Scientology: Apostates, Ex-Spouses and Whistleblowers


A cross post from WWP, a great insight from 'Just Bill' (I couldn't find it here and not sure what catagory to post this in, maybe a mod could redirect it if not in the right place).
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Scientology: Apostates, Ex-Spouses and Whistleblowers

I want everyone to pay close attention to the statements made by the Church of Scientology in "defending" the church against accusations of mental and physical abuse, human rights violations, crimes and fraud.

The Church of Scientology uses mental manipulation, and their statements are very good examples of exactly what they do -- or try to do. Time after time, I notice that reporters accept, or at least not challenge, premises from the Church of Scientology spokesman that are simply not true -- because they are quite subtly done.

Lets take the first example, from Tommy Davis' statements as quoted in the New York Times:

As for the defectors, Mr. Davis called them “apostates” and said that contrary to their claims of having left the church in protest, they were expelled.
Note the use of pejorative terms: "defectors" and "apostates". This is quite deliberate. This is "standard tech" in Scientology, attempting to alter the perception of Scientology and Scientology's enemies by subtle mental manipulation.

a·pos·tate [noun] a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.
Now get this, as part of this word's description:

Related words: deserter, ratter, recreant, renegade, turncoat
This is the label that the church wants everyone to associate with those who have left and who are critical of the church. It was very deliberately chosen for its negative meaning and association.

Of course, the term "apostate" is quite incorrect. Many of those who have left the church still consider themselves true Scientologists, and they still practice Scientology. By definition, they are not and never have been "apostates".

Naturally, the church disagrees:

Mr. Davis said there is no such thing: “One can’t be a Scientologist and not be part of the church.”
But, of course, he doesn't get to define who is and who is not a Scientologist. Only the people themselves can make that determination. Obviously, if they still believe in and practice Scientology, they are not apostates.

So what term should be used?

There are several terms that more accurately describe those who have left. Some good ones are detractors, escapees, reformists, protesters or possibly rebels.

But these are Scientologists who saw abuse, crimes and fraud at the highest levels of the church, and saw that the church cannot and will not correct itself. The correct term for such people is whistle-blowers.

whis·tle-blow·er [noun] a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.
The Church of Scientology will fight very hard to keep reporters from using this term, because whistle-blower has very positive connotations. The fact that "apostate" is quite inaccurate, and "whistle-blower" is quite accurate is immaterial. When you wish to manipulate people, you don't care too much about accuracy.

Another phrase the Church of Scientology has been throwing around a lot recently has to do with "ex-spouses". For example, again from the New York Times:

Joanie Sigal is a 36-year parishioner in Clearwater who promotes the church’s antidrug campaign to local officials. She said the defectors’ stories were like what you would hear “if I asked your ex-husband what he thought of you.”
Note, again, the attempt to manipulate public opinion by using negative images and terms.

(Now, personally, I think asking an ex-spouse about a person is a very good idea. There are many people who got into a bad relationship who wished that they had asked an ex-spouse, ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend about their prospective partner.)

But, of course, that's intentional misdirection by the church. This statement by the church is completely lacking in logic. This is nothing like marriage and divorce -- unless someone can have tens of thousands of ex-spouses!

What the church is fighting is thousands of ex-churchies who are all telling the same stories about the greedy demand for money, money, money coupled with pervasive lies and a consistent failure to deliver anything that the church has promised. More importantly, the church is fighting hundreds of Scientologists who worked at the highest levels of the church who are all telling the same stories about crimes, physical and mental abuse, human rights violations, lies and fraud by the Church of Scientology -- even by David Miscavige personally.

This is absolutely nothing like a disgruntled ex-spouse. Come on, nobody should be falling for that analogy!

The Church of Scientology desperately wants reporters to equate these incredibly serious charges with a private marital spat.

A few reporters fall for it. But not many, and fewer every day.

The charges levelled by these Scientology whistle-blowers are very, very serious. And it should be noted by everyone that the Church of Scientology has presented nothing except tricks to answer these accusations. They use loaded language, vague, unsubstantiated slander and misdirection instead of actually confronting and addressing the whistle-blowers' accusations. This is quite significant.

They will not answer these serious charges. They will not open up their compounds and their "RPF" prison camps for inspection. They will not permit any of their Scientology staff or public to talk to the press or to anyone about these things. They will not be open and honest about their organization, their hierarchy, their policies, their punishments, or anything, really, at all. All they have is tricks to manipulate people's opinions. Tricks.

Pay attention to these tricks, or you may find yourself unknowingly manipulated by the Church of Scientology. It's what they do.

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
Once again I am reminded of the great Wm. Shakespeare: "Methinks thou doth protest too much." We see right through the official line of scientology.


Gold Meritorious Patron
I must be an Apostate because there is no way I will ever call myself a Scientologist again. Even if it was all on DM which I do not believe. Am I a whistle blower? Yeah. I am that too.



