KCRW: Growing up in the Church of Scientology; Scientology defends disconnection

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
KCRW: Growing up in the Church of Scientology; Scientology defends disconnection.

The audio and article are at the following link:

KCRW: Growing up in the Church of Scientology

http://blogs.kcrw.com/whichwayla/2015/05/growing-up-in-the-church-of-scientology

Interestingly, in a printed response the Church of Scientology, speaking through Karen Pouw, defends disconnection:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Claim: Families of members who leave the Church are no longer allowed to be in contact with them. Members of wealthier families may be exempt the requirement to “disconnect.”

This misstates our practice. The Church’s voluntary practice of disconnection in circumstances where individual’s spiritual progress is imperiled by continued connection to people hostile to their survival is explained on our website at
Code:
www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-attitudes-and-practices/what-is-disconnection.html.

Courts have addressed this voluntary practice and have validated the Constitutional rights of the Church and its members to freedom of association, which must necessarily include the right not to associate with someone:

“A church is entitled to stop associating with someone who abandons it. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 883 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that the free exercise clause protects the practice of shunning, explaining that when “[t]he members of [a] [c]hurch” “no longer want to associate with” someone who has “abandon[ed]” them, those members “are free” under the First Amendment “to make that choice”). A church may also warn that it will stop associating with members who do not act in accordance with church doctrine. The former is a legitimate consequence, the latter a legitimate warning.”
– Headley v. Church of Scientology International (9th Cir. 2012) 687 F.3d 1173, 1180.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 

idrizomare

Patron with Honors
Thank you for posting the story here (and for so many other things you've brought to us).

I couldn't believe my eyes and had to go look at KCRW's blog to verify that the following quote ...

Interestingly, in a printed response the Church of Scientology, speaking through Karen Pouw, defends disconnection:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

(skipping down)

Courts have addressed this voluntary practice and have validated the Constitutional rights of the Church and its members to freedom of association, which must necessarily include the right not to associate with someone:

“A church is entitled to stop associating with someone who abandons it. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 883 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that the free exercise clause protects the practice of shunning, explaining that when “[t]he members of [a] [c]hurch” “no longer want to associate with” someone who has “abandon[ed]” them, those members “are free” under the First Amendment “to make that choice”). A church may also warn that it will stop associating with members who do not act in accordance with church doctrine. The former is a legitimate consequence, the latter a legitimate warning.”
– Headley v. Church of Scientology International (9th Cir. 2012) 687 F.3d 1173, 1180.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

… was indeed in CoS's response. They are saying that they are legally entitled to disconnection. That's their argument! They aren't saying that it's the right thing to do, just that they aren't breaking the law. They leave out how they use disconnection to control and punish people. That doesn't matter because … it's legal!

The CoS has stunningly low standards for itself.
 

DeeAnna

Patron Meritorious
They are also apparently now admitting to a practice that they flat-out denied for many years.
 
Wow! They have gone from saying it doesn't exist...no...they never do that!...to saying it might possibly occasionally be done by individual members on a voluntary basis...to saying that "A church may also warn that it will stop associating with members who do not act in accordance with church doctrine."

HAH! The truth at last! :clap:

COS Scientologist DO practice a severe form of "shunning" any member, former member, or their families or friends who are in any way critical or opposed to COS abusive practices! CULT< CULT< CULT!!! :grouch:
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
"This misstates our practice. The Church’s voluntary practice of disconnection in circumstances where individual’s spiritual progress is imperiled by continued connection to people hostile to their survival is explained on our website"

I was told to disconnect from someone.

This person had been Declared because of a ridiculously inept Ethics Department and wanted nothing more than to be allowed back in to Scientology.

There was only a very slight possibility that I may come into contact with this person on rare occasions and even then we would just acknowledge each other and not speak.

He was very pro-scientology, not hostile, and the situation had absolutely no effect on my spiritual progress yet I was ordered to go through a ridiculous procedure that would ensure I would never come into contact with him under any circumstances.

I refused therefore I was not permitted to go further up the Bridge. Thus they put a block on my "spiritual progress" for no valid reason.

The only thing that misstates their practice is the Scientology website.:moon:
 

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
Gotta keep in mind that it is a basic human right to associate, or not, with anyone. There is nothing wrong with that.

But an organization telling you that you will be shunned if you don't shun a particular person (target) is pure evil, because now it is no longer your choice.

It's like handing a gun to Joe and saying "you must shoot Fred or we will shoot you". And then to lie and say, "well of course, you have a choice"!

Disconnection, shunning, ostracizing, etc....is a form of DEATH, and when an organization enforces it, that is murder.....in my opinion.
 
Top