Scientology FAQ
Archive-name: scientology-faq
Last-modified: 1993/04/10
Version: 3.0
0 Introduction: Should I try Scientology?
1 Scientology and Science
1.1 Is Scientology a Science?
1.2 Has the validity of Scientology been tested?
1.3 What Does Scientology have to say about [other] Sciences?
1.4 How do scientifically-oriented Scientistologists deal with these
contradictions of Scientology?
1.5 Do Scientologists have paranormal powers?
1.6 I'm interested in Scientology, but first I'd like to see some proof...
2 Scientology and Religion
2.1 Is Scientology a religion?
2.2 How do Scientologists view other religions?
2.3 Do Scientologists view Science as a religion?
2.4 What's an e-meter? Is it a religious device or a Scientific device?
2.5 Is LRH a God?
3 Scientology and The Law
3.1 Who has Scientology ever sued? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
3.2 Who has ever sued Scientology? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
3.3 What's a "Squirrel" group?
3.4 Did EST "Squirrel" from Scientology?
4 The Effectiveness of Scientology
4.1 Is Scientology Successful?
4.2 Is Narcanon Successful?
4.3 What Countries Officially Sponsor Narcanon?
4.4 What is the essence of Scientology's workability?
4.5 What do Scientologists think of this FAQ?
5 Conclusion: Well?? Should I try Scientology?
0 Introduction: Should I try Scientology?
Maybe. Read this FAQ first. Consider asking the questions you need to have
answered in our newsgroup. Also, you may want to read one or more of the books
listed in the Books FAQ.
1 Scientology and Science
1.1 Is Scientology a Science?
It depends on who you ask. In his book _Scientology: The Fundamentals
of Thought_, L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) says:
"It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences."
Scientology claims to be a Science, but it never presents any of its data to
the world in a Scientific fashion. It presents conclusions (or, perhaps,
assertions) but never presents anything to back them up.
One non-Scientologist poster suggests the following theory of the
"Science" of Scientology:
>[Scientology is not a Science] as science is commonly understood in the
>scientific community. The Church of Scientology has its own undertanding of
>"science", based on four lines taken out of context from Webster's
>dictionary. According to this definition, any random accumulation of casual
>observations is classified as a "science".
Scientology *claims* to be a Science -- it's leader *asserts* that it is a
Science -- but has never, ever provided any objective evidence that it is a
Science. Until it does, Scientology is not a Science.
1.2 Has the validity of Scientology been tested?
LRH says it has (again, from _Scientology, The Fundamentals of Thought_):
"Tens of thousands of case histories, all sworn to, are in the possession of
the organizations of Scientology. No other subjects on Earth except physics
and chemistry have had such grueling testing."
Unfortunately, there's no public access to this alleged "grueling testing."
We only have the assertion and none of the data.
Actually, this statement is an interesting for several reasons. Why does LRH
think that Physics and Chemistry have had more testing than any other science?
How is it that Scientology's testing compares with the testing of Physics and
Chemistry? How many hundreds of people are there testing Scientology? How many
man-years have they spent testing? What were their methodologies? Is the
research ongoing, or has it stopped? And, most importantly, how can someone
outside of Scientology access their raw data?
[Do the Scientologists have any comments?]
Scientology *claims* to have been tested -- it's leader *asserts* that it has
been rigirously tested -- but has never, ever provided any objective evidence
that of that testing. Until it does, Scientology is untested and unproven.
1.3 What does Scientology have to say about [other] Sciences?
There seems to be questioning about [other] disciplines of Science. In our
Newsgroup, one Scientologist said:
>Keep in mind, there is a lot of Scn data you are not familiar with. Some
>of this includes information regarding the physical universe, etc. Since
>most sciences other than mathematics are based on the physical universe,
>I do not view them very highly.
[Do any Scientologists wish to elaborate?]
On Page 4 of the book _Scientology: A History of Man_, (ISBN Number
0-88404-306-1), LRH states on page 4 that the "whole track" (age of the
Universe to the present) is about sixty trillion years.
Unfortunately, no Scientific data is presented to back up this assertion. And
this age of the Universe is much older than virtually all cosmological models.
Note: this is *not* claiming that Scientology is wrong, it's just not bringing
Scientific rigor to its claims. In other words, if the Universe were actually
sixty trillion years old, we'd have to create a whole structure of theory --
from scratch -- to explain it. It appears as if the number sixty trillion was
pulled out of a hat by Scientology.
Sometimes, Scientologists seem to be defining Scientology as some sort of
super-science, invalidating real Sciences in the process. One Scientologist
says:
>>In other words, are you just a Guy in a Bar -- someone expressing an opinion
>>about the physical universe with no rigirous physical evidence to support
>>your opionion? Why should I respect what you have to say more than, say,
>>Steven Hawking when he talks about cosmology?
>
>No I don't have any rigirous physical evidence, but scientists have
>no rigirous evidence either.
Scientology makes claims that contradict other Sciences. Unfortunately, these
claims totally lack any scientific rigor.
1.4 How do scientifically-oriented Scientistologists deal with these
apparently contradictions of Scientology?
An ex-Scientologist answers:
>Basically you are asked to ingore your "wog" knowledge, since it is inferior.
>A lot of this is done in a ridiculing way. For example, there is a recording
>of some Scn songs out done with "Clearsound", a technology that is supposedly
>Scn owned and far better than anything the rest of the world has. No one I
>have ever talked to knows anything about what it is.
[Any scientologists wish to add any more?]
1.5 Do Scientologists have paranormal powers?
Some claim that they do, but none are willing to conduct objective experiments
to demonstrate these powers. Sometimes, they will cite variations of
Conspiracy Theory (for a definition, see the sci.skeptic FAQ) as their reason
for not demonstrating those powers. Other times, they'll just get angry when
you ask them to prove it. However, they will never, ever submit to an
objective demonstration of these powers. And they will cite no rational
reason for avoiding the demonstration.
This is especially interesting in light of the fact that, given an objective
demonstration of such skills, many more individuals would probably be
interested in Scientology.
1.6 I'm interested in Scientology, but first I'd like to see some proof...
Typically, a Scientologist would say to investigate it yourself -- take some
Scientology courses. Unfortunately, this appears to be a path with no
cheese. An ex-Scientologist claims:
>Basically the process takes you over. Every dollar and waking moment will
>be spent on Scientology unless you resist.
Unfortunately, there are no books that objectively evaluate Scientology. As
noted above, Scientology has never ever provided any public data on its
alleged rigirous testing.
2 Scientology and Religion
2.1 Is Scientology a religion?
Yes.
