Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

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.


  1. Brilliant. I hope the ex's who are speaking out somehow get to read what you have said and will use it.

  2. I had also noticed the wording used by the church to refer to its critics, and you analyze it cogently here; I hope you send this post as an email to the NYT reporter who wrote the story--you have to be very educated to understand the connotations of 'apostate'--I wouldn't assume even journalists define thoroughly. Or maybe I'm just a cynical old English teacher.

    It seems to me that the CoS, vis a vis the media, is very much in the position of the Mormon polygamists groups who cannot bear any scrutiny lest all the corruption and abuse rampant in their compounds be uncovered. No matter what T.D. is told to say, ordinary people get the picture of a church that has a lot to hide--at least I fervently hope I'm right about that. Even their "wall of celebrity" is cracking.

  3. Good stuff. I had forgotten that you wrote good articles. I just added your blog and RSS feed to my iCans blog sidebar. :)


  4. Just to point out some obvious irony...

    The Church of Scientology seeks to dismiss the critical accounts of former members by referring to them as bitter "ex-spouses". But of course the Church itself was quick to present the testimonies of the ex-spouses of defectors like Mike Rinder to detract from their stories.

    Oh Scientology, thy hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  5. You make an excellent point that we in the independent field have not taken advantage of.

    Whistleblower has an extremely positive connotation in today's culture. Every independent blog should be punching up the use of that term so that it becomes an integral part of the mantra describing activity outside the walls of the church.

    I will add that term to my blog also. I am already linked to this blog as it provides good advice.

    Keep up the good work!

  6. Dear Just Bill,

    Do you know what would make this whole thing just a little bit easier to handle??? If you were in the position to interview Tommy Davis. If it were only he that you were expressing the same thoughts to that you just verbalized to your readers in this article, in a one on one interview.

    I can just picture you cornering him without being afraid to ask the truthful questions that these "rockstar" reporters fail to ask. I could just see his face start to pucker up, with some insane words spewing from his mouth, tears running down his face, as he feverishly rips off his microphone and storms out on you. Sort of how he did in an interview not too long ago when he was questioned about Xenu only much, much, much more drama intensive.

    Experiencing such an event would be right up there with experiencing the birth of my one and only beloved daughter. And if you're a parent you know not much can come close to that.

    Who knows. Maybe someday????........

  7. Great Article, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. This is such an interesting topic. I wondered what the people involved in this article. Including the church, can comment about this.


Comments will be moderated. Have patience, I get around to it pretty quick. As a rule of thumb, I won't approve spam, off-topic, trolling or abusive stuff. The rest is usually OK. Yes, you can disagree with me.