From michaelpattinson@my-deja.com Sun Dec 17 00:21:07 2000
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: LMT Literati Contest 2000: Essays by Scientologists
From: michaelpattinson <michaelpattinson@my-deja.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:21:07 GMT










Bravo Stacy,

Excellent post. Thank you!

Love, Michael.



In article <lcco3to2ib56pqjbkkfvfa606jfbrf3g4r@4ax.com>,
  stacybrooks@lisatrust.net wrote:
> The following will be on the LMT website as an introduction to some
of the
> essays submitted by Scientologists to the LMT Literati Contest 2000.
I am
> posting this to a.r.s. after reading a post by Scientologist "Patrick
Light"
> under the heading "Minton's legacy of disgrace."
>
> This Scientologist speaks of "spitting in the face of
justice," "headstrong
> vanity," "self-destruction," terms which all describe his own
organization
> but which he is too deluded to be able to see.
>
> Scientology continues to attack the LMT, Bob Minton and all other
critics so
> viciously because we are all successfully bringing an end to the
abuse,
> deception and fraud of Scientology by providing meaningful
information about
> this organization on the Internet. We are also providing individual
> assistance on a daily basis to people who have been hurt by Hard Sell,
> Disconnection, Fair Game and other destructive Scientology policies.
For
> Scientology, the combination of these two factors means the end of
their
> lucrative scam, so that what we are actually witnessing is the
desperate
> defense of a dying hoax.
>
> Stacy Brooks
>
> Essays by Scientologists
>
> We received eleven essays written by Scientologists, and we thoroughly
> reviewed their essays along with all of the others in determining who
would
> win. While the judges did not feel that any of the Scientologists'
essays
> were good enough to award them a prize, we do want to recognize their
efforts
> and present a sampling of their work in the hope that their
contributions
> will serve to shed light on the issues we at the LMT are trying to
resolve.
>
> These Scientologists really do believe what they have been told by
OSA about
> why I left Scientology, why Vaughn Young left, why Jesse Prince left,
why
> Peter Alexander, Arnie Lerma, Monica Pignotti, Mark Plummer, Marjorie
> Wakefield, Hana and Jerry Whitfield, and all of the former members
who are
> now critics of Scientology left. They really do believe that we are
lying
> about what happened. They believe that we all committed such horrific
crimes
> that we were compelled by our own innate goodness to leave
Scientology in
> order to protect Scientology from our evil selves. This is what they
have
> been told, and they believe it, because to believe otherwise would
raise too
> many questions that cannot be asked, and certainly cannot be
answered.
>
> But there is a more disturbing aspect of this situation. It is a
perspective
> that John Carmichael, an OSA operative in New York, voiced to me at a
> conference back in 1998.
>
> John and I used to be very good friends when we were both in the
Guardian's
> Office and later OSA. Our friendship was based on the fact that
neither of us
> was willing to agree to all of the capricious and often abusive
orders that
> used to rain down upon us from upper management. I spent many hours
trying to
> recruit John into the Sea Org so that he could be promoted to the
upper
> management levels of OSA, but he always steadfastly refused to subject
> himself to what he considered to be the degraded lifestyle of the Sea
Org.
>
> I had known John from 1978 until 1989, when Vaughn and I finally
escaped from
> the Sea Org. Now I was seeing John again for the first time since I
had left,
> nearly ten years later. Remember, John and I had been very good
friends.
>
> We saw each other in the lobby of the hotel where the conference was
being
> held. We were both glad to see each other after such a long time. But
John
> was clearly torn between being glad to see his friend and worried
about what
> I was doing.
>
> "Stacy! You shouldn't be doing this!" he said to me.
>
> "But John," I replied, "you know as well as I do that there are
things going
> on in Scientology that have to be changed."
>
> "But you have to make the changes from inside, Stacy! You shouldn't be
> talking about these things outside of Scientology."
>
> John and I ended up talking for an hour about this. His point was
that no
> matter how bad things had gotten for me I should have found a way to
correct
> them as a Scientologist in good standing. My point was that I tried
> everything I could think of to correct things as a Scientologist, but
there
> was no way to make the changes that needed to be made when the people
who
> were perpetrating the abuses were the most senior Scientologists in
the
> organization. So the only thing to do was to leave Scientology and
try to
> stop the abuse from outside the organization.
>
> John couldn't accept this at all. No matter how bad things were,
nothing
> could justify airing Scientology's dirty laundry to wogs. That was
the bottom
> line, and nothing I said could get John to change his mind about
that.
