A Contemporary Ordered Religious Community:
The Sea Organization
[1]
by J. Gordon Melton
A paper presented at The 2001 CESNUR Conference in London
Note from the webmaster: This is an excellent and factual study
conducted on the RPF by one of the more prominent religious scholars
in the United States. I have put in bold what is relevant to
the issues of physical restrain and informed consent. For more
information about the Sea Organization, see the full
article.
As most religions have created ordered intentional communities,
so those intentional communities have created systems whereby those
who break the rules may make recompense and be integrated back into
the life of the community. The most famous system operating in the
West is possibly that created by St. Benedict for the Benedictine
order. The section on rule breaking begins:
If a brother is found to be obstinate, or disobedient, or
proud, or murmuring, or habitually transgressing the Holy Rule in
any point and contemptuous of the order of his seniors, the latter
shall admonish him secretly a first and second time, as Our Lord
commands. If he fails to amend, let him be given a public rebuke
in front of the whole community. But if even then he does not
reform, let him be placed under excommunication, provided that he
understands the seriousness of that penalty; if he is perverse,
however, let him undergo corporal punishment. [50]
Among the Trappists, anyone seen breaking the rules would be
reported to the "Chapter of faults, which would in turn
announce these actions at the next meal after which the superior of
the order would pronounce a suitable punishment. For example,
". . . a monk might be ordered to lie in the doorway of the
refractory while the other monks stepped over him on their way to a
meal." [51]
Within the Roman Catholic Church, there are a set of general laws
which all orders follow. Each order then adopts an additional rules
peculiar to its special purpose and mission. Canon law operating
within the Roman Catholic Church notes that a monk or nun under
perpetual vows may be dismissed from their order for what are termed
"grave external reasons." It is the duty of the person's
immediate superiors to admonish them in hopes of correcting the
situation, and may in that endeavor impose various punishments. If
the person proves incorrigible, s/he is informed that s/he risks
being terminated as a member and is asked for a defense of the
questioned behavior. If the situation remains serious, it is
presented to the proper authority, the local bishop or superior of
the order, who passes it to the Congregation of Religious in Rome.
It is ultimately the decision of the Pope formally to order the
dismissal. [52]
In the Eastern world, one soon runs into the Patimokkha section
of the Vinaya-pitaka, which lays out the rules for Buddhist monks. [53]
Among the important admonitions for the monk or nun are to refrain
from sexual activity, avoid secular work, and not attempt to create
a schism in the sangha (monastic community). There is also a
prescribed code of etiquette, which anyone who has been present at a
Buddhist gathering that included monks and nuns has witnessed. The
Vinaya also prescribed rules for disciplining rule breakers. There
are a set of rules that if transgressed leads to the immediate
expulsion of the member from the group. Lesser rules may be handled
through the imposition of punishments after a confession or other
determination of guilt. [54]
In The Korean Chogye tradition (the majority tradition in Korean
Buddhism), there are four deeds that will lead to immediate
dismissal from the monastic community, sexual relations with a
woman, stealing, killing, and telling lies, especially making a
false claim about one's state of enlightenment. Sea Org's system
differs from that of both the Roman Catholic and Buddhist systems in
that it offers a means for those judged guilty of expulsion offenses
to redeem themselves and be reintegrated into the community. [55]
The RPF, the Sea Org's program for those who have committed
serious violations of ethical policy, was created in January 1974
while the center of the Sea Org was still aboard the ships. The
program grew out of the recognition that some people either could
not or did not wish to adapt to life aboard the ships. Originally
such persons were put off the ship, the equivalent of being
dismissed from the Sea Org. Then in 1968, Hubbard created what was
termed the "Mud Box Brigade." Those on board the ship who
were found slacking off their duties or misbehaving (which is some
cases on board the ship could place the lives of the crew and
passengers in danger) were assigned to clean the "mud
boxes," the place where mud collected from the anchors, and the
bilge, the rather foul water that collects in the bottom of any
ocean-going vessel. While the average person looking as such a
structure might see it as punishment, Hubbard understood it in terms
of making retribution to the people who had been harmed by the
nonperformance or incorrect performance of one's assigned tasks.
