Dear Sentinel,

I understand where you are coming from- but- I don't think anyone thinks that scientology is the only place where these kinds of things happen. We all know about the Catholic church's pedophilia scandals by now. But this is a board that deals specifically with scientology's abuses...

What is difficult for me is, I personally know of 3 separate cases of sexual abuse/violence towards women/children that were improperly handled by scientology. One case of impropriety helped bring about an individual's death (imo). If I alone know of 3 separate cases, I am sure there are many more than we realize. Yet I cannot divulge the personal stories of individuals I knew out of respect for their privacy. None of these are cases that are legally relevant or prosecutable, beyond establishing a pattern of behavior by scientology.

We need to get the word out that this specific kind of tragedy is being prosecuted in Australia, because hopefully, that will help give some of the victims the strength to come forward.

Dorothy,

Please, don't get me wrong. Like I said, what are you doing is good and I have no intention to divert your attention - or the board's- otherwise.

It was just my 2 cent on the matter - nothing more, nothing less.

Now, being back on topic - I bet 10 cents vs one million that the cult will try to scapegoat her. What bugs me is this: how come it has not shown earlier?
Maybe, me being not American and never been "in", I did get the "diluted version" (No Celebrity Centres, no Sea Org) but still, how could a parent allow the exploitation of his or her own offsrping? As far as I know, there ARE biological imperatives, no?

I think these are excellent questions, Sentinel. Even though the answers may not be adequate or even forthcoming, I think the issue deserves attention and more research.

Allowing the exploitation of one's own offspring obviously includes but is not limited to sexual exploitation. (Ref. Types of Child Abuse.) Scientology indoctrination for parents includes the unevaluatable idea of how restimulative or psychologically damaging parents are to the mental health and survival of their children. This pervades the indoctrination, starting with DMSMH, with horrific examples of deranged mothers, attempted abortions, prenatal engrams, etc. To compensate for this supposed liability of children having their parents in the vicinity, and probably for other reasons too, it seemed to me that parents on the inside tended to turn over much of their childrens' rearing, discipline, etc., to outsiders, such as private nannies, Scientology schools, wog schools, and org personnel. In the Sea Org, this happened by order, not by choice. Family bonds of Sea Org members were often ignored and in other ways undermined.

Just as parents are getting their own childhood authorities processed and "flattened," so too do their attitudes toward their own offspring change and flatten. This makes it easier, of course, to accept Hubbard's child psychology, which is essentially a denial of child psychology. According to Hubbard, kids are thetans in little bodies. The closer one conforms to this idea and conveys this in the treatment of children, it seems the easier it is to ignore and overlook opportunities for parental guidance and controls. Hubbard's ideas about proper treatment of children were excessively permissive, imo, and tended to encourage aggressive and bullying behaviors, and tended to minimize parental bonds and other potential authorities. This, of course, served Hubbard's closest personal needs and interests, because he surrounded himself with children bonded tightly to him.

Related: Scientology's anti-family policies and practices

Thanks, Caroline, for clearing the weird ideas about raising children ElRon had.

Also, scientology is (to my knowledge at least) the only belief-system that states that the age of the child is not that important. The body may be under age, the thetan is millions of years old and perfectly able to consent to sex with an adult.
Every other culture and religion that I know of has some "age of consent" for sex. The opinions differ on what that age is, but a border between "old enough" and "to young" is, and has always been, set.

Scientology doesn't really care about this age of consent, since the thetan is old enough anyway. Most scientologists are not pedophiles and don't molest children because they don't want to, they don't feel attracted to them in that way.
The part of the small group that would want to have sex with minors but doesn't do it, refrains from doing so out of fear for legal consequences and the damage to their social status in case of getting caught. It's not their religion that stops them, it's wog laws and moral standards.

The predatory minority that feels invincible or just doesn't care about consequences gets confirmed, through LRH's opinions, that there is nothing wrong with them, because children are just adult thetans in little bodies. That means they are "fair game"(pun intended) for sexual exploitation. The feeling of guilt, of having sinned against God, that a Catholic priest will have after molesting his altar-boy, is absent in the child-molesting scientologist.

Most people presume every normal parent, specially every mother, will try to protect her child from those that molest him/her.
Unfortunately that is not always the case. Many women choose for their partner and the emotional and financial stability of their marriage over the safety of their children. This happens in every culture and religion. The child that tells the mother then gets punished for "trying to ruin her relationship" or "being selfish" or "being a slut that goes after her mother's man". So the victim gets victimized again, this time by the person that should protect her/him above all else.

In scientology this will happen even more often than elsewhere, because:
*emotional ties between parents and children are systematically flattened by the tech,
*the victim is supposed to have pulled the abuse in,
*children are grown thetans in little bodies, and
*the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics is what counts.

The last one means in this case that keeping your mouth shut as a mother of an abuse-victim will protect your family and your church, victimizing "only" your child.

Going to the police means that social services gets involved, nasty questions will be asked, your marriage will go sour, you won't be able to buy as many courses to progress along the bridge, your church will get negative publicity and won't be able to clear the planet anytime soon etcetera. If you don't want to play ball Jan Eastgate or a professional like her will drop by at your house and tell you the evil psychs will come to take your kid and submit it to even worse abuse and it will all be your fault because YOU WOULDN'T KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
The victim will basically be told the same; They'll take you away from home, your father will go to prison, your mother will hate you, the psychs will torture you and the Planet-Clearing will be delayed thanks to you, because YOU INSIST ON MAKING THESE CRAZY ALLEGATIONS!
And what does a properly brainwashed clam do in such a case? Clam up. The greatest good....

I know, it's pathetic and enraging. But that's the way it goes.

^ Yes, I think you're onto it, Sekh. There are also Hubbard's stable data that, "You can't hurt a thetan" (Control and the Mechanics of SCS), "the preclear has never done anything in this life that has aberrated him" (Wordclearing Series 27), and "You are totally responsible for the condition you are in." (Ethics Officer mantra.)

I'd say also that these ideas tend to make nothing of bad or cruel behavior and also displace the "cause" of the person's trauma or suffering in time, so that the victims get confused about the source of the victimization. Scientologists, of course, are by definition not victims, (Ref. OP here) so having been victimized is practically an indictment of having done the crime themselves. Scientologists will go into session and find or manufacture some "whole track" crime that matches what the perpetrator did to them in this life time. Now the victimizer in this lifetime gets away with the crime, and the victim gets stuck with a false memory. Nice trick.

Regarding Scientologists not being victims, they will, of course, be victims on command or as implicit command intention, if it serves Scientology's war purposes for them to be victims, e.g., Ken Hoden as victim in the Scientology v. Henson fair game campaign.

Carmen was describing Hubbard's "Overt-Motivator" sequence. [Definition: Overt-Motivator Sequence] "Pulling it in" means in Scientology to attract and experience a harmful act against oneself, as a consequence of having earlier committed a similar "overt" or crime to another.

So it's like a broken version of karmic justice?
"It doesn't matter - it's always YOUR fault". I'm beginning to see the pattern here... not very far from certain types of spousal/familiar abuse. Just more organized.

Hubbard "differentiated" between karma and the O/M sequence like this:





So according to Hubbard, Carmen's "whole track allergy" to sex offenders caused her to pull one in, and none of this flap would be happening if someone had just cared enough to give her a standard 2D sec check.

The irony of course is that the whole operation of auditing and everything else in Scientology is to get Scientologists to not attack the very entities and people they should be attacking, i.e., telling the truth about, for their own health and good karma.

Here is Hubbard's definitive statement about criticism and the application of his tech on the overt-motivator sequence.