>
> John got in a lot of trouble for having such a long conversation with
me. The
> next time I saw him, a month later, he wouldn't even look at me. He
held his
> hands up in front of his face, as if he would turn to salt if he saw
me, and
> he said, "I can't talk to you, Stacy!" He hasn't been willing to
speak to me
> since then.
>
> I often thought about that conversation with John Carmichael while I
read the
> essays submitted by Scientologists.
>
> Not one of the Scientologists expresses any interest whatsoever in
finding
> out more about the abuse described by former Scientologists like me.
None of
> them expresses any interest in finding out what kind of harassment
Bob Minton
> has been subjected to. In fact, they don't express an interest in
finding out
> if there is truth to any of the things critics of Scientology have to
say.
>
> It is this willful and deliberate ignorance and refusal to look at any
> negative information about Scientology that bewilders and frustrates
the
> critics. As I read the Scientologists' essays I finally realized why
this
> situation cannot resolve. It is inherent in the Scientology mindset.
>
> It is not the nature of a critic's past activities that makes him or
her a
> criminal. It is the fact of being a public critic of Scientology. The
crime
> is being publicly critical of Scientology. If Bob Minton were a
wealthy
> public Scientologist paying for services on the Freewinds and making
> donations to the Super Power Building, IAS, WISE, ABLE, and The Way To
> Happiness Foundation, his business dealings with Nigeria would be the
subject
> of endless articles in the WISE magazines about his "successful
actions" and
> Bob would be a celebrity, given the red carpet treatment.
>
> But because he is publicly critical, he is targeted for destruction,
and
> Scientologists see nothing wrong with this because to destroy a
perceived
> enemy of Scientology is the greatest good for the greatest number of
> dynamics. In the Scientology ethics system it is not the particular
act that
> determines whether one is ethical or not. It is whether one is acting
in the
> best interests of Scientology. If the action is going to help
Scientology, it
> is ethical. If it is going to hurt Scientology, that very same action
is
> unethical.
>
> This is the danger of the Scientology system, that what is ethical or
moral
> is defined only within the system itself, as though anything outside
of the
> system is expendable. This is why non-Scientologists perceive it as
> dangerous, and this is why Scientologists cannot see the danger. Tory
> Bezazian's analogy to the film, The Truman Show, is extremely helpful
in
> explaining this phenomenon to non-Scientologists. Only that which is
in the
> "show" is reality, just as only that which is within the Scientology
system
> is real. Outside the show nothing exists, just as for a Scientologist
the wog
> world does not exist as a viable option for the future. What it
amounts to
> for a Scientologist is this: for better or worse, the Scientology
system is
> all there is, so I'd better make the best of it.
>
> I found Maureen O'Keefe's essay to be the most illustrative, albeit
> inadvertently, of the Scientology mindset.
>
> Maureen states that "One's conclusions are only as good as the data
on which
> they are based. Faulty data never leads to an accurate conclusion.
Accurate
> conclusions are vital to successfully solve the problems posed by
life." Yet
> she is unwilling to accept the possibility that she is forming
opinions and
> coming to conclusions about critics based on faulty data that she is
being
> given by her Scientology sources. She is unwilling to consider the
> possibility that her conclusions might be wrong because that would
not be the
> greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
>
> It would not be good for Scientology for the information being made
available
> by the critics to be true. Therefore, it is false.
>
> In another paragraph Maureen states: "The ability to think for
oneself and
> act in accordance with the dictates of one's own conscience requires
that a
> person be able to be responsible. When a member of any group merely
does what
> he is told, he is not being responsible - he is being a robot. When a
member
> of any group becomes incapable of making decisions based on his own
> observations and feels he must do exactly as his superiors wish
whether he
> agrees or not, that person ceased taking responsibility for himself
and his
> group at a much earlier date."
>
> This is a breathtaking example of the kind of denial the Scientology
system
> engenders in its members. This is exactly what Maureen and other
> Scientologists are doing - they have set aside their own critical
thinking
> skills in favor of the privilege of being a member of Scientology.
Maureen
> cannot use her own observations to make decisions because the
decisions she
> would make would be contrary to the greatest good for the greatest
number of
> dynamics. If she were to base her conclusions on her own observations
Maureen
> would be forced to find fault with Scientology and this is not
permissible.
> She has no choice but to do exactly as her superiors wish whether she
agrees
> or not. Therefore, she agrees.
