From: Bob Minton <email@example.com>
Subject: LMT Literati Contest Entry - Scientologist: Frank Columbo
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:37:50 -0500
Organization: Lisa McPherson Trust, a Scientology watchdog group
by Frank Columbo
The subject, "Scientology: Control, Freedom & Responsibility," makes one ponder about the truth behind these words, words which can have a breadth of intellectual wisdom connected to their many meanings and a magnitude of viewpoints connected to their understanding. This is adventure that needs to be undertaken and yet there are no guide lines from which to adjudicate the correct approach to the truth. On could be sloppy about the truth and say it is the truth and have others agree to the fact that it is the truth. This poses an interesting question: "What is the truth and how do we know what we have is the truth?" So we need to discover how to find the truth before we can state it is the truth. Of course, those who agree relatively easily are usually weak-minded people. We therefore must be prepared to watch the weak-minded people. We further then must realize those that are weak-minded could be used to promote the truth for some deceitful group. These points and others must be investigated with a thorough understanding that deception might be at work. It is of importance that those who investigate the understanding of truth must be of an unprejudiced mind. Because the truth found must undergo tremendous scrutiny. Those who investigate the truth for themselves are the courageous ones. Those who would undertake this task should be commended and be honored by their peers.
The first powerful question that needs courageous investigation is "How can one be responsible and yet have freedom?" It would make sense that freedom and responsibility go hand and hand. One couldn't be irresponsible and promote the fact that he is a free man, and one could not be free unless he were responsible for his actions. His actions would have to show others that he was warranted the right to be free. We wouldn't want to give someone freedom if his actions consisted of killing others. That is a simple one, and society does agree that those people who kill others are to be put in prison. It seems that this is the investigating path to follow that would discover the truth about these words and then it would be a simple task of analyzing them against an organization.
There is a need to review this analysis from the point of view that there is a God. We do not want to look into a religion and decide about it one way or the other without first taking a look at what is God's impact upon all religions. Not just one religion and is it a religion just by the mere fact that they call themselves a religion? There is no other criteria to dispute whether something is or is not a religion. Is it HIS domain and only his domain? Is God the only one who can judge a religion or say it is or is not a religion? And if so, then is it the work of Satan which criticizes any religion, and whether they believe those that they attack are not religious. Our forefathers thought this out and made sure that the government would not intrude upon a religion and its practices. Did they have the needed insight? In other words, do those that criticize any religion, whether right or wrong, work for Satan. And how would one know if he were working for the devil? Is it the practice of a religion to attack their critics by pointing out the fact that they might be working for the Devil himself? It is important not to discount God so as not to make it look as if it is the devil's work.
Therefore another question that needs an immediate investigation, "How could one have the right to control and yet not be responsible?" Is this a possibility? One would also have to investigate the questions, "How is one allowed as an individual to have personal freedom?" "Who gives us the right to have personal freedom?" Is it God? Is it God who is looking over us and deciding who is right or who is wrong? And from HIS all-knowing judgment of life and the way he works, gives some an ability and others a disability? Is it God who makes someone have a disease and makes them die? Makes it a part of the human race to destroy and create other parts. Or does God wait for us on Judgment Day and adjudicate our good and bad deeds? This issue of God cannot be taken lightly. We cannot discount God, especially when we are to analyze a Religion.
We should take this issue up in detail so that we can judge the relationship of God when we are investigating one of HIS religions. It is of extreme importance that do not discount God when we evaluate or analyze a religion. It will become clearer then to analyze, "Scientology: Control, Freedom & Responsibility." This essay must be conclusive, it must be definitive, it must have impact and most importantly it must be able to withstand a torrent of attack.
These are the questions that need to be viewed: "Does one have to believe in God to make a judgment about his fellow man?" Is it that God is the only one who has the power and right to judge another? Is it that God is the only one who can judge another Religion?
