From: Bob Minton <email@example.com>
Subject: LMT Literati Contest Entry - Scientologist: Maureen O'Keefe
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:46:48 -0500
Organization: Lisa McPherson Trust, a Scientology watchdog group
Control, Freedom & Responsibility
Copyright © 2000 by Maureen O’Keefe, a Scientologist
In order to effectively analyze how control, freedom and responsibility operate together or clash within a Scientology organization and how these interface with the non-Scientology world, it is first necessary to clearly define each of the three terms: control, freedom and responsibility, as well as another key term: knowledge.
Once the interrelationships of these elements, Knowledge-Responsibility and Control (which I will refer to as K-R-C) are fully outlined, I will analyze the component parts of Freedom, which according to the Scientology religion include Affinity, Reality and Communication. This concept will be referred to as A-R-C (pronounced by saying the letters rather than the word ‘arc’). I will show how A-R-C, also written as ARC, makes up the component parts of and result in Understanding and why without ARC, understanding cannot be achieved. I will then show how A-R-C and K-R-C further interrelate to each other and how they are applied within the organization as well as their interface with the non-Scientology world. While I have footnoted any direct quotes, the concepts and principles described in this essay, can all be found in basic Scientology books as they contain the religious philosophy that I apply to all aspects of my life.
Definition of Knowledge:
1. By knowledge we mean assured belief, that which is known, information, instruction; enlightenment, learning; practical skill. By knowledge we mean data, factors and whatever else can be thought about or perceived. 
2. Knowledge is more than data. It is the ability to draw conclusions.
3. The act, fact or state of knowing; specifically a) acquaintance or familiarity (with a fact, place, etc.) b) awareness c) understanding. 
It should be noted that an important factor when dealing with knowledge has to do the accuracy or truth of the facts involved. As will be shown later, lies and/or false data cause a breakdown in the successful interrelationships of both KRC and ARC. One’s conclusions are only as good as the data on which they are based. Faulty data never leads to an accurate conclusion. Accurate conclusions are vital to successfully solve the problems posed by life.
1. The state, quality or fact of being responsible and responsible means legally or ethically accountable for the care or welfare of another. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority. Being the source or cause of something. Capable of making moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behavior. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable. Based upon or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking. 
The ability to think for oneself and act in accordance with the dictates of one’s own conscience requires that a person be able to be responsible. When a member of any group merely does what he is told, he is not being responsible - he is being a robot. When a member of any group becomes incapable of making decisions based on his own observations and feels he must do exactly as his superiors wish whether he agrees or not, that person ceased taking responsibility for himself and his group at a much earlier date. It is his earlier failure to take responsibility for those things with which he did not agree, that now makes him a victim and creates that “look what they did to me” attitude. The answer to such a condition is to be willing to confront the truth of the situation and begin taking responsibility for your actions. If a kid spills a glass of milk and blames it on his little brother, believe it or not he begins to dislike his little brother. Once he takes responsibility for his actions and admits, even if only to himself at first, that he spilled the milk, not his brother, he begins to feel better about himself and he begins to understand why he “disliked” his brother. If his lying caused his little brother to be punished, his conscience will never allow him to be free until he takes responsibility, tells the truth and accept the consequences of his lying.
2. Full responsibility is not fault; it is recognition of being cause.
Cause is cause: good or bad. It doesn’t matter if you found the cure for a disease or harmed a lot of people by telling lies about them. While the latter case may require that you make amends for the damaged caused, responsibility is just the recognition of being cause. Cause is being the source point of something.
For instance, in the area of finances, the person in charge of a company’s funds is responsible for ensuring that they are safeguarded and properly utilized. He or she would be the person held accountable for any misuse or improper use of funds.
1. The power to direct or regulate; ability to use effectively” 
With this definition we see that if a person is in a position where he or she has the power to direct or regulate the actions of another person or thing, he could be said to be able to control that person or thing. Additionally, as referenced in the above definition, the ability to use effectively is an essential part of control. By way of an example, an executive who can effective control all aspects of his company’s operation can expect to achieve a certain degree of success and profitability. In contrast is the executive who cannot even get his employees to show up for work on time unless he is present and/or cannot control his employees’ behavior to such an extent that they create a negative image for the company. Unless that executive can learn to effectively control his employees, he will never be able to create an effective and profitable company.