2.2 How do Scientologists view other religions?
This is not something that's discussed a lot. One non-Scientologist claims:
>By the way "God" in Scn is "the R-6 god". That is the God of the
>monotheistic religions of the world is considered an implant. An implant is
>a false picture attached to a thetan by the evil overlords. So listen up
>anybody who got the idea that Scn was tolerant of other religions, your God
>is a mere implant. Some people think they can retain their own religion and
>still practice Scn, but on the higher levels it gets audited out. LRH
>recounted on a tape that he advised his daughter to "be tolerant of the
>natives" his tone derogatorily refered to christianity. See when John
>Holifield is objecting to Chris Schafmeister's argument about how to restrict
>power of religious groups by saying "Moslems, Jews listen up" well I say
>listen to this. Scn does not have a friendly agenda for other religions.
2.3 Do Scientologists view Science as a religion?
Apparently, some do. One Scientologist has said:
>To me, science is as much religious dogma as any religion.
Another said:
>Perhaps you'd care to examine the fact, that in back of all the reasons,
>logic, and "Scientific" proof you have, your model is the way it is only
>because you choose for it to be that way.
[Would any Scientologist care to elaborate?]
[Any ex-Scientologists?]
2.4 What's an e-meter? Is it a religious device or a Scientific device?
One or the other. Or neither. Or both. It depends on who you ask. As one
reader posted on our group:
>Someone said that in the process of taking apart an e-meter it makes it
>useless, in the 'Church' eyes. I was wondering why is this suspose to be
>true. From an electronics stand point, that makes no sense. And if the
>'Church' says this so people won't take it apart, doesn't it seem as if they
>are trying to hide it's mechanism? I reject the concept that the process
>will distroy it's functions since very few simple electronic devices of that
>sort contain chips that are too high tech to tamper with, and even if they
>did, looking does not imply damaging.
Don Showen (showen@applelink.Apple.com) says:
>They are basically nothing but a whetstone bridge with a highly sensitive
>meter movement. I am still in touch with the designer, he also designed one
>with an automatic tone arm which I haven't used yet but have heard good
>reports on. The basic use is to keep the meter in a readable state so the
>needle activity can be easily observed, constantly making this adjustment is
>sometimes a pain. If there is enough interest I will check into either
>selling the schematic or actually building some meters and selling them for
>around $400.
Some non-Scientologists claim that the equivalent of the e-meter could be made
for $10. This claim drew the following response:
>How can you make such comments? You've probably never seen a Super Mark VII
>E-Meter. How can you possibly suggest you could build one for $10? Go see
>one (or at least pictures of one) before you continue to comment on these
>things which you are *very* ignorant.
Another Scientologist says:
>Just because you feel that it wouldn't be wise to buy one doesn't mean that
>its overpriced or anything else. People will pay $3000-$4000 for the meter
>because they get 3-4Gs worth of utility from one.
One Scientologist justifies the $3000 cost this way:
>Also for those of you who complain about $3000 for an E-meter you are right
>that this is a lot of money. A Mark 7 E-Meter is only necessary for auditing
>above the level of clear. There is a Mark 5 E-Meter which runs for $500
>retail and up to 40% off with various specials. This is the meter most use
>for auditing to Clear as in the Dianetics book. By the time you are Clear
>$3000 won't look to intimidating. $300 may still be more that a radio-shack
>meter but every meter is hand made and tested and a lot of pride goes into
>each one.
But questions still remain:
>Could you provide some comparisons between a Mark 7 and a low-end VHS VCR:
>Are the electronics more or less sophisticated than a VCR? Would a Mark 7
>have more or less problems with calibration over time than a VCR? Would it be
>more difficult for you to manufacture and test a Mark 7 than a VCR? What
>makes a Mark 7 more sophisticated than an electronic device that I can
>purchase for $169.99 at my local retailer?
In short, some readers claim that the functional equivalent of an e-meter
could be made with $10 worth of electronics. The Scientologists dispute this,
but fail to explain if there's anything inside an E-meter which would make it
worth its $3000+ price.
2.5 Is LRH a God?
Yes. No. It depends on who you ask.
A Scientologist posts:
>Behar's [author of Time's 1991 Cover Story about Scientology] statement that
>Scientology claims Hubbard is God is false. Many times in Scientology
>scripture it says very plainly that LRH is a man. Scientology holds no dogma
>about God. A person is free to choose their own beliefs about God.
Another adds:
>Factually, Scientology teaches that L. Ron Hubbard was only a man.
An investigator of Scientology questions this assertion:
>While your rebuttal (that Scientology does not claim Hubbard is God) may be
>accurate in the strictest sense as far as the non-condidential scriptures of
>the CoS are concerned, the sentiment that Scientologits has accepted Hubbard
>as God still rings true, given a less formal interpretation (e.g. like in the
>sentence: "Donald Trump has accepted money as his God").
>
>For example: _All_ the true Scientologists I`ve met seem to think that LRH is
>completely infallible (this is even one better than Christ, who failed his
>task miserably on the cross). Also Scientologists seem to believe that it is
>impossible to for anyone else to improve upon the work of LRH, which to me
>again suggests belief in superhuman qualities. And of course, the mythos
>include resurrection: LRH isn't dead -- he just "dropped his body", and shall
>return to earth one day.
>
>If we look at the jokes told by Scientologists, there is two strong recurring
>themes, and that is 1) LRH's godlike abilities and 2) the idea that LRH is
>superior to God. Here is two from my collection:
>
>>Once there was a newspaper reporter who was constantly trying to get 'news'
>>about L. Ron Hubbard. He would secretly follow him everywhere. One time he
>>followed LRH when he went on vacation up in the mountains.
>>
>>Early one morning the reporter quietly followed Ron as he took a row boat
>>into the middle of the lake to do some fishing. As he waited several
>>minutes to get his first bite, one of the oars fell out of the oar-lock and
>>drifted about twenty feet away. Ron sat there and thought a moment and made
>>sure no one was watching. He then got out of the boat and quickly walked
>>across the water to retrieve the lost oar. All this time the reporter was
>>busily making notes.
>>
>>The next morning the newpaper carried the following headline:
>>"L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, can not swim"
>
>>A scientologist died one day, and went to heaven. St. Peter met him at the
>>gates, and said "Come on in my friend"
>>
>>The scientologists says "Wow! I'm in heaven! This is neat! Do you think I
>>could meet God?"
>>
>>"Well, Gods pretty busy these days, but if you want to see him, go down the
>>hall and turn left. Its the first door you come to."
>>The scientologist walked down to Gods office and let himself in. There sat
>>LRH at a big desk. The scientologist says, "Wow, I knew it was you!"
>>
>>LRH looked up from what he was doing and says, "Sorry, Gods not here. He's
>>in Qual."