For these are HIS people. Religions are his organizations. He lives in their churches. So do we have to know God to analyze a religion? These are questions that will have to be answered if anyone is going to have an intellectual dissertation concerning a religion.
How would we confront God if he asked us, "Why are you hating one of my churches"? Would HE accept an answer such as "I didn't know!" How do we know which one does His work? Those that destroy are working for Satan. This is only a comment, but it always appears that destruction leans towards Satan's work. Satan is always looked upon as evil and hatred and ready to destroy. And as far as God is concern I wouldn't go up against him. If anyone has read the bible they would know that he could get mad. He once flooded the whole planet. He doesn't like those people who are harming his people. He has made it very clear in the bible. And who are God's people? Those that work in a religion? Religion is that organization that does Gods work. One would find God in his house of worship.
This leads us to this next question. Does one have to know the truth about God so that he could sit in judgment of another's religion, and its beliefs? It would seem only prudent that one should have a good understanding of God and all the great religions to make a judgment of one of His religions.
Religion is a pretty powerful subject and great care must be taken in analyzing it. One can not go half cocked and shoot with all kind of criticisms. One needs to discover the truth for himself or herself so that one does not have a cowardly feeling when criticizing another. Religions believe very strongly in the Supreme Being, God, the Holy One, or whatever name they created to symbolize The Deity. Religious people act much differently than non-religious people which is where our investigation should take us and why this is so. Do they know something that non-religious people do not know? An interest point to keep in mind.
It is very important to look at the religious aspect of this analysis. Scientology is a religion. It lives in its own religious universe just like every other religion. All religions live within their own community. Their relationship with one another consists of religious bounds. And not know those who are not religious. It is nearly impossible for a non-religious entity to evaluate or analyze a religious entity. Not even a religious entity could correctly evaluate another religious entity. But it could give a good estimation, evaluation on why it lives a similar life style. Why it is so dedicated to its beliefs. Their paths to the Almighty might be different. Their concepts about God might be different. But their understandings of one another have similarities. So do we need to have another religion to evaluate and analyze another religion? And if this were so, would another religion openly do so? This question has been investigated and it is pretty much conclusive that openly all religions feel that they must tolerate each other. That all religions have as their scripture the belief that other religions should exist. The point that is illustrated here is that one religion would not destroy another religion. Although there have been religious wars throughout history we can see from hindsight that the wars or crusades didn't accomplish their goals. That is probably another reason why our forefathers strictly forbade the government to adjudicate ones religious beliefs. It is getting more and more evident that judging a religion is not an easy proposition. And probably a very difficult task if not nearly impossible. The needed truth is not there unless one was God. Only God would know if a Religion were doing God's work. This seems to be a conclusive point.
And for a non-religious entity which is not bound by a God, and which does not have the concept of God or a religious belief to analyze a religion is an impossible feat. All one would get are opinions. What is interesting is that all religions have an "open arm policy" towards the world at large and because of this philosophy they do not inspect ones past but work towards removing their irrationality and hatred towards their fellow man, so that they could love their neighbors. All religions teach to love the neighbor, to be a loving person and to help those who seek help and do not turn ones back on anyone seeking help. If a religious doctrine says, "love thy neighbor", is it a religion? Can it be persecuted if only the majority, over ninety percent, practices it and the ten percent don't? These questions show the difficulty that one is up against when one tries to analyze any religion.
And there are times when some enter a religion full of hate, irrationality and evil. A religion does not turn its back on this sinner but rolls up its sleeves and starts to turn this person around to see the good in man. To cleanse the soul, so that they can remove their hate and fill it with love. How a religion achieves this is through its teachings which are called Holy Scriptures. And this is why it is hard to adjudicate if a religion's teachings are valid. They are valid for the believers but may not be for the non-believers or apostates.
What we have here is a non-religious universe trying to duplicate a religious universe. This is impossible.