2. The ability to start, change and stop things at one’s own choice. 
In Scientology, the concept of control is intimately connected with the “Cycle of Action”. As described in the book Problems of Work by L. Ron Hubbard “the cycle of action in this universe is start, change, stop” . An example of a cycle of action would be writing this essay. I sat down at my computer and began composing this essay (start), I continued writing and correcting it until I was happy with it (change) at which point I e-mailed it to the contest address (stop). That is a completed cycle of action. Cycles of action apply to virtually everything we do whether it is taking out the trash or raising a child. But whereas, taking out the trash may only involve a single cycle of action, there are many, many cycles of action needed to achieve the product of a child who is capable of leading a happy, productive life toward the achievement of his own goals. But large or small, a cycle of action is always composed of “start, change and stop”.
If a person can and does “start-change-stop” something he can and does control it. Let’s look at the cycle of action of taking out the trash. If Joe picks up the garbage, takes it outside and puts it in the trash can, he has completed a cycle of action and can control the garbage in his house. If on the other hand, he can’t control the garbage, he will either never take it out at all or only move the trash from one place to another without ever getting it into the trash can. Soon he has trash everywhere. He cannot control the trash. A more common example is that of a car. If a driver cannot control the car, sooner or later he will end up with an accident on his hands.
Simply stated: “The cycle of action in this universe is start, change and stop. This is also the anatomy of control. Almost the entire subject of control is summed up in the ability to start, change and stop one’s activities, body and one’s environment”. 
Over the years, the word ‘control’ has developed both a positive and negative connotations, i.e. a good control and a bad control. But it is not the control that is bad. Control is just control: the ability to start-change-stop a cycle of action. It is the intention and purpose of the person exerting that control that is either good or bad – and that gets into the subject of ethics, which I will cover later.
The Interrelationship of Knowledge – Responsibility – Control
“The KRC Triangle”
These three elements are so closely related that if you increase one, the other two raise correspondingly. For instance, if you wanted to take more responsibility for your children, it is only necessary to increase your knowledge about children to be more able to control their childhood experience so as to help them succeed. These elements can be seen to form a triangle, where raising or lowering any one corner, raises or lowers the other corners. In Scientology, this is called the KRC triangle. It is pronounced by stating its letters K-R-C.
As Mr. Hubbard states in Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics:
“It is difficult to be responsible for something or control something unless you have knowledge of it.
In order to see how a person can apply this data to his life, first let’s let me briefly explain the concept of the “dynamics” which is best described in the book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics. It states:
“As one looks out across the confusion which is life or existence to most people, one discovers that there are eight main divisions.
Generally, the eight dynamics of man include: 1) the urge to survive as himself, as an individual; 2) the urge to create and to survive as a family unit including the rearing of children; 3) the urge to survive through a group of individuals or as a group; 4) the urge to survive as member of mankind and for the survival of mankind as a whole; 5) the urge to survive as a part of life and with the help of all life forms, including animals, birds, insects, fish and vegetation; 6) the urge to survive as part of and with the help of the physical universe, which includes all forms of matter, energy, space and time; 7) the urge to survive as spiritual beings or the urge for life itself to survive and 8) the urge toward survival as infinity. It is the eighth dynamic where reference to God or a Supreme Being is most often found.
As far as the dynamics are concerned it will be found that:
“The reward of survival activity is pleasure.
People, however, place different importance on different dynamics. We are surrounded by examples every day. How about the man who abandons his wife and children to take up with a prostitute just because she inflates his ego and makes him feel important. This man would be said to have a stronger urge toward survival on the First Dynamic than he had on his Second Dynamic. Because his actions are destructive to his family and himself, sooner or later, he will experience the same pain that he has caused his family. On the other hand, let’s take the environmentalist who spends his entire life working to handle the problems of pollution so that we all may continue to have a planet to live and play on. He has a strong urge to survive on the fourth and fifth dynamics as he is seeking to protect the environment for the continued existence of mankind and all life forms. His actions are pro-survival and it can be predicted that he will get pleasure from his efforts.
In a decaying society as we find here in the United States at this writing, far too many people are interested solely in their first dynamic. The result is the increasing divorce rate, crime and other social ills. A person who only cares about himself is on the way out, for life to be lived to its fullest requires active participation on and responsibility for all eight dynamics.
Once you have grasped the principle of the dynamics, it becomes possible to apply Knowledge-Responsibility and Control to the dynamics in order to improve the condition of each. This is done as follows:
“The route up from death or apathy or inaction is to know something about it, take some responsibility for the state one is in and the scene, and control oneself to a point where some control is put into the scene to make it go right. Then know why it went wrong, take responsibility for it, and control it enough to make it go more toward an ideal scene.
