“You cannot commit overts against SPs”
This is telling so much about Scientologists in just a few words. Becoming an SP is quite easy. When you are smart and you ask questions, then it hardly takes months to get there.
Now, take above statement into consideration. This is 100% standard tech and fully in line with the Fair Game policy:
“May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”
HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV
Well, let’s change the topic a bit. I was wondering what would happen if you apply the “blow it up” request:
When buildings get important to us, for God’s sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters.
Tape 31 DECEMBER 1960 – The Genus of Scientology
The cult was asking the Garcias to follow the rules for internal arbitration. The judge had one remarkable question. Would Scientology ask for the same if the situation had been the other way around? The cult answered this with a kind of “yes” … despite the fact that such has never taken place so far. And the judge bought the story – WTF!
The proper conclusion is that fulfilling the “blow it up” request should also be considered a religious act.
Maybe there is a 70% chance that you really get away with the “religious dispute”. The cult got interested in buildings and you would simply follow the cult’s rules. All you would then face would be “internal arbitration”.
I am not asking anyone to really do this. I am just trying to understand the resulting logic of the Garcia case. How much did the cult investigate to find dirt on the judge that he finally caved in? What overt did they commit against the judge to get such a unique and insulting verdict? No worries – you cannot commit overts against SPs.