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.
I know that anyone can edit Wikipedia pages, so I do not assume Wikipedia as an authority, but the page does reference works of L. Ron Hubbard. The article states that Dianetics says the homosexual is a deviant and low on the tone scale. Science of Survival says that they are 1.1 (covert hostility) and "Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics...No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum 1.1's. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst."
Is this quote correct (I don't have the book), and if so, would you agree with that? I am not homosexual, but this is very alarming to me. The article does go on to say that later on, in the late 60s, Hubbard was more neutral on the subject of homosexuality per a policy letter quoted (but not referenced) in the article.
Which "scriptures" are adhered to currently by Scientologists?
What policy letter was that?
Thanks again for your quick and thoughtful responses.
Answer Most of the Wikipedia pages have been built and continue to be edited by anti-Scientologists. They will claim to be impartial but you can tell the bias by their edits - unfavorable data cloaked in "impartial" language. A number of Scientologists have made a concerted effort to slant them more toward impartiality through their own edits, without much success. This is due to two factors: The haters are more driven than we are, and Scientologist editors tend to edit too much to the "rosy" side, making their edits easy targets.
That said, Scientology and Dianetics were works in progress throughout Ron's life. He did not receive gold tablets with the scriptures already finished and "written in stone" from the angel Moroni (joke).
When writing Dianetics, Ron was still working from a physical model, and it was essentially inconceivable in that day and age that a person could "inherit" being gay. Hence, homosexual bahaviors, demonstrably not designed to promote species survival, must have been volitional and therefore belonged to the tone level they best fit - 1.1. Pleasant on the surface, but descructive a the core.
The later Ron wrote something, the later and more complete his understanding it is likely to reflect. Hence, his "Second Dynamic Rules" policy (1968, I think - I don't have it handy) is the final word on the subject. There are to be NO rules made or adopted by the church regarding sexual activities, etc. They are too subject to interpretation and too likely to lead to unduly harsh reactions. Instead, good sense and good order are to prevail.
Ron's latest policies or policies issued after his death are those followed by church members.
All data Ron wrote is to be studied and understood in context by persons who want a complete understanding of Dianetics and Scientology and their development. None of it is "historical" or "no longer valid" or "to be disregarded." However, it is to be understood IN CONTEXT. Know what Ron was looking at and thinking of, what data he had to hand, etc. when he wrote a thing.
If you want to be a Scientologist, you'd better haul out your insight, personal judgment and ability to evaluate importances, and dust them off for rigorous use. Simpletons and absolutists need not apply. Language-parsers, semanticists and nit-pickers for detail should steer clear. Fundamentalists (those who insist on one, usually backward part of a teaching while ignoring the rest) please stay home.
There are HUNDREDS of "PABs" or Professional Auditors Bulletins which were written by Ron throughout the fifties and into the sixties. They laid out the latest and best auditing techniques and concepts of their day. Many procedures laid out there, a modern auditor would not be caught dead doing now. Nonetheless, the data they contain is extremely valuable, and lays bare the development process, what was learned, and how we learned it.
But Note: Ron did say of 1.1 and antisocial personalities that "Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics...No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum 1.1's. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst." He did not say this of homosexuals, though he did assign homosexual behavior to that level of the tone scale in his early writings and, in context, understandably so. Note, however, that in the context of the whole book and other books taken in addition, everyone displays different tone levels in different areas of their personality. One can "average," using the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, across dozens of areas of human personality traits, activity and behavior, to get a general idea sort of what the "center-weighted" overall body-plus-thetan emotional tone level of a person is, but this just is not a simple sliding numerical scale. Hardly anyone is purely at ONE emotional tone in all areas. By raising a red flag about 1.1 (people who smile to your face and then stab you in the back), he is cautioning people to beware of a toxic personality type. He goes on to use language on "how to deal with" such types which one simply cannot take seriously. "Institutionalized?" Ron was absolutely and uniformly against such a practice and railed against it his whole life.
That said, and again taking everything in context, emotional tone level is one thing and personality type is another. Something Ron discovered later, as laid out in Introduction to Scientology Ethics and other publications is a personality package he called the Anti-Social Personality. this is almost (but not quite) interchangeable with the term "suppressive person." This is a person who, in response to a no-longer-current situation of being under attack from all persons and every direction, defends themselves by undermining everyone and everything. Being driven by a form of chronic terror, they are careful to avoid detection and hide their real activities and motives and are thus - guess what? COVERTLY HOSTILE. The tone level of covoert hostility is 1.1.
Be careful to understand the distinction - every anti-social personality is, by definition, covertly hostile. They are stuck at that tone level and the balance of their thinking and actions demonstrate it. NOT EVERY person who at one time or another, or even most of the time, shows the traits of 1.1 behavior, or who hovers around this tone level, is an anti-social personality. Ie, even if you take as a given that homosexuality is a 1.1 trait, (and I do not) you cannot assume this is the overall tone of a gay person, nor can you conclude that a gay person is covertly hostile.
You CAN count on the fact that if you allow a covertly hostile person to operate around you unwatched, he will do you harm. He can't help it. I mean, if someone is hostile, and hides it, what else could be the result of his acts but hidden damage? When Ron says to wall off such from the body of society, it makes sense.
Last word: We are probably learning that in many or most cases, homosexuality is not a volitional sexual perversion per se. Therefore, Ron's advice vis a vis sexual deviance may not properly apply to it. I would say in most cases it does not.
HOWEVER - this is not to say sexual deviance, perversion and even predation do not exist. They do. They belong at 1.1 on the tone scale, and are practiced by sick, sick folks - many of whom prey on children, vulnerable women, even gullible gays. Such "sexual" expressions invariably include injury or pain or harm or non-sensical assignments of form or function, up to and including physical assault and murder in pursuit of sexual gratification. To call such "sane" or "healthy but different" is to hide one's head in the sand. They are sick, they are dangerous and persons who practice them are a danger to themselves and/or their partners and/or society at large.
All the foregoing is my opinion, and should be thus understood. You will find that Scientologists have opinions that range all over the map. Our opinions are not Scientology.
