Alright I don't get it

[James McGuigan]

The double standard is justified because Scientology is the "one and only" betterment activity that really matters. Scientology is good and SPs are anti-Scientology. Therefore SPs are anti-good, ie bad.


There are various noble-lies and institutionalized contradictions within the current system and these noble-lies are required for the system to continue in its current form.

From the CoS's point of view, SPs tend to be infectious. SPs have seen through this and are no longer true-believers and have some disagreement with the current system. SPs will often try to communicate these disagreements to their friends and other Scientologists, and talk about some of the hidden contradictions and inconvenient truths within the current system.


To give the medical analogy:

Communication is the infection vector for the viral meme known as "questioning the Church of Scientology". The ethics office acts as an anti-viral, attempting to cure those infected before they become infection themselves. The SP declare and ex-communication is both a deterrent and a form of quarantine (it’s a two-way communication barrier), to prevent further infection and starve the SP of communication terminals.

The most infectious SPs, especially those who seek to infect large numbers of the public, are sometimes fair-gamed, a form of culling, to safeguard the wider population.


Of course, the real problem is not that allowing "Questioning the Church" would be fatal to Scientology (in the long run it would probably make it stronger), but that the Church in its current form, was not exposed to enough questions during its childhood, and thus has developed an allergy to them. Every time an inconvenient question is asked, they develop a large rash, as their immune system over-reacts to something that would otherwise be harmless.


To openly acknowledge these points, would require significantly changing the dynamics and power structures of the current system. This is the system they know, and up till now, is the system that has worked for them, they know no other way. For the CoS, there is too much at stake, both personally and big-picture wise, to abandon their current system and replace it with a far more open model that is un-tested, doesn't allow for their centralised control and would require accepting responsibility for past mistakes. At the very least it would cause a temporary stat crash, while the old system is dismantled and the new system is slowly rebuilt.

Phenonmanon,

You bring up a very good question and your reasoning makes complete sense.

Basically it's the kettle calling the pan black. Some of what the CofS does, I'd definitely classify as Suppressive. And yes, some of the things that Psychiatry does is Suppressive.

But the problem is, as I see it, is that Scn thinks it does NO WRONG, EVER. And that just isn't true. Disconnection, fair game, RPF, etc. Those are NOT nice things to do. But the CofS justifies it's actions. It's for the betterment of the group. Well, I say BS.

Yes, the CofS considers all of us posting here and saying "bad" things about the CofS are SPs. Well, I'm glad to be one, if that is all they are going by. Because, it's not what the characteristics of an SP are.

[James McGuigan]

Per policy, an SP is simply somebody who has been found guilty, by a committee of evidence, of one or more high crimes, as defined in:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/crime-syndicate-ethics.htm and has not yet done their A-E steps to get back in good standing with the Church.

This is how the official label is applied or mis-applied. Which is different from philosophical definition of an SP, which describes general personality traits. In theory they should align, in practice it has become another tool of social control.

Violently oppose? I don't see a lot of declared SPs falling in this category. Damn those stupid Ethics officers who only saw the words OPPOSE and not VIOLENTLy! You alienated a lot of good people!