Straight from the the horse’s mouth

ron hubbardI wanted to revisit the Rolling Stone article on Scientology from earlier this week, partly because it generated a tremendous amount of discussion, but also because I want to highlight an aspect of the article that I overlooked the first time around.

Greg Churilov, a Scientologist who posted numerous times criticizing the Rolling Stone article and people commenting negatively on Scientology, said the Rolling Stone writer should have spoken to actual Scientologists before writing the article. Churilov said the article was merely a rehash of “rumors about Scientology” that have been proved false “time and time again.”

Many journalists covering Scientology cite two problems: the unwillingness of Scientologists to speak to reporters, and the difficulty of disproving “rumors” when they come from Scientology documents.

Speaking to actual Scientologists was the strongest aspect of the Janet Reitman article. I regret overlooking placing blockquotes of Scientologists speaking in the article. Nevertheless, this is a blog, we have plenty of space, and I believe they’re worth visiting now.

First, Reitman spent some time with Natalie Walet, a 17-year-old Scientologist who was born and raised in the group. Reitman revisits Natalie’s story several times, using her conversation with Natalie in an adequate attempt to explain the Scientologist’s belief system and way of life:

Natalie has a long way to go before she reaches OT III. Although virtually everything about the OT levels is available on the Internet, “I don’t look at that stuff,” Natalie says. She believes it is mostly “entheta,” which are lies, or negative information about Scientology meant to undermine the faith. “You know, sometimes in school, kids would hear I’m a Scientologist and be like, ‘No way — are you an alien?’” Natalie says. “I don’t get mad about it. I just go, ‘OK, let me tell you what it really is.’”

Natalie’s view of Scientology is the one church officials promote: that it is not a religion about “space aliens” but simply a set of beliefs that can help a person live a better life. And Natalie appears to be the poster child for Scientology as a formula for a well-adjusted adolescence. Articulate and poised, she is close to her family, has a wide circle of Scientologist and non-Scientologist friends and graduated from high school last spring as a straight-A student. “I’m not saying that everybody must be a Scientologist,” she says. “But what I am saying is that I see it work. I’ve learned so much about myself. LRH says, ‘What is true for you is what you observe to be true.’ So I’m not here to tell you that Scientology is the way, or that these are the answers. You decide what is true.”

Two other interviews, one conducted with Tommy Davis, a 33-year-old Scientologist who helps run a celebrity center in Hollywood, and another with Mike Rinder, the fifty-year-old director of the Church of Scientology International’s legal and public-relations wing, delve into a common complaint of Scientologists that reporters are quick to run stories of disillusioned Scientologists in an attempt to slander the group. Where this motivation comes from, I am unaware.

This section from which the following paragraphs come from is particularly interesting, and if you don’t have time to read the whole article, I recommend at least reading this section. Here are the key parts from the section (heads up: the article contains a handful of those four-letter words, particularly from Rinder, but the following paragraphs do not contain any). Reitman describes visiting Gold Base, which she describes as “the heart of the Scientology empire”:

In my ten or so hours at Gold, I am aware of being taken on an elaborately orchestrated junket, in which every step of my day has been plotted and planned. I don’t blame the group for wanting to present its best face; at least half of my conversations with Rinder and Davis pertain in one way or another to what Scientology perceives as a smear campaign on the part of the mainstream media. A chief complaint is that reporters, eager for a story, take the words of lapsed members as gospel. Davis says Scientology gets little credit for the success of its social-betterment programs, which include Narconon and also literacy and educational programs. “Look around,” says Davis. “People are out here busting their butt every day to make a difference. And one guy who leaves because he wants to go to the movies gets to characterize the whole organization? That sucks.”

time cover on scientologyScientologists do not look kindly on critics, particularly those who were once devout. Apostasy, which in Scientology means speaking out against the church in any public forum, is considered to be the highest form of treason. This is one of the most serious “suppressive acts,” and those who apostatize are immediately branded as “Suppressive Persons,” or SPs. Scientologists are taught that SPs are evil — Hitler was an SP, says Rinder. Indeed, Hubbard believed that a full 2.5 percent of the population was “suppressive.” As he wrote in the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, a suppressive person is someone who “goofs up or vilifies any effort to help anybody and particularly knife with violence anything calculated to make human beings more powerful or more intelligent.”

Given this viewpoint, I wonder why anyone with connections to Scientology would critique them publicly. “Makes them famous,” Rinder says. “They do it for their fifteen minutes.”

So there you have it: the words of an influential Scientologist out for the public to examine.

While pinning a Scientologist down for an on-the-record discussion of Scientology, which would include both the group’s merits and drawbacks, the challenge of reporting on Scientology is compounded with the threat of legal action. Apparently Scientology sued Time magazine for just over $400 million for a 1991 cover story on the group and while a federal judge eventually tossed the case out of court, it wasn’t cheap for the magazine to defend against.

Print Friendly

  • David Barrington

    The Rolling Stones article completely missed an important point: What’s behind a $1.6 Trillion a year industrial complex and Scientology?

    My article for Drexel University details that. It’s posted as part of

    The homepage details info the media never reports.

    David M Barrington,

  • Paul Barnes

    From my understanding, Mr. Hubbard had a problem with telling the truth about his life.

  • Deborah

    In talking to Rinder and others (and including their comments uncensored for language), Reitman underscored just how much scientologists despise their detractors. Rinder can’t restrain himself: he refers to ALL criticism of scientology as “bull****.” Natalie can’t resist the temptation either: She characterizes critics as “a**holes.”

    And when Reitman asks about the “space opera” story, Rinder becomes positively “red-faced” with anger, despite the fact that he has supposedly “fielded questions on Scientology’s beliefs for years” and should, by now, have developed some measure of self-control in talking with the press: “‘I’m not explaining it to you, and I could not explain it to you,’ says Rinder heatedly. ‘You don’t have a hope of understanding it.’” This is their PR guy?

    Reitman is smart to allow these insiders to spew their contempt for the record, then print it just like they said it. It’s one of the great strengths of the article – just turn on the tape recorder and let ‘em rip.

  • chars

    Any religion that so desperately tries to hide its core beliefs from even its own members, sends warning bells to me. And in response to those who say it is not a religion, I charge them with having too strict a definition of religion. It addresses the “ultimate concern”, attempts to define and control the bahaviour of adherents, is centred around the belief in transcendent beings… etc.

  • Tilman Hausherr

    I doubt that Greg Churilov has read the article. (Scientologists aren’t allowed to read “entheta”) Because if he had, he would know that the author took the time to talk with current scientologists. And one of them later apologized for feeding her all the propaganda, but said she was afraid of losing her family.

  • Greg Churilov

    I actually find your posturing more objectionable than Tilman Housherr’s position. Tilman hates Scientology and has made it his thing to post negative destructive things about my religion for years. But at least he admits it.

    You, on the other hand, pretend to be such a “non-biased bystander”, and yet none of your posts shed any positive light on our efforts to improve society – you avoid (as did the RS reporter, and I’m sure it’s no accident) – you avoid any mention of Applied Scholastics, you make no mention of our tutoring centers, or our literacy campaigns. You carefully make no mention of our moral values campaigns, or the Way To Happiness Foundation ( you say nothing of Narconon (, the Nation’s most effective drug rehabilitation program, which is based on Mr. Hubbard’s teachings. The Rolling Stone reporter dismisses our Volunteer Ministers as mere proselytizers, you don’t even mention them at all – and yet our volunteers have been present and actively helping in every major disaster in the past ten years. I personally participated in the World Trade Center relief effort, in Indonesia helping tsunami survivors, and in Mississippi assisting Katrina survivors. We do not proselytize – we deliver water, food, clothes, penicilin and medicine, etc. etc. We work 17-hour days in the rain and in the sun helping others. We have received awards from Senators and Governors for our efforts. NOT ONE MENTION in Rolling Stone of all this. And you avoid it too. See

    Second point:
    I insist that the reporter should have spoken to actual Scientologists.

    The reporter spoke to a SEVENTEEN-YEAR OLD TEENAGER, for crying out-loud. Ask a 17-yr. old Catholic about her stance on the stigmata, on stem cells, on the dual nature of Christ or on the mysteries of the eucharist.
    Ask a Muslim girl to explain the complex theo-political roots of the palestinian conflict. I mean, Geez.

    In terms of what Mr.Rinder and Mr.Davis said, I found that to be more representational of Scientology positions on things. Although I disagree with Mr.Davis as to the motivations of apostates.

    I believe that apostates are so vocal because, when you abandon a faith system, a group or even a person to whom you’ve been devoted for years, there is a snap-back reaction emotionally, one needs to justify to themselves why they have abandoned and deseerted their comrades, and the easiest way to do it is to find fault.

    Another reason for the loudness of some ex-members is that, if they were really fanatical about their cause before leaving, they now probably find themselves divested of the whole paradigm that defined their lives, and, if they can no longer fight “for” something, they then choose to fight “against” it. Both types of fanatism are unhealthy in my opinion.

    In my personal case, Scientology does not define my whole universe, I use it as a tool to enrich my life. I have seen enough unhealthy fanatism in the religion I was raised with to last me a lifetime, so I don’t bring that into my Scientology experience.

    Daniel, the reporter got it wrong, and apparently you did too, in that the Church does not care much if someone chooses to no longer practice Scientology. I have many people in my life that have at one point or another participated in Scientology and then stopped participating. This whole myth that we will “come after” people whol leave is a complete lie.

    The only people the Church objects to are the ones who promote violence against Scientologists on hate-websites, or who picket our Churches, or otherwise upset and disrupt our religious practice. This form of bigotry would not be tolerated against Jews or Muslims, and it should not be tolerated against us either. See

    Daniel, I find it noteworth that you are rehashing the much-disproven slam-job in TIME Magazine of 1991. This trash-journalism piece by Richard Behar contained the most outrageous inaccuracies, cited sources who later recanted themselves, and was in general completely proven to be a lie. TIME Magazine narrowly escaped a judgment against them because it’s hard to prove outright malice in these cases.

    But more poignant is that ten years after that article came out,m, Mitch Daniels (former Elli Lilly VP and now a Dubya Bush drone) openly admitted in a Wall Street Journal interview that he orchestrated that TIME Magazine article, as part of a black-propaganda campaign against the Church of Scientology, in an effort to neutralize the damage our activism was causing Prozac sales. Daniels to this day is known as “the man who saved Prozac.”

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    I’ve said it before and I can say it again:

    In regards to Scientology’s position about Pre-Earth civilizations:

    1) It’s not a core belief. It is interesting research based on commonalities in session material.

    2) It is no weirder than belief in the Flood, in Angels and Demons, or in Virgin birth.

    3) It is not discussed in Scientology because Scientologists believe that each person should come to find their own answers in session, not conditioned for or against any material due to previous comments from others. The idea is that you come to your realizations in an untainted frame of mind, and if people give you strong views for or against reincarnation, for or against life before Earth, for or against life after death or other subjects, it lowers the certainty a person can have in coming to their own realizations by themselves.

    4) The data about pre-Earth existence according to Mr. Hubbard’s research is neither a core belief nor is is any sort of secret. You can walk into any Scientology organization and get the lecture where Mr. Hubbard describes such information. You can also buy “Have You Lived Before This Life?” or “History of Man” at any Scientology bookstore. What is confidential are the specific processes and the expected realizations that mark the progress of such processes.

    5) The reason why so much is made of this is that it’s easier to sell a magazine saying “Scientologists believe in aliens” than saying “Scientologists volunteer in local shelter”.

    6) By the way, there is nothing in Scientology about believing or not believing in aliens, little green men, etc. All that Hubbard spoke about is ancient history, the supposed past track of our spiritual line – we’re talking about millions of years ago. None of this bears any resemblance with any “UFO cult” fad.

    7) The real story of Scientology is simply that it’s an applied philosophy that people use to improve their lives. But that doesn’t sell magazines, does it.

    Greg Churilov

  • Thorsten Overgaard

    I haven’t read the article yet. But it seems that Reitman set out to to do “a well-documented controversy” which is to say, an article trying to confirm and document all the old controversy about Scientology. Instead of doing an article on “What is Scientology and why is it the fastest-growing religion in the world today?” which IMHO would be a more relevant angle.

    I saw an article last week here in Denmark on Madonnas religion made in the same old fashion as most articles on ‘new’ religions are made. But stories like that just does not add up. You can’t have people like Tom Cruise, Madonna, Mel Gibson, etc. on one side and then stories like the Rolling Stone piece on the other side. It just does not add up if you look at it. Both pictures can’t be true. The quote “The press … just doesn’t get religion” fits 98% of articles on religions.

    Which make me conclude, that if I want to know what Scientology – or any other religon – REALLY is, Rolling Stone would not be the source to find out the truth. But they do have some cool covers.

  • Greg Churilov

    One more comment:

    The Rolling Stone reporter cites “the unwillingness of Scientologists to speak to reporters.”

    This is a LIE.

    You can clearly see I am not that reluctant to talk about my religion. There are many (the great majority) Scientologists who feel as I do.

    As a Scientologist for over two decades, I have in many occasions offered myself up to the press to be interviewed. VERY rarely has any of them taken me up on it, and when they have, half the time they’ve twisted my words to make it sound like I said something I haven’t said.

    It is not Scientologists who are unwilling to talk to the press – but the other way around.

    Greg Churilov

  • John Smith

    I have to give Mr. Churlov one bit of credit, in that I suppose to outsiders who weren’t brought up in the Christian Church, the belief in the Flood, in Angels and Demons, or in the virgin birth really *must* seem just as odd as space aliens and thetans and whatnot. Granted.

    Then again, when I left the Presbyterian Church (USA), they didn’t send agents out to “silence me” when I spoke to friends and colleagues about why I left and they didn’t send attorneys out to file “slap suits” against me so I would go bankrupt fighting the charges, all because I had dared to criticize the church.

  • Peter

    Peter respond’s to post by John Smith:

    “I have to give Mr. Churlov one bit of credit, in that I suppose to outsiders who weren’t brought up in the Christian Church, the belief in the Flood, in Angels and Demons, or in the virgin birth really *must* seem just as odd as space aliens and thetans and whatnot. Granted.

    Then again, when I left the Presbyterian Church (USA), they didn’t send agents out to “silence me” when I spoke to friends and colleagues about why I left and they didn’t send attorneys out to file “slap suits” against me so I would go bankrupt fighting the charges, all because I had dared to criticize the church. ”

    Amen to that, and keep in mind that in Christianity, the church leaders do not tell believers that if they cannot donate money, they won’t go to heaven. In Scientology, the path to “total freedom” cannot be had without paying upwards to several hundred thousand dollars. That is a fact.

