Notice: Fredric Rice may have removed segments of the replies given to
questions if they contained copyrighted materials. After a very short
while, Scientology "experts" refused to answer questions and
started cut-and-pasting copyrighted cult propaganda. Additionally I
removed URLs in some of the replies, and left them in others. And it's
also important to note that eventually the unfortunate "Greg
Churilov" cultist was ejected from
askme.com for his typical Scientological behavior.
FredricRice asked this question on 5/9/2000:
Item number 22 of the Auditor's Code reads "I promise never to use the
secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal
gain."
In light of the audio tape recordings of scientologists doing just that, and
the many court transcripts available on the Internet that cover the
violation of this item, does anyone know whether this item has been
repealed? And if not, would the violation of this item usually result in a
Condition of Ethics? And if so, do you happen to know which Condition?
There's no date on the court document that I've read this Item from, by
the way.
Phobos1 gave this response on 5/10/2000:
It has not been repealed so far as I know, although the last
Scientologist who cited Item 22 from the code only mentioned
personal gain; there was no mention of punishment.
Even so, some of the Scientology policy letters I've read seem to
speak of punishment as a bad thing in general, that it doesn't work
and shouldn't be used and so forth. Granted, this doesn't seem to be
entirely consistent with statements like "We're not a
turn-the-other-cheek kind of religion", but I think a distinction can be
made between punishment (a sort of hardship imposed in the name
of justice to redeem or instruct a wrongdoer) and ordinary harm done
to someone for other reasons. On the field of battle, for example,
one doesn't shoot enemy soldiers with the purpose of punishing them
for their naughtiness, but as an instrumental means to winning the
war. Punishment doesn't enter into it, nor even personal gain.
So, with this sort of semantic distinction, I think the people who are
divulging PC folder secrets may be adhering to the auditor's code after
all. They're not doing it for personal gain, and they aren't EXACTLY
doing it for punishment either; they're doing it as part of a campaign
to defeat criticism by destroying the credibility of former members who
dare to speak out.
Of course, what this means is that item 22 in the auditor's code is
practically worthless from a moral and practical point of view, because
it boils down to this: "Scientology promises to respect the secrecy of
your PC folder so long as it is in Scientology's interests to do so."
The average rating for this answer is 5.
You rated this answer a 5.
Interesting. So Auditor's Code Items 22 and 27 are likely considered
incomplete to the Scientologists who apply them for reasons of blackmail
and extortion.
In fact it looks to me that auditors actually do believe in holding these
ideals but that their management and the GO/OSA usethem as Hubbard
intended.
Thanks. It looks like they've not been removed from the Code. It's just
that the bad guys don't follow them. (And I still have my suspicions that
auditors _do_ try to follow them.)
Further facts
about this criminal empire may be found at
Operation Clambake and FACTNet.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
Subject: The Auditors Code -- Item number 22
Answered by: Phobos1
Asked By: FredricRice
This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with
nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's
absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the
many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.
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.