People can be very forgiving perhaps sometimes even too forgiving. Such is often the case in Scientology. We try to give a second chance whenever possible and that second chance often extends to third, forth, fifth and more chances.
Such was the case with Mark "Marty" Rathbun. Despite his really bad behavior he was given many chances but eventually he decided he didn't want any more chances and left the Church. It was his right to do that, no one can force you to be a Scientologist. But then he saw an opportunity to make a quick buck out of Scientology's huge popularity and his former position in the Church and so began his campaign of lies that culminated in a ridiculous news article (see "Inside the S.P. Times") and a TV show that really shows how bad journalism can get (see "A History of Lies")
Of course, there will be those who, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will insist that Rathbun's unsubstantiated accusations are true. Unfortunately for such people, Rathbun just went out of his way to prove how untrustworthy he is by getting himself arrested (Mark "Marty" Rathbun arrest documents) and then took no responsibility at all for his actions.
This nine-day-wonder is nearing the end of his ninth day and will soon relapse back into obscurity along with his lies and money making hopes. Personally, I can't wait for midnight to strike.
.
Showing posts with label Apostates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apostates. Show all posts
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Scientology Ex-Members
A small handful of ex-members of the Church of Scientology have been getting some attention in the media recently.
When you take "that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in an objective statement of the truth."1 and you connect them up with the noisiest of ex-members, each of whom is "likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievance"1, you will understand why the resultant media attention occurs.
Of course, the truth is nowhere near as entertaining as the fictional accounts of a disgruntled ex-member who "acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader."1
Courts and other official investigators ignore the testimony of such people because it is well known that ex-members "always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the religious group."1
Of course, not all ex-members have complaints. In fact, the majority have been found by sociologists to harbor no ill-will against their former faith and because of this, ex-members with an axe to grind have been given the name "apostates" to differentiate them from the benign majority of ex-members.
For a more detailed discussion of "apostates" and their recent allegations see this article: Defectors About Scientology - Breaking with Scientology
(1) Quoted from "Apostates and New Religious Movements" by Prof. Bryan Wilson
(2) Quoted from "The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements" by Lonnie D. Kliever, Ph.D.
When you take "that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in an objective statement of the truth."1 and you connect them up with the noisiest of ex-members, each of whom is "likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievance"1, you will understand why the resultant media attention occurs.
Of course, the truth is nowhere near as entertaining as the fictional accounts of a disgruntled ex-member who "acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader."1
Courts and other official investigators ignore the testimony of such people because it is well known that ex-members "always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the religious group."1
Of course, not all ex-members have complaints. In fact, the majority have been found by sociologists to harbor no ill-will against their former faith and because of this, ex-members with an axe to grind have been given the name "apostates" to differentiate them from the benign majority of ex-members.
For a more detailed discussion of "apostates" and their recent allegations see this article: Defectors About Scientology - Breaking with Scientology
(1) Quoted from "Apostates and New Religious Movements" by Prof. Bryan Wilson
(2) Quoted from "The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements" by Lonnie D. Kliever, Ph.D.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Recent Allegations
A couple of unreliable yet noisy media outlets have recently publicised allegations made by a former Scientologist against the leader of our religion, David Miscavige.
If you read these allegations and are wondering about their accuracy then you should read this: Mark "Marty" Rathbun.
If you wonder about the reliability of ex-members and what they have to say about their former religion (and this doesn't just apply to Scientology - witness the havoc caused by ex-members of Opus Dei and how Dan Brown used their outrageous allegations in his book, "The Da Vinci Code") then you should read what sociologists have to say about these "apostates":
- The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements
- Apostates and New Religious Movements
A telling paragraph from the second article:
If you read these allegations and are wondering about their accuracy then you should read this: Mark "Marty" Rathbun.
If you wonder about the reliability of ex-members and what they have to say about their former religion (and this doesn't just apply to Scientology - witness the havoc caused by ex-members of Opus Dei and how Dan Brown used their outrageous allegations in his book, "The Da Vinci Code") then you should read what sociologists have to say about these "apostates":
- The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements
- Apostates and New Religious Movements
A telling paragraph from the second article:
Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth.-
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Scientology and Critics
More answers to Google Ninja's questions:
Thirdly, the world has been hearing more and more from longtime ex-scientologists who are telling us incredible stories of abuse at IntBase, and in the SeaOrg. I realize that you believe this is just slander, but it is happening more and more. The sheer number of people who used to be scientologists in good standing who are now talking about this are getting harder and harder to dismiss.
