Understandable. Just as long as the other readers understand this as well.

But really, if scientology’s communication tech is so great, why do you all have so much trouble discussing what the public wants to know? Why do you all seem to have so much difficulty answering questions about the organization?
Also, the definition of disconnection and what it means to scientology is not the issue in this particular article. Going on and on about that reminds me of policy recommended diversion tactics to distract from the fact that a LIE was told.
The spokesperson for your organization TOLD AN OUTRIGHT LIE ON CNN!!!
Is that ethics?

I am glad that you at least acknowledge this as it lends you a heck of a lot more credibility here.

Here is what Jason Beghe has to say about the interview:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/jason_beghe_to.php

How come the part of the code that you quoted seems to be forgotten when it comes to people holding their own opinions on scientology/the CoS? Instead all anon has seen to counter its arguments are slander/libelous attacks, smear campaigns, and overt intimidation practices. If anon was smaller or more localized, the assault against it would undoubtably be more…intense. As it stands, the response has been tempered by the stretched thin resources of OSA and the ability to post video to the world via the internet. Though tell that to Sean Carasov in LA, who was arrested and jailed (briefly) based on a false police report filed by an agent of the CoS.

Basically, what we’re saying is that we have no problems with Scientology or you practicing it. I personally think its poorly-written crap, but that is my opinion and if it is what gets you through the night more power to you.
The Church as an organization, however, has rampant examples of the tech being ‘misapplied’ or rewritten to suit their needs. If Scientology is in fact as benevolent a philosophy as you intimate, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong with the way the CoS works it.

I have a question for you; its something of a multi-parter so bear with me:
In 1997, David Miscavige announced the “Golden Era of Tech” and that “widespread errors caused by editors and printers corrupting the tech have been corrected.”
The net result of this revelation is that everyone had to redo their level, or at the least rebuy the book/lecture packages to get the “correct” information.

Now, is David Miscavige saying that Hubbard never read his own books? Never checked the final copy? Never caught the errors in tech application or instruction these “misprints” would have caused? If we’re simply talking a few misspelled words, why require people to rebuy the book sets at $1000s of dollars a pop? Or is he suggesting that Hubbard just didn’t give a shit?

From what I understand, to question the RTC’s policy or judgement is to basically get yourself labeled PTS, SP, or earn yourself lower conditions/RPF if you’re Sea Org.

So, assuming that Hubbard did in fact give a shit about what he wrote, and did actually flip through the books at least once…is it really too far of a stretch to assert that Miscavige–not even OT VIII himself–is rewriting the tech to suit his own needs/goals, and using the threat of getting Declared to silence anyone who sees through this?

If you care about your church, reform it, quickly (before the corrupted practices of the leadership get it raided again by law enforcement as is happening in Europe).
Or leave–you CAN practice scientology outside the CoS. But don’t stay in the orgs while the tech gets misapplied, squirreled, and crimes are committed and do nothing…remember: you ARE free to hold your own opinion and to think for yourself.

I do not wish to discuss what is and isn’t on OTIII, or any OT level for that matter. I violated my own policy on this matter by my comment regarding “Space alien parasites” and will not make the same mistake again. I can discuss quite freely all other matter of published Scientology material. As per the Creed of the Church of Scientology, “… 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.” (Counter to comment #31.)

I’ve said elsewhere and I’ll state here that many individuals in the Church have frequently mis-applied Scientology policy and technology. To me, that does not condemn Scientology as a whole, but rather the weaknesses of individuals. For whatever their motivation - zealotry, power hunger, basic misunderstanding, etc. - I do condemn their actions and stand against them. Any Scientologist has the choice to do what is right, as does any human being. No one can tell me, a Scientologist, what I may think or say. That is my choice based on my viewpoint and understanding.

But because I have studied a great deal of L. Ron Hubbard’s writings IN CONTEXT I don’t condemn him or Scientology at all. For example, ANONMOUSE quotes (in #8 above) the Hubbard policy on handling or disconnection and does so without referencing the rest of the document. The word “disconnection” is used only once in the actual document. The rest of the rather lengthy policy refers multiple times to having the person HANDLE the suppressive influence. For example, in that same policy Hubbard states in the context of having found a connection to someone suppressive in a person’s life:
” … you persuade him to begin to handle on a gradient scale. This may consist of imposing some slight discipline on him, such as requiring him to actually answer his mail or write the person a pleasant good roads, good weather note or to realistically look at HOW HE ESTRANGED THEM.” (Emphasis is my own.)

Hubbard goes on in this and other bulletins to describe how to HANDLE the situation. Disconnection from the suppressive source is a LAST RESORT.

In another policy, called “PTSness and Disconnection” Hubbard describes in some detail why disconnection might be an option, even a fundamental right of an individual. This and the prior mentioned document are both published in a book called “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”. If you wish to truly understand disconnection, these documents should be read in full and should be findable in any major public library.

Now, have Scientologists disconnected from others when they should have handled the situation instead? Absolutely. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. That doesn’t make it right, nor is it proper application of Scientology as per Hubbard’s own writings.

Mr. Davis, in my view, lied when he said that disconnection did not exist in the Church. I believe he may have done this because he himself does not properly understand the above references, could not think of how to properly discuss it or perhaps has mis-applied it himself. Here again, this does not condemn Hubbard or Scientology, but certainly paints Mr. Davis in a bad light.

It may not match the written policies of your organization, but the practices of your organization often flagrantly contradict the written policies. For instance, no one is supposed to be declared Suppressive without a Comm Ev, right? And yet it’s not uncommon to know of cases where someone was declared Suppressive on the spot.

“The way it is described on the internet” is, overwhelmingly, the way it is described by the first-hand participants who lived it. If you were dining in a restaurant, and another patron said “Uggh! They just served me a piece of meat so rancid it was green!” would you say “Oh no, that doesn’t match the written policies” and point to a sign on the wall claiming WE USE ONLY THE FINEST QUALITY MEATS? No? Then why are you telling people who experienced Scientology disconnection that ‘it didn’t happen that way because that’s not what the sign on the wall says’?

Also, thanks for confirming Tommy is in fact a huge ass liar willing to do so on national TV to avoid negative PR!

Integrity is an important trait; in many ways it is all we have in civil discourse. What does it say when your spokesman is so willing to throw that out the window? I refuse to believe that Tommy is ill-informed about basic bits in the PTS/SP course, especially after he utterly and epicly failed in this regard when the BBC came around last year. If he was remiss in his study prior to that flap, I guaran-damn-tee he’s had it rammed into his head in the intervening period.
Therefore, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that he was deliberately telling a falsehood.

“The only way you can control someone is to lie to them.” - Lafayette Hubbard

As far as the disconnection thing, the way it is described on the internet does not match our policies at all.

If your family tries to force you out of your chosen religion, they don’t really have your *happiness* at heart now do they? All efforts are made to resolve the situation, and disconnection is a last resort. One has to be a red-hot pain in the arse, as Calorie Counter said. At that point you have to make a choice, and if your family insists they won’t be happy until you denounce your religion, well then it’s obvious which one of them has to go. You cannot be in Scientology if your family members disapprove. That some people prefer their religion over their family doesn’t speak very highly of their family.

I have it on good authority (wink) that scientology policy requires all members to discuss concerns with the person involved and/or the organization rather than admitting those concerns to non-scientologists in the outside world. So Merrill…I’m afraid you’re now at risk from the OSA…I highly recommend you keep your head down and be very careful that no-one finds out who you are.

Merrill- we’re all thinkin ’bout ya babe. Hope you’re OK there inside the cult. If you need any help, let us know…we’re legion! (AND some of us are workin from the inside…)