Even if an apostate, writing about his experiences, he will be full of hate, and all that will be written is hatred, by someone who wasn't fully cleansed of his sins to humanity, by the religion that sought to cleanse him of his sins. Religions have to bear the burden of their open arm policy whenever a former member leaves the folks disgruntled. But observing an apostate, one finds that their characteristic has been destructive to humanity before they entered a religion. And it can be concluded, although they still can be saved, that their purpose to destroy is paramount to all other purposes and any good they tried to possess. The secret is that they must cease to commit harmful deeds and cleanse themselves of their evil ways and fill their heart with love.
One who is full of hate cannot write about those who have pure hearts, those who enjoy the happiness of another, which is accorded to them from following certain Holy Scriptures. It makes sense that those who didn't get to fully understand the Holy Scriptures would have aversions to those who did. Their hatred is so seething that they could not see straight if they tried. How could hatred now analyze? Impossible!
Their only proposition to others is hatred. And so it is that Hatred breeds hatred.
Observationally it makes sense, that when you observe a religion which is expanding daily and creating good works, bettering the conditions and the quality of life for their parishioners, it is a true religion. This is how such can be emphatically stated, i.e. with an underlying statistical analysis that one can use to adjudicate such an "outrageous" statement to an apostate. It doesn't matter that this religion is flourishing and prospering and that Scientology is growing no matter what hatred is spread about it. It is therefore conclusive that it is loved. How could anything grow if someone or another's group's purpose is to stop its growth? Because it must be giving truth and improvement to many lives. So when we observe Scientology in light of growth we will not use any statements that Scientology makes about its memberships but only observations of its physical expansion. We see without any strain to the eyes a multitude of buildings being purchased in Clearwater and the multi-million dollar Mecca building being erected on pure donations by its members. That is power, that is strength, that is mighty, and it can be seen that Scientology is moving along with full speed ahead towards a continuing and unprecedented expansion. And which could be realized as the reason why apostates and others are attacking it. What are they afraid of? Scientologists know!!! And that makes it a double reason. It makes sense that Scientology would also have the technology in its Holy Scriptures to understand a suppressive.
The subject of a what constitutes a suppressive individual is one that would take an essay in itself.
It is hard to delineate their trouble minds but it is necessary to point this out. It is also necessary to know that there are those who suppress others.
Otherwise one could not understand the reason behind giving one personal freedom. How is one allowed to have his or her personal freedom, his or her own power of choice and self-determinism and yet not take into account ones actions? These actions would have to fall under some guidelines of control and responsibility. Again would we want to give a destructive person unlimited personal freedom without restraint? No.
Would we want to give a creative person unlimited personal freedom without restraint? Yes.
The subject of responsibility, control and freedom has meaning when it is in the hands of individuals who want to improve the quality of life. It is vitally important that these words are not to be defined with a self serving manipulation, but rather they should be honestly adventured upon, sought to find their true meaning, for their truthful meaning will have survival application. If they can stand the test of survival, then and only then can they have importance, application and a truthful understanding. They must be confronted and without any prejudice be subjectively and objectively understood. The very essence for their survival and their impact upon the civilization depends upon the discovery of their true meaning otherwise; we are only dealing with manipulation of words rather than practical application of their meanings. If these words are to be altered to be self serving for a person, group or organization then how can we adjudicate their correctness? How can we trust the utterances of those who alter their meaning for their own profit, their own sordid purpose, and worst of all destroying, harming humanity?
How can we feel secure enough not to have any doubts about their true meaning? This is where the search starts. The search for truth is of the highest importance so that one can intelligently analyze how they operate amongst organizations within and outside of Scientology. If ones meaning were untrue then the results would be faulty. It is thus conclusive that the true meanings of the words are of the upper most importance otherwise all this analyzing is for nothing.
