- or return for more information
to our 
Questions to Ask the Church of Scientology
The Essence of the Critique - Clarifying History - Question List - Reference Sheets
Many critics are accusing the Church of Scientology of various crimes and antisocial behaviour, at the same time attacking and ridiculing the spiritual "tech" (methodology) which - according to their claims - is brainwashing people and turning them into robots who are no longer capable of independent thinking.
This is not our position. In our opinion, the "tech" (methodology) and whole body of knowledge around this tech, like given by L.Ron Hubbard, could have been a valuable frame of references and highly interesting toolkit in the hands of everybody who is interested in spiritual enhancement and mental training, if... if not the Church of Scientology had mis-managed itself into such a sad and depressing example of how Scientology was NOT meant to be applied, which led to a situation, where by regrettable mis-identification the tech also got stigmatized with a "dangerous" label.
This does not mean that Hubbard's "tech" does not work. It DOES mean that its application by his followers is not only a bad representation of what Hubbard originally had in mind; it actually is faulty to such an extent that the question must be asked whether this is not perhaps done with intention in an attempt to eradicate a workable spiritual methodology once and forever.
In fact, Hubbards tech itself is THE one thing which could have prevented the church's misbehaviour, if only applied and really enforced by the members. Hubbard himself in a policy-letter from July 1982 requests every member to personally enforce the integrity of the group:
The single most notable difference between an upstat, easy-to-live-and work-with group and a downstat, hard-to-live-and-work-with group is that the individual group members themselves enforce the action and mores of the group. That is the difference - no other. In an upstat group, at the first pinprick Joe would probably have a black eye!
Probably the most important reason that this has not been done by the members was the monopoly on the "tech", which fortunately does not exist any longer. It should be possible now to insist on a highly ethical and spiritually responsible church which really deserves that name. Despite of that, it is highly unlikely that the broad public opinion about Scientology will improve sufficiently. So the necessity to find other, new ways for one's spiritual progress is given.
We claim that each and every point of critique which can be found against the Church of Scientology, stems directly and with no intermediate steps from outright breaks of Hubbard's policy, commited by the church's current upper management, and/or from mis-application or non-application of the technical rules and writings he left at the time of his death in 1986.
This can be proved. We invite you to send us your points of critique or accusation to info@sgmt.at. We will publish it here or on our "contradictions"-page, together with those of Hubbard's policy directions or technical writings which explain the misapplication and describe how it should have been done instead.
This is not done in an attempt to "save Scientology". Unlike others, we think that it is too late for the church to reform, as it would be nearly impossible to convince the public that there is really a substantial change - such stories have been published too often. We will have to accept the fact that the efforts of many thousands of extremely devoted people have been wasted by the stupidity of very few, and that new ways will have to be found to achieve the spiritual freedom and ability which Hubbard's tech was meant to restore.
For the spiritually interested, it might become quite an intriguing part of history what really happened to Hubbard's ideas - and, last but not least, what Hubbard's ideas originally were: the quotes about money and destroying one's enemies which today are being repeated so frequently, are certainly not representative for what happened in this individual's personal universe.
Hubbard is a fascinating example of a genius who didn't apply his own findings to himself. Had he really made an effort to resolve the contradictions in his work, there wouldn't have been a chance for the less brilliant amongst his followers, to misunderstand and misapply and misrepresent him so completely.
Questions for the International Management of the Church of Scientology:
Free Speech vs. Muzzling of Ex-Members
Repair of Past Ethics Conditions
Misrepresentation of Dianetics and Scientology
Democratic Election of Leaders
The major point of critique against Scientology throughout the world is about the exorbitant "donations" for their training and processing services.
- How does this correlate with one of the most important Scientology concepts, A-R-C (Affinity-Reality-Communication)? Is this not a constant break in "R", the reality of the average church member‘s daily life?
- Hubbard has given the calculation of prices into the hands of the local orgs, per policy "Promotional Actions of an Organization", OEC-Vol.0, paragraph 165: "As Financial Planning, sees that pricing of everything sold is not too high to discourage the public and not too low to make the org insolvent." Which other, newer Hubbard policy makes this into a responsibility of International Management? (more see Sheet 1)
- If no such policy exists, why is it on-policy for International Management to prevent the executives of local organizations from applying this policy? Per Hubbard, it would be a high crime to prevent somebody from applying valid, not-cancelled policy issued by Hubbard.
- Was Hubbard in error to make the price calculation a responsibility of local orgs? If yes, why is the paragraph 165 still in the newest issue of the OEC, the Organizational Executive Course (remark: the "green volumes" 0-7 plus Management Series 1-3 plus an index volume)?
