Tommy Davis, Scientology Spokesman, Secretly Recorded Discussing 'Disconnection'

TommyDavisPhoto.jpg
Tommy Davis
The Village Voice has obtained an audiotape secretly recorded in December 2009 at a meeting between Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis and a man named Shane Clark. The purpose of the meeting: Clark was facing the prospect of being declared a "suppressive person" by the Church of Scientology, carrying with it the prospect of Clark being "disconnected" by his entire family, who are all Scientologists.

Just a year earlier, in May, 2008, Davis had appeared on CNN and claimed that the policy of "disconnection" does not exist. But in the audiotape he speaks openly about it, saying at one point, "It is what works. It is what safeguards the church."

Since that meeting, Clark, 30, has indeed been "declared" by the church, and his family -- his parents, his brother and his sister -- have all disconnected from him, cutting him out of their lives entirely.

Clark's crime? He was employed by a man named Marc Headley, a former Scientologist who defected in 2005 and subsequently became an outspoken critic of the organization.

In the recording, Davis makes it plain that unless Clark quits his job and disassociates himself from Headley, he will be declared a suppressive person, or "SP." According to church doctrine, Scientologists in good standing are not to communicate with people who have been declared SPs. To indicate the seriousness of the situation, at the beginning of the meeting, Davis announces that he is going to tape it. "I was going to record this, our conversation. I didn't know if you were aware of it. For both of our benefit," Davis can be heard to say.

What Davis was not aware of, however, was that Clark was also taping the meeting.

Clark's recording of the meeting was made available to the Voice some time ago by Headley, Clark's friend and now former employer. Since then, we have authenticated it, transcribed it, and turned a large portion of it into short movies so that our readers can view the words as Tommy Davis speaks them.

Last week, the Voice made numerous phone calls, left voice mail messages, and e-mailed Tommy Davis and the Scientology media desk seeking comment on this recording. We received no reply.

Tommy Davis was once a fairly ubiquitous face for Scientology, appearing on a CNN special series about Scientology last year, and also on widely seen programs in the UK and Australia. The son of Scientologist actress Anne Archer, Davis rose to become Scientology's chief spokesman following the defection of his predecessor, Mike Rinder, in 2007. In 2008, he appeared on CNN's morning show and was interviewed by anchor John Roberts. In the segment, Roberts asks Davis about the policy of disconnection, which critics of Scientology complain about:

"They claim that the church separates family members and there is this practice of 'disconnection,' where if you're a member of the Church of Scientology...and someone in your family, or a friend, or your spouse is skeptical or critical of the Church of Scientology you are supposed to disconnect yourself from that person," Roberts says.

Davis replies: "Well, first of all, this is a perfect example of how the Internet turns things and twists things. There's no such thing as disconnection as you're characterizing it...There isn't any such policy in the church that's dictating who people should or should not be in communication with. It just doesn't happen."

Davis was just repeating what church officials have said publicly for years, that L. Ron Hubbard's 1960s-era policy of disconnection was abandoned long ago. Davis was refuted, however, by director Paul Haggis, who had seen the spokesman's appearance on CNN: "We all know this policy exists," Haggis wrote to Davis in a 2009 letter announcing that he was leaving Scientology. "I didn't even have to look any further than my own home. You might recall that my wife was ordered to disconnect from her own parents ... although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them."

Davis, who was so prominent from 2007 to 2010, seems to have all but vanished in the last year. He has made no recent television appearences. Daniel Miller, a writer for The Hollywood Reporter, says that he communicated by e-mail with Davis between April and June of this year for a story. But otherwise, Davis has not been heard from. Former Scientologists speculate that he is at "Int," the organization's secretive desert headquarters, serving some kind of punishment by church leader David Miscavige.

JFeschbachKHolmes.jpg
Feshbach, with Katie Holmes
In December 2009, however, he was still an important, public member of Scientology's highest executive ranks when he met with Shane Clark at a building in Los Angeles. Davis arrived at the meeting with Jessica Feshbach, who is his wife and media relations colleague.

Feshbach is best known for her role as the Scientology handler for Katie Holmes, who was introduced to the church by her husband, Tom Cruise. Feshbach is often seen with Holmes, and they are said to be very close friends.

Shane Clark arrived to the meeting with his girlfriend, Ranna, who was a Scientologist. Clark was 29 at the time and no longer considered himself a practicing Scientologist after having worked for the church, but everyone else in his family were enthusiastic members. His parents had split up years before, but his father was still an active member, as was his sister, both of whom Clark saw often. His mother and brother are hardcore Sea Org members, who are required to sign billion-year contracts and promise to come back, lifetime after lifetime, to serve Scientology with abject devotion. Each were so dedicated, Clark had not seen his brother in nine years, and his mother only one time in that same nine year period, two years earlier.

And now, Clark knew he might be in some trouble with the church. For some time, he had been working for Marc Headley, a man who escaped from Scientology in 2005 and subsequently wrote a book about his experiences, Blown for Good. As we have written earlier, Headley's access to damaging information, in particular regarding church leader David Miscavige, made him a major concern to the organization. Headley had denounced the church in Germany, where the government has considered banning Scientology, and his media production business had become a kind of haven for other former members who needed to find employment outside the church. Headley and his wife, Claire, had also filed lawsuits against Scientology, claiming that they were owed money for being forced to work at sub-minimum wage for so many years while they were Sea Org members. (Sea Org members typically take home 40 to 50 dollars for a week that could reach 100 hours or more of work.) Those lawsuits were dismissed last year.

As you'll hear in the recordings, Clark explains that although his employer, Headley, is an outspoken critic of the church, Clark himself has not criticized the church publicly, even though he has some issues with its policies. In fact, to this day, Clark tells the Voice that he "bears no ill will to Scientologists" and told me he believes "most Scientologists are good people trying to help." But in the meeting, it was quite clear what the stakes were: if Clark didn't leave his job working for Headley, he would be declared a suppressive person, with the implication that his active Scientology family would disconnect from him.

"My being employed with Marc, my being associated with Marc was putting me in a position, in their mind, that they would protect other people by declaring me," Clark told the Voice last week in a telephone interview. "Oh, that was absolutely understood. My being declared meant that my family would have to disconnect from me. That was the point of the meeting."

In this first segment, introductions have already been made, and Davis has announced that he's taping the meeting. Now, note how Davis immediately brings up Clark's family as he begins to describe the situation that Clark is in. And then Davis makes a pretty surprising analogy, as you will see.

Tommy Davis Video 1 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

Davis has now established that, from the church's perspective, Headley is akin to a neo-Nazi, and Clark is a kind of collaborator. (Davis will come back to this theme a few more times.)

