The Year 2000 Literati contest
was announced by Stacy Brooks on alt.religion.scientology on September
16. The following is from that announcement. The rules stated by her
at that time were clarified slightly, e.g., to be clear about form of
submission, second language, the use of HTML, etc. The
rules can be found here.
Let the 2nd annual "Lisa McPherson Trust Literati Contest"
In 1999, Bob Minton started a "Literati Contest" on the
Internet newsgroup called alt.religion.scientology that resulted in
the submission of 12 very insightful essays into the "dark side"
or inner workings of the Scientology organization and the real intent
of L. Ron Hubbard.
The top winning essays are reposted here as well as in several places
on the Internet in English as well as French.
believe that a more comprehensive understanding of the abusive and
deceptive nature of the Scientology organization is the best way to
educate government officials and the public at large. Further, this
understanding is also one of the most effective ways of helping victims
of Scientology recover from prolonged abuse within the organization.
Therefore, in the spirit of a real quest for truth and better understanding
of the Scientology organization, we are pleased to announce the following
topic for the "2000 Lisa McPherson Trust Literati Contest" as well
as the rules and regulations governing this event.
The topic is "Scientology: Control, Freedom & Responsibility."
The essay should analyze how control, freedom and responsibility operate
together or clash within the organization and how these interface
with the non-Scientology world. How that is done or presented is up
to the essayist. The essayist is also free to chose their own title
for the piece.
Here are some examples:
The organization and many of its adherents claim that
they have complete freedom. There is even a "Grade Zero" where
members can attain the ability to communicate "with anyone on
any subject." But rather than seeing greater communication with
family members who are not Scientologists, we find "disconnection"
and PTS handling. While this is certainly their right, what should
non-members do in response and for what purpose?
there other models, systems or techniques that can be used to
understand and better interface and reach members? These are people
who fervently believe that they have some "universal solvent";
yet they feel they must withdraw from interaction with those who
disagree with them and even attack critics.
holds a person to such a system so that they think they have freedoms
others do not? What is the "mind set" of such individuals, because
they certainly are not evil. Do others have a responsibility to
convince them otherwise? If so, how should it be done? If not,
is there anything that should be done? Or do we just mark it off
as "religious freedom" and let them do whatever they want?
claim that they are participating out of choice and should be
allowed to practice their beliefs without interference. Critics
say that the members are not aware of the actual activities or
beliefs of the organization and the degree of control that is
exerted, not unlike trying to speak to dedicated communists in
the former Soviet Union. Thus, some critics say, the members aren't
really exercising "free choice," and they (the critics) have a
responsibility to point this out. Scientology members say they
have a right to refuse to listen. How can this be resolved?
say that tactics being used by critics only strengthens the resolve
of Scientologists and proves to them that they shouldn't interact
with those who disagree, thereby driving them deeper into the
organization. If so, what should be done to reach individual members
and for what purpose? What is effective?
say Scientology is a reflection of Hubbard's mind. Some Scientologists
are delighted to hear this. But what if the organization Hubbard
built was really a "reactive mind," a mind that (as Hubbard said
a reactive mind does) thinks in complete opposites? Would that
explain why the organization responds the way it does when attacked,
or how Scientologists can believe they are achieving "total freedom"
when in fact they are under full control of the organization?
And if it is a reactive mind, does that give a key to understanding
and unlocking it? Where is responsibility with such a theory and
are not bound by these examples. They can draw on any parts or add
others as long as they are within the given topic, "Scientology:
Control, Freedom & Responsibility."