believes in her own *direct* personal
experience, remember? That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
Would you rather I disbelieve my own experiences and just go by hearsay?
Resuming with more reasonable discussions
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Claire:
> > If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have
a problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to
look long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS
or not.
Tashback:
> Sure. Those are decisions adults make. You don't need the organization to which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
Claire:
Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or
told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted
to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. And this has
come up before, believe me. It is the responsibility of Scientologists
(and really,anyone) to do what they think is right regardless of what
anyone else thinks is right. Even if the people in disagreement with
them were Church Officials or what have you. This is something I truly
believe and practice and I have not pleased all the people in the CofS
all the time,for sure.
Tash:
> > > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to
disconnect from abusers and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But
that's not what Scientological disconnection is about, and you know
it's not.
Claire:
> > > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein
I described my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked
or told to disconnect from them.
> > > I see nothing unusual about your family
situation. I know loads of people who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their
parents, and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations
would demand disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think
your family is unusual?
> > let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was
asking the church for his money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications,
I was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the
exact same history. Sure,ok.
> That's my point; there is nothing unusual about it
*outside of Scientology*. It's *normal* outside of Scientology to have parents who disagree with your choices and who are vocal about it. It's *normal* to have friends who make choices different from those you would make, and to support them in those choices because of the strength of the friendship (and also because they might be right and you might be wrong). There is nothing unusual in that. You seem to imply that it is unusual for a *Scientologist* to be in such a situation, and perhaps that's so. But it's not unusual outside of Scientology.
> > I have a couple other postings/replies on this
as well with another example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
> OK. I look forward to reading your posts. I hope you
will respond to DeoMorto.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Claire:
> >Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't.
Tilman Hausherr:
> What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the
"church" because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change your mind?
> Many other people did.
Wei getz (did I spell that right??)
One of the things that is generally neglected on this newsgroup in
regard to Scientology philosophy is the expectation of a high level of
integrity in a church member. One is expected to inform one's family of
what one is attempting to accomplish in Scn and in this manner bring
about an understanding of that person's actions.
If one were to determine truly and correctly that some individual with
whom one was in contact was actually covertly or overtly destructive to
them then in that case it would only make sense to take steps to remedy
this. In my opinion, the need to disconnect would be rare.
The major question here would be: "is this the actual situation?" Any
individual in Scientology is expected to determine this for themselves.
If someone else were to tell a person to take any action which was
onerous to the individual then he would be obliged to not take the
action.
Using disconnection as an example; if the disconnection was mistakenly
suggested as the proper course of action to someone and he were to carry
it out he would cause more problems for himself and also for the church
by doing so. If disconnection is a proper course of action and the
individual carries it out he will cause fewer problems for himself and
for the church.
As with all things in Scn, the desired results are the yardstick by
which things are measured. Not just theory for theory's sake.
John and Claire
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Claire:
> >> >> Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other
person is making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way
to deal with the person and restore harmony>>
DeoMorto:
> >> >> This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to
enforce the Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who
isn't. It has nothing to do with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
Claire:
> >> >Not true.
Barbara:
> >> Yes. It is true.
Claire:
> >No,it is not.
Zinj
> Disconnection is the IRL version of the Clam Nanny.
> Blinders on, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes (or human damage)
Claire:
NO,it is not. If disconnection is not the correct action then a
responsible Scientologist would be expected not to take such an action.
There really is not much of it that goes on but I do know that it does
take place sometimes. And abuses occur,I do not doubt. But they are
rarer than you believe them to be.
I also have some stuff on this in a prev posting to Tilman you may want
to look at.
And here is a quick example of NOT disconnecting- I know someone who is
very involved in CofS whose relative gives her children psychiatric
drugs. She has not disconnected from her relative.
I gave an earlier example of someone I know who is married to a
non-Scn'ologist who really does not see the attraction her spouse has to
Scn. No pressure was put on the guy to disconnect from his wife and
they have stayed together.
A cultic reaction from an anticultists (Jana
Moreillon), who threatens to out Claire (Jana already outed other Scientologists
in the past) . She is temperated here by a more moderate critic (Starshasow). We
can guess through all of this some of the reasons why someone would want to
"disconnect" from Jana, and in fact, it is sort of what Starshadow
does: "then we really have no possible way of communicating on this
matter"
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Jana Moreillon <morejd@gte.net>:
> > > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make
nothing of the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection.
This effort, perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that
these policies are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can
solve problems between family members or friends. Their statements in this
regard are BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior,
you are one OT dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and
Claire M. Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
starshadow1@mindless.com (Starshadow):
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
Jana:
> You are entitled to believe what you like. Claire has said that she was a staff member, and that she has been associated with several orgs. It is NOT Possible that she has not experienced the pervasiveness of disconnection.
