Archive

Archive for the ‘Church of Scientology’ Category

To be even more Clear…

2010-06-24 48 comments

The last blog post sparked discussions in many arenas. Instead of addressing the points on each channel, I think it’s better to address them right here. I’m not covering new territory, this is clarification.

  • What I have experienced from the Tech in Scientology has been very workable. I have seen very little that didn’t work on me. I am very thankful for all my gains in Scientology.
  • I have personally seen examples of Tech not working on others or having a negative effect on others – even when they got, as far as I can see, Standard Tech.
  • I see inconsistencies in the Tech and I believe it to be overly complex. I believe there must be a simpler method of addressing the problems of the simplest of sources; You.
  • I believe in the free will of man and that the free market will decide what works. Hence, I advocate Open Source Scientology (both connotations).
  • I think the validity of any Tech can be shown scientifically – and it should. But absence of scientific evidence does not counter the workability of a Tech. Beyond that, your personal gain is for you to validate. Anything can work. Scientology very often does.
  • I see much good in the Admin policies from LRH. But destructive policies should be rooted out. This obviously goes for anything destructive in Ethics or Tech as well. Keep the good, reject the bad.
  • I see much good in Scientology Ethics – as long as it is kept as a personal tool for improvement and not as a tool of force applied to others.
  • I see flaws in Hubbard. I see genius in Hubbard. I see that many have serious issues separating the man from his work. Newton’s work is not invalidated by the man being seriously flawed.
  • To those claiming “Isene is slowly waking up from Scientology”, I can only say this: I am quite awake and has been for some time – having objected to stupidity and abuses while in the church. I will however not enter the daze of negativity where anything bad about Scientology is treated as gospel. Differentiation is the key.
  • As for the discussions sparked by the last blog post, I didn’t think I would see the day when ESMB would out-rabid WWP.
  • The “all good” or “all bad” are equal signs of insanity.

And this pretty much concludes an era of blogging for me. I will let this blog simmer down. I will let my IT blog wither. And I will erect a new blog merging all my fields of interest – Scientology and exploration of free will, IT and consumer rights, patent and copyright abolishment, philosophy and logic, art and music, mathematics and quantum mechanics, programming and HP calculators, nature and beauty.

Stay tuned. You will be invited over to my new home for a housewarming party.

And the Why is … *drumroll*…

2010-06-22 63 comments

The fact is that the Church of Scientology is in trouble, real trouble.

There is an inquiry in Australia, a raid in Italy, a ban in Russia (a sad tale of suppression of free speech), court cases in the US and elsewhere and news stories damning the culture of authoritarian and violent leadership coming from the very top of the church. And several high profile Scientologists leaving flanked by scores of top OTs. I’d say the church is heading for implosion.

There is plenty of analysis and speculations on other blogs and forums. A ruling sentiment is that David Miscavige is not the root cause of the problems of the church. I agree, and while I’m not the one to serve you a wall-o-text, I will simply serve my own conclusions with a few examples as catalysts:

Some logic to back this up:

  • If David Miscavige is an excellent leader, then Policy must be flawed to run the Church into this much trouble.
  • If David Miscavige is an SP, then LRH or Policy must be flawed to allow him to rise to the position of a church leader.
  • If David Mayo was an SP, then either LRH or the SP/PTS tech must be flawed to allow him to rise to the position of Senior C/S International.
  • If David Mayo was an excellent Tech person, then Policy and/or the SP/PTS tech must be flawed to let him be declared a Suppressive Person.

And then a few conclusions:

  • David Miscavige and David Mayo cannot both have risen to power in a Church were the founder, his tech, his ethics and his policy were all adequate.
  • The trouble in the church predates David Miscavige.
  • I believe the church turned a corner in the late 60’s where it became an authoritarian organization bent on self preservation at the expense of human rights.
  • LRH was a man. He was not perfect. Some seems to believe he was.
    Others seems obsessed with his imperfections. He did create abusive policies – policies that has caused much harm, like forced disconnections. Such must be canceled. I believe the creation of abusive policies is the Why for the troubles of the church.
  • “A real Why opens the door to handling.” (LRH)

Furthermore:

  • I believe Admin (the church policy) should be rewritten – continually to accommodate for the learning process of the organization.
  • I believe Ethics should be taken back to a personal level and not be applied as a group tech.
  • I believe Tech should be delivered by anyone in competition with the church and let the free market take care of the rights of the consumer. Industry standards organizations can take care of accreditations if the consumer believes that to be of value.
  • I believe the tech should be made freely available to everyone so that anyone who wants can take what works for him or her.
  • I believe the tech can be of great value to many.

A graphic description of the current CoS:

The CoS as of today

Batman & the Mighty Claire

2010-05-12 4 comments

Robin is the sidekick of Batman. But who is Batman the sidekick of?

The Mighty Claire – and she is the new sheriff in town.

