Originally posted by Terril Park
Its very hypocritical to use a profession dealing with the most difficult mental problems as a way to show their virtue when they, supposed experts, dare not do so.

The "solution " of COS is to abandon such people to the treatment they condemn, without in fact providing an alternative. Meanwhile scoring "PR" points about how bad it all is.

You said this perfectly! If Scientology did have a viable alternative to treating people who may be having breaks with reality, and were willing to actually help them instead of isolating and blaming them, and the psychiatrists of the world blew them off, then yes, Scientology would have something to complain about. Until such time as the church can offer an alternative to these people and their families, Scientology should just stop talking about something they have no clue about. Things have changed since L Ron's days.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
seems like, in this case, the CCHR would have done that themselves. Maybe they did and were ignored.

I bet they did send it to several outlets, they have a huge PR budget. I think they probably were ignored because most major media in the US, besides Entertainment Tonight, don't want anything to do with them. Scientology has threatened them all at one time or another.

Bottom line Dianetics and Scientology works. Psychology and Psychiatry does not get to the root of the problem, and therefore is not a true solution. Also, it doesn't matter who gives Psychologists the pills, they are still the ones who give them to their patients. I give you a gun, it doesn't mean you have to shoot someone with it.

No, the really insane is not the focus of Scientology right now. That would be the incorrect way to go about things. It is not that they shouldn't be helped, it is just more logical to make the able more able. It is an easier task, then later you could be more prepared for the really insane, with more capable people ready to searve. Can you imagine what it would be like with a flood of really insane people into an organization. I don't necessarily think these organizations are equipped for this yet. It would take different facilities, plus it may not be as simple as setting a more able person down at an auditing table. If I go into get audited, I don't stop and howl at the moon, or chew on a table, I go and get audited. It is a logical choice, don't mistake this for being cold hearted. In my heart, yes I would like to reach out to everyone everywhere. But the able are those who will soar to great heights, and create the biggest positive impact on this world. This is my summation.

You cannot allways trust what is printed on the internet, so if you want to know what Dianetics and Scientology is then you can get a book, and find out from the author himself. There are quite a few you can find at bookstores around the world. "Dianetics" of course being one of them. And there are others like "Self Analysis" another great book. I audited a guy with "Self Analysis" in DC org, it was cool to see him start to relax and start to joke around.

Much Love,

Troy

cybertroy, I hope you don't mind me asking some questions, and getting you to clarify a few things. I'm just curious, and have found it a rare thing to have an opportunity to speak so frankly with a Scientologist still in the church. I don't mean anything by these questions, I just want to understand better.

Do you think that an auditor could be in danger of personal harm while auditing a schizophrenic? If so, how could this be handled (no pun intended) while still maintaining confidentiality?

At this point in time, if a member were to have a violent or self-destructive episode, is there an acknowledgement of a special situation and how would this be dealt with?

Do you have any particular 'mental-health' screening techniques used to determine if a member/potential member might have issues? If a new recruit did present himself and showed such tendencies, how would that be handled?

I'm just looking for your opinions on these things, I don't expect you can speak for an entire church.

PS I have read some of the books, I got curious about Scientology way before the internet came along.

Originally posted by cybertroy
No, the really insane is not the focus of Scientology right now. That would be the incorrect way to go about things. It is not that they shouldn't be helped, it is just more logical to make the able more able.

Ah, you fell for that one, too! Same thing they were spouting 25 years ago. Never mind, it sounds good...

It is an easier task, then later you could be more prepared for the really insane, with more capable people ready to searve.

Any predictions on when "later" is going to come? The technology has been available for around 54 years now.

Actually, I do agree with the general priciple of concentrating on making the able more able, this does make good sense. Two points, though:

1. Although I admire and wholeheartedly support any attempts to prevent psychiatric abuses, it is in fact hypocritical for the church (or anyone else) to criticize without providing an alternative.

2. The definition of "able" needs to be considered. I'm perfectly able, for example, but the fact that I've been prescribed anti-depressants in the past probably makes me ineligible for any church services. Ever. I agree that your average church would not be equipped to handle someone having a severe psychotic episode, but that's just a smokescreen...what about all the people you could help but won't?

Can you imagine what it would be like with a flood of really insane people into an organization.

Geez, you really left yourself open there...but I'll resist the temptation!!

You cannot allways trust what is printed on the internet, so if you want to know what Dianetics and Scientology is then you can get a book...

Sounds like an excellent plan! The only thing I would add is: if the books appeal to you, do yourself a favor and check out the freezone...

Guys,

I can again see we agree and disagree, it's good that you guys know that the technology does work.

Many people as you may allready know have some sort of insanity going on in their life. Whether it's something like an obsessive need to check over their actions, or something like thinking women are bad. To me there is a point where a person is just a bit too insane. Scientology doesn't have wards for people to stay who really aren't well. I would imagine someone could decide that he wanted to use the technology and help the really insane, and go with it. Narcanon is kind of an idea similar to this, except it's a facility dedicated to using the technology for getting people off drugs, and alcohol, and straightening them out. Again I have to stress why I see making the able more able as the focus. Society can literally destroy itself with bombs, wars, drugs, whatever. You have to get the people who are ready for auditing, and get them better, so they can go into society and make a difference.

