Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Some questions on Church policies
5 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2009 - 10:50PM #1
MaxwellCross
Posts: 0
Hey everyone, this is my first post, and I'm only here because it seems like a fairly neutral forum. Every other place I came across seems to be rabidly anti-Scn. Anyway, I've been asked a number of questions by non-Scn acquaintances, and sometimes they ask some pretty strange stuff. Local org staff seem to be just as confused about them as I am or have given me unusual answers, and there are, as far as I know, no LRH refs that directly address these issues.

1) The Church has no official policy regarding gays (or lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people), except that they cannot be on staff. But nothing would prevent them from receiving auditing or going on course or moving up the Bridge, correct? Ethics Officer said, "Not necessarily, but will be a problem after the Grades if their case is not being resolved since they wouldn't be able to go Clear and OT. NED would definitely help crack their case though."

2) There are lots of discussion in the media about the Church and gays, but a friend recently was curious about transgendered individuals (transsexuals). Same Ethics Officer didn't know what the hell I was talking about until I elaborated. He claimed that they're completely out-of-valence and probably degraded. However, this response is suspect since he didn't cite any LRH refs nor was he familiar with definitions of transgender/transsexual. Needless to say, he didn't bother fully clearing his MUs regarding this matter.

I approached another staff member who is far less sheltered and more worldly than our Ethics friend, and she was just as clueless as I was. She agreed with the out-of-valence assessment and that they are probably illegal PCs.

The only conclusion I can personally reach after my own study is that since transgendered individuals are required to see a psychiatrist on a routine basis in order to qualify for hormone treatment and sex change operations (which is ultimately a cosmetic operation), that on this basis alone this would make them illegal PCs. On top of that, many of them take hormone pills for the rest of their life (seems to be a requirement), though I don't know if this is necessarily against policy.

3) Church staff recently told one raw public (a practicing Zen Buddhist from Japan) that Buddhism is completely compatible with Scn. However, this is incorrect and probably out-ethics since the central religious practice of Buddhism is meditation, and LRH policy clearly prohibits preclears and students from practicing meditation while on course or receiving auditing. Is there some loophole or something for practicing Buddhists that I don't know about?

Any answers would be much appreciated.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 09, 2009 - 11:00PM #2
Sciologos
Posts: 1
Concerning your questions on the Church of Scientology's postion on homosexuality, let me first note that I am not an officer of the Church and this, therefore, is not an official position of the Church.  I have been a practicing Scientologist since 1976 and am relatively well trained and have a reasonable understanding of this issue.

I would suggest you read some of L. Ron Hubbard's basic books on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology.  These texts should help you to understand that the comments of the ethics officers to whom you spoke.  A being dramatizing homosexuality is confused as to their sexual identity due to what ever has fixated them on the sexual identity that is now contrary to that of their current body.  After some training and lower level auditing one should come into valence, recognise this and realign with the reality of their current body.  If not, then yes, they can not continue on with their progress onto upper level auditing. 

As to transgenders or transsexuals, they have simply gone to a level beyond the norm and still have the same or similar case issues. Those need to be resolved.  The interface with a psychiatrist does add an additional complication.  Depending upon the degree, duration and depth of psychiatric treatment would determine their eligibility for any services.

Regarding your comments concerning the compatibility of Buddhism with Scientology, you might have misunderstood the comments of the staff member.  The basic, principal beliefs of Scientology and Buddhism align uniquely.  The practices involved in the acheivement of spiritual freedom differ.  A practicing Buddhist should suspend meditation to get Scientology auditing.

I hope this helps.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2009 - 6:28PM #3
John.beliefnet.com
Posts: 5

Regarding your private life and Scientology.


There is a specific Policy that you should read regarding this it is called "Second Dynamic Rules". Any staff member at any Church can get it for you. In a nut shell there are no rules, the Church does not involve itself in your personal life. 