    Okay, Scientologists often mention that Mormons want 10% of member’s money.

    But they are not quick to mention that Scientology wants all of it.

    Questioning one’s religious beliefs are not my concern, and many religions have pretty incredible beliefs, not just Scientology.

    But when money must be exchanged, tons of it, for the priviledge of achieving spiritual salvation, the teaching has moved from religion to selling snake oil.


  • Greg Churilov

    Response to John Smith:

    Your post is based on false information.
    The Church does not send agents to silence anyone who leaves. A close relative of mine was active in Scientology for several years. Then she chose to become a member of Billy Graham’s flock. Nobody sent anyone to do anything.

    The only time that the Church has lawyers contact a person is when that person is engaging in a campaign of lies to hurt the Church or advocate violence against our parishioners, or steals our Founder’s copyrighted works to use them for their own gain.

    Feel free to criticize my Church.

    But please get your facts straight.

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    Reply to Peter:

    Your post is based on falsehoods.

    Scientology does not want “all of it” – I’ve been an active Scientologist for over two decades and have donated considerably less than 10% of my income to the Church during that time.

    I know many, many Scientologists who deliver counseling and tutoring free of charge to the disadvantaged every day.

    I personally have volunteered many times helping people without asking anything in return – in prisons, in shelters and in tutoring centers, as well as in Scientology organizations themselves.

    The truth is that it takes money to keep the electricity on, and the rent paid.

    The Church of Scientology has a specific donations model in place that some people agree with and some people disagree with.

    Life Improvement Courses cost less than a couple hundred bucks.
    Dianetics Seminars are free.

    Dianetics counseling costs less per hour than going to a shrink or to a psychologist, and is a LOT more effective. (See

    Training as a professional Scientology practitioner is a career, and costs as much as 4 years of College. Expensive on both counts. But nobody forces a Scientologist to train as a counselor, any more than anyone is forcing you to become an architect or a Minister.

    Many of the services in Scientology are organized in such a way that, if you come in with a “do me” attitude, lean back and wait for someone to take care of you, then you are expected to donate money. However, the much more encouraged approach is that, instead of donating large sums, you roll up your sleeves and volunteer, or help train someoone else in a collaborative way.

    The Upper Levels of Scientology counseling, which lead to greater spiritual awareness, are only delivered by people specifically trained for several years, and it takes a team of specialists to help you in this path. The cost is comparable to a new car. Again, the choice is yours, nobody forces you to contribute or participate. You could also try to meditate in the Himalayas for 40 years – which is also a heavy price to pay for spiritual freedom. And less effective.

    Then there are fundraisers. And of course, people like actors, who earn millions of dollars per movie, donate large amounts – and God bless them for that. But the average parishioner does not – we may give a hundred bucks to this or that here and there. My wife and I donated a couple of grand for Katrina relief. That’s about the pace of it.

    The majority of people that have donated money to Scientology feel it was a good move, and are happy with their decision. They’re happy to see the drug-rehap centers, tutoring facilities and academies that are build with these donations.

    The Jewish people have fundraisers to build hospitals. The Mormons have their tithes.

    And of course you forgot to make any reference of the Christian preachers on TV. I’d much rather have my money go to the building of a Scientology-sponsored Children Literacy Center than send it to Tammy Fay Baker so she can buy more makeup.

    Greg Churilov

  • John Smith

    Greg, thanks for the information. But I don’t really think joining “Billy Graham’s flock” counts. (Does he even have a “flock”?) I actually thought it was okay to be a Christian and also a Scientologist (so say Sci officials) and watching one of his TV crusades must not be that hard to do, even for a 24/7 schedule of a Scientologist. Hmm.

    Anyway, that’s not the way I’ve read it told by ex-members who have felt threatened. But maybe they’re all lying.

    That’s what you need us to believe, and desperately want us to believe: that every one of the opponents of the church are lying, are out to destroy you, and that you have every right to destroy them back.

    Please don’t be angry if the media actually reports these facts.

  • Greg Churilov

    No John.
    Relax and stop distorting what I say.

    I don’t “desperately” need you to believe anything. I’m in bed watching the Oscars with my wife, and Jon Stewart is not all that amusing, and this provides a diversion. Your opinion is not all that important to me.

    Elli Lilly IS, actually, “out to destroy us” (or at least our reputation) and they’ve admitted it openly in the 2002 Wall Street Journal interview – we hurt their psych drug sales.

    The half-dozen apostates who have anti-Scientology sites and openly encourage violent acts against Scientologists do hate us, I tend to think. At least the one that called and made us evacuate with a bomb-threat while I was studying.

    Many of those people who are ex-members of anything (Scientology, LDS, Amish, Amway, the USMC, whatever) simply have their own subjective account of what happened, heightened by the whole “leaving the fold” phenomenon – guilt, disorientation, needing to matter, needing to belong to something else now, etc. etc. I’ve already written a fairly extensive post about that. I believe it would be healthier if they (a) took some responsibility for their own lives instead of blaming Scientology or whoever, and (b) just moved on with their lives instead of fixating on the past.

    Please don’t misrepresent me.
    1) I am not angry,
    …and, as I’ve pointed out on several posts,
    2) the media twists the facts, and sometimes outright lies. (Duh, isn’t that the whole point of this blog?)

    I read with puzzlement that joining Billy Graham’s flock “doesn’t count”. I don’t understand that.
    Yes, it’s ok to be a Christian and a Scientologist. I was giving one example of someone who became a fairly fanatic evangelical and discontinued being a Scientologist altogether. Her choice. And no agents came to her door, and nobody came chasing after her.
    I have other examples. I have a friend who stopped being a Scientologist and is not a member of the Baha’i.
    I’ve seen people get interested in Scientology and then no longer pursue it. Take Christopher Reeves, for example, or Jerry Seinfeld. And nobody came pounding on their door. They were welcome while they participated, they were free to stop participating. Free Country. This myth of “not being able to leave” is a farce.

    I even know people who committed themselves to Scientology for life, signed a symbolic “million-year” contract, and then a couple of years later opted for to leave. And off they went without any big to-do.

    Anyway, one thing is a lay parishioner who opts to embrace Kabbalah or whatever. Another is a religious staff member or member of the clergy, who assumed a commitment – then of course there is administrative procedure before they leave – usually an interview with the HR office.

    The only staff members that “have trouble leaving” are the ones that caused such a stink, through criminal acts or insubordination or generally upsetting everyone, that their case gets a bit of extra attention.
    (And this is the case in EVERY large organization, be it an NGO, a Church or a Burger King.)

    Anyway, I’m not saying my religion is perfect or that you should join in. I’m saying, don’t buy into the twisted “facts” you hear from ex-members. Just as my ex-wife is not an unbiased source of info on my lovemaking skills, neither are these ex-members unbiased about Scientology.

    Greg Churilov

  • dpulliam

    The point of this blog is not “the media twists the facts, and sometimes outright lies,” as stated above. More can be found here on this, but I want to note that the contributors of this blog are all members of the media in some form or fashion.

    Greg, I do appreciate your willingness to address us here in this space. One cannot say you are not passionate about your beliefs.

  • John Doe

    Greg, I read the following on wikipedia, about the church’s security check for kids under 12. Would you care to explain how children under 12 may be considered a risk that has to be “sec checked” ?
    Begin quote :

    In Scientology, the Security Check Children is a security checking auditing procedure designed to be applied to children aged 6 to 12. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued the security check as HCO Bulletin of 21 September 1961, also known as HCO WW Security Form 8.

    The child is put on the E-meter, holding a can (the electrode of the E-meter) in each hand. If a question gives a read on the E-meter, the child is questioned further as to the reason for the read.

    The procedure runs through 99 questions. It starts:

    The following is a processing check for use on children.
    Be sure the child can understand the question. Rephrase it so he or she can understand it. The first question is the most potent.

  • AJ Simkatu

    A symbolic “million-year” contract?

    For one, the Sea Org contract is for a billion years and secondly, the contract is not symbolic. When Sea Org members sign it, they are not told it is a merely symbolic gesture, but rather they are told to fully expect to be dedicating the next billion years of their thetan’s existence to the cause of Scientology. As you know, Hubbard teaches that humans have millions of past and future lives. Hubbard often teaches about alien events going back quadrillions of years. There is nothing that would indicate that this contract is something that is meant to be merely symbolic within the church.

    Also, related to another point. There are many examples of critics and ex-Scientologists that have been harassed and fair-gamed. The Church of Scientology has spent millions of dollars paying out lawsuit judgments for some of these criminal acts.

    Of course, a Scientologist will say, we only fair-game those that are “trouble-makers”. But that is the whole point. If someone wants to leave a church they should have total freedom to discuss their experiences until their heart’s content. Anyone that has a bad experience in Scientology is made out to be a liar or worse.

    People have a right to protest against the Church of Scientology and its many documented abuses. However, many videos exist which show Scientology church members physically attacking and intimidating people engaged in peaceful protest.

    Go to and watch a few of the videos. On page 2, there is one called Scientology and the Clearwater Police. It is quite enlightening and shows Scientology members engaging in these criminal acts of assault, battery, theft, and vandalism of property. These same people tell us that Scientology teaches them to be ethical!

    You can also watch Scientologists blow out the candles that were lit during a memorial of Lisa McPherson, a woman that was killed by the negligence of the Church of Scientology. The church kept Lisa locked in a cage in the Fort Harrison Hotel (aka Fort Homicide) in Clearwater, FL, while she was forced to take a course called the Introspection Rundown. Lisa died a slow and miserable death by dehydration while under the care of Scientology, and autopsy photos and exams reveal that while she was unable to move, she was bitten repeatedly by cockroaches. When the Church finally figured out she was dying, they didn’t call 911 and take her to the nearest hospital. They took her 45 minutes away to another Scientologist. She died soon thereafter.

    See her story at

    Hundreds of ex-Scientologists including many high placed execs currently speak out publicly about the abuses of the cult. Some, like Tory Bezazian and Patty Pieneadz, reached the highest level a scientologist can obtain, OT7. Both of these ladies worked in OSA for Scientology — and both now explain how they used to participate in the fair game and abuse of critics.

    Lying is a sacrament in the Church of Scientology.

    No wonder Scientology hates the Internet!


  • Greg Churilov

    Hi Daniel.

    Ok, I understand what you say about the position of this blog. I’ll read the link when I get a moment.

    Thank you for that (backhanded?) compliment.
    All I’m trying to do is address the questions/challenges thrown at me on this forum, and to set straight some of the inaccuracies and misassumptions that seem to be present.

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    To AJ Simkatu:

    Please stop lying. Nobody has ever been kept in a cage.

    Lisa McPherson was a woman with a history of mental instability, mostly due to conflicts with her mother. She was denied services at a local Church on a couple of ocassions because she was considered unstable.

    When she had a mental crisis, she herself asked not to be left in a psychiatric center, and asked her friends to take her to a Scientology church. While recovering in that Church, she had a blood clot and died. This was a tragic, tragic death and was shocking to many.

    But the people that cared for her day and night did not, could not, anticipate a blood clot. She seemed ok, and recovering.

    Incidentally, over 50,000 people have died in psychiatric institutions in the last 30 years. You’re talking about one tragic death or a mentally unstable person, under Scientology care.
    Compare apples to apples please.

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    And your propensity to promote links to a hate-site make me question your objectivity.

    Greg Churilov

  • Red Eyed Blinkers

    “Yes, it’s ok to be a Christian and a Scientologist.”

    Then how come in the student briefing for OTVIII, L Ron Hubbard states that Jesus was a short-tempered pedophile? Such a bald-faced lie would not be okay for a Christian to believe.

    (Scientologists, please do not read the above sentences, since LRH says that you get sick with pneumonia when exposed to material from higher OT levels, as he did while researching OTIII after a walk in the cold rain.)

  • Greg Churilov

    Red Eyed,

    Please stop lying.

    Mr. Hubbard referred to Jesus of Nazareth as “a great teacher”, and said “the words of Christ were a lesson in compassion and they set a very good example to the Western world.”

    Christianity is a theocentric mystical religion based on Faith, and Scientology is none of the above, being instead an applied religious philosophy, such as Tao and Confucianism. I don’t see a conflict between such two items.

    As an analogy, one man may be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. ;-)


    Daniel, this is called “poisoning the well.” It is fallacies 101, and it’s not an acceptable level of debate.

    I really ask you to do your job at moderating hateful posts.

    It’s so easy to say “Prophet FILL-IN-BLANK from said LIE-HERE about SOME-OTHER-GROUP, therefore your religion is INSULT-HERE.”

    It is harder to debate issues honestly.

    Greg Churilov

  • David Barrington

    Critics fail to focus on the key issue. Hubbard developed effective solutions that are inexpensive to implement and are proven to quickly resolve long-term societal problems (illiteracy, drug dependency, crime and immorality). These solutions directly threaten the vast profits of a a $1.6 Trillion a year cartel. Details at: for details.

    David M Barrington

  • Red Eyed Blinkers

    LRH on the R6 implant: “The man on the cross. There was no Christ!”

    Then later, in Series 1 of the OTVIII Student Briefing: “For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure [he] has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred…. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads.”

    LRH’s own writings. First he says Jesus was just an R6 implant from 600 BC, then he contradicts himself by saying Jesus did exist, then maligns him as a angry pedophile. You may not believe it about LRH since you haven’t gotten to OT8 yet, but then you get there, don’t you have to audit R6 if you’re not clear of it yet? Doesn’t that mean denying LRH’s own “great teacher” quote?

  • John Smith

    Uh, oh. Red Eyed’s letting holy cats out of filthy bags. Looks like he’s going to get sued, or at least stalked.

    Of course, even my mild comments have been attacked. That’s why I’m “John Smith” for this posting, rather than my normal moniker.

    These folks appear to be quite zealous in their beliefs, to say the least. Once you drink the Kool-Aid, well, we see the results.

    I shudder to think of what’s going to happen to Rolling Stone now.

  • Red Eyed Blinkers

    I’m just pasting stuff from What Christians Need to Know About Scientology. It’s nothing that people don’t already know from Googling.

  • Greg Churilov

    Red Eyed,

    I’m not the one attacking someone else’s beliefs. You are.

    If you read my posts, you will see that at no point have I threatened, insulted or attacked you personally. I’m just asking you to stop lying.