This rather stop-gap measure, however, was replaced in 1974 with
RPF, a more systematic structure for handling misbehavior that was
more fully integrated into the Hubbard's understanding of ethics.
The RPF also served additional purposes beyond those served by the
Mud Box Brigade.
The new Rehabilitation Project Force program was designed with
multi-goals, though the basic one was providing a situation in which
individuals who had been negligent in their posts could be isolated
from the group (thus preventing further immediate harm). They were
also assigned a period each day to work on themselves using
Scientology tech, considered a necessary step to their being
reintegrated into the larger group. As Hubbard described it in an
early Flag Order, "The RPF is in actual fact a system of
recruiting by taking people off the lines who are blocking things
and then not letting them back on lines until they are a valuable
operating staff member." [56]
The RPF was also designed as a work force in which the members spent
five hours a day working upon their own inner condition using the
resources available in Scientology technology, and the rest of the
day engaged in physical labor of the kind that involved coordinated
work with others as a team. While learning to work with others, one
could make restitution for the harm done through contributions to
the physical facilities in which the Sea Org and the church are
housed. As each project is completed, RPF members feel rewarded,
usually, with the sense of accomplishment.
Assignment to the RPF can begin in one of several ways. Often it
starts with a realization by an individual that his/her behavior is
out of line with expectations. With a number of people I
interviewed, their realization came during or shortly after their
ending an illicit extramarital affair. In some cases, the affair
began to affect their work, but in others the fact that their
performance at work was judged superior allowed them to keep the
affair unknown to their colleagues. In most cases, however, problems
with performance at their assigned work over a period of time were
noticed and reported. Following an investigation, the individual
was offered the option of pursuing the RPF program or leaving the
Sea Org. In one case, the person I interviewed had
misappropriated a considerable amount of church money for personal
use.
Once a person is informed of the basics of the RPF option,
understand what is involved, and chooses it, s/he signs a document
noting his/her agreement to join the program. The new RPFer then
generally moves quickly to one of the RPF centers that are located
in the Sea Org complexes in Los Angeles, Clearwater, London, or
Copenhagen. The largest number are in the LA RPF. (In 2000, when
this study was done, more than half of the approximately 350
currently participating in the program were in LA. Slightly less
were in the Clearwater RPF, and by comparison, the RPF at Copenhagen
had less than 20.) Choice of location is determined by several
factors including space available and the presence of another person
at approximately the same level on The Bridge with which one can be
paired. A person, for example, who is working on his/her OT levels
would not be paired with a pre-Clear.
When the person arrives, s/he is assigned to space in a dorm-like
room with others and given some orientation. That orientation
includes the reading of the thirty Flag Orders pertaining to RPF.
Once fully aware of the conditions under which s/he will be
operating [57] s/he
again chooses to proceed, and then begins a refresher course in
ethics. [58] In addition,
some technical training is included, especially if the new person is
unfamiliar with the basics of auditing. [59]
The person is also assigned to a team with whom s/he will be
working. In Copenhagen the number of options is extremely limited,
while in Los Angeles and Clearwater, a variety of work assignments
are available. [60]
Finally, the individual is assigned to a partner with whom s/he
will work during the stay in the RPF. This partner is extremely
important as one's progress in the program is tied to the partner's
progress. During what will be a year or more together, the pair
audit each other and are responsible for each other's success. They
will finish the program together and one criteria for graduation is
the demonstration that the RPFer can help another, specifically
their partner. The importance of the partner is underscored in those
occasional cases in which a person drops out of the program. The
person who remains will be assigned another new partner whose
success now becomes his/her responsibility.
