Misrepresentation

Question answered by honorarykid in Scientology

tenspan asked this question on 9/14/2000:

This is an open request for all experts:

As far as I can see, I am one of only two Scientologists in this panel. Most experts here are ex-Scientologists or anti-scientology in some way or another...though it is their right to assert their opinions if they feel it's wrong, they misrepresent themselves as educated experts in it, since they do not have active involvement with it. From reading profiles, few claim to have even studied its teachings outside of repeating public propaganda. (Just to clarify things, it isn't always true just because it was on TV.) Answers to questions posed this group have sometimes been purposefully steered toward non-representative biases. Yes, I'm biased toward Scientology, being a member of the church, and I have a right, this is the Scientology Board, not the Ex- or Anti-Scientology board.

There is a debate category, among others, that promotes the healthy scramble of opposing ideas, and there is also the potential of creating sub-categories, though I haven't seen any specific anti-religious sub-categories yet on the religion page, which is good, because in my view THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE. Allowed or not, they are not true areas of expertise on the subject, they are contending factions. For preservation of your freedom of speech, I'd rather you found a place that fit you than remained in this one. I can't demand that, but I do ask that you consider it seriously.

Again, feel free to answer any open questions, but only in your true area of expertise-politics, philosophy, what have you. Reevaluate yourselves for the sake of giving me an equal chance in this arena. I and my peer are outnumbered by dissent, and that is unfair. I do not want to have to defend my answers or counter statements that oftentimes claim the exact opposite that I do, or make unrelated claims (not of religious nature.) Please, I don't expect you to convert, goodness no, I just ask that you represent yourselves in a different list more centered on your views.

A panel completely supporting anti-abortion can't represent abortion, Christian-scientists can't support all Christianity (nor can Satanists, for that matter), and elephant-trainers can't really call themselves experts in wildlife. Please, for the people curious, if you intend on having information on this religion, let them make their own decisions on it and just provide truth and experience. If there are indeed bad experiences, so be it, but represent them as such, for they are not in the majority. It is rare that I have read an unbiased response to any of the open board questions. If I wanted to learn about Scientology, this site would have completely soured my curiosity, which I believe is the intention of some here, rather than the pursuit of education. To call it a cult, a scam, or any other derogatory word is asserting opinion only, for it does not consider itself that, nor do its followers. I am personally and intellectually insulted that any religion of today is so openly and confidently jeered over as such. Be professionals, that is what inquirers are expecting. Pointing fingers is not what we do here.

For those to whom this letter does not apply, I apologize if it is too general. Answers to this request will of course be appreciated, but I will not debate nor defend myself against counter-questions resulting from it. I do not mind being privately contacted on this matter; my email address is Tenspan@yahoo.com. Again, I mean no offense, and I am not interested in making a public uproar on this subject. I will not use the board again in this manner, as I feel it is not the purpose of Askme.com to support experts' opinion-wars. Experts should not pose their own self-serving "questions" to further promote their ideas, we should be paitent for true inquiries. And so I will conclude this, and wait to be asked in the future.

I sincerely apologize for any upset caused by my, or anyone else's opinions getting in the way on this topic, or if you feel I have misused this site in making this request.

honorarykid gave this response on 9/14/2000:

The issues you raise in your (lengthy) question are quite topical, and so there is no need to apologize. You are obviously stating a POV that is heartfelt, and so any upset that someone else feels from your words is something that they themselves will need to be responsible for dealing with.

Also, I'm happy to see that, like me, you admit your biases up front. I think that is an important step toward egalitarianism.

So many people with a religious or political agenda incorrectly (corruptly) believe that their position somehow represents the state of "unbiased" and that they can impugn all disagreement with the "biased" label.

No, we are all biased, in one form or another. I like to be very upfront about my biases, and in doing so, people can judge my words more accurately.

So, now on to your issues.

When dealing with "setup" type questions, I think that is just the cost of a free and open forum. These sorts of setup questions have come from both sides of the debate. It's not a big deal. Use those questions in creative ways to explain the truth of the subject matter, as you see it.

For example, when an obviously pro-Scientology questioner seeks to smear the critics with innuendo such as we have seen a lot of lately from blank24 ("who pays the hate group to post here?"), his/her questions provides ample opportunity for me to explain the Dev-T and SP handling policy directives of Scientology that are guiding his/her behavior.

You err when you say that critics of Scientology cannot be experts in the subject. I have never been a Scientologist, yet I have read much of Hubbard's writings, much more than have most non-OT Scientologists, and more than even many OT Scientologists. Also, because I'm not a Scientologist, there are no restrictions on what materials I cannot read!

You Scientologists self censor, because you are punished or coerced if you read what your superiors label as "entheta." I fear no entheta, so I can read and learn about Scientology from a wider variety of sources than can most Scientologists.

One day, I hope you (all Scientologists) will realize that this fear of "entheta" is a simply a conditioned bit of learning, and that Scientology uses your fear as a mental control technique. When you self-censor you're obviously going to miss seeing the truth about many bad things within Scientology. Who's interests are served by that ommission? Certainly not mine, and I doubt it's in yours, either.

You also err when you assume that people are getting their information about Scientology from TV or casual (eg disreputable) sources.

Most of the information I get about Scientology comes from either Scientology itself, from the books and tapes of L. Ron Hubbard, or from OSA "handlers" of Scientology's critics, or from very credible ex-members of Scientology, not to mention other experts in cultic studies, such as Drs. Steven Kent, Robert Lifton, Margaret Singer, and cult intervention specialists, such as Steve Hassan. Again, you Scientologists cannot learn from the insights of such experts, because they have been defined by your "church" as being off-limits to you.

You err when you conclude that CoS Scientologists are the only practicing Scientologists. Free Zone Scientologists still believe in the tech of L. Ron Hubbard, and use the tech in much the same way as church members do, either as a religious or pseudo-religious practice, or self-help technique.

I think your suggestion that two forums for Scientology, one pro and one con, ought to exist, is a bad idea. My purpose in politically opposing Scientology is to speak directly to the same people who Scientology would like to speak to. Setting up two forums would make it more difficult for people who know nothing about the subject to find information both for and against the subject.

When we seek to control a person's access to certain types of information, we are really just seeking to control that person. This is the reality that Scientology seeks. It wishes to market it's wares to the uninitiated people, free from contradictory claims.

Obviously, marketing and recruiting is much more successful, when done in that mode. And obviously, you start those people down the same path of self-censoring, when you can control which communications that person can receive.

In fact, when you observed that a newbie visitor to this forum, who didn't know anything at all about Scientology, would probably be soured on the possibility of finding meaningful answers within your group, that makes me happy, because that is exactly the outcome I hope my participation here promotes.

When I call a scam artist a scam artist, I don't wish to leave it for the scam artist to define the terms under which I may call him a scam artist.

Scientology is a cult, and worse, it is frequently a very destructive cult, damaging the family relationships that are the foundation of our society. It routinely abusing the courts, the law, and in many instances, even the good intentions of its own members.

So I hope to convince people that they should not join Scientology. And I want my words to be right next to the words of Scientologists who claim the religion is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, are there any doubts? Are you clear on my biases, my motives and my objectives in volunteering as an expert here? Are you clear that I am not going to go away, and let Scientology marketing speak directly to uninformed people without challenge?

Good.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.