I respect quite a few of the contributors to a.r.s. and a.c.t., but some are suffering from not having directly observed what is happening in the
Church for many years.
Many of the problematic things that get
mentioned were spotted as being wrong inside
the church, and have been changed.
If this strikes a chord, I would recommend going to one of
the big events.
Ask to see one of the Golden Age of Tech course packs. Talk to a
long-term staff auditor about his experiences.
Is he getting studying or having
auditing regularly? How has the new tech line-up improved things? What changes in the Church
has he noticed over the past two decades?
Someone asked me about how an individual would go back
to the church after having been away for a while. Obviously each person's
situation is going to be different.
The person must first ~want~ to get back on board.
That's not going to be an easy decision for some people. They'll need to look at it
For most people it would be simple to start doing services with the church again. They'd
just need to walk in the door. For others it won't be.
If someone left because of an ethics situation of some
kind they should first look at the relevant policies and
make sure they understand where the church representatives involved will be coming
from. It will help them to craft an acceptable solution.
They should then establish a communication line by writing a short friendly
letter to briefly explain their situation. This would be to the International Justice
Chief if they
have been declared suppressive, the local Ethics Officer if they haven't.
The individual should then either go in and talk about the situation (if that is
desired) or otherwise they might be asked to write up a petition. I would suggest taking some time to
compose this properly.
If the petitioner wants to indicate that an org terminal is responsible for the
current unfortunate situation - that it's all this other person's fault, they should be
extremely careful to document this with exact policy references and evidence.
They should try to take as much responsibility as they can for the situation.
reference on responsibility in Advanced Procedures and Axioms at a philosophical
level, and to avoid being seen as a motivatorish case.
If there ~are~ a
lot of motivators then the person should do a full O/W write-up for obvious
The petitioner should try to give the EO/IJC a good solution that will be
acceptable to both parties. The petition might not be accepted, in which case
the person should be polite and perhaps try again in a few years or after an
amnesty is declared.
Here's something I wrote earlier about being excluded
I'd be pleased to get
your feedback on these pages. I know they are still a bit rough in places.
I'll try to help if you need some advice.
However if you've been formally declared you should write to the International
Here's my address: trendail AT yahoo.com