The RPF is located within the Sea Org facilities, but members
dine and sleep in separate quarters. (In Los Angeles, for example,
the RPF space–dorm, dining hall and kitchen, and woodwork
shop–are in the main AO building. In Copenhagen they are in the
basement (study space) and top floor (dorm rooms) of one of the Sea
Org buildings currently undergoing renovation. In Clearwater they
are located in two separate buildings in the Sea Org residence
complex. [In Clearwater, the buildings housing the RPF are on the
edge of the complex and immediately outside the front door of the
two buildings is a gate that opens from the inside. Any person
could simply walk out of the buildings and out of the gate into the
city of Clearwater. [61]Contrary
to images of a concentration camp-like atmosphere, there are no
locks on the doors of the RPF facilities, and at almost anytime, a
participant in the program could, if they decided, simply walk away.
[62] In the case of
the Los Angeles, Clearwater, or Copenhagen facilities, such a person
could loose themselves in the city in a matter of minutes. [63]
The RPF program is rigorous by any standards. It includes eight
hours of physical work six days a week that begins each day
immediately after the morning muster and breakfast. Most people on
the RPF come with little or no skill in the tasks required to
renovate and maintain buildings (painting, plumbing, carpentry,
furniture making, grounds upkeep, etc.). Thus they will be taught a
trade along with being involved in numerous tasks that require
little training. In Los Angeles, a number of people have been taught
woodwork and the professional appearance of the walls and furniture
in the Church's Hollywood facilities is ample evidence of the skills
they have acquired. In fact, the overall appearance of the various
Scientology buildings along Hollywood Blvd. and L. Ron Hubbard Way
(off Sunset Ave.) can be credited to the RPF.
This aspect of the RPF is designed to provide a change in the
usual pattern of the participant's life (which has most likely been
a desk job) and involve them more immediately with what in
Scientology is termed the MEST universe. It is reminiscent of the
work ("chop wood, carry water") that is often integrated
into the longer Zen Buddhist retreats. [64]
Work remains an integral part of the daily life of Zen monks and
nuns, and visitors to a Zen monastery for retreats or short stays
will be scheduled to participate in the workday that might include
cooking, chopping wood, heating water, working in the fields, and
cleaning. [65] Participants
learn one or more skills, and RPF graduates with whom I have talked
enjoyed pointing out particular things in buildings on which they
had worked. By working intimately with a small cadre of fellow
participants, they learned the value of teamwork.
A participant spends five hours each day with his/her individual
partner engaged in study or auditing. Many with whom I talked had
been in the Sea Org many years but, although they had received
auditing, they had never learned to audit anyone else. They reported
that as a result of learning to council their partner they had
gained a heightened level of sensitivity to the needs of others in
general and how their lives affected everyone around them.
The dominant program used by the RPF currently (others are
mentioned in the Flag Orders) is called the False Purpose Rundown. [66]
It is Scientology's understanding that overts and withholds are
indicative of hidden evil (i.e., counter survival) purposes,
solutions to problems adopted in a moment of confusion. The auditing
process includes a lengthy inventory, using the immediate overts
that led to the person being assigned to the RPF, of one's life, a
confrontation with and clearing-up of counter-survival purposes. The
goal is to see life objectively and assume responsibility for one's
present condition as the result of one's own decisions. The False
Purpose Rundown is repeated until the person is considered free of
evil intentions on each of the eight Dynamics. The Rundown is a
lengthy process, hence the year or more required to complete it. [67]
The RPF is designed to isolate the individual and provide a time
and space for total concentration on self-change. The hardest hit by
the program are married couples, as they have little contact while
one of them is in the program. They are encouraged to write
regularly, but have only infrequent face-to-face contact. Informants
in LA noted that they occasionally grabbed a few words with spouses
in the brief time between the lunch and afternoon activities. The
program does make allowances for family needs, and a number of
participants noted that they had taken a week or more breaks in the
midst of their program to attend to different particular family
obligations.