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    Terry, Douglas,

    Could you please remind this anonymous poster about civility on this blog, as described in one of the Permaposts, and about the purpose of this blog, as described in the other Permapost?

    I could respond to malicious slander all day, but I believe that’s not what you were intending to accomplish when you created this space.

    Greg Churilov

  • D Rathan

    Hi everyone.

    I was actually having a more or less civilized discussion with Greg in the thread for the previous scientology post, when I discovered this post was about scientology too, and then here I am, watching Greg play whack-a-mole.

    And I just want to say something about that: it doesnt help to do it -that- way. Its been done many times by people wittier than us, and it doesnt work. When we talk to a scientologist, it doesnt pay to ridicule or shock, because that merely reinforces in them the paranoia that the whole world is indeed out to get them. Most important of all, we dont need to recourse to those tactics when we actually have -reason- on our side. We have reason, we have documents, we have accounts from survivors, etc. The only scientologists who have escaped the bubble so far, are those who -dared- to compare reality with what the Church says. Realize this is very hard for them to do, because years of conditioning have engraved in them that critical thought towards the church is a sign that there is something wrong with them. Read about Overt/Withold. A Scientologist who doubts, will ask himself “what is wrong with ME, that is making me doubt my church?”. So its hard to take the first step. But that first step happens only if we genuinely appeal to their reasoning capacity; outright attack just makes them shell-up tighter. Furthermore, many of the scientology beliefs that seem outrageously ridiculous to us, are witheld from all but the highest-level scientologists too, and when you mention them to them, it just confirms once again that the world is out to get them, that we’re full of “entheta” (or lies).

    So Greg, I’m just asking you to reason and compare. On one hand, your religion seems to helps people out of drugs (narcocon) crime (criminon), etc. On the other hand, your religion engages in less than honest practices.

    For example, the Oxford Capacity Test. It has nothing to do with Oxford. Its offered to people as a “Personality” test, with no mention of scientology. And it -always-, always scores towards people being repressed geniuses who need auditing. Always. Ask yourself: if Acme wanted me to buy a vaccuum cleaner, and they presented themselves in my doorstep offering me a “Dyson House Dirt Assessment” which has nothing to do with Dyson, and always, always points to the fact that you need to buy an Acme vaccuum cleaner.. would you buy it? Why would a Church that strives for the betterment of mankind, choose to disguise itself as “Oxford”, why wouldnt they disclose outright its for Scientology?

    Why doesnt disclose the fact that they are owned by scientologist? and when you go to each profile of “religious extremists”, why dont the witnesses that speak against them disclose that they’re scientologists? Why does Scientology makes use of hundreds of organizations under its umbrella, with names like “Concerned Businessmen of America”, “Sterling Management”, “Bridge Publishing”? Do they not fit the definition of “Front Groups” just like the Oxford Cap test meets the definition of hook, where in both cases you give the appearance of being an independent third party when your goal is not overtly disclosed?

    Just think about it Greg. I dont work for Big Pharma. I am not an apostate. You may think I am a Suppresive, but I’m just a guy who has read stuff on the internet and has a thing against mind control. If the truth is with you, you have nothing to lose by -really-, really thinking about how the definition of “ethics” is different for Scientology than it is for the rest of the world.

  • Greg Churilov

    Well D, it seems you have me all figured out. Must be nice to have such a neat, organized sense of pigeonholed paradigms.

    You say “the only people that managed to break free of the bubble.” Interestingly, this is not the language used for people who stop practicing other religions. Maybe they “broke free of a bubble” – and maybe they did not have the self-honesty, commitment and discipline required to travel a path of self-realization (be it Scientology or other.)

    And those that “didn’t manage to break free” – have you for a second considered the possibility that they might be leading happy lives?

    Your “bubble” metaphor implies that we live in sheltered ignorance. I do nothing of the sort – proof of which is that I’m here, putting up with your nonsense.

    What you call “front groups” we call social betterment organizations. Narconon makes it VERY clear that it uses Hubbard methodology. (Narconon is not part of the Church, it is a secular organization.) The “Concerned Businessmen” are a group of businessmen, not the Church of Scientology. Sterling Management is a Hubbard Consultant group for business organizations – again, a secular group using Hubbard materials, NOT the Church of Scientology.
    Brige Publishing makes it extremely clear that they publish Hubbard books, and the name itself is a monicker that denotes a Scientology concept.

    I don’t think you’re a suppressive. I think you’re someone with WAY to much time on their hands, with an arrogant belief that “you got it all worked out” about a subject you’re a stranger to, and, not only do you “not get Scientology”, you really have no desire to. You just want to prove it wrong.

    A strong case can be made for challenging the specific dogma of any religion. Especially by attacking its more extremist views or elements.
    We can talk about ubber-zealous pro-lifers, we can talk about Pat Robertson preaching political assassination. We can talk about Mormons and racism. None of it is constructive if, to begin with, there is a lack of undestanding of the purpose, goals, worldview and beliefs of that organization or religion.

    Greg Churilov

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • D Rathan

    Greg, you said that Mr. Vaughn Young is a liar, and I asked you if you read his message, or if you just know he is liar without needing to read it?

    Because “attack the attacker”, which is what your post did, is one of the techniques Young claims Scientology uses.

    I didnt mean to patronize you, I just wanted to make you think. I dont doubt that scientologists are happy at the lower levels, they obviously need to be, or else the organization would dry out. Scientology “works” at those levels and gives people a sense of empowerment. But the pressure to go “up the bridge” escalates over time. Always “up-stat”, always, the goal markers move all the time, and one day you will discover that you simply dont have the money it takes to reach OT. Then what will you do, Greg? Will you start volunteering work for the church to get free courses? Thats what everyone else does, short of Celebs. And before you know it, 20 years have gone by and you are in some RPF camp in the middle of nowhere because you got physically sick and (since according to LRH diseases are mostly psychosomatic,) its somehow your own fault despite the many years of your life you gave to.. I dont know, the Sea Org.

    This would not be a far-fetched scenario. Please, read, just read it. I know it was written by an apostate, but just like you ask me to consider the posibility that scientologists are happy, I ask you to consider the possibility this apostate is honest.

    I do believe most scientologist live in a bubble. If you mention this very conversation we’re having in your next audit, you will be asked, probably more than once, if any of the things we have said has shaken your beliefs even for just one bit. You may be asked to think twice about the internet next time, since its “full of entheta”. In fact, the church -has- tried to put its members in a bubble as far as the internet goes: Just like the Oxford Cap Test, just like, just like “Citizen’s Commission For Human Rights”, the “Web Starter Kit” in the salon article above did not disclose its true goal as a censorware mechanism. Yet thats exactly what it did. Do you see the pattern here? Your own church is giving you software, telling you its for you to make pages, and NOT telling you that it censors your internet experience too. Does that qualify as “bubble”?

    Of course its easy to attack any religion’s extreme angles. But you have to see the main difference between Scientology and the rest: Scientology requires the strongest mind-and-soul commitment I’ve ever seen in my short life. Unlike most religions, Scientology is not satisfied being a loose set of morals, and something to do on sundays. Scientology shapes your -entire- soul. And when the stakes are that high, it becomes all that more important to be critical, and have independent thoughts abour the “extreme angles”.

    That’s all I’m saying.

  • Amy H

    D. Rathan:

    Knowing nothing about Scientology, I appreciate your earnest efforts at dialogue on the subject, rather than just muck-raking. I do wonder at something in your most recent post, however.

    You say: “Unlike most religions, Scientology is not satisfied being a loose set of morals, and something to do on sundays. Scientology shapes your -entire- soul.”

    Funny, I heard a sermon in church (an Anglican church, no less) this past Sunday that made the point — very emphatically — that Christians should not see Christianity as just a “loose set of morals and something to do on Sunday.” In fact, in telling her conversion story, the preacher said that Christianity had shaped her entire soul — and changed her entire life. And, although I cannot even begin to say that I have been successful in turning my life fully around to Christ, I agree 100 percent with this point and am trying to improve.

    Do you really see Christianity the way your comment suggests you do?

  • Cole

    Notice how Greg (and other Scientologists) use the rhetoric of political correctness to put Scientology above criticism.

    There’s mention of “hate sites”, which are just sites that criticize Scientology or host embarrassing documents from the Church. There’s mention of “attacking someone’s beliefs”, as if beliefs are never to be attacked, as though beliefs are above criticism. There’s also this “my religion” thing, as if religions are above criticism. Throughout there’s this tone of being shocked — shocked! — that anyone would dare call a spade a spade, and deem Scientology a stupid and dangerous cult.

    (He called me a “xenophobe”, which I will charitably take as an non-literal analogy intended to liken my contempt for unscrupulous and foolish religions to a bigot’s hatred of foreigners. It also invites an obvious pun, which I will not pursue)

    I think this gives us good reason to stop letting religion off the hook, when it comes to criticism. Don’t get me wrong, you’ll find lots of people on the Internet willing to criticize religions. But there’s still this widespread tendency to put religious beliefs on a pedestal, as if a foolish belief becomes less foolish once it becomes part of a religion.

    Scientology gives us a really good example of the way this PC approach to religion enables wild irrationality. No one in his right mind would believe in engrams or body thetans or the Marcab Confederacy. And yet it’s a religion, so Scientologists get to declare themselves exempt from criticism, by casting any criticism as bigotry.

  • D Rathan


    Thanks for the comments; I’ve seen my share of muck-raking, and it becomes boring after a certain point, so I really -do- care for real dialogue, real points and counterpoints. If it becomes just a slugfest I’ll get bored and go away.

    Now, I didnt single out christianity, but I did say, (and I firmly believe) that most religions dont demand much from their members. In my eyes that is simply a fact of life: in most religions, if you keep a basic moral code, and attend the minimun rites required, then that’s all it takes to be seen as a member in good-standing.

    Is this a good thing? I guess it has pros and cons. But before we go into that, I want to question the authority any religion has to act as middleman between oneself and the divine. We need to assume religious leaders have in fact the power not just to evaluate our commitment to the divine, but to act upon that perception too.

    And from that assumption, that mortal men can in fact tell when we fall short spiritually, we get Catholicism’s “excommunications”, Jehova Witnesses ‘ “disfellowships”, and Scientology’s ” disconection”.

    But thats where the similarities end. My point to greg is that the bar for being a member in good-standing in scientology, is way, way way higher than most religions, and the list of sins that get your in trouble, is way longer and more sensitive.

    For example, as sad news from boston proved not too long ago, it sometimes takes a lot of really bad sins to get excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Not so in Scientology. As the personal account I linked to above proves, merely “doubting” for a moment, the dogmas of the church, is enough to get your labelled as a “PTS” (Potential Trouble Source), which is a ticket into hard-labor-like punishment, called RPF Rehabilitation Project Force. Here’s a sample of what that means, from the same link above:

    In November, 1973, Hubbard came up with an idea to handle troublemakers, backsliders or anyone else aboard who happened to displease him. He created the Rehabilitation Project Force (the “RPF”), the Sea Org’s version of a prison camp. RPFers were to do hard physical labor all day and in the evenings were to audit one another to get off their overts and withholds and deal with their evil intentions. RPFers were not allowed to speak to a crew member in good standing, unless spoken to and had to wear black boiler suits. They were allowed to eat only after everyone else on the ship had finished and were not allowed to leave the ship. Hubbard considered RPFers to be psychotic criminals that should be grateful that he was giving them a chance to be rehabilitated. Isn’t it strange that some of Scientology’s top leaders today, including Pat Broeker and Norman Starkey have been on the RPF? Most Scientology executives have, at one time or another, been on the RPF.

    Can you imagine if mainstream christianity forced that upon people who miss church on sunday or question any dogma?

    So, in a way, it is a -good- thing that Christianity in general demands less from its followers than scientology.

    That allows christians to devote themselves to christ on their own terms, in their own timeline, without pressure, if they feel that is truly what their soul wants. Most of call, free of charge.

  • Amy H

    D. Rathan,

    Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful response — and for being gentle with me for taking a flying logical leap when I Christianity-centrized my question to you. (In my defence, my launching pad was your reference to Sunday in the bit I quoted.)

    Anyway, I take your point. At the same time, I encourage you to think about just what Christianity demands from us in order to be “members in good standing.” Notice that I said Christianity, not organized religion.

    With that, I’ll step out of this discussion, since I’m dragging it farther away from the original post and the goal of this site than it already is.

  • Greg Churilov

    D Rathan,
    You pay my religion the highest compliment by saying that it’s not satisfied being loose set of morals. Religion ought to be more than that.

    Yes, Scientology demands a strong moral and spiritual commitment.

    Incidentally, before you start “warning me of the road ahead” or demonizing the Rehabilitation Project Force for me, I probably should let you know I did that program about a decade ago. We had three square meals a day, great food including dessert. We were encouraged to sleep well so that we could make progress in session. We worked hard, and I learned a trade. It was a good program. Of course some didn’t make it. The program is tough.

    Incidentally, it would be a good thing if the Catholic Church had some form of rehabilitation program to deal with their “problem priests,” instead of simply shipping them off to another parish where people don’t know them.

    I do agree with you that Scientology is fairly unique in that it’s a religion of performance, a philosophy of walking the talk and talking the walk, where we speak of becoming more spiritually aware and more responsible for our lives and then – we actually DO it. We don’t just meditate or light candles. This does put some pressure on anyone trying to coast or get an easy ride.

    Scientology is not for everyone.

    One interesting item, which I suppose would be difficult to debate, is: What if the promise of spiritual Freedom IS, in fact, an attainable goal? And what if, in fact, Scientology DOES work, and DOES deliver?

    I mean, it seems to me that you always look at it in the context that it ‘must’ be a racket, that it can’t possibly be that people can become better than themselves, that people don’t change, that IQ cannot be made to rise, that there is no such things as a higher state of consciousness beyond homo sapiens as we know him/her.

    But, what if there is?

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    Hi Amy;

    I happen to agree with your comment.

    Christianity SHOULD (and used to) demand a higher commitment. Christianity was NOT meant to be a loose set of morals, where participants “are free to believe as they want.”

    This was never the vision in Jesus’ teachings.

    He demanded a heavy level of commitment from his followers. “I bring you the sword”, he said. He encouraged his disciples to be “shrewd as snakes”, he spoke of arrests, brother betraying brother, he even spoke about people losing their lives over his cause.

    Christian martyrs died for their beliefs. Jesus said that people should abandon their homes and material posessions and follow him. Only in the late 20th Century, in competition with the encroachment of heavy materialism, did Christian Churches capitulate and let go of their flock, letting them pretty much run as they choose.