> > I mean, they've already admitted that they are
in Seattle. So what is the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What
is the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing, and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
> I must have missed their message in which they
admitted that they are in Seattle. If they did so, then what is the big deal about my saying that
they are in the Seattle phone book? My sole purpose was to tweek them a little. You don't like it? I don't care whether you like it or not. I have a
daughter who disconnected from me. I can assure you that she was not a victim of
child abuse, nor did she suffer any other outrageous upbringing. The number of parents who have lost children to the cult are legion. Until you are among their number, then back off. Had I wanted people to call them, I would have posted the telephone number. I might post it yet, if I feel like it. Your pleasure is totally immaterial to me. I will point out that Claire gets her stats up for causing so called critics to flame each other. Perhaps you
like that?
Starshadow:
You know, you are the one flaming here. If you are so angry you are
willing to strike out at anyone who disagrees with you, no matter their
purpose, then we really have no possible way of communicating on this
matter. you have your mind made up, and that is obviously that.
But I'm not going to back off on this one. I stated that I don't like
outing, or threatened outing, when Scns do it, and I don't like it when
critics do it. No difference.
You apparently want to shut up any possible way of dialogue with any
'fessed Scn member, and that is your problem. You aren't being very
discriminating in your targets.
But this is Usenet, do carry on. As will I.
Another cultic reaction along the same line:
the one of the poster named "Warrior".
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Starshadow:
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that they are lying. Just my guess.
> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those
beliefs support.
Warrior:
> The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years. There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them
to be making the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
Well, we have been Scientologists for years. And it really is rare.
But rare does not mean never. And that does not mean abuses do not
occur. It's always sad when LRH policy isn't applied standardly, huh
Warrior? :-) But seriously, I'm not making this stuff up. I cover it
again in my post today responding to Jour's Questions for
Claire
posting, I imagine you may find that interesting...
> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have
NOT been completely honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability to spot BS.
I have been honest. Although I admit that I refuse to divulge private
personal information about myself that you do not need to know, which
may constitute a bit of an evasion, still I have not been lying. I do
not need to tell you about what services and posts I've taken and held,
any more than I need to let you know my bra size.
> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been
playing a PR game here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
Actually, I have not. I haven't been sent by anybody. Anyway, which is
it, first you want to say that I must be here against CofS wishes, then
you alternate this absurd claim with the even more absurd claim that
maybe I am working out a liability formula and now it's a PR game. What
this tells me is that you don't know what I'm doing here, but you are
going to try and press different buttons til something goes beep.
> Of course, even those who never were members can and
do spot much of the BS.
So we are not in agreement. And your experiences with Scn have
obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same
outlook as I have.Well,it would be odd if you did.I can deal with the
fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have
posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or
willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly
amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do.
This should not bother you, Warrior. You knew there were still
Scientologists around,right? I mean, of course you didn't know about my
unique singular qualities, but still, you need (IMNSHO) to get
accustomed to the fact that someone could have a totally different
outlook from you and actually not be lying.
If you were to think I was incorrect,which you do, fine. But I'm just
amazed at your inability to add 2 and 2 together and get anything other
than a held-down 7.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: My Expell/Declare
Message-ID: <40f7d2ce.0109290815.1822ca25@posting.google.com>
I am on a business trip right now but wanted to post this because I
just got the news from home that John and I have been expelled. I
will not be in regular email or usenet conversation mode, however, for
at least several days if not longer.
The expulsion was on the grounds of leaving Scn publicly and
connection to SPs. I don't yet have a copy of the expell/declare.
Really, as I know from having been expelled one other time and talking
to so many others, what it boils down to is that no one gets expelled
unless the church is angry at them. Whether the grounds for anger be
real or imagined, trumped up or legitimate is another issue. But
basically, piss them off enough, run afoul of some politicking, and an
expell-declare is likely.
I have not publicly departed Scn. I have stated I was inactive with
CofS and that it largely had much to do with certain communications I
had with them. This fact.
When I first discovered this ng I thought everyone here was stark
raving bonkers. Evil. Up To No Good. In great excitement I called up
the Org, was connected with the DSA, Ann Ruble (nka Ann Pearce) and
asked her if she knew about this terrible thing I just found on the
internet. She told me it's poison, stay away from it, yadda yadda.
After a couple more months of lurking (hard to tear myself away) I
started posting. Gingerly at first, then jumped in with both feet. I
was quite party line in those days because I figured that what I'd
always been told was true. I then saw that the ex CofS members, Free
Zoners, and the more sane critics (and even some of the not so sane
ones!) was true, that they weren't lying. As I mentioned before, I
then decided that these were anomalies. After a time, I found that
these occurrences/abuses, etc, were not anomalies and weren't rare.