“Little by little one can make anything go right by:
Here’s an example of how someone could apply knowledge, responsibility and control to better a situation he finds himself in. Let’s take the guy who commits so many harmful acts against his wife and children (called overts in Scientology) that his conscience forces him to leave his family. Deep down he doesn’t want to hurt his kids or his wife as he loves them so he up and leaves one day in an effort to stop committing overts against them and to stop hurting them. (This fact alone demonstrates that man is basically good!)
He now finds himself without the pleasure of being a husband and father. He used to enjoy coaching his son’s little league games, but that too is over. Is there any way he can ever repair the damage he has done and put his family back together? Absolutely. What he needs to do is sit down and really look at the situation and the effects he has been creating on his family. Then he needs to take some responsibility for his actions and maybe make up for some of the hurt he has caused them. By doing this he puts some control into the scene as he is doing things to make it better. Once he gets things going a little better, he could look at why he was getting so angry at them before and take some more responsibility to get that handled so that his communication improves with his wife and kids. This allows them to start doing things as a family again. If he keeps doing this, just increasing his knowledge of the scene and/or the family, take some more responsibility for making it better and doing cycles of actions that bring pleasure to his wife and children, he can create a family that is happier than it ever was. But it all starts with his own decision to fix his marriage.
Definition of Affinity:
1. Degree of liking or affection or lack of it. Affinity is a tolerance of distance. A great affinity would be a tolerance of or liking close proximity. A lack of affinity would be an intolerance of or dislike of close proximity. Affinity is one of the component parts of understanding. 
“Man would not be man without affinity. Every animal has affinity to some degree, but man is capable of feeling an especially large amount. Long before he organized into cities, he had organized into tribes and clans. Before the tribes and clans there were undoubtedly packs. Man’s instinctive need for affinity with his fellow human beings has long been recognized, and his domestication of other animals shows that this affinity extends to other species. One could have guessed that the race which first developed affinity to its highest degree would become the dominant race on any planet and this has been borne out.
‘A child is full of affinity. Not only does he have affinity for his father, mother, brothers and sisters and his playmates but for his dogs, his cats and stray dogs that happen to come around. But affinity goes even beyond this. You can have a feeling of affinity for objects; “I love the way the grain stands out in that wood.” There is a feeling of oneness with the earth, blue skies, rain, millponds, cartwheels and bullfrogs which is affinity.” 
“Affinity begets affinity. A person who is filled with the quality will automatically find people anywhere near him also beginning to be filled with affinity. It is a calming, warming, heartening influence on all who are capable of receiving it and giving it.
“One can readily observe the level of affinity between individuals or groups. For instance, two men talking with each other either are in affinity with each other or they aren’t. If they are not, they will argue. If they are in affinity with each other, two things have to be there; they have to have agreed upon a reality and they have to be able to communicate that reality to each other.’ 
This datum is so true that it even worked with two people between whom one would never expect to find any ARC: Bob Minton and myself. About two years ago in Boston, Bob and I had the opportunity to speak privately for a short time. During that conversation, we both spoke very candidly and honestly about certain things. Because we were both willing to honestly communicate our own realities and were each willing to listen to the other’s reality, we were not only able to reach an agreements but there was affinity created between us at that moment.
Definition of Reality:
1. The solid objects, the real things of life; 
“Reality, physical universe reality, is sensed through various channels; we see something with our eyes, we hear something with our ears, we smell something with our nose, we touch something with our hand. And we decide then, that there is something. But the only way we know it is through our senses and those senses are artificial channels. We are not in direct contact with the physical universe. We are in contact through our sense channels with it.” 
2. The degree of agreement reached by two people. If a group decides that it is unacceptable for any of its members to do drugs then that agreement becomes the reality of the group. Should a group member then get caught doing drugs, an upset within the group would occur because the person broke the group’s reality or agreement.
Definition of Communication:
1. The interchange of ideas across a space. Its fullest definition is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source-point. The formula for Communication is Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and Duplication with Understanding. 
Communication also occurs by use of the body’s senses as well, such as touch, looking, feeling, etc. These are all forms of communication. A person new on the job, goes around the office and locates all the tools that he will need to do his job. It could be said that he is ”getting in communication” with his work area.
Real communication is the key to resolving difficulties and has been referred to as the “Universal Solvent”. Once it is understood how a person can apply the principles of affinity, reality and communication, it will become evident that these three qualities do, in fact, bring about understanding. And once understanding is achieved difficulties, disagreements and disharmony melt away like snow in the hot sun. When used along with knowledge, responsibility and control to achieve a goal that increases the survival of one’s dynamics, a person would be 100% capable of creating his own future and attaining his dreams. And that man is free.