    Spare the rod, lose the sheep. (The rod, by the way, was never intended as a tool of physical punishment, but as a hooked rod that the shepherd carried, to bring sheep back to the flock if they strayed.)

    Nowadays some Christian Churches even send their priests to study psychology and psychiatry, both sciences that negate the concept of an immortal soul and preach tham man is just a collection of chemicals. See

    This is not something that Christianity should celebrate or be proud of. Religion has as its mission to reunite Man with God, to bring Man back to a higher spiritual understanding, to elevate the human Soul above the muck of mundane noise.

    Not just a “loose set of morals.”

    Greg Churilov

  • John Smith

    Okay, Greg. Some positives (no sarcasm intended) and some on-topic, serious discussion about the media.

    Personally, I admire any religion that encourages strong commitment, rather than the “lazy, only-Sunday” version of religion, or even the version that bald-facedly admits that has cut itself loose from their moral foundations, as others have, apprarently.

    I think everyone has a right to join or not join a religion of their choice, including Scientology, without being attacked simply for that choice. And they have a right to freely leave it, of their own choosing, too – without coercion.

    The doctrines and practices of ALL religions are subject to criticism in the press, by other faiths, and by individuals. Clergy in other religions have defended themselves against UNFAIR criticism, as you have, and that’s their right, and yours, to do so.

    But like other non-mainstream groups like the Moonies, Children of God and International Church of Christ (Boston Church), your tactics and secretiveness have come under fire and you can’t ignore that. You can either duck under the desk when reporters come knocking, or, like these other churches, face the imperfections honestly and publicly, even while defending against the purely doctrinal attacks that perhaps are unfair.

  • Greg Churilov

    Well D,

    I don’t think that either the Church of Scientology, nor myself on this board, have been “ducking under the desk.”

    Mr. Rinder gave the Rolling Stone chick full access to all kinds of Scientology Churches in three states, including the management complex in California. She was allowed to talk to dozens of parishioners (of which she saw fit to publish only the interview with some ditzy 17-yr old), and her questions were answered openly.

    She then wrote an odd “I don’t get you people” piece. Even in the interview with Anderson Copper in CNN, you get the impression that the RS reporter really does not know what the hell she’s talking about. She refers to “theta” and “thetans” (theta designates the spiritual aspect of life, from the Greek letter, and a “thetan” is an individual soul or spirit – as in, you ARE a thetan) she refers to it as “faetons” and gives a bogus definition – so she clearly didn’t grasp the most basic tenets.

    The RS reporter also says “it’s like they have their own language!” (Oh shucks and OMG). Well, if you look into Islam you find their own terminonolgy, and Buddhism has its own terminology, etc. etc. ANY specialized subject has nomenclature. Computers, LAN/WAN, graphics, medicine, law, even gardening for pete’s sake.

    I believe I’ve also been fairly open in my responses, and I don’t think I give the impression that I’m ducking under the desk.

    Thanks for keeping a fairly civil debate. Peace to you and yours.

    Greg Churilov

  • D Rathan

    Hi Greg, your last reply was actually to John Smith, though I do try to keep the debate more or less civil.

    I’m glad we agree that Scientology demands the strongest commitment, but I just want to point out that a strong commitment just by itself does not a good cause makes. Soviets had strong commitments too. Branch Davidians, etc. Enduring hardship like your RPF experience must be a means to an end in order to be of merit or significance. I’m sure you believe there is a goal and a “win” that justifies your efforts, and that is where we disagree. In my view, Scientology demands the very soul of its followers, demands absolute mental and spiritual compliance, has zero tolerance for deviation, the strictest punishments for falling short (disconnection and RPF, among others) not to mention its economic cost. And all of this, for the promise of spiritual enlightment, evolution. Like I said above, I dont want to mention the most outrageous of Scientology’s claims outright since I dont want to offend, so I’ll say it code that probably only you understand: Scientology promises OT levels will be able to manipulate “MEST”. Thats a big claim. Those are big demands, big promises. And from all I’ve seen, it doesnt deliver.

    When a religious system has demands this high, mental, spiritual and economical, and returns so little to those who give so much, it starts to feel like something other than a religion, to me. This suspicion is further cemented when you compare the life style of the likes of Miscavige, for example, living at aptly-named “Gold Base”, to the life style of your typical Sea Org staff being paid 50 bucks a week. You may say Sea Org staff gets paid with things much more valuable than mundane money. They doesnt Miscavige too?

    You said, “what if Scientology did deliver on his promise of spiritual enlightment?” My answer is “then it should be free. Then it should be transparent.”. Free and Transparent is everything that Scientology is not, in my opinion.

    And this takes us to John Smith’s post about duck and cover. So far, you’ve gone on Christianity tangents 5 times now, and the following statements have gotten what is known in Vaughn’s lingo as a “no-anwer”:

    1.- You’ve stated Robert Vaughn Young lies. Have you read it his message, or do you know he lies without needing to read it?

    2.- If he lies, why does use the techniques he describes?

    3.- Why doesnt disclose that they are -not- an independent unbiased third party, but are owned and operated by Scientology? Why do the witnesses who speak against Scientology critics in that website not disclose that they are scientologists? Why does the Oxford Capacity test which is presented as a Personality Test not disclose that a) it has nothing to do with Oxford and b) the results -invariably- will lead towards the test taker requiring Scientology Services? Why did the Scientology-provided Web Starter Kit that was presented to church members so that they could build their own pages, not disclosed that there was censorware hidden in it, that would block pages and websites without the user being aware?

    4.- And finally, do you concede that some apostates, like this one, may be honest about what they write? Have you read this, Greg?

  • [Was "bystander"]

    This comment has been deleted. As a reminder, we expect people to leave at least a first name and a legitimate email address (which is not published) if they expect to have comments stand. Presenting yourself under more than one pseudonym is a sure way for your comment to be deleted.

  • Greg Churilov

    Hi D.

    Good point, commitment alone does not a good cause make. But it does not preclude it either. So that’s agreed.

    I did not do the RPF for the sake of “enduring hardships” – and I don’t consider getting good food, good rest and hard work in the company of your mates, while getting four hours a night for study, to be “hardships.”

    Hannibal crossing the Alps was hardships. The South during the Depression was hardships. The RPF ain’t.

    I think you’re waaaaaay over the top by your statements of “absolute mental and spiritual compliance, zero tolerance for deviation” – that’s a complete exaggeration. We’re talking about Scientology, not the Taliban.

    Here’s an article you might find relevant:


    WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself.

    And when you lose that you have lost everything.

    What is personal integrity?

    Personal integrity is knowing what you know –

    What you know is what you know –

    And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.

    And that is integrity

    And there is no other integrity.

    And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude,
    A critical attitude, or an open mind.

    But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity

    And sufficient personal belief and confidence in self

    And courage that we can observe what we observe

    And say what we have observed.

    Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
    Unless you have observed it

    And it is true according to your observation.

    That is all.

    L. Ron Hubbard, Founder

    Scientology does not have punishments, strict or otherwise.
    the RPF is a voluntary self-improvement program in a tightly disciplined environment.

    Disconnection is just “have a nice day somewhere else” – which is a legitimate handling of people that are destructive.

    In regards to Scientology’s claims, outrageous or otherwise, let’s compare them to the claims of Christianity (ETERNAL salvation of your immortal Soul), or Islam (Paradise Everlasting) or Buddhism (Nirvana). If you *truly* get a grasp of what these religions are promising, I’d say that’s a tall order as well.

    I actually believe that Scientology promises, in each course you take, and each counseling session, that THIS particular action will improve your condition, and lead to a satisfactory effect. And it DOES deliver.

    Very clever the way you mention by not mentioning, as if there was some wink-wink between us. A big “whatever” to that.

    You say “from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t deliver” – well, duh, how much Scientology have you yourself received?

    When, years ago, I had the honor of seeing Mr. Miscavige in action, what I saw is that his lifestyle is not much different from other Sea Org members. He doesn’t have a mansion, or a Ferrari. He gets room and board and an allowance, as any other Sea Org member.

    Once again, I have to stress that Sea Org members are the top of the Scientology clergy, and comprise less than 1 percent of all Scientologists.

    You say “Scientology should be free.”
    While at the same time you seem to object that our clergy only gets 50 bucks. What, am I to understand you want them to make zero?
    And how would we pay the rent and the electricity?
    And how would we fund the drug-rehab centers, schoold and other social-betterment programs?

    I bet you’re of the school of thought that software should be free, movies should be pirated and there is no such thing as intellectual property. But I differ.

    I keep using Christianity (and other religions) to make analogies. I did not know, and do not know now, that there’s anything wrong with this. Can you get off my back about this please?

    I have read Vaughn’s rehashed prose many times. My analysis is that he’s a liar and a bu11sh!tter. I am not sure why you keep bringing him up. I have replied to you already many times that my assessment is that he’s a liar. Yes, I’ve looked at the page you asked me to look at. Stop beating, the horse is stinking up already.

    The website is a legitimate form of defense against bigots that have attacked us. There are no “techniques” – there’s just facts. And the message is simple, someone wants to mess with us, we’ll tell the world who they are and what they are about.

    The site used to only publish information pertaining Scientology, and it used to say so. It now has expanded its scope to include information about many religions, and it says so.

    In terms of Pignotti’s statements, I had not read this before. I took a look at it. For one thing, I see that she was in Scientology in the 1960s and early 70s, which is a very different period in our religion than today. Secondly, I see that she was a young woman with some problems with her family. She keeps mentioning also that she kept reading books against Scientology. That’s another indicator that she was undecided and a “fence-sitter”. I am shocked and surprised such a person in such a state of mind would be admitted into the Sea Org. And sure enough, she proved to be a monumental fu(kup, going through the RPF not once but TWICE in five years. I’m not surprised that she eventually gave up and decided to do something else with her life.

    I don’t believe that she’s lying, but I do believe that her accounts are fraught with exageration, hyperbole, subjective perception and over-dramatization.

    Just as I was typing this, someone near me started laughing so hard about a joke in the adjacent room, that I stopped typing to go see if they were ok. Perception is a funny thing.

    D, you tire me.
    I was hoping to have some sensible debate. Instead, it’s all “when did you stop beating your wife” type of questions. That’s not debate, it’s mental mastur6at!on. And I’m not into that kinda thing.

    Greg Churilov

  • D Rathan

    Greg, I’ll just keep it short this time. People who have been following the logical steps of our conversation, I trust, can decide for themselves at this point if you have answered the questions or not, or whether someone who takes RPF once comes out enlightened but someone who takes it twice must be a fu**up, etc. I leave all that for others to discern, if they care.

    The last thing I want to do in this thread is this:

    Thats what has to say about the owner of

    This is a video of the owner of, being interviewed by the owner of

    Simply see both links, then decide who is being honest. In the words of LRH: What Is True For You.

    P.S. “MEST” stands for Matter Energy Space Time. Scientology claims that OT levels, can actually, literally, really-really control Matter, Energy, Space And Time, in -this- life, right here on Earth. Think of Travolta’s movie “Phenomenon”… [resists making pun].

    And, I couldnt help myself: this is where Miscavige lives.

    I take my leave from the discussion, I think everything worth saying has been said.

  • Greg Churilov

    Hi D,

    Leaps and bounds.

    I never said that someone coming out of the RPF is enlightened. The RPF program is a “rehabilitation” program. The only people who are assigned to it are Sea Org members (not lay Scientologists, but only Sea Org, which is a monastic order of less than 6,000 people), Sea Org members, I was saying, who monumentally screw something up, or have a gambling problem, or a drinking problem or some other personal issue that impedes them from being effective members of the clergy.
    The RPF is intended as a way to fully, permanently address those issues, and come out at the other end strong and stable.
    I honestly had never heard of anyone who had to re-do the RPF.

    I read the link, and I watched the video. I think it was clever the way Lund turned things in his favor, having a three-against-one sprung up on the Scientologist dude. Overall, I believe Lund handled the debate better than the Scientologist. This proves that the guy is smart and is good at dealing with interviews. Aside from that, not sure what it proves.

    It’s kinda sad that each side was just trying to get good footage, instead of really caring about what each other was saying.

    I actually like Lund. I think he’s wrong, but I like him, the way that I like the Che Guevara and his passion – even if the result was a mess. I can see what motivates Lund, clearly an product of the Internet-age, passionate about free-speech above all else, let’s all share information, let’s all share. (I’m not saying this is wrong, I’m just saying it’s a very localized phenomenon of this last Internet-driven decade.)

    I can understand how baffling the Lund phenomenon is to the Scientologist guy. He simply does not get why Lund attacks the Church the way he does, having had no experience with Scientology himself. But I believe I understand Lund better. He’s a good guy, who wants to be relevant, and wants to matter to people, and who accidentally stumbled on a “cause” that was served to him on a platter. Bummer that his “cause” is attacking my Church though.

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov


    I overall find it interesting that, when we talk about religion, we are all so prone to assume that the beliefs are, well, bu11sh!t.

    We talk about the ancient Greeks and their silly beliefs in Apollo and Minerva, Neptune, etc. and we are so terribly sure, convinced, confident that of course, these are myths. That the Greeks were all very innocent people. Nevermind that they produced a civilization under the shadow of which we still live today.

    In speaking about Scientology, Janet of Rolling Stone spoke of our “creation myth.” I find that interesting from several reasons, not the least of which is the word “myth.”

    The tacit, understood, granted assumption that it must be “myth” is what I find odd.

    I personally do not believe that an Andropomorphic God named Yahwe created the Universe in 7 days, or that the Devil in the shape of a snake tempted Eve.


    1) I don’t know from which authority I could call this a “myth” – it’s simply a theory or belief that I don’t happen to share.

    2) Secondly, I don’t rule out that this is a factual narration of events, riddled in metaphor. Seven days could mean seven stages of time, and Adam could mean the first generation of Man, and Eve the subsequent generations (out of Adam’s loins, right?)

    3) How do we know that some alien race called the Elohim didn’t pose as “I am your God” and fooled early man, or something? (I’m not personally espousing that theory, you know. I’m just saying, I find it strange that the whole thing is so summarily dismissed as MYTH.)

    Ok, point made, I think.

    Now, let’s go into the Scientology “creation myth.”
    According to Janet from RS, it’s all about this incident 75 million years ago, with dead souls of aliens and stuff.

    I am a Scientologist. And I swear to you now, I ain’t lying.

    This is NOT our “creation myth.”