>>
>[Qual: short for Qualifications Division, where faulty auditors, students,
> and staff members are sent to find out what's wrong with them and correct
> the problem.]
3 Scientology and The Law
3.1 Who has Scientology ever sued? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
One case has been briefly discussed in the group:
>>The book will proove to you beyond a shadow of doubt that Mr. Behar
>>displayed a complete disregard for the truth, and only intended to scare and
>>upset people.
>
>Does the book explain how come Reader's Digest reprinted the Time article?
>The Church sued Reader's Digest, trying to stop this, and they lost. The
>Reader's Digest defence was that an article is not slanderous if it is
>telling the truth. I would be fascinated to hear the Church's side of that
>lawsuit.
Also, a Scientologist mentioned in passing that Behar is currently being
sued by Scientology. No further information is available.
[??? What are the other cases? What info on the rumors above?]
3.2 Who has ever sued Scientology? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
[???]
3.3 What's a "Squirrel" group?
It's someone who would "steal" the technology of Scientology, modify it, then
use it for their own purpose.
Scientologists cite two examples of "Squirrel" groups. A Scientologist posts:
>EST (now The Forum) is a squirrel group (and openly admits it). Free Zone,
>if I understood correctly, is also a squirrel group. There are several tech
>bulletins which illustrate squirreling and its danger. I am not an expert in
>this field so I can not detail this more.
Someone provides a definition of of the "Free Zoners":
>We had some "squirrels" (they called themselves "Free Zoners) posting to this
>group earlier. They seemed extremely preoccupied with keeping the faith
>(sorry -- "tech") pure and authentic. I think that one of the major gripes
>they had woth CoS was that the current bunch of Church leaders was those who
>had done the altering and no that therefore no longer adhered to the sacred
>word of Ron. One of them (Electra I think -- I haven't saved the posts) went
>as far as stating that all meters built according to a design that had been
>finalized after Ron lost control of the Church was faulty. Her words was
>something like "If I come across a Mark <something> I destroy it -- and
>consider it my good deed for the day". (Squirrels manufacture their own
>E-Meters -- at a cost considerable below that charged by the CoS -- and claim
>that _their_ meters are according to Hubbards original design, while the
>Church "official" meters are not).
Is EST (now The Forum) really a "Squirrel" group? The Scientologists seem
think so:
>I've at least two books which describe various human potential movements
>which include est. In both of these, it is mentioned that Erhard based a lot
>of his program on Buddhism and Scientology. I do not recall the titles
>off-hand. I recommend refering to any books that cover several such groups
>which include est.
...unfortunately, no title, author, ISBN number -- no documentation -- has
been provided.
3.4 Did EST "Squirrel" from Scientology?
Erhard was involved with Scientology in the mid to late 1960's; this is
described in his biography _Werner Erhard : The Transformation of a Man, The
Founding of est_ by by William Warren Bartley, III (ISBN 0-517-535025).
Scientology definitely feels that Erhard "borrowed" materials from
Scientology; Scientology provides a course for "est" and "ex-est" participants
to remove what they feel is the harm that est (and an offshoot called Forum)
produce.
Some of the material and presentation of est -- use of profanity by the
leaders presenting the est Training, a Scale of Knowledge, etc. -- have some
similarity to materials and their presentation in Scientology. Erhard felt
that he did not "borrow" any properties of Scientology.
Presumably, Scientology could have resolved this issue in the courts by suing
Erhard and/or his businesses. As near as we can tell, this never happened.
Various theories have been proposed as to why the CoS didn't sue:
o The Church felt that still more technology would have to be revealed in a
lawsuit (and that even if the case were sealed, they would have to trust a
[non-Scientologist] judge to keep the records secret).
o In general, The Church prefers to deal with problems without outside
influence (US Judicial system, etc.).
o Perhaps the materials that Erhard "borrowed" were not legally protected by
copyright and/or there was no agreement for him to not divulge information.
The 1992 book, _60 Minutes and the Assination of Werner Erhard_ by Jane Self
(ISBN ?????) claims that the charges leveled against Erhard in the 1991 "60
Minutes" segment are fundamentally untrue and describes an ongoing conspiracy
by Scientology to discredit Erhard. Anyone interested in pursuing this issue
should read this book. If Self's book is to be believed, it's clear that
the Church of Scientology does not like Erhard.
Erhard sold the assets to his company, Werner Erhard and Associates, to his
staff in 1991. He is not associated with this new enterprise. This new
company, Landmark Education, produces courses and programs developed by Erhard
(and some developed since he left). The est Training has not been offered
since 1984-85; the fundamental program in Landmark's offerings is called The
Landmark Forum. One participant in these programs commented:
>I dispute all the statements made about "Tone Scale" use, and all that. By
>all my experience is post 1985.
In other words, it's possible that what Scientology viewed as objectionable in
est/Erhard's programs is no longer part or the current [Landmark] programs.
[Can any recent participants in *both* Landmark and Scientology comment
on this?]
4 The Effectiveness of Scientology
4.1 Is Scientology Successful?
By its own definition, Scientology must be successful:
>>Saying this another way, what would it mean if there *were* someone who
>>completed a level, didn't start another level, and declared his experience
>>with Scientology a failure?
>
>Part of the completion of a grade is that the PC makes an attest (similar to
>a sworn statement) that they have successfully reached the end-phenomenon of
>the grade.
>
>In the case of a student, the attest is that they have studied and know the
>material and can apply it successfully.
>
>The person makes these statements so that Scientology can be certain that the
>standard results were achieved. If they later claim that Scientology was a
>failure, I would say they were a liar. Either they lied at the attest, or
>they lied when they said it failed.
But is it meaningful to define success in Scientology's terms?
>>Sometimes Scn appears unsuccessful. For example if someone quits, or the
>>tech is altered. Scn is the way life works, and you can't break those
>>rules. It seems like it would be nice to refuse responsibility for anything
>>that happens, but we can't. Scn has never failed me. I have failed myself
>>many times by not applying Scn, or not applying it correctly. Scn has
>>always dug me out of the whole afterwards though.
>
>1) Is this type of logic valid _only_ when applied to Scientology, or would
> it be equally valid if applied to any other "science" or "faith"?
>
>For example: If I adopted the stance of "scientific marxism/leninism", and
>claimed that there exist solid scientific proof that communism, if applied
>correctly, must always succeed (Marx actually provides such a proof in the
>first volume of "Das Kapital"). As counterargument, you would probably
>patiently tell me about the recent collapse of the Soviet Union. I would
>then proceed to "win" the argument by pointing out to you that the collapse
>of the Soviet Union cannot be admitted as evidence, as its collapse has
>nothing to do with shortcomings in "scientific marxism/leninism", but was
>only due to the facts that:
>
>a) The Soviet Union has failed to apply the theories of Marx and Lenin
> correctly; and/or:
>b) The Soviet Union quit too early, in the middle of the process of
> transforming the hell of capitalism into a classless paradise. As it quit
> by its own determination, the Soviet people has itself to blame for the
> current cathastrophic situation.
