The best way to practice Scientology is to do so openly… as a religion.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes the inalienable right to freely practice one’s religion and prohibits the government from establishing (or favoring) one religion over another.
The scriptures for the Scientology religion are the writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject. Because Scientology by definition is a highly skilled applied technology comprised of precisely worded counseling processes, use of these materials (Scientology’s “scripture”) is vital to the practice of the religion. Any writings and lectures other than those of L. Ron Hubbard, or variations and alterations by others, are not Scientology.
The use of source materials in a religious setting likely will be legally sanctioned, at least in the United States, so long as it is clear to the general public that you are not affiliated with or sanctioned by Church of Scientology International (CSI). David Miscavige cannot dictate by arbitrary decree who can and who cannot practice the religion; he can only control membership in his church. For the courts to uphold his edicts would be tantamount to the government limiting the right to practice Scientology to those approved by Miscavige.
The Religious Liberty League has multiple law firms on retainer for the express purpose of protecting the free practice of Scientology. We encourage practitioners to notify us if you receive a cease and desist letter or other legal threat from Religious Technology Center (RTC, the holder of Scientology trademarks and trade secrets) or Church of Spiritual Technology (CST, the owner of LRH copyrights).
The legal issues involved are complex, but the battle to break the Scientology monopoly can be won – and must be, in order to preserve the technology that has been altered inside the church, producing tech failures by the score and, significantly, are not producing real OTs.[1] (How can one who has ceased to look and think for himself possibly achieve such a high state of spiritual awareness?)
The church no longer offers the original OT levels, which attracted tens if not hundreds of thousands of people into Scientology in the late 1960s, and the church hasn’t offered them since the late 1970s, giving them a fleeting existence. Could their introduction explain the heavy counter-intelligence campaign waged against the church? The Guardians Office – the management counter balance to the Sea Organization – was heavily infiltrated by government intelligence agencies, weakened and made vulnerable to a takeover by David Miscavige. The culture of criminality inside the G.O. was “rolled back” by an internal investigation to two major figures (neither of whom were indicted) and then the matter was dropped. All this is described in the book, Arrows in the Dark. Did the government install “their man”? Will the original OT levels rise again? In a big way, we mean, with a strong movement behind them.
We’re sure we speak for many Scientologists practicing the religion outside the church when we say that users of copyrighted and trademarked materials (i.e., scripture) are willing to provide legal consideration for their use. In legal terms, many users are willing to enter into license agreements – provided sufficient protections for independence are assured. (We have a framework in mind that has a chance for success, but it is premature to discuss.)
The simple fact is that no person or agency less than God can dictate who can practice this or any other religion. History has proven this fundamental truth. It now repeats itself.
At some point, however, the window for reconciliation will close and the church of Scientology, like the Roman Catholic Church before it, will splinter into a thousand pieces.
And history will record that it occurred on the watch of David Miscavige and the special directors of CST who enabled him and breached their fiduciary duties in the process: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, Lawrence Heller, and Monique Yingling (successor to one of the latter two.)
________________________
END NOTE:
[1] OT stands for Operating Thetan. In Scientology thetan means spirit or soul in other religions. In Scientology you are the soul. You don’t have one. The state of Operating Thetan refers to a state of awareness of his spiritual self and the ability to operate free of the body, the body’s limited senses (e.g., sight through eyes, etc.) and ability (e.g., physical mobility, etc.)
thanks a lot, for this great article. And thanks for all you are doing on the legal frontier.
Good site. Well written and concise. In fact we have a framework for the practice and application of Scientology. It is called the Association of Professional Independent Scientologists and can be found here http://independent-scientologists-association.net/
Thank you for your validation and for encouraging the delivery Scientology services through your organization. The APIS, however, is not a religious organization and lacks religious status. Delivering Dianetics and Scientology as non-cleric professionals has been tried and failed. Early Dianeticists, for example, were forced to either not charge for services or risk being charged with practicing medicine without a license. Some did go to jail. Only because Scientology was faced with being regulated by mental health authorities did LRH reluctantly form a religion. It was a life-saving decision. Later when the FDA raided the Founding Church, carted away E-meters and charged the church with using an unapproved “medical device,” it was Scientology’s religious status that saved the day. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Scientology was a religion and, based thereon, ruled that the E-meter could not be regulated when used for religious counseling.