    Let’s start at the beginning. First of all, we Scientologists tend to believe that this Universe, and our own Souls, are MUCH, MUCH older than 75 million years. Think Trillions. Think Quadrillions.

    Secondly, how did L. Ron Hubbard come up with this information, and the rest of Scientology cosmology?
    He used Scientology past-life regression techniques, and compared data from thousands and thousands of cases.

    So, maybe everyone was imagining it all, or maybe it’s some kind of racial imprint we all have, or some sort of ghost memory or such.

    But the fact is that, case after case, when taken deep into their past-life past, share similar memories of early civilizations, even pre-Earth civilizations.

    It’s there, man. I mean, the very first guy I counseled with Dianetics principles, over two decades ago, was a South-American guy off the street, who had NEVER heard of Scientology. And HE came up with all kinds of odd pre-Earth recall, which later I matched almost exactly to some of Hubbard’s lectures. You have to understand I did not ask for this data, I did not cajole him into it, I did not lead him. I had no idea of this stuff at the time. (Yes, I am sure this guy was off the street. This happened in South America in the early 80s, there’s no way this guy could have been a plant.)

    What’s my point?
    My point is that LRH didn’t just invent all this, didn’t just make it up. He got it off of people like you. Weird, I know. But there it is.

    Thirdly, it’s important to understand that it was NOT Mr. Hubbard’s idea to delve into such odd stuff. When the subject of past lives came up for the first time, it was reason for much debate in the Dianetics circles. Many people shied away from past-life recall. Others didn’t. Eventually, Mr. Hubbard said, well, it’s there, and we won’t run away from it.

    Point is, we didn’t go looking for the weird stuff. It was there.

    Fourth, and this is something fairly important:

    None of this is a “core belief.” It’s anecdotal information. We Scientologists take for granted that we’re very very old, immortal beings. Therefore obviously we’ve been here before Earth. And obviously there’s been civilizations. And, duh, some ended up a mess. This is demonstrated over and over here on Earth, so the extrapolation (once you accept the aspect of eternal existence) over a longer period of time is not really that odd.

    What Scientologists consider CORE belief is what we call the Axioms of Scientology. Our core beliefs are that we are Spiritual beings, that Spirit controls Matter, etc. etc.
    If you delved into THIS stuff, you’d find it fascinating. Check it out.

    Ok, if you’re all a bunch of atheists, heathens, pagans or Brights, heck, more power to you. But supposing that any of you out there is a religious (or at least spiritual) person, then let me say this:

    What is the big deal with “aliens”? Where do you suppose Angels come from, Pasadena? Where did the Archangel Gabriel arrive from? Where do you think Vishnu lived, Long Island? These folks were not from ’round these parts.

    Jesus exorcised demons.

    There is a specific hierarchy of angels (Archangels, Serafim, Cherubim, etc – don’t remember exactly)

    Are we openly saying none of this ever happened, that all religious cosmology is fairy-tale, and angels don’t exist? Because if that’s the starting point of the logic, then maybe a discussion on religion is kinda moot.

    But assuming that there ARE (or let’s say COULD BE) such things as Angels, Demons, Spirits, etc., then what is the big F’ing deal with calling them something else?

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    I mentioned the Scientology Axioms.
    Ok, I found them online.

    Here they are:

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov


    —–Scientology is not a closed faith—–

    You can walk into any Chuch and participate in Sunday Services.
    You can get a book or two and read up on it.
    You can watch intro films or attend free lectures.

    You can take courses – be it Life Improvement courses (at less than 200 bucks each) or train as a Scientology Counselor (the cost of a career as any other).

    You can speak to the Chaplain about anything you want.

    You can come into the academy, get a tour of the place, get comfy.

    There are many religions out there that are not nearly as open to the general public.

    —–Scientology is not hostile to the press—–

    This is clearly demonstrated by the Rolling Stone article itself. First of all, by the VERY EXISTENCE OF IT, and secondly, by the fact that a reporter from Rolling Stone got to speak with a high-ranking Church official, got a tour of the Church headquarters, was allowed to interview dozens of parishioners, was allowed to participate in a seminar, etc. etc.
    How is this at all a sign of “hostile to the press” is beyond me.

    Sometimes one can see a smear-job a mile away. When I was in Indonesia, I was interviewed at different times by different reporters. Some were openly curious, some were a bit cynical, some were appreciative of our volunteer work, etc. But some, a select few, it was obvious that they had a spin already cooked. That they were coming just to get some sound-bytes or a couple of quotes, but they had the story already, before even talking to us. Specifically, a young guy from the NY Times interviewed me extensively, and all he was looking for, clearly, transparently, was the “Christians are converting Muslims” angle. Of course, we weren’t Christians, and we were not converting anyone. But still, he kept on digging. He kept referring to us as “Christian Scientologists” – a weird coupling of “Christian Science” and “Scientology” I suppose. I answered all his questions politely (while trying to continue my work), but all he wanted was dirt. Controversy. conflict. Frankly, it was slimy, especially given the situation.

    Eventually I led him to a Muslim cleric who was working with us, and had him speak to him instead. The guy would not give up “Why are you Muslims with the Scientologists?” “Why are you with THEM, aren’t they an occidental sect?” etc. etc. The Muslim Cleric just smiled and kept telling him he was happy to have our help. Eventually, he waved his arms wide and said “All wisdom comes from Allah”. Boy, that about sums it up. All wisdom comes from God.
    That NY Times reporter never did write a story. He didn’t find the nasty, conflict-driven story he came to write, and did not have the cojones to write the story he SAW.

    The there was the freelancer for the Guardian (UK).
    I mentioned to her that we were so well received that a General from the Army donated a tent to us. Her spin: That instead of giving to the needy, we were TAKING from them. I tell ya. Some people!

    There’s a joke that has a reporter witness Jesus walking on water. The headline the next day: “Jesus Can’t Swim!”

    But not all reporters are like this. I did have several really fair interviews.

    And during the Katrina volunteer effort, while some reporters clearly just wanted to raise outrage against the feds, many of them did come for the human interest story, and were eager and happy to talk to us, and us to them. I spoke to a lady from AP, and a few others.

    I guess we oppose the media’s need for scandal and controversy, the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality. But we’re not hostile. We’re… maybe you could say we’re a bit guarded. A bit jaded. But we’re still willing to talk to you guys, and I’m clearly talking your ear off right now. :-)

    —–And we’re not secretive—–

    Let’s talk about this. Because I know what you’re thinking, the same line that has been rehashed for years. Supposedly we hide our “creation myth” (see my earlier post.)

    Let’s talk about this. Because it just isn’t true.

    First of all, when you walk into a Scientology Organization, please go to the bookstore, and look for the following books:
    - A History of Man
    - Have You Lived Before This Life?
    - The Phoenix Lectures

    …and look for the following taped lectures:
    - The Whole Track Tapes
    - The Route to Infinity
    - The State of Man Congress

    (There are more, I don’t recall offhand.)

    ALL of these materials, openly available to the public, have information in them about past lives, pre-Earth civilizations, etc. etc.

    The promotional materials of our Advanced Organizations openly talk about past lives, life before Earth, you as an immortal Soul, etc. etc.

    There’s no big secret. It’s all over the place. We’re quite open about it.

    Let’s take a step back now, and understand a bit about Scientology.

    Back in the late 1940s, the therapeutic theory of Dianetics was that dealing with traumatic incidents in session, in a directed cathartic model, was the way to create a saner, happier person. Part of this theory was that traumatic incidents are grouped in “chains” (same or similar content, like car accident, car accident, bike accident, falling-of-tricycle), and that the idea was to find the earliest incident on the chain, and this would decrease the weight a “chain” of incidents had upon a person.

    Which led to the debate about “basic-basic” – the earliest incident.
    Some said it must be around 2 years of age. Then, earlier incidents came up.
    Then it was understood that Birth must be it, Birth must be earliest.
    Then, prenatals started popping up.
    And past lives.

    For a while, past lives were dismissed as “dub-in” – a term indicating that the person is avoiding the session by inventing stuff.

    But eventually some people took these recalls seriously, and what was found was that people actually DID get better when these past-life recalls were addressed just as any other other memory.

    After the dust settled, LRH said we deal with it.

    And in 1952, Mr. Hubbard went off to investigate specifically into this area of past lives.

    In 1954, he announced Scientology as a subject.

    Over the next few years, the challenge was this: How far does the rabbit hole go? A lot of research into past lives, trying to find common points.

    In the early 1970s Mr. Hubbard led an expedition into the Mediterranean with the first members of the Sea Organization (it actually WAS a Sea organization back then, on ships) to find evidence of past-life recall. This is documented in a book, also openly available to the public, called “Mission into Time”.

    Anyway, up to the late 1960s, Scientology as a practice was a collection of techniques and processes, and each person received processes as adjudicated by a case supervisor. A major restructuring was the “Grade Chart”, which created the step-by-step sequential path that we Scientologists follow today.

    So now, each level has a prereq, just like in College or the “Dans” in Aikido.

    Thanks for staying with me so far. I’m getting to the good part.

    Scientology counseling is a voyage of self-discovery.
    You’re supposed to arrive at realizations on your own.

    The OT Levels are therefore confidential.

    Now, some people say it’s because the Church of Scientology fears ridicule if it’s known that we believe in pre-Earth life, in life on other planets, etc.

    But like I said, all this information is openly available to anyone who walks into any Scientology church.

    So, why the secrecy?

    For one thing, there’s the matter of pre-requisites. You don’t get to Med School without Pre-Med, and you don’t get to the OT Levels without getting to Clear and meeting OT Elegibility.

    But most important, if you learn some wild revelation, such as, “OMG, Antarctica is made of ice!” (I’m just making an example up) during a session, you might be shocked and surprised, but it’s YOuR realization. If someone tells you, hey, “you oughta know, Scientologists say that the South pole is a block of ice, dude”, then you might forever question whether that’s something you would have arrived at on your own.

    A LOT of importance is placed in Scientology on the individual journey.

    Also, and this is very, very important for a media person to know:

    Some aspects of the level known as OT3 (or OTlll), also known as “The Wall of Fire”, are, according to L. Ron Hubbard himself, potentially harmful to people if they read them or dwell on them before being ready for them.

    I cannot tell you with any level of certainty if this is a fact or isn’t, but what I am stressing is that many, many Scientologists believe that it could be spiritually harmful to them to learn the mysteries of OT3 before they’re ready to hear them.

    Therefore, you’re doing a Scientologist a GREAT INJURY by forcing upon them information from OT3 materials which you may have gotten from an anti-Scientology site.

    Is this something you can understand?

    Let’s see if I can give you examples.
    - It would be injurious and offensive for a Jew to be forced to eat pork.
    - It would be injurious and offensive for a devout Catholic to be forced to use contraceptives.
    - It would be injurious and offensive to a Muslim to be kept from praying (or to be forcibly photographed in obscene positions while being held captive by the enemy – but I digress.)

    Ok, now, let’s see if you can understand this:

    - It is injurious and offensive for a Scientologist to be forced to listen or read the OT3 mysteries before they consider themselves ready for it.

    We are not upset about criticism.
    We are not upset about talk of aliens or little green men (and please understand we have no specific belief about UFOs.)

    But we consider it a grievous offense against our spiritual well-being when someone maliciously throws in our face some “juicy bit” from the OT3 mysteries.

    It’s not that we care about being ridiculed over our belief in pre-Earth existence of a disaster that may have happened millions of years ago. Many other religions have lore about “battles in the heavens” and “battles between Angels”, “Fall from Grace”, “Descent from Heaven”, etc.

    We just don’t want to be forcefed answers before we get the chance to experience the process for ourselves.

    It isn’t too much to ask, really.

    Unfortunately, the “critics” (I say bigots. Pot-ay-to, Pot-ah-to.) know this all too well, and use this to taunt Scientologists constantly, to harrass us and upset us.

    If you think about it, it isn’t too nice.

    It’s like, if someone waited at the exit of a Synagogue and threw pork at the penitents.

    Yes, it’s THAT bad. No, actually, it’s worse, because, in a Scientologist’s worldview, you’re not just offending us, you’re fu(king with our spiritual progress – which is not something we take lightly.

    Sure, go ahead, laugh.

    You may think it’s silly.

    We don’t.
    We take what we consider our chance at a higher spiritual awareness and our chance at a greater understanding of the mysteries of life VERY seriously, we are very committed to it, and we would appreciate it a little bit of, if not respect, if not deference, perhaps just basic decency shown toward us.

    Outside of this, we are perfectly willing to discuss our views, our beliefs, our cosmology, our ethos, our doctrine, etc. etc.

    Greg Churilov

  • John Walker

    Mr. Churilov,

    You state that belief in Xenu (OT-III) is not a core belief of Scientology. My question to you is, do you believe it as fact? If not, what about it don’t you believe? Curious.

    John Walker

  • Greg Churilov

    Ok, first of all, if you had read my last post, you’d realize how truly RUDE I consider your question to be.

    I will, however, reply.
    I do not believe it is a fact, and I don’t believe it is false. I simply believe it is plausible. I can also tell you that those people I have met and spent time with that have undergone OT3 processing are, in their majority, kinder, more compassionate and higher quality people than average. That’s my experience. OT3 opens up your kinship with fellow Man and allows you to look at the travails of humanity in a different light, and enbles you to feel a sronger bond or communion with other human beings.

    The actual historical accuracy of the narrative is moot in that light – as it is meant to be considered from a spiritually therapeutic viewpoint.

    Of course this is hard to grasp for many, when obsessed with “must have the facts”. But that’s not how Scientology processing works. It’s about the cathartic effect, not about the anecdote.

    I also accept that there may be truth, albeit couched in metaphor and obscured by translation, in Genesis – and that the Vedas, properly interpreted, are probably true as well.

    Greg Churilov

  • Greg Churilov

    Listen, antibacterial soap makes perfect sense to you, right? And yet, not too long ago, Pasteur had a devil of a time convincing people that tiny creatures lived in our hands.

    TV makes perfect sense to you – but just a century ago, try and convince anyone that a box in your room could show flickering images on its screen that are beamed down by invisible rays from a flying machine that flies around the Earth.

    One century ago the idea of travel to the moon was a crazy notion.

    Today psychiatrists think that addictive pills solve everything. Two centuries ago the medicos thought they knew what they were doing and used leeches to “cure” people. They killed George Washington with this “technology.”