>
>In case you think there is a difference between applying a particular
>"science"/"tech" to a society and an individual, please feel free to
>substitute something else for "marxism/lenism" in the example above -- say
>Werner Erhard's "est", "Islam" or "Kibology".
>
>My final two questions are:
>
>2) Do you think that the logic I use to show the infallibility of "scientific
> marxism/leninism"/"est"/"islam"/"kibology" is valid?
>
>3) If your answer to question #2 is "no", what is the difference between my
> logic and the logic you employ to show that scientology cannot possibly
> fail?
So far, the Scientologists haven't tackled this interesting question.
4.2 Is Narcanon Successful?
[Narcanon is a Scientology subsidary that deals with the treatment of drug
abusers.]
An anonymous poster to the group reports:
>The book _What Is Scientology_ has been mentioned as a reference for the
>statistics on Narconon's effectiveness. Pages 407-415 are devoted to
>Narconon, and contains very few useful facts. It is mostly wins
>(testamonials). The facts given are:
>
>A 1981 Swedish study found 84.6% of participants were off drugs at the end of
>the study. Nothing was said about the source, duration or methodology used.
>
>A 1985 study in Spain found 78.37% of the participants were still off drugs
>one year after ending treatment. Same lack of data about source and
>methodology.
>
>Note the number of significant digits given in the result.
A poster to this group has been researching this question for a while:
>Interesting. In the material Narconon sent me, there are also references to
>exactly two studies: one "Swedish" study and one "Spanish" study (no years
>are given). The recovery figures still differs by 6 points but are slightly
>lower (76% and 70% respectively -- no decimals).
>
>Anyone who knows whether these the same or different studies? If they are
>the same, why do the figures keep mutating?
>
>I am extremely annoyed by the lack of proper citation. It makes it
>impossible to track down the original material for these controversial
>claims.
>
>And it is not like Narconon doesn't know how to provide citation! On the
>page just after the references to these anonymous studies, there is a nice
>set of charts showing the growth of drug abuse in the US. The chart is
>accompanied by a footnote giving the proper source for these data. Why do
>they bother giving the source for these well known and uncontroversial
>findings, but provide no source for their quite sensational and controversial
>recovery figures?
>
>I can only think of one plausible explanation. They won't let me examine
>these studies. Either because the "studies" doesn't exist, they are
>fabrications by someone who sells a bogus $5000.-/week rehabilitation program
>-- or they exist but are not as "independent" and "scientific" as
>Narconon/ABLE/CoS want me to believe.
[Do any Scientologists care to comment?]
4.3 What Countries Officially Sponsor Narcanon?
In Narconon promotional literature it is repeatedly claimed (again without
naming the nations involved) that Narconon an "official" state sponsored drug
rehabilitiation program sponsored in several European nations.
Several letters and faxes by myself to Narconon Chilocco specifically
requesting the names of those nations have only been answered with letters
containing standard promotional literature that does not give this
information.
Is Narconon used as an "official" state sponsored program anywhere in Europe,
or is this claim a lie prepetrated by Narconon to give this expensive and
undocumented treatment program undeserved respectability?
[Do any Scientologists care to comment?]
4.4 What is the essence of Scientology's workability?
The following is reproduced, without comment, from one Scientologist's
posting:
>I say do a survey of people who have completed any Scientology course or
>auditing action and find out if they have subjectively achieved the
>end phenomena. I predict that you will be able to determine objecctively
>that 100% of the people will have a subjective reality that they have
>achieved a gain of some type. This is the essence of Scientology's
>workability as I now see it.
4.5 What do Scientologists think of this FAQ?
They say, with spirit, that this document is a [collective] of [untruths]. On
Scientologist (humbly!) says:
>As a side note, the perported FAQ is loaded with false, negative and biased
>material. It would be interesting if the copyright and trademark holders of
>terms such as "Scientology," "Dianetics" etc. took legal action. There are
>clear, concise answers available from the Church with documentation; a
>continued distribution of demonstrably false and damaging material could be
>construed as intentionally malicious. Just my 'umble opinion.
Unfortunately, no reference has ever been provided to the "clear, concise"
answers. Interestingly, while Scientologists have claimed that the (whole?)
FAQ is untrue, they have never volunteered any corrections. One did recommend
that we read the *entire* book _What is Scientology_ (ISBN ????) ($80 and 500+
pages) to get our answers....
One Scientologist offered a one-shot "Pro-Scientology" FAQ, but is no longer
active in our newsgroup. Given that no Scientologist has ever even *attempted*
to contribute to the FAQ, it's unclear that [implicit] labeling the current
FAQ as "Anti-Scientology" is appropriate.
Anyone is welcome to contribute to this FAQ; the "untruths" can't be
"corrected" unless someone gives us the appropropriate information. Clear,
concise answers would be most welcome.
5 Conclusion: Well?? Should I try Scientology?
Maybe. It's up to you. Here are a few things that you should know about first:
Recently, one Scientologist on this group noticed a posting from someone he
thought was a fellow Scientologist (he wasn't). Apparently, he didn't like the
posting too much:
>Do you realize that you are committing serious High Crimes against
>Scientology by your public disavowals of Scientology on the newsgroup
>alt.religion.scientology? You have major misunderstood words and you are
>posing yourself as an authority in an area in which you are not. I'm writing
>full reports to the Religious Technology Center about your postings.
The same Scientologist, in response to an earlier version of this FAQ, said:
>I have said that you are doing something wrong and I am reporting it. That I
>have done.
[Without further reference, one assumes he reported it to the Religious
Technology Center.]
Finally, this same Scientologist has sent what appears to be threatening
e-mail to some posters of this group:
>What hidden crimes are you trying to hide? I highly suggest that you take a
>very careful look before I expose them to all.
It's unclear if this person is a Model Citizen among Scientologists. One
Scientologist condemned his actions and further claimed that he was operating
*as an individual* and not as a Scientologist. On the other hand, this
Inquisition-like methodology appears to be a structured component of
Scientology.
Finally, if you still want to pursue Scientology, but some of the questions or
issues raised in this FAQ bother you, get those issues answered *first* before
you put any money down. Ask questions here -- there are several
ex-Scientologists and non-Scientologists who will provide thoughtful answers
to your questions. Based on the experiences of some of those
ex-Scientologists, expecting that your questions will get answered later could
be folly.
end.