The Interrelationship of Affinity – Reality – Communication
“The ARC Triangle”
Affinity-Reality-Communication (ARC) relate in the same way as Knowledge-Responsibility-Control (KRC) and form, as it is called in Scientology, the ARC Triangle, (pronounced by the letters A-R-C). As described in Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics: “The triangle of affinity, reality and communication could be called an interactive triangle in that no point of it can be raised without affecting the other two points and raising them, and no point can be lowered without affecting the other two points.” 
The A-R-C triangle is defined as follows: “a symbol of the fact that affinity, reality and communication act together as a whole entity and that one of them cannot be considered unless the other two are also taken into account. Without affinity there is no reality or communication. Without reality or some agreement, affinity and communication are absent. Without communication there can be no affinity or reality. It is only necessary to improve one corner of this very valuable triangle in Scientology in order to improve the remaining two corners. 
As L. Ron Hubbard stated:
“Of the three, communication is by far the most important. Affinity and reality exist to further communication.” 
As in the example of the marriage above, it is clear to see that the higher the ARC, the easier it will be to get the KRC in and thus restore the harmony of the family unit.
1. The component parts of freedom are affinity, reality and communication, which summate into understanding. Once understanding is attained freedom is obtained. 
2. The state or quality of being free; 
a. Free: not under the control of some other person or some arbitrary power; able to act or think without compulsion or arbitrary restriction; having liberty; independent. 
There are some obvious examples of people who are not free. For example, no one would argue that a prisoner in jail is not free as his movement is totally controlled by the warden and the guards. But what about the man who goes to work every day only to end up with barely enough money to feed his family and pay the bills? Is he free or is he being control by his environment? How about the man who has to have psychiatric drugs in order to get through the day? Is he free or is he totally the effect of his uncontrolled emotions and his chemical dependence? And what about the kid who never learns to read or write? Is he free to create the life of his choice or is life going to control him?
The key to freedom is understanding. And understanding is achieved through affinity, reality and communication. Once there is some degree of understanding or knowledge about anything, a person is able to better control that thing and take responsibility for it. So freedom is achieved by the application of the ARC and KRC triangles.
Let’s take a practical example. A man decides to become a doctor. He likes the idea of helping other people and making them well (affinity). He has gathered all the information he can find about becoming a doctor (communication) and upon reading all the literature (increasing his reality), he decides that he can make that happen (understanding). He then starts researching colleges (knowledge), keeps his grades up so that he has a 4.0 average (responsibility) and starts to work a part time job get the extra money he needs for tuition in the fall (control). Is this kid free? Seems so to me. He is taking responsibility for his life and making his dreams become a reality. If he runs into barriers, he just handles them and is not dissuaded from achieving his goal.
It has been my experience as both a staff member and public in various Scientology organizations, that the most basic agreements of the group are those written policies which constitute the administrative technology of Scientology. It is policy that forms the basis for agreement between group members in Scientology organizations and keeps the group members in ARC with each other. Adherence to agreed upon policies makes the group into a coordinated team capable of achieving its goals. This is true of any group and is not only applicable to a Scientology organization. All successful groups establish agreements between themselves as to how things are to be handled. Even countries do this, such as the United States of America with its Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents formed the basis for agreement of how the country was to be administered and continue today to be the fundamental operating policies of the US.
In all Scientology organizations, much emphasis is placed on all staff getting trained in not only the policies that cover their specific jobs but in all organizational policy in order to increase understanding of the organization as a whole. In this way, staff members are better able to coordinate their activities with other staff members and the group itself becomes an effective, coordinated team. A person who is fully trained and knows his job perfectly produces a higher quality product. Take a doctor. Would you want to be treated for a broken arm by a doctor who couldn’t exactly remember how you’re supposed to set a bone?
Another key role of policy in a group is that it establishes what is considered ethical and unethical within that group. Since policy becomes the agreed upon manner in which members will conduct themselves, those which follow these policies would be considered to be helping the group achieve its goals. They would remain in ARC with the individuals in the group and with the group itself. On the other hand, if a person who had agreed to follow the group’s policies then began violating those agreements, it follows that, in that group, the person’s conduct would be considered unethical, as his or her actions are no longer forwarding the group’s goals and purposes and will actually be found to be destructive to the group, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the situation. Such actions are called overts. The person who is following policy would be considered ‘in-ethics” and the person who was violating the agreements of the group would be “out-ethics”.