    I think it’s vastly arrogant of our early 21st century minds to think that we’re “there already”, in terms of scientific discovery, in terms of understanding Man, in terms of deciphering the Universe. There are still things to find out. And maybe a century from now the world will look back at us Scientologists as some passing fad. But maybe the discoveries done by Mr. Hubbard will have by then be as natural and accepted as Pasteur’s, Madam Currie’s and Tesla’s. Time will tell. And I’m not saying “believe” – I’m just saying don’t be so freaking arrogant as to assume any new idea must be wrong.

    During WW2 the U.S. Intelligence community was using “remote seers” (telepaths) to try and spy on the Japanese. There are documented cases of swami levitation. St.Francis of Assissi is said to have walked through fire and levitated during intense prayer. Let’s not shut ourselves off completely from the possibility that there’s more to learn about Man’s potential.

    Greg Churilov

  • Fred Carr

    Greg – Well written replies.

    “I know many, many Scientologists who deliver counseling and tutoring free of charge to the disadvantaged every day.”

    I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I’ll probably be doing this for another thirty years. (I hope.)

    I help people to get off drugs, learn to read, become more honest with their parents and the list goes on and on.

    Yet, I’m accused of being in a bubble and being brainwashed. Once someone even said they wished I would die so I wouldn’t brainwash my son.

    I’ve heard a couple people say that all Scientologists should be exterminated. It would be more amusing if it wasn’t so sad.

    I guess they never take the time to talk to any of the hundreds of people I have helped. I had one fellow show up at my house the other day. He didn’t have a lot to say, simply “Thanks for saving my life.” And then he was on his way. He isn’t a Scientologist. Probably doesn’t even know what Scientology is. He just knows that I saved him. That is what pays me back. Am I greedy? You bet – I’m greedy for the satisfaction of knowing I helped my fellow man. I’m so greedy for that accomplishment that I’ll do it for free and do it instead of my other hobbies.

    I even disagree with other Scientologists and Mr. Hubbard on things. ie. I wouldn’t give a reporter the time of day. That’s just me however. Mostly because I don’t have time to waste. If someone wants my help all they have to do is to ask and be willing to put a little work into it. (Sometimes a LOT of work.)


    Fred Carr

  • Cole


    There’s an obvious difference between (i) kidnapping Scientologists and forcing them to learn the OT3 stuff before they’re ready, and (ii) making sure the information is widely available so that people curious about Scientology will know what kind of religion they’re dealing with.

    The first should be outlawed because it’s coercive. The second should be protected because it’s freedom of speech. It may be offensive speech for Scientologists worried about the dangers of premature exposure (after all, the implant is “calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it.”). But even offensive speech, especially offensive speech, should be protected.

    If the story was ever protcted by copyright (and the CoS certainly tried all sorts of unscrupulous stuff to keep it under wraps), it’s not anymore. So there’s no legal issue here. So it’s freedom of speech.

    Now I take it your main point concerns rudeness, as opposed to legality. But given that the Internet is notorious for being a place with very liberal norms of information distribution, it follows that Scientologists who go on the Internet are deliberately taking a risk. In the past and perhaps still today, the CoS has provided its members with special software to prevent them from accessing such information. So I don’t feel too sorry for the unwitting Scientologist who accidentally encounters OT3 on the Internet (and that includes blogs or newsgroups).

    Of course, if I were in a personal conversation with some Scientologist who specifically requested not to be told the secrets of OT3, then it would be rude of me to tell him. I might still do it, because rudeness isn’t everything, and there’s something to be said for unpleasant facts. But I see your point, at least in such a case; blurting out the OT3 story would be rude and you need to take that rudeness into account.

    That being said, your ‘rudeness’ point looks mainly like a rhetorical gambit intended to silence criticism of your organization, by playing off of people’s reluctance to interfere with matters of religion. Since your organization has a really nasty history of trying to silence criticism, I think it would be completely misguided to hold off distributing information, so as not to be rude to individual members. Norms of politeness have only so much weight.

    P.S. Your organization is obviously very hostile to the press. The CoS’s vicious harassment of Time’s Richard Behar after the 1991 cover story is a good example. Perhaps the CoS is trying to be better about this, though the recent stuff I’ve heard (harassing Vanity Fair, I think?) makes me doubtful.

    P.P.S. Part of the reason the OT3 stuff is hidden is indeed because it is ridiculous. People are flaky enough not to bat an eye at past lives and spirit beings (the stuff you mentioned as being out in the open), but when you bring in the space opera (I won’t spoil it for you!), most people will bust up laughing. The CoS keeps the less ridiculous stuff in the open, and the highly ridiculous stuff way up there along the Bridge to Total Freedom.

  • Greg Churilov


    We’re going in circles, and I think it’s because you don’t take the trouble to actually read my posts.

    I don’t object to criticism. I object to lies, and I specifically object to those who, knowing how delicate the OT3 process is to Scientologists, insist nevertheless to throw this stuff in our faces.

    I already address the “ridicule” thing in my previous posts, and I don’t feel like rewriting 500 words after I made it quite clear already.

    Feel free to repeat “ridiculous” as many times as you want. Ridiculing someone else’s religiosu beliefs is just poor manners. I don’t espouse the concept of the virgin birth, the parting of the red sea, etc. etc. but I don’t see much point in chasing Christians and yelling “ridiculous” at them over and over.

    TIME Mag: I already addressed this. It was a paid smear job, and both the money trail and open admissions from a former Eli Lilly exec show that. And Behar was not harrassed, he was sued for libel. There’s a difference.

    As we saw recently with the Mohammed cartoons, freedom of speech is one thing, and a deliberate effort to ridicule someone’s religion is another. I am for freedom of speech. But I am also for exercising a little judgment, a little sensitivity and a little human decency.

    Greg Churilov

  • Cole


    I addressed your claims of rudeness. I agreed that, in some cases, it’s rude to bring up the OT3 stuff. But, first, this is not true of OT3 stuff on the Internet. And second, rudeness is not everything. Sometimes the right course of action is the rude one. Finally, the rudeness point is a rhetorical strategy intended to silence criticism, and as such, it shouldn’t be yielded to.

    You are quite wrong to think that freedom of speech doesn’t protect ridicule of religion. It most certainly does. From the anonymous anti-Christian tracts in 17th century Britain all the way up to the Monty Python’s Life of Brian and Mohammed cartoons in Denmark and me saying Scientology is stupid on the Internet, free speech protects ridicule of religion. Of course, you might think freedom of speech is a bad thing, and try to put restrictions on it in the name of “sensitivity”, but then you are a thug who thinks the appropriate response to ridicule is bringing down the hammer to silence the nonbelievers. I sincerely hope this is not your view.

    I would never “chas[e] Christians and yel[l] ‘ridiculous’ at them over and over.” That would be harassment. But in an open discussion of Christianity, I will certainly voice my view that the religion is backwards and foolish. So, unless you think that people with unpopular opinions (people like, for example, Scientologists) should be silenced, you should welcome me as another participant in the discussion instead of trying to stigmatize me as a bigot simply because I have contempt for your warped religion.

    You claim to have already addressed the Time article, but you hadn’t addressed the topic I brought up: the fact that the CoS subjected Behar to inexcusable harassment for writing a negative story for Time. Hence your claim that the CoS isn’t hostile to journalists is demonstrably false.

    And Behar was most certainly harassed. I was never talking about the libel suit. I’m talking about the targeting his credit report and the hiring of private investigators to try to get dirt on him for purposes of character assassination. (Of course, he’s not the only victim of “Fair Game” policies–Paulette Cooper springs to mind).

    It’s one thing to say your organization is getting better (I honestly hope it is), but you can’t deny its disturbing criminal past. (Well, you can deny it, but only at the cost of making yourself into a hapless fool)

    In any case, you should stop acting offended and exasperated and shocked and insulted. These are base rhetorical means of making certain topics ‘out-of-bounds’, which is just fine if you’re trying to defend the undefendable but not so fine if you’re trying to get at the truth.

  • Cole

    Maybe this will help with your point regarding rudeness and OT3:

    You and I disagree about whether the CoS is a ruthless criminal organization founded on palpable fraud and dedicated to scamming people out of their money. You think it isn’t like that at all. But what if it were shown that the CoS really is like that? Would you still insist that its high-level secret writings never be circulated, out of a concern for rudeness? I hope not. I hope your position is just that relatively peaceful and harmless religions deserve to have their policy on secret writings respected by outsiders, but that things are quite different with dangerous cults. Or do you take the really extreme view, that even if a religion is a seriously dangerous cult, outsiders still should respect its sacred writings, out of a concern for rudeness? Because that extreme view gives way too much weight to norms of politeness and rudeness — that’s like saying Woodward and Bernstein should’ve held back to avoid being rude to Nixon.

    Note that if you take the reasonable view, the moderate view, you can still claim that OT3 stuff should go uncirculated out of respect for Scientology. But the point will have no force until the big question is settled: is Scientology a relatively peaceful and harmless religion, or is it a seriously dangerous cult? Until then, your rudeness point is at least premature; and, given that critics of Scientology take it to be a seriously dangerous cult, your point will look absurd and trifling.

  • Greg Churilov


    You and I couldn’t disagree more, on pretty much all levels.

    I don’t believe (and haven’t said) that freedom of speech should be curtailed.

    What I am saying is that harrassing Scientologists by throwing OT3 details at them is a very, very low blow.

    Look, it has nothing to do with “silencing critics” – criticize all you want.

    And it has nothing to do with ridicule – feel free to say that we believe in pre-Earth civilizations, in life before Earth, in spirits having past lives, in us being immortal Souls.

    But (a) don’t twist it all in malicious ways to mock it (it would be a cheap shot to say that Christians engage in symbolic cannibalism, for example), and (b) understand that rehashing confidential details of OT3 is offensive to Scientologists.

    I don’t know if this is a useful analogy, but, when Star Wars came out, and thousands of fans lined up to see it, it might have been considered rude to go around yelling at the lines of movie-goers “Luke and Leia are siblings!” “Luke and Leia are siblings!”

    Cole, what I consider untenable about your position is that, if your aim is to prove Scientology is “a dangerous cult” (which of course I don’t believe), then stealing confidential teachings and publishing them on the Net does not prove that at all, all it does is cause harm to the parishioners.

    If what you were trying to do was prove Scientology to be bad, then you should be focusing on the supposed bad actions, not on points of religious doctrine.

    I don’t have “extreme view of politeness.” I am simply asking that my own freedom of religion is not violated constantly by the press.

    In your Nixon example: W&B had every right, and perhaps obligation, to expose Nixon’s political misdeeds. Had they at the same time gathered information about his daughter’s sexual behavior, for example, they would not have either the right legaly nor morally to release THAT information, which would not be at all relevant to Nixon’s political behavior or fitness for Office.
    (Incidentally, Ttricky Dick was a disgrace to America, and Mr. Hubbard openly recommended Scientologists not to vote for him at election time.)

    The argument that “the people must be informed” is faulty, because, as I’ve already addressed in earlier posts, Scientology does not make any bones of the fact that we believe in past lives, that we speculate about life before Earth, that we believe human spirits to be trillions of years old.

    The only reason why “critics” specifically include OT3 stuff in their writings – and unwitting reporters don’t get this – is that this prevents Scientologists from safely reading their articles and properly responding to them.

    It’s like writing a negative story about “Sixth Sense” and including in it a major spoiler such as “I knew all along the Willis character was dead.”

    You do not need to throw pork at Jewish penitents to argue anti-semitism.

    You don’t need to pass a law forcing Catholics to wear condoms to have a debate about Catholicism.

    And you don’t need to discuss OT3 data in order to discuss the conduct, good or bad, of Scientology Church officials.

    You say the Church subjected Behar to “inexcusable harrassment”, and your example is what? Releasing his credit record? Ok, I am not aware of any such actions. But have you not considered that, as a journalist, Behar engaged in inexcusable harrassment of my Church when he wrote 8 pages of disgusting libel against it, commissioned by special interests (Eli Lilly) who want to destroy us?

    Where’s your moralistic high-horse view about *that*?

    Incidentally, Scientology IS a relatively peaceful religion. We just don’t happen to believe in “turn the other cheek.” And we object to conspiracies to wipe us out, and we object to special interests holding sway of the media to attack us.

    We’re peaceful. But we’re not naive, and we’re not passive. We fight back. That might make us unpopular. But it also makes us survivors.

    When Die Stormer was publishing anti-semitic cartoons daily, back in 1933, and articles explaining the deviousness of Jews and how they’re inferior by nature, the Jews did not fight back. And in a few short years they were living in ghettos, and a few years later they were in trains on their way to camps.

    We Scientologists are not about to sit quietly and be smeared and trashed and insulted. We have seen the propaganda trend, and we won’t let it advance in that direction.

    Greg Churilov

  • D Rathan

    Scientology is not -peaceful- and is hardly a religion. I gave up arguing, let the videos speak for themselves. See What Is True For You.

  • John Doe

    Mister Churilov, Sir,

    What is your position on the church’s security check for kids under 12 ? Could you explain how children under 12 may be considered a risk that has to be “sec checked” ?
    Begin quote from wikipedia :

    In Scientology, the Security Check Children is a security checking auditing procedure designed to be applied to children aged 6 to 12. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued the security check as HCO Bulletin of 21 September 1961, also known as HCO WW Security Form 8.

    The child is put on the E-meter, holding a can (the electrode of the E-meter) in each hand. If a question gives a read on the E-meter, the child is questioned further as to the reason for the read.

    The procedure runs through 99 questions. It starts:

    The following is a processing check for use on children.
    Be sure the child can understand the question. Rephrase it so he or she can understand it. The first question is the most potent.


  • Greg Churilov

    Hi “John Doe”,

    Sometimes a child carries the weight of a secret. This causes him/her to become alienated from his/her parents, act out, feel low self-esteem, etc.

    Sometimes the secret is faily harmless (ie who ate the pie Mom left on the windowsill?) – but sometimes the secret can be dangerous and traumatic – such as sexual abuse, theft or harming someone else.

    In those situations, the Scientology Sec Check is a great way to break through and address the problem.

    It is not punitive.

    The Catholic Church has Confession, for the same purpose.

    Mind you, you might disagree.
    But before you do, remember that you’d have to see this process performed, and see the gentleness which is part of the practitioner’s required tone, and see the positive effects when done right.

    Unburdening one’s sins and transgressions, and releasing some dark secret, can be tremendously therapeutic to a child – and to an adult as well.

    Greg Churilov

  • D Rathan

    Good lord.. therapeutic to a child…?
    .. Oh my. Once again I’d better let the video speak a thousand words, for a reply. [sighs].

