Many people lump together the scientology church, and the scientology philosophy Hubbard created. Then bag the church for it and its adherents strange behaviour. But isn’t that like throwing out the baby with the bath water?

The scientology church and some of its high profile adherents, Tom Cruise springs into mind here, seem at odds with the stated aims and purposes which the founder, now deceased, set out.

The tenets of the church proclaim, quite rightly, freedom of speech and freedom of expression as regards religion. This can be seen by anyone who reads the Creed of the Church which can be found at creed of the church of scientology.

However continued attacks on the scientology Freezone, that area of scientology where people practice the scientology religion outside of the official church, demonstrate a lip service given to the creed rather than firm belief. In addition subsequent changes in the basic texts of the philosophy have alienated the true aficionado of the original working philosophy.

This basic philosophy is found in the many books he wrote and the many thousands of lectures he gave which are available on audio tapes and CDs

The application of the technology includes Auditors (practitioners) applying certain auditing techniques and procedures (exercises) with PreClears (Clients) to produce an exactly defined benefit for that client.

It includes the understanding of life, it's composition and potentialities. The application part of the philosophy includes activities which one can embark upon to improve one's life both in the spiritual sense as well as the physical.

Such benefits can include:
An increased spiritual awareness
An improvement in lifestyle
An acquired or improved ability of a clearly defined nature

In fact, the philosophy and working technology which Hubbard researched and developed is well known by many thousands of people who have found it to be beneficial for them in their lives and has assisted them to become more aware and capable.

This is distinctly different to the practices of the church, much more in the public eye, and which is much more perceived by the media and critics. Which leads one to wonder what is it that is actually being criticized here?

Perhaps it is not the religion after all but the current management of the church, once held in high regard but now perceived somewhat less favourably.