In the next portion of the recording, Davis quotes at length from an L. Ron Hubbard policy in regards to declaring someone a suppressive person. In particular -- and a part of the policy that Davis will repeat several times during the meeting -- is the notion that even if a person is not himself criticizing or harming the church, but is associating with someone who is, that in itself is grounds for being declared a suppressive person.

Then, in this next segment we've put into a movie, Davis explains why such a policy is needed, to protect the people who devote so much time and effort to the church. While making that point, Davis provides his justification for why Sea Org members live such austere (some would say abusive) lives.

Tommy Davis Video 2 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

As you'll see in the next segment, which occurs a few moments later, Clark does something remarkable -- he sticks up for himself. At several points during the meeting, in fact, Clark defends his actions and even questions Scientology's policies in remarkable moments of backbone. Remember, Clark is in a fairly intimidating position -- if the church declares him, he knows that his family is made up of people who take Scientology policy seriously enough that he may never see them again.

Tommy Davis Video 3 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

(There at the end, Ranna assumes that Davis is in the Office of Special Affairs -- Scientology's intelligence and covert operations wing, which also oversees the organization's public relations. But as chief spokesman, Davis is under a different branch of Scientology's alphabet soup structure.)

In this next segment, you'll see that Davis explains that he's not interested in debates about the church or its policies -- and then he provides a rapid-fire description of how massively Scientology is expanding (a constant refrain from Scientology officials which has repeatedly been debunked).

Davis then suggests that critics like Headley are only motivated by greed.

Tommy Davis Video 4 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

Davis's final statement there has a few eyebrow-raising elements to it. First, he tries to sound somewhat noble, saying that it would be "criminal" for Scientology to take money from people who could not benefit from its services, and does not do that. But we are reminded of the notorious case of Raul Lopez, where a brain-damaged man who hardly had the capacity to decide things for himself was bled dry by Scientology, which got its hooks into the $1.7 million he had received after injuries sustained in a car accident.

And again, we're starting to hear Davis repeatedly ask about what Clark's "values" are. Clark, in other words, has to decide whether he really cares about his own family -- because it is he, not the church, who is forcing the potential disconnection.

In the next portion of the recording, there is some discussion of the Marc Headley case, and his accusations about violence at Int base, which Shane says he saw with his own eyes when he worked there himself.

Davis steps in, however, saying that it isn't appropriate to discuss what happened at the base in front of Clark's girlfriend, who has not been there.

Instead, Davis wants to bring the focus back on Clark and his family, and now, in this next segment, you'll see that he and Feshbach begin to build a case that if Clark hasn't seen his family more, it's his own fault.

Tommy Davis Video 5 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

In the next section of the recording, after Shane says that quitting his job is not really an option, Feshbach speaks up and says that it's not just the job that is a problem, but Clark's association with Headley.

"We're talking about the bigger picture of the connection. If it really is that you need another job, I'll help you find another job," Feshbach says. "We do that all the time. Do you see what I mean?"

She goes on to say that the church has a duty to inform members of anything that could have a negative effect on the church. But Clark doesn't like the idea that he's being branded an enemy.

In the next segment, you will see that Clark boldly brings up the policy of disconnection itself and suggests that the church get rid of it, saying that nothing else causes the church more problems.

Davis then answers, you will hear, in skillful doublespeak: "Well, from the viewpoint of the people who are involved in being responsible for the breaking up of those families, I could see how you could have that viewpoint."

Tommy Davis Video 6 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

There at the end, Davis suggests that there are policies by which a Suppressive Person can get back in the good graces of the church (the "A to E steps"), again putting the blame for disconnection on the SP and not on the church itself.

There's some noise on the recording as Shane shifts in his seat, and then we go right into the next segment as Davis continues to explain that the blame for disconnection is on the wayward former member, not Scientology. In fact, Davis says, the idea that people are separated from their family by outside forces -- and not their own fault -- is "a bit of a lie."

Tommy Davis Video 7 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

During that segment, Davis speaks most directly about disconnection, justifying it as a legacy of L. Ron Hubbard and group survival:

"Anyway, I think I've sort of said my piece. I've read you the key policies, I've read you the one in terms of organizational suppressive acts...LRH puts it in historical precedence as it relates to groups, period, not just to Scientology. There's a reason groups do this, it's integral to their survival. Groups who don't do it get destroyed. And it's just been proven over and over and over again in Scientology's 58-year history...to whatever degree SP's scream about how horrible it is, bottom line, it is what works, it is what safeguards the church. And by virtue of the fact that people who are connected to suppressives do rollercoaster, cannot make gains, and are called potential sources of trouble, or sources of trouble for a reason, based on historical precedence, it isn't a policy that's going to change tomorrow, next week, next month, or ever."

The next segment immediately follows the last. Davis is starting to sound a little more forceful now. Clark's repeated objections about the nature of disconnection policy seem to be getting to him...

Tommy Davis Video 8 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

That last part by Davis bears repeating: "You're either the most stubborn, obstinate SOB I've ever met, or you have a two-digit IQ. I don't know how else to spell it out for you, man. I really, really don't. OK? You know, go pull out some law books, call an attorney: litigation is unpleasant. It really is. It just really is. And if you can't, and I'm not even making a threat. I'm not."

Not a legal threat? Well, if Tommy says so.

In the full recording, he then goes into a long description of the background of the Headley lawsuits. But then he waves them aside: "Let's take the whole lawsuit out of it, completely," he says. He then boasts that he's actually trying to put people together, not disconnect them.

"Believe me, I have put far more families back into communication than Marc," Davis says.

Ultimately, Davis says, It's Clark who is in violation of policy, and the next move is his choice. And as you'll see in this next segment, Tommy will take the Nazi metaphor in a surprising new direction.

Tommy Davis Video 9 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

It's now clear that they are at an impasse. "I've said what I think, and you guys obviously think I'm nuts," Shane says on the recording. His girlfriend, Ranna, now simply walks out.

Davis then seems to try to impress Clark again with how well the church is doing. He puts on a short video extolling the virtues of a new Scientology resort in Florida where church members will be able to rocket up "the bridge" to spiritual advancement.

But Shane reminds him that he's not really a practicing Scientologist anymore.

"I don't believe what most Scientologists believe," he says.

"That's your call," Davis replies.

"I would prefer not to get declared. That would be an issue probably with my sister, and probably my dad. At the same time I do need the job," Shane says.

And then, the final segment that we've put into a movie...

Tommy Davis Video 10 from Village Voice Media on Vimeo.

On the recording, we then hear Shane zip up a bag and then leave for his car. As he drives away, he calls Ranna and they talk about the meeting.

"In their eyes, it's 'my way or the highway.' No compromise. I have to stop working for Marc, or that's it," Shane says.

Shane didn't quit his job. Several months after the meeting, Clark learned that he had been declared a suppressive person by the church. His family immediately cut all ties to him.

"My dad was talking to me all the way until the point I was declared," he told me last week. "I had been debating with him the stories about COB -- David Miscavige -- beating people up. He would have none of it." ("COB" -- Chairman of the Board -- is one of ways Scientologists refer to Miscavige. "DM" is another.)

"We debated this for months before I got declared. Then I got declared and all of a sudden he wouldn't talk to me," Shane adds.

As we learned from the recording, he was already almost entirely cut off from his mother and brother, who are Sea Org members and too busy to do anything but work incredibly long hours for low pay (Headley, when he was at Int, says he worked more than 100 hours a week for a weekly salary of about $40.)

"They would argue that my mom and brother weren't talking to me because they were too busy saving the planet, and I wasn't on the same page with them. Which I understand. They wouldn't be lying if they made that argument," Clark says. "My mom is convinced that her mission is more important than her family." He assumes she's at the headquarters near Hemet, California, but he can't be sure. He says he has no idea where his brother might be.

Clark is now declared, but the reason for it no longer exists: Headley is no longer his boss. Headley sold the company recently, but he points out that Shane's new boss is also an SP. So he may not really be in a better situation.

I asked Clark how life is nearly two years after Tommy Davis told him he was the equivalent of a bartender serving drinks to concentration camp guards.

"I'm still in the same job. Living in a decent place. I have a new girlfriend. So things are good, actually. I have nothing the church can take away from me. There's nothing more that they do," he says.

But he adds that he would, at some point, like to see his family again.


tortega@villagevoice.com | @VoiceTonyO | Facebook: Tony Ortega

See all of our recent Scientology coverage at the Voice

Keep up on all of our New York news coverage at this blog, Runnin' Scared

Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice. Since 1995, he's been writing about Scientology at several publications. Among his other stories about L. Ron Hubbard's organization:


The Top 25 People Crippling Scientology
#15: Andreas Heldal-Lund (and other old time church critics)
#16: Marc and Claire Headley, escapees of the church's HQ
#17: Jefferson Hawkins, the man behind the TV volcano
#18: Amy Scobee, former Sea Org executive
#19: The Squirrel Busters (and the church's other thugs and goons)
#20: Trey Parker and Matt Stone (and other media figures)
#21: Kendrick Moxon, attorney for the church
#22: Jamie DeWolf (and other L. Ron Hubbard family members)
#23: Ken Dandar (and other attorneys who litigate against the church)
#24: David Touretzky (and other academics)
#25: Xenu, galactic overlord


The Larry Wollersheim Saga -- Scientology Finally Pays For Its Fraud
The Tory Bezazian (Christman) Story -- How the Internet Saved A Scientologist From Herself
The Jason Beghe Defection -- A Scientology Celebrity Goes Rogue
The Robert Cipriano Case -- A Hellacious Example of Fair Game
The Paul Haggis Ultimatum -- The 'Crash' Director Tells Scientology to Shove It
The Marc Headley Escape -- 'Tom Cruise Told Me to Talk to a Bottle'
The Aaron Saxton Accusation -- Australia turns up the heat on Scientology
The Jefferson Hawkins Stipulation -- Scientology's former PR genius comes clean
The Daniel Montalvo Double-Cross -- Scientology lures a young defector into a trap
A Church Myth Debunked -- Scientology and Proposition 8
Daniel Montalvo Strikes Back -- Scientology Hit with Stunning Child-Labor Lawsuits
When Scientologists Attack -- The Marty Rathbun Intimidation
A Scientologist Excommunicated -- The Michael Fairman SP Declaration
The Richard Leiby Operation -- Investigating a reporter's divorce to shut him up
The Hugh Urban Investigation -- An academic takes a harsh look at Scientology's past
Giovanni Ribisi as David Koresh -- A precedent for a Scientology-Branch Davidian link
Janet Reitman's Inside Scientology -- A masterful telling of Scientology's history
The Western Spy Network Revealed? -- Marty Rathbun ups the ante on David Miscavige
Scientology's Enemies List -- Are You On It?
Inside Inside Scientology -- An interview with author Janet Reitman
Scientology and the Nation of Islam -- Holy Doctrinal Mashup, Batman!
Scientologists -- How Many of Them Are There, Anyway?
Roger Weller's Wild Ride -- Scientology When it was Hip
The Marc Headley Infiltration -- A Scientology Spying Operation Revealed
Placido Domingo Jr: Scientology's Retaliation is "Scary and Pathetic"
An Interview with Nancy Many, Former Scientology Spy
The Paulien Lombard Confession -- A Scientology Spy Comes Clean
The Deputy Benjamin Ring Hard Sell -- Scientology wants your 401K
The Top 25 People Crippling Scientology -- the whole series!
The Squirrel Busters Busted -- Unmasking the Scientology PI in Charge


My Voice Nation Help
217 comments
JC1ONLY
JC1ONLY

OMG!!! I FINALLY AGREE with a Scientologist about something! Tommy Davis SAID it...IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!! EVERYTHING these children of satan say & do is about money:  getting it, keeping it, spending it on the upper levels... After reading all LRH's crap decades ago, I still can't believe people, especially Americans, who were born to value personal freedom, follow it. (But then, there was Hitler, etc., etc., etc., and I do believe David Miscavige is even more evil than Jones, Koresh, & Manson combined). NB:  all it takes for evil to flourish... good people doing nothing! If you agree, fight them whenever, however, you can!!!

jason.ford
jason.ford

Well, this looks like his own fault for being a part of this cult in the first place. I dont feel sorry for him at all.

jason.ford
jason.ford

Well, this looks like his own fault for being a part of this cult in the first place. I dont feel sorry for him at all.

Rachuk
Rachuk

Mike needs to find a well paid job, and scientologists are disconnected , from everything that is wholesome, im not saying the world is, but based on what Ive read of Ron Hubbard he was so rapped up in lying , i doubt he could ever tell the truth about anything.  His loyal subjects are being taught the same.

superfleatroyinbuffalony
superfleatroyinbuffalony

JustCallMeMary really nailed it in her comment "This is what the church does., This is what happened to Shane Clark and thousands of other former members over the past 60 or so years. Hubbard created this when people caught on to what he was doing early on. He trashed their names and required others not associate. When he concocted a church framework for the business of Dianetics and Scientology, he carried ths practice over and it became POLICY. Disconnect was NEVER cancelled. You can read all about it in your PTS SP course materials"    Very well stated!!!!!!    Your comment reminds me of the "stress Test" stations that make no mention of Scientology.   If people "caught on" they would have fewer suckers.