    Btw, for those people still debating greg, you can play a game:

    For each argument you make, you get:

    2 points if he doesnt reply. Means it was probably a good one. (examples: the Scieno Sitter, the relationship between religiousfreedomwatch and Vaughn Young’s techniques (proven earlier by way of Lund video), the Lisa McPherson Fund vs the Clearwater police video, etc)

    1 point if he brings up christianity in the reply. Means it wasnt defensible any other way (examples: nearly every reply)

    0 points if you make him curse, or use self-censored foul language. Thats really cheap so it deserves no points. (examples: some replies to John Smith, I believe “xenophobe” and myself “bigot”, or “fuc(ed” and notably “mastur6ation” (why would he censor that?)).

    Yes, I know I said earlier these methods dont work, but I have to admit that nothing, really works, and I got a little riled up by the topic of children. A little.. bothered.. to hear greg say its.. therapeutic. .. Normally I try to cool down before posting, but heck, I wont hold it against the moderator if he decides to censor this post out. And indeed, its a good thing we cant see how the auditor does this to a kid..

    .. anyway.



    Villifying those that speak against the organization (called SP here) is present in all mind control cults. Organized religions call these people heretics so they can’t claim to handle criticism well either.

  • SP

    Scientology is a litigious, paramilitary quasi-fascist business, a brainwashing cult of psycho-terror, and the treatment they are (hopefully) getting in Germany and many other countries is what the Nazies SHOULD have gotten in the early 30′s. Their claim “likening themselves to Jews being persecuted during the Nazi era”, is absolutely cynical and disgusting.

    As in numerus previous cases, scientologists are urged (and coersed) by their military superiors, to write/phone the press or net over and over again in order to give an impression of some vast following, which of course does not really exist- the supposed 8 million followers they claim? 200,000 at the most would be more likely.
    The web is full of fascinating and accurate info about this most lying of cults- and guess what- that info is NOT to be found within the cult’s own propaganda sites; Most scientologists don’t know jack about the real history and facts regarding their group or dead paranoid Leader. Not only are they convinced that all critical writings about Scn. are part of a Cosmic Conspiracy trillions (thats right!) of years old, they actually are not allowed to come in any contact with the evil originators of said criticism- the SP’s- (thats short for “Suppresive Person”)- the “anti social personality”, best recognized by the mere fact that he or she are anti Scientology. Scientologists that do communicate with an SP are dealt with by the “Ethics officer” or “Master at arms” , are “handled” at their OWN expense by a self created “Justice System” that would make any decent person’s skin crawl, and could face Ex-communication by the “Church”, their own family and former buddies. Worse, that would be for them the equivalent of banishment from any chance of spiritual freedom.

    One should be aware of the belief system they espouse. In their unbelievably high priced “services”, the (at one time) secretive higher levels, and in his over-the-counter Scientology books and tape recordings- Hubbard talks about aliens and “galactic civilizations” constantly- he gets into great detail about the subject. It’s ludicrous. The sheer quantity and depth of the idiocy found in Hubbard’s writing is way beyond the scope of this letter. The net provides ample examples and proof to anybody who is not already a brainwashed fanatic.

    ALL (new) scientologists are lied to by their “more advanced” colleagues regarding this and other ridiculous “scientific” claims, and are led to believe that they can for the time being, avoid making a personal decision about the subject. This goes on until THEY TOO have been brainwashed, at which point they will treat the totality of L.R.Hubbard’s writing and opinions as absolute truth, NO ifs and buts. Any scientologist saying otherwise is lying: He knows the truth- NO ONE may go up the “Bridge To Total Freedom” with any other opinions than those of the “Source”, Hubbard. The True Believer lies to himself too, but that is what being brainwashed is all about, and where the biggest betrayal takes form.

    Do you suppose I would have wasted my time writing this
    letter had I (and thousands of others who HAVE BEEN THERE) not
    felt very strongly about this? Just hope your that your own kids don’t fall into such a scam. Thanks.

    By someone who is too scared to sign his name. (Like so many others.)

  • Greg Churilov

    D. Rathan:

    Yes, therapeutic. You’d have to see an actual session to see its benefits.

    And like I already stated, in most cases a child’s communication line with a parent or guardian is strong enough to not warrant such process. But some children have communication problems, and some children need counseling.

    There are some other schools of thought that believe it is therapeutic to a child to give them a metamphetamine-like, addictive drug.
    We disagree.

    I don’t respect your bait-and-switch tactic of making your point about issue A by showing unrelated footage of issue B.

    I agree with you that in the past there’s been some problems with children of Sea Org members (and once again, Sea Org members are Scientology clergy, and represent only 1% or less of the Scientology population), because Sea Org members work and study long hours.

    These issues have been addressed and resolved, and this is no longer a situation.

    In response to your silly points system:

    1) This shows that you seek argument for argument’s sake, and clearly do not care to understand beyond your prejudices and your already congealed ideas.

    2) I responded to all your questions. I did not respond to bullying insistence about questions already addressed.

    3) You keep chiding me for using Christianity as a point of reference. I seriously don’t see what the heck is your problem about this. Christianity is a religion familiar to most, and it’s easy to use it as a religious model when debating comparative religion.

    4) In terms of foul language: I am terribly sorry if my language offended your fragile sensibilities.

    Greg Churilov

  • D Rathan

    Scientology likes to compare itself to established religions for several different, often contradicting reasons:

    a) In a “you think this is bad? I’ll show you bad” way. Example: “Xenu’s volcano-based genocide is weird” can be countered with “The Great Flood is just as weird”. Or: “Kids are traumatized by the paranoia of having KRs filled on them by their peers, and having sec-checks, plus the fear of being disconnected from their families” is countered with “Priests sexually abuse children!”.

    b) In a “we’re just as legit as them! honest!” way. Example: “Hubbard’s wife and 8 more top scientologists were jailed for stealing documents from the goverment and planting bugs” can be countered with “early christians were quite rowdy too, and roman emperors had to watch out for them”. Or “Scientology is the only religion where spiritual advancement is inseparably tied to shelling out money” can be countered with “we dont have milennia of accumulated wealth to fall back on”.

    One would say you cant have it both ways, either you’re just as legit as christianity (b), or you’re not as bad (a), but the beauty of Scientology is that it has it not only it has it both ways, but adds a third way when you say “Scientology is an applied religious philosophy, but honest, you could be buddist too, or catholic or protestant, we dont care, it’ll help you!”.

    And I keep objecting to comparing scientology to established religions, because the obvious fact that people are often too PC to point out, is that Scientology is NOWHERE near as established as ANY of the religions they compare themselves to, by ANY measure. Its as if I fence off my backyard, name if “The Sovereign State of Rathan”, and then proceed to complain that am being discriminated against when the UN refuses to give me a seat. And you know what, I dont think anyone would have a problem with that. The problem would manifest if I start inviting people to my backyard promising them its a theme park, proceed to progressively charge them money, isolate them from the world, and warp their sense of “ethics”, until the moment when I finally reveal the backyard, and they are, to use poker terms, “pot commited”.

    If you dont have other established religions, that commited attrocities thousands of years ago, you lose the excuse for the fact that scientology commits attrocities in the here and in the now. Stop using Christianity as a crutch. You say you addressed all my points, and forgive me for being just a wog with no Perfect Recall, but what did you say about the Scieno Sitter, the Clearwater Police Video, and the fact that Vaughn Young’s apostate words MATCH the practices of the misleadingly named, Scientology-owned I know what you think of him, and its not what I asked. I asked you, by way of the interview video, to compare what Young says its true, with what you see with your own eyes in the video, and THEN explain howcome Young is lieing.

    And I never said I got offended by your foul language. I got amused that you considered the word “masturbate” a curse word. You are the one who repeatedly got offended at nearly half of the things posted here, and asked the modertator to disallow “rough housing”. I would copy paste, but I have things to do.

  • Greg Churilov

    D Rathan,

    When discussing a religion, one could of course compare it to, say, furniture, or sheep, or the fuzzy tingly feeling you get when you sleep in an airplane seat.

    But silly me, I prefer to compare it to, gee, I dunno, other religions.

    But that’s just me.

    Greg Churilov

  • Arthur Dent

    Regarding the “Security Check Children”, I’ve found some of the questions used in this procedure on this URL:

    Some of those questions are:

    10. Have you ever refused to obey an order from someone you should obey?
    19. Do you have a secret?
    37. Have you ever tried to make others believe that your parents or teachers were cruel to you?
    38. Have you ever offered as an excuse for something you have done wrong that you are only a child or that you haven’t grown up yet?
    71. Have you ever been a coward?
    72. Have you ever made too much fuss over a little hurt?
    82. Have you ever hurt anyone by telling them you didn’t love them any more?
    85. Have you ever done anything wrong according to your own religion?

    I have two questions regarding this.

    1 : Is the procedure done using the E-Meter ?
    2 : What, if any, is the “fixed donation” for a “security Check Children” ?

    Thank you very much,
    Arthur Dent

  • D Rathan

    I’m not even going to count how many “points” you give me, but its clear to anyone who reads that you simply choose not to defend the indefensible. You should own up to it then, but, not my loss.

    Now, when a regular person compares a regular religion to another, is usually for dialogue, and good things may come up.

    When a scientologist compares scientology to an established religion, is to try to get credibility by association (like a backyard bbq party claiming they have “shorter lines than disneyland!”), or to excuse present abhorrent behavior, by the milennia old abhorrent behavior of the established religion. Again, the “you say my house in on fire? But look! The neighbors super mansion burned to the ground 100 years ago, and look at it now!”. So what if I do? So what if the christians sent children to die in the crusades in the 12 century, it doesnt change, or excuse the fact that scientology has caused deaths today. So what if Moses wrote about the Great Flood 5 thousand years ago, it doesnt change the fact that Hubbard wrote about volcanos that exists today, as being used for mass murder 75 million years ago, when even the continents on earth resembled nothing like what we have today, let alone volcanos. I dont care if other religions are better, or worse. My concern is on how scientology, today, harrases its critics, alienates its members, and sucks them from money to buy a “Bridge to Total Freedom”. Even if the whole neighborhood is, or was, or will be on fire, it doesnt change the fact that your, your, your house burns now, now, now. No comparison can excuse or crutch that.

  • B LIAL

    D Rathan,
    I read your word on scientology as compared to christianity and other older more established religions by Greg Churilov & took the time to read some of the earlier dialogue aswell so as to define whether your claim against him was warranted. This is what i found:
    As in criminal law (of US and Oz as my ref) when looking at a new case (scientology in this case) the case must be tried based heavily on precedence. Now since there is no precedence for religions started in the last 50 or so years and all there is, is a precedence for religion as one big entity so how else do you suppose one might look at it.
    Scientology by law of state and philosophy meets all required criteria to be called a religion. And with no smaller legal or social pool to be thrown in scientology is treated as an established religion equal to any other despite age of conception. How it should be and how it apparently is are 2 different things. However having no smaller pool for such newer religions also means we have the unfortunate situation of religion or cult with no medium.
    As for deaths caused by scientology there are far more deaths outside scientology without warning labels.
    Starvation and disease on mass in thirdworld countries not to metion the regimes overlooked by wealthier countries & their Govts.
    The cult of the present status quo/middle class that is driven at its core by the hands down belief in capitalism working handinhand with science and technology (that refutes anything not measurable)to create a new and better furture before the world dies and takeseveryone with it but perhaps the rich – a cult so ingrained it is invisible, mistaken as normal – almost all pervading and definately all consuming.
    It is easy to ask Questions and easier to make accusations.
    I just wanted to end off by addressing the following:
    1st you say this about scientologists:
    When a scientologist compares scientology to an established religion, is to try to get credibility by association.
    Followed by: (like a backyard bbq party claiming they have “shorter lines than disneyland!”)
    The latter appears to me a blatent employ of your own unique attempt “to get credibility by association”. funny stuff

  • D Rathan

    I’m not sure I follow. You say I blatently attempted to get credibility by association, but I dont understand what did you see I am trying to associate myself with? Scientology tries to associate itself with established religion to get credibility, but I dont know who or what did you see me associating with.

    The “there are worse than me” argument should never be even considered, and should be shameful to bring up. “Your Honor, I did shoot that woman for her money in a gas station, but Saddam gassed thousands of kurds!” is not a good defense in court, and should not be a good defense in religion. “So you say Scientology killed Lisa McPherson, but Christianity has killed thousands of people in the dark ages alone” although strictly truthful, it doesnt, and shouldnt grant the defendant any leniency. Regardless of the inquisition, regardless of the abuse of pyschiatric patients, regardless of the abuse of minors in Boston churches, regardless of Tricky Dick’s deeds with Hubbard never approved of, regardless of what the rest of the world, religious or not, has done or not, the case in point continues to be what Scientology in particular actively does today, right now.

    Right now Scientology charges the most for a product that is exactly the opposite of what is called “the bridge to total freedom”.

    Btw, I suggest you research the status of Scientology as a religion in places like Belguim, Germany or France.

  • B LIAL

    D Rathan,

    what did you see I am trying to associate myself with? Scientology tries to associate itself with established religion to get credibility, but I dont know who or what did you see me associating with.

    Just quickly, The way that you discredit scientology by comparing it to disneyland reveals your opinion,and tactics too. This slander is the way your arguement is supposed to gain credibility with readers. So in the same way as the church you use something negative to gain attention/acceptance of your view.

    Scientology is a religion and is therefore entitled to the same rights and treatment as any other. No amount of should be’s or negative analogies will change that. If you honestly believe there are more deaths/or “abbhorant acts” in scientology than in say any other religion or mental health system at present provide statistics that support your claim otherwise it is just an opinion.
    Blanket statements such as: When a scientologist compares scientology to an established religion, is to try to get credibility by association.
    To this i say what religion, organisation, or person doesnt do this?

    Now i would like to respond to the Lisa McPherson tradgedy. I have read the legal release forms provided at and read some of the accompanying information regarding the case both at that site and at and it honestly seems to me like the case is basedon alot of assumption & very circumstancial evidence or at least thats how it is presented on those sites. With regard to the forms: the church as any organisation non-profit or otherwise will, they will attempt to absolve themselves from any legal consequences by putting the responsibilty of the potential adverse effects of there service or product with the individual that is purchasing such such services or products. Thats business like it or not.
    I do however feel for Lisa and the tradgedy of her death should not go unheeded. But that said, slander and unfounded accusation is not the way to prove guilt.