But I still hung in there, hoping for reform, hoping to work within
the system.
My first disappearance from the group was due to a somewhat friendly
meeting with the DSA, Ann, and another executive of the Org who was a
very close family friend. Ann said OSA wanted to know whose side I
was on, even though I'd been posting all pro- CofS stuff. And she said
she wanted me to do what was true for me. She was really nice until
she called me "disingenuous" which is something people on ars like to
say sometimes, too. I started wondering if it was the new word for the
week! Anyway, I agreed to stop posting for my own good and Ann said if
I ever wanted to know the REAL DEAL, the TRUTH, I could ask her and
she'd be happy to tell me. Even then, I thought to myself "I doubt
this!".
It didn't feel right to be stifled like that, so after a year or so I
started to post again. This time, after just a few weeks, OSA
contacted the Org again. My friend was contacted. We had a shouting
match in my living room with my friend saying "JUST STAY AWAY FROM
THEM!" and leaving.
I started up again after a couple weeks, and was called by my friend.
I did some fast talking and got him off my case. Told him I'd deal
with OSA directly, which I did. I got an email address for someone
there who's on this particular situation, and sent some emails
announcing my intent to post again. I got no reply and then indicated
by another email that I'd take this silence as assent.
Then I got called in to the Org for a briefing. The DSA had my friend
give me all these references to read about anti social personalities
and so forth. Most of you will know or know of the ones. I then handed
my friend a stack of LRH references about free communication, etc.
Then I heard nothing for a couple months.
August 20, 2001, I was told to come in and have a nice meeting of the
minds. It was not nice. And there was no meeting of the minds. My
friend and another man, Justin Smith from HCO were there. Justin did
most of the talking and had apparently been briefed as to what to say.
He brought up my civil rights and how the Org would not want to see
them infringed and this was irrelevant. Religions have nothing to do
with rights granted or withheld by the government of the land in which
one lives unless one lives in a theocracy. This was just PR and
something he'd been briefed to say, I believe. He started to get
sarcastic and rude. I passed out my LRH quotes again and they fell to
the floor. So I started reading them aloud. They said "This is the
reference we are going by" - indicating the reference on adherence to
suppressive groups.
So it ground on a bit. (or should that be "grinded"? Probably not.) No
one getting anywhere. My friend was yelling,sort of like my husband
when he thinks I've done something spectacularly weird. THAT kind of
yelling. Justin Smith continued to be rude and snide.
They then gave me an ultimatum to decide, leave ars or get expelled. I
said I'd need several days. Justin said that proved I was in "doubt"
and gave me one day. Then we talked some more, and then he said,
"Well, you know, you have to call by 6:30 tonight (it was about 2 pm
already). " and I said "what about the one day?" He indicated
that he
just now changed it. Because he could, I suppose.
It was then that I realized there was no hope. They'd continue to ask
for/demand my money and time all the while treating me with contempt.
Strictness is one thing, contempt's another. I decided to walk away.
I was contacted by my friend asked to come in and get a meter check. I
was not nice about it. I refused.
I waited to post for a bit, only doing some askme.com stuff as
Voltaire's Child. Then I jumped back in, billing myself as inactive. I decided that if the church views me as an ex member, that they would
have to officially make that determination, that I wasn't going to
just hand it to them. I then decided to stop self censoring (I'd been
doing so less and less, before that, decrying the culling of pc
folders, etc, but I'd still done so, a bit.) altogether.
I then started writing exactly what I thought, and knew, sometimes
taking CofS sanctioned (I assume they are, anyway.) contributors to
task on things.
A number of critics still saw me as a member of the group, calling it
"my cult" and so on. This made no sense, but then again, this black
and white thinking is just as prevalent in CofS, if not more so, as it
EVER was here.
Then in late April, the church sent DSA Gwen Barnard from Portland to
see me. I refused to see her without an appointment. So she had to
make 2 300 mile round trips. We talked for a long time, she was very
sweet. But I wasn't buying it. She offered me a job writing puff
pieces on social issues for her. I nicely declined. The idea was to
distract me from ARS. I told her the church should honor its creed. We talked probably for 2 or 3 hours.
Anyway, we ended off and I heard nothing more except that I was on a
list of people not to call for events, which was on HCO color flash
paper (goldenrod) which is what Jana (ladayla) was referring to a
couple weeks or so ago.
At that time, J &I weren't expelled, but we are now.
More later.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: More on that expulsion
Message-ID: <40f7d2ce.0109291323.5ca254b0@posting.google.com>
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.
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