The Scientology Forum (scnforum.org) is gracefully turned over to the new partnership. While Claire Swazey will be the forum administrator, Jeff Batman will handle the technical and back-end matters. Together they will provide the future for the forum – the most prominent neutral ground for courteous discussion of Scientology on the Internet. It is the open forum for Scientologists, both inside the CoS and Independants and Freezoners and critics alike. It is a vehicle for free speech on the subject of Scientology.

Gotham should be safe in their hands.

Claire & Batman; you have the torch.

OSLO May 16 – Confirmations

2010-04-11 Comments off

OSLO: Operation Scientology Lineup, Oslo

I have a list of some 25 attendees for the upcoming
round-table conference in Oslo on May 16.

The conference does not have a set agenda with prepared speeches. The aim is for all to sit down and work out some strategies as to how the current scene in Scientology can be handled.

It is time to get the final list of attendees ready – with e-mail addresses so that I can send out details about the venue etc. For now it will suffice to say that it will be held in down-town Oslo.

The conference will start at noon (12:00) and go until 17:00 whereupon we all go for a dinner.

Those who want, can stay for the next day’s spectacle;
The Norwegian Constitution Day.

All attendees cover their own expenses. Attendance to the conference is free. I cover the venue expenses. The price for staying at a hotel from the 16th to the 17th would be around USD 100.

Please confirm your attendance by sending an e-mail to g@isene.com

Declaring Free Speech Suppressive

2010-04-06 43 comments

I finally got hold of the Suppressive Person (SP) Declare issued by the Church of Scientology on myself and my wife.

Keeping with the concise style of this blog, thankfully the issue is one of the slimmest I’ve ever seen. I am guilty of mainly one crime; Exercising my right to free speech. My wife is declared suppressive for supporting this basic human right.

A suppressive person is according to the Scientology Technical Dictionary:

  1. Those who are destructively anti-social.
  2. A person who rewards only down statistics and never rewards an up statistic. He goofs up or vilifies any effort to help anybody and particularly knifes with violence anything calculated to make human beings more powerful or intelligent.

Hubbard describes twelve characteristics of a suppressive person. These are used to determine if a person actually is an SP.

Our SP Declare however does not attempt any evaluation against these characteristics. There seems to be more than one standard regarding what an SP really is.

An SP Declare is often issued as a way to silence critics of the church and as internal damage control to ensure that other Scientologists are forbidden to communicate with the person. In this way the church believes that any valid criticism is contained and not allowed to spread to other active Scientologists.

According to the policy HCO PL 29 APRIL 1965 III “ETHICS REVIEW”, a person goes through several ethics steps before finally being declared suppressive. There are a total of 35 steps before the bottom – Expulsion – is reached. A relevant quote from the policy:

Only a Comm Ev [Committee of Evidence] can recommend suspension or remove certificates or awards or memberships or recommend dismissals

A Committee of Evidence is convened to gather facts and ensure a person is not assumed guilty until proven innocent. A person should have the opportunity to defend himself as is usual for any civilized justice system. This is also covered in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights, Article #11, part one which states “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence“. Also, according to policy, I am to be given a copy of the Declare.

I was never summoned before a Committee of Evidence nor given a copy of my Declare. Neither was my wife. In fact, the church has made no attempts to contact me or my wife since our departure, except for the infamous OSA ambush meeting.

I have promised that I would give a public critique of my declare once I got hold of a copy. I will go through the issue paragraph by paragraph and give my comments along the way:

Geir Isene, of Oslo, Norway, are hereby DECLARED Suppressive Persons and are EXPELLED from the Church of Scientology, pursuant to HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RB I SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.

We were EXPELLED from the church three months after we publicly announced our departure and left the organization.

Geir Isene publicly and broadly announced his departure from the Church of Scientology, making false, denigrating and derogatory statements about Scientologists in good standing and about the Church.

Following HCO PL 6 Oct 1967R, “CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY AND DOUBT”, Doubt Condition point 6, a person is required to announce his decision publicly to both sides. This is exactly what I did by publicising my Doubt write-up

According to HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RB I “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS” it becomes a suppressive act to do so if the person then decides to leave the Church of Scientology.

The Declare makes generalized accusations without any backing, claiming I have been making false, denigrating and derogatory statements about Scientologists in good standing and about the Church. What exactly is false?

The church at least on the face support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 says “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.“.

Also according to the Creed of the Church of Scientology: “We of the Church believe… That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others… And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.“.

Declaring someone a Suppressive Person for exercising his Human Rights and acting according to the Church’s own Creed is hypocritical at best.

He connected to a known squirrel, who is engaged in a spiteful rumormongering and black propaganda campaign, in an attempt to discredit and vilify Scientology and Scientologists in good standing.

Who is this known squirrel (“Those who engage in actions altering Scientology, and offbeat practices”)?

