Entries in scientology (5)

Wednesday
18Nov2009

Scientology Watch - Australian Senator Nick Xenophon calls for senate inquiry

Xenophon discusses his views on Scientology, its tax-exempt status in Australia, and letters to him from former Scientology members. He calls it a “criminal organization.”

Among the alleged crimes cited by the Senator: false imprisonment, coerced abortions, embezelment, child abuse, perjury, persecution of ex-members, forced labor, blackmail and torture.

It is alleged one former member aborted her own child with a coat-hanger for fear of punishment.

“This organization must be investigated.”

“This is not about religious freedom. In Australia, there are no limits on what you can believe; but there are limits on how you can behave. It’s called “the law” and no-one is above it”

 

Saturday
07Nov2009

Scientology Watch - St. Petersburg Times Special Report - Joe Childs Thomas Tobin

St. Petersburg Times - Special Report on Scientology

 

ABOUT THIS SPECIAL REPORT ON SCIENTOLOGY: Mark C. “Marty” Rathbun left the Church of Scientology staff in late 2004, ending a 27-year career that saw him rise to be a top lieutenant to Miscavige in the organization. For the past four years, he has lived a low-profile life in Texas. Some speculated he had died.

In February, Rathbun posted an Internet message announcing he was available to counsel other disaffected Scientologists.

“Having dug myself out of the dark pit where many who leave the church land,” he wrote, “I began lending a hand to others similarly situated.”

Contacted by the St. Petersburg Times, Rathbun agreed to tell the story of his years in Scientology and what led to his leaving. The Times interviewed him at his home in Texas, and he came to Clearwater to revisit some of the scenes he described.

The reporters interviewed the four defectors multiple times, and met with church spokesmen and lawyers for 25 hours.

Joe Childs, Managing Editor/Tampa Bay, ran the Times Clearwater operation dating to 1993 and supervised the newspaper’s Scientology coverage. He can be reached at childs@sptimes.com

Thomas C. Tobin has covered the Church of Scientology off and on for 20 years. He can be reached at tobin@sptimes.com

The result of the Times’ reporting is this multi-part special report, the latest in a long history of Scientology coverage by the Times. The newspaper won a Pulitzer Prize for a 1979 report on Scientology. And in the years since, with the church’s Clearwater headquarters in the Times’ prime coverage area, the in-depth reporting has continued. This project, as you will see, features the three days of in-depth reports from the St. Petersburg Times, as well as additional content for this Web presentation. Those additional pieces include video; a photo gallery; and links to previous coverage in the Times, including the Pulitzer-winning coverage.

This is the sort of investigative journalism we must support and protect. This report is available for purchase in electronic form; click through for the “free sample” of the electronic edition.

Part Three of this superb report was expanded recently, including new video interviews.

The video interviews with four Scientology defectors are very informative. Rathbun corroborates the other three authoritatively, because he was in charge of internal Scientology surveillance and intelligence, taking orders directly from and reporting to David Miscavige.

 

 

Once the No. 2 church officer in Clearwater, Don Jason ran and wound up in a locked cabin aboard the church cruise ship, the Freewinds.

 

 

Rathbun tells the other side of Don Jason’s story - the response to Jason’s escape.

 

For years, the Church of Scientology chased down and brought back staff members who tried to leave.

Ex-staffers describe being pursued by their church and detained, cut off from family and friends and subjected to months of interrogation, humiliation and manual labor.

 

 

Jackie Wolff - Joined Scientology: at age 25, in 1980; joined Sea Org in 1982. Age: 54
Left Sea Org: 2004


Career highlights: Personal steward to Miscavige and his wife, personnel director, supervisor of E-meter assembly line.


Now: Single, marketing director for California construction and grading company.
“We didn’t want them to find us. We wanted to just kind of disappear into the woodwork.”

 

 

Rathbun on how to hande a “blow drill” - a codified series of steps to get someone “back to the base”

 

Mark Fisher on being attacked by Miscavige - “the last straw”

 

Here is my complete set of videos tagged “Scientology”

 

Betsy Perkins: “I just want to get on with my life” after Scientology

 

Sixteen years later, Betsy Perkins is sobbing as she talks about the day she ran away from Scientology.

 

“I thought I was handing in my ticket to eternity,” she says.

Now 56, a graphic artist in Dallas, she says she is going public to offer her own “first-hand account of what happened to a person who was in there.”

She spent 17 years in Scientology’s work force, the Sea Org, moved by the church’s mantra that Scientologists held the future of the planet in their hands…


 

Click through for the latest internal Scientology document leaked: “Treason”

 

 

From the Times archives: More on Scientology, David Miscavige and Lisa McPherson

St Petersburg Times: Scientology Special Report (Sample)

Wednesday
28Oct2009

Scientology Watch - France trial panel discussion (on banning Scientology)

This is a particularly interesting and informative panel discussion from June 2009 that aired on on France 24.

The topic is the legal action in France against Scientology. The panelists go into some detail on a person’s right to believe anything at all, versus taking action on that belief that causes harm to others.

Rick Ross, director of the Ross Institute, a valuable resource on cults and new religious movements, makes very clear statements on where Scientology crosses the line into fraud and possible criminal activity. France does not recognize Scientology as a religion, and has found the institution and some members guilty of fraud in that context. 

The “purification rundown” was created by L. Ron Hubbard, who had no medical training or evidence supporting his doctrines. His claim of “elimination of toxins” has been found to be false, furthermore the large doses of niacin can damage the liver. In addition, denial of prescription drugs for treatment of disorders like schizophrenia may have caused at least one death — that of the Scientologist mother who did not allow her son to be treated, and who later killed her.

A point of heated debate is the nature and purpose of a list of sects the French government has compiled. Also discussed are legal proceedings against Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny certain medical treatments to their children because of their beliefs.

First a short clip on the French court’s recent rulings against Scientology:

 

Scientologists convicted of fraud in France - By Dorothee Moisan (AFP) October 27, 2009

…The latest case follows a complaint from two women, one of whom says she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euros for costly products, including an “electrometer” to measure mental energy. …

A second plaintiff alleges she was forced by her Scientologist employer to undergo testing and enroll in courses in 1998. When she refused she was fired. 

The head of France’s interministerial body on cults, Georges Fenech, said he was sorry judges were prevented from tougher action. “I strongly regret that the law was changed discreetly during the trial, just before the trial, without anyone knowing,” he told France 24 television. 

“But I think the provision has been reinstated by parliament, so there could be a ban in future if they offend again.” 

Critics of Scientology have accused Scientologists of “infiltrating” the National Assembly to lobby for the legal change. 

Outraged by the allegation, French Scientology’s lawyer had asked the court to reopen the case to clear her clients of suspicion.

Wikipedia blocked the Church of Scientology from editing entries at the communally-crafted online encyclopedia earlier this year due to an unrelenting battle over the group’s image. 

Should Scientology be banned? Part 1 of 5:

 

Case background

Jens Tingleff on Scientolgy’s profit directive and legal tactics, and the reasons for “cult” designation

Rick Ross on behavior vs. belief, the pattern of complaints, financial exploitation, and other serious allegations

Should Scientology be banned? Part 2 of 5:

 

Raphael Liogier voices concerns regarding sect designation 

Jaques Myard, conservative MP, rebuttal 

Liogier argues against value judgements 

Jens Tingleff states Scientology is a criminal organization, citing successful criminal prosecutions, and that coercion is “written into” Scientology 

Rick Ross on the doctrine of Scientology, its financial hazards and other dangers, the empire left by Hubbard, on Miscavige attaining tax-exempt status in 1992,  U.S. government reluctance to interfere in anything “religious”

Should Scientology be banned? Part 3 of 5: 

 

More background on this and other French court cases against Scientology 

Liogier alleges French obsession with “real” vs. “false” religion 

Myard denies Liogier’s allegations, calling them nonsense and completely wrong, and stressing focus on crimes 

Liogier re-states his concerns, admits ignorance of the current case, and admits to refusing the opportunity to assist in this trial’s defense 

Tingleff concludes that Liogier does not want to discuss the crimes, or discuss anything but Myard’s list of sects

Should Scientology be banned? Part 4 of 5: 

 

The moderator mentions the allegation some were “illegally practicing as pharmacists,” and Scientology’s opposition to drugs for mental illness

Rick Ross on the “purification rundown,” high doses of niacin, Scientology’s war on psychiatry, legal cases against parents for withholding medical care from their children, charges of medical neglect and manslaughter

Myard cites problems with “alternative medicine” and deregulation of “therapist” treatments

Tingleff on the specifics of Scientology cult indoctrination, the price list, the rigid rules for advancement

Should Scientology be banned? Part 5 of 5:

 

Rick Ross rebuts “religious persecution” arguments, claims Rafael is wrongly attempting to re-frame the debate, clarifies the harm vs. belief issue

Liogier agrees momentarily and then argues that sects raising money is not a basis for allegations of fraud

Myard rebuts again

Scientology end-game

 

Monday
26Oct2009

Scientology Watch - Tommy Davis Amy Scobee Paul Haggis 

The spokesman for the Church of Scientology, Tommy Davis, agreed to be interviewed by Martin Bashir for ABC.

Davis apparently believes he has a right not to be offended, and that questions about the cult’s core teachings are offensive. Before he flounces out of the interview in a fit of prissy annoyance, Davis does betray Scientology’s lack of tolerance for simple investigative questions. Bashir interviewed Amy Scobee and she alleged the “purification” treatment was used to punish her. Eight months of five hours per day in a sauna is quite extreme.

 

Paul Haggis resigned from Scientology and wrote a long letter to Tommy Davis

via Scientology-cult.org:

Paul Haggis is the Academy award winning filmmaker who, in 2006, became the first screenwriter, since 1950, to write two Best Film Oscar winners back-to-back – “Million Dollar Baby” (2004) directed by Clint Eastwood, and “Crash” (2005) which he himself directed.

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.

This was my state of mind when I was online doing research and chanced upon an interview clip with you on CNN. The interview lasted maybe ten minutes – it was just you and the newscaster. And in it I saw you deny the church’s policy of disconnection. You said straight-out there was no such policy, that it did not exist.

I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification – I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.

You might recall that my wife was ordered to disconnect from her parents because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five years ago when they resigned from the church. This is a lovely retired couple, never said a negative word about Scientology to me or anyone else I know – hardly raving maniacs or enemies of the church. In fact it was they who introduced my wife to Scientology.

Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them. I refused to do so. I’ve never been good at following orders, especially when I find them morally reprehensible.

For a year and a half, despite her protestations, my wife did not speak to her parents and they had limited access to their grandchild. It was a terrible time.

That’s not ancient history, Tommy. It was a year ago.

And you could laugh at the question as if it was a joke? You could publicly state that it doesn’t exist?

To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?

And that is when I read the recent articles in the St. Petersburg Times.  They left me dumbstruck and horrified.

These were not the claims made by “outsiders” looking to dig up dirt against us. These accusations were made by top international executives who had devoted most of their lives to the church. Say what you will about them now, these were staunch defenders of the church, including Mike Rinder, the church’s official spokesman for 20 years!

Tommy, if only a fraction of these accusations are true, we are talking about serious, indefensible human and civil rights violations. It is still hard for me to believe.  But given how many former top-level executives have said these things are true, it is hard to believe it is all lies.

And when I pictured you assuring me that it is all lies, that this is nothing but an unfounded and vicious attack by a group of disgruntled employees, I am afraid that I saw the same face that looked in the camera and denied the policy of disconnection. I heard the same voice that professed outrage at our support of Proposition 8, who promised to correct it, and did nothing.

I carefully read all of your rebuttals, I watched every video where you presented the church’s position, I listened to all your arguments – ever word. I wish I could tell you that they rang true. But they didn’t.

I was left feeling outraged, and frankly, more than a little stupid.

And though it may seem small by comparison, I was truly disturbed to see you provide private details from confessionals to the press in an attempt to embarrass and discredit the executives who spoke out. A priest would go to jail before revealing secrets from the confessional, no matter what the cost to himself or his church. That’s the kind of integrity I thought we had, but obviously the standard in this church is far lower – the public relations representative can reveal secrets to the press if the management feels justified. You even felt free to publish secrets from the confessional in Freedom Magazine – you just stopped short of labeling them as such, probably because you knew Scientologists would be horrified, knowing you so easily broke a sacred vow of trust with your parishioners.

How dare you use private information in order to label someone an “adulteress?” You took Amy Scobee’s most intimate admissions about her sexual life and passed them onto the press and then smeared them all over the pages your newsletter! I do not know the woman, but no matter what she said or did, this is the woman who joined the Sea Org at 16! She ran the entire celebrity center network, and was a loyal senior executive of the church for what, 20 years? You want to rebut her accusations, do it, and do it in the strongest terms possible – but that kind of character assassination is unconscionable.

So, I am now painfully aware that you might see this an attack and just as easily use things I have confessed over the years to smear my name. Well, luckily I have never held myself up to be anyone’s role model.

The great majority of Scientologists I know are good people who are genuinely interested in improving conditions on this planet and helping others. I have to believe that if they knew what I now know, they too would be horrified. But I know how easy it was for me to defend our organization and dismiss our critics, without ever truly looking at what was being said; I did it for thirty-five years. And so, after writing this letter, I am fully aware that some of my friends may choose to no longer associate with me, or in some cases work with me. I will always take their calls, as I always took yours. However, I have finally come to the conclusion that I can no longer be a part of this group. Frankly, I had to look no further than your refusal to denounce the church’s anti-gay stance, and the indefensible actions, and inactions, of those who condone this behavior within the organization. I am only ashamed that I waited this many months to act. I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.

Sincerely,

Paul Haggis

Amy Scobee on Miscavige:

Marty Rathbun on Miscavige

Steve Hall on Scientology’s “Sea Org”

…and their prohibition against childbirth, and his own discovery of his wife’s abortion after the fact.

Wednesday
09Sep2009

Scientology Watch - Wikiban, Jason Beghe Speaks, Open Letter to Anonymous 

In 2009 Wikipedia tightened controls on controversial articles - preventing edits by anonymous contributors.

In May of 2009 Wikipedia banned editing from Scientology IP addresses, and banned specific editors from scientology-related articles for at least six months - a term which is about to expire.

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Wired News/May 29, 2009

Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology from editing any articles. It’s a punishment for repeated and deceptive editing of articles related to the controversial religion. The landmark ruling comes from the inner circle of a site that prides itself on being open and inclusive.

In a 10-1 ruling Thursday, the site’s arbitration council voted to ban users coming from all IP addresses owned by the Church of Scientology and its associates, and further banned a number of editors by name. The story was first reported by The Register.

Self-serving Wikipedia edits are hardly new. Wired.com readers pulled in an award for discovering the most egregious Wikipedia whitewashes by corporation and government agencies, but this is the first time the site has taken such drastic actions to block those edits.

And the edits are unlikely to stop, now that the user-created encyclopedia has become one of the net’s most popular sites and is often the top result for searches on a subject. Being able to massage an entry about oneself or one’s company has proven difficult to resist, even for founder Jimmy Wales - despite Wikipedia’s official warnings to the contrary.

The Church of Scientology, founded by sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard in 1953, has had a long and bloody history on the net - dating back to Usenet groups, where critics maintain that the organization is a cult that brainwashes its members and sucks them dry financially. The Church, which teaches that humans are reincarnated and lived on other planets, says it is a legitimate religion.

The case, which began in December, centers on more than 400 articles about the ultra-secretive Church and its members. Those pages have hosted long-running, fierce edit wars that pitted organized Church of Scientology editors - using multiple accounts - against critics of Scientology who fought those changes by citing their own or one another’s self-published material. In fact, this is the fourth Wikipedia arbitration case concerning Scientology in as many years.

The committee also banned a number of editors individually, prohibiting them from editing any Scientology-related articles for at least six months. Those privileges can be reinstated afterward if they show they can play nicely by Wikipedia’s rules.

While most disputes involving the Web and Scientology in the past year have involved anti-Scientology activists who bind together under the name Anonymous, that group is largely not involved in this argument, because only registered accounts are able to edit the articles under dispute.

The Church of Scientology did not immediately return a voice message, asking for comment.

Jason Beghe’s video was back on YouTube shortly after its takedown in April of 2008. It is embedded below this text.

Jason Beghe Scientology video removed from YouTube

Times Online, UK/April 18, 2008

A video interview showing American TV actor Jason Beghe criticising Scientology has been removed from YouTube, writes Veronica Schmidt.

The 48-year-old was the first celebrity to speak out against the religion, telling how his 12 years with the church damaged him and accusing Scientology of being “destructive” and a “rip-off”.

After Beghe’s criticism of the church made headlines yesterday, YouTube suspended the account of the prolific Scientology critic who posted the video, making the clip unavailable to viewers.

But the suspension has angered YouTube users who have thrown their weight behind Mark Bunker, who uses the name XenuTV1 on the site.

By this morning, 45 YouTube members had used their sign-ons to re-post Bunker’s interview with the Cane and CSI actor.

In the clip, Benghe said: “My experience personally, and what I’ve observed for myself, is that Scientology is destructive and a rip-off.”

“It’s very, very dangerous for your spiritual, psychological and mental, emotional health and evolution. I think it stunts your evolution.”

The church insists it brings its members “spiritual enlightenment” and it has helped the world progress towards “the eradication of its ills”, including drugs, crime, violence and intolerance.

A spokesperson for YouTube told Times Online: “YouTube takes these issues very seriously but we don’t comment on individual videos. Our general approach is simple: we have clear content policies about what videos are allowed on the site. For example we prohibit clips that infringe copyright or show extreme violence. Videos that breach these rules are removed and we disable all accounts belonging to repeat offenders.”

 

 

Since my statements about Anonymous are being misinterpreted that I am saying that “every” person in Anonymous behaves a certain way, I need to clarify. Of course I am not saying that….

Main Entry:
This may come as a shock to some people to see this statement coming from me but yes indeed, there are worse things than Scientology and one of them is the new amorphous group that has sprung up that has declared a “war” on Scientology that calls itself “anonymous”.  This “anonymous” group is reportedly made up primarily of young people in their late teens/early twenties who became upset with Scientology after a video featuring Tom Cruise… was taken down… In retaliation, people from “anonymous” managed to hack into and shut down Scientology’s website and also began making threats against Scientology. Some of the more seasoned opponents of Scientology…  taught them about peaceful picketing and they managed to pull off peaceful pickets of Scientology… for example, advising people to carry signs saying “Honk if you hate Scientology and referring to the pickets and future planned demonstrations in violent terms such as “raids”. Also, they advised everyone to wear masks.

What is the motive of these young thugs who seem to have no problem breaking the law, hacking into Scientology websites? Based on what first raised their interest in declaring the war, their agenda is an anti-Capitalist, collectivist agenda…. everything should be free and that individuals or organizations have no right to copyrighted material… The message… is that people have the right to goods, whether earned or not. It was only after…that they began to learn about some of the actual abuses … such as their use of pseudoscientific techniques on their members that can and have in some cases been very harmful (e.g. the death of Scientologist Lisa McPherson…) I began by making a posting, referring to an article by … Philip Zimbardo where he had written about the dangers of being anonymous and wearing masks. These kids didn’t get it at all and instantly brushed this off, assuming that this didn’t apply to them because they had no “leader”, completely missing the main point which is that when people are anonymous and hide their faces, accountability goes down…

It was then that I realized that rational discussion was not possible and left the forum. I will, however, continue to monitor this group and report on and criticize their activities…

A few years back, there was a charismatic very wealthy person who decided to declare a “war” on Scientology and developed his own anti-cult cult following. Now it’s “anonymous.” This too shall pass but some people just never learn and just keep repeating the same mistakes, over and over.

The fact that “Anonymous” has an agenda regarding Capitalism and copyright indicates its Scientology protests should be ignored, and are improperly targeted.

If they want to protest Scientology, they must first make a coherent statement as to why. I find it absurd that takedowns on YouTube result in protests that appear to be harassment.

If “Anonymous” had a longer attention span than a gnat’s, it might find good reasons to oppose Scientology - but again, unless they understand the laws of the land they will have no clue as to where Scientology is vulnerable. Hint: illnesses are all “psychsomatic” and thus treatable with “head doctors” and not “actual doctors.”  The properties of the “E-machine” are not “magical” and can be tested with regard to its use in a profitable, but fraudulent manner. And lastly, Scientology is about to be ejected from France, as they have not been given the protections of a “religion,” and the Judge recommended the guilty verdict on the charge of being a money-making fraudulent enterprise.