I once talked to one really insane person who came into the organization when I worked in New Haven (I've worked at quite a few orgs). What I did was talked to the person, pretty much acknowledged her communication, and she eventually left. It's hard to tell how much work it would take to straighten a person like this out. I do feel for these people, but they cann't be the focus. I mean is this guy/girl going to try and stab me with a knife? Can I trust this person who is on the edge? This is my summation again. There are more potential factors when you deal with persons like this. You may not just be able to sit them down and audit them, like I said in an earlier post. Their realities and viewpoints can be all over the place. Note that most people do not fall into the really insane category. Also, it must be noted that there is still a very large number of people on earth that are not actively being audited. It actually would be kind of nice though, to have the fields of Psychology and Psychiatry reform and use their facilities to handle the really insane. The Scientology Ethics book tells you how to handle these type of people. I can tell you that the orgs are not set up to do this. The organization isn't physically set up for this. For those of you who read the Scientology Ethics book, you may remember this section, and you would understand what I am talking about. I wont go into a verbal explanation, because the technology exists withing the books themselves and isn't meant to be altered.

Again, allways read the book, and get it from the author himself.

Much love,

Troy

Originally posted by cybertroy
I can again see we agree and disagree, it's good that you guys know that the technology does work.

I just wanted to let you know that I am not, and have never been a member of Scientology, nor have I used any of the techs or been audited. My interest in this is purely a wish to expand upon my knowledge, and try to see another perspective. I have researched it on and off for over 10 years, but I have no interest in using it. As I stated before, if you truly believe it, and believing it makes you a better person, then I am not going to try and change what you believe. I just think there are always at least 3 sides to everything; yours, mine and the truth. I would neither agree nor disagree that it worked, as I have not tried it.

edited to actually make a point

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Duzey]

Originally posted by Duzey
I just think there are always at least 3 sides to everything; yours, mine and the truth.

I like that!

To paraphrase Hubbard, the Truth is purely & simply whatever is true for you.

Are you certailn that, after all this interest & research, you're not even a tiny bit tempted to try it out??

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
Are you certailn that, after all this interest & research, you're not even a tiny bit tempted to try it out??

No, not really. For several reasons, which I won't get into here, too personal, I would be unable to complete some of the most basic of the courses, in particular the Comm course up to at least TR3. And, I am sure you would agree, that if I couldn't get through the Comm courses, I probably would probably be an abject failure in Scientology.

Later, when I'm done work, I will send a message to your hotmail address explaining my answer more fully. It will make for an interesting conversation, and I would welcome your viewpoint on it. Like I said, it's just a little to personal for me to share here, at this point in time. But, never say never, I don't know what I'm doing in 2 hours, let alone 2 years. If I were to try it, though, it would NOT be through the church.

Oh, the good ol' communication courses. The STCC (Success Through Communication Course) was a blast! A guy I took the course with was a nut. So much fun. One of my favorite courses. There are so many benefits of this course. Not sure why you couldn't get through TR3 though.

Troy

Let's just say I have a slight problem with authority over me, or anyone I perceive as having even a whiff of it about them, even if it is all in my mind. Add this to the inability to keep my mouth shut, even when I should just shut up, a tendency to question everything ('why' is one of my favourite words), a strong sense of paranoia and impatience. Are you starting to see why I might have some difficulties?

Well, this thread seems to be winding down. Been interesting, not sure whether we've answered the original poster's questions, but at least we've had a good debate.

Several folks have contacted me directly for more information about the freezone, thanks for that! It's been interesting - and validating - to see that the general feeling is one of antipathy towards the church, but not towards the actual philosophy.

Which reminds me of this guy we have working at our company. He's been working here for about a year and a half, and in that time he's worked in 6 different offices. Things just never work out for him. But guess what? He hasn't considered - even for the tiniest moment - that this has anything to do with him. It's all about what's being done TO him by others. He sees enemies behind every bush, when in fact he has no enemies except for himself. (Remind anyone of anything??)

People - and this applies to organizations, too - need to be able to step outside (the Scientology term is "Exteriorize") and see things as they really are (aka "AS-IS"). People and organizations that can't or won't do this become dogmatic and start spiraling downward.

I have a thing with authority too. It's not that uncommon. I am a bit of a rebel myself, but people of authority aren't allways bad.

Troy

Originally posted by cybertroy
I am a bit of a rebel myself, but people of authority aren't allways bad.

Here we differ. I have learned not to trust authority, unless proven otherwise. With authority comes power, and power corrupts. You don't know why they wanted that power in the first place, and you can't predict what people will do when they get it.

That's true power can corrupt, but power can better things too. You can have a leader (power) like Hitler who suppressed and killed people under his rule. There can also be a leader (power), like the head of an environmental organization, that pushes to get good things done like cleaning up the environment. You really have to look at the results of a person or people in positions of power, and see if you would like to support them.

