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.

tenspan asked this follow-up question on 9/22/2000:

I take these as quite impassioned convictions. Allow me some return.

For one, as you may know, all we've got in common (per Ron's indication) is our reactive minds. Therefor, an organization is going to have to take that into account.

I claim no perfection in the group, by god. The guys on top, the guys in the Sea Org, the guys in the field, they're a slice of humanity like any other group. We're not all that special, though we've pulled off some great things, and some people are diamonds among glass. There have been some monster screw-ups on our parts, as in all religions. Take a look at history--religion is always a hot spot. I make no excuses for my fellows, I also don't concentrate on their mistakes like a spectator. If things go wrong, it's my job, and everybody else's, to set it right, or I'm part of the problem. Foo-foo, look at those mean Scientologists ruining perfectly good stuff. What's the world coming to?

Scientologists themselves have had their share of not so harmless couch-potatoes, and still do. We're under glass, too, still being fairly new and small. And we make a lot of noise, can't really resent the attention.

If I may have emotion here, I resent the things you label me, as diplomatically as you do it. You don't know me, not by knowing my church, not by knowing my friends, not by knowing everything Freud ever put to paper. Not by half. I'm tired of hearing "you scientologists this" and "you scientologists that!" Talk to me, maybe you'll find something different in the group by paying attention to the individuals.

As far as the unwitting direction my mind is being pushed in, well grow up. We can't all be that stupid, the numbers just aren't in your favor. The only injury I've ever seen caused was bad handling of people and incorrect application of the technology. Who's fault is that? The guy who screwed up, and the people who didn't catch it or fix it. I've been in that boat myself. I've screwed up royally. People have laid a thick batter of crap on me, and hoo-ee, some were willing to be corrected, some weren't. You work with what you've got and push for better. NEVER has the religion done me wrong. It was the people and their own personal agendas, confusions, misunderstandings or intentions, and that's what goes on. It's not right, and it needs constant vigilance to correct. Often it takes balls. I don't care if Ron walked on water or yelled at house plants. He put some awesome things into writing, and some miraculous things into application. The people furthering his dream deserve some respect--their hearts are often in the right place. When they aren't, do something about it, not complain.

Me blind? Selective memory? A sucker? A scam-artist? Don't insult me. And don't insult the "uninformed public" either. As far as I'm concerned, if you can think for yourself then all this is entertainment, and the real truth is out there testing the material. That's how anybody could know for sure. Me, I doubt any seriously curious passerby would find much use in this forum.

As far as my subtle attempt to quash your chances at saving souls, say what you want, but do it with some humility, for heaven's sake. You have an excellent voice for intellectual drama, it's a shame to be using it solely in this arena for this purpose.

honorarykid gave this response on 9/22/2000:

How blind are you, Tenspan? That is an interesting question.

I'd like to propose a little essay project to find out.

First, type in a description of everything you think you know about L. Ron Hubbard's days in the United States Navy, during World War II.

Describe if you think he was a highly decorated and severely injured war hero. Extrapolate from there, and explain if you believe Hubbard discovered the roots of his Dianetics processes while healing himself from his war injuries. Type up your essay and post it here as a follow-up question.

Next, go read the materials found at

http://www.ronthewarhero.org/

Then type up an explanation of how your previously typed view differs from the view of Hubbard that the web site portrays.

I think the diference between your current views of L. Ron Hubbard, and the views of the web site will go a long way towards answering how "blind" you are.

tenspan rated this answer:

Sorry, no sandbox fights for me. Go ahead and win by default, if you like.

honorarykid gave this follow-up answer on 9/24/2000:

I'm not trying to engage you in a sandbox fight, tenspan. I'm sorry that this is your reply to an honestly proposed suggestion, which was pointedly asked to help you explore to what extent you are giving your own group a free pass when they intentionally lie and deceive.

I can't force you to think about my assertion. And aside from the possibility that I might reduce by one, the number of people willing to support the CoS in its efforts which result in harm to innocent people, I personally have very little to gain in helping you to ascertain the answer to what I realize is a very personal question for you.

But I do confess, I find it ironic and sad that as a member of a group which purports to value spiritual seeking, you wouldn't be willing to explore this question about yourself, if only for your own edification and personal and spiritual betterment.

You're not atypical among Scientologists, in blowing off a personal exploration which would be likely to result in a painful awakening.

In my observation, to stay as satisfied members of the Church of Scientology, Scientologists either HAVE to be willing to turn a blind eye to the wrong-doing, the false promises, the lies and the harm caused, or else if they do know about such things, and still support the CoS, they have to be motivated by highly questionable motives. I know that's a pretty damning thing to say. But that's the truth as I see it.

All I am asking is that Scientologists muster up the nerve to face the truth about your group and about yourself. If you do, then I believe you will join me in feeling disgust for the lies and the tawdry, unethical (and sometimes illegal) behaviors of the leaders of Church of Scientology.

If you think there is a shred of integrity in me, if you think that I might not be totally full of shit, then I'd think, I'd hope (if I were a praying man, I'd even pray) that you reconsider your decision not to examine this question further.

Good luck, tenspan.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.