Helena Handbasket
16th January 2012, 01:18 PM
The first time LRH mentioned an "adversary" to Scientology, in the late 50's or early 60's, it was in the idea of a "merchant of chaos".
Over the years he refined this concept, saying that 2.5% of all people are Suppressive Persons and must be stopped by any means available, fair or foul.
He also lambasted governments, saying they have no right to interfere with the free expression of religion.
But I doubt he could have forseen the current situation -- thousands of people, wanting to see the utter destruction of the church and calling for explicit government intervention to step up and put the church's ethics in. This is not just a few nutcases. This is a groundswell of organized grass-roots opposition.
Many of the people involved in this opposition are not those without personal experience in the church, or are against helping others. Many of them are ex-church and ex-staff members who have been thwarted in their desire to help by the church's short-sighted and ultimately destructive policies. Such as:
Broken promises including bait-and-switch and for abilities that have never come true -- for anyone.
Excuses rather than proof that OT abilities exist.
Blaming the customer rather than the church/method/process when something doesn't work.
Stat pushes for short-term gain at the cost of long-term expansion.
Rip offs of lower org publics into higher orgs, leading to the avoidance of both by the public.
Destruction of the field and mission networks.
Endless and extreme pressure to buy, donate, and join staff.
Vilification of anyone trying to bring about much-needed reforms.
Now there are some who would like to see scientology destroyed utterly -- including all the independent (protestant?) groups out there, under the theory that scientology by any other name would be just as bad. You have the right to that opinion.
Others think the church can be reformed. Although I think it's far too late for that.
I believe that the church should be allowed to pass away in the night, and that independent groups should take its place. Notice I said groups rather than group. That the field is not under a single command structure is its greatest advantage -- any particular group that doesn't treat its customers well would be abandoned. None could threaten anybody with "losing their bridge" -- for if you were no longer welcome in one place, you could just go somewhere else. I don't know of any independent group that takes ethics tech seriously, not in the sense of "assigning conditions" to another or that even collects stats.
Helena
Over the years he refined this concept, saying that 2.5% of all people are Suppressive Persons and must be stopped by any means available, fair or foul.
He also lambasted governments, saying they have no right to interfere with the free expression of religion.
But I doubt he could have forseen the current situation -- thousands of people, wanting to see the utter destruction of the church and calling for explicit government intervention to step up and put the church's ethics in. This is not just a few nutcases. This is a groundswell of organized grass-roots opposition.
Many of the people involved in this opposition are not those without personal experience in the church, or are against helping others. Many of them are ex-church and ex-staff members who have been thwarted in their desire to help by the church's short-sighted and ultimately destructive policies. Such as:
Broken promises including bait-and-switch and for abilities that have never come true -- for anyone.
Excuses rather than proof that OT abilities exist.
Blaming the customer rather than the church/method/process when something doesn't work.
Stat pushes for short-term gain at the cost of long-term expansion.
Rip offs of lower org publics into higher orgs, leading to the avoidance of both by the public.
Destruction of the field and mission networks.
Endless and extreme pressure to buy, donate, and join staff.
Vilification of anyone trying to bring about much-needed reforms.
Now there are some who would like to see scientology destroyed utterly -- including all the independent (protestant?) groups out there, under the theory that scientology by any other name would be just as bad. You have the right to that opinion.
Others think the church can be reformed. Although I think it's far too late for that.
I believe that the church should be allowed to pass away in the night, and that independent groups should take its place. Notice I said groups rather than group. That the field is not under a single command structure is its greatest advantage -- any particular group that doesn't treat its customers well would be abandoned. None could threaten anybody with "losing their bridge" -- for if you were no longer welcome in one place, you could just go somewhere else. I don't know of any independent group that takes ethics tech seriously, not in the sense of "assigning conditions" to another or that even collects stats.
Helena