Critics of Scientology
In the HCOPL Critics of Scientology, Ron makes the case that critics of Scientology have hidden crimes, which is what motivates them to attack Scientology. I’ve heard some in the Field (often in self-serving tones), flatly deny that this is true, and assert that LRH was wrong.
LRH was not wrong. His assertion was true when he wrote it and still is. But it’s also based on a basic unspoken assumption: that the Church can boast a clean house.
The reasoning here is obvious. The technology of Scientology, if properly applied and administered will not hurt anyone. On the contrary, its results are generally no less than spectacular, as evidenced by the thousands of success stories gathered over the decades. It even includes procedures to correct situations caused by mis-application.
But this also makes Scientology a formidable weapon against someone who has crimes to hide. Not that we particularly desire to fight such people. But it gives them a definite reason to hinder or stop Scientology in any way they can. The sad irony is that normally we would have no concern over their crimes, regardless of their severity. Our sole interest would be in unburdening them of the weight of their crimes, so they could make spiritual progress.
Further, we all know that true Suppressives have ample hidden overts, and are stuck on the time track, fighting some long-forgotten enemy. And the last thing they will tolerate is a technology or organization which seeks to make others better. The very idea of it drives them to fight us.
So clearly, Ron’s logic in this matter was spot on.
But now what happens when the Church itself is guilty of misconduct? What happens when the technology is improperly applied and not corrected? What happens when the Church fails to follow its own clearly defined policies as worked out by LRH?
Suddenly those who otherwise might be neutral or even friends of the Church and the subject have good reason to criticize. These are not the “critics” that Ron speaks of in Critics of Scientology. They have a justified complaint. They may or may not have crimes. But suddenly the criticisms have a basis in reality.
As we all know, the technology of Scientology and the Church have been subverted by suppressives. This subversion has become more pronounced as the years have marched forward, and so have the complaints and criticisms. This is perhaps a circumstance that Ron wouldn’t have predicted. Certainly none of us did. And now we have a bumper crop of justified critics.
It could be argued by the Field that the above policy is wrong because those of us who have separated from the Church and criticized it are not, generally, guilty of crimes. And technically this is true. The “crimes” Ron speaks of in the policy are those for which one could be prosecuted in a court of law. But in the twisted viewpoint of the Church we are guilty of crimes. We failed to support the IAS. Or we spoke out against the executives of the Church, or whatever our individual “crimes” were. And thus, in the Church’s interpretation, the policy above is still correct.
The problem with some in the Field is that they are quick to dispute Ron’s writings, without taking the time to fully consider their context. Instead they approach policy from a very literal perspective and take whatever opportunity presents itself to disagree. I sometimes wonder if disagreeing with Ron is some sort of benchmark of courage or intelligence or independence to these people.
Personally, I think it’s just a sign of being “not quite bright”.