What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology (1 Viewer)

cstu

Footballguy
Link

This is a very good article about Haggis' battles against Scientology and Scientology in general. I'd post the whole thing but it's very long. A lot of Scientology's secrets are exposed, including the truth about L. Ron Hubbard's military career and subsequent healing (or lack thereof) from being blind and crippled. For those that don't know, Haggis is one of the best directors in Hollywood and directed Crash and Million Dollar Baby. Lawrence Wright wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning book "The Looming Tower" about the roots of Al Qaeda.

The Apostate

Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology.

by Lawrence Wright February 14, 2011

On August 19, 2009, Tommy Davis, the chief spokesperson for the Church of Scientology International, received a letter from the film director and screenwriter Paul Haggis. “For ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego,” Haggis wrote. Before the 2008 elections, a staff member at Scientology’s San Diego church had signed its name to an online petition supporting Proposition 8, which asserted that the State of California should sanction marriage only “between a man and a woman.” The proposition passed. As Haggis saw it, the San Diego church’s “public sponsorship of Proposition 8, which succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California—rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state—is a stain on the integrity of our organization and a stain on us personally. Our public association with that hate-filled legislation shames us.” Haggis wrote, “Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.” He concluded, “I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.”

Haggis was prominent in both Scientology and Hollywood, two communities that often converge. Although he is less famous than certain other Scientologists, such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta, he had been in the organization for nearly thirty-five years. Haggis wrote the screenplay for “Million Dollar Baby,” which won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2004, and he wrote and directed “Crash,” which won Best Picture the next year—the only time in Academy history that that has happened.

Davis, too, is part of Hollywood society; his mother is Anne Archer, who starred in “Fatal Attraction” and “Patriot Games,” among other films. Before becoming Scientology’s spokesperson, Davis was a senior vice-president of the church’s Celebrity Centre International network.

In previous correspondence with Davis, Haggis had demanded that the church publicly renounce Proposition 8. “I feel strongly about this for a number of reasons,” he wrote. “You and I both know there has been a hidden anti-gay sentiment in the church for a long time. I have been shocked on too many occasions to hear Scientologists make derogatory remarks about gay people, and then quote L.R.H. in their defense.” The initials stand for L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, whose extensive writings and lectures form the church’s scripture. Haggis related a story about Katy, the youngest of three daughters from his first marriage, who lost the friendship of a fellow-Scientologist after revealing that she was gay. The friend began warning others, “Katy is ‘1.1.’ ” The number refers to a sliding Tone Scale of emotional states that Hubbard published in a 1951 book, “The Science of Survival.” A person classified “1.1” was, Hubbard said, “Covertly Hostile”—“the most dangerous and wicked level”—and he noted that people in this state engaged in such things as casual sex, sadism, and homosexual activity. Hubbard’s Tone Scale, Haggis wrote, equated “homosexuality with being a pervert.” (Such remarks don’t appear in recent editions of the book.)



In his resignation letter, Haggis explained to Davis that, for the first time, he had explored outside perspectives on Scientology. He had read a recent exposé in a Florida newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times, which reported, among other things, that senior executives in the church had been subjecting other Scientologists to physical violence. Haggis said that he felt “dumbstruck and horrified,” adding, “Tommy, if only a fraction of these accusations are true, we are talking about serious, indefensible human and civil-rights violations.”

Online, Haggis came across an appearance that Davis had made on CNN, in May, 2008. The anchor John Roberts asked Davis about the church’s policy of “disconnection,” in which members are encouraged to separate themselves from friends or family members who criticize Scientology. Davis responded, “There’s no such thing as disconnection as you’re characterizing it. And certainly we have to understand—”

“Well, what is disconnection?” Roberts interjected.

“Scientology is a new religion,” Davis continued. “The majority of Scientologists in the world, they’re first generation. So their family members aren’t going to be Scientologists. . . . So, certainly, someone who is a Scientologist is going to respect their family members’ beliefs—”

“Well, what is disconnection?” Roberts said again.

