Disclaimer- This page is written by a Scientologist who goes by the nick of E.J. Though I host E.J.'s pages on my domain, bernie.cncfamily.com, to allow moderate Scientologists a way to express their views, it represents E.J.'s view only. I do not censor the page in any way nor do I necessarily endorse or agree with it, and reciprocally. Bernie.

DO THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

I often point out to critics that the vast majority of people involved with Scientology do not experience the sort of difficulty that critics claim. Critics tend to cling to a relative few precious examples of alleged atrocities while they completely ignore the many people who find the Church helpful and beneficial.

I would characterize the negative stories as quite rare (by comparison) and not representative of Scientology as a whole. I observe an imbalance in the attention paid to a tiny minority of, in most cases, dubious 'horror stories'.

When confronted with their hypocrisy, they will often make the point that if any harm comes to one person, the whole endeavor is inherently flawed. The point they try to make is that the ends do not justify the means.

This can seem, on the surface, to be a valid point of view. But when one examines it further, they find that the 'perfect world' attitude is not very applicable in our society. In reality, judgements where risks are balanced against the potential good are made every day by doctors, drug companies, and so on. This is real life, not some hypothetical perfect reality.

You might take a look at commonly prescribed medications like methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine (Dexedrine, Adderall), which induce Psychosis at rates estimated as high as 9% of children taking the drugs.

Or you could look at Prozac, which is currently prescribed to an estimated 5 million Americans. Just browse the list of side effects of this 'wonder drug' including: Confusion, Delusions, Hallucinations, manic reaction, Paranoid reaction, Psychosis, Depersonalization, Apathy, Emotional Lability, Hostility, Amnesia, Paralysis, Stupor, Coma, Abnormal EEG, Chronic brain syndrome, Antisocial reaction, Hysteria, Suicidal ideation and violent behaviors.

Eli Lilly sold $2.9 BILLION worth of Prozac in the US alone in the year 2000.

So, it would appear that there is a precedent for the argument that people will accept a certain amount of risk when trying to improve themselves.

But let's get back to the real point:

I don't believe anyone should be hurt, emotionally or physically because they are involved in Scientology. That would be in direct conflict with the Church's doctrine. The thing is, I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that this is happening at all. And I certainly haven't seen any evidence that such harm comes as a result of some systematic, institutional Church policy. Now, the critics like to trot out Lisa McPherson as *proof*. But we all know that this isolated case shows no criminal culpability by the Church. A bizarre set of circumstances are probably most to blame for this woman's tragic demise.

Then there are critical claims of people "being financially ruined". I've been in the Church for many years and can't think of one example of this. Perhaps it has occurred, but it is not commonplace or routine.

I don't feel the good deeds done by the Church excuse any misdeeds by its members. Any misdeeds should be corrected and handled so that they do not occur again. That is the reason the ethics structure within the Church exists - to correct these missteps or "dangerous conditions" and get back on track.

But do you close down the whole hospital, because they lose one patient to an individual's error? Do you outlaw all drugs because they have harmful side effects in a few? More people die in car wrecks every sixty seconds than have ever died as a result of Scientology. Christianity has claimed millions of lives through the centuries, in the name of God.

Where do you draw the line?