>
> The irony is that it was exactly for this reason that I left
Scientology. I
> was not able to think for myself and form my own conclusions without
finding
> myself in grave danger of psychological, emotional and physical harm.
I was
> faced with a choice: either continue to put myself in danger by
acting in
> accordance with the dictates of my own conscience, or cease taking
> responsibility for myself and my group and start doing exactly as I
was told
> by my superiors. The only way I could see to take responsibility for
myself
> and my group was to leave it and seek help elsewhere to bring about
the
> ethical and moral changes I saw needed to be made.
>
> This is what I am continuing to do to this day, yet Maureen and her
fellow
> Scientologists cannot accept this. It cannot be true that my leaving
> Scientology was an ethical decision on my part. It cannot be true
because it
> would be bad for Scientology; therefore, it is false. What if Maureen
began
> to take responsibility for the things she sees within Scientology
that are
> not ethical? What would happen to the life she has so carefully and
> painstakingly created for herself?
>
> In another section of Maureen's essay she takes up the subject of
ethics
> directly. It is in this section that the hypocrisy of the Scientology
mindset
> is most clearly illuminated.
>
> After explaining the eight dynamics, Maureen states: "People… place
different
> importance on different dynamics. We are surrounded by examples every
day.
> How about the man who abandons his wife and children to take up with a
> prostitute just because she inflates his ego and makes him feel
important.
> This man would be said to have a stronger urge toward survival on the
First
> Dynamic than he had on his Second Dynamic. Because his actions are
> destructive to his family and himself, sooner or later, he will
experience
> the same pain he has caused his family…. In a decaying society as we
find
> here in the United States at this writing, far too many people are
interested
> solely in their first dynamic. The result is the increasing divorce
rate,
> crime and other social ills. A person who only cares about himself is
on the
> way out, for life to be lived to its fullest requires active
participation on
> and responsibility for all eight dynamics."
>
> Here is another instance of utter denial on the part of a
Scientologist for
> what Scientology itself is doing.
>
> What about the woman who contacted me at the LMT several months ago,
> desperate because she had lost her husband to Scientology? They had
been
> married for nearly twenty years and had had a wonderful relationship.
They
> had two teenage daughters and a really happy family. Then he did a
management
> seminar and soon began disappearing for months at a time to take
Scientology
> services. He emptied their bank account, used all the credit on their
credit
> cards, didn't pay their taxes and put them in debt to the IRS by
nearly
> $100,000.00. When she told him she was worried about their finances,
her
> husband became very angry and told her to stop criticizing
Scientology. When
> she told him their daughters missed their father and wondered what had
> happened to him, he threatened to disconnect from her if she said
anything
> bad about Scientology to their children.
>
> The woman called me after she discovered that her husband had become
a staff
> member at a Scientology organization. She told me he had gotten the
family
> into nearly $200,000.00 debt and she was stunned that any
organization would
> allow someone to treat their family the way he was treating his. She
said she
> had written several reports and had had several phone calls with
> Scientologists trying to sort this out, but it was just getting worse
and
> worse. She asked what I thought she should do. Although
Scientologists like
> Maureen will probably not believe this, I advised the woman to write a
> Knowledge Report to the proper people within Scientology, because, I
told
> her, it is off-policy in Scientology for anyone to be recruited on
staff when
> they have such terrible debts. If the proper people in Scientology
found out
> what had happened, I told her, they would ensure that her husband took
> responsibility for the debts.
>
> To my surprise, no one did anything at all. The woman again asked
what she
> should do and I told her to write another report, this time cc'ing me
at the
> LMT to let Scientology know that she was in touch with me. The woman
did
> this, and only then was her husband ordered off staff to handle his
debts.
> But he also told his wife he wanted a divorce because she was
antagonistic to
> Scientology for having gotten in touch with the LMT. Now
Scientologists like
> Maureen are calling Bob Minton a hate monger and the LMT a hate
group. Why?
> Because we are trying to help people who have been treated the way
this woman
> was by Scientology?
>
> Is this what Maureen calls ethical behavior? Yet within Scientology,
this is
> indeed considered ethical. It is ethical for this man to run up huge
debts
> for his family as long as the money is going toward Scientology
services. But
> it is unethical for this man to remain with his wife and children if
they are
> critical of Scientology.
>
> This is only one example of the kinds of calls we get at the LMT
every day.
> Scientologists like Maureen do not believe this; they think I am
lying about
> this. Of course, I am not lying. But Maureen must believe that I am a
liar
> because if I were telling the truth, it would open the door to the
> possibility that other information being made available by Scientology
> critics is true. Therefore, it is false.