Patron with Honors
...he doesn't get to define who is and who is not a Scientologist. Only the people themselves can make that determination. Obviously, if they still believe in and practice Scientology, they are not apostates.

So what term should be used?
The correct term is heretic.
Heresy is most associated historically with the Catholic Church, though other sects and religions also have heretics. It seems to me to fit the current situation in Scientology.

'Heresy' is not entirely self-determining, it also depends on public opinion. There are groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses whom most Christians regard as heretical but who themselves do not accept the label.

The CoS reaction to heresy has been identical to other organisations, with the amusing addition that it has actually Trade Marked the word 'Scientologist'.


Genuine Meatball
Just Bill said:
<snip> Joanie Sigal is a 36-year parishioner in Clearwater who promotes the church’s antidrug campaign to local officials. She said the defectors’ stories were like what you would hear “if I asked your ex-husband what he thought of you.” <snip>
Huh!? - The one single bad thing I can say about my ex-wife is that she was a scientologist.. And she has recovered from that.. heh..



LOL, Schwimmy. Yup. I am angry at my ex for a number of things, but they all go back to her being a scientologist.


Patron Meritorious
Evidence 101

You are right about the methods of Tommy Davis and how he is trying to discredit the critics. Davis however is clueless about how anyone outside the church reacts to those claims. Years ago, I bought the church's claim that you cannot believe anyone with a "vested interest" in a subject matter. This type of analysis was used to shut down critical thinking so that the message is automatically discredited.

Evaluating the credibility of a witness is not that simple. Tommy Davis seems to forget that he, more than any critic, has a "vested interest" in repeating his ludicrous claims yet he expects people to believe them. Ex-wives, apostates, convicted felons, accomplices and all sorts of scumbags of various sizes and degrees testify in court on a daily basis. The evidence they give is the basis of lengthy prison terms for many a dangerous felon. Most of the "crimes" Davis complains of (ethic material) concerning the critics would not even be admissible in court for various reasons. Most of his other complaints have little effect on the ultimate issues.

Davis, like most criminals, seems to forget that it is the church that created these witnesses. In a criminal conspiracy, all members of the conspiracy are guilty. If members of the conspiracy testify, it is not the police and prosecutors that have chosen these individuals as witnesses, but rather the other members of the conspiracy. The best evidence available is from those that participated in the crime. The testimony cannot be accepted or rejected out of hand but must be evaluated in light of all the evidence. The vast majority of critics are former members. Many have given their lives, their children, and their money to this organization. Davis cannot deny this. If they are crazy or evil, what does that say about the organization?

Davis has another problem. He is stuck with idiotic ramblings of LRH that he must accept as gospel. He is not that smart or polished and any lawyer would have a field day with him in court. In court, he will not be able to storm off the witness stands as he did with Martin Bashir. The idea that the subject is "offensive" to him is not legally relevant.

End of rant.

Arthur Dent

Silver Meritorious Patron
Interesting and valuable post, Ogsonofgroo. Today, I was just thinking about how the "thinking box" is created for scientologists. That thinking box is exactly how they manipulate such evils as actually convincing people that they need to separate from people from whom they really don't need to separate.

The amount of familial damage that is done as a result of this is unfathomable. And as far as I can see it is not even SEEN by scientology to a fairly marked degree because the perpetrators of this crime are often young people born and raised from within the church who know no difference! They are brought up with an hour of "family time" a day, if that.
Did they ever go fishing with their dad? Do they spend holidays together? Go on vacations to the beach together? Are they free to have long talks about anything?

They don't know what its like to have a "natural" relationship with a parent or child. How could they! They never see their own! And the long term damage they enforce trickles down (or pours down) to every other member of that scientologists's family, whether they are scientologists or not. Unknown families not seeing their relative for years. Never receiving birthday cards from someone they love. Never being able to help nurture their grandchildren. Cut off. How many nameless faces put in exile in proportion to the number of scientologists so "handled?" And for what? It is simply an administrative tool that serves the c of s's extreme paranoia. It has NOTHING to do with one's spiritual freedom!! Not a damn thing!

I believe the press is finally seeing is that Scn. has created every single bad PR situation it now has. But what it cannot see is that scn. cannot truly answer to the whistleblowers and reform as it is now too many generations deep! It has bred a cold, uneducated class of people, of which Tommy is a product. He has been "groomed" but it is very transparent and he looks the fool. Miss Cabbage has probably promised him the moon for his "loyalty" and he probably gets to boss others around.

Hopefully the press and the public can see through Tommy and the rhetoric.

Terril park

To further add to the OP, If I have not studied scientology per
COS I'm not qualified to speak or criticise COS. If I have studied scn
then per COS I am an apostate [ or ex hubby?!] and am not qualified
to criticise COS.

Thus it is not possible to criticise COS,


Well, in some universe that I'm not part of.

However, as a Heretic maybe I get a free pass? Oops!

By definition then I'm a furry rodent and an SP. :(