Last-modified: 1993/04/10
Version: 3.0
0 Introduction: Should I try Scientology?
1 Scientology and Science
1.1 Is Scientology a Science?
1.2 Has the validity of Scientology been tested?
1.3 What Does Scientology have to say about [other] Sciences?
1.4 How do scientifically-oriented Scientistologists deal with these
contradictions of Scientology?
1.5 Do Scientologists have paranormal powers?
1.6 I'm interested in Scientology, but first I'd like to see some proof...
2 Scientology and Religion
2.1 Is Scientology a religion?
2.2 How do Scientologists view other religions?
2.3 Do Scientologists view Science as a religion?
2.4 What's an e-meter? Is it a religious device or a Scientific device?
2.5 Is LRH a God?
3 Scientology and The Law
3.1 Who has Scientology ever sued? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
3.2 Who has ever sued Scientology? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
3.3 What's a "Squirrel" group?
3.4 Did EST "Squirrel" from Scientology?
4 The Effectiveness of Scientology
4.1 Is Scientology Successful?
4.2 Is Narcanon Successful?
4.3 What Countries Officially Sponsor Narcanon?
4.4 What is the essence of Scientology's workability?
4.5 What do Scientologists think of this FAQ?
5 Conclusion: Well?? Should I try Scientology?
0 Introduction: Should I try Scientology?
Maybe. Read this FAQ first. Consider asking the questions you need to have
answered in our newsgroup. Also, you may want to read one or more of the books
listed in the Books FAQ.
1 Scientology and Science
1.1 Is Scientology a Science?
It depends on who you ask. In his book _Scientology: The Fundamentals
of Thought_, L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) says:
"It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences."
Scientology claims to be a Science, but it never presents any of its data to
the world in a Scientific fashion. It presents conclusions (or, perhaps,
assertions) but never presents anything to back them up.
One non-Scientologist poster suggests the following theory of the
"Science" of Scientology:
>[Scientology is not a Science] as science is commonly understood in the
>scientific community. The Church of Scientology has its own undertanding of
>"science", based on four lines taken out of context from Webster's
>dictionary. According to this definition, any random accumulation of casual
>observations is classified as a "science".
Scientology *claims* to be a Science -- it's leader *asserts* that it is a
Science -- but has never, ever provided any objective evidence that it is a
Science. Until it does, Scientology is not a Science.
1.2 Has the validity of Scientology been tested?
LRH says it has (again, from _Scientology, The Fundamentals of Thought_):
"Tens of thousands of case histories, all sworn to, are in the possession of
the organizations of Scientology. No other subjects on Earth except physics
and chemistry have had such grueling testing."
Unfortunately, there's no public access to this alleged "grueling testing."
We only have the assertion and none of the data.
Actually, this statement is an interesting for several reasons. Why does LRH
think that Physics and Chemistry have had more testing than any other science?
How is it that Scientology's testing compares with the testing of Physics and
Chemistry? How many hundreds of people are there testing Scientology? How many
man-years have they spent testing? What were their methodologies? Is the
research ongoing, or has it stopped? And, most importantly, how can someone
outside of Scientology access their raw data?
[Do the Scientologists have any comments?]
Scientology *claims* to have been tested -- it's leader *asserts* that it has
been rigirously tested -- but has never, ever provided any objective evidence
that of that testing. Until it does, Scientology is untested and unproven.
1.3 What does Scientology have to say about [other] Sciences?
There seems to be questioning about [other] disciplines of Science. In our
Newsgroup, one Scientologist said:
>Keep in mind, there is a lot of Scn data you are not familiar with. Some
>of this includes information regarding the physical universe, etc. Since
>most sciences other than mathematics are based on the physical universe,
>I do not view them very highly.
[Do any Scientologists wish to elaborate?]
On Page 4 of the book _Scientology: A History of Man_, (ISBN Number
0-88404-306-1), LRH states on page 4 that the "whole track" (age of the
Universe to the present) is about sixty trillion years.
Unfortunately, no Scientific data is presented to back up this assertion. And
this age of the Universe is much older than virtually all cosmological models.
Note: this is *not* claiming that Scientology is wrong, it's just not bringing
Scientific rigor to its claims. In other words, if the Universe were actually
sixty trillion years old, we'd have to create a whole structure of theory --
from scratch -- to explain it. It appears as if the number sixty trillion was
pulled out of a hat by Scientology.
Sometimes, Scientologists seem to be defining Scientology as some sort of
super-science, invalidating real Sciences in the process. One Scientologist
says:
>>In other words, are you just a Guy in a Bar -- someone expressing an opinion
>>about the physical universe with no rigirous physical evidence to support
>>your opionion? Why should I respect what you have to say more than, say,
>>Steven Hawking when he talks about cosmology?
>
>No I don't have any rigirous physical evidence, but scientists have
>no rigirous evidence either.
Scientology makes claims that contradict other Sciences. Unfortunately, these
claims totally lack any scientific rigor.
1.4 How do scientifically-oriented Scientistologists deal with these
apparently contradictions of Scientology?
An ex-Scientologist answers:
>Basically you are asked to ingore your "wog" knowledge, since it is inferior.
>A lot of this is done in a ridiculing way. For example, there is a recording
>of some Scn songs out done with "Clearsound", a technology that is supposedly
>Scn owned and far better than anything the rest of the world has. No one I
>have ever talked to knows anything about what it is.
[Any scientologists wish to add any more?]
1.5 Do Scientologists have paranormal powers?
Some claim that they do, but none are willing to conduct objective experiments
to demonstrate these powers. Sometimes, they will cite variations of
Conspiracy Theory (for a definition, see the sci.skeptic FAQ) as their reason
for not demonstrating those powers. Other times, they'll just get angry when
you ask them to prove it. However, they will never, ever submit to an
objective demonstration of these powers. And they will cite no rational
reason for avoiding the demonstration.
This is especially interesting in light of the fact that, given an objective
demonstration of such skills, many more individuals would probably be
interested in Scientology.
1.6 I'm interested in Scientology, but first I'd like to see some proof...
Typically, a Scientologist would say to investigate it yourself -- take some
Scientology courses. Unfortunately, this appears to be a path with no
cheese. An ex-Scientologist claims:
>Basically the process takes you over. Every dollar and waking moment will
>be spent on Scientology unless you resist.
Unfortunately, there are no books that objectively evaluate Scientology. As
noted above, Scientology has never ever provided any public data on its
alleged rigirous testing.
2 Scientology and Religion
2.1 Is Scientology a religion?
Yes.
2.2 How do Scientologists view other religions?
This is not something that's discussed a lot. One non-Scientologist claims:
>By the way "God" in Scn is "the R-6 god". That is the God of the
>monotheistic religions of the world is considered an implant. An implant is
>a false picture attached to a thetan by the evil overlords. So listen up
>anybody who got the idea that Scn was tolerant of other religions, your God
>is a mere implant. Some people think they can retain their own religion and
>still practice Scn, but on the higher levels it gets audited out. LRH
>recounted on a tape that he advised his daughter to "be tolerant of the
>natives" his tone derogatorily refered to christianity. See when John
>Holifield is objecting to Chris Schafmeister's argument about how to restrict
>power of religious groups by saying "Moslems, Jews listen up" well I say
>listen to this. Scn does not have a friendly agenda for other religions.
2.3 Do Scientologists view Science as a religion?
Apparently, some do. One Scientologist has said:
>To me, science is as much religious dogma as any religion.
Another said:
>Perhaps you'd care to examine the fact, that in back of all the reasons,
>logic, and "Scientific" proof you have, your model is the way it is only
>because you choose for it to be that way.
[Would any Scientologist care to elaborate?]
[Any ex-Scientologists?]
2.4 What's an e-meter? Is it a religious device or a Scientific device?
One or the other. Or neither. Or both. It depends on who you ask. As one
reader posted on our group:
>Someone said that in the process of taking apart an e-meter it makes it
>useless, in the 'Church' eyes. I was wondering why is this suspose to be
>true. From an electronics stand point, that makes no sense. And if the
>'Church' says this so people won't take it apart, doesn't it seem as if they
>are trying to hide it's mechanism? I reject the concept that the process
>will distroy it's functions since very few simple electronic devices of that
>sort contain chips that are too high tech to tamper with, and even if they
>did, looking does not imply damaging.
Don Showen (showen@applelink.Apple.com) says:
>They are basically nothing but a whetstone bridge with a highly sensitive
>meter movement. I am still in touch with the designer, he also designed one
>with an automatic tone arm which I haven't used yet but have heard good
>reports on. The basic use is to keep the meter in a readable state so the
>needle activity can be easily observed, constantly making this adjustment is
>sometimes a pain. If there is enough interest I will check into either
>selling the schematic or actually building some meters and selling them for
>around $400.
Some non-Scientologists claim that the equivalent of the e-meter could be made
for $10. This claim drew the following response:
>How can you make such comments? You've probably never seen a Super Mark VII
>E-Meter. How can you possibly suggest you could build one for $10? Go see
>one (or at least pictures of one) before you continue to comment on these
>things which you are *very* ignorant.
Another Scientologist says:
>Just because you feel that it wouldn't be wise to buy one doesn't mean that
>its overpriced or anything else. People will pay $3000-$4000 for the meter
>because they get 3-4Gs worth of utility from one.
One Scientologist justifies the $3000 cost this way:
>Also for those of you who complain about $3000 for an E-meter you are right
>that this is a lot of money. A Mark 7 E-Meter is only necessary for auditing
>above the level of clear. There is a Mark 5 E-Meter which runs for $500
>retail and up to 40% off with various specials. This is the meter most use
>for auditing to Clear as in the Dianetics book. By the time you are Clear
>$3000 won't look to intimidating. $300 may still be more that a radio-shack
>meter but every meter is hand made and tested and a lot of pride goes into
>each one.
But questions still remain:
>Could you provide some comparisons between a Mark 7 and a low-end VHS VCR:
>Are the electronics more or less sophisticated than a VCR? Would a Mark 7
>have more or less problems with calibration over time than a VCR? Would it be
>more difficult for you to manufacture and test a Mark 7 than a VCR? What
>makes a Mark 7 more sophisticated than an electronic device that I can
>purchase for $169.99 at my local retailer?
In short, some readers claim that the functional equivalent of an e-meter
could be made with $10 worth of electronics. The Scientologists dispute this,
but fail to explain if there's anything inside an E-meter which would make it
worth its $3000+ price.
2.5 Is LRH a God?
Yes. No. It depends on who you ask.
A Scientologist posts:
>Behar's [author of Time's 1991 Cover Story about Scientology] statement that
>Scientology claims Hubbard is God is false. Many times in Scientology
>scripture it says very plainly that LRH is a man. Scientology holds no dogma
>about God. A person is free to choose their own beliefs about God.
Another adds:
>Factually, Scientology teaches that L. Ron Hubbard was only a man.
An investigator of Scientology questions this assertion:
>While your rebuttal (that Scientology does not claim Hubbard is God) may be
>accurate in the strictest sense as far as the non-condidential scriptures of
>the CoS are concerned, the sentiment that Scientologits has accepted Hubbard
>as God still rings true, given a less formal interpretation (e.g. like in the
>sentence: "Donald Trump has accepted money as his God").
>
>For example: _All_ the true Scientologists I`ve met seem to think that LRH is
>completely infallible (this is even one better than Christ, who failed his
>task miserably on the cross). Also Scientologists seem to believe that it is
>impossible to for anyone else to improve upon the work of LRH, which to me
>again suggests belief in superhuman qualities. And of course, the mythos
>include resurrection: LRH isn't dead -- he just "dropped his body", and shall
>return to earth one day.
>
>If we look at the jokes told by Scientologists, there is two strong recurring
>themes, and that is 1) LRH's godlike abilities and 2) the idea that LRH is
>superior to God. Here is two from my collection:
>
>>Once there was a newspaper reporter who was constantly trying to get 'news'
>>about L. Ron Hubbard. He would secretly follow him everywhere. One time he
>>followed LRH when he went on vacation up in the mountains.
>>
>>Early one morning the reporter quietly followed Ron as he took a row boat
>>into the middle of the lake to do some fishing. As he waited several
>>minutes to get his first bite, one of the oars fell out of the oar-lock and
>>drifted about twenty feet away. Ron sat there and thought a moment and made
>>sure no one was watching. He then got out of the boat and quickly walked
>>across the water to retrieve the lost oar. All this time the reporter was
>>busily making notes.
>>
>>The next morning the newpaper carried the following headline:
>>"L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, can not swim"
>
>>A scientologist died one day, and went to heaven. St. Peter met him at the
>>gates, and said "Come on in my friend"
>>
>>The scientologists says "Wow! I'm in heaven! This is neat! Do you think I
>>could meet God?"
>>
>>"Well, Gods pretty busy these days, but if you want to see him, go down the
>>hall and turn left. Its the first door you come to."
>>The scientologist walked down to Gods office and let himself in. There sat
>>LRH at a big desk. The scientologist says, "Wow, I knew it was you!"
>>
>>LRH looked up from what he was doing and says, "Sorry, Gods not here. He's
>>in Qual."
