The 'Safe Asks Papers' -- New Ethics Book Wrong Emphasis
New Ethics Book Wrong Emphasis

It's Safe to Ask

Copyright © Safe -- <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:34:28 -0800
Subject: New Ethics Book Wrong Emphasis

Dear Fellow Scientologists,

Not too long ago I had a big cognition in regards to correct importances ... or right stress on emphasizing the important data. This is part of evaluating data and sorting the unimportant from the important ... in other words "judgement."

When looking at our new BOTWO ethics book (Introduction to Scientology Ethics), I noticed the primary stress was on the RULES (laws) of the church as it pertains mostly to the church. It does NOT emphasize how we are suppose to act to our 4D (fourth dynamic--mankind). The emphasis is virtually exclusive to our 3D (group) church group.

Why? We know that in order to expand Scientology, we need to know how to behave to the rest of the world. Certainly the following would classify under the subject heading of ethics. (See our Scientology Technical Definition of Ethics. The definition of ethics is MISSING in the ethics book glossary.)

Websters New World defines ethics it as: "the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment", "a system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, profession, etc.

The following our the MAJOR out-points of OMMISSION that I realized were totally missing in our ethics book.

1) The Auditors Code: This code is OMITTED in our ethics book and yet this code is the MOST IMPORTANT behavioral code of all for a good auditor to apply when they audit "clients." (Preclears in Sceint. lingo). Upholding this code should be known stone cold in order to insure auditing has the most efficacy. Many professional auditors believe this to be one the most important guides to behavior to treat MANKIND. So to not include this auditor code delutes it's value and invalidates its significance as our foundational behavioral guide to good auditing. By NOT including this code also misses the kindler and gentler nature of auditors. Many auditors consider the whole world "in session." That's a nice view. From a publics point of view, our Scientology group does not have a majority reputation for being very loving and kind people.

Here are some examples from this code of auditor behavior that are good for anybody to live by all the time;

a: "I promise to grant beingness to the preclear <client> in session.
b: "I promise to maintain communication with the preclear and not to cut his communication or permit him to overrun in session."
c: "I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of "mental treatment."
d: "I promise not to invalidate the preclear's case or gains in or out of session.

2) The Code of Honor: It's peculiar that THIS code is also OMITTED from our ethics book. Ron originally called this code the "Code of Behavior." It's a wonder that this is missing ... because keeping ones personal integrity in has very much to do with one's ethics. Following this code of honor can DRASTICALLY effect the way you behave or conduct yourself. It is the way you should behave to YOURSELF.

Here's some examples from this code;

a: "Never compromise with your own reality."
b: "Be your own adviser, keep your counsel and select your own decisions."
c: "Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power."
d: "Never give or recieve communication unless you yourself desire it.
e: "Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life."

So don't you think these ideas may affect ones behavior? Could following these mean the difference between you holding your "position in space" and not compromising your integrity for "authority?" Would these statements be a hassle and may even be an antithesis to an authority ... who would rather control you without you thinking? Do you think an authority would want you to have, know, and apply this data? Don't you think it's possible that a suppressive authority may try to take these "harmful ideas" of rebellion away from you and hide them from you? So why do you think this data is OMITTED?

3) The Code of a Scientologist: This is the way Scientologists are to behave and conduct themselves to the world. So how could such an important guide to conduct be OMITTED? Is this just an freak accident?

Here's some examples form this Code of a Scientologist;

a: To keep Scientologists, the public and the press ACCURATELY informed concerning Scientology, the world of mental health and society.
b: To work for freedom of speech in the world
c: To stress the FREEDOM TO USE Scientology as a philosophy in ALL its applications and variations in humanities.
d: To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world
e: To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of Scientology
f: To expose and help abolish ANY and ALL physically damaging practices in the field of mental health

Aren't the above VERY valid in the way we conduct ourselves? So why would this be missing from our ethics book?

4) The Creed Of The Church Of Scientology

Not everybody who calls themselves a Scientologist HAS to be a church member. They have the freedom to use Scientology as expressed in (c) above. But those who ARE a church member ... staff or public ... have an EXTRA DUTY. That is their promise and declaration to the world to follow our Church Creed. Our Church Creed is the whole foundational basis of our church. Members applying or not applying our creed has DRASTIC effects on how our conduct is viewed by the world.