Justin
Justin

Man why are so many unhappy people taking out their shit on scientology, I'm not a scientologist, I'm an atheist. But the amount of shit scientology gets because it's members are happy successful, kind motivated people is unbelievable next time you start slashing anybody off whether it's a religion or otherwise take a break from your windows computer and take a look in the mirror and ask yourself "what the f*ck is wrong with me" I think Scientology has a lot of great stuff to offer people and I think the only reason it gets crap from people is because it's dared to call itself a religion but why not others called themselves religions , yes there was a day when there were no religions and then wham they were formed just like scientology, often like scientology for the greater good of man and sadly often for the sake of meeting little choir boys (other religions).Words like SP and Dislocate sound pretty harsh, so let me say that dislocate means "staying away from someone that that is making you feel like sh*t because they're angry bitter blah blah you know the type and if you're smart you probably don't hang with them anymore, SP suppressive person is like hmmmm a bitter angry moaning f*ck you know the type and if you're smart you probably keep your distance unless you work with one as your boss in which case leave the company man because that mood-vamp will suck your life away. Being happy aint always easy.

Eric
Eric

Mike,

I admire your persistence, I really do. Please believe me, I am not attacking you personally.

I do not think I need to answer point for point as most of the answers you require are in the 'Final Report of the Enquete Commission on "So-Called" Sects and Psychogroups - New Religious and Psychogroups in the Federal Republic of Germany'. This report is hosted on American soil by American Buddha, so you don't have to brave the Federal Republic mainly German language website.

In this report, you'll find the Scientology Organisation in good company with many other esoteric organisations. This should dispel the false myth that the Federal Republic singles out and persecutes CoS. There are plenty of other candidates.

CoS is under scrutiny not by the government or a specialised commission, but by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Wikipedia has a pretty informative entry that'll tell you exactly whots this intelligence agency does.

The Hamburg Court found that Co$ was essentially a commercial enterprise. To this day, CoS has failed to overturn this judgement, despite many appeals.

Please note, organisations such as Freezoners are in no way under scrutiny. They may practice scientology to their hearts content in Germany.

Finally, if I may give you some advice for your own personal welfare. If you have the time and/or the inclination, check out Robert J Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform. I hope you find them as informative as I did.

Have a good day.

Mike
Mike

(I wanted to re-post this here as I originally made this is reply to Eric). The German government tried for decades to get Scientology banned.  They even formed a special commission whose sole purpose was to find evidence that Scientology posed a threat so that they would have a constitutionally enforcable ban on the Church.  Do you know what the commission found after a dedicated 10 years of intense investigation?  They found nothing.  They found no documentable evidence to ban Scientology.  They could not even find substansive circumstantial evidence to keep the Commission alive as they were denied funding a few years ago and was decommissioned.The German Federal Government and local governments actually had laws that singled out the Church and its members.  Scientologists had to say they were Scientologists before entering into any job interviews --  something that would not be tolerated in this country (any any freedom loving country).  And yet you defend these actions.  This shows how blind your bigotry makes you.  The German government found nothing.  NOTHING!  After ten years of investigations.  TEN YEARS!  They could not find one violation of the German Constitution.  That was all they had to do for a ban: one (1) constitutional violation.  One violation that they could prove.  A criminal violation would also suffice.  But they could not find one.  Not one.Because in order for the ban to be substansive the Commission needed something real, not blind accusations from malcontents, money grabbing former members, bloggers looking to increase their traffic or hearsay that are promulagated on "anti" (re: biased) web sites and/or anonymous (both verb and noun) web site chat rooms.Why should the Church bend their rules just to accomadate Shane?  The Church is very clear and Shane is an adult who understands that his actions have consequences.  he made his decision.  The Church gave him ample oppurtunity to change his mind.  They did not have to meet with him.  In every step of Shane's employment process he was well aware of the consequences of his actions.  I know I am the only Scientologist supporter on this forum.  But I cannot believe that there is not one of you "critical thinkers" -- that can (1) see the bigotry in the German governments actions, (2) that Shane knew what he was doing and it is he who is responsible for his actions and ramifications; (3) that Christians do not shun people or family members for being non-believers (Scientology did not invent the word "shun" or coin the phrase "persona non grata"; and, finally the question that everyone seems to be avoiding: (4) That all of you would take a job knowing, emphasis on knowing, that the action would alienate your family. And that is being called "warped logic"?

JustCallMeMary
JustCallMeMary

Tony, I just thought you and your readers would want to know that this story was picked up today by Beliefnet and they link back to here.Village Voice: Tape proves Church of Scientology has lied about shunning pariahs

posted by Rob Kerby, Senior Editor | 3:14pm Sunday September 4, 2011 

I just love the title. So appropriate. Thanks for getting the word out there about this.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Ironic, is it not, to hear Davis compare Shane to a Nazi collaborator, when you consider that he is sitting there threatening a man's livelihood and his relationships, sounding for all the world like some poorly educated Gauleiter of the the Nazi Third Reich, mumbling about 'policy'.

(A further irony is, of course, that the threat is meaningless, since his fellow thugs control all access to Shane's family, and he never gets to see them anyway - that's 'policy' for you).

Here's another piece of irony: Those criminals Davis refers to as being welcomed back to the CoS - those were the people at the top of an organisation behind the attempt to destroy the life of an innocent  woman, who just happened to be a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust.

Disgusting creep.

Eric
Eric

Have you noticed what TD says about Marc Headley and Germany? I quote: "[...] yes, this is evidence, Mark Headley got on an airplane, paid for by the German government, flew to Germany, and spoke at a conference run by a woman whose sole job is to dismantle the church of Scientology in Germany. That's real people with real lives. [...] Children who get kicked out of school. Men and women who lose their jobs because of the German government's policy."

The organisation's warped logic is evident. In their eyes, it's not CoS's activities that are in violation of the German constitution, it's the German government that has a policy against CoS. Do they truly expect the German government to change the constitution to accommodate CoS and other anti-constitutional splinter groups?

TD and JF use the same argumentation when approaching Shane Clarke, it's not they who need to change position, no, they expect him to bend to their demands. This is the argumentation of a totalitarian state. Are you listening, Mike?

Fact is, CoS is under scrutiny by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution exactly because of CoS doctrine and acitivites, because of their intransigent views and their aggressive infiltration tactics. L. Ron Hubbard was no friend of democracy, simply because democracy means dissent and discussion. No dictator wants that, he wouldn't be in power for long.

Now, to "the woman whose sole job is to dismantle the church of Scientology". Davis is talking about CoS's enemy number one in Germany: Ursula Caberta, head of Taskforce Scientology in Hamburg (the task force was disbanded in 2010 because of cuts but Caberta still works in Hamburg's Interior Ministry, so she is still on CoS's heels).