Too many Scientologists are unaware of this history. Some even have jumped on the bandwagon of anti-Scientology forces and cheered for the revocation of the church’s tax-exempt status. Religious status is imperative for the free practice of Scientology. Right now all practicing Scientologists are riding the coattails of LRH and all those who fought so hard to obtain religious recognition and the attendant protection of the First Amendment. And many of you are aging solo practitioners who are not training auditors to replace you. The only long-term solution for the religion of Scientology is the reform of the church or the creation of a new one.
Some people discount the threat of the medical-pharmaceutical-psychiatric industrial complex and cannot see the 800-pound gorilla in the living room that is waging a heavy propaganda campaign against Scientology as I type this comment. Instead, they have gone “suppressively reasonable” and actually entertain, agree with, and pass on many of the enemy lines of these covert operators.
Perhaps I should write more about these techniques. I let pass a perfect opportunity a few weeks ago. A whistleblower inside Monsanto revealed that the global corporation had an entire unit set up to spread propaganda through the Internet about the positive benefits of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Among other things, they paid people to “troll” anti-GMO sites and attack those writers. Point is, people should be aware of these techniques and be highly alert and on guard for anything negative written about, for example, LRH or the religious status or tax-exemption of the church. Not saying LRH was perfect. Nor does he. But, the fact is there is a campaign to malign and discredit him and the religiosity of Scientology that dates back to 1950.
Hi Admin,
That was a damn good article!
If you were running for president you’d definitely get my vote 🙂
Seriously though what the GO uncovered using FOIA and ……er….other means.
Indicates as Omar Garrison would say in the Intro to his book Playing Dirty:
The evidentiary record of the U.S. Government’s conspiracy against the Church of Scientology – extending, as it does, over more than two decades – has no parallel in American legal history.
There have been previous cases of official persecution of new religious sects (that of the Mormons, for example), but never before have so many agencies of the federal government joined forces in a dedicated – yes, a fanatical – scheme to destroy a legally constituted religious community.
That destruction of the church was the ultimate objective of the cabal there can be no doubt. The internal memoranda passed among the various agencies and departments involved, say so, clearly and emphatically.
After analyzing hundreds of governmental documents relating to the Scientology case, Rodney A. Austin, an expert on Constitutional and Administrative law, affirmed unequivocally that the U.S. Justice Department had directed “an allagency effort to malign, oppress, criminally prosecute and ultimately end the practice of Scientology.”
Unfortunately Garrison himself became part of that general effort after meeting Gerry Armstrong but that’s another story for another time.
In my opinion the Government figured that since they couldn’t completely take out Scientology.
(Needless to say some were rather conflicted since the Church being international had Intelligence value.)
They opted to take it over instead. Just as Ron said their objective was all along in the PL Politics; Freedom From.
So now we have a Government Approved and Endorsed version “Scientology” through Dave’s “mutual” friendship with IRS which actually conflicts with Ron’s version of actual Scientology in many ways.
One being the mysterious disappearance of the original OT Levels shorty after the CIA’s and later Iscom’s Remote Viewing projects. A major Tech Degrade according to the policy that a few like yourself have noticed.
Other things. So many things like various alterations that would take a book or maybe several.
(Trust me I started listed them out when the Golden Age of Tech came out and wrote many Orders Queries on each one till I reread the PL on Drills Allowed.)
Anyway I agree absolutely that we practitioners should practice it as a religion. As a science we run into the same problems the earlier Dianetics foundations ran into and before that Wilhelm Reich.
From what I understand there was quite a battle royale in the beginning but Ron was hedging his bets by registering the Church of Scientology, Church of American Science and the Church of Spiritual Engineering in New Jersey and then thanks to J Burton Farber the problem was solved when he founded the first Church of Scientology here in California.
Besides the fact is it *is* a religion since it deals with the spirit. Just like Ron says.
On a more gnostic level then the other religions for the most part. But still a religion none the less. One that protects us and the subject as well.
