Comments on: A seachange brewing among Scientologists?

By: Howard Schumann

Howard Schumann — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:31:32 +0000

I would like to ask Susanne in what way she thought the est organization was dictatorial. I was active in the organization for seven years in the 1970s and thought that they always operated with the highest integrity and dedication to enhancing people’s potential.

By: Susanne

Susanne — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:06:39 +0000

Although I have never been a member of Scientology, I have done a lot of research on this movement, as well as other similar ones. It seems to me, and what former members have said, is that some of Scientology’s beliefs and activities are extremely beneficial. They have helped many addicts get off of drugs; helped poor students learn to read, etc. But what I have continually read is that the organization that runs it can be horrific, especially to ex-members.
Many years ago, I underwent EST training (Erhardt Seminar Training), and that was what I precisely felt about that group. The training helped me change my life in a very major way for the better; but the organization was so “dictatorial” at times, that I refused to have any part of it. I think that this is not uncommon, and wonder what it is about these types of movements that tend to foster these ‘extreme’ organizations?? This would make an important and fascinating study.
I think this shows that those of us, like myself, who are attracted to these movements must be very, very careful of those who run the organizations themselves. Always question what they tell you, and never give away your ‘power’ and decision-making to them.

By: Wu Kapauw

Wu Kapauw — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:02:57 +0000

The public fractures that are appearing in the pleasant face of Scientology are a welcome development, exposing its abuses in the words of its own members.

However, exes like Marty Rathbun (whose blog is linked above) and other fool themselves if they think they can create a ‘Scientology’ without vicious human rights abuses and frauds. What they are not yet ready to acknowledge to themselves is that is it not the admittedly villainous current leader David Miscavige who made the ‘Church’ a criminal scam.

The bulk of the now-exacerbated problems stem from the planned policy of Hubbard himself, who started the Dianetics scheme as a money and power gathering tool for himself. Have problems with today’s “OSA” secret CoS police? Look back to their predecessor, L. Ron’s “Guardian’s Office”. Disconnection policy, ‘fair gaming’ of critics, homophobia, financial fraud, intolerance and slander of other religions and more – all of this can be found in Hubbard’s own writings and the earlier actions and policies of his groups.

Don’t kid yourselves “independent” Scientologists. You’ve been taken, and your failure to see this is making you remain perpetrators of the rip-off.

By: Heather

Heather — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:36:14 +0000

Correction: after “35″ years, not “25″.

No need to publish.

By: Mark A. Baker

Mark A. Baker — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:02:23 +0000

“Which begs the question… have former members of the Church of Scientology yet tried to create a their own church, using the same materials, but without the cultish tactics that Scientology is currently synonymous?”
————-

This question could be easily answered by a simple google search by the writer of this article on “independent scientology”, aka freezone scientology.

The short answer is yes. There are independent scientology churches & practitioners throughout Europe & the Western Hemisphere and have been for nearly 30 years, since the Great Co$ Church Schism of 1982.

The impetus behind the establishment of independent scientology has always been the institutional abuses of the various organizations of the official Church of Scientology.

By: Jerome

Jerome — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:14:00 +0000

And yes, disaffected Scientologists *have* started their own offshoots from the CoS…the “Freezone” is the most notable effort. To say the CoS is hostile to such efforts would be an understatement. The efficacy of Scientology, remember, depends on the deliver of unchanging, standard “tech”; thus, the thought goes, independent organizations cannot be relied upon to deliver the materials with the exactitude and precision required. Such offshoots are generally dismissed as “squirrels,” or those who use and distort the text outside of the confines of the established doctrine.

By: forcor

forcor — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:56:49 +0000

“…have former members of the Church of Scientology yet tried to create a [sic] their own church, using the same materials, but without the cultish tactics that Scientology is currently synonymous?”

The obstacle here is that Scientology routinely copyrights all their teachings, methods, books and so on. To use them in a new church would invite heavy lawsuits.

By: Matt Mason

Matt Mason — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:47:17 +0000

A complete version of Haggis' letter, without the interspersed commentary, can be found here.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:40:24 +0000

Well done Mr. Haggis for taking a stand against this type of abuse.