************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************
HI David You asked:
> Why is it that I have never heard of anyone in trouble in the cos or with > the cos, as far as overts go, being thrown in to the RPF, or being PTS or SP > and getting declared, or for crimes against the cos, or for thinking > negative thoughts bring these points up and use them as a defense? When i was tossed out in 1979 from the Flag Land Base i was happy to be gone from that crazy place. But if i had wanted to stay where is the legal system within the church that can overturn the dictatorial control of the leadership of the church? There is none. No one has the job of defending the rights of the members and the power to overrule the leadership. Sincerely Pete Mclaughlin Sent from my iPad > On Nov 5, 2016, at 7:51 AM, The Resolution of Mind list > <trom@lists.newciv.org> wrote: > > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > ************ > Pete, > > Thanks for posting that. > > > > The following is the most significant statement for me: > > > "You can't teach the students, make them learn Axiom 31 by heart on the one > hand, and on the other hand insist that they abide by a code of ethics. > They're two things that are logically inconsistent with each other. You see > that? There's these logical inconsistencies that caught up with him in the > final years." > > > > It never occurred to me, to connect, or compare and evaluate the two datums: > The code of ethics and axiom 31. > > > Very interesting. Very significant. > > > Axiom 31 is very prominent in the new age community. I first heard of it in > the early 90s, although I was into new age stuff since the early 70s. > > > Many new age books promote that idea. > > > > And it also stuck in my craw. I could never agree with that. It did not make > sense. I had many arguments with people on that, especially women. > > I still hear it if I am in new age circles. > > (I digress: I suppose the reason that they so adamantly adhere to that idea > and defend it, is because it vindicates them from all the overts they > committed.) > > > ( I digress again: I just cogged on another viewpoint or expansion of the > problem with axiom 31: If axiom 31 is correct, then why is scn so hung up > on overts, confessions, and putting ethics in? That is almost the main stay > (or pre occupation) of scn. That is quite a significant contradiction. WOW ) > > > > Return from digression: > > My first question to them would be: > > What if someone broke into your house, killed your husband and children, > stole all your money, then raped you, and broke your arms, then dragged > you outside and tied you up to the street light post and burned your house > down. > > > Would you consider that bad or good? > > > There would would be no answer. Just a dumb blank look. > > > Some people should not be allowed to think. > > > > I now want to expand upon what I said earlier: > > (I digress again: I just cogged on another viewpoint or expansion of the > problem with axiom 31: If axiom 31 is correct, then why is the cos so hung > up on overts, sec checks, confessions, and putting ethics in? Also the RPF > and SPs. That is almost the main stay (or pre occupation) of scn. That is > quite a significant contradiction. WOW! ) > > > > That begs the question, why don't people in trouble in scn bring up that > axiom, as well as the creed of scientology? > > > > The Creed of the Church of Scientology > We of the Church believe > > That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights. > > That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and > their performance. > > That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives. > > That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity. > > That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense. > > That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support > their own organizations, churches and governments. > > That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to > write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the > opinions of others. > > That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind. > > That the souls of men have the rights of men. > > That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not > be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields. > > And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these > rights, overtly or covertly. > > And we of the Church believe > > That Man is basically good. > > That he is seeking to Survive. > > That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his > attainment of brotherhood with the Universe. > > And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man > > To destroy his own kind. > > To destroy the sanity of another. > > To destroy or enslave another’s soul. > > To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s group. > > And we of the Church believe > > That the spirit can be saved. > > And that the spirit alone may save or heal the body. > > > > > > > This has been a most enlightening subject for me. > > > Almost everything the cos does in practice is in violation of their creeds, > codes and axioms. > > Why is it that I have never heard of anyone in trouble in the cos or with > the cos, as far as overts go, being thrown in to the RPF, or being PTS or SP > and getting declared, or for crimes against the cos, or for thinking > negative thoughts bring these points up and use them as a defense? > > Including all the critical exscios bitching and complaining about or at the > church and management. I have never heard anyone use that as a defense, at > least not with such degree, certainty, and clarity and significance. And not > using it in court cases as a defense too. > > > > David > > > > >>
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list TROM@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