LR
“And many of you are aging solo practitioners who are not training auditors to replace you. The only long-term solution for the religion of Scientology is the reform of the church or the creation of a new one. ”
Well said Admin. I totally agree with this answer. Those Scns who have become anti Ron or the Tech, really need to ask themselves if they want to see Scn disappear altogether or to have it in the form for which it was meant, the improvement of the individuals dynamics, or said another way, their freedom. Because, that is what you get when it is applied properly and if we dont fight for it, it will go, and the answers which we all have within us, will go to, and we will have delivered to those people who want to see us fail, and have and are working on seeing us fail, a monumental win.
We do not have to repeat the mistakes of the past, we can use the tech for what it was intended for and drop the b/s, we just have to get rid of the bully currently on the throne and do it.
Pingback: Free practice of Scn | Milestone Two
Question:
When you say:
“We’re sure we speak for many Scientologists practicing the religion outside the church when we say that users of copyrighted and trademarked materials (i.e., scripture) are willing to provide legal consideration for their use. In legal terms, many users are willing to enter into license agreements – provided sufficient protections for independence are assured.”
Doesn’t this statement undermine the concept of freedom of people to practice their religion (in this case Scientology) as an inalienable right by lending agreement to the concept that religious scripture can be “copyrighted” and it’s use controlled by others….in this case David Miscavige and company?
This proposal to enter into license agreements seems to contradict the principle expressed at the beginning of this article:
” The First Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes the inalienable right to freely practice one’s religion and prohibits the government from establishing (or favoring) one religion over another.
The scriptures for the Scientology religion are the writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject. Because Scientology by definition is a highly skilled applied technology comprised of precisely worded counseling processes, use of these materials (Scientology’s “scripture”) is vital to the practice of the religion. ”
If even the government cannot prohibit our use of the Scientology scriptures which are vital to the practice of our Religion, how can it be that a church organization should have the right to do so?
We are asserting a legal position with our comments, Karl. A court has not upheld these positions. RTC (trademarks & trade secrets) and CST (copyrights) claim intellectual property rights. As often happens, parties with opposing positions negotiate to find common ground since both parties stand to lose in whole or in part in litigation, certainly both will lose a lot of money. We can imagine a win-win compromise that both sides can live with. But we get ahead of ourselves.
Yes. I too can imagine a win-win compromise that everybody can live with coming from this proposal, and I also agree that it would be wise not to let our imaginations run away with us.
The tone of any counter-proposal would be interesting.
Great article and I appreciate the insight. Would also love to hear the other stories you mention
– Garrison/Armstrong and the attack techniques and so forth.
It was Armstrong who turned Garrison using “files” that he allegedly absconded from Ron’s personal “archives” .
Actually Michel who has a website entitled “Wise Old Goat” goes into this “theft” in greater detail:
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1-b.html
The same “files” used by Russell Miller in his book Bare Faced Messiah. Again a book that Michel does an excellent job of deconstructing:
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1-c.html
BTW if anybody would like a well researched account of Ron’s time in the military I recommend the following:
http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm
Anyway if anyone hasn’t noticed. Scientology and Ron have been subjected to a continual Psywar by Forgery which according to the horse’s mouth:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no1/html/v05i1a03p_0001.htm
Freedom of Religion! Re-united families?
Great article!
While it is very accurate that the legal issues involved are complex, I’m not sure that anyone has ever challenged the basic validity of the copyrights and trademarks of CofS on first amendment grounds.
It is important to note that there is a distinction, both in intent and practice, between trademark and copyright law.
As noted, trademark and servicemark law is predominantly concerned with providing a legally protected mechanism to avoid consumer confusion as to the origin of a commercial product or service. The word itself includes trade. If you see the Coca Cola trademark on the can – you should be assured that you are getting the soft drink you expect. This is a commercial concept. Although to be sure, it has been accepted to apply to non-profits as well. You noted the Red Cross, but many non-profits, such as universities and hospitals also enjoy trademark protection.
Copyright law has a very different intent, and application.