Each one of us must make the search on our own without anyone trying to manipulate our thoughts or conclusions. We must feel the truth within our own determination and understanding, not another's forceful or strong opinion. We must not be weak but hold true to our own realities and have them not be overwhelmed by another's agenda. Whether that agenda is good or bad, right or wrong has nothing to do with keeping one's own counsel. What is right or wrong, good or bad is what we observe to be true. Observation of the truth is necessary and it can be the workable application to understanding of life.
As can be observed, the philosophy of humanity has not been taught to us in contemporary schools or universities. However, the truth does lie within us and we alone are perceptive, intelligent and aware enough to make a validation of the estimation of what is the truth. It is as simple as the subject of chewing gum is. Some can chew gum without their teeth hurting and others get cavities, or their teeth hurt. A very simple correct observation. Well the truth for some appears different then it does for others, some don't hurt and some do hurt when chewing gum. This is not the truth we are looking for i.e. something having two different meanings. We do not want to make the destructive, the hurt one decide the meaning, and on the other hand we don't want to have the creative one decide the meaning. We do not want not to be ambiguous eitherl. You cannot enforce upon someone who chews gum and its teeth hurt that chewing gum is pro- survival or the right thing. He believes it is wrong and contra-survival. The point here is to illustrate the need to be your own advisor on what is right and wrong. It is important to learn how to make those decisions for yourself without the need to ask someone else what is right or wrong.
Let us get right to the point and be very thought provoking. If being thought-provoking would make another thing for himself and if this essay is thought-provoking in another's estimation, then this essay would have some meaning. There is no need to fumble around and try to appear intelligent because there are a lot of people already trying to be intelligent and to pose as learned people. It is better to be coherent and to make sense. No need to use esoteric words or to be ostentatious about self. We are looking for a man or woman who is surviving while improving the quality of life. This is an important observation that one must make to validate whether his search for truth is on the right path or not. Improving the quality of life means families are happy together, their children are not taking drugs, and their grades in school are doing well. Their work environment is happy and the community is improving with the quality of their organization's products which it exchanges within the community and improves the quality of life.
Not to get too philosophical at this time but a good example of a good product, to keep it simple, are shoes that make the feet comfortable and enjoyable to walk in. A bad product would be a shoe that doesn't fit well and wears out too soon when compared to its cost. The idea here is to illustrate and show the exchange value that would improve the quality of life for the buyer and the seller would make income sufficient to support his family and the needs of his children. It can be observed, without prejudice, that life is doing better because he or she exist.
It is very important to have this ability to observe.
One could then go through life with confidence about himself and see observations without altering them, but see them as they exist. When a person lives with hatred and anger he cannot see correctly what he is looking at; in fact he alters it to suit his anger and hatred. That is an interesting observation and one should test it out. Take a man that hates someone and have him observe him and see if he says anything nice about him. One who can observe correctly would make the right decisions. He would be able to observe, rather easily, an organization that promotes freedom for its members. He would be able to see if there is freedom being obtained. He would be able to observe for himself the responsibility of its members and what freedoms they gained. He would be able to observe how responsibility gains a great deal of freedom. He would be able to observe how well they control their environment and what they produce for society by understanding the exchange value and does it improve the quality of life for others. If these observations are truly searched for then, one on its own can find the truth. One would not need others opinions or prejudices. One would only need self.
Before we can delve further into the subject of Control, Freedom and Responsibility there is one word that needs to be isolated that will encompass the correctness of the subject at hand and give a clearer basis from which to understand its true importance and meaning in the world and in any person, group or organization. There is no need to waste time with semantics or manipulative self-serving definition of the word. This word is the core of our reasoning and survival. It has the basic elements within it that all other thoughts of wisdom and truth are evolved from.
It is the road map to discover for oneself what is right and wrong. The word is "Ethics." This word, "Ethics" , has been pondered by all the great philosophers of our time. The search for the true meaning of ethics and its related subjects has been sought by the great minds throughout our history.
These great minds tried to pierce the hidden secrets of our lost wisdom, knowledge to find its meaning, for they knew, finding the meaning would bring about a civilized world. Those that search for the meaning had given us hope, and this hope had improved the quality of life, and the hope that some day its true meaning would be discovered, by the great one and thus would bring about freedom.