As might be expected, the problems that landed one in the RPF on
occasion continue to manifest in the life of a participant during
their stay on the program. In that case, there is a program, the
RPF's RPF, to which people may be assigned for short periods of
time. In this case, the offense is seen as against the RPF itself,
and thus the person assigned to the RPF's RPF is isolated from other
participants in the program. During this time, the partner still has
the task of helping the person assigned to the RPF. The person on
the RPF's RPF is also assigned specific tasks to benefit the RPF
(the group that is considered harmed, in this case), and their
manual work assignment might include such tasks as improving the RPF
facilities. They may return to the RPF program only by vote of the
other participants in the RPF. While in the program, their
communication is further restricted and must go through the RPF
ethics officer.
The RPF organization is difficult to describe, as it is
essentially run by the participants. There is an overseer (the
RPF-I/C) who is not a participant whose job is to see that the
program runs smoothly. The RPF-I/C, for example, handles the money
that pays for the program. Each organization of the church that
assigns a person to the RPF also pays for his/her stay and each
month contributes a stipend to cover food, housing, and personal
needs. It is also the RPF-IC's job to liaison with those in charge
of the church's facilities and to decide on the particular
deployment of RPF participants by prioritizing tasks to be
completed.
However, the day-to-day running of the program is left in the
hands of the participants. One of the participants who is further
along on the program is designated the bosun and s/he will have
several deputies to handle various practical and technical matters,
including ethics. For example, one or more people with accomplished
auditing skills oversee and check the auditing as it proceeds. [68]
RPF participants are organized into work teams, and such teams
proceed to their assigned tasks (and partners proceed to their
auditing) without immediate and constant outside supervision. The
atmosphere is much more one of an adult education class in which
participants are there to get what they can out of the program than
that of disgruntled individuals just putting in the time. Their
success will be manifest in the finished product of their labor and
in their self-reported realizations about their life acquired in
auditing. [69] Testimonies of
new insights and understandings concerning their life may be posted
for others in the RPF to read, though they have no circulation in
the Sea Org or among general church members.
Because of the relative differences in the speed that individuals
work through the False Purposes Rundown, different people's stay in
the program varies. One year appears to be the minimum. I
interviewed one person who had been in for approximately three
years.
Following completion of their program, graduates generally return
to the post (or a similar post) that they held when they went into
the program. The particular church organization from which they came
has at this point invested in their participation and expects a
return on that investment. Graduates to whom I talked indicated that
they received a cordial welcome back to their post. While most of
the people with whom I have talked about their previous RPF
experience hold anonymous staff positions, several people have gone
on to hold high positions and a few are now well-known in the church
internationally. People whom I have met who lead different church
organizations report that staff members who have completed the
program become their most productive workers.
[Snip Sea Org Conclusion]
This paper has grown out of more than three decades of
observation of the Church of Scientology that began in 1964 in
Chicago. Since 1985, when I moved to California, I have had
many opportunities to visit Sea Org facilities in Hollywood,
California, talk informally with Sea Org members, and gather
literature on the Church and the Sea Org, all of which has
been deposited in the American Religion Collection at the at
the Davidson Library at the University of California–Santa
Barbara. That collection now houses the large collection of
material published by and about the Church of Scientology
accumulated during the last three decades. This particular
paper has grown directly out of the book originally published
in the series edited by Massimo Introvigne of the Center for
the Study of New Religions in Turin, Italy, and originally
published in Italian in 1998. An English version was recently
published as The Church of Scientology (Salt Lake City:
Signature books, 2000). This study also included structured
interviews with members of the Sea Org and more than a dozen
participants in the Rehabilitation Projects Force in
Copenhagen, Los Angeles, and Clearwater, Florida, during the
Summer and Fall of 2000. I was assisted in this study by two
small grants from the J. M. Dawson Institute for Church-State
Studies located at Baylor University, and the Society for the
Study of Metaphysical Religion. [back]
The preparation of this part of my paper consumed a
considerable portion of my total research time. I reviewed the
existing literature concerning the RPF, including the set of
30 documents on the RPF written by Hubbard as Flag Orders
between 1974 and 1985, as well as visits to the Sea Org and
RPF facilities in Los Angeles, Clearwater, and Copenhagen in
the summer and fall of 2000. During these visits structured
interviews were conducted with more than a dozen present
participants of the RPF program and eight former members of
the RPF who are still members of the Sea Org. In addition, of
course, I reviewed a number of critical accounts of their
experience written by former Sea Org members.