What you or anyone else may experience is others (staff and public) predisposed ideas of what is or isnt correct behavior but this policy is very clear. The Church does not have any set policy regarding your personal life. The Church can suffer from the same dilemma any other Church can, and that is individuals placing their personal views into its doctrines. I am sure this has happened in the past and will in the future. But it can be straightened out very easily.


Scientology is not about your body or reproduction or sexual sensation. It is about spirtualality, and it really isnt about anything else. LRH does comment on the subjects numerous times in the early fifties, that I have read, but he never made it important or special. He was investigating the true nature of man, sex is part of that, so he comments on it. In my opinion LRH doesn't consider sex very important and he specifically says it is not aberrative.


There are those in the world who hate Scientology and try and pick fights with other groups for us. This is one of their favorites. Gays and transsexuals suffer greatly in our society for their life styles and the prejiducial ideas that society inflicts on them. Scientology is for the able to become more able no matter what else they are doing in their life, straight, gay, celibut, whatever.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2009 - 2:29PM #4
Mark.tomles
Posts: 16

Hubbard did address this to some degree. He wrote:


"The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II [i.e. sexuality] such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Kraft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically... he is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also far from normal and extremely dangerous to society..." (Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, pp. 122–123. Church of Scientology of California, 1978 edition)


While Scientology may not "ban" homosexuals, there is arguably some residual bias.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2009 - 9:34PM #5
Louanne
Posts: 2

Hi Mark,


remember me? It is true that Dianetics (a publication written in 1949/50) is reflecting the "normality" of that time. But what counts, and I am sure you agree, is the lived reality. I wrote something about this earlier and here it is:


Is Scientology against homosexuality?

There was some early writings that appeared to be "anti-gay", stating that homosexuality was covertly hostile. But one must look at that in the context of the times. In the 1940s - 1950s most people in western countries did consider homosexuality to be a mental or even physical illness.

I do not have any knowledge or evidence of anti-homosexual actions taken by the church at any point, other than the few writings on the subject. It was pretty much left alone for many years.

Then in 1967 Hubbard issued a policy which reads, in part, "It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition... Therefore all former rules, regulations and polices relating to the sexual activities of Scientologists are cancelled."

Hubbard later released a book about ethical behavior that was silent on the subject of homosexuality, and offered a gender-neutral ethical guidelines about being faithful to one's partner and avoiding promiscuity.

The Church of Scientology is a leading proponent for human rights for all people of earth as can be seen by their campaigns with Youth for Human Rights (youthforhumanrights.org), the new Human Rights campaign (humanrights.com) and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (cchr.org).

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2009 - 9:46PM #6
Mark.tomles
Posts: 16

Hello, Lou! Long time, no see! Always nice to hear from you.


You say that "But one must look at that in the context of the times. In the 1940s - 1950s most people in western countries did consider homosexuality to be a mental or even physical illness."


This is true. But wasn't Hubbard supposed to be ahead of his time in understanding and comprehension?


This is further complicated when you write "Then in 1967 Hubbard issued a policy which reads, in part, "It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition... Therefore all former rules, regulations and polices relating to the sexual activities of Scientologists are cancelled."


Of course, the late 60s were a far more sexually liberal time than the 40's-50's.


Putting the two together, it sounds more like Hubbard merely responded to the political climate of the time, rather than directed (or attempted to have directed it) it.


Would you say that's true?


Mark


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2009 - 10:23PM #7
Mark.tomles
Posts: 16

interesting note:


In the 40's, Hubbard was in an leaving the military, where sodomy and homosexuality were against the uniform codes. Initially, homosexuality was seeminly not permitted within Scientology. This is supported by Hubbard's 1951 book "Handbook for preclears", which defined homosexuality as a perversion by people that "can't practice love".


In 1967, Britain Legalized homosexuality. This is the same year that Hubbard did issued the second memo, and the same year that he was sailing in the Mediterranean (near, of course, Britain)


Surely you would agree then that this particular belief system was entirely driven (and eventually reversed) by the opinion or climate of others?

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook