AboutLaurie Hamilton Expertise I am able to answer questions regarding Scientology practices and procedures, belief system, donations, religious rites, management, administrative and staff matters.
Experience I am a second generation Scientologist whose parents began in Dianetics in 1950 and studied directly with L. Ron Hubbard. I have been personally active in the church for 40 years, have eleven years former staff experience in both technical and administrative areas, and extensive technical and administative training and counseling. I am "clear" and "OT." I come from an extended family of many religions, but my spouse and children are Scientologists, as are my siblings and their spouses, several cousins, nieces, nephews, an aunt, and an uncle. Between us we have had every good and bad experience one might go through in the church at every level.
Question Why are squirrels considered to be enemies and suppressive people that need to be disconnected from?
In general, I've never cared for the disconnection policy, at least not in my own personal situations where it was given to me as an ultimatum for getting services. I wasn't in any situation where I was doing poorly in life because of my association with my grandmother. If the Church had a problem with her being a squirrel, that should be between them and her, it has nothing to do with me, and furthermore, there should be no reason for them to drag me into the conflict.
I can't say that in some situations the disconnection policy wouldn't be useful. I have a sister who lives with a crazy, abusive boyfriend and the whole family wishes she would just leave him.
But... why is it that squirrels, and for that matter (based upon what I've heard from other sources) other self-help groups like Landmark and Tony Robbins are considered suppressive and you can't have anything to do with them? When it comes down to it, don't they have the same purposes as the Church... to help people make a difference in their lives? So what if they use different methods, as long as people are having wins? Isn't that what matters the most?
Okay, so maybe they are competition to the Church, but... if I were auditioning for an acting role, and my friend was auditioning for the same role, does that make my friend my enemy? No, because there are plenty of other roles out there. And there are plenty of people out there for the Church, the squirrels, Landmark, Tony Robbins, psychologists, etc. to help. And that's what makes it nice because the world has all sorts of different options for people... if one thing doesn't work for one individual, they can try something else.
Thoughts, beliefs, considerations and postulates create your reality, so one should always choose thoughts and beliefs that serve in one's survival and happiness. It seems to me that considering squirrels to be "enemies" and "groups hostile to Scientology" really only creates enemies out of otherwise potential allies, and doesn't serve the Church or Scientologists very well.
Answer There is no disconnection policy. Anyone demanding that someone disconnect is not following church policy.
There is policy that someone may not associate with or befriend squirrels or suppressives and get services in the church.
"Squirrel" is someone who has altered Scientology and who promotes altered Scientology as the answer.
We see this as distraction and diversion from the workable, thereby denying their adherents the benefits of actual Scientology. We feel that man cannot be free with the reactive mind, that only Scientology erases the reactive mind, and that it is unacceptable to lead people off the bridge to some other "answer" which does not erase the reactive mind.
The reasons why someone may not have both Scientology and altered versions of Scientology, or support both at the same time, are twofold:
First, if a person has shown they are in agreement with the idea of altering Scientology outside the church, they have shown they cannot be trusted not to alter it within the church. Church members are those who have agreed to no alterations. Since a person has shown they cannot be trusted not to alter, they have shown they are not one of us. As not being one of us, they are not permitted to engage in the activities we engage in as a group - what sets us aside from non-Scientologists - erasing the reactive mind and training to erase the reactive mind. Further, they will not be allowed to interject false answers in amongst our true ones, thereby leading people off the workable path. Further, as they feel it's OK to "kind of" do Scientology "sort of" like it's written, they will not themselves be making gains in Scientology either. People who waste their own time and that of supervisors and auditors are a double danger. The waste itself is dangerous and counter-productive, dragging the church down. Worse, they then go around saying Scientology (which they didn't do, but altered instead) doesn't work.
Second, all answers are not of equal value. If we promote the idea that all answers are of equal value, we lie about Scientology - which we have chosen as the answer which, as it erases the reactive mind, is of superior value. If we create the impression that it's OK with us for people to go chasing off after false answers by freely allowing people to try to do or support Scientology at the same time as doing or supporting a false solution, then we falsify the reason that anyone should even do Scientology at all rather than something else, and we lose our group identity - ie, as a group, we disappear. We feel being a group, and behaving in a coherent, organized, concerted fashion allows us to do what we cannot do as individuals. A person cannot go clear alone. It requires a whole standard tech division operating within its supporting church.
So, part of our agreement as church members is: We do not support or condone false answers.
This does not mean a person cannot adhere to other religions, as other religions do not hold out the promise of clearing, and so there is no danger anyone will confuse that activity with our activity.
Other "self-help" groups, equally, are not opposed or disapproved of by us in general - only ones whose mental practices make it impossible to pursue both them and Scientology at the same time. I don't know how Tony Robbins and a couple of others earned that particular distinction, but unless and until I know for sure that they don't qualify, I will err on the side of agreeing with those in my church who were entrusted with making that call.
You should not mistake those who offer answers which deny a person true Scientology as potential allies of ours. Someone whose "answers" prevent clearing is not aligned with us.
It's not "competition" that's the concern. It's the preventing of clearing.
Psychology and psychiatry are not only false, but harmful "answers." psychiatry, harmful to the nervous system, the brain and the mind, subsumes the field of psychology, and the governing groups of both fields squared off as enemies of Scientology over fifty years ago - attempting to wipe us out. They are therefore not potentiall allies of ours either.
"Having wins" generally is not bad. Substitutes for clearing which, at the same time, denigrate the value of clearing, are bad. "Look, you can be 'just as happy' over here!" is a lie and claims clearing is no more valuable than "getting it" in est. We do not support that line of thinking and do not support nor condone those who do.
Your position is that Scientology does not have a unique or uniquely valuable answer. If I agreed with that position, the rest of your argument would make sense to me, and not only would you not be a Scientologist - neither would I. OK, so you're not a Scientologist. OK with me. You do not support me in my claim that we have a uniquely valuable answer, and I do not support you in your claim that we have no uniquely valuable answer, nor condone that you say that. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. I feel what I am saying is true and that what you are saying is not, so I would be dishonest to support you in saying it. That doesn't mean we cannot talk. I just means I don't support you saying something about my church which I hold is not true.