The Church of Scientology keeps telling people, that if something bad happens to them, then the reason for it is that they are "pulling it in" because of their "overts" (harmful acts and omissions).
- Looking at the church’s critical situation in many countries, which overts did it commit, which cause it to pull in these negative emotions and activities?
- If at the other hand this stems from suppressive forces and vested interests, why could the same not be true for negative things which happen to church-members?
Hubbard says that there are only three reasons for organizational trouble: a. Natural catastrophes (such as earthquakes, lightning, etc.); b.) Suppressive persons; c.) Persons who are PTS to suppressive persons. (see Sheet 2b)
- Is Hubbard in error about that?
- If yes, which policy has been issued by the church in order to correct Hubbard’s error?
- If no, then who are the SP’s, and why are they still on their posts?
Question: The Church of Scientology claims to be religiously discriminated against. In his "PR-Series" Hubbard describes how the "enemy-line" (deliberately invented bad news, repeated over and over) is being created. Also in the "PR-Series" Hubbard describes the mechanisms of "Protest PR" and states that this becomes necessary if an organization or government has neglected their duties (see Sheet 6).
- Would you say that all of the criticism against Scientology is the "enemy-line" and nothing is "Protest-PR"?
- If a part of it is "Protest-PR", then what is the neglect inside the organization which caused it?
- If you are aware of neglected areas inside the organization, what are you planning in order to correct that?
The Church of Scientology’s "Senior Policy" is
"We always deliver what we promise"
(quote from OEC-Vol. 0). There are countless ex-staff-members who never got the 2 ½ hours of daily training and processing which was promised to them. This is documented extensively on the internet.
- How was it possible that this happened so frequently?
- How are you going to correct this?
The author Tom Voltz says in his book "Scientology und (k)ein Ende" that the OCA-test is being used illegally by the church, and that he is the legal owner of this test after he has bought the rights from the woman who developed it. How do you explain that the church is using it all over the planet, although they are bound by policy to never do anything illegal?
Free Speech vs. Muzzling of Ex-Members
Very important ex-members, like for instance David Mayo, once Senior C/S International and Hubbards auditor, or Gerald Armstrong, who was supposed to write Hubbards biography, have been payed millions of dollars for never again speaking about their experiences in Scientology.
- How does this relate to Hubbards statement in his "Essay on Management", also published as chapter 11 of the book "How to live though an Executive", that it is essential for a group to be informed about all data which are related to the group, and that a management which acts as a censor or PR agency will destroy the group? (see Sheet 3)
- How does this relate to Hubbards article on the group engram in the book "Notes on the Lectures", where he says that painful experiences of a group are being "audited" by fully publishing each and every detail of what has happened at that time – a thing which is currently being done by the critics on the internet and various book authors rather than the church itself?
- How does this relate to the church's "Creed" which has "Free Speech" as one of its precepts?
Repair of Past Ethics Conditions
Hubbard developed a package of interesting administrative technology, the "Repair of Past Ethics conditions". Per Hubbard, damage done to anybody would have to be repaired by application of the Ethics-condition "Liability", which contains steps of making up for the damage and re-establishing good communication.
- Where and how has the technology of "Repairing past Ethics-condition" at least been tried to use to make up for a damage, which now, unrepaired, causes bad PR all over the planet, in books and the internet?
- Was Hubbard in error to recommend this piece of "green technology", which belongs to the so-called "Ethics-tech"?
- If he was wrong, then why is this tech still in use and in the newest set of OEC-Volumes?
- If he was right, then why isn’t this tech being applied publicly, under the eyes of the media, in order to repair the bad PR?
- What would change in the public awareness, if the church would request all their org-staff worldwide, to follow up on public complaints and apply the "Repairing Past Ethics-Conditions"-technology to all of these situations, carefully making sure that the correct condition is being assigned to ALL people who were part of the situation, including the local staff-members AND the international executives?
Misrepresentation of Dianetics and Scientology
One common denominator in public complaints is that every trouble is always blamed on the public, never on the staff member. How does this relate to Hubbards statement in the policy "Misrepresentation of Dianetics and Scientology", KSW-Serie 30?? There he says:
When people complain and are "dissatisfied with results", it will be found that Dianetics and Scientology were NOT being used on them. Someone was doing something else and called it Dianetics and Scientology.
(see Sheet 4)
Democratic Election of Leaders
Hubbard explicitly states that there should be democratic elections of leading personnel, in a policy letter which is already on the Staff Status 2 checksheet, a course which has to be done by every staff member very early in his career. The mentioned policy letter is Org Series 12, "The Theory of Scientology Organizations". (The paragraph about elections is quoted on Sheet 5.)