There are those who support no rule, no authority, and anarchy. It's a novel concept. But having no law I can just walk over here and kill Joe because I don't like him, and that's ok because there are no rules. Who would stop a crazed man from killing me or you if there were no rules, no authority watching over us. Rules are a part of life, and in the first example, someone is going to say, "That's bad, you shouldn't have killed Joe, Joe has a wife and kids." And there might be others who feel this way too, and so they might ban together and put a "rule," or a "law" there that says "no more killing." See, we have our own rules, like morals that govern our behavior, and some morals can make their way into laws. Rules, laws and those who are in authority can have the ability to protect us, and help us to survive. And this isn't to say all people are crazy, and are just waiting for a chance to destroy his fellow man. Authority can help the honest man.

Troy

I don't think anarchy is the way to go, would just end up with the strongest, most corrupt with all the power. And I would agree that most laws are in place to protect people. However, where I live the police take people on 'moonlight cruises' and beat the crap out of them. 50 hookers disappeared, and the police didn't even want to look for them. If I were to break the law or kill someone, I fully expect the weight of the law would come down on my head, and it would be nobodies fault but my own. But until/unless I do something contrary to the 'rules', and earn the treatment, I will never place myself willingly under anothers authority. And this is non-negotiable.

Geez, Duzey - you need to stop talking so much sense...people are going to start thinking you're a genius or something!

Anarchy is clearly not a good thing, nor is authoritarianism. (There's been much discussion about the post 9/11 laws on this board. That sort of thing complicates the issue, doesn't it?)

Troy, question for you: were you sent here to "handle" us? If so, you haven't done it very well. I mean, this is a conspiracy board, folks here want answers to the tough questions. Although you've said some good & true things, you've studiously avoided all the difficult questions and issues. What do you think that reticence says to people who may be interested in Scientology?

I happened to notice this post while looking through the board, I wasn't sent to "convert" anyone. I took it upon myself to make some comments about it. I wasn't going to let Scientology get trashed by untruths, half truths, and twisted knowlege. I may not work there anymore, but I know that the organization is good, and has done a lot of good.

See, I can find "dirt" on any religion on the internet, that doesn't mean it is true. I can find all kinds of sites that make other religions looks stupid. There is no sense in it. The truth is, those spreading this molicious "dirt", are likely very "dirty" themselves, and have no room to talk. Just because this is a conspiracy forum doesn't make it ok to spread lies. I know the original person who started this topic was basically curious, and was seeking knowlege, but the sites he had found were spouting misinformation. I know better than to believe those sites, because I physically worked within the chuch. I also read sites like this, even before I ever stepped foot in the church. I never saw any orgies, like some silly ass on the net posted. The church, to the contrary, believed in ethical relationships. They believed you should be married before having sexual relations (ooooohhh, what a scandal!) I didn't see all these blank zombie stares I read about on the internet. I saw a bunch of dedicated hard working individuals, who were far from zombies.

Would you like it if I were to create a site saying that your family was a bunch of psycho axe murderers? What if some people believed it? I mean after all, "they did take the truck out in the middle of the night, with shovels in the back, to bury their victims." "I have pictures to prove it." "Well heck, here is a picture of the truck with shovels in it. Hmm, those tarps are mighty suspicious." "Oh, and here is a picture of your parents with their sinister grin, after a full night of terror. You can just see the evil dripping off of their chins. Oh, look they are taking the shovels to wash away the evidence. Oh, and is that a brown spot on her shirt, (actually dried ketchup from a hotdog), looks like dried blood to me."

They might have been taking the truck out for a spin, and there happened to be some shovels and a tarp in the back, from putting down mulch in the yard, and visited an all night diner. But me, the trouble maker that I am, take a few convincing pictures and state some bugus "facts", and now there are a bunch of people who think your family is "related to Charles Manson."

Are you expecting me to tell you this terrible story of abuse I went through in the church or something? Sorry, no stories to tell like this.

Anyway, I gave the answers. If you want to know about Dianetics or Scientology you read the books. I could sit here and try to explain everything, but the books will do a better job, and you will get it direct from the author, not second hand from me. Pick up one of the books from a local book store and read it, and apply it, and if it doesn't ring true for you, then ok.

Much love,

Troy

Troy,

No one here is trashing your religion. We have repeatedly made the distinction between the church and the tech. In fact, not one person in this thread has made the assertion that it is totally bogus. The general feeling I'm getting is that people feel that the current top executives took advantage of a sick man, for their own benefit. This does not reflect in anyway on the average member of the church, or cancel out the good work they try to do.

While it has not been your reality, the point is that it has been many others. What a person who really cared about their church should do is to try and have comm with them to understand what has gone wrong, to help prevent it in the future. New ideas are not dangerous, open comminication creates goodwill, and curiousity shall be rewarded. After all, if L Ron hadn't questioned and experimented, you wouldn't have the tech, and we would not be having this discussion.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
Geez, Duzey - you need to stop talking so much sense...people are going to start thinking you're a genius or something!

I would like to use a 'Way Above" for this, but I guess that might be a little inappropriate. Sorry for the one-liner, but now it's two, and I'm OK again.