Evidence · Case 13 · Scientology
Hubbard policy letters, documented by scholar Massimo Introvigne (CESNUR)
One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
The terms come straight from Hubbard’s own Hubbard Communications Office policy letters of the 1960s, which define the Suppressive Person and the Potential Trouble Source and set out the handle or disconnect instruction. The scholar Massimo Introvigne traces how the disconnection policy was introduced, dropped in 1968, and later reinstated, quoting the original documents.
Sources
Objections & responses
- Introvigne and CESNUR are known for sympathy toward new religious movements and have been criticized as apologists for groups including Scientology. He isn’t a neutral source.
Introvigne’s sympathies are well known, and that is presented as a reason his documentation of the policy is credible: a friendly scholar confirming the policy exists. The other side of the scholarly divide, Stephen Kent for instance, documents the same policy letters, so it is attested by both. What the two sides disagree about is how the policy is applied and how harmful it is, not whether it is written down.
- The Jehovah’s Witnesses case criticizes shunning, Christian groups such as the Amish practice it, and 1 Corinthians 5 commands separation from unrepentant members. What distinguishes disconnection from church discipline?
This claim is framed practically, as a warning that hostility can get you labeled, rather than as a criticism, and that is a fair way to hold it. If a criticism is intended, the distinction is that biblical discipline concerns conduct within the community and aims at restoration, while disconnection is applied to outsiders, including family members, who are judged antagonistic to Scientology, and that the Suppressive Person category is defined by opposition to the organization rather than by any moral wrong. Introvigne compares the practices across religions, and his comparison is the right place to test that distinction.