- Why are there no democratic elections of leading personnel in spite of Hubbard’s policy which should be binding for the Church of Scientology?
- This policy says that if a leader’s first activity is to fire a lot of people, he should be replaced by somebody else. David Miscavige’s start was the beginning of a painful loss of huge numbers of highly trained and capable auditors and executives. Why did the church not apply this basic policy in order to stop the dangerous loss of personnel ressources which left it with a staff with only little training and highly prone to silly mistakes?
Forbidding Books and the Internet
Why are members of the church forbidden to read certain sections of the internet, and certain books (this has been documented on the internet), when the "Creed" (which can be found in every reception of a church organization) contains the following paragraph?
We of the church believe...
[...]
That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others;
[...]
Why are members of the church forbidden to fully apply the Ethics-condition "Doubt" if they have serious doubts about the integrity of the church, and are considering to change into the Freezone?
The "Doubt"-condition would contain a step where the person thoroughly examines both sides and their statistics. This is not possible because any contact with such a "Squirrel group" is being punished with the most serious consequences, so nobody could ever honestly explore them and find out about their intentions and statistics, like Hubbard says in the steps of the "Doubt"-condition.
(More about this very interesting formula see on our page "Church or Freezone? Commenting the Condition Doubt")
The following quotes are from policy letter 20.11.65 RA, Issue I, "The Promotional Actions of an Organization".
[Remark: between this letter's head and the title LRH says that this policy has to be checked out on ALL STAFF. There exists NO EXCUSE for any staff not to know it, if he is not a complete green beginner.]
First some general consideration regarding the actions described in this policy letter:
PROMOTION means to make something known and thought well of.
The promotion ideas and pattern as they now exist are never at fault. Only failing to do them is at fault.
Promotion only fails because of nonexecution.
Without promotion one has insolvency.
The key action regarding the donation calculation:
Action 165, designed for the Executive Council (a board consisting of some high level staff members).
As Financial Planning, sees that pricing of everything sold is not too high to discourage the public and not too low to make the org insolvent.
And more remarks following the list of 172 actions:
"Any org not in a high state of solvency or activity has omitted some or a majority of the above.
[...]
I have made no attempt here to review the org or old promotions. All I've done is write what I would expect to have happening in any org or division of any org if I wanted a successful org. I've listed things which, if missing, would cave in a division or the HCO, Org or Public portions.
A far more thorough analysis could be done. This is only a list of the essential actions. If less than these are done, one will have poverty, not prosperity.
If one can't get them done in an org, then there is something awfully wrong."
We repeat: "All I've done is write what I would expect to have happening in any org or division of any org if I wanted a successful org." This allows the conclusion that some "Hidden Who" inside the management is interested in having failing orgs. Who, and why?
These quotes are taken from policy letter "The Ethics Officer, His Character":
If a staff has no confidence in their Ethics Officer, their morale is difficult to sustain.
A staff member has his head down, doing his job. Suddenly he finds out that nobody has mailed any letters or magazines for a month. This is a shock, an ARC break. He was doing his job. So he natters a bit and resolves to keep his eye open after this. He may even do some investigation on his own. In other words, he's distracted from his post and duties. The environment is not safe.
WHERE was the E/O? Who didn't notice there was nothing going out?
A few weeks later the staff member hears that the address plates are full of duplicates, wrong addresses and half missing. This is a shock. It means the magazine never reached anyone really despite all the work. The staff member says to hell with it. There couldn't be an Ethics Officer worth anything, and the org must be full of SP's.
So the staff member goes out and has a cigarette and sneers.
So do I.
A safe environment is a productive environment. An unsafe environment is an empty hall.
[...]
If an E/O finds himself having to assign lots of conditions, finds as he inspects the org that the HCO PL on promotions of the org or the old org rudiments list when checked against the org demonstrates too many outnesses, he knows that he is dealing with one or more SPs in the org or around its area.
[...]
When you threaten the whole population, you get riot and civil commotion. When you have riot and civil commotion, the police are threatening (because of lack of ethics tech) the whole population whereas less than 10%, even as little as 1%, are bad hats.
[...]
The greatest enemy of the E/O is the reasonable person. There are no good reasons for any outness except:
- Natural catastrophes (such as earthquakes, lightning, etc.)
- Suppressive persons
- Persons who are PTS to suppressive persons
[Remark: there are no more points in this list.]
[...]
E/O CONDUCT
[...]
An E/O should act like a shepherd not a wolf. When the facts are in plain view, he or she should act like a panther with one straight pounce.