“The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the economic interests of the authors and artists, but rather to promote the progress of the useful arts—that is knowledge and creative works—by providing an incentive for the creation through giving the creative community exclusive rights in their works for a limited period. A key element of the incentive is giving the owner of a copyrighted work a bundle of exclusive rights that can be exercised throughout the term of the copyright. But the grant of exclusive rights is not a monopoly. Congress historically has balanced the exclusive rights of copyright owners and the ability of the public to use copyrighted works to implement an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works and using copyrighted works for nonprofit, educational purposes.”
http://itle.okstate.edu/copyright/module1/page-1-03.htm
Interestingly, some things that are not protected by copyright include:
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration.
Both of these concepts, trademark and copyright, as well as patent protection, originate in the constitution, specifically, article 1, section 8.
“The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”
See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/articles.html
The first amendment to the constitution is pretty straightforward, however:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If challenged, it is an incredibly interesting legal point whether congress and the courts would view the protections that either trademark or copyright protection afford as applying at all to a religion, or the free practice of a religion.
Excellent post. See also, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which might have some applicability.
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion,” the law states, unless it “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Application of the copyrighted material of LRH to a religious organization established for the purpose of practicing the religion of Scientology might be considered too restrictive, especially if that religious organization is willing to negotiate a reasonable license fee.
What say you?
Copyrights
Very good point about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It seems to absolutely support the obviation of copyright protection as it relates to the use of otherwise protected material used in a person’s pursuit of free exercise of religion. Taken together with the 1st amendment to the constitution, the two make a pretty strong case that both an individual, and a bonafide religious organization’s use of copyrighted material in the direct pursuit of free exercise of religion would be sanctioned in the US.
At its heart, as it relates to copyrighted material, the basic legal argument is something along the lines that the free exercise of the religion of Scientology requires the exact and verbatim use of religious scriptures that are otherwise subject to copyright and trade secret law, which include the auditing lists, methods, HCOBs, confidential upper levels, ect.
Therefor any enforcement of copyright or for that matter, trade secret law (which is an altogether different legal IP protection – https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret) on these materials is “prohibiting the free exercise of religion”, as well as substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, without a compelling governmental interest being served.
The legal argument would conclude that for these reasons enforcement of copyright or trade secret protection on these materials for this use is in conflict and violation with the 1st amendment, as well as the RFR act of 1993.
Interestingly some of these concepts came up, but were not fully argued in a case in the 1980s. A fairly substantial Scientology schism group called the Advanced Ability Center, headed up by David Mayo, attempted to use the scriptures of Scientology under a different name from 1983 through 1986 in Santa Barbara.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IxWFOWj17M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Ability_Center
CofS mounted a noisy investigation with PIs and also infiltrated the AAC with plants that included Ray Mitoff’s brother, Bob Mitoff. The church then engaged in a massive lawsuit with David Mayo and the AAC on the grounds that the AAC was infringing its copyrights, trade secrets and trademarks. Before the matter of the validity of copyrighting religious scripture was litigated, CofS lost the case when they would not provide documentation as to the authorship of NOTs. Although Mayo and the AAC eventually prevailed, the lawsuit broke them.
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/david-mayo-scientology-case.htm
The reason the church gave to the Santa Barbara Independent at the time for why the CofS would not provide the documentation is interesting, and supports the argument that using the copyrighted material is necessary for the free exercise of Scientology. “According to Rev. Lee Holzinger from the Santa Barbara church, Scientology has developed very specific counseling techniques that must be offered in a very specific way and in a proscribed sequence. To do other-wise, he said, would subject the person counseled to potential risk and trauma.”
On the matter of a potential license, I’m assuming you mean a license with the CofS for the copyrighted material. If it were possible, some kind of negotiated license would certainly be in the path of least resistance. But is that realistic? Given the Miscavidge administration’s history of savagely attacking anyone even remotely connected with Scientology alternatives, it seems extremely implausible that they would willingly acquiesce to a license agreement. Some might even argue that a license agreement with CofS would prejudice the case for the use of the copyrighted material on 1st amendment grounds. The reason being is that it would establish a commercial agreement between the parties, supporting a civil understanding, under existing civil law. Something to consider.
