11 thoughts on “Free practice of Scn

  1. I read the article published on the blog and really like it. Merrell Vannier is a true warrior for Scientology.
    I cheered at the opening paragraph where it said,

    ” The First Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes the inalienable right to freely practice one’s religion and prohibits the government from establishing (or favoring) one religion over another.
    The scriptures for the Scientology religion are the writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject. Because Scientology by definition is a highly skilled applied technology comprised of precisely worded counseling processes, use of these materials (Scientology’s “scripture”) is vital to the practice of the religion. ”

    The only thing I balked at was when it said:
    “We’re sure we speak for many Scientologists practicing the religion outside the church when we say that users of copyrighted and trademarked materials (i.e., scripture) are willing to provide legal consideration for their use. In legal terms, many users are willing to enter into license agreements – provided sufficient protections for independence are assured.”

    The COS organization should not have the right to even infringe upon our inalienable right to practice our religion as per our scripture any more than the government can.

    Just practicing eternal vigilance here!

    • “The COS organization should not have the right to even infringe upon our inalienable right to practice our religion as per our scripture”

      So long as it is per the “scripture” or per the tech. Meaning that the Ideal COS, (not the one weve got) should be able to ensure a proper standard, just like any other franchisor, to ensure the label of the business, or in this case religion, remains well thought of, and have the ability to step in when it doesnt.

      I can think of no other better situation as a Field Auditor than having a local, excellent, in Tech, Academy and Qual to go to, to learn the tools of the craft and to brush up on my weak points.

      • I agree that this would be the ideal scene for a field auditor….to have an org to turn to for correction and assistance and a hierarchy of in-tech upper orgs for further assistance. However, unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Nor so we have “Ideal Orgs”, no matter what COS PR says. The “ecclesiastical leader” of the COS is quite observably an SP and he has made the group that LRH set up to protect the Tech into a squirrel group.
        So, that’s just one reason why I would not want this group to have the power to grant or deny me the right to practice my religion.
        But actually, no group has the right to deny me the right to use the scripture that is integral to practicing my religion.
        If they wanted to offer assistance for a fee, that would be another matter.
        The COS is a CHURCH, not a religion.
        Scientology is a RELIGION.

  2. Merrill acts as Theta the solver. He’s an ethical, Dynamic being of the finest order.

    i am a practicing Scientologist and want others to gain what I have gained with this body of work and its techniques.

    This proposal represented on the website linked here is a much more Pan Determined viewpoint of the current scene. It aligns action. It’s inclusive, not divisive.

  3. “On November 23, 2015, a Moscow court ordered the dissolution of that city’s Church of Scientology on the grounds that it did not qualify as a religious organization due to a US trademark of the word Scientology.”

    LOL!

    Yep, this is a great site. Well done, Merrell.

    • Wow. That is an interesting decision! I guess that the COS can’t have it both ways. They are either a religion or a business. It seems that if they are a business, they could can trademark themselves but could not infringe on the rights of others to practice Scientology as a religion. Hopefully, this decision will become an international legal precedent.
      Perhaps they might trademark themselves as the Church of Epistemology……..
      “Scientology is a popularized word which means exactly the same thing as epistemology which word, I think you will agree, is not acceptable to the general public.”
      -LRH
      ASSOCIATE NEWSLETTER
      28 April 1953
      Tech Vol II

      Meanwhile, Scientologists can have and enjoy our inalienable right to practice our religion of Scientology freely .

      • Alexander Dvorkin, a Russian “anti-cultist”, former Orthodox Catholic cleric, took the Bhagavad Gita to court in that country. They actually prosecuted the Hare Krishna peace-niks. Yikes!

      • “The COS can’t have it both ways. They are either a religion or a business.” Quite so, Espiritu.

        I have long felt that the trade marking and restriction of the free practice of Scientology has been an impediment to public acceptance of our claim to be a religion, and to the slowness of our widespread success.

        We are very fortunate that Ron made the practice of Scientology explicit, there are no grey areas, and that simplifies it wholesale. Learning to do something exactly as stated is not hard, and in the case of Scientology, it positively demands the use of common sense, meaning anyone can do it.

        Scientology and Dianetics are totally results-based; that is the only guarantee, and Ron makes it as clear as daylight in the opening sentences of HCOPL Keeping Scientology Working. Man, if anyone ever stuck their neck out, it was right then.

        The CoS has got its knickers in a twist trying to enforce silence from its public when they are dissatisfied with the service. Ron had a perfectly sensible and good-natured refund policy as a last resort; he laid out pricing and donation policies for anyone to read, you could talk to the DoP, write to Ron, write a chit, request a different auditor, or any number of options. It’s the old, ‘The Customer is Always Right’ philosophy.

        Yet the CoS is using civil law to back up their opinion of a PC’s mind.

        There is no doubt that Scientology is a religion in the oldest possible definition and sense. It does not need a defence in civil law; and at last someone has simplified this religion vs business conundrum. Incredibly, it was in a Moscow court. Religion is a choice of thought, but if money changes hands, you pay tax.

        Personally, I think that’s fair.

        If you make money from a client, then for heaven’s sake, pay tax like everyone else. Small wonder there’s resentment and bewilderment from the huge number of folk disillusioned and even betrayed by established religion. I fully appreciate the atheist’s frustration at having to subsidise a crackpot cult via tax breaks – I’m on your side, guys.

        If your PC paid good money and didn’t get the result he wanted, then it’s down to you; why invoke the government? If your shit is good and the price is right, he’ll come back – end of story. That sounds crude, but LRH wasn’t messing around, his was the real deal.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s