Here's a few examples of our Church Creed that we members MUST adhere to as adherants.

a: That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practice and their performance;
b: That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments;
c: That 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;
d: That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives;
e: And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
f: And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid man: To destroy or enslave another's soul;

Do you think the above thoughts effect ones conduct or behavior? Of course! Why wouldn't anybody promote the heck out of these beautiful thoughts in our ethics books. It's THETA. They are thoughts of a free being.

Anybody who would dare argue that the above are "not appropriate matter" for the subject of ethics are misleading and should immediately be sent to ethics. Ron gave these following definitions for ETHICS ...

"ETHICS has to do with a code of agreement amongst people that they will conduct themselves in a fashion which will obtain to the optimum solution of their problems. (5008C30)

"the rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession. (HCO PL 3 May 72)

"ETHICS is a personal thing. By definition, the word means "the study of the general nature of morals and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others."

Why is half of our ethics book on Church laws and Justice procedures and listings of crimes in our church?

Ron says "Morals are actually laws." "Morals should be defined as a code of good conduct laid down out of the experience of the race to serve as a uniform yardstick for the conduct of indiviuals and groups"

Other parts of the book are in how to handle conditions. What's interesting is there seems to be no consideration in HOW one behaves in order to get their "conditions" up. Out of 446 pages, only 47 talk directly about Ethics, Morals and Justice.

So what happened to our above 3 VITAL "Ethical Codes" which are major determinents to our conduct? Where's our Ethics Code for our church ... the Church Creed? How could somebody have been so remiss as to "forget' to include these VITAL if not most IMPORTANT datums on how we should conduct ourselves?

Doesn't this seem like a gargantuan overt of ommission to you? How can we forget our ETHICS CODES in our Ethics book?! Sounds very ridiculous doesn't it. So does "forgeting" 198 definitions from our glossary (that use to be in our previous ethics book) including even the word "ethics" itself!

Do you not see a major shift of importance in wrong emphasis? WRONG EMPHASIS. WRONG EMPHASIS. WRONG EMPHASIS. That' how an SP creates chaos and takes control.

Had we have been properly hatted on our Ethical Codes and Church Creed and APPLIED them, we would not have wound our church in the soup like we have.

Is it not UNETHICAL to break our Auditors Code?
Is it not UNETHICAL to break our Code of Honor?
Is it not UNETHICAL to break our Code of a Scientologist?
Is it not UNETHICAL to break our Church Creed?

Ethics are contemplation of optimum survival

Were these Ethical Codes not designed for optimum survival by Ron?

Another very important (and unbelievable) OMMISSION out of our "Ethics" book glossary (church "rule book" is closer to what it really is) is the definition Ron has of Ethical Code ....

"ETHICAL CODE, an ethical code is not enforceable, is not to be enforced, but is a luxury of conduct. A person conducts himself according to an ethical code because he wants to or because he feels proud enough or decent enough, or civilized enough to so conduct himself. An ethical code, of course, is a code of certain restrictions indulged in to better the manner of conduct of life. (PAB 40)"

Therein lies the willingness of mans basic goodness. Reason, not FORCE ... are the basis of ethics.

Tell me how RTC (who is suppose to protect the integrity and purity of our tech) could have let the word "ETHICAL CODE" not even get MENTIONED in a book they are preporting to be an ethics book.

This is to top off the fact that there are actually NO ETHICAL CODES in the entire book. NONE.

What is wrong with this picture?

WHY are there these MAJOR, MAJOR out-points? Could it possibly be there are hidden unethical things going on that somebody doesn't want easily spotted?

Yours for REAL ethical codes, not just church rules, Safe

P.S. If man is truly basically good, and the majority of our church members are good, then why to we have 261 enforced church rules? It doesn't say much for our belief in the basic goodness of man or our membership, does it?

In my opinion, our Ethics book is a mostly an overt product produced by a very suppressive force. It has shifted importances and attention to the wrong emphasis ... to ENFORCEMENT ... not the easy going light-hearted, "spirit of play" self-determinism and self-descipline which assumes the good heart of man that man naturally has.


(Recipient of the Scientologist "Kha Khan" Award and ARS "SP 5" status.) :-)

"Without an alternative to Scientology*, the people in it and the tools and technology of the mind they have are sufficiently powerful that it is feasible and possible it could end up controlling this planet."

(* Church of Scientology, Inc.)

-- Jack Horner (author of Summary of Scientology)

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (Justice for 36 years)

"Freedom encompasses the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative". "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."

-- Lord Justice Sedley

Scientologists: Work towards Freedom of Speech, Ban the Church of Scientology Censorship Software now!

For the truth about who controls CofS, Inc., go to:


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank