I received a copy of a letter sent to Tommy Davis written by a rather influential person. The source who provided this was a third party recipient of the letter and was able to establish to my satisfaction that the letter is authentic . I have decided to publish portions over several days so that the import of the issues it covers are fully aired and considered by readers. The source and I hope that the author of the letter will understand that by publishing the letter we mean no disrespect. Quite the contrary, it is our level of respect for the author’s life work and integrity that makes us confident many people will benefit from the author’s example, others will feel vindicated, and great strides will be made in ending the abuses the letter details.
August 19, 2009
Dear ,
Attached find a letter to Tommy Davis. I am sending it to a handful of people, who I feel deserve an explanation. This was a personal decision; I am not seeking anyone’s agreement. Feel free to call or write me once you’ve read it, but do not feel compelled to do so.
My very best,
Tommy,
As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego. Their public sponsorship of Proposition 8, a hate-filled legislation that succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California – rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state – shames us.
I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated.
In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year, you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it and “heads would roll.” You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded press release, which praised the church’s human rights record and took no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.
The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.
I joined the Church of Scientology thirty-five years ago. During my twenties and early thirties I studied and received a great deal of counseling. While I have not been an active member for many years, I found much of what I learned to be very helpful, and I still apply it in my daily life. I have never pretended to be the best Scientologist, but I openly and vigorously defended the church whenever it was criticized, as I railed against the kind of intolerance that I believed was directed against it. I had my disagreements, but I dealt with them internally. I saw the organization – with all its warts, growing pains and problems – as an underdog. And I have always had a thing for underdogs.
But I reached a point several weeks ago where I no longer knew what to think. You had allowed our name to be allied with the worst elements of the Christian Right. In order to contain a potential “PR flap” you allowed our sponsorship of Proposition 8 to stand. Despite all the church’s words about promoting freedom and human rights, its name is now in the public record alongside those who promote bigotry and intolerance, homophobia and fear.
The fact that the Mormon Church drew all the fire, that no one noticed, doesn’t matter. I noticed. And I felt sick. I wondered how the church could, in good conscience, through the action of a few and then the inaction of its leadership, support a bill that strips a group of its civil rights.
END of part A of letter
Blogger’s post script: For those of you who believe Scientology denounces homosexuality, I suggest you have missed the forest for the trees. Of course, LRH wrote that homosexuality was a trait of the 1.1 in Science of Survival in 1951. He wrote a lot of things in the early fifties that he later took a contrary position on or never sought to enforce through subsequent tech or policy. I conducted my own study on the issue when during my tenure as international debug auditor I had occasion to counsel several gay people. LRH never issued a prohibition against homosexuality, he was silent on the issue in the single Policy Letter that he ever issued on sex (2D Rules). LRH had long-time staff close to him who were gay. He never condemned them, he never C/S’d them to be cured, he never bad mouthed them for their sexual preferences. The gay people that I audited attained and maintained case gain as well as any of the straight people I audited. The only complication was handling the enforced withhold they were stuck with from the Scientology community that there was something inherently wrong with them. If you’ve picked up anti-Gay sentiment or prejudice during your tenure in the Church, I believe you ought to evaluate just who made you think that way – and perhaps re-evaluate the issue for yourself.
Moving On Up a Little Higher 
Thank you. Thank you. This is another blatant example of the duplicitous culture rampant within the Church – and I include in this group (the Church) not just the leadership, but each member who practices intolerance while crying foul on those who are intolerant towards us.
I attended many meetings where David Miscavige was presiding, and I can tell you the man is a raving, raving homophobe. He speaks of them using the crudest, most demeaning slurs imaginable.
Fishdaddy is right. He revels in calling out International Management terminals (favorite targets Guillaume and Yager) with the most vile homosexual epithets imaginable.
Thank you very much for posting this up. I’m looking forward to the next piece(s).
Meddling with politics is something I’ve seen more and more. In fact, I recall one international event where Miscavige bashed then president Bush. A friend wrote a report on it and was subsequently “handled” in ethics for attacking an ethics upstat…
Personally I would never have thought that Tommy Davis was anything but a sock puppet for his master so why the amazement that he has not responded like a decent human being would have?
I guess we all lived in hope that the inherent decency in each of us will shine through until the cognition comes that, in Miscavology, what shines through is what DM wants to be presented as His religion.
I’m just sorry for those still stuck “in” and pray for their release from the prison cult that what was once my Church has now become.
Thanks for putting this up, Marty – the world deserves to know just how cowardly insane life is at the top of DM’s tree.
I just pulled out my copy of SOS and neither the Chart of Human Evaluation nor Chapter Chapter 18 which corresponds to that column mentions the word homosexuality. LRH’s observations were about promiscuity, sadism and perversion. Heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals alike are capable of these. It depends where one is on the Tone Scale. At 4.0 they behave according to the observations at the level. At 1.1, same. The behaviors at the various tone levels were made from observation, not extrapolation or speculation.
More telling, I think, is the section near the end of the chapter when LRH is writing about children: “At 0.5, we have abortion with the specious reasoning that the world or the future is too horrible to bring a child into. With the parent at 0.5, all the natural gaiety and happiness of the child will be suppressed, and we have as unhealthy an atmosphere for childhood as one could postulate.” Not too good a recommendation for the unwritten but heavily enforced SO policy of “Abortion, abortion and more abortion.”
Finally, if there is a more valuable book for a human being than SOS, I’d like to see it.
As vulgar, offensive and X-rated as it is, I believe the public has a right to know the real scene as regards David Miscavige, and the kind of hate he incites toward gays. Sure, it’s no different than the hate he incites toward virtually everyone, but toward gays he is especially bigoted and venomous. As one example I personally witnessed, at an important meeting in the Cine conference room in 2003, with most of Scientology’s top brass present and also myself and others (as I recall, the subject of the meeting was the 2003 IAS event speeches, releases and videos, Miscavige started the meeting by furiously and abruptly demanding that Guillaume Lesevre and Marc Yager admit they “fucked each other in the ass last night.” That is a direct quote. (And this from a man who calls himself a “religious leader” in his most recent Freedom magazine which positions himself as the “New LRH.”) Miscavige was not asking Guillaume and Marc IF they did, he was assuming that they did and demanding that they admit it, and yelling the quoted phrase over and over.
When and where did LRH change the policy? I’ve not heard of any changes and supporting this bill is a clear indication that the original policy is still followed.
I have no idea what policy you are referring to.
Ironic, that after all the effort to gain tax exempt status for the church, the church would endanger it by supporting divisive political issues. Many Christian church’s have been sanctioned for politicing from the pulpit. Churches should stay out of secular issues as much as possible.
Particularly when the issue is one with much mis-emotion and less than rational basis.
Yes, and I distinctly remember that before Bush was elected the first time, in an event during his campaign Miscavige came out in support of Bush. If you recall, the reference was all about how Bush was pushing “faith-based programs.” The clear message was “Vote for Bush.” After Bush was elected and became unpopular, Miscavige quickly reversed his public stance criticizing Bush in a subsequent event speech for calling his father “Daddy.” This validates what you said, Joe, about Miscavige meddling in politics.
You’re saying LRH changed his position on gays. I can’t find where this was said and done. this viewpoint on gays has always disturbed me.
“The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in dynamic two [sexuality and procreation] such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically.” (L. Ron Hubbard, “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health”)
First of all that is not a policy. There is only one policy on sex in Scientology – HCO PL on Second Dynamic Rules.
What policy? The only policy I can think of regards the church not being political in nature. It’s not the church’s job to have a “view” about things and know of no policy which states it does.
That isn’t a policy, but it is the thing I thought of first when I read this letter.
The only thing I could say about this (and do), is that this book was written in 1950 and contains some of the earliest work on the subject.
Notice the reference he made to “Ellis and Krafft-Ebing”? Those are psych references, so you might want to temper your adjudication with what LRH was working with at the time.
Also notice he never again mentions it in any of his later works…
In the past month I’ve listened to two later 1950’s lectures where he scoffs at the notion of making people guilty of their chosen sexual preferences.
To be more clear, it’s possible you might not have a complete definition, specifically about the psych references Ron makes.
For instance, Krafft-Ebing’s theory considered homosexuality to be a differentiation occurring during gestation and resulting in a sexual inversion of the brain.
Well, is that not the very sort of thing that Dianetics would address? If it indeed was a physical derangement during the embryonic period of the person, wouldn’t that be a perfect example of something that Dianetics could be applied to?
Your upset should more likely be that the commonly held belief at that time was that homosexuality was a phsyical “ailment”, for lack of a better word. And maybe to a lesser degree that LRH forwarded that belief in his book.
But do keep in mind Krafft-Ebing’s work on this “physical derangement” had been in print since 1886 and was widely recognized as true…
Actually, I believe that was the event he wrote the report on. Good call! 🙂
I would simply like to point out to the author of the letter that just because someone believes marriage should be a term that applies exclusively to the union of one man and one woman does not make them a bigot and does not make them AFRAID of gay people (homophobic). People hold that view because of millenia old religious and cultural tradition and are entitled to their views. It does not mean they hate or have ill will toward homosexuals. As for Prop. 8 specifically, the only reason it was put on the ballot was because the CA Supreme Court ruled by fiat (unelected judges creating a new law) overturning an earlier (2000) voter approved proposition. In both cases the propositions were passed by a majority of CA voters and a majority of CA voters in not even remotely the “Christian Right.” At issue was not simply the status of gay marriage, but the Court’s role in making law. Should the CoS publicly come out in favor of Prop 8? Perhaps not, because there is not DEFINITIVE stance from LRH on the issue. However, neither should people who supported it be slandered as hate filled right wing Christian extremists, because last time I checked President Clinton & President Obama both opposed gay marriage and supported the traditional definition.
Hi Marty,
IMHO nothing opens a can of worms better than talking about the second dynamic. There can be a lot of inval and eval on this subject because most people have a lot of opinions and aberrations on the subject.
A few key quotes from HCOPL 11 August 1967 SECOND DYNAMIC RULES: “No ethics order shall be issued by reason of second dynamic activities. All Ethics Orders now in force relating to the second dynamic are cancelled.
No staff member nay be punished, transferred or dismissed because of second dynamic activities”
Later in the reference: “One of man’s primary aberration is the second dynamic. Processing, not discipline, is the only thing which eradicates aberration of such depth.” LRH
I never understood why this reference was not included on the Ethics Specialist course pack with as much case (problems, upset) there is in this area, and I never understood why the Sea Org put so much restraint on the second dynamic after reading this policy letter. (no kids or masturbating)
I guess you need sane people at the top to keep a safe environment created where people are allowed to use the tech to get better. That is Scientology’s purpose isn’t it?
ARC,
Alex
Marty,
Unless you have permission of the original author to publish this letter (in whole or in part) your are breaking one of the biggest No-No rules of Internet Conduct. This publication is likely to be considered a violation of privacy by much of the Internet savvy readership, regardless of your good intent in so publishing.
In actual fact, if the original author objects, you may be exposing WordPress (the blog site provider) and yourself to DMCA takedown orders.
Did you consult your attorney before publishing this ( I certainly am not a lawyer) ?
If, on the other hand, you *have* obtained permission from the original author, then none of what I just wrote applies.
And, yes, I am personally offended, if you did not – and I am one of your supporters.
Michael A. Hobson
Thanks for posting this Marty. Personally I was against the Church taking any political stand whatsoever on the issue. Just as I am against their support of the idiotic “War on Drugs” which is more a war against the Bill of Rights. This is per the HCOPL Politics ,Freedom From.
Not that I have anything against individual Scientologists expressing their own political views and opinions.
That said I’ve noted a trend within the Church under Miscavige to support the most oppressive forms of legislation conceived by Government or in this case by referendum.
The fact the Church of Miscagivology would support Prop 8 despite what Ron says about tolerance or granting others beingness is a stark example how far Miscavige has strayed from the original teachings.
I have to speak up here. First, consider the following excerpt from a letter a friend of mine wrote:
As to L. Ron Hubbard himself, he wrote hundreds of works over half a century on the subject of mind, education, drug rehabilitation and related subjects. If you, Patrick, pick an isolated quote from 1950, you will NOT understand what Hubbard had to say about homosexuality. Remember, in 1950, the American Psychiatric Association had homosexuality labelled as a “Mental Disorder.” It took the work of Frank Kameny and the Mattachine Society many years to get them to change that finally in 1963. Yet, in 1967, two years before the Stonewall riots and only four years after the American Psychiatric Association stopped calling us mentally ill, and long before any other major church instituted policies of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, L. Ron Hubbard wrote the non-discrimination policy I referred to BELOW in bold capital letters:
“It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition… Therefore ALL FORMER RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE SEXUAL ACTIVITIES OF SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE CANCELLED.”
[Note – The APA removed homosexuality from its list of sexual deviations in 1973, not 1963. That would make the above quote six years before the APA move, not four years later.]
There are several points on which Scientology and the gay community totally agree: (1) Human Rights. There is zero tolerance in Scientology for any violation of human rights and you always have recourse in the Church if you feel that your rights have been violated. As I’ve said, I’ve used these on more than one occasion myself; (2) The commitment to fight the drug problem in our communities. This is obviously not just a problem of the gay community, and pharmaceuticals are offenders as well as recreational drugs. Scientology has solutions to not only drug abuse, but to the toxic residuals which stay in the body for years afterward and can cause lasting physical and mental effects.
My very dear friend who wrote this is right, unfortunately, what he did not know is that C of S had long since abandoned Scientology in terms of Human rights. I too was appalled at the push to support and excuse Bush, and the war. LRH says that “the amount of truth connected to any war is undiscoverable with the world’s most powerful microscope. And numerous other stances which contradict LRH directly.
To be fair, many Scientologist including my self, have no such preconceptions. The heart break comes when the realization that this is not a problem of few individuals misunderstanding or misapplying LRH. Or may be some people who find their prejudices are more significant than the teachings. (Any one is free to discard any aspect of Scientology not in agreement with his personal views. ) No the problem is that the entity called C of S is in the hands of a Psychopath who has derailed it and created an atmosphere that stands in stark contrast with the writings Hubbard authored.
I also would like to point out the LRHs great friend and the co founder of CCHR, Tomas Zsaz was a major driving force behind the APA’s decision to drop homosexuality from it’s classification as a mental illness
Whatever your opinion on the matter of gays, or anyone else for that matter, Human rights infringement can never be tolerated, and frankly. I find it extremely disturbing that a Church would officially endorse ANY stance that violates such an important right. In additoion the only policy I know of where LRH said this is the rule, is the one my frind quoted above.
He did include homosexuality in the list of Kraft Ebbing perversions BUT he said other things about it. I believe he said on the 2d tape something to the effect that with all the flip flopping of identies people do from lifetime to lifetime, woman, man, back to woman a lifetime or two later, maybe- that it’s not surprising some people are homosexual. He said different things at different times. The thing about Scn “source” is they include all his commentary other than if it got later revised in PL or HCOB. So you get to see contradictions. Critics can always find fault. Hubbard wasn’t perfect.
In any case, what LRH stated in Dianetics is definitely not a policy and whats true for you is true for you. 🙂
I think Buddha said it best:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. “
There’s an extensive discussion of homosexuality by LRH in the State of Man tapes. LRH at that time believed that homosexuality is caused by being out of valence. This is because as we go through many different lifetimes we’re male 50% of the time, and we’re female 50% of the time. Therefore a homosexual per LRH is someone who’s sexual preference from a previous lifetime doesn’t coincide with their PT gender. While he doesn’t have a hateful attitude towards days in this lecture, he does imply that it is an aberration and something that could be audited out.
As I recall all quals for Int Level staff (RTC, WDC, Gold, etc.) specifically said that any history of “out 2d” would be an “out qual”. It was “understood” that out 2d included things like homosexuality though I have no idea of these quals were based on any LRH reference. If homosexuality could be audited out, why weren’t homosexuals just audited instead of being forced to work at a lower level org?
There’s also another tape, can’t remember which one, in which LRH calls Julius Caesar an “epileptic homosexual”, a derogatory reference towards gays.
Marty wrote: “In the past month I’ve listened to two later 1950’s lectures where he scoffs at the notion of making people guilty of their chosen sexual preferences.”
I’m interested in listening to those lectures. Would you mind identifying them for us, Marty? Thanks.
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Bravo to all those who are speaking out against Miscavige’s injustices. I can’t wait to publicly join you very soon!
Cause and Effect 19 November 1951 and Your Case 3 January 1960.
CC – Thanks for quoting the policy, and for the rest of your well reasoned comment.
I went to an org in california once asking about the Dianetics quote and asked straigh out:
“So you actually believe that homosecuality is a disease?”
And she responded “yes”. I caught another Scientologist on video saying it’s fine killing all homosexuals.
Whether it’s standarn Scientology belief or not, it’s certainly widespread enough and Hubbard did talk about how homosexuals are 1.1 and those people need to be erased from society if not raised on the tonscale.
I don’t believe even a Miscavologist would say “it’s fine killing” them all. But, you are making my case. Thanks.
This is an important point. The issue becomes “divisive” as it is a “hot button” issue in society, which can obscure the rationale behind both sides with emotionalism.
There is another aspect of this issue I do not see discussed much. And it has to do with rewarding “production”. There is a fiscal consequence to expanding the definition of of marriage to include same-sex relationships, in terms of tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc.
Traditionally, the male-female union was awarded those “perks” as the raising and nurturing of children within a family was considered something that benefited society as a whole. What I have not seen much comment on is what effect expanding this definition would have on that aspect of the culture. Some might say that it is rewarding “non-production”. Others might have a different viewpoint on this.
But it is something that I believe needs to be considered in terms of what we value as a culture, not just as individuals.
We have a perfect example in Miscavology of the complete abdication of responsibility for the family. Is it a better existence for those concerned? Has it really fostered a better future?
Thank you so much for that response, Concerned Citizen. That’s exactly what I was looking for. It’s really good to know that LRH did retract the original statement.
What is overlooked here is that Non-Profit organizations cannot be involved in promoting political or legislative issues.
IRS Form Schedule A, “Organization Exempt under Section 501(c)(3)”, which is part of IRS Form 990 “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax” (which all non-profit organizations including the Church of Scn are required to file with the IRS each year), states in Part III, #1, “During the year, has the organization attempted to influence national, state, or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum?”.
The Government allows non-profit orgs to pay no income tax because in theory the non-profit is performing services which the Govt. itself does not have to provide (i.e. private hospitals, schools, etc), or, in the case of religion, because of separation of church and State. However that allowance does not extend to their promoting for political or legislative actions. In fact if you donate funds to a strictly political or legislative organization (such as a presidential or Senate nominee), you will note that the contributions are never tax-deductible.
Claire, the lecture you speak of is, I think, the last lecture in the State of Man Congress, the first congress where he talked about O/Ws. Very interesting observations in that lecture as you point out. Also, that lecture is one of, no THE best lecture for an artist or any creative person to hear. That’s where he talks about how to rehabilitate the creative ability. The opposite of create is not destroy but confront. The solution for an artist encountering a creative block is to go out and confront the world through work or strenuous activity. It works! Great lecture.
A big +1 to that!
It’s interesting to note how clearly LRH defined the LACK of intervention the church should have with that dynamic yet how much attention it really gets.
How much confessional auditing have we collectively received on this subject? How introverted on their sexual practices/fantasies/etc. have people become because of all this attention?
It’s also interesting to note how many ethics actions surround this dynamic. Heck, I’ve had everything from conditions assigments to Comm Evs and everything in between, that deal contain 2D items.
What’s funny is how the CofS has eschewed other religions for being narrow-minded and moralists, when in fact we’re way more guilty of the same.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot…
Good observation.
Actually, what he said was that they should be erased from society by quarantining them. I am NOT in favor of that- it’s pretty egregious but it’s VERY different from wanting to kill them. Yet critics keep peddling this line of b.s.
Thank you, Joe! I listen to these things then later on, someone’s like, “what’s the reference” and I never can think of the name of the tape where I’d heard the thing.
I was on the PAC RPF years ago and during my stay there I saw 3 different women assigned for engaging in homosexual activities. According to the 2D rules which really only specifically states that you cannot engage in sex before marriage really only one of them should have been there. Since she was not married to her girlfriend at the time they were having sex.
The other 2 hadn’t even done anything yet. They kissed which as far as I know isn’t a violation of any rule.
Since the church seems to be so pro abortion, which as has been pointed out is completely against what LRH has to say about it, perhaps they should re-think their stance on homosexuality. No one gets pregnant from gay sex. Just a thought.
As regards political activity, the C of S is under the 501(c)(3) IRS codes in the U.S. “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
That’s the simplified version of it, the restriction mainly applies to contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position. You can read the rest of it, including direct quotes from the IRS at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)
There are different laws / regulations in other countries.
The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the Tone Scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. – Hubbard, “Science of Survival”
There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, … The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale… The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. – Hubbard, “Science of Survival”
[Regarding 1.1’s (ONLY)]
The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring to any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such persons until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value – Hubbard, “Science of Survival”
So abrupt deletion, dispose of quietly, or permanent quarantine. Take your pick.
Like I said from the beginning, guys like you see eye to eye with DM. Hey, you’ve got a future. You could rise through the ranks in no time.
That is exactly the point many of us are trying to make, Maria, but the point is that it is not only illegal under IRC 501 (c) iii but it is also against policy to take any political stand as an organization.
Personally, either way I find it unsettling that the State should be involved in one’s sexual preferences! That the State can tell you who you can marry and who you can not! To me the whole notion is ridiculously absurd in a country that claims to be “the land of the free”!
Even more absurd and hypocritical are those who accuse us of being “brain washed culties”, even though many of us currently have no affiliation to the Church while being members of the biggest cult of all and that is the State.
Talk about brain washed. Since when is it alright for the Government to intervene in personal matters of choice?
I ask who has been harmed by some Gay couple deciding to get married?
Marty: I’ve heard numerous references to these incidents where Miscavige repeatedly berates Marc Yager & Guillaume Lesevre for engaging in homosexuality, but never understood why he focused his accusations solely on these 2 individuals? You, Mike R. & other execs finally saw the light & left the Church of Miscavology. Why do you think Marc & Guillaume choose to remain inside, under DM’s control, when he obviously hates them to the core & wants to harm them. It makes no sense. Looking forward to how you see it. Thank you.
RJ, you have hit on something that is very real to me. The clowns who rant about Scientology “brainwashing” are some of the most brainwashed fools you’d ever want to meet. Great book called “Consumed” came out in past couple of years documenting how marketing and psych experts work around the clock trying to implant brand names into kids while they are in the crib.
Gary, in short Mike and I were needed to keep his sorry butt out of jail, depositions seats, and from in front of media cameras. If we hadn’t served a purpose he saw valuable to him personally – even though Mike and I thought we were doing it for the cause – he’d have gone the same route with us. However, I would have put up with about 4 days of it – like I did in the hole – and been gone.
It’s something that I think really started around World War II, may be earlier I don’t know and something that is very apparent in the US. Human cultures evolved over thousands of years but there has been a very active and successful strategy to undermine those through films, TV and advertising and replace them with corporate cultures and ideologies. You really see it in things like Playboy magazine, and various tv shows that sell moralities or teach which modern behaviors are now en vogue. And especially in commercials that try to make behavior change “hip”. I never bought into the “psych” conspiracy but just believe you have a small number of people really running things and use such tactics to make people easier to control and destroy their family structures thus leaving a culture in shambles. To me it’s a form of warfare, but it’s hard to say who’s really doing it.
There is some conditioning in CofS but one has to agree to it. Eventually, people usually end up self indoctrinating. They participate in their own problems and in their own thought processes, of course. This doesn’t mean that I give CofS (or even LRH in some instances) a get out of jail free card to say that they have no responsibility. They do. But too many people are all or nothing. It’s all the other guy. Or, for the faithful in CofS, it’s always their fault if something doesn’t go right. Life just isn’t like that. And, yes, I’ve seen plenty of critic’s indoctrination. People tend to want to be told what to do. Man is a social animal, he’s hardwired to be that way, plus, there are theta reasons for same. It’s no accident that Christianity stresses free will so much. It’s the one thing that trumps everything and indicates responsibility.
This is what I was alluding to in my reply up a few dozen….Various Christian churchs have got into trouble with the feds over supporting candidates and issues. Ironic for the CoS to do so in light of the effort to gain the IRS expemption…Thank you for being more precise and providing the references!
The problem with gays is case.
The case of the person who has the problem!
AMEN Sister, amen
By the by, I just want to mention:
it is easy to blame, it is easy to find fault, it is easy to point fingers, but it is not so easy to admit responsibility and error, it takes a specially strong and decent human being to do so. The Church excels at the former, not the later.
LRH did in many occasions acknowledge error and every time tried to right the wrong, Marty, Mike, Tom, Steve, etc, have in the most public way possible, done the same. The things they are admitting to are not easy to admit, specially in such an intolerant climate. These are great people.
One can look in vain for people or groups that are perfect, if for no other reason that perfect is not part of the human condition. (perfect according to whom is a good question)
Even after removing Miscavige and those who have succumbed so much they are now in his valence, the church would not be perfect, it is manned by human beings all whom have cases, problems etc just like us. Every group has it’s bad apples too.
But the thing to strive for, as LRH noted is being more right than wrong. There is a point when a group is more harmful than helpful. LRH stresses human rights violations as a major cause of decline in groups. One could argue this is the point when the balance of right vs wrong tips toward harmful. The same applies to people.
In understanding LRH one must never forget he never claimed perfection, he made errors but he was, in my estimation and that of many, far far more right than wrong.
Also, before condemning any one policy of his, let’s first of all establish that it was indeed his policy and not a Miscavige or someone else’s interpretation. KSW#1 and Responsibility of leaders and Critics of Scientology are but a few policies that have been named as responsible for this or that perceived evil.
First one must understand the historical context in which these were written, and the problem they were written to solve, but second and perhaps more importantly, a sweeping statement is like that is shortsighted. To me that is no different than blaming the bible for apartheid, or religion for all wars, or Science for all evils, ad infinitum.
The knowledge in any of these subjects is a double edge sword, it can be interpreted and used for betterment and good or it can be interpreted and used to justify the worse and for evil. It is what one does with this knowledge that matters and LRH gave ample warning of that fact and expressly directed us to observe the intent of his works for good and not evil. To demand more of him is frankly insane. In my humble opinion
Note error: On the 1st paragraph of my previous rant, I wrote the “Church”- I wish to correct such generality. I should have instead written DM and those who blindly follow him within the Church.
Dear Friends,
The mere espousal of a notion about homosexuality, or any other topic, by David Miscavige does not lend that notion any particular credence whatsoever. Quoting L Ron Hubbard in support of such a notion doesn’t really help anyone either.
Mr Miscavige criticies something. So what? Mr Miscavige commends something. So what? On what reasoned basis? The real question is what is right, not what some self-appointed authority figure has said.
It’s your power as an individual to determine what you believe to be right. This is not any sort of gift provided to you by any religion or by anyone else -unless you are a cultist and must rely on the opinions of authority figures as the basis for your own opinions.
If Hubbard or Miscavige told you jumping in the fire was a good thing because they worked it out with their secret research, would you do it?
If they told you homosexuals were sick, or were the best people on earth, or were made of green cheese, would you believe any of those things simply on the basis that they said so?
If Mr Miscavige’s or the COS’s blatherings have any authority over you, then more fool you for investing them with that authority.
Similarly, whatever L Ron Hubbard did or did not espouse about homosexuality is of no consequence to the reality of homosexuality.
If you are choosing these people as authority figures, whose very word outranks your ability to think for yourself, that’s your very sad lookout.
I don’t want to anger or annoy anyone, but I will say this: CofS is as messed up as it is because of some things that LRH wrote and did. I think LRH did some brilliant wonderful things but not all of them were. The only way any Scn practice anywhere could ever be ok and do well is to be willing to disagree with LRH on some things. This is something I often observe that does not thrill the tech and policy purists- of which the FZ and independent scenes have many. Well, sorry, but I’ve lived too long and seen too much. Two lifetimes in Scn. I’ve learned a thing or two the hard way.
Or you can graduate up to applying the body of work with the undivided intention of helping, then you don’t have to get stuck in the agree-disagree GPM.
“I don’t want to anger or annoy anyone…..”
Oh Christ Claire you say the same damn thing on every message board I’ve seen you post on which indicates to me you intend the exact opposite!
“Well, sorry, but I’ve lived too long and seen too much. Two lifetimes in Scn. I’ve learned a thing or two the hard way.”
What! You don’t think anyone else on this board hasn’t been in Scientology before?
Give me a break!
To me what you just said is pompous and pretentious.
You guys seem to struggle to deal respectfully with people who express disagreement with you.
Robert,
Search ‘educational entertainment’. Check the link of this idea with such shows as “Law and Order:Special Victims Unit”.
CC,
Bang a gong, you’re right on! It is the INTENTION that is the differentiating factor.
I must say, ‘CC’ is an apt moniker.
Heather,
I strongly disagree. Just kidding dear. The concept of ‘pan-determinism’ covers this area and is the ability to be both sides or any number of sides and view from that point, be that point.
That doesn’t mean the one can have one’s own point of view, or opinion and I think that differing views give this whole life adventure its spice, n’est pas?
H,
Last comment should read ‘doesn’t mean that one cannot…’
I didn’t say that nobody else had any experience in Scn. If I’d wanted to say that or had thought about that, then I’d have said it. I’m not sure who “RJ” is but I would like to let this person know that everyone has things they’ve observed or that they opine and that everyone has a right to express them AND to express the frame of reference from whence they came. Point of fact, LRH said that this is what one should do- one says “John Doe said x on y date.” This is all I was doing.
Anyone who’s read my posts on other forums knows that I’ve frequently observed that others have had more staff experience and more training than I. Yet this was not mentioned in the reply above.
Hi, Marty,
I have a confession. My help line is – well, not gone, exactly, but it’s not what it was when I was in CofS. I couldn’t really make a go of the help line -planet clearing thing in the FZ, either. I feel I need to do more work on myself before I can do much crusading. Now, my urge to help and execution thereupon is centered on friends- including net friends. (We’ve – well, my husband- not like *I* know how to do this- have repaired emeters for a couple people. I’ve also sent money to people and offered a shoulder etc.) I don’t know if this is enough. I really don’t. But I just can’t do the crusade thing anymore. I also can’t do the tech purist thing anymore. I’m glad others are doing it and are happy with it and I salute an’ support ’em, but don’t look for me to be anything other than a heretic panty waist dilettante. When I was in CofS, I wasn’t so much given wrong indicators and evals as I was given goals that were not mine. You have to be an auditor. Everyone should want it and you have to have the training. They do this in the FZ, too. I’m sorry, I think it’s AWESOME that others want to do it and are able to do it outside CofS but I just can’t drum up the interest. I love applying the principles of Scn to my life and think highly of most of them, however.
Well okay Claire 🙂
My apologies then.
Hi Concerned Citizen, The fellow that wrote that article is a friend of mine too. I’m working on getting him to see the light about DM … maybe you can work from your side too.
Here are a few more references/quotes of interest:
“They think that homosexuality is a horrible problem. In light of what I’m giving you here, homosexuality is about as serious as sneezes.” —
Lecture, October 1952, “The Resolution of the Second Dynamic”
“You worry about homosexuality…I don’t know how there could be anything else, the way you get scrambled on sexes on the track. It is quite remarkable that the sexes stay straight! I mean, I think that’s the remarkable thing.” —
Lecture, July 1957, “Child Scientology”
“… All right, this fellow decides that being a man fits his basic purposes and his basic personality, and so forth, yet 50 percent of the time he picks up female bodies. What’s he going to do with them? Just collapse at that point and everything he likes to do and so forth, and be a female for just a lifetime?” — Lecture, 3 January 1960, “Your Case”
No prob, RJ. I post certain points because I’m glad I was able to figure *anything* out. Because there are lots of things I have not yet been able to figure out.
Claire if you need any help trying to figure things out I’d be happy to help out.
Just ask Marty for my email address (so I don’t get any fan mail from OSA 🙂 ) and I’ll see what I can do.
Warning: I’m not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed but I do know a thing or two.
Ml
R
You’re a good example of this, Marty.
In 7th or 8th grade, when puberty strikes, most young people are in various states of turmoil about their sexuality as well as life in general. The bully types seem to pounce on this and attack and belittle many around them with various homosexual slurs and accusations.
To the bully, it is about driving in anchor points as a method of control. DM uses 7th grade bully tactics on people all the time, so I’m not surprised he employs this aspect as well.