If I understand correctly, the role of the taskforce was (a) to observe CoS activity in Hamburg and advise the local government on how to handle CoS, (b) to inform the public about CoS and the danger of cults, and (c) to help cult members escape from the sect and assist them with deprogramming and counseling. Caberta and her team have helped more people to leave the cult than anyone else.

The conference in question - What is Scientology? Reports from the USA" - was held by Caberta in September 2008 in Hamburg and apart from Mark Headley, the speakers invited were Larry Brennan, Graham E Berry and ... Jason Beghe.

Now this conference caused a huge rumpus within CoS. They tried every trick in the book to prevent Beghe from boarding the plane, high rank and file then flew to Hamburg and Kendrick Moxon was dispatched to the Hamburg court to force the presence at the conference of said rank and file by court injunction. The plea was rejected and the confenrence went ahead as planned, with Beghe speaking. A debacle for CoS and their program to 'clear' Germany.

Caberta's remark at the time, namely that you wouldn't invide drug pushers and dealers to speak at a conference about drug abuse and drug rehabilitation, is telling. You will find snippets of this conference on youtube.

Looking at the quote, It is clear that Ursula Caberta has seriously gotten under Davis's skin.

On another note, Mr Ortega, if I may, I would motion that Ursula Caberta deserves a place among the to top twenty-five people crippling Scientology.

Always pleased to read your aticles.

Mike
Mike

People seem to think that Scientology is responsible for this situation.  But the reality is that it is not.  Shane chose to seek employment with an enemy of his family's church.  He knew before he took the job with Headley what that meant, both to his family and to his Church.  he knew, therefore he is responsible for this condition.  Not the Church.

I can assure all of you that right now at this writing, there are families torn asunder from other less potent causes other than religion.  Everyone here on this forum, in their lifetimes knows at least one family that has been ripped apart by something other than Scientology. A death, a divorce, an illness, a crime...In this case Shane chose to align himself with someone that his family would consider an enemy. 

Out of all the possible places to work, the thousands of "want ads", the myriad of web sites promising employment...Shane chose Marc Headley.

Knowing Marc Headley was "persona non grata" amongst all Scientologists...Shane chose Marc Headley.

After a meeting with Tommy Davis (btw a meeting that did not have to take place), where the Church gave him ample opportunity to recant, laid out in many different ways the position of the Church, explained to him the effect it would have on his family...Shane chose Marc Headley.

Knowing full well the implications of his actions and how it would alienate his family...Shane chose Marc Headley.

Don't put this on the Church.  This is Shane's situation, pure and simple.

bulldog
bulldog

Mike, I am not a Scientologist so I don't understand your policies. But what I do understand is, "Love." My family would never let a religion come between us, especially my mother.That's why I think Scientology should reform from the "Disconnection" policy. Stop trying to save the planet and start saving the poor families that have been disconnected! I have a feeling you can do this.

And as for Tommy, he was pretty much on his best behavior on those tapes (you know he's a tyrant) because he was going to use them in court, if need be.

Mike
Mike

This is an article about nothing.  Tommy Davis DID NOT say that "disconnection" does not exist (note: I am a scientologist, I do not work for OSA nor am I hear on behalf of any church, I am representing my own opinion).  Stan knew what he was getting into.  He is not some innocent who got himself involved in something he did not know about.  He knowingly put his relationship with his family at risk.  The COS is giving him every oppurtunity to re-cant, to handle the situation.  And Stan is willing to knowingly foresake his own family just because he is getting a paycheck from an avowed enemy of what his family firmly believes in.  Why isn't he being called to task?

Stan is basically saying,"I am willing to work for an avowed enemy of my family in order to make some money."

And Tommy Davis sits with him and gives him every opportunity to get him to change his mind and he still let the door open to him...yet it is the COS that is wrong here?  If more people adopted the COS philosophy how many people would choose to work for drug dealers?  the black market? or even the IRS? I know that may seem like a stretch but think about it for a minute.

The problem with the world today is because there are guys like "Stan" who are willingly and knowingly giving up a moral or ethical philosophy, essentially turning his back on his own family... just to earn a buck.  How many of YOU would do that?

Joe Allen
Joe Allen

 Nah, you would like us to think you're an atheist. You're a scientologist.

Mike
Mike

Eric;

You said,"In this report, you'll find the Scientology Organisation in good company with many other esoteric organisations. This should dispel the false myth that the Federal Republic singles out and persecutes CoS. There are plenty of other candidates..."

OK, how many other 'esoteric organisations' had a dedicated commission formed whose sole purpose was to find tangible evidence to ban it?  That answer should dispel your myth.

BTW, I am not opposed to people who do not subscribe to being a Scientologist.

JustCallMeMary
JustCallMeMary

Shane was unwittingly disconnected from his Sea Org mother and brother by the hand of the Sea Org long before he was shunned for working for Marc Headley.  Pathetic

If I were still a scientologist, I would pink slip you to word clear the definition of a cult.

Mike
Mike

If by appropriate you mean "not true".

Mike
Mike

Eric;The German government tried for decades to get scientology banned.  They even formed a special commission whose sole purpose was to find evidence that Scientology posed a threat so that they would have a constitutionally enforcable ban on the Church.  Do you know what the commission found after a dedicated 10 years of intense investigation?  They found nothing.  They found no documentable evidence to ban Scientology.  They could not even find substansive circumstantial evidence to keep the Commission alive as they were denied funding a few years ago and was decommissioned.

The German Federal Government and local governments actually had laws that singled out the Church and its members.  Scientologists had to say they were Scientologists before entering into any job interviews --  something that would not be tolerated in this country (any any freedom loving country).  And yet you defend these actions.  This shows how blind your bigotry makes you.  The German government found nothing.  NOTHING!  After ten years of investigations.  TEN YEARS! 

They could not find one violation of the German Constitution.  That was all they had to find to commence with a ban: one (1) constitutional violation.  One violation that they could prove.  A criminal violation would also suffice.  But they could not find one.  Not one.

Because in order for the ban to be substansive the Commission needed something real, not blind accusations from malcontents, money grabbing former members, bloggers looking to increase their traffic or hearsay that are promulagated on "anti" (re: biased) web sites and/or anonymous (both verb and noun) web site chat rooms.

Why should the Church bend their rules just to accomadate Shane?  The Church is very clear and Shane is an adult who understands that his actions have consequences.  he made his decision.  The Church gave him ample oppurtunity to change his mind.  They did not have to meet with him. 

In every step of Shane's employment process he was well aware of the consequences of his actions.  I know I am the only Scientologist supporter on this forum. 

