Scientology Regression

Michael Moore, President of the International Freezone Association, posted an article on the iscientology blog apparently in protest of the message this blog, and my book What Is Wrong With Scientology?, have been proposing as a course to assure the future relevance of Scientology:  integrate, evolve and transcend.   In his article, What is RIGHT With Scientology, Mr. Moore asserts that the reason Scientology has a bad rap is because:

In today’s western society man is cultured into believing that he is basically bad, cannot be changed for the better, and is a body only run by a brain and all efforts are in the direction of reducing man’s level of responsibility through the encouragement of laziness and increased regulation. Through repetition such mores become the accepted norm and efforts to introduce a more causative approach for man, such as Scientology, hit this head on. Hence it takes time to assimilate a new and radical ‘think’.

“All efforts” in “today’s western society…are in the direction of reducing man’s level of responsibility through encouragement of laziness and increased regulation” and apparently to condition him into believing “he is basically bad, cannot be changed for the better, and is a body run by a brain”?   This statement is so sweeping and absurd as to communicate to the world that Scientologists are uninformed, isolationist cultists.   Perhaps, even fascist cultists, given the  political slant he apparently felt compelled to toss in.  At best, it is a complete effect point of view, rivalling the victimhood that Scientology Inc. instils in its members to be totally certain and right in the face of the most fantastic wrongnesses.

Mr. Moore goes on to assert:

There are many philosophies and religions with promises either based upon behavior or practicing certain rituals to assure oneself a place among the gods so to speak. But not one of these religions or philosophical ideologies or practices, prior to Scientology, attempted to increase the abilities, responsibility and causative levels of an individual using a practical application of the philosophy in the form of a technology, the techniques of auditing and the bridge over which to travel to attain higher states of being in a measured and predicable fashion. On the contrary it was a case of pray hard or meditates (sic) hard and leave everything to the gods.

Does anyone have an idea what religion and philosophy is promising people a ‘place among the gods’?  Ironically, of all religions, this claim fits Scientology more than any other, what with the hyperbole of ‘powers’ and total ‘causation’ to be had by following its rituals and behavior.  His sum up of every religion and philosophy outside of Scientology as ‘pray[ing] hard or meditate[ing] hard and leave everything to the gods’ is far more ignorant and bigoted than anything that would possibly emanate even from David Miscavige’s Scientology Inc.

Moore’s  article more than bristles at the repeated suggestions on this blog that Scientologists recognize the similarities between it and other practices (which incidentally, never once imply that a single Scientology auditing procedure be altered).  His implication that there is no possible gain to be had by the hundreds of millions of people on this planet who in some form or another confront their minds is indicative to me – aside from serving to make Scientologists look arrogant and narrow-minded – that he does not understand the first thing about how Scientology auditing actually works.  He apparently believes it has to do with the ritual and not the act of seeing something exactly as-is, so as to as-is it.  Yes, yes.  The ritual is remarkably workable.  It is directed and patterned and performed  with an exacting discipline that is extremely effective.  But the ritual does not blow the charge – the individual observing, or witnessing, exact time, place, form and event is what blows charge.  To say that witnessing never happened anywhere else in the world ever is to tell the world you are a pack of mislead idiots who never did anything worthwhile with your mind and yourself as a spirit.  I got news for Michael, that attitude got Scientology where it is today.

Are there any practicing Scientologists out there who see these types of public statements as uninformed, bigoted, and/or arrogant?

Are there any practicing Scientologists who believe it is a wise course to attempt to integrate, evolve and/or transcend?

I really would like to know the answers to these questions.

I don’t think piling on or launching assaults on the alleged character deficiencies of me or Michael will contribute to anything constructive.  I really think we need answers to the two questions posed.

360 responses to “Scientology Regression

  1. Well I’m rather new to this whole “independent Scientologist” phenomenon, in fact I didn’t even know there was such a thing till a couple of months ago. I’ve studied enough of religion, philosophy and human history to realize that just because you have a group of individuals that have some common ground doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to approach things the same way or agree upon everything. In so far as Scientology goes I feel it better to disagree but remain open minded to the ideas of others than to subject oneself and others to blind faith or to be dogmatic to the extent as to surrender one’s own sense of logic, morals and ethics and such.

    I am only just becoming familiar with the various people in this “indie” scene but I will say that I didn’t read as much into Michael Moore’s blog post as Mr. Rathbun and others have. I reread that blog and the wording and I guess perhaps there are certain aspects of the blog post that one can construed in certain ways as to find disagreeable and such but I don’t see the intent behind the blog as being to cause harm. He stated an opinion and yes it did appear to be a response of sorts to Mr. Rathbun and his book but hey it’s an opinion and discussion is good is it not?

    I think LRH brought forth an applicable technology of mind, body, soul betterment. The whole idea, from my understanding of LRH’s intentions, was to create a workable solution to humankind’s problems that had a well mapped out path to which one could follow and produced a quantifiable positive result. If it works and is of value, if it works better than any other method before it, then good. But of course that is not to invalidate the actual achievements and betterment received by practices outside of LRH tech and Dianetics and Scientology. I mean, you can’t ignore the fact that buddhism spoke of the value of “being in the moment” centuries before LRH spoke of the same. Or that if there is value in LRH’s TR course that then value can also be derived, similarly, from buddhist meditation (whether to a lesser or larger extent is completely subjective to the individual who has applied both processes). I betcha Thich Nhat Hanh would be quite adept at keeping his TRs in.

    But anyways, Mr. Rathbun I await your book in the mail and appreciate your blog as I do other constructive blogs from those who left the Church but still wish to pursue and promote LRH tech. I took Mr. Moore’s blog post as merely a desire to validate LRH tech and to position focus on the positive value of Dianetics and Scientology. But as I mentioned, I’m still new to this dynamic and this is just my own present opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s