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.
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.