Re: Scientology "reforms" itself in the UK

In article <3pr72a$q4u@due.unit.no>, Chris Owen <co@nvg.unit.no> wrote:

[Interesting stuff]

> It's curious that no results are given for the survey, either. In fact,
>it's hard to tie any of the "reforms" to specific questions on the
>survey. What was suggested? How many suggested it? What happened as a
>result of the questions asked? Instead, the above article simply says
>in effect, "these are the questions we've asked, these are the reforms
>we've implemented", without saying *anything* about the connection (if
>any) between the suggestions and the "reforms". As far as I'm aware,
>this is pretty abnormal behaviour.
Not in the U.S.S.R. under Stalin. Not in _1984_ under Big Brother. Not in any authoritarian regime shaped and controlled by paranoia. I must say that I find it both curious and fascinating that Scientology has managed to successfully encourage if not incubate paranoia as a way of life in hundreds of thousands of people.

Their techniques appear to be crude, and I'm astonished that they are at the same time so successful. It does make me think that people who join Scientology, or at least those who stay in it for any length of time, were probably mentally ill to begin with.

> I am *extremely* sceptical about the claim that no written records are
>kept. Isn't this the whole basis of "auditing"? How does the auditor
>know what has and has not been audited out if this is the case?
Sure. Scientologists are liars, and Scientology is the science of lying. It's kind of interesting, actually. I wonder if Hubbard read Orwell's book.

We know they keep records. They keep posting them right here. They brag about it. They're proud of it.

What kind of hue and cry would arise should Roman Catholic priests start posting the contents of their confessionals, complete with names? I'd like to think it would be cataclysmic, and lead to the downfall of the Church [not because I want to see Catholicism destroyed, I hasten to add should anyone misunderstand that previous sentence; but because it would be a mockery and a betrayal of one of the most sacred rites of the Church and it would be meet and proper should it end in ruin].

>| Last week thousands of members' files were burnt at Saint Hill Manor
Not Diedre's. Not Dennis's.

>| Tractor loads of files and records were burnt following the inspection.
My God. They really are into Wagnerian drama, aren't they? They make me think of Webster's plays. "How shall I prove I did not look upon my sister's naked body? Shall I pluck out mine eyes?" <pop, pop>

>| As the visiting journalists saw, the files contained no posible blackmail
>| material
Of course the other possibility about these "confessions" is that they're fiction, made up, complete fabrications. Not a bad joke, really, for a pseudo-religion established by a writer of fiction. "Let's ALL write fiction! First prize goes to the best confession! Let's write one in the name of, ummm... G. Gordon Liddy! Maybe we can persuade him to endorse it, and even publish it under his own name!"

>"Freedom" which I've procured (ahem!) I see no statement that the
>practices supposedly abandoned in the "Code of Reform" were ever wrong or
>a matter of regret for the CoS. All that appears is an announcement that
>"these things will not be done any more". No explanation. No apology.
>Nothing. As Norman Lamont once said, "je ne regrette rien"...
Eh? Is Norman Lamont a song-writer? I associate that phrase with Edith Piaf's famous defiant ballade.

> With regard to the burning of files, an important point to make is that
>if there was nothing in them which could be used for blackmail purposes,
>*why get rid of them in the first place?*
It's just show, bravado, drama. It's exactly the kind of elaborate show that liars put on to prove their truthfulness. The more details the better; they think it makes it more convincing.

> Given all of this, I think it's safe to conclude that
>
>(a) the honesty of "Freedom" magazine is rather dubious
>(b) the sincerity of the CoS is probably minimal
Well, I guess _somebody_ has to state the obvious. :-)

--Barbara