But I cannot believe that there is not one of you "critical thinkers" -- that can (1) see the bigotry in the German governments actions, (2) that Shane knew what he was doing and it is he who is responsible for his actions and ramifications; (3) that Christians do not shun people or family members for being non-believers (Scientology did not invent the word "shun" or coin the phrase "persons non grata"; and, finally the question that everyone seems to be avoiding: (4) That all of you would take a job knowing, emphasis on knowing, that the action would alienate your family. 

And that is being called "warped logic"?

Jorge
Jorge

"The organisation's warped logic is evident...Do they truly expect the German government to change the constitution to accommodate CoS and other anti-constitutional splinter groups?.....This is the argumentation of a totalitarian state. .....Fact is, CoS is under scrutiny by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution exactly because of CoS doctrine and acitivites, because of their intransigent views and their aggressive infiltration tactics. L. Ron Hubbard was no friend of democracy, simply because democracy means dissent and discussion. No dictator wants that, he wouldn't be in power for long."

These are a few amazing points.... bump for longeveity of the post!!!   

Rebecca
Rebecca

Mike,

You are not going to be able to convince many people that it is acceptable to ask a person to choose between his job and his family. This kind of thing is why people are leaving Scientology in droves. Wake up and smell the coffee. 

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

You are so full of shit, we all decided to name an outhouse after you. It's called the Enturbulator.

David Miscavige is bringing this all down on himself. There's no one else for him or for you to blame for the mess you're in right now. And it's only going to get worse.

Mike
Mike

Well Bulldog kudos to you.  You start out by saying you do not understand our policies but you want us to change them?  That's like telling a mechanic I don't know how to do a tune-up but you need to change your tune-up procedures.  I understand the policies very well and they are not as draconian as you are being led to believe.  You have no idea how the disconnection policy is implemented and I can assure you that Scientology has saved countless families. 

bulldog
bulldog

He shouldn't have to give up his job or family for the sake of his religion. Why can't he have both? Who cares if he decides to leave, it's his choice. Why do these people keep grilling him? My gawd, leave the poor man alone!

Just wish him well and let him walk out the door. And don't send your Squirrel Buster people after him, because that is just down right disgusting! :-(

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

Well, as they're essentially blackmailed with age-old brainwashing techniques, what the FUCK else did you expect them to do, eat beans and rice on a desert compound while botting responses like yours? 

Your Tower card just came up.

Enjoy the trip down.

Anna Asks
Anna Asks

Mike, 

What will you do when you've emptied your bank account and are pressured to take out loans to help build orgs or take more courses?  

What will you do when your children are pressured (without you present) to sign a billion-year contract at age 13, leave school, and file Knowledge Reports on your actions?

What will you do when you are declared and then dead-agented out of your auditing files with your deepest secrets (much exaggerated and with photoshopped shock pictures), which will be sent to all of your friends, employers, and neighbors, and family?

Will you take a job with a person who understands the terms "fair game" and "dead agent" and can afford to keep you employed even if that harassment affects your work, or would you bend over and say "thank you please may I have another" and deal with the "Church" knowing if you cross them again you have more of the same coming to you?

What will you do when you're ordered to get a divorce?  Spy on a friend or family member? Mortgage your house until you're underwater?

Best to you!

Anna

Mike
Mike

That would be sad if it were true.  But it is not.  Shane knew exactly what he was doing when he took that job.  Would you take a job if you knew it would alienate your family?

JustCallMeMary
JustCallMeMary

Not at all. Don't distort what i wrote. By appropriate I mean related correctly to the story and situation. Yes, it's true.The church forces disconnection ( shunning ) on those they cast out, on those who willingly associate with those who are considered outcasts, and on those who leave and do not follow the church dictates any longer. Perhaps you don't know what a pharah is? In the world of scientology it is one who is considered a social outcast and made to be one by virtue of being shunned by loved ones and friends.

This is what the church does., This is what happened to Shane Clark and thousands of other former members over the past 60 or so years. Hubbard created this when people caught on to what he was doing early on. He trashed their names and required others not associate. When he concocted a church framework for the business of Dianetics and Scientology, he carried ths practice over and it became POLICY. Disconnect was NEVER cancelled. You can read all about it in your PTS SP course materials.

Mike
Mike

*chuckle*

bulldog
bulldog

I know, I'm just a dumb Wog! Just learned today that's what Scientologist call us. I really don't know what that means? Is it bad?

Anyway, I have a lot to learn, that's why I'm here. I still can't believe you have never witness any disconnections. The YouTube videos of exmembers testimonies have literally brought me to tears! These people are in pain, I can see it in their eyes and hear it in their voice. This is a matter of great concern to me. And I feel it should be a concern to you too. Why are so many veteran members leaving? You really need to look into this with an open heart.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

And I know people who suffered due to the inhumane polices of Scientology.

You're an apologist for a monster.

Mike
Mike

Further, you ask why they "keep grilling him".  Why?  Because they care enough to take the time and make it very clear to him their position.  If they were truly heartless they would just send him a letter and be done with him.  They took the time to meet.  To try and get him to change his mind.  To get him to see exactly what it is he was doing.  Giving him church policy, data on Headley.  And he still choose headley over his family.  It is Shane's decision.  And the thing is, the door is still open for him.

Mike
Mike

Bulldog, it is not as if he just went off to a Lowe's got a job and then found out something.  He knew exactly what he was getting into.  Shane (I called him "Stan" in my post) made the conscience decision BEFORE he took the job to foresake his own family.  It was his decision.  He knew about Headley, he admitted it.  He knew about Scientology policy.  Would you foresake your family for a job?

Mike
Mike

Robin;Wold you forsake your family for a job?

Mike
Mike

Anna;Would you forsake your family for a job?

Mike

Thoughtful Peasant
Thoughtful Peasant

Newcomer into the fray..I've been lurking around different sites/blogs about Scientology for quite a while now, watching from the sidelines. I am not a Scientologist,nor am I affiliated with any organized religion,just an observer. Today I came across this blog in my travels and have found the comment section a great mirror for differing opinions on the issue. Reading this section, I was just about ready to start yelling at the screen on how Mike's version of never defend,always attack seemed to be keeping things from the most salient point for me,which is that Shane was pretty much cut off from his family ANYWAYS, so his moral convictions were all that was left for him. Thanks, Mary, for cutting to the heart of it. What did he have left to lose?If he gave in to the bullying, he would be no further ahead...no sudden,happy reunion with mom and bro, and dad isn't gonna start dropping by on the regular..he'd just be back under the thumb of CoS, and sending them more cash for the auditing needed because of his "outs"... I just want to give a shout out to those who have brought self determination back into their lives, to those who figure that they do not need the grand scheme of a church to determine their self worth, or the umbrella of an organization to do good,and be good people. I am sure that there are many good people involved with churches/organizations,but when there are many inequities and abuses going on within the ...organization, then one is faced with a choice- defend the inequities at the possible expense of becoming tied into the alleged wrong doing because you have invested time, money and your ego into the premise that this institution/church/org represents, or take a look within yourself, and around you, to see if this organization truly reflects your beliefs, both positive and negative and if the consequences of those actions reflect the course of the life you want to live. I could go on and on..there is alot of pent up thought behind this post, but that is a start, if anyone is interested in my ever so humble opinion ;)  Carry on...

