Thanks for this, Dorothy, that's painful about the Scientologists you mention. Is there a place on the site where they talk more about Indy scientology/Freezone? I don't know those terms well, but I keep seeing Marty Rathbun talking about having issues with the church, but not with the tech. I know this may sound good in interviews and may keep some current Scientologists from seeing him as completely biased, but I feel like the craziness is in the tech. Maybe in the Dianetic years it wasn't so bad, but during the period where LRH was in hiding and just sending out those missives, he seemed bat-shit crazy, and I feel like if this is what they are also standing behind - then I don't know how they can defend it, especially the homophobic stuff that LRH wrote, fair game, etc. In other words, I feel that D.M. is definitely problematic, sociopathic and sick, but I feel that he gets permission in his mind to do the things he does because of the pathology in the tech, which is flawed and dangerous. I wish Rathbun and others would clarify this.
These are difficult and complex questions you ask (and don't expect any clarification from Rathbun and Co.). Indy/Freezone is basically scientologists acting outside the organized church structure. There is little if any hard evidence that they have become abusive, beyond their verbal attacks against their critics. Some critics believe they are abusive for what they fail to do
- for example denouncing LRon tech for being itself dangerous.
My personal opinion is that "the tech" is an unscientific, incomplete, un-researched and questionable psychological practice. Auditing and training can be harmless and also harmful depending on the person and the situation. The problem is you never really know what you're going to get. When you include Xenu and OT levels yes it is dangerous
because it can create delusional people. Not all OTs become delusional or crazy but enough of them do to outlaw the practice imo. But then I know of quite a few religion-induced delusional and crazy Christians and Muslims too. That's where it becomes complex. I recommend Hugh Urban's work to help get a grip on some of these questions.
IMO I believe that it is only when you combine the scientology "tech" with a government-supported organized religious structure
that it becomes (proven to be) inherently dangerous. Without the U.S. government's sanction and blessing, the scientology practice would be kept in check, or disappear. I personally hold the U.S. government responsible for all deaths that happen in all sectors of scientology, because without their support, scientology members could potentially be held fully accountable for their abusive/negligent acts.
For example, if scientology did not have official religious status, the Headley's legal outcome would have been much different because CoS would not have been able to pull the "ministerial exception" card in court. They would have been subject to labor laws and guilty of forced labor and other illegal acts.
So the important focus would be on how they got their religious status in the first place, reviewing that as well as their corporate cloaking and the personal inurement of Dave, Tom, etc. In other words all the things scientology does that violates their coveted religious status.
If their religious status were to be questioned or revoked, then "the tech" would be once again open to scrutiny by the AMA, APA, ASA, etc. That would take us back in time to the 50's when LRon thought up the "religion angle" to escape having to face scrutiny from these authorities, in the first place.
I think Hubbard was really a coward who was always running away from something. He was completely unable to face his own music. That's why he had to make up the story about wrestling the Kodiak bear, to create the mythology about how brave he was. The U.S. government became scientolgy's great enabler when it gave its official sanction on the practice. And I believe that is why we have all this scientology trouble now.