I can only answer this from my own personal experience. I was in the Sea Org. I enjoyed my time there. There were no "abuses." My two kids were both in the Sea Org for several years. They enjoyed it and they saw no "abuses."
I have many friends who are currently in the Sea Org and so do my kids. These friends are happy and they are aware of no "abuses." My kids know people who used to be in the Sea Org and those people were happy with their time there and saw no "abuses".
So my opinion is based on my own experiences and those of people I personally know and have spoken to. I don't want this next sentence to sound harsh, if is merely a statement of fact: My opinion is not based on reading things on the Internet written by people I don't know and have never met.
I think if you examine the people complaining carefully you will find that the term "sheer numbers" does not actually apply. Like any other organization there is a turnover. People come and people go. If you count the number of complainers and count the number of people who are currently in the Sea Org or who have left and are not complaining, you will find that the proportion of complainers is very small. (This is also what sociologists have found - see the links below.) Trouble is you don't hear from the people who are not complaining because ... they are not complaining.
If you compare the number complaining to the total number of happy and satisfied Church of Scientology members, you will find the proportion of complainers is tiny.
The false impression of "sheer numbers" comes from the fact that if you come up with a good "atrocity" story then you get attention. So when an obscure actor wants some attention, perhaps to help his failing career, he comes out with an attack on his former religion. A girl who has some familial tie to a top Scientologists wants some attention, so she comes up with an atrocity story. (BTW, my son knows this girl from his time in the Sea Org and he knows her stories are not true.)
Where is the proof that any of these "abuse" stories are true? Did these people go to the police? No. Did they file charges? No. Did they report the abuses to Church authorities? No. They left and went straight to the Internet and began making accusations that cannot be substantiated.
I knew a person who is now a very loud critic. When she was a Scientologist I never heard one complaint from her. Not one. And I was a friend of hers, I spent time with her. If she had been dissatisfied she could have easily told me or other friends. But all I ever heard from her was that everything was great. Then one day she disappeared and next thing I know she's out there yelling about how bad it all is.
Firstly, I know for a fact that the things she yells about aren't true. I knew her. Secondly, if any of these claims were true then why didn't she report them to the correct authorities in the Church? The Church has many self-correcting mechanisms set up to fix things when they go wrong. These mechanisms handled such things as the Guardian's Office going off the rails in the late 1970's. She didn't use these mechanisms because the abuses didn't exist, but she saw a chance to make some big bucks. In the late 90's an ex-banker was trying to extort money from the Church. This woman ran off to join him and his crew. A simple, if debased, motivation.
If you read (and I do mean actually read) what sociologists have to say about such people, after extensive research, you will see that these atrocity stories are not reliable and you will also begin to understand the motives these people have for saying the things they say.
- The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements
- Apostates and New Religious Movements.)
If you are truly interested in this topic and in understanding it then I urge you to read these two articles. They are by highly respected sociologists who are also religious scholars.
I'll answer the rest of your questions tomorrow.
Thirdly, the world has been hearing more and more from longtime ex-scientologists who are telling us incredible stories of abuse at IntBase, and in the SeaOrg. I realize that you believe this is just slander, but it is happening more and more. The sheer number of people who used to be scientologists in good standing who are now talking about this are getting harder and harder to dismiss.
I can only answer this from my own personal experience. I was in the Sea Org. I enjoyed my time there. There were no "abuses." My two kids were both in the Sea Org for several years. They enjoyed it and they saw no "abuses."
I have many friends who are currently in the Sea Org and so do my kids. These friends are happy and they are aware of no "abuses." My kids know people who used to be in the Sea Org and those people were happy with their time there and saw no "abuses".
So my opinion is based on my own experiences and those of people I personally know and have spoken to. I don't want this next sentence to sound harsh, if is merely a statement of fact: My opinion is not based on reading things on the Internet written by people I don't know and have never met.
I think if you examine the people complaining carefully you will find that the term "sheer numbers" does not actually apply. Like any other organization there is a turnover. People come and people go. If you count the number of complainers and count the number of people who are currently in the Sea Org or who have left and are not complaining, you will find that the proportion of complainers is very small. (This is also what sociologists have found - see the links below.) Trouble is you don't hear from the people who are not complaining because ... they are not complaining.
If you compare the number complaining to the total number of happy and satisfied Church of Scientology members, you will find the proportion of complainers is tiny.
The false impression of "sheer numbers" comes from the fact that if you come up with a good "atrocity" story then you get attention. So when an obscure actor wants some attention, perhaps to help his failing career, he comes out with an attack on his former religion. A girl who has some familial tie to a top Scientologists wants some attention, so she comes up with an atrocity story. (BTW, my son knows this girl from his time in the Sea Org and he knows her stories are not true.)
Where is the proof that any of these "abuse" stories are true? Did these people go to the police? No. Did they file charges? No. Did they report the abuses to Church authorities? No. They left and went straight to the Internet and began making accusations that cannot be substantiated.
I knew a person who is now a very loud critic. When she was a Scientologist I never heard one complaint from her. Not one. And I was a friend of hers, I spent time with her. If she had been dissatisfied she could have easily told me or other friends. But all I ever heard from her was that everything was great. Then one day she disappeared and next thing I know she's out there yelling about how bad it all is.
Firstly, I know for a fact that the things she yells about aren't true. I knew her. Secondly, if any of these claims were true then why didn't she report them to the correct authorities in the Church? The Church has many self-correcting mechanisms set up to fix things when they go wrong. These mechanisms handled such things as the Guardian's Office going off the rails in the late 1970's. She didn't use these mechanisms because the abuses didn't exist, but she saw a chance to make some big bucks. In the late 90's an ex-banker was trying to extort money from the Church. This woman ran off to join him and his crew. A simple, if debased, motivation.
If you read (and I do mean actually read) what sociologists have to say about such people, after extensive research, you will see that these atrocity stories are not reliable and you will also begin to understand the motives these people have for saying the things they say.
- The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements
- Apostates and New Religious Movements.)
If you are truly interested in this topic and in understanding it then I urge you to read these two articles. They are by highly respected sociologists who are also religious scholars.
I'll answer the rest of your questions tomorrow.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Scientology - Ex-Members
If someone leaves a religion and then bad mouths it they are called an "Apostate". How reliable are their stories about the religion they are leaving? It's an important question because in order to accurately evaluate information you need to have a measure of the reliability of the source. Can you trust the source or is the source suspect?
When it comes to ex-members of religions, and especially new religions, religious scholars have come to very definite conclusions. You can read two papers by religious scholars here:
"In short, on the face of things, apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses."
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements (pdf)
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements - New Religion website
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements - Religious Freedom Watch
By Lonnie D. Kliever, Dr. Phil., Professor of Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth."
Apostates and New Religious Movements (pdf)
Apostates and New Religious Movements - New Religion website
Apostates and New Religious Movements - Religious Freedom Watch
By Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D., University of Oxford, England
When it comes to ex-members of religions, and especially new religions, religious scholars have come to very definite conclusions. You can read two papers by religious scholars here:
"In short, on the face of things, apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses."
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements (pdf)
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements - New Religion website
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements - Religious Freedom Watch
By Lonnie D. Kliever, Dr. Phil., Professor of Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth."
Apostates and New Religious Movements (pdf)
Apostates and New Religious Movements - New Religion website
Apostates and New Religious Movements - Religious Freedom Watch
By Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D., University of Oxford, England
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Why is L. Ron Hubbard the only source? and other questions
Jim Gatos asked me some good questions and made some observations about religions and the history of religion.
On the observations you made, I largely agree with you. I think it is important to differentiate between the religion (the philosophy, the scriptures, etc.) and the people who are in it. The people in any religion are human beings and are subject to all the frailties and failings of human beings. There will always be some people in any religion who do illegal or bad things but what is the proportion of them to the ones who don't? If a couple hundred Catholic priests go off the rails over a 40 year period that is a terrible thing, but how many good Priests are there in the world and how many good Catholics are there in the world? I think the proportion that did those horrible things to kids is very small compared to the number of good people who are Catholics.
One of the main things religion does in this world is give people ideals to follow in their daily lives, for example, the Christian story of the "good Samaritan" teaches tolerance for people with different beliefs and that you should judge an individual by his actions, not by his race or creed. Religion teaches the ideals and then it is up the individual himself or herself to follow those ideals. You mentioned several people who failed to live up to the ideals, such as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. But what about Sister Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi? There are two shining examples of people who did follow the ideal.
Now for your questions: On a couple of them I have no data at all. I'll try and find out something and give you answers when I know something.
On your questions that I can answer:
You asked: "Britney Spears, Oh MY God.. What is her mental state? I even heard her manager fed her drugs to control her! I'm sure Scientology could have helped her, and if anyone says waht about the money she saved by NOT joining Scientology, I ask, what about the money she spent on drugs, or other stupid things? I'd like to hear your opinion, if you want to go there..."
Do I want to go there? Maybe I shouldn't, but I'll try some sort of answer. It is very sad what has happened to her, doubly sad because there are kids involved. The data on her manager drugging her makes sense to me if you look at her behavior since he came on the scene - she acted like someone who was drugged and out-of-it.
Could she have been helped by Scientology? Well, anyone can be helped. The question is would the various influences in her life have allowed anything to help her? It is an unfortunate fact that artists tend to attract to themselves a certain type of person who has bad intentions towards them. My wife has read many biographies and autobiographies of famous people and you can see nasty people throughout their lives. There is more data on this here: Overcoming the Ups and Downs in Life. So my answer is: If she'd had this data early on in her career and she'd used it, then she could have avoided the mess she is now in. (Also that booklet I linked to is available online or you can buy it for a few bucks, so it wouldn't have been expensive at all.)
You asked: "Are there any other sources to be studied in Scientology? Seems like L. Ron is the only one..."
L. Ron Hubbard is the only source for Scientology. Maybe that sounds funny to you so I can only answer why that is from my own experience.
Ron began his search for the answers to life very early on. He studied just about every philosopher who existed - he acknowledges many of them at the beginning of his book "Science of Survival" and it is a very long list, including Plato, Socrates, Francis Bacon, Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, etc.
So Ron had that broad background of knowledge and was the one who started it all and thus was the one who was always on the leading edge of research and discovery. He obviously had a lot of help, one man couldn't have done it without help. But the way it worked out was that he made the initial discoveries about the mind and developed techniques to improve the mind and the capabilities of the individual. Then as others were learning these and trying to catch up with him, he was researching to find out more about man and better ways to help him. So, as I said, Ron was always on the leading edge, and he made his researches and findings known by writing books and articles and by delivering lectures. These form the basis of Scientology. These are the "source" materials.
Ron himself says:"Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system."
I've found it to be workable, so I follow it, right from the source. I'm a lazy sort of guy. If someone already invented the wheel then I'm quite happy to use four of them on my car. I'm not going to go out and invent it all over again. I don't have the time, I need to drive to work now :)
On one of your other questions about people leaving the church I have a partial answer: If someone wants to leave the church then they can. Simple as that. A friend of my wife did a couple of courses and then decided not to continue. Nothing happened. She and my wife are still good friends. She enjoyed her courses, she just didn't want to continue. It was her choice.
One thing you have to watch out for on the Internet is stories from "Apostates." An Apostate is someone who renounces a belief or allegiance. Religious scholars have examined the phenomenon of people leaving a religion and then bad-mouthing or attacking it. The conclusion of one such scholar was "apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses." See The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements by Lonnie D. Kliever, Ph.D.. Another expert said, "The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates." See Apostates and New Religious Movements by Professor Bryan Ronald Wilson.
So stories from people who left and bear a grudge are not going to be reliable. And I can confirm that from personal experience.
Other data:
Why are ex-members poor sources of true information on Scientology?