Geir is guilty of the following suppressive acts, per the above referenced policy;

“Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.”

I have never disavowed Scientology. I am a Scientologist.

I have disavowed the current management of the Church of Scientology, which I consider suppressive. One should ask oneself this annoying question: If Scientology was indeed taken over by a suppressive person, is there any way to remove that person from power using Scientology policies without oneself being declared suppressive?

“Engaging in malicious rumormongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to ‘safeguard’ a position.”

Rumormongering? What I have written on my blog is either fact or my opinion. No rumors have been started from what I have written here.

As (his wife) condones these suppressive acts of Geir, she too is guilty of the same as per HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RA III, OFFENCES AND PENALTIES;

“Being a knowing accessory to a suppressive act.”

By this standard, several thousand of the 50000 or so active Scientologists world-wide would have to be declared as they will have seen at least some of the suppressive acts perpetrated by the current management of the church.

Geir was given assistance and opportunity to get true data and resolve his situation with Standard Tech. However, he continued to associate with squirrels and continued to commit suppressive acts.

I was given a set of template unsubstantiated affidavits from current staff at the church’s international headquarters amounting to little more than attempts at character assassinations of Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun and glorifying of David Miscavige. Also, who are the squirrels I am continuing to associate with?

Any certificates or awards that may have been issued to Geir or (his wife) are hereby cancelled. Any licenses they may have signed to use the marks of Dianetics and Scientology are cancelled as well and they may not use the marks in any manner whatsoever.

Should Geir and (his wife) come to their senses and recant, they are to do steps A-E of HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RB I, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.

Should the Church of Scientology come to its senses and reform, I may consider joining to actually apply Scientology to help individuals exercise their free will and personal integrity.

Their only Scientology terminal is the International Justice Chief via the Continental Justice Chief.

Given that Tommy Davis is the International Justice Chief and seeing how he so blatantly lies on camera… no, I don’t think I will give him a call.

Can a Church forbid Religious Practice?

2010-03-28 Comments off

An excellent post on The Scientology Forum from an anonymous participant. It deserves to be posted also here:

Let’s see how this rolls out:

LRH compiles, organizes and discovers a great many principles of existence, which ultimately result in the principle that you are an immortal spirit. It therefore lands up in the land of spiritual principles, for those who seek spiritual knowledge.

Then auditing processes are developed to reveal the potentialities of an immortal spirit. These are spiritual practices, and in our society they are classified as religious practices.

Circa 1965 the auditing processes are “standardized” so they can be easily taught, propagated and quality assured.

Sometime in the late 60s and throughout the 70s, the effort becomes ensuring that the organizations set up to teach these religious practices will be able to survive and continue to offer these religious practices.

Part of ensuring that survival is attempting to control it all so it can be made to survive and propagate.

Establishing the Church as a Church becomes paramount.

Trademarks, copyrights and service marks are registered in an effort to prevent “improper” use.

The process of re-inventing LRH begins. He is now a saint. All efforts to disclose unsaintly behavior are met with extreme sanctions of disconnection, attacks, and vilification.

The process of re-inventing the materials of Scientology begin. They become “scripture” and “holy writ” of the Church of Scientology, to be zealously guarded and ferociously taken from the hands of those who don’t get with the sanctification program.

Howls of protest from old timers who were rebels, through and through and through. Banned and forbidden from using the religious practices of Scientology, the auditing processes.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

The current Church of Scientology uses trademarks, service marks and copyrights laws to stop people from practicing their own religion?

FREEZE FRAME.

The current Church of Scientology uses the legal remedies of commerce to stop people from practicing their own religion.

How?

Simple. The individuals who seek to practice their own religion outside of orthodoxy do not have enough wherewithal to fight a prolonged court battle to protect their own constitutional right to practice their own religion. That is the sole barrier. Having enough money to take the fight far enough to establish that the Church of Scientology cannot use commercial law to prevent people from practicing their own religion and that religion IS Scientology.

When it comes right down to it, I think the real question is going to be: can the Church of Scientology really use the law to prevent people from practicing their own religion? Can they really use the laws of commerce to prevent people from auditing each other for free or for exchange?

Can they really stop people from saying they are Scientologists because they are not members of the Church?

Can they really stop people from auditing each other for free or for exchange because they are not members of the Church?

Can they really enforce that people do not communicate when it violates the spiritual teachings of the power and importance of communication?

Can they really claim to be acting in the public interests when they seek to do any of the above?

Can they really walk this line of being a hybrid organization – not quite a religion and not quite a commercial activity?

Those are my half formed thoughts. What do you think?

Follow this link to share your thoughts.

Media: Major coverage in Norway’s biggest newspaper (“VG”)

2010-03-21 Comments off

Front page of the weekend magazine + 9 page article. This could very well be the biggest coverage of Scientology ever in Norway.

Find the 5 main pages of the article translated over at The Scientology Forum (scnforum.org).