What does this all-important word "Ethics" mean? To the sane individual it means reason. To the insane person in his own reality it would mean reason as well. But how could two different types of people have the same meaning? In a nutshell, one is inclined to create and the other is inclined to destroy. Create and Destroy does not necessarily tell us who is sane and who is not sane. We therefore need some criteria with which to judge this word and to get a feel for its meaning that the great minds had sought to find.
It would make another understand how an organization and many of its adherents claim that they have a road to freedom. This organization could make the claim that they are practicing out of choice, their own choice and self-determinism, and should be allowed to practice their beliefs without interference. For they have found the truth, and the truth being so powerful, they know instinctively that it will take any and all opposition. This is a powerful feeling and one that is possessed by its members. Their quality of life would have improved, not just by others' observations, but by their own. There is no force on earth that can destroy truth and the group that possesses it, because truth all by itself prevails and wins over lies and deceit.
Never in history have we seen any organization, group or nation succeed where they had not possessed the truth. Even a little truth goes along way. For the insane there is no understanding of truth. So those that read this and don't understand are those who live in a sea of lies. For those who can not observe for themselves are those who are truly the insane. Their insanity has taken over their power to observe their power of choice and their self determined thoughts.
They are robots to other-determinisms and are cowardly followers. For they have no back bone themselves to stand up for what they believe in. They have no courage but to whimper about others' successes. One who possesses the truth only has pity for them and yes, he hopes that some day they could raise above the collective agreements they are controlled by and create a thought for themselves. What a wonderful feeling it is to create a thought for oneself. To be that free is an experience that every man, woman and child should experience. That is freedom.
Ethics is the subject of survival. Control, Freedom and Responsibility are subjects related to living. In order to live one must have some control of life. One must be able to control one's environment. This is true for any organization. When a group is expanding, flourishing and prospering they know the truth.
It can be better realized and understood by the following illustration using a simple example concerning the responsibility, control and freedom of driving a car. If one did not control the car he would not have the responsibility for others and would eventually hit someone or drive into a tree. A car needs to be driven by someone who is controlling its speed and direction. If he hits too many people or hurts himself too many times he would have his freedom to drive a car taken away. This may appear to be a very simple example but the simplicity of it is to illustrate the point. We would look upon someone who gets into many accidents as having an aberration concerning driving and not a very high survival potential for the rest of human life. It is somewhat easier to look at this example and see how control, freedom and responsibility relate to each other than to try to evaluate an organization, which is much more complex than driving a car, and whether it is a bad one or good one. Thereby illustrating these words in easily observable examples one can gain more and more confidence to observe a whole organization correctly and truthfully. We can easily say that this particular driving is a bad one because he hits people and when he does not hit people he hits trees and ends up in a hospital. It is a simple example because no one can dispute the fact that he is a bad driver.
So what does this have to do with the subject of ethics? Any person, group or organization must stand up against the test of survival for the greatest good.
No one would disagree with a mathematical application, the greatest good for the greatest number, to verify if an action has more survival potential for all concerned or less survival potential for all concerned. It is mathematical and for good reason, it can not be disputed. If an action enhances life more than it destroys, then for practical purposes we can say it is an ethical activity.
Now let's take a more detailed look at the accident prone driver example above and how the subject of ethics plays an important role in control. We know that this person, by statistics, will get involved in an accident within 48 hours. We can say that his freedom to drive takes away others' freedom to live.
We can safely assume that he himself does not have too broad of a survival responsibility towards others and that his position concerning driving is somewhat self-serving with little or no regards for others.
We therefore search for the truth behind his inability to control a car and we find that he has a drinking problem. We know that the laws of the land forbid people to drive while they are under the influence of alcohol. Why? Because it makes an irrational person and makes him into a danger for the rest of us.