JustCallMeMary
JustCallMeMary

Try to get this straight once and for all: Scientology had already alienated Shane Clark from his family before he took the job. The Sea Org required his mother and brother devote all time, effort and communications toward their job. If anyone abandoned someone, it was his scientologist relatives.

Who pays your salary?

robert
robert

Bulldog, "Wog" is a bit of a derogatory term meant for non-Scientologists. In other contexts, it used to be a derogatory term referring to black people.  

You are taught in Scientology that you are Homo Novus, "new man", and inherently now more superior to the rest of the mere homo sapiens, the wogs.  That is part of what is accounting for the superior attitude you see some scientologists express.  They believe because they have been let in on the secret of life and you haven't, basically they are operating on a higher plane than you.

The people tasked to respond here on behalf of Scientology are almost invariably agents of their intelligence organization, the most rabid of the rabid, therefore.  So what they tell you may be deceptive or not completely true.  Often the people responding are here because they have committed errors in the eyes of Sci and they are what is called an "amends project".   If they tell you they have never witnessed disconnection, they are being dishonest outright, or parsing-"you have no idea how the disconnection policy is immplemented".  

The "shore story" to tell the public is that disconnection is the choice of the individuals involved.  But this situation shows how much of a lie this is.  If it was the free choice of Shane's family to do this because of his connection to Marc, then why did they continue to talk with him after he was employed by Marc, and only stop when he was "declared" by the organization?  Hmm, methinks more intellectual dishonesty by Mike.

greenmeenie
greenmeenie

That is a BS question. MANY children take jobs or lead lifestyles their parents don't agree with. TRUE loving families love & accept each other regardless. Even when their views, be they political or religious are sources of great contention. NO church or business has any right to impose policies that if broken, give THEM the right to split up a family. THAT is the bottom line. You can't flip the question and say its the persons fault that their family is taken from them! LOL. Such Orwellian double speak coming from the mouths of these Scientology defenders. It's amazing.

greenmeenie
greenmeenie

That is a BS question. MANY children take jobs or lead lifestyles their parents don't agree with. TRUE loving families love & accept each other regardless. Even when their views, be they political or religious are sources of great contention. NO church or business has any right to impose policies that if broken, give THEM the right to split up a family. THAT is the bottom line. You can't flip the question and say its the persons fault that their family is taken from them! LOL. Such Orwellian double speak coming from the mouths of these Scientology defenders. It's amazing.

Steny
Steny

The Church has no frigging business messing with his family.  If the cult messed with my family behind my back we would be out of there in a flash.  What frigging bastards you are to mess with families.   If I want to go to a Lutheran church next week for a change, you a-holes want to take my family for that?  F-you.  Rot in hell.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

Would you take this E-Meter and put it where the sun don't shine?

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

Would you accept an expensive brainwashing program advertised as a religion?

My resounding answer, and that of the overwhelming majority of posters at this blog, is a resounding "YES!"

subgenius
subgenius

How's the brainwashing working for your spelling Mike?

Mike
Mike

Thank you for the compliment "guest".  Being a Scientologist is a privelige.  Just because you and your brethren do not understand that, doesn't mean it is wrong. 

Mike
Mike

CJ, all I want to know is this: would you take a job knowing it would alienate your family?

Mike
Mike

Perhaps I am defending Tommy, perhaps I am just pointing out the fact that Shane put himself in this position.  He knew the ramafications.  Would you take a job that you knew would alienate your family?  I would like someone to answer this honestly.  I think for the majority of you, the answer would be a resonding "no"!

guest
guest

You're like any other scientologist Mike. You're defending Tommy Davis' actions while he's threatening Headley. You're probably one of those osa guys that I heard of.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

Standard Scientology tactic—he's trying to bully you.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

But will the door open for you, high in the Tower, as the flames surround you?

Will you have to jump?

Can you survive?

C.J>
C.J>

In response to both your posts above, Mike,  you are exhibitiing 5 or 6 personality characteristics and mental behavioral tactics that are not conducive to either successful persuasion or to personal debate gratification, at least according to obvious target goals you have described in posts above.

What are you trying to achieve, at least in subtext?  Perhaps that is where I am mistaken in  my diagnostic track.  CJ

greenmeenie
greenmeenie

You keep repeating this question in an obvious attempt to deflect, but let me ask YOU the same question...WHAT respectable church in ANY religion would break up a family over a job? The answer? NONE. No church. No business. No human...has the right to do that to ANYONE.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

So, when you were first involved with Scientology you were aware of the creation myths of Scientology? Were you aware of L. Ron Hubbard's involvement with the O.T.O.? Were you aware of how many things—lack of a college degree, no heroic battle wounds, other blad-faced fabrications—LRH lied about? Can you ever really find out within Scientology? Or are you currently imprisoned in all these lies?

Jill
Jill

Well, if it's a choice between living in George Orwell's 1984 (i.e. Scientology), where nothing can be trusted and all is betrayed to Big Brother, where no love is possible without selling your soul, then you should RUN FUCKING SCREAMING away from that!!Tacit acceptance of Stalin/Orwell style existence is in itself the gravest of violence against humanity.  At that point, the true hero walks away to spare some shred of integrity in the hell of that twisted reality.  If your family is unable to wake up from the delusion, you have to walk away. They are nothing but empty shells at that point, and you are serving them better by living true and free, rather than as a slave. 

robert
robert

He already had the job and it hadn't alienated his family.

There was no alienation until the "Church" stepped in to cause it.  Get your timeline straight and stop with the false postulates. 

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

You took on the job you are now performing, being an apologist for a criminal enterprise.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

Let's see, how do I blow off this yob . . .

Nightmare Paint? No . . .

Here's some bananas but I'm not hungry—I'VE GOT IT!!!

I'll youse da old Babylonian Mirror trick!

Woiks every time!

David Miscavige has set himself up as the classic Termite Terrace villain, a Wile E. Coyote, a Marvin the Martian. Living in a world of delusion DM has utterly convinced himself that he is a genius, while in fact he's not even half-smart. If he was anywhere near intelligent his policy of brute intimidation would never get off the ground, he would know better than to put himself in the cross-hairs of the law by smacking his subordinates around as if they were trapped in a Three Stooges movie.

However, as DM's minions are trained to be JUST AS SMART AS DM there is no possible conclusion to his affairs other than TOTAL FAIL.