In the 1950s, being known as a homosexual was often quite hazardous to one’s career, family life, social standing, etc., much more so than today. Many fewer people were openly gay back then.
The withhold, the “self-loathing”, the make-wrong attached to homosexuality, especially at that time, could understandably stick a person in the band around fear and anger, even if the inherent theta/entheta ratio on their case would have settled them at a much higher tone.
Hi Jim. Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. The ability to hold disagreements without resorting to demeaning the person is a key life skill and, I think, a reflection of character development. I wholly support what you say about differing opinions being “the spice of life” – or one of them! But, the tone of one’s disagreement should be respectful, IMO. A nasty retort diminishes trust, which in turn diminishes the quality of communication.
I just pointed out what I saw. I would prefer to see the issues debated rigorously than the speaker attacked.
Just saw the rest of the posts below, and clearly trust was restored. 🙂
Come on Heather. What have you done in your more familiar forums to help bring that about? I find the double standard applied here perplexing.
Hi, RJ,
I’m sure you’re more than one up on me, so to speak.
And, yes, that’s really nice of you. Very cool indeed.
Obviously without disclosing my identity I can’t give evidence of what I’ve done on my usual forums to direct people toward arguing the issue and not the person.
I don’t claim my own posting to be perfect in respecting others, but that’s certainly my goal and I think my posts largely sit well with that goal. Feel free to pull me up if you see me get too aggressive or nasty.
Pingback: A very important letter – Part C (of four parts) « Moving On Up a Little Higher
Pingback: A very important letter – Finale « Moving On Up a Little Higher
RJ or anyone else wishing to say hey, I can be reached at cswazey(at)comcast(dot)net
Did Paul Haggis approve publication of his letter?
Pingback: Paul Haggis exits Scientology « BaptistPlanet
Why are you trying to whitewash Hubbard’s gay-bashing ways? The man was a goddamned closet case who harangued his own gay son until the poor guy committed suicide.
Pingback: em8chel (em8chel) 's status on Monday, 26-Oct-09 12:00:59 UTC - Identi.ca
all comments valid thankyou for posting them.
as an exmormon,one can only realize the power
over ones life, by revealing so much infomation
to an organization to become a clear tho at least its better than mormonism, one can be rid of
the guilt and go up in the tone scale.
I dont think one has to be scientogist to
reach that level of clear. Try being buddhist
that works also….Karri
Pingback: Paul Haggis Quits Scientology | TakePart Social Action Network™
Pingback: Paul Haggis Bails on Scientology Big-Time « spectaculent.com
Pingback: Paul Haggis Bails on Scientology Big-Time | No Banjo - Movie Blog - An Eoin Butler & Zpaghetti Networks Blog
Pingback: Paul Haggis Bails on Scientology Big-Time | CloneMovie Latest movie news
Pingback: A seachange brewing among Scientologists? | Los Angeles Metblogs
Somebody has been paying attention.
Pingback: A seachange brewing among Scientologists? « Yuvablog
Pingback: A seachange brewing among Scientologists? | Yuvablog
Pingback: Paul Haggis Bails on Scientology Big-Time | Movie Listings Central
Pingback: A seachange brewing among Scientologists? « Daily News
Thanks for all the comments, for the first time in my life I feel better about myself. I was born gay in a Scientologist family, you can imagine how that felt. I though something was terribly wrong with me for years and forced myself never to have a gay thought while in SO. But I couldn’t really help it, I did many ethic cycles trying to handle my “problem”. Wow that really killed me, after all that robotism I felt deprived of my emotions. Even after coming out to my family and being disconnected to them I still couldn’t understand why LRH though I was such a DB… I got into a relationship with this background thinking that a gay relationship was just an overt and many bad consequences came from that… I wish I knew all this… I would have kept high standards…
Pingback: FBI untersucht die Scientology Organisation | kommrein
Pingback: Buzzbait: Paul Haggis vs. The Church of Scientology | Appendix A
Dear OutoftheCloset,
I understand I am answering to a post that is over 2 years old, but I just wanted to say I had a similar situation (although my mum left the SO before my 2D “situation” became pertinent). I grew up in a Scn family and the first thing my mum showed me when I came out to her was DMSMH. I spent until now, over 16 years, feeling like dirt, even though I tried not to. I would always dead-agent myself. Any relationship I had was doomed to failure because I always entered it thinking I couldn’t really have it anyway. So thanks for sharing your story.
In a strange way it is a relief to know I’m not alone. If anyone reads this, I would really appreciate being pointed to a site where gay scientologists can talk about their experiences. I know for myself on other issues (as with the Church) that it really helps when you feel you’re not the only one thinking or feeling a certain way about an issue.
I also thank everyone who has contributed to this board and others and shared their information. It has been therapeutic in more ways than one.
Pingback: Scientology Must Learn Humility | Mizozo