I also made reference to the highly critical paper by
Stephen Kent, "Brainwashing in Scientology's
Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF)," based upon his
survey of the reports of the hostile former Sea Org members. A
revised version of the Kent paper entitled
"Scientology–Is It a Religion?" was published in
the online Marburg Journal of Religion 4,1 (July 1999). This
paper, originally delivered at the Society for the Scientific
Study of Religion in 1998, may be found on the Internet at
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/mjr_past.html.
Kent's article was completed apart from any first hand
inspection of the RPF and references only a limited collection
of relevant Church documents. He primarily relied on the
reports of ex-Scientologists. In my research, I found that he
had neglected important aspects of the program, mixed accounts
from the RPF's formative years with more recent accounts, and
confused incidents not a part of RPF with incidents that
occurred within it. He also adopted the "concentration
camp" image of the RPF that had been generated with the
anti-Scientology literature for use against the Church in
court. I have found no evidence to substantiate the use of
such an extreme image either from the ex-member literature or
from my examination of the sites at which the RPF is and was
housed.
Kent has also found little response
from his fellow social scientists for his attempt to use the
RPF to revive the discarded theories of "brainwashing"
as applied to new religious groups. A more detailed critique
of Kent's departures from standard sociological methodology
can be found in Canadian sociologist Lorne L. Dawson's,
"Raising Lazarus: A Methodological Critique of Stephen Kent's
Revival of the Brainwashing Model," in Benjamin Zablocki and
Thomas Robbins, eds., Misunderstanding Cults (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2001, forthcoming). [back]
"On the Excommunication for Faults," in St.
Benedict's Rules for Monasteries, trans. by Leonard Doyle
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1948): 43. On the
operation of the system of rules in another setting see Dom
André Louf, The Cistercian Alternative (New York: Gill and
Macmillan, 1985). [back]
Ivor Shapiro, "Finding Words," Saturday Night (May
1989): 48. [back]
Bernard van Acken, A Handbook for Sisters (St. Louis, MO: B.
Herder Book Co., 1931.); Adam C. Ellis, Religious Men and
Women in Church Law (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company,
1958.). [back]
The Vinaya-pitaka is part of the Pali Canon and is used as
the monastic rule for Theravada Monks. Mahayana monastic
communities have their own sets of monastic rule derived from
this earlier one. For example, Pai-Chang Huai-hai (749-814
C.E.), established a set of monastic rules for Ch'an (Zen)
monks in China called the Ch'ing-Kuei or Pure Rules. A Korean
revision appeared later as Kyech'osim hagin-mun or Admonitions
to Beginning Students. See Simon Young-suck Moon, Korean and
American Monastic Practices (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,
1996). [back]
See Jane Bunnag, Buddhist Monk, Buddhist Layman (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1973) for a discussion of the
operation of the Vinaya in a modern setting in Thailand. See
also Sukumar Dutt, Early Buddhist Monachism, 600 B.C.-100B.C.