I visualize DM spending the rest of his life in the same facility as Phil Spector. 

DM is exactly what Dante Alighieri had in mind when he designed the ninth circle of hell.

subgenius
subgenius

OT powers no help for your spelling Mike. To answer your question: if my family was in a mind control cult and tried to control my actions by withholding their love I would certainly not comply with their demands.If you are brainwashed would you know it?

Mike
Mike

Would you take a job if you knew it would alienate your family?

Mike
Mike

Realy Heather?  His integrity?  Shane took the job knowing it would alienate his family.  Would you do that?  Where was his integrity then?  Is it showing integrity when you decide to side against your family?  The church did not manufacture this problem.  Shane did when he took the job.  What is so hard about that concept to understand?  This is where your bigotry overwelms your sense of logic.  You just cannot grasp the fact that it was Shane who made this decision.  HE KNEW what would happen and he still took the job anyway.  Tommy Davis just does not want him to associate with avowed enemies of the Church.  Shane knows the ramafications of his actions

Mike
Mike

Robin, I didn't take the job.  Shane took the job knowing the ramafications.  Would you take a job knowing it would alienate your family?

Heather Grace
Heather Grace

You've mischaracterised the dilemma. It's not a choice between his family and his job. It's a choice between his family and his integrity. And not in a trivial sense. Worse, it's even - your family or your freedom. Because what Tommy and the church want is the power to choose who he can and can't be in relationship with.

His family would actually suffer no damage from being connected to him. It's only the church that is manufacturing a problem.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

YOU would make a family break up over a job—you are the motherfucking problem.

You.

You.

You.

You . . .

Nobody else. You can stop it, but you won't "for a job." A job for shitheels.

The way one deals with a psychotic attempting to enter your building is by telling them no until they go away. If they don't go away, you call the police.

No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No,No, No . . . .

Mike
Mike

Anna, honestly I do not know where you are coming from.  Your reality is so different from my reality. I see my family on Thanksgiving, Xmas and other holidays.  I really do not know what it is you are getting at.  Besides this doesn;t change the fact that Shane got himself into this situation.  He knew the ramafications of his actions.  Would you take a job that would alienate your family?

Mike
Mike

Yet there are many born-again families who do shun "non-believers".  It is not that unusual in Christian society.  In my family I am the only Scientologist.  I am not shunned.  I have never been asked to disconnect.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

Very well put Anna.

I've been out of the broom closet for decades. My Christian family members never gave me any grief over that. There's no contention at Christmas.

robinlandseadel
robinlandseadel

My question is—would I as a Government allow a employer whose demands for major human rights violations are a foundational tenant of its business policies and practices to continue to remain open for business?

The answer is a resounding no.

I would have the man running that business arrested immediately.

Anna Asks
Anna Asks

Mike, 

If you are a public Scientologist and haven't seen any of the stuff I mentioned yet, hold on to your hat because you're going to notice them.  You may have already, you just didn't put them in the box of "bad behavior" because they seem so justified when you're saving the world.  

See, you create a false postulate when you use the phrase "forsake your family" because Scientology mandates you forsake your family.  Isn't one of the first things in the first courses you take something that requires you to surrender doubt and believe completely?  That you can't see any wins until you do?  

If my friends or family got into any religion that required people to erase any doubt **before** they could see any proof ("wins") then I would be working night and day to figure out how to help them out of that situation.  

Well-meaning people want to help people.  Well-meaning people may also accidentally be tricked into harming people.  No family member should be alienated over religious, scientific, or political issues.  I have a family that has members on two sides of a similarly contentious issue.  Yes, there's tension, and there are arguments at the Thanksgiving Day dinner table, but that's a blessing because we're actually together and talking.  Sure, that same argument might be rehashed and talked to death for the next 30 years, but no one in my family would ever "disconnect" over it.  If you're a public member and get to see your family on Thanksgiving and Christmas, birthdays and anniversaries, then you are LUCKY!!!  I reject your premise that the child of Scientologists has to quit their job when some religious official in their parent's church says so.  There only people "forsaking" family here are the people who let someone else decide if they're going to be allowed to communicate with loved ones ever again.

Honestly, I hope you're newly in, or at least haven't seen bad behavior yet (I know that it's hard for public to see some of it, but you just try to leave, as an experiment, and see how they treat you).  I hope your relationship with your family members is strong enough to weather what you are going through (or will be when your money runs out).

Anna

Mike
Mike

Further, your questions are not germane to the subject.  Without going into detail I am the person in my family that is a Scientologist.  I have never been asked to disconnect from anybody (a scientologist since 1989).  Nor have I experienced anything close to what you are describing.  If you have yourself experienced those things i am truly sorry as they do not reflect the actions of a church that I have been associated with since 1989.  I am sure that they are not as common as you describe.  There would not be much of a reach for a church do go through that has adopted that kind of a relationship with their brethren.

Mike
Mike

Anna;Thanks for the "are you still beating your wife?"-type questions.  There is no church on the planet that has the resources to do all of those scenarios that you describe.  Maybe the Justice department or the IRS, but not any private entity and certainly not a church that has other issues to attend to.

You said you would not "quit your job".  But that is not the case here.  He hired on being fully aware of what his actions would entail.  My question to you is easy and remains unanswered: would you foresake your family for the sake of a job?  Would you take a job knowing full well that by doing so you will alienate your kin?  Your mother?  Your brother?

Anna Asks
Anna Asks

Mike, 

I'll answer your question, but you answer mine too.

I would not quit my job because my father's priest told me that he was in a legal fight with my boss.  If my father's priest told me to quit my job or my family would no longer be allowed to talk to me I would be flabbergasted.  

If there were then subtle references to the fact that I would be harassed, I would call the police and FBI immediately.   However, I don't feel that there's anyone in my father's church I distrust so much (or have mutal distrust with) that either of us would want to record the conversation.Now you:

1. When you run out of cash will you begin taking out loans for your church, not really knowing how you can pay it back?  Have you been constantly regged or do you reg non-stop?  To the detriment of yourself or others?

2. Will you allow your church to recruit your children and have them sent away from you, knowing everything they say about you in confessional will go into YOUR file?  That even if you're not "disconnected" you may go nine years and only see them twice?

3. Are you prepared for harassment from your church, up to and including lies and your confidential confessional information.  Picture the worst thing you've ever talked about in auditing, and are you ready for that to be exaggerated and hung on flyers in your neighborhood and sent to your bosses?

4. Once you were threatened, would you trust your church again?

5. Would you do absolutely anything your church told you to, without question?  Including harming your marriage, family, friendships, and financial situation?

These aren't uncommon things - you've probably seen a few instances of several of these with your own eyes, no matter what area of the organization you are in.

Anna

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...