Trademarks
Trademark law is very interesting, and as mentioned generally understood to protect commerce. Good primer here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Origins+and+Development+of+Trademark+Law
This is listing of the 254 current trademarks registered to Religious Technology Center: http://www.trademarkia.com/company-religious-technology-center-1027484-page-1-2
You mentioned that the Church of Later Day Saints is trademarked, so I looked into that a bit more. Turns out that while “The Church of Later Day Saints” is in fact trademarked, Mormon is not.
http://www.trademarkia.com/company-intellectual-reserve-inc-613675-page-1-2
In 2002 the LDS church applied for a trademark in the United States on “Mormon” as applied to religious services; however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that the term “Mormon” was too generic, and is popularly understood as referring to a particular kind of church, similar to “Presbyterian” or “Methodist”, rather than a service mark. The application was abandoned as of August 22, 2007.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Reserve
Without even bringing up the 1st amendment issue, it would seem an action to revoke the trademark to Scientology based on a similar “too generic” argument would stand a high likelihood of prevailing based on the Mormon precident. Although it would be prudent to include the 1st amendment, and RFR act of 1993 conflicts as well.
http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/CancellationofaRegisteredTrademarkFactSheet.aspx
If that failed a variation would probably be just as effective. Something along the lines of the Church of Essential Scientology, or some other variation where it could be shown that there would be no likelihood of confusion with Miscavidge’s church.
Excellent comments, once again Apollo.
In the Advanced Ability Center case there was actually a ruling by the Central District of California denying a preliminary injunction against ACC. That is, the church tried to shut the AAC down pending trial and the court refused. The case was subsequently settled with, according to rumors, Mayo being given $6 million.
In deciding whether AAC’s “substantially similar” works infringed on Scientology’s copyrights, a California federal district court found that questions of infringement were outweighed by the “potential hardship from interference with defendants’ religious freedom.” Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 660 F. Supp. 515, 522 (C.D. Cal. 1987). The standard for determining a preliminary injunction, though, is different from that used at trial. Moreover, in our view the AAC did not have the right legal team with sufficient First Amendment expertise, in our opinion; the lawyers were mainly skilled in unfair competition, or business torts.
As for licenses, the copyright holder is CST, not CSI. By the way, C of S is not an actual legal entity. The governing corporations are: CST, RTC & CSI. See SaveScientology.com. Realistic? Yes. The alternative may be losing the copyrights to the public domain. Moreover, Miscavige is losing power – and members – daily. And CST trustees and directors have the legal right to eliminate RTC for a mere $200. It is only a matter of time before these trustees and directors, OSA staff, and other influential Scientologists realize that Miscavige is leading the church over a cliff, taking the repute of LRH and the religion of Scientology with them.
A Mark Twain quote comes to mind: “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” Patriot in the context of the subject we are discussing are keepers of the tech. So, we take a longer view of the situation and how it is unfolding – and we see saner minds stepping in to work with us to handle the situation. We’re not putting all our eggs in that basket, however, as astute readers of the articles on this blog will surmise.
We also think a copyright infringement case might be met with some interesting affirmative defenses asserted. We would love to see the spotlight shone on the alteration of the materials by Miscavige. There are plenty! A lot of work has gone into comparing LRH’s original books and lectures to the newly packaged Basics. Many changes are far more than grammatical and typographical! Not that we welcome litigation – to the contrary, we began by writing letters to church officials and their lawyers – we prefer to communicate, but Scientologists, including those who are members of the church, need to be educated.
Your mention of the failed Mormon trademark is apropos. For the same reason that that trademark application was denied, a trademark can be cancelled! We believe the word Scientology has become generic, and we agree that use of the word in a religious setting would invoke a “free exercise” right that would surely close the deal.
Oh, the great and mighty Miscavige. He is COB of RTC, charged with enforcing the trade secrets and trademarks of Scientology but he allowed the Upper Levels to be stolen and put into the public domain, and he is on the verge of losing the trademark for the word Scientology. He’s been a total failure at his post. Richard Nixon had Senator Baker to advise him when it was “time to go.” Who is Miscavige’s Senator Baker? Monique Yingling? Bob Duggan? Tom Cruise?
Thought-provoking commentary – I am thankful for the analysis . Does someone know if I can obtain a blank IRS 8822 form to type on ?