An E/O who is an efficient E/O is *very* popular with a staff. If he or she knows his business and carries it out effectively, the E/O easily becomes a local hero.
An E/O shouldn't permit a staff to be nagged, threatened or given floods of conditions. When he sees these things occurring, he knows it's time to investigate for WHO has got people PTS and handle without other orders.
[...]
An E/O can get so irresponsible as to assign his whole function to just ethics conditions assignments. Never enforced, no sort out of staff ever attempted, no real confront at all, just a weary round of conditions and threats of conditions. Been removed of course. Lots of threats and conditions mean only somebody is SP and a lot of others are PTS.
[...]
An E/O is only trying to make a safe environment in which staff members can work happily and good service is being given to the public.
An E/O in the final analysis is answerable to me that all is well and secure with his area.
Quote from L. Ron Hubbard’s book "How to live though an Executive", Section 11:
When it is necessary to establish a surprise element in an attack or to secure a portion of the group from attack, suppression of OPERATIONAL DATA is permissible to management. Suppression of any other than operational data can disrupt a group and blow management over. Any management which operates as a censorship or a propaganda medium will inevitably destroy itself and injure the group. A management must not pervert affinity, communication or reality and must not interrupt it. A management fails in ratio to the amount of perversion or severance of ARC it engages upon and its plans and the goals of the group are wrong in the exact ratio it finds itself "forced" to engage upon ARC perversion or severance of ARC in terms of propaganda or internal relations.
Remark:
Operational Data as used in this quote could be the date and location of a secret meeting, or the name of a witness in a court matter.
ARC is an abbreviation for Affinity-Reality-Communication, a prominent Scientology concept.
Affinity is defined as the amount of affection or love.
Communication could be reading the internet, or books about Scientology.
Reality would be the facts which are contained and brought across by such media.
The following is from policy letter of 29. 9. 1982, Keeping Scientology Working Series 30,
"Misrepresentation of Dianetics and Scientology":
Now and then we hear of "somebody's case messed up." Or that someone was complaining or dissatisfied with results. Research into such cases uniformly shows that STANDARD TECH was not applied.
[...]
When people complain and are "dissatisfied with results", it will be found that Dianetics and Scientology were NOT being used on them.
Someone was doing something else and called it Dianetics and Scientology.
[...]
A similar circumstance would occur if someone put transmission oil in a package marked "Green Meadow Butter" and sold it and advised its use as "Green Meadow Butter" when it isn't.
Legal and PR situations from people who have complaints stem from two reasons:
A. They are themselves engaged for whatever reason in some self-serving end by complaining or
B. They did not receive Dianetics and Scientology.
A review of any such cases will bear this out. It is not a matter of making minor errors with the tech. It is not a matter of poor C/S judgment in applying it. The situation will be found to be flagrant.
Someone was only pretending it was Dianetics and Scientology and doing something else and for some other reason.
Here we have a problem in labels. The labels "Dianetics" and "Scientology" could illegally be placed on anything and that anything might be quite bad.
Thus it is the person misrepresenting who is actionable, not the originator or the properly licensed and supervised entities.
The operating question is "What did he or they do that they were calling Dianetics and Scientology standard tech?" And "Let me have their names so the misrepresentation can be stopped."
Quote from L. Ron Hubbard, Org Series 12, "The Theory of Scientology Organizations", where he is talking about democracy and the election of leaders:
Take the person who has a good, not necessarily the highest, profile and IQ. Take the person who can grant beingness to others. And look at the relative serenity and efficiency of any past command he may have had. And even then you're taking a chance. So always elect temporarily and reserve the right of recall. If his first action is to fire people, recall him at once and find another leader. If the organizations promptly prospers, keep him and confirm the election by a second one. If the abundance of the organization sags in a month or so, recall and find another. Popularity is some criteria - but it can be created for an election only, as in the US. Select in an election or by election as an executive the person who can get the work done.
This policy letter is on Staff Status II. Every staff member must know it before he is assigned to a permanent post.
Quote from L. Ron Hubbard, PR-Series 7:
Outright protest PR, based on facts, is a legitimate method of attempting to right wrongs.
It has to be kept overt. It has to be true.
Protest PR can include demonstrations, hard news stories and any PR mechanism.
Minorities have learned that only protest PR can get attention from politicians or lofty institutions or negligent or arrogant bosses.
Where protest PR is felt to be a necessity, neglect has already occurred on the issues.
This is in direct contradiction to "Never defend, always attack". LRH is requesting people to clean up neglected areas.
A large amount of people is being mis-identified as enemies and is being attacked, where NEGLECT would have to be cleaned up!
- or return for more information
to our
This page last changed on: 20. Apr 10