Within a Scientology church there are at least two areas that address this situation of violating the agreements or policies of the group. The first has to do with finding any misunderstanding the person has with the policy and getting that sorted out so that the person is better able to understand and apply the policy. The second is ethics, where a person is assisted in locating and handling any situation he may be involved in that is contrary to the survival of himself, the group and his other dynamics. As a person tends to go more and more out of communication with those around when he does things that violate his agreements, the ethics officer also assists the person to get his own ethics in and get back into communication with his teammates. If the person does not get his ethics in, even after being given the opportunity to do so, then the group takes those actions necessary to get him to get his ethics in. This is called justice.
Because the subjects of ethics and justice have become so confused and misused, I want to take a moment to clearly delineate exactly what ethics and justice are in Scientology. As defined in the Scientology ethics book “Ethics consists simply of the actions an individual takes on himself. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical or “has his ethics in”, it is by his own determinism and done by himself. Justice is the action taken on the individual by the group when he fails to take these actions himself.” 
Let’s look at an example of this. A person who works for an anti-drug group is secretly smoking pot on the weekend. This is obviously contrary to the goals and purposes of that group. His action is out-ethics. The more he continues to do this, as he is committing an overt against the group, not to mention himself, the more withdrawn he gets and the more out of communication he gets with the other members of the group. He may even start finding fault with the group and start saying that “perhaps we are being too hard on pot smoking and should put more emphasis on getting people off the harder drugs”. By thinking to himself that ‘pot’s not that bad’, he tries to ease his conscience of the fact that he is committing overts on his group. At any point, this guy could really take a honest look at what he was doing and decide to stop smoking pot. If he did so, he would be getting his own ethics in. But let’s say that he gets caught smoking pot by his roommate who then reports it to the ethics officer at his group. Well, he is still given the opportunity to get his ethics in.
Through the standard application of Scientology Ethics Technology, the Ethics Officer would help the guy confront his out-ethics and get what he has been was doing off his chest. From this action alone, the guy experiences much relief as he no longer has to hide what he has been doing. He can be honest with himself and his friends again. He and the Ethics Officer would continue to work until he had cleaned up all the out-ethics and he made amends for any damage that his actions may have caused. Once handled, that’s the end of it. He is back in communication with his teammates and once again a contributing member of the group. His ethics are now in.
But what about the person who, despite the help of the Ethics Officer, continues to covertly smoke pot and commit overts on the group? For whatever reason, the guy will not get his own ethics in. Well, now the group must take action to get ethics in so as to protect the group itself. If it does not then the group and it’s members are put in jeopardy. Just imagine the effect on an anti-drug group if the morning headlines read “drug counselor arrested for possession of marijuana’.
Depending on the severity of the person’s actions, the justice action could be a simple as having the person do the steps necessary to no longer be a liability to the group or as severe as expulsion from the group. There would, of course, be many gradients in between. Additionally, there is always a means of recourse should the person feel that they are being treated unjustly. But generally, this is all a justice function brought on by the fact that the person did not get his own ethics in but continued to do things that harmed his dynamics.
Now that you have a clearer picture of how ARC and KRC would operate together in the organization and what ethics really is, I would like to take a closer look at the concept of freedom within a Scientology organization. As described in the section on freedom, it can be seen that a person who understands his job and does his job enjoys a certain amount of freedom or at least he should. But bosses come in all types and unfortunately sometimes there are those who get onto staff who can’t seem to leave a productive staff member alone to enjoy the freedom he has earned by doing his job well. So there is an additional tool used in Scientology to safeguard the in-ethics productive staff member and that is the use of statistics. Every person with a post in a Scientology organization has a statistic which represents the thing or things he is supposed to produce. For instance, the person who is in charge of training students has the statistic of ‘student points’ and ‘course completions’. The person who is in charge of selling Scientology books might have a statistics called ‘# of books sold. The key is that the statistic is a numerical representation of that person’s production. By comparing the production statistic for the current week as compared to the week before, you can tell at a glance if the person did more or less production that week. Thus a person’s statistic is either up or down. It tells, without bias or opinion, if the person is doing their job.
So what does all this have to do with freedom inside a Scientology org?
According to Scientology policy: “A good manage ignores rumor and only acts on statistics.”  It is the statistic that tells if a person is doing his job and if he is, he has what is called “Ethics Protection”. This means that he cannot and will not be hit with arbitrary ethics actions. He will be protected by the Ethics Officer because he is doing his job. As L. Ron Hubbard once said:
“I have never tried to make staff members “be good”. I have only tried to make them produce and wear their hats. Our whole statistic system exists to end excessive discipline of valuable staff members. To me a staff member whose stats are up can do no wrong.’ 