On the observations you made, I largely agree with you. I think it is important to differentiate between the religion (the philosophy, the scriptures, etc.) and the people who are in it. The people in any religion are human beings and are subject to all the frailties and failings of human beings. There will always be some people in any religion who do illegal or bad things but what is the proportion of them to the ones who don't? If a couple hundred Catholic priests go off the rails over a 40 year period that is a terrible thing, but how many good Priests are there in the world and how many good Catholics are there in the world? I think the proportion that did those horrible things to kids is very small compared to the number of good people who are Catholics.
One of the main things religion does in this world is give people ideals to follow in their daily lives, for example, the Christian story of the "good Samaritan" teaches tolerance for people with different beliefs and that you should judge an individual by his actions, not by his race or creed. Religion teaches the ideals and then it is up the individual himself or herself to follow those ideals. You mentioned several people who failed to live up to the ideals, such as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. But what about Sister Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi? There are two shining examples of people who did follow the ideal.
Now for your questions: On a couple of them I have no data at all. I'll try and find out something and give you answers when I know something.
On your questions that I can answer:
You asked: "Britney Spears, Oh MY God.. What is her mental state? I even heard her manager fed her drugs to control her! I'm sure Scientology could have helped her, and if anyone says waht about the money she saved by NOT joining Scientology, I ask, what about the money she spent on drugs, or other stupid things? I'd like to hear your opinion, if you want to go there..."
Do I want to go there? Maybe I shouldn't, but I'll try some sort of answer. It is very sad what has happened to her, doubly sad because there are kids involved. The data on her manager drugging her makes sense to me if you look at her behavior since he came on the scene - she acted like someone who was drugged and out-of-it.
Could she have been helped by Scientology? Well, anyone can be helped. The question is would the various influences in her life have allowed anything to help her? It is an unfortunate fact that artists tend to attract to themselves a certain type of person who has bad intentions towards them. My wife has read many biographies and autobiographies of famous people and you can see nasty people throughout their lives. There is more data on this here: Overcoming the Ups and Downs in Life. So my answer is: If she'd had this data early on in her career and she'd used it, then she could have avoided the mess she is now in. (Also that booklet I linked to is available online or you can buy it for a few bucks, so it wouldn't have been expensive at all.)
You asked: "Are there any other sources to be studied in Scientology? Seems like L. Ron is the only one..."
L. Ron Hubbard is the only source for Scientology. Maybe that sounds funny to you so I can only answer why that is from my own experience.
Ron began his search for the answers to life very early on. He studied just about every philosopher who existed - he acknowledges many of them at the beginning of his book "Science of Survival" and it is a very long list, including Plato, Socrates, Francis Bacon, Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, etc.
So Ron had that broad background of knowledge and was the one who started it all and thus was the one who was always on the leading edge of research and discovery. He obviously had a lot of help, one man couldn't have done it without help. But the way it worked out was that he made the initial discoveries about the mind and developed techniques to improve the mind and the capabilities of the individual. Then as others were learning these and trying to catch up with him, he was researching to find out more about man and better ways to help him. So, as I said, Ron was always on the leading edge, and he made his researches and findings known by writing books and articles and by delivering lectures. These form the basis of Scientology. These are the "source" materials.
Ron himself says:"Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system."
I've found it to be workable, so I follow it, right from the source. I'm a lazy sort of guy. If someone already invented the wheel then I'm quite happy to use four of them on my car. I'm not going to go out and invent it all over again. I don't have the time, I need to drive to work now :)
On one of your other questions about people leaving the church I have a partial answer: If someone wants to leave the church then they can. Simple as that. A friend of my wife did a couple of courses and then decided not to continue. Nothing happened. She and my wife are still good friends. She enjoyed her courses, she just didn't want to continue. It was her choice.
One thing you have to watch out for on the Internet is stories from "Apostates." An Apostate is someone who renounces a belief or allegiance. Religious scholars have examined the phenomenon of people leaving a religion and then bad-mouthing or attacking it. The conclusion of one such scholar was "apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses." See The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements by Lonnie D. Kliever, Ph.D.. Another expert said, "The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates." See Apostates and New Religious Movements by Professor Bryan Ronald Wilson.
So stories from people who left and bear a grudge are not going to be reliable. And I can confirm that from personal experience.
Other data:
Why are ex-members poor sources of true information on Scientology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)