Scientology "Betrayal"

I was having a conversation with a Scientology troll the other day.  Well, I was trying to have a conversation, but the troll wasn't able to handle that and ended up just ranting insane gibberish.

However, something the troll said struck me.  This Scientologist was insisting that the ex-Scientologist whistle-blowers had "betrayed Scientology".  And, because of this "betrayal" the Church of Scientology was "justified" in its very vicious, unethical and illegal attacks against them.

"Betrayed?" Really? That's pretty harsh.  What, exactly, did the whistle-blowers actually do?

They told the truth.

The fact that stories of abuse and lies are totally true was confirmed by the Church of Scientology itself in the Headley trials.  The significance of the trials was summarized quite nicely in the article on Examiner.com: Scientology wins legal victory, loses public image war.

So, in spite of the fact that the whistle-blowers told the truth, they had, according to the Church of Scientology, betrayed the church!

This sounded familiar.  Where had I heard something like that before?

A little research and I found this:

The Blue Code of Silence (also known as the "Blue Shield") is an unwritten rule among police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes.  If questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer (e.g. during the course of an official inquiry), while following the Blue Code of Silence, the officer being questioned would claim ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing. [Wikipedia]

That's close, but not exactly it.

Then I found an even closer match:

Omertà is the mafia code of silence and secrecy that forbids mafiosi from betraying their comrades to the authorities. The penalty for transgression is death, and relatives of the turncoat may also be murdered.  For instance, a mafioso will not call the police when he is a victim of a crime. He is expected to take care of the problem himself. [Wikipedia]

There it is!  That's what the Scientology troll was talking about.  That is Scientology's definition of "betrayal".

Compare the above definition of omertà with the following excepts from Introduction to Scientology Ethics under the "High Crimes" section.  ("High Crimes" are the very, very worst crimes in Scientology):

It is a high crime if a Scientologist does:

• "Public disavowal of Scientology"
• "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists"
• "Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology"
• "Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist"
• "Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press."
• "Delivering up the person of a Scientologist ... to the demands of civil or criminal law."

Note that absolutely none of these "High Crimes" say anything about whether the accusations against Scientology or a Scientologist are true or not.  Scientologists may not report any crimes by other Scientologists to the police.

Scientologists are required to handle it all internally, within the church.

"But," you are asking, "what if the church doesn't handle it?  What if it is the leaders of the Church of Scientology who are committing the crimes and abuse?  What if the Church of Scientology blames you for being a 'victim' and punishes you and lets the perpetrator go unpunished?"

Makes no difference.  Scientologists may not report any crimes by other Scientologists to the police.

Take a look at these ex-Scientologists committing "High Crimes" by reporting Jan Eastgate (Senior Scientologist and President of CCHR) for covering up child abuse.  Yes, according to the Church of Scientology, Jan Eastgate is a "good Scientologist" and those who reported her crimes have "betrayed Scientology".

Does this sound like omertà?  Does this sound like a criminal organization "protecting its own"?

Time and time again, the Church of Scientology protects the criminals within its organization and attacks the whistle-blowers.

No matter how evil and corrupt a Scientologist is, you may not report him or her to the police.  Ever.  You may not sue them.  You may not speak of their crimes to the press.  You must remain silent or you will "betray" the Church of Scientology and they will viciously attack you and they will try to destroy you.  Just like the Mafia.

This is Scientology.  This is exactly how L. Ron Hubbard designed it.  This is exactly how David Miscavige runs it.  This is "Standard Scientology", straight out of Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
-

Who Will Lead the "Independents"?

Grown men do not need leaders.

                                                        Edward Abbey

Anyone who has read much in this blog will already know that I'm no longer a True Believer of Scientology.  If they have been paying attention, they would also realize that I am not, in actual fact, anti-Scientology (specifically, the belief system) either.

I think that some of Scientology can provide benefit to some people.  If a person wants to practice Scientology (and if they can avoid the abuses and fraud that Scientology seems to engender), then they should be allowed to do so.

Also, readers of this blog will know that I consider the Church of Scientology, and its leaders, to be criminal and fraudulent.

But now we have the self-named "Independents" who appear to want to reconstitute the Church of Scientology in a "reformed" version.  They want an organization.  They want a leader.

OK, so looking at this from the viewpoint of a Scientologist, how could one go about picking a good leader for Scientology?

Scientologists have a limited but lousy record in their choice of leaders -- specifically David Miscavige.  So far, they've "chosen" their leader by accepting whoever declared themselves leader.  To put it bluntly: They have been sheep.

If we pretend they have a choice and they have the will and power to choose their own leader, what qualifications should they look for in their new leader?

Let's try to be serious here and list what a sane group of Scientologists would see as important qualifications for their leader, shall we?  If I were a True Believer and if I were selecting a leader, I would want:

1. Someone who was personally trained by L. Ron Hubbard or, if no one was available, then someone who was directly trained by such a person.
2. Someone who has successfully completed all training and processing with excellent results and who has not been indoctrinated in any of Miscavige's "altered tech".
3. Someone who has successfully run a mission, an org and a Scientology "Continent" (group of churches/missions in one geographic area).
4. Someone who has a track record of successfully running a business in the real world.
5. Someone who has always fought David Miscavige and upheld "Standard Scientology" against Miscavige's rewrites, edits and corruption.
6. Someone who has never allowed or participated in any of the Church of Scientology's crimes, abuses or corruption.

Even with these qualifications, I see Scientology as doomed unless their new leader also is:

7. Someone who explicitly repudiates and rejects any and all Scientology policy that promotes the Scientology abuses, crimes, lies and fraud -- including disconnection, "Enemy" lists, "fair game" and all such anti-social policies.
8. Someone who acknowledges the crimes, abuses, lies and fraud committed previously by Scientology -- even those ordered or condoned by L. Ron Hubbard himself.

Not surprisingly, there do not appear to be any aspirants to leadership in the "Independents" movement who meet the criteria 1-6 and certainly none who meet the last two points.

Of course, these would be my criteria if I were a Scientologist and, before the "Independents" get their knickers in a twist, I would never tell them what to do.  Besides, there is no indication that any of these are actually desirable to the "Independents".

No, this is just an exercise in logical thinking.  I actually expect the "Independents" to use their previous method of choosing their leader: Don't look at a person's track record, don't look at what they've actually done, just accept whoever wants it the most and who says the correct-sounding things.  After all, that worked so well in the past.
-