>
> In another paragraph of Maureen's essay she talks about the good works
> Scientologists do for the community: "For instance, for the past
three years
> I have personally organized the Christmas Food Drive at the Church in
Boston
> for the benefit of the Sandown Food Pantry. This community project
ensures
> that the children of needy families in Sandown, New Hampshire are
provided
> with, amongst other things, healthy nutritious snacks in school. As
it is
> hard for a child to learn when he is hungry or improperly nourished,
the
> donations from the Food Drive seeks to help these children get a
better
> education."
>
> This is a stunning example of the cynicism and hypocrisy of
Scientology's
> dealings with what they call the "wog world," or the world outside of
> Scientology.
>
> Sandown, New Hampshire is the town where Bob Minton lives. For the
past three
> years Maureen has been in charge of a harassment campaign against Bob
in
> Sandown. Maureen has organized several mailings to the approximately
4,000
> citizens of Sandown and has herself written at least one letter that
has been
> sent to all the citizens of Sandown. All of the fliers and letters
have been
> derogatory about Bob and Bob has received many phone calls from his
neighbors
> sympathizing with him about being the target of such a hate campaign
by
> Scientology. The reason Maureen started her Sandown Food Pantry
project was
> that many of the citizens of Sandown complained to the Scientology
> organization in Boston about the fliers that were being sent to them.
> Maureen's food drive is an effort to correct the bad public relations
she
> created by her campaign of character assassination against Bob Minton
in his
> New Hampshire hometown.
>
> Maureen concludes her essay with a suggestion for how the conflict
between
> Scientology and its critics can be resolved: "Now the simplest way to
put an
> end to the matter is for those attacking Scientology to just decide
to stop
> attacking and stop. As L. Ron Hubbard clearly stated in an article
entitled
> "Critics of Scientology: 'If you will leave us alone we will leave you
> alone.'…."
>
> She leaves out the most important part of that quote, so let me make
it
> available to you here:
>
> "We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as
follows:
> 'We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested
in the
> crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose Scientology we
promptly
> look up - and will find and expose - your crimes. If you leave us
along we
> will leave you alone.'
>
> "It's very simple. Even a fool can grasp that.
>
> "And don't underrate our ability to carry it out."
>
> I don't think there is a better quote by L. Ron Hubbard for showing
the true
> motive for attacking people who criticize Scientology. As I said
earlier, the
> Scientologists' essays have been very instrumental in revealing the
real
> source of concern for critics of Scientology.
>
> This is how a Scientologist justifies refusing to look at the
critics' data:
> It would not be good for Scientology for the information being made
available
> by the critics to be true. Therefore, it is false.
>
> What the Scientologists seem to be saying is this: A person who has
never
> been in Scientology cannot possibly know anything about it. A person
who has
> left Scientology cannot possibly be telling the truth about it. The
only
> valid source of information about Scientology is a Scientologist in
good
> standing.
>
> But if a Scientologist is unwilling or unable to look at both sides
of the
> issue, then how can a Scientologist be a valid source of information?
The
> truth is that any serious critic of Scientology who has honestly
analyzed the
> data on both sides knows more about Scientology and understands it
more
> thoroughly than any current Scientologist. Furthermore,
Scientologists who
> decide to evaluate the information on both sides of the Scientology
issue
> inevitably decide to leave the organization because they do not want
to be
> part of it once they see it for what it really is.
>
> One of the essays this year was submitted by Rick Sherwood, who said
he has
> been in Scientology for forty years. He began his essay with an
attack on the
> LMT as a hate group and continued with the following: "I am entering
this
> contest to keep the contest honest and in the hope that the Lisa
McPherson
> Trust will select at least one winning piece unlike those this same
contest
> awarded substantial money awards to last year. Those essays were by
people
> who had never been Scientologists, who knew nothing firsthand about
> Scientology, and who were bound and determined to make the religion of
> Scientology the target of ridicule and hurtful actions."
>
> This is a perfect example of how a Scientologist is fed wholesale
falsehoods
> and accepts them as truth without bothering to inspect or verify the
> information at all. The winners of the Literati Contest last year
were Joe
> Cisar, Scott Mayer and Arnie Lerma, all long-term former
Scientologists who
> have spent many years struggling to come to terms with their own
experiences
> as Scientologists.
>
> It is time for Scientologists to demand the truth and take their
heads out of
> the sand about the abuse and deceit being perpetrated on a daily
basis by
> their organization.
>
> Stacy Brooks
>
>


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/