Therefore drinking and driving does not make one control a car, brings about less freedom for all of mankind, and is being not responsible towards others.
Therefore this is not a survival actions and we can safely assume that this action is unethical. As stated earlier an ethical action would be one of survival.
Take this example a bit further to illustrate how one can manipulate words to further their unethical conduct and to make themselves right and others wrong.
Notice that not once was the accident prone person made wrong; it was observed he had an irrational behavior which needed to be turned into a rational behavior, so that he could have more freedom and responsibility. And it is the same with any group or organization. If they are destroying others or are harmful to others then they are an irrational organization. If they do good for others and help them to improve their lives more than they harm them then they are an ethical organization.
What if one confronted this person who has a low responsibility for others, driving while under the influence of alcohol, and asked him, " Why do you drive while under the influence of alcohol?" He would justify his actions. He would not admit that he was wrong. Even though his actions are irresponsible he would somehow manipulate his reasoning to be right.
And this is why it is important to objectively see the results of any organization. Actually search for the truth, go out and explore the majority rather than any isolated incident. Because the isolated incident is to justified ones irrational behavior or some destructive group's purpose.
The example was to illustrate the need to correctly evaluate any given situation and to clearly show how an unethical conduct produces irresponsibility towards others. And how important it is to evaluate an organization through the same means. To analyze control, freedom and responsibility and how they operate together or clash within the organization is to first isolate the irrational behavior and the cause. One can then clearly observe for himself the truth, the true cause, and would gain freedom for himself. He would become by confidence in his observation more able to take on more and more responsibility thus controlling his environment to survive better. In this example one would simply handle the individual's drinking problem, get him back into communication with his environment, and his aberration now handled, observe other aberration to deal with so that he enjoys a better ethical conduct.
The less irrational behavior a person exhibits, the better off those around him and their survival will be, they would have more freedom and less suppression, which means everyone gains that much more survival potential. And as this cycle continues those who demonstrate unethical conduct will have less control upon society, they will be known to have negative responsibility towards humanity and the ones who are suppressing the god-given freedoms for all of us.
If a person, group or organization had no aberration they would no doubt make ethical choices and their actions would appear to others as being ethical. And from this one would see how their freedom is awarded because of their responsibility towards others and their control of their members to perform responsible actions.
How does this relate to the world outside of Scientology? In the same way as it relates to the world inside Scientology because there is only one world - Planet Earth - where all of this is taken place. There is only one code of conduct that is pro-survival and one code of conduct that is anti-survival. Anyone would agree that there is a pro-survival course of action and a non-survival course of action. In the example above the driving while under the influence of alcohol is a non-survival code of conduct, yet thousands upon thousands do it daily and without any concern for their fellow man. Not because they are evil, but because the subject of humanity has been lost from our present civilization.
It can be assumed that while this unethical behavior is rampant the means to handle it have been left up to Scientology. Because through correct observation it has taken away irrational behavior and given back abilities that were lost. This makes for a happier person and a more productive one. The statistic to prove this is the number of buildings Scientology has expanded into and the mega building it is erecting across from the Fort Harrison hotel. Scientologists are willing to take on the responsibility and have been doing so for half of a century. How can this be a true statement? Again by the degree they are flourishing and prospering. Since the apostates and the haters are all so willing to discount whatever Scientology says about its expansion, so be it. Then observe with one eyes and look around Clearwater and see the number of buildings, and beautifully renovated ones which Scientology owns and have expanded into it.
So for the last half of a century Scientology has flourished and prospered and every year it celebrates its huge expansion wins. Dianetics is now translated into fifty-two languages and selling. Those that oppose it do so because they can not conceive this behavior as being an ethical one. Their product in life is to destroy. Here is an example that will illustrate their responsibility. How they manipulate and show something good as being bad, and they - as unethical criminals - as the crusaders of the world. The key is that they cannot create. They cannot teach or instruct another to win in life. Their groups are made up of criticizing another's works. They cannot create their own philosophy and go out into the world and get people to join them. They cannot create anything and then go out into the world and promote their create, not a destruction of another's works as a create, but something original with their own minds. This is impossible. They cannot think for themselves, or think clearly. It is always that they cannot create, and all they can do is rail against another's works.