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Thübner & Co., 1924) for a
more detailed discussion of the system of rules and
punishments actually laid down in the Vinaya. [back]
"The Rehabilitation Project Force." Flag Order
3434RE-1, RPF Series 1 (June 10, 1974): 1. [back]
This partof the process includes
a signing of documents to the effect that they understand what
RPF is about and want to participate. [back]
One theme that runs through
anti-Scientology writings on the Sea Org and the RPF is the lack
of informed assent by the participants. This appears to be an
unsubstantiated charge. At the time of joining, members of
the Sea Org go through an extensive orientation process as well
as a screening process by the church to determine their fitness
for the organization. That orientation program is conducted by
the Estates Project Force, the same structure that oversees the
RPF. In like measure, entrance into the RPF program includes an
explanation of options open to individuals choosing
participation and at several points during the entrance process
they are called upon to make a conscious decision about
continuing. As with the acceptance of any process of recovering
one's status in a religious community whose rules one has
broken, the participant can at any time choose to leave the
community as an alternative to continued participation. Those
who participated in the program indicated that they choose to go
through the program because they wished to remain a member of
the Sea Org. [back]
Individuals may join the Sea Org from any
point in their progress up the Bridge. Pre-Clears who join may
be assigned jobs that have little to do with auditing, and
thus while they may receive personal auditing, they never
learn how to be an auditor and counsel another person. Such a
person, when assigned to the RPF mush learn how to audit
before actually beginning the program. [back]
A dozen or more accounts of life in the
RPF are posted on the Internet, a few being posted in multiple
sites. A selection of these postings came be found in the
references to Kent, op.cit. In general, these accounts offer
valuable research data concerning several individual's negative
experience in the RPF, as far as they go. It is the case that
some abuse ofauthority appears to have been experienced
by individuals while serving in the Sea Org or participating in
the RPF. The RPF includes numerous people who were assigned
these for activities that were "off Tech," and that activity
does not automatically stop when one enters the RPF. The
church's own literature and later revisions of rules for the Sea
Org and RPF indicate reactions to problems. I have, however,
found no evidence of any pattern of abuse as a common element of
life in the RPF.
As with accounts of present and former
members who remain in Scientology, these accounts, while very
useful, must be received with a critical eye. The accounts of
members must be understood in light of their commitments and
desires to be part of the Scientology program. Those of
ex-members have a few similar problems. First, many were
written as depositions for court cases and are thus quite
selective in their discussion of RPF. Following a pattern also
seen in accounts of former monks and nuns who have left a
Roman Catholic order, they have imported later appraisals of
their experience into their story. Some have incorporated the
popular anti-Scientology analogy of the RPF as a prison camp,
and thus, for example, they speak of their withdrawal from the
program as "escaping" the RPF. As members have praise for
Scientology and the auditing process, former members often
include harsh opinions of Scientology belief and practice,
especially the auditing process. Second, one must struggle
with the significant omissions in the ex-member literature.
They were not designed as complete stories of their experience
in the church, but merely brief accounts of their bad
experiences, usually for use in a court case. For example,
almost none include any discussion of the role played by the
person with whom they were paired during their stay in the
RPF. That being said, if critically approached, the accounts
of former members remain one valuable source of information on
the operation of the Sea Org and RPF.
It should also be noted that Church
authorities and other have has questioned the veracity of
several of the former members. People who were present and
even mentioned in the accounts of Andre Tabayoyon and Dennis
Erlich have suggested that they had both distorted accounts of
incidents upon which they reported and on several occasions
created incidents that had never occurred. [back]
The present RPF facility has been used since the mid
1980s. Prior to that time, it was in two different locations
in the Fort Harrison Hotel. It was first located in what is
now the bakery and later in what is now the primary ethics
office. In each case it was inside the hotel in space adjacent
to the parking lot. The parking lot is completely open with no
doors to lock. [back]
Locks on Sea Org facilities through which a departing RPF
member might have to pass are such as to prevent someone from
coming into the building but not prevent an egress from it.
The fences around the present Sea Org residences in
Clearwater, for example, were erected after an incident in
which an outsider came into the complex and discharged a
firearm. They were designed to keep possible trouble makers
out, not prevent anyone from leaving. [back]
This is confirmed in the accounts of former members such
as Lynn Froyland, Hana Whitefield, and Ann Rosenblum, all of
whom simply walked away from the Clearwater RPF. The only
exception to this possibility concerns the RPF at the Gilman
Hot Springs center. Gilman Hot Sprints is a former resort that
the Church of Scientology purchased and now uses as its major
recording and video production site. Located there are a
professional level recording studio, a large building for
shooting movies, and a large auditorium. It is frequently used
by people from the nearby community of Hemet, California, for
non-Scientology community events. It is located in the
countryside, and intermittently in the 1980s and 1990s, there
was a RPF unit there. That unit was housed at a location
several miles away. While it would not be difficult to walk
away from either Gilman or the housing site, it would be a
long walk to the next town. [back]
The first observation of the Zen Buddhist rule of monastic
life, attributed to the honored Buddhist monk Pai-chang
(720-814 CE) stated, "A day of no work is a day of no
eating." Buddhist scholar D. T. Suzuki put it thusly,
"Manual labor forms one of the most essential features of
the Zen life. . . Life meant to the Chinese monks to be
engaged in physical labour, to move their hands and feet, to
handle tools, in order to accomplish some visible and tangible
ends." D. T. Suzuki, The Training of the Zen Buddhist
Monk (New York: University Books, 1959) 33. [back]
See: Koji Sato, The Zen Life (New York:
Weatherhill/Tankosha, 1977): 148-49. [back]
L. Ron Hubbard. "False Purpose Rundown." Auditing
Rundowns. Vol. 3 (Los Angeles: BridgePublications, 1991).
