Indeed, this blog is about the abuses and lies of the church of scientology and that extends to the subject of scientology itself and its founder. Abuses and lies are in the domain of facts, not personal opinions. Trying to be “balanced” on the subject of scientology isn’t going to be possible because “balanced and fair” begs the question: “by whose reckoning?”

There will NEVER be agreement on that. This rare forum on scientology is one in which people are free to express their wildly divergent opinions. One might say the purpose of “fair and balanced” is to arrive at the truth but another (I, for instance) might say that there is no ‘truth’ in this matter, there are only facts, opinions and emotions. LOTS of emotions.

marildi, there’s a limited amount of time and space to try to be perfectly fair in these comments. And as our host Mike wrote earlier this evening on the current topic, “This blog is about the abuses and lies of scientology.” It’s not Hubbard and Scientology in the balance. And at the other end of the spectrum, if it were an indie blog, I’d focus rather differently – and try not to risk going off topic there, with too much about the sorts of things that are on topic here.

Anyway, like I said before, let’s see if there is an opportunity to revisit some of this on a more timely topic.

Not to be argumentative but I am familiar with the Constitution. My point is that a religion, under the law, cannot always do what it wants. This explains the big ‘sister wives’ hoopla going on in Salt Lake City right now. It’s because, under Utah law, what they’re doing (polygamy) is illegal but they claim it is part of their religion. That’s the point I was trying to make regarding the purif.

You are so welcome! Just think about when you’ve completed college, where you can now go in life without the chains that would have bound you and held you down. You can chose where you want to work, and where you want to live, and have total control of the $$$ you will earn. As you’ve read many stories here, others have left “the organization” after DECADES of loyalty, and finally realizing in the end what you’ve found out for yourself. You have your entire life ahead of you and the chance to DO something you’ve always wanted to do. Maybe some day you will be helping counsel others who have “blown the organization.”

Sometimes in life Vanessa, you can’t save someone who doesn’t want to be saved….you can only save yourself. Sadly many on this blog have stated they’ve also had their families “disconnect” from them & they understand your pain. Keep in mind all good thoughts from here on out…….Your feet are now on the ground, your “nose” in your college books and a good future is assured….the BEST is yet to be…you GO girl!

PeaceMaker: “the abuses and the harm done are well documented and have even been affirmed in court…”

I’m not at all negating that there have been many cases of abuse – you’re misrepresenting what I wrote. My point was that you aren’t suspiciously reading things into comments about abuse the way you do with claims about the benefits.

As regards the negative generalilties that are made about gains, including “There are no actual gains,” or at best “very few,” you haven’t challenged such claims, when in fact they have not been proven scientifically either, and are not even based on scientific polling let alone overall testing.

PeaceMaker: “I will try to pay a bit closer attention to exactly what is being said in some of the comments that seem to be getting into apologism, and perhaps we can revisit some of this on a more appropriate and current topic.”

The point is that you’ve already scrutinized and paid a lot of attention to what you consider apologists’ posts but virtually none to the detractors – which indicates your bias and mindset. Anyway, I think we’ve both said our piece, at least for now.

marilidi, the abuses and the harm done are well documented and have even been affirmed in court, so I don’t think they can be compared with supposed “gains,” which have been disproven in what little scientific testing has been done and which generally come down to vague and unquantifiable opinions or hearsay. That’s not to say that you might not have had gains or good experiences, but that’s still just an example of anecdotal testimony in the larger picture.

And I may challenge anyone who makes unsupported or extreme claims, including those who claim absolutely no possible benefits for Dianetics and Scientology. I think it is important for understanding, to be accurate when evaluating a subject.

I will try to pay a bit closer attention to exactly what is being said in some of the comments that seem to be getting into apologism, and perhaps we can revisit some of this on a more appropriate and current topic.

PeaceMaker , you hit the nail on the head. This would explain people “remembering” stuff that just wasn’t so and blanking out really obvious things that everyone at the time knew. It also explains the frantic, circular logic that Ronbots engage in order to defend the indefensible and explain the inexplicable.

alcoboyy, it is for the exact same reason that the AMA cannot step in and shut down Indian peyote taking ceremonies with children.

A WELL run class on the U.S. Constitution will give you a firm grounding.

PeaceMaker: “But many of the comments about positive experiences and ‘wins’ seems to me to start to smack of attempts to excuse the abuses – and if I’m ever mis-reading that, I apologize.”

I do think you are misreading that. And similarly, did it ever occur to you that the comments about abusive experiences might be attempts to make nothing of the gains?

“So I think it’s fair to challenge people to quantify and demonstrate any such claims, and dismiss them as speculative in the absence of adequate proof since it is supposed to be “science” – and if that seems like a smack-down, sorry.”

Okay, but do you challenge in any way people who claim that there were few if any gains, or even that there was harm done?

Newcomer, I don’t want to talk about anyone in particular here, though I think that I did gain some additional insight into this subject while reading into a couple of Scientology old-timers, and can generally address the subject of seeming “amnesia” or “blindness.”

There is the fairly obvious psychological defense mechanism, that people who put a lot of time and resources into something want to believe that it had some purpose or benefit – that’s essentially what is now known in sociology (and investing) as commitment bias. Additionally, in high control groups, I think that people who have done or been party to abuses or crimes, are especially invested in continuing to believe that there was some purpose to what they did, or else risk confronting that they were party to terrible things that really had no justification at all – there is probably some better classification of this in the literature, but I’m not familiar with it.

Another thing that I think may be going on in some cases, is an aspect of the self-blame of trauma survivors (think, for instance, of domestic abuse survivors who believe that they had a part in bringing it on themselves, failed to keep their abuser pacified, etc.*). In the case of Scientology in particular, which really reinforces self-blaming by individuals, I think that people may often be left with a mindset of excusing people and organizations that had actually become abusive. I do get the concept in Scientology of individual responsibility taken to almost “unreasonably” high levels, but when that is coerced or enforced on people by superiors or organizations that are not themselves sharing the responsibility, then it actually becomes blaming and is abusive.

* In sexual abuse and in particular where there is something like a child-parent relationship, victims may continue to idolize their abusers, as counter-intuitive as that may seem – but similar to what we know in Stockholm Syndrome, when captives come to identify with their captors.