Here is an illustrated example: A musician creates a beautiful piece of music and plays it at a local tavern. Someone in the audience hears it and records it. He had not created the music; he recorded it and stole it. He does not know how to create but he knows how to steal. So now he can go to the courts and the people of the world who make the laws, and get them to "see" (more like manipulate) everyone has a free right to everything, no one owns anything. Copyright laws should not be enforced; no one should have the right to their own works. And that beautiful piece of music is now in the "owners" hands, by law, who is the one, who copied it. The real owner's rights have been violated but had to be because the criminal cannot create his own music or any kind of work that others would follow. He has to steal it. He has to claim that no one has any protection. His responsibility level is low, meaning that this is the level of responsibility that he must convince society is where they should operate. Why? Because he could not create an honest piece of work. He cannot be original. He must at the same time work on creating a hostile climate towards the originator of the music so that his credibility would be destroyed (notice the word destroy) not created, and eventually would not be believed.
An organization that has as its working purpose to destroy does not have the luxury of responsibility. It has no concept of humanitarian endeavors and would rather steal then create.
To analyze control, freedom and responsibility one then has to observe the organization's intent. Is it working on the purpose to destroy another's purpose so as to gain their works or is its purpose to create and in doing so putting into society less confusion, better control of others? And in doing so raising the responsibility level of the civilization where they view from a broader perspective, a humanitarian perspective. Thus educating man into understanding what humanity, the human race, is all about and thus creating a philosophy where the able, the creative can prosper. From raising the responsibility and decreasing the confusion and putting in more control there will be more freedom. So it is conclusive that an organization like that of Scientology is bringing about more freedom to mankind and an organization bent on destroying another's work is bringing about less freedom for all of us.
One could read this and feel that they need to justify their actions so that they can be right. No!! No!!
No!! The truth is that they are wrong. Absolutely wrong in every aspect of existence. They are so wrong that they could not conceive of themselves being anything but right. They have to hold on to their last bits of rightness for not to do so would drive them completely insane. The truth of the matter is that those who are bent on destruction and tell themselves they are doing right and somehow work it out in their minds that they are doing the right thing even though they know instinctively they are wrong cannot confront their destructive deeds and Scientology has been chosen to expose their crimes, their dreadful sordid actions, that they have perpetuated upon humanity. If they were asked to describe the meaning of humanity they would not be able to do so. For to do so would make them wrong. They could not give the true meaning of humanity, because they consist of revealing to the world that they have a "humanitarian" endeavor but that is the continuation of their lies and deceit.
What is truly their purpose?
So what does this all mean, what is the conclusion to analyze how control, freedom and responsibility operate together or clash within the organization and how these interface with the non-Scientology world? There is no non-Scientology world. There is only one world that we all live in and those that hate live in the same world. A Scientology world is based on creating a better civilization. The LMT world is to continue on with their hatred and when they lose and lose and lose they will go off and suppress another's creative works. For their characteristics are bent on the destruction of another's works.
Can anyone of them go out and create a product and build an organization? I dare say "no". So how can they analyze an organization when they themselves can not create a product and get people interested in buying their product, and make enough money to support their workers and their organization? They can on the other hand take another's product and alter it and try to sell it as the originators. A non-creative endeavor. They can take another's work and sell the destruction of it. That equally is a non-creative endeavor.
Maybe it all seems so simply stated and it has not been clearly driven home that one is not creating and can not. Let's take an example of a painting. There is only one artist that painted the picture. It is his work and he is a creative person. His work is very original and will be copied by others. The original idea is not left alone. Others take the opportunity to profit from another's original idea. However, one can request from the artist to use his original idea and give him some of the profits. A criminal would outright steal the idea and make it his own. A criminal would go as far as steal the original painting and sell it for a profit. The criminal did not do any work; he was not creative but in fact destructive.