Over the years of Hubbard's life, he periodically introduced
upgraded forms of various auditing procedures, and such new
upgrades have continue to be released. As these upgrades were
published, they were, as appropriate, introduced into the RPF.
The method of operating the "False Purpose Rundown"
are spelled out in a series of Bulletins from the Hubbard
Communication Office, the False Purpose Rundown Series,
1-7" published as HCO Bulletin (June 5-11, 1984; Revised
January 1990). [back]
In spite of Steven Kent's study of Scientology over the
last decade, he continually makes fundamental errors in
reporting on Scientology's beliefs and practices. For example,
his lack of knowledge of Scientology is manifest in his
discussion of the False Purpose Rundown. It is one of a set of
what in Scientology are called "security checks," or
"sec checks." Kent asserts that "sec
checks" are not covered by the same rules of
confidentiality as auditing. In fact, security checks, of
which the "False Purpose Rundown" is an example, are
one form of auditing, the kind used to deal with overts and
withholds, and are covered by all of the confidentially rules
governing auditing. Cf. Kent, op.cit. On the other hand,
interviews made during investigations by a Scientology
official or committee to determine the facts when a person has
been accused of a crime such as stealing money from the church
or dishonesty on the job (sometimes called HCO security
checks) are not considered auditing. In situations where
someone might confuse the two, an explicit denial that the
session is to be considered auditing is made. Also, all
auditing sessions begin by noting the formal situation that
the individual has entered. [back]
"RPF Organization." Flag Order 3434RE-25 (January
7, 1974; Revised May 8, 1997): 1-7. [back]
Quite obviously, not everyone adapts to the RPF regimen,
and some people choose to leave, which they are free to do at
any point. Some who left the program, now describe it (as
indeed life in the Sea Org in general) in quite hostile terms.
From the perspective of an ex-member, who no longer believes
in Scientology, they have reinterpreted their life from their
new perspective. These accounts, bare a noticeable resemblance
to similar accounts of others who have left the austerities of
Roman Catholic orders. For example, Patricia Curran, who
studied the rituals around food in several convents, noted
that some of her informants had very different views of the
behavior patterns expected of them:
They described them [particular actions they were
ordered to perform] as various outdated holdovers from Europe;
daily reminders of belonging to the "club" of
religious life; conditioning to "perfect obedience"
(the instantaneous execution of the superior's command). A
great number argued that the effects the practices had on them
provided the best indicator of purpose. They found them
humiliating, particularly when kissing the feet of the
sisters, asking prayers, or making the act of reparation. The
penances were constant reminders of the self-concept that was
held as an ideal: to consider oneself the least, lowest, and
last in importance in the community. They regarded the
penances also as a negation of all that was natural in favor
of all that was spiritual, when these were considered to be in
conflict. One named them the tools whereby each person's
spirit was broken so that she could be remolded in the new
corporate image.
Once one no longer sees the purpose in their ordered
life, its rule and regulations take on the appearance of a
straightjacket. Life in the group no longer is seen as service
to the cause and a means to nurture spiritual existence, but
an oppressive existence characterized by the following of a
false religion and arbitrary rules. Cf. Curran, op.cit. [back]
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
[