>>
>[Qual: short for Qualifications Division, where faulty auditors, students,
> and staff members are sent to find out what's wrong with them and correct
> the problem.]
3 Scientology and The Law
3.1 Who has Scientology ever sued? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
One case has been briefly discussed in the group:
>>The book will proove to you beyond a shadow of doubt that Mr. Behar
>>displayed a complete disregard for the truth, and only intended to scare and
>>upset people.
>
>Does the book explain how come Reader's Digest reprinted the Time article?
>The Church sued Reader's Digest, trying to stop this, and they lost. The
>Reader's Digest defence was that an article is not slanderous if it is
>telling the truth. I would be fascinated to hear the Church's side of that
>lawsuit.
Also, a Scientologist mentioned in passing that Behar is currently being
sued by Scientology. No further information is available.
[??? What are the other cases? What info on the rumors above?]
3.2 Who has ever sued Scientology? What suits were lost/won/still pending?
[???]
3.3 What's a "Squirrel" group?
It's someone who would "steal" the technology of Scientology, modify it, then
use it for their own purpose.
Scientologists cite two examples of "Squirrel" groups. A Scientologist posts:
>EST (now The Forum) is a squirrel group (and openly admits it). Free Zone,
>if I understood correctly, is also a squirrel group. There are several tech
>bulletins which illustrate squirreling and its danger. I am not an expert in
>this field so I can not detail this more.
Someone provides a definition of of the "Free Zoners":
>We had some "squirrels" (they called themselves "Free Zoners) posting to this
>group earlier. They seemed extremely preoccupied with keeping the faith
>(sorry -- "tech") pure and authentic. I think that one of the major gripes
>they had woth CoS was that the current bunch of Church leaders was those who
>had done the altering and no that therefore no longer adhered to the sacred
>word of Ron. One of them (Electra I think -- I haven't saved the posts) went
>as far as stating that all meters built according to a design that had been
>finalized after Ron lost control of the Church was faulty. Her words was
>something like "If I come across a Mark <something> I destroy it -- and
>consider it my good deed for the day". (Squirrels manufacture their own
>E-Meters -- at a cost considerable below that charged by the CoS -- and claim
>that _their_ meters are according to Hubbards original design, while the
>Church "official" meters are not).
Is EST (now The Forum) really a "Squirrel" group? The Scientologists seem
think so:
>I've at least two books which describe various human potential movements
>which include est. In both of these, it is mentioned that Erhard based a lot
>of his program on Buddhism and Scientology. I do not recall the titles
>off-hand. I recommend refering to any books that cover several such groups
>which include est.
...unfortunately, no title, author, ISBN number -- no documentation -- has
been provided.
3.4 Did EST "Squirrel" from Scientology?
Erhard was involved with Scientology in the mid to late 1960's; this is
described in his biography _Werner Erhard : The Transformation of a Man, The
Founding of est_ by by William Warren Bartley, III (ISBN 0-517-535025).
Scientology definitely feels that Erhard "borrowed" materials from
Scientology; Scientology provides a course for "est" and "ex-est" participants
to remove what they feel is the harm that est (and an offshoot called Forum)
produce.
Some of the material and presentation of est -- use of profanity by the
leaders presenting the est Training, a Scale of Knowledge, etc. -- have some
similarity to materials and their presentation in Scientology. Erhard felt
that he did not "borrow" any properties of Scientology.
Presumably, Scientology could have resolved this issue in the courts by suing
Erhard and/or his businesses. As near as we can tell, this never happened.
Various theories have been proposed as to why the CoS didn't sue:
o The Church felt that still more technology would have to be revealed in a
lawsuit (and that even if the case were sealed, they would have to trust a
[non-Scientologist] judge to keep the records secret).
o In general, The Church prefers to deal with problems without outside
influence (US Judicial system, etc.).
o Perhaps the materials that Erhard "borrowed" were not legally protected by
copyright and/or there was no agreement for him to not divulge information.
The 1992 book, _60 Minutes and the Assination of Werner Erhard_ by Jane Self
(ISBN ?????) claims that the charges leveled against Erhard in the 1991 "60
Minutes" segment are fundamentally untrue and describes an ongoing conspiracy
by Scientology to discredit Erhard. Anyone interested in pursuing this issue
should read this book. If Self's book is to be believed, it's clear that
the Church of Scientology does not like Erhard.
Erhard sold the assets to his company, Werner Erhard and Associates, to his
staff in 1991. He is not associated with this new enterprise. This new
company, Landmark Education, produces courses and programs developed by Erhard
(and some developed since he left). The est Training has not been offered
since 1984-85; the fundamental program in Landmark's offerings is called The
Landmark Forum. One participant in these programs commented:
>I dispute all the statements made about "Tone Scale" use, and all that. By
>all my experience is post 1985.
In other words, it's possible that what Scientology viewed as objectionable in
est/Erhard's programs is no longer part or the current [Landmark] programs.
[Can any recent participants in *both* Landmark and Scientology comment
on this?]
4 The Effectiveness of Scientology
4.1 Is Scientology Successful?
By its own definition, Scientology must be successful:
>>Saying this another way, what would it mean if there *were* someone who
>>completed a level, didn't start another level, and declared his experience
>>with Scientology a failure?
>
>Part of the completion of a grade is that the PC makes an attest (similar to
>a sworn statement) that they have successfully reached the end-phenomenon of
>the grade.
>
>In the case of a student, the attest is that they have studied and know the
>material and can apply it successfully.
>
>The person makes these statements so that Scientology can be certain that the
>standard results were achieved. If they later claim that Scientology was a
>failure, I would say they were a liar. Either they lied at the attest, or
>they lied when they said it failed.
But is it meaningful to define success in Scientology's terms?
>>Sometimes Scn appears unsuccessful. For example if someone quits, or the
>>tech is altered. Scn is the way life works, and you can't break those
>>rules. It seems like it would be nice to refuse responsibility for anything
>>that happens, but we can't. Scn has never failed me. I have failed myself
>>many times by not applying Scn, or not applying it correctly. Scn has
>>always dug me out of the whole afterwards though.
>
>1) Is this type of logic valid _only_ when applied to Scientology, or would
> it be equally valid if applied to any other "science" or "faith"?
>
>For example: If I adopted the stance of "scientific marxism/leninism", and
>claimed that there exist solid scientific proof that communism, if applied
>correctly, must always succeed (Marx actually provides such a proof in the
>first volume of "Das Kapital"). As counterargument, you would probably
>patiently tell me about the recent collapse of the Soviet Union. I would
>then proceed to "win" the argument by pointing out to you that the collapse
>of the Soviet Union cannot be admitted as evidence, as its collapse has
>nothing to do with shortcomings in "scientific marxism/leninism", but was
>only due to the facts that:
>
>a) The Soviet Union has failed to apply the theories of Marx and Lenin
> correctly; and/or:
>b) The Soviet Union quit too early, in the middle of the process of
> transforming the hell of capitalism into a classless paradise. As it quit
> by its own determination, the Soviet people has itself to blame for the
> current cathastrophic situation.