So with all policy issued in writing for all to know and follow and a workable system in place to know who is a contributing member of the group and who is not, how is it that there could be clashes within a Scientology organization? In my opinion, I would say that the most common reasons for any clash within an organization have as their source one of two things. The first involves “misunderstanding” something .
Let’s say there is something in a policy that you don’t understand. Well, unless that is cleared up, it is going to be pretty hard, if not impossible to apply that policy. This inability to duplicate the written word has as its most common source the fact that the person has gone by a word or a symbol in the policy letter that they did not fully understand. For instance, let’s say a soldier was reading the army policy manual for warfare. He reads: “In the face of direct attack by an enemy force, it is vital to heighten one’s mettle”. Unless the soldier knew the definition of the word ‘mettle’ he would not know what to do. This could cause a clash between him and the other men in his troop as he failed to heighten his mettle they were under attack. The soldier is not bad, evil or intentionally sabotaging his group. He simply has a misunderstood word. The only sensible handling is to get him to look over the policy he is not applying and find what word(s) he does not understand and get them defined. When he does just that, he learns that ‘mettle” means ‘spirit or courage’. And the next time he’s in battle facing enemy attack he knows exactly what to do and does it.
Some other group member could also have misunderstoods and be misapplying or not applying agreed upon policy but as there exists in every Scientology organization an exact procedure for reporting such outnesses so that they can be corrected, this usually takes care of itself as a matter of course.
Probably the most common reason I have experienced for clashes within a Scientology organization, particularly those that do not seem to resolve easily, have to do with the out-ethics. A person who is doing things that harm the very group to which he has given or once gave his support is not a happy man. He will feel disgruntled. He will get into arguments. He will become more and more critical. If he doesn’t get his ethics in and come clean, he will eventually blow (a sudden departure).
All too many times, we find that the person who yells the loudest “Look what they did to me” has, at the bottom of his upset, what he has done to others. I know this is true. In my pursuit of spiritual freedom, I have many times had to engage in the unpleasant task of looking at things that I had done to my friends and family and feeling ashamed. But no amount of feeling bad about what I had done would change the fact that it was I who had committed the overt. But by honestly confronting what I had done, taking responsibility for it and making amends where needed, I was able to change and get myself back on the road to achieving my goals. I know of no person whom is perfect but I know many who have had the courage to right past wrongs and, with a clean heart, move on to happier more pro-survival lives.
Probably one of the most unique characteristics that I have found in the structure of all Scientology organizations is that there is an entire division in each group dedicated exclusively to the correction of the group, its staff and public. This makes Scientology a self-correcting mechanism. As that additional tool needed to get the technology being standardly delivered, Ethics also assists in handling anyone who is misapplying or not applying the tech as it should be. As noted before, there exists in Ethics a fully operational reporting system specifically designed to give staff and public a means by which to report any non-optimum situation or off-policy action so that it can get handled. I believe that the only mistake a person can make regarding this reporting system is to not use it and so allow a bad situation to remain unhandled. And quite commonly, the person who doesn’t take responsibility for reporting a bad situation that they have observed is the first to complain about the fact that it wasn’t handled and ‘how bad it all is’.
By ensuring that the religious works of Scientology are delivered exactly as laid out in the by the Founder in the scriptures, parishioners are able to experience the full range of abilities attainable from Scientology services.
In the first case, the individual Scientologist simply applies the basic principles of Scientology, including those described in this essay, to the world around him. He would often be involved in community activities as Scientologists are very much concerned with the condition of people around them. You will surely find Scientologists working to protect the basic human rights of all man to be treated with kindness and humanity, as well as actively decrying efforts to enslave man or to take his right to freedom away from him.
For the most part, members of the general population willing accept genuine help and do not inquire as to a person’s religion when dealing with them. I would doubt that if your house were burning down, you would stop to check the religious beliefs of the firemen.
The best example I can think of in terms of how the Church of Scientology itself interfaces with the non-Scientology world is in the many social and community programs in which the Church is involved. Whether it’s sponsoring the annual Winter Wonderland program for the children of Clearwater and Hollywood or Volunteer Ministers working with the Red Cross to bring relief to the victims of natural catastrophes, every Church of Scientology that I know of works with other non-Scientology community groups to help improve the quality of life for all members of the community. For instance, for the past three years I have personally organized the Christmas Food Drive at the Church in Boston for the benefit of the Sandown Food Pantry. This community project ensures that the children of needy families in Sandown, New Hampshire are provided with, amongst other things, healthy nutritious snacks in school. As it is hard for a child to learn when he is hungry or improperly nourished, the donations from the Food Drive seeks to help these children get a better education.
