The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
I have to disagree with some of the critics who I hold in high esteem. Freezoners are Scientologists, just as Lutherans are Christians. I consider the Freezoners similar to the defrocked monks in the Middle Ages who were liberal thinkers and disenchanted with the hypocrisy in administration by the Catholic Church of Rome. They sold their services as teachers and tutors. There was a special name for them, but it escapes me. Per the Church of Scientology, Freezoners are not Scientologists. Per L. Ron Hubbard’s policy they are not Scientologists because they are not in good standing with the Church. The Church may not even know that they are exes, but that still, per Church policy, would not make them Scientologists because to the Church, whether their doubts are discovered by the Church or not, they are in a lower condition.
But I do not use L. Ron Hubbard’s viewpoint, or the Church of Scientology ethics decrees in formulating my view. For example, L Ron Hubbard somewhere, I think on the Tony Hitchman interview, said that a Scientologists is anyone who uses Scientology. I don’t necessarily buy that either, because this is more evasive reasoning by Hubbard so it can be then argued that there are eight million Scientologists and that Scientology is non-denominational. So I don’t care how Hubbard or the Church defines a Scientologist. As a critic, I can’t hold the view that Hubbard’s thinking is inherently warped and at the same time accept his determination on what is or isn’t a Scientologist. How I define a Scientologist is someone who believes it works and uses it. I believe hypnotism sometimes works but I don’t use it, so I’m not a hypnotist. So I define a Scientologist as someone who believes it works and uses it.
Also, I noticed that Freezoners still are the effect of, and still use the inconsistent and manipulative reasoning (if you can call it reasoning) of Hubbard and the Church. By manipulative reasoning I do not mean reasoning where the user tries to manipulate the other side, I mean that the reasoning itself manipulates the person to accept the indoctrination. It is not reasoning to arrive at a synthesis; the thinking process used is in itself a self-indoctrinating process. That's why the Scientologist can't see it.
For example, when there is a point about Scientology they disagree with, such as disconnection, some Freezoners will say that Hubbard got it wrong and he was inherently flawed. Yet at the same time they marvel and consider him brilliant and will accept abstract concepts and principles of Hubbard as truth, such as the ARC Triangle. Or they will accept other principles and practices such as the workability of the e-meter. With regards to the technology of Scientology, the Church is consistent, but authoritarian and thereby corrupt, and the Freezone is inconsistent but democratic. But all believe and use Scientology.
So it seems to me that Freezoners can rightfully call themselves Scientologist, but not members of the Church of Scientology. Just as when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church of Rome he could still call him self a Christian. A person’s religion is determined what the person believes and is applying in life. It is not determined by administrative authorities whether it is the Pope or David Miscaviage.
The Anabaptist Jacques
But I do not use L. Ron Hubbard’s viewpoint, or the Church of Scientology ethics decrees in formulating my view. For example, L Ron Hubbard somewhere, I think on the Tony Hitchman interview, said that a Scientologists is anyone who uses Scientology. I don’t necessarily buy that either, because this is more evasive reasoning by Hubbard so it can be then argued that there are eight million Scientologists and that Scientology is non-denominational. So I don’t care how Hubbard or the Church defines a Scientologist. As a critic, I can’t hold the view that Hubbard’s thinking is inherently warped and at the same time accept his determination on what is or isn’t a Scientologist. How I define a Scientologist is someone who believes it works and uses it. I believe hypnotism sometimes works but I don’t use it, so I’m not a hypnotist. So I define a Scientologist as someone who believes it works and uses it.
Also, I noticed that Freezoners still are the effect of, and still use the inconsistent and manipulative reasoning (if you can call it reasoning) of Hubbard and the Church. By manipulative reasoning I do not mean reasoning where the user tries to manipulate the other side, I mean that the reasoning itself manipulates the person to accept the indoctrination. It is not reasoning to arrive at a synthesis; the thinking process used is in itself a self-indoctrinating process. That's why the Scientologist can't see it.
For example, when there is a point about Scientology they disagree with, such as disconnection, some Freezoners will say that Hubbard got it wrong and he was inherently flawed. Yet at the same time they marvel and consider him brilliant and will accept abstract concepts and principles of Hubbard as truth, such as the ARC Triangle. Or they will accept other principles and practices such as the workability of the e-meter. With regards to the technology of Scientology, the Church is consistent, but authoritarian and thereby corrupt, and the Freezone is inconsistent but democratic. But all believe and use Scientology.
So it seems to me that Freezoners can rightfully call themselves Scientologist, but not members of the Church of Scientology. Just as when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church of Rome he could still call him self a Christian. A person’s religion is determined what the person believes and is applying in life. It is not determined by administrative authorities whether it is the Pope or David Miscaviage.
The Anabaptist Jacques
]
