Introduction to Scientology
Page 1, Page 2
Wording of a website seems to contradict I.S.E.
Nelson complained about this issue (23 Nov 2002):
> An expelled person does NOT have to be in good
standing to access
> scientology justice procedures against Scientologists in good standing who
> are violating the laws of the land or doing intentional legal wrongs to the
> expelled individual. This is per the 1989 ethics book, page 227.
That's right. And it's also in the 1998 edition on page 311.
> The ethics web site states the exact reverse.
I think that it's fairer to say that the website does not contain all
the information about Ethics and Justice that is available both in the
book Introduction to Scientology Ethics and in the OEC volumes.
Here is the statement you objected to:
'The expelled individual is no longer a part of Scientology and
benefits are not his to enjoy, including access to Scientology justice
procedures, no matter what difficulties he encounters.'
That's an absolute statement, and you are correct to state that there
are exceptions that are mentioned in the ISE book.
'Also, until a suppressive person or group
is absolved, but not
during the period when the person requests and has a Committee of
Evidence, or an amnesty occurs, no Scientology ethics other than the
material herein applies to such persons, no Committee of Evidence may
be called on any Scientologist or person for any offences of any kind
against the suppressive person except for offences which violate the
laws of the land or except to establish in cases of real dispute whether
or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or Scientologists.'
L. Ron Hubbard. Introduction to Scientology Ethics. 1998. Bridge.
Let's go back to the website. If we click to the next page we find that
the statement wasn't as absolute as it appeared on page 11.
Even the expelled person has avenues of recourse within the church:
'With any justice action,
even expulsion from the Church, if the
individual concerned does not feel justice has been done, he has
avenues of recourse to determine the facts and correct matters, if
My argument is that the webpage is not attempting to lay out the full
complexities of the justice procedures. This would scarcely
have been possible without laying out in full the long and complex
texts in question.
I think that the statement on page 11 constitutes a minor point of
contention (rather than evidence of a great wickedness), and it almost
certainly stems from an attempt to introduce the subject in a simple
way to non-Scientologists.
Here are some further mitigating factors:
The website authors took pains on the site to point out that there is
more to know on the subject of Scientology justice than is contained
on the website:
'Scientology justice is
administered in accordance with a precise set
of easily understandable ecclesiastical codes clearly delineated,
broadly published and well known by Scientologists.'
They link, on both the first page and on page 12, to the book
Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
They state that it is there that the full scope of ethics and justice
in the church are laid out.
'The book Introduction to Scientology
Ethics contains the full scope
of Scientology ethics technology and the Scientology justice system in
clearly defined terms.'
Looking again at the exceptions in question, the site finds time to
point out that illegal acts are not tolerated by Scientologists.
'The Scientology justice codes align with
the mores and legal codes of
the society. Acts considered criminal by society are considered
criminal by the Church and Scientologists. Scientologists do not
tolerate illegal activities of any sort. Experience has taught that
those who seriously violate the laws of the land are incapable of
maintaining the ethical standards required to accomplish spiritual
So... Nelson, having looked at this fairly carefully, I think that you
did indeed pick up on a website statement that incorrectly didn't
take into account the exceptions that are listed in the book Introduction
to Scientology Ethics.
However I think that it was a minor error caused by brevity, rather
than evidence of a dastardly plot.
Levi's earlier post about this topic on 18 Nov 2002 was the most hyperbolic:
> The Church of Scientology specifically deleted an
important section of
> LRH's policy and thereby changed the meaning and intent of the policy
> altogether. This is squirrelling at its worst. This omission ranks in
> importance right along with the alterations documated by SAFE and
> others. This particular example may also have legal ramifications as
Back to ISE Page 1
Return to Scientology Materials Index