  • Joe Blown

    Hem… B LIAL,

    You assert that scientology is a religion. Then you write :

    “With regard to the forms: the church as any organisation non-profit or otherwise will, they will attempt to absolve themselves from any legal consequences by putting the responsibilty of the potential adverse effects of there service or product with the individual that is purchasing such such services or products. Thats business like it or not.”

    Well then… Is it a religion or a business ?

    Make up your mind.

  • D Rathan

    Belial, am sorry, I ask you to please re-read both my posts. First, make sure whether or not I compared scientology to disneyland. Then, make sure whether or not I tried to gain credibility by association (hint: it requires me to associate myself with something credible, find what that is). Lastly, check again whether I care or not that other entities (religious or not) have done more damage than scientology. I am willing to dialogue with you, but I need you to focus and understand my position first.

    Thanks for your comments on Lisa McPherson. Do you think its circumstancial that she was kept locked up in Scientology-Owned Fort Harrison for so long, abused in many ways while her health deteriorated so fast, all the while her family and real doctors were kept away from her? What is your take on Perkins? P.S. when you visit make sure the extension is “NET” and not “COM”. Why? Because Scientology bought the “COM” one. One wonders why.

  • B LIAL


    I have to say i almost brushed your statement with the following Q: What is it presently recognised as by law? but relised you might say sumthing equally smug like in wat country?

    But it is good to see you read that part closely. So i will respond. To you i say. What is a not for profit organisation?
    And here is a Definitition for your trouble:

    Non-profit organization

    A nonprofit organization (sometimes abbreviated to “not-for-profit”, “non-profit”, or “NPO”) is an organization whose primary objective is to support some issue or matter of private interest or public concern for non-commercial purposes. Nonprofits may be involved in an innumerable range of areas relating to the arts, charities, education, politics, religion, research, or some other endeavor.

    The difference between nonprofit and for-profit organizations
    Most experts consider that it is the legal and ethical restrictions on the distribution of profits to owners or shareholders which fundamentally distinguishes nonprofits from commercial enterprises. A more precise term is ‘not-for-profit’, rather than ‘nonprofit’, and this is often used in legislation and texts.

    Nonprofits generally do not operate to generate profit, a characteristic widely considered to be the defining characterisitic of such organizations. However, a nonprofit organization may accept, hold and disburse money and other things of value. It may also legally and ethically trade at a profit. The extent to which it can generate income may be constrained, or the use of those profits may be restricted. Nonprofits therefore are typically funded by donations from the private or public sector, and often have tax exempt status. Private donations may sometimes be tax deductible.

    Additionally, a nonprofit organization may have members as opposed to shareholders.

    i guess its upto you if you take time to look into the legal status of the religion of scientology or not. But to answer your Q from my point of view, scientology is a non-profit organisation & a recognised religion in many countries worldwide & that under the legal status of a religion enjoys some tax benefits that it otherwise it would not.

  • D Rathan

    I think it would be really interesting to start a religion called “Xenulogy”. The worship of Xenu. We’d fill out every required form and apply for tax exemption too. We’d meet every single criteria that Scientology meets. That’d be interesting, to see if the Goverment grant us religious status too.

  • xenu
  • B LIAL

    You have an opinion (sarcastic &/or cynical and misguided as it is) on everything, i like that.

    On Xenulogy,
    I think if u can get it through the courts and actually arouse sum interest in people by proposing a challenging new perspective on reality (as any good religion does) good luck to you son.

    Thanks for the recognition on Lisa even if my emotion spanned about 1 line before disssolving back into the debate.
    I think u r right that she seriously needed proper medical care & didnt recieve it quickly enough. What i would be asking though is:

    a) what happened to the Medical Liason Officer in charge of all staff medical emergencies/situations?

    b) Within the entire Complex that is the Mecca couldnt u find one single qualified Medical Practitioner staff or puplic in the time it took for Lisa to die?

    These would be the q’s i would ask.

    What u are getting stuck on i think is: why did this happen which translates in arguement easily into how could this have happened?


    how could this have happened? assumes it did happen exactly the way it has been laid out on the I/Net(a world renowned source of truth and bringer of justice). You get what im saying?

    wat u should understand is that the burden of proof beyond reasoanable doubt can be quite a burden.
    I am not willing to side with either scietology or xenulogy cuz i think they both see through rose coloured glasses & fight over who’s r roseier.

    The fact there is a direct Anti-Scientology movement merely serves as further spotlight for the church. As in: Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had as he has kept it in business all these years. So just keep playing into that dichotomy and see where it gets u.

    Considering the horrific scenes that happened in the Lisa Mcpherson case do u think it is very considerate (especially to her family) that u wave these scenes around in the hope that sumone believes them after the case was settled and the evidence even then was insufficent to prove guilt?

  • D Rathan

    Well, we’ll never know if the evidence was insufficient or not, precisely because the case settled out of court.

    This is not the first time that happens in the Church of Scientology, take for example Larry Wollersheim. They fought him on the courts for years and years, and just before the case was taking a turn that would research deeper into the Church’s businesses and interrogate some of their key players, they suddenly deposited on Larry’s bank account the 8 million dollars they had been fighting for, and ended the case. Experience tells that Scientology sues for the chilling effect of it, but settles when its losing, and always just in time to prevent seriously damaging investigation.

    For Lisa’s case, I think its noteworthy that Scientologists are now compelled to sign away their legal rights in order to receive the same “Rundown” that allegedly killed lisa. Church members are literally signing that they dont hold the church liable even if they die while locked up. If it was bad enough that they took people’s money, then mind, then soul, now the package is complete with their human and legal rights. Now they take everything. I think Lisa’s family would not object to this warning being made.

  • D Rathan

    Oooh!! i had missed that link there! Thanks, oh Dark Lord Xenu, for giving me the URL to your church! I shall enlist at once :) [bows]

  • B LIAL

    Well u summed it up in one line we will never know.

    Im sure if Lisa’s family wanted this nighmare to cointinue then they would continue it.

    With regard to out of court settlments:

    1) Any, and i say ANY organisation would rather settle out of court than pay damages, unless they want to go bankrupt.

    2) ANY organisation that is big will have more than one case brought againt it throughout its lifespan.

    Usually out of court settlemnt is reached to avoid cost or a bad reputation & rarely ever means the accused is guilty of the charges brought against it.

    I think alluding to this reveals merely a lack of experience in these matters nothing more.

    An out of court settlement is most often mediated so it is a compromise agreeable to both parties once again it is not an admission of guilt.

    As eqaully as i say an out of court settlemnt is not an admission of guilt neither is the amount of times an organisation has settled out of court since as stated above this is the preferred option and is a compromise for both parties.

    I will give u one thing though sum scionologists r fanatical.
    Sum see L Ron Hubbard as god and his writing as gospel the funny thing is that U also warrent him with this same reverence.
    In saying the application of his writings can steal a persons soul/freewill.
    This is reinforcing the view that he is a god.

    Let me explain further:

    What all church’s of scientology are composed of in strucutre & function are:

    The writings of L Ron Hubbard, and these writings r followed to the letter so if you say a church of scientology can take a soul you are saying the person behind these churches is a god of some form or other.

    And im sorry i just dont agree. What ever side of the fence you r on whether Scientologist or Anti-scientologist L Ron Hubbard remains in history a human being.

    But once again thanks for proving my point.

  • D Rathan

    Well, about court settlements, I dont know if you are familiar with this quote from L. Ron Hubbard:

    “The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather than to win… Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly that they will be ostracized.”

    Once again, one needs to realize that when any regular organization settles out of court, it means one thing, and when Scientology does it, it means another.

    Lastly, you do not need a God to give your soul out. People give their souls out to the most mundane of things, football, or Elvis, or gambling, or World of Warcraft. I personally believe LRH was talented as a cult leader, but a little too crazy in the end, which proves to be, ironically, CoS’s only achilles heel. Without elron’s lunacy to make fun of, CoS would be a lot more impregnable from critics’ attacks, and able to scam a lot more people more effectively.

  • B LIAL


    I like it, You have clarified your opinion alot since your last entry & i finally feel like talking not just rebutting your amusing & unfounded accusations.

    I agree with your sentiment that your soul can b given out readily many do this when they fall in love or the like however i believe your soul is not love or some habit or conditioned response but it is your freewill and your freewill no matter how imprisoned to conditioning you are is always yours. To say someone can eradicate freewill is quite a feit. They would be the first ever person or god to do this. Not even your almighty Xenu has done this.
    sumthing to think about anyway.

    I think the one liner on scientology differing when it settles out of court is a bit anorexic but you might assume what needed to be said has alreasdy been said.

    Not so.

    A little hint: when you quote someone make sure it is coming directly from them (or their writing) not from a site that is setup to descredit and defame a person with whatever they can including false documents & testimony.

    I understand u might think reading sumthing that is labelled by the church as scientology theology might b offputting and b as falsified by the church as documents written by anti scientologists that defame elron & u might b right but the i/net is far from an accurate source of truth.

    As for elron’s lunacy blah.

  • Xenu

    Well,B LIAL, talking about defaming and discrediting, look at this site :

    It’s the “Church of Scientology effort to expose religious intolerance, especially–but not exclusively–that directed against Scientology.”

  • B LIAL

    Hey i think i saw my mum in one of those snapshots what the hell is she doing out of the basement?

    But seriously I dont think all skeptics or even cynics are motivated by something criminal do u?
    Often they can be acting merely out of a misguided self rightousness all by itself.

    Anyway it seemed as though some of those guyz had more issues than just moral ones.But i guess that site is in line with your previous comment that scientology would take the blame away from themselves by spotlighting someone else. Good point but where is it linked to Scio?.

    Returning to Unhealthy skepticism for a moment. It is only unhealthy if the skeptic offers 1) no alternative to what they are against 2)no factual basis for their allegations.

    So D, I have a question for u:
    1) Were u ever a member of the Church of Scientology?
    2) Did u see the exerpt on TV with the gullibilty test outside sydney CofS where the guy was asked q’s like Do u believe a sci fi writer could give a wholley factual account regarding the topic of aliens? Guess wat he said….

    To Xenu: If u r so against the CofS, why dont u infiltrate the church yourself and destroy it from the inside? Im sure if what u say is TRUE it shouldnt be a problem.


  • Xenu

    Hem… B Lial

    I don’t have to. Tom Cruise is doing just that right now.

  • Xenu

    Oh, and hello Gloria !

  • B LIAL


    U have some fascinating idea’s but I didnt ask about Mr Cruise….

    I am wondering if u have ever read a book by Ron Hubbard or have been into a CofS at all.

    I imagine someone with as many ideas as you have against the church, must have right?

  • Anne

    I would just like to say that Scientology has changed my life & without it I definatly would not be here today to write this message.

    I am eternally grateful to L. Ron Hubbard for the no bull approach he consistantly adopts in his writings regarding the issues of Dianetics & Scientology it truelly is a breath of fresh air.

    His writings on these topics are always very clear and to the point so they can be immediately employed and compared against in your everyday life.

    To me L Ron Hubbard has become a bit like The Venerable Gutama the Bhudda who’s work i read alot of also. He is a constant source of basic foundational truth regarding life and existence as a part of life.

    I have found his church (the church of scientology) to provide in its community based centres, if nothing else a safe place to go free from dishonesty and misguided judgement, where you and everybody else has one goal, that is to be happy and to help others and heal yourself for and by honesty.

    I simpy would like to state for the record L. Ron Hubbard is an inspiration to us all and if you considered nothing else in your life to become a happier saner individual i would recommend please consider the works of Mr Hubbard in Dianetics and Scientology. They truelly change lives.

    PS. Thankyou to the webmaster for the space in which to express my point of view.

  • Phillip


    Your article is spot on as far as i am concerned.

    I have also found L Ron Hubbard’s writings to be not only immense source of inspiration & enlightenment but also of huge benefit in healing both mental and physical ills.

    His writings are truelly a gift to all mankind & i would say anything that contains this much potential to unite and heal people deserves to be regarded as scripture.



  • Anne


    Yes you are right.
    Scientology does deserve religious status (as scripture) for the simple and undeniable fact that it is sacred.
    It is 100% revelation to anyone that applies it.

    However you do have to apply it to your life for it to have any effect.
    I guess it is like scripture in its application too.

    In the case of Dianetics and Scientology though it is soooooooo easy to understand and use there is no cypher required & it is soooooooo positive an effect on your life.

    Really amazing technology 1 for 1 every time despite the circumstances that surround.

    Some even say u can find a part of the scripture for any problem u have but i almost think any bit would do.
    The technology of Dianetics & Scientology are a literal fountain of youth and finally solid ground in the otherwise shifting sea of unknowns.

    Thankyou Webmaster
    & Thankyou LRH

  • Cole

    Phillip, Anne,

    If your goal is just to get the last word, then let me deny you that goal by saying that Dianetics and Scientology are both absurd and the Church of Scientology is nightmarishly vicious.

    No offense to you, of course, I know you’re simply doing your job as loyal doormats, just like Greg Churilov and ‘B LIAL’. Take it easy!

  • B LIAL

    Very good Cole,
    Thankyou for summoning me, I commend you on your attempt….but i too am a skeptic and your opinion just doesnt smell right….

  • Cole

    Wow, you have the power to smell opinions?

    Granted, I don’t know all the 57 perceptics, and I don’t know what kind of rundowns they have in the higher OT levels, but that is an impressive feat. I guess there’s no denying it, the tech works!

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go and attempt abortion with a knitting needle.

  • B LIAL


    you are excused…

  • anne


    I dont know how i could have kept losing in life and not seen it before you know?. Failing in relationships with friends and family, bored to the teeth with my job, anxious about social events and so on, smoking my lungs out with no regard for the environment or my body.

    But this is exactly how i was living before i found the technology of Dianetics and Scientology.

    Now having studied LRH and taken an ernest look at my everyday life & through applying Ron’s tech to the particular facets of my life i was not functioning well in.

    I have become a much more responsible person
    and i live now every moment to the fullest

    For example: i am totally over my anxiety toward others and i invite conversation now far more readily.
    i couldnt be happier in my job, my friendship group is steadily growing (by the way a BIG welcome to you Phillip, a new member of my now ever expanding frienship group, it is really great to have someone to share my journey with.
    And I have completely de-tox’ed my body and am not smoking any more.

    Fantastic isnt it!!!!! Thankyou Thankyou, No but really, anyone can do this, and its simple as just see LRH. The crazy thing to me is that people dont know about these miricals.


    It is literally the best thing in the world.
    Thats me, See Ya Phil.

  • Xenu

    “AIDS is not a disease. It’s a state fo mind.”
    Jenna Elfman, Scientology Celebrity.