There are also numerous secular groups which are licensed by a Scientology related entity called the Association for Better Living and Education International (ABLE). ABLE is dedicated to social betterment through the application of L. Ron Hubbard’s social betterment technologies, particularly in the areas of drug rehabilitation, criminal reform, education and morals. Because of the effectiveness of these programs, many secular groups around the world have sought permission to incorporate these discoveries in their own groups. ABLE International ensures that this entire social betterment network is applying Mr. Hubbard’s life-saving methods and principles properly, so the programs are as effective as they can be.
While many of you may believe something different, what L. Ron Hubbard was trying to accomplish for the world at large with Scientology is clearly stated in an article he wrote regarding his hope for a better world. It is called the “Aims of Scientology” and is quoted below. Every day Scientologists around the world work to forward that goal in the hope of a better brighter future for all mankind:
“A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.
While it is apparent by Stacy Young’s innuendo about the “Scientology Issue” that she believes that the entire “problem” here is Scientology, it should be remembered that for any “problem” to exist there must exist two opposing forces. A problem is nothing more than an “intention – counter-intention”.
Let’s take a real example that demonstrates this principle involving freedom of religion. I am a Scientologist and am very happy with the quality of life that I have been able to achieve by applying what I have learned in Scientology. I want to be left alone and allowed to freely practice my religion. Furthermore, my right to do this is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Then one day I’m sitting on the front porch of my Church and a man who has never studied Scientology and has no personal experience in the subject at all, starts to demonstrate with Nazi swastikas on his picket signs. I don’t question his right to peacefully protest, despite the inappropriateness of his signs, but what he does is begin to denigrate the Founder of my religion, ridicule what he conceives to be my religious beliefs and begins yelling in such a way as to disturb religious classes that are in progress inside the Church. The man tells me that he intends to destroy my religion. This is the creation of a problem. The problem is not my religion or his picket sign. The problem is that my intention to freely practice my religion has met with another’s counter-intention. Thus it can be seen that resolving the problem is merely a matter of resolving the “intention – counter- intention”. That done, the “problem” vanishes.
The question is, due to the complexity and quantity of intentions vs. counter-intentions involved and the amount of lies, hate, black propaganda and ill will that has been created, is it even possible at this point to ever hope for a resolution to this conflict? Call me optimistic but I, for one, believe that it can be and should be. Scientology will continue to expand because it helps people. Scientology will continue to grow because people want real workable solutions to the problems of life. Scientology will continue to grow because its people are good, decent individuals whose intentions are good. Scientology will grow because Scientology works. The fact is that the Church that is just three blocks away from your office, cannot train staff fast enough to keep up with the public demand for its religious services. So it would seem that you too would benefit from a workable solution.
Now the simplest way to put an end to the matter is for those attacking Scientology to just decide to stop attacking and to stop. As L. Ron Hubbard clearly stated in an article entitled Critics of Scientology: “If you will leave us alone we will leave you alone.” . There is no element of win-lose or right-wrong here. It is simply ended. As unreal as this option may seem to many, it is nevertheless a solution which cannot go without mention, as it is a workable solution.
Any other resolution, however, is going to require that each individual involved be willing to take responsibility for his own actions as well as full responsibility for the resolution of this unnecessary “war”. I am not talking about fault, blame or anything of this kind. I am talking about real responsibility as defined and described above. Because of the amount of lies and hate that have been created and the amount of overts that have been committed during the course of this attack, I believe it is going to take a lot of courage on many people’s part to even be willing to honestly look at the consequences of their actions and, where needed, make up the damage done. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am being one sided here, let me clearly state that I am not suggesting that anyone do anything that I, myself, am not willing to do. Accepting responsibility for one’s actions is such a key component to the resolution of any problem, that without it, it is improbable that the situation can effectively be resolved.
In reality, the answer lies in apply the KRC and ARC triangle to this situation. The primary starting point is communication. Over the past five years, I have been extensively involved in attempting to protect my Constitutional right to practice the religion of my own choice. In the course of this, I have had occasion to speak to many individual currently and formerly involved in the attack on my religion. In some cases, through communication, I was able to gain a greater understanding of the source of a person’s upset and through mutual agreements (reality) work out a handling that when implemented resulted in a bettered situation. By being willing to take some responsibility for the general scene, I used communication to learn more about it. This knowledge gave me a greater reality of what I could do to take more control of scene. My affinity for the “enemy” I was dealing with increased because of their willingness to communicate with me. The continued application of these two triangles resulted in mutual agreements which then replaced the ‘intention – counter-intention” that had previous locked the situation in a never ending conflict. The problem resolved. The most important factor in the scenario above was each person’s willingness to resolve their upsets, their willingness to take responsibility for actions done which may have been harmful or hurtful to others and their willingness to honestly communicate and continue to communicate until agreements could be reached.