Clearly we can see that the criminal did not believe in himself to do a creative piece of work that would sell and that he would get an exchange for. Instead he sought to profit from another's work. He could not come up with anything original. LMT cannot come up with anything original eitherl. They are incapable to do a constructive, creative piece of work. Yet they would rather spend their lives hating others. Although they have justified their actions they cannot see that it is a pathetic display of destructive, hateful individuals. Pity these lost souls for they are the truly suffering ones. Their minds are painful to themselves; they don't have pleasure moments but struggle through life. They only convinced themselves that they are happy. They try and convince themselves that they are doing the right thing. Their organization is out of control, the responsibility for their group is low and they have no freedoms. They are trapped within their own harmful deeds, fighting something that does not exist.
We in Scientology are winning. We are controlling more and more property. We are taking on more and more responsibility by expanding in many countries.
Translating Dianetics into fifty-two languages. That is flourishing and prospering and that is winning. We are winning so much that our events are getting longer and longer to only talk about the wins. These are the problems we are confronted with, "How do we tell all our wins?" There isn't enough time in a day, month or year.
Is Scientology being responsible for its scriptures?
Yes, it is. It isn't going to allow anyone to alter them or use them for their own profit. It will protect them for the use of its members. Scientology works and this drives LMT berserk. They know it works and they cannot only not suppress it but even in trying to do so they fail. Their destructive measures cannot dent the mighty flow of expansion. The word is getting around that they are a bunch of losers.
Why do those who observe the LMT believe that they are a bunch of misfits. Let's take this subject: "LMT:
Control, freedom & responsibility". Would we allow an organization like LMT to have control in society? What freedom should an organization have that has as its only production to destroy another's creativity. What responsibility should they be allowed to have?
None. Why? What are they creating for society? How is society benefiting from their existence? Observe!!
There is nothing they do that is productive. People can observe this and might not say anything directly to them, but they know. Anyone can tell. It does not take a rocket scientist to observe the expansion of Scientology vs. the no production of LMT. All that surrounds Scientology is win, expansion and flourishing and prospering. They have to buy more and more vans and buses because the number of parishioners keeps growing. All that surrounds LMT are court case losses, arrests and other losing propositions. One loses as their modus operandi and the other wins. Why? Scientology is working towards creating a better civilization. And LMT is working towards trying to destroy the civilization. Scientology knows what it is doing and LMT does not. LMT does not have a clue what ethics is.
Does Scientology have freedom? Yes it does. It is expanding into many countries. That is freedom. Does LMT have freedom? Yes it does, but it is not expanding.
This is meant to give the readers hope that they could observe for themselves what they are actually doing.
And that the LMT has nothing to do with finding the truth but hopes that it will bring about some kind of destruction. The idea that Scientology is expanding is driving LMT berserk. The world is saying, "NO! NO!
NO! NO! LMT" and the LMT is not hearing it. How does it say "No" to LMT? It is always stopping the LMT from pursuing its destructive goals whether they have observed it or not. No one is actually listening to the LMT. There is an appearance that they are welcome but they haven't figured out that they are not. They might believe they are liked, but send some unbiased individuals to survey the community and you will be shocked. The subject of responsibility is a subject they don't know the meaning of. If their organization were being responsible it would improve another's quality of life. And I have seen their quality of life and have talked to all their principal leaders at one time or another and have sat down with them all in a conference and discussed the anti-religious issues.
It didn't take long to observe correctly what was going on. Who was in charge and what was the overall agenda? It was not being reasonable for the good will of the people. And that is what is meant that the LMT consists of people who are not responsible people.
Their agenda is not to be responsible, their agenda is altogether different.
In closing, it is conclusive that Scientology will continue to expand.