>
>In case you think there is a difference between applying a particular
>"science"/"tech" to a society and an individual, please feel free to
>substitute something else for "marxism/lenism" in the example above -- say
>Werner Erhard's "est", "Islam" or "Kibology".
>
>My final two questions are:
>
>2) Do you think that the logic I use to show the infallibility of "scientific
> marxism/leninism"/"est"/"islam"/"kibology" is valid?
>
>3) If your answer to question #2 is "no", what is the difference between my
> logic and the logic you employ to show that scientology cannot possibly
> fail?
So far, the Scientologists haven't tackled this interesting question.
4.2 Is Narcanon Successful?
[Narcanon is a Scientology subsidary that deals with the treatment of drug
abusers.]
An anonymous poster to the group reports:
>The book _What Is Scientology_ has been mentioned as a reference for the
>statistics on Narconon's effectiveness. Pages 407-415 are devoted to
>Narconon, and contains very few useful facts. It is mostly wins
>(testamonials). The facts given are:
>
>A 1981 Swedish study found 84.6% of participants were off drugs at the end of
>the study. Nothing was said about the source, duration or methodology used.
>
>A 1985 study in Spain found 78.37% of the participants were still off drugs
>one year after ending treatment. Same lack of data about source and
>methodology.
>
>Note the number of significant digits given in the result.
A poster to this group has been researching this question for a while:
>Interesting. In the material Narconon sent me, there are also references to
>exactly two studies: one "Swedish" study and one "Spanish" study (no years
>are given). The recovery figures still differs by 6 points but are slightly
>lower (76% and 70% respectively -- no decimals).
>
>Anyone who knows whether these the same or different studies? If they are
>the same, why do the figures keep mutating?
>
>I am extremely annoyed by the lack of proper citation. It makes it
>impossible to track down the original material for these controversial
>claims.
>
>And it is not like Narconon doesn't know how to provide citation! On the
>page just after the references to these anonymous studies, there is a nice
>set of charts showing the growth of drug abuse in the US. The chart is
>accompanied by a footnote giving the proper source for these data. Why do
>they bother giving the source for these well known and uncontroversial
>findings, but provide no source for their quite sensational and controversial
>recovery figures?
>
>I can only think of one plausible explanation. They won't let me examine
>these studies. Either because the "studies" doesn't exist, they are
>fabrications by someone who sells a bogus $5000.-/week rehabilitation program
>-- or they exist but are not as "independent" and "scientific" as
>Narconon/ABLE/CoS want me to believe.
[Do any Scientologists care to comment?]
4.3 What Countries Officially Sponsor Narcanon?
In Narconon promotional literature it is repeatedly claimed (again without
naming the nations involved) that Narconon an "official" state sponsored drug
rehabilitiation program sponsored in several European nations.
Several letters and faxes by myself to Narconon Chilocco specifically
requesting the names of those nations have only been answered with letters
containing standard promotional literature that does not give this
information.
Is Narconon used as an "official" state sponsored program anywhere in Europe,
or is this claim a lie prepetrated by Narconon to give this expensive and
undocumented treatment program undeserved respectability?
[Do any Scientologists care to comment?]
4.4 What is the essence of Scientology's workability?
The following is reproduced, without comment, from one Scientologist's
posting:
>I say do a survey of people who have completed any Scientology course or
>auditing action and find out if they have subjectively achieved the
>end phenomena. I predict that you will be able to determine objecctively
>that 100% of the people will have a subjective reality that they have
>achieved a gain of some type. This is the essence of Scientology's
>workability as I now see it.
4.5 What do Scientologists think of this FAQ?
They say, with spirit, that this document is a [collective] of [untruths]. On
Scientologist (humbly!) says:
>As a side note, the perported FAQ is loaded with false, negative and biased
>material. It would be interesting if the copyright and trademark holders of
>terms such as "Scientology," "Dianetics" etc. took legal action. There are
>clear, concise answers available from the Church with documentation; a
>continued distribution of demonstrably false and damaging material could be
>construed as intentionally malicious. Just my 'umble opinion.
Unfortunately, no reference has ever been provided to the "clear, concise"
answers. Interestingly, while Scientologists have claimed that the (whole?)
FAQ is untrue, they have never volunteered any corrections. One did recommend
that we read the *entire* book _What is Scientology_ (ISBN ????) ($80 and 500+
pages) to get our answers....
One Scientologist offered a one-shot "Pro-Scientology" FAQ, but is no longer
active in our newsgroup. Given that no Scientologist has ever even *attempted*
to contribute to the FAQ, it's unclear that [implicit] labeling the current
FAQ as "Anti-Scientology" is appropriate.
Anyone is welcome to contribute to this FAQ; the "untruths" can't be
"corrected" unless someone gives us the appropropriate information. Clear,
concise answers would be most welcome.
5 Conclusion: Well?? Should I try Scientology?
Maybe. It's up to you. Here are a few things that you should know about first:
Recently, one Scientologist on this group noticed a posting from someone he
thought was a fellow Scientologist (he wasn't). Apparently, he didn't like the
posting too much:
>Do you realize that you are committing serious High Crimes against
>Scientology by your public disavowals of Scientology on the newsgroup
>alt.religion.scientology? You have major misunderstood words and you are
>posing yourself as an authority in an area in which you are not. I'm writing
>full reports to the Religious Technology Center about your postings.
The same Scientologist, in response to an earlier version of this FAQ, said:
>I have said that you are doing something wrong and I am reporting it. That I
>have done.
[Without further reference, one assumes he reported it to the Religious
Technology Center.]
Finally, this same Scientologist has sent what appears to be threatening
e-mail to some posters of this group:
>What hidden crimes are you trying to hide? I highly suggest that you take a
>very careful look before I expose them to all.
It's unclear if this person is a Model Citizen among Scientologists. One
Scientologist condemned his actions and further claimed that he was operating
*as an individual* and not as a Scientologist. On the other hand, this
Inquisition-like methodology appears to be a structured component of
Scientology.
Finally, if you still want to pursue Scientology, but some of the questions or
issues raised in this FAQ bother you, get those issues answered *first* before
you put any money down. Ask questions here -- there are several
ex-Scientologists and non-Scientologists who will provide thoughtful answers
to your questions. Based on the experiences of some of those
ex-Scientologists, expecting that your questions will get answered later could
be folly.
end.
Comments
Post a Comment