I believe that to be the case with every single person who is engaged in this conflict. With the exception of those who simply have a vested interest in seeing the conflict continue, any valid upset or disagreement can be resolved. It is up to each individual to muster the courage to decide handle their individual situations with regards to Scientology and to do whatever is needed to handle that situation. As I said before, for those of you who wish that Scientology would just go away, I can assure it will not. So the best solution to my way of thinking is to address the causes of the counter-intention to Scientology with each person individually. If a person honestly wants to resolve their differences with Scientology and/or a Scientologist but does not know who to write to, they can e-mail me and I will get the address of the appropriate person in their area. I have seen handling such as that work in the majority of cases.
There will remain, however, a small percentage amongst you, who are just plain anti-social or suppressive. This is the person who specializes in suppressing others. To suppress means “to squash, to sit on, to make smaller, to refuse to let reach, to make uncertain about his reaching, to render or lessen in any way possible by any means possible to the harm of the individual and for the fancied protection of the suppressor”. 
Furthermore, “a suppressive person will goof up or vilify any effort to help anybody and particularly knife with violence anything calculated to make human beings more powerful or more intelligent. The whole rational of the suppressive person (SP) is built on the belief that if anyone got better, the SP would be for it as the others could overcome him then. He is fighting a battle he once fought and never stopped fighting. He is in an incident. Present time people are mistaken by him for past, long-gone enemies. Therefore, he never really knows what he is fighting in present time, so he just fights.”  Sound like anyone you know?
But again, the actual threat to them is NOT Scientology. The real threat to their personal survival is their own inability to confront who they really are, their intentions and motives and to take whatever steps are necessary to cleanse themselves of the sins they have committed against the dynamics, i.e. themselves, their families, their group, mankind, etc.
But even those who have been engaged in acts that are calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or Scientologists, whether formally declared a Suppressive Person by the Church or not, can do something to handle their scene. If a person truly comes to his or her senses about what they have been doing and recants, the first thing they need to do is stop committing present time overts and to cease all attacks and suppression. Their only terminal is the International Justice Chief, via the Continental Chief. For those of you reading this who are Scientologists, you know full well that this is your only hope for ever getting back onto the Bridge to Total Freedom. And for those of you who have had wins and gains in the past, whether or not you have them in the future is truly up to you.
There are better games to play on this Earth than attacking a religion I can assure you. Your time would be better spent on attacking those who enslave man rather than a group that is freeing him. Our game is to create a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights. That is our objective. And we will achieve our objective just as sure as the sun, with or without your cooperation. Each and every one of you is capable of deciding to play a better game, a more pro-survival game, a game where you have a chance at winning. You just need to decide to.
Street address removed for privacy by LMT
 Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary © 1987
 Webster’s New Word Dictionary, Second College Edition *1984
 Modern Management Technology Defined © 1976
 Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary © 1987
 Webster’s New Word Dictionary, Second College Edition *1984
 Basic Dictionary of Dianetics & Scientology © 1988
 Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics © 1988
 Modern Management Technology Defined © 1976
 Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics© 1988, p 24
 Introduction to Scientology Ethics © 1998, p.12.
 Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics © 1988, p.38.
 Basic Dictionary of Dianetics & Scientology © 1988
 Scientology Handbook; The Components of Understanding © 1994
 Basic Dictionary of Dianetics & Scientology c 1988
 Scientology Handbook: The Components of Understanding © 1994
 Basic Dictionary of Dianetics & Scientology © 1988
 Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics © 1988, p. 23
 Basic Dictionary of Dianetics & Scientology© 1988, p. 3.
 Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics © 1988, p. 23
 Scientology Handbook; The Components of Understanding © 1994
 Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary © 1987
 Webster’s New Word Dictionary, Second College Edition *1984
 Introduction to Scientology Ethics © 1998, p. 5.
 Introduction to Scientology Ethics © 1998, p. 230.
 Introduction to Scientology Ethics © 1998, p. 231.
 Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics © 1988, p. 17-18.
 HCOB 5 November 1967, Critics of Scientology
 Introduction to Scientology Ethics © 1998, p.168.
 Introduction to Scientology Ethics © 1998, p.167.