“—and we consider family to be a building block of any society, so anything that’s characterized as disconnection or this kind of thing, it’s just not true. There isn’t any such policy.”

In his resignation letter, Haggis said, “We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification—I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.” Haggis reminded Davis that, a few years earlier, his wife had been ordered to disconnect from her parents “because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five years ago when they resigned from the church. . . . Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them.” Haggis continued, “To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?”

Haggis forwarded his resignation to more than twenty Scientologist friends, including Anne Archer, John Travolta, and Sky Dayton, the founder of EarthLink. “I felt if I sent it to my friends they’d be as horrified as I was, and they’d ask questions as well,” he says. “That turned out to be largely not the case. They were horrified that I’d send a letter like that.”
 
Always was curious about what exactly Scientology was.
It is some weird ### stuff. I love this.In 2005, the Church of Scientology stated its worldwide membership to be eight million, although that number included people who took only the introductory course and did not continue on.[82] In 2007 a Church official claimed 3.5 million members in the United States,[83] but according to a 2001 survey published by the City University of New York, 55,000 people in the United States would, if asked to identify their religion, have stated Scientology.[84] In 2008, the same survey team estimated that only 25,000 Americans identify as Scientologists

 
That October, the litigants filed O.T. III materials in court. Fifteen hundred Scientologists crowded into the courthouse, trying to block access to the documents. The church, which considers it sacrilegious for the uninitiated to read its confidential scriptures, got a restraining order, but the Los Angeles Times obtained a copy of the material and printed a summary. Suddenly, the secrets that had stunned Paul Haggis in a locked room were public knowledge.“A major cause of mankind’s problems began 75 million years ago,” the Times wrote, when the planet Earth, then called Teegeeack, was part of a confederation of ninety planets under the leadership of a despotic ruler named Xenu. “Then, as now, the materials state, the chief problem was overpopulation.” Xenu decided “to take radical measures.” The documents explained that surplus beings were transported to volcanoes on Earth. “The documents state that H-bombs far more powerful than any in existence today were dropped on these volcanoes, destroying the people but freeing their spirits—called thetans—which attached themselves to one another in clusters.” Those spirits were “trapped in a compound of frozen alcohol and glycol,” then “implanted” with “the seed of aberrant behavior.” The Times account concluded, “When people die, these clusters attach to other humans and keep perpetuating themselves.”
 
At the meeting, Davis and I also discussed Hubbard’s war record. His voice filling with emotion, he said that, if it was true that Hubbard had not been injured, then “the injuries that he handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.” He concluded, “The fact of the matter is that Mr. Hubbard was a war hero.”In the binders that Davis provided, there was a letter from the U.S. Naval Hospital in Oakland, dated December 1, 1945. The letter states that Hubbard had been hospitalized that year for a duodenal ulcer, but was “technically pronounced ‘fit for duty.’ ” This was the same period during which Hubbard claimed to have been blinded and lame. Davis had highlighted a passage: “Eyesight very poor, beginning with conjunctivitis actinic in 1942. Lame in right hip from service connected injury. Infection in bone. Not misconduct, all service connected.” Davis added later that, according to Robert Heinlein, Hubbard’s ankles had suffered a “drumhead-type injury”; this can result, Davis explained, “when the ship is torpedoed or bombed.”Davis acknowledged that some of Hubbard’s medical records did not appear to corroborate Hubbard’s version of events. But Scientology had culled other records that did confirm Hubbard’s story, including documents from the National Archives in St. Louis. The man who did the research, Davis said, was “Mr. X.”Davis explained, “Anyone who saw ‘J.F.K.’ remembers a scene on the Mall where Kevin Costner’s character goes and meets with a man named Mr. X, who’s played by Donald Sutherland.” In the film, Mr. X is an embittered intelligence agent who explains that the Kennedy assassination was actually a coup staged by the military-industrial complex. In real life, Davis said, Mr. X was Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty, who had worked in the Office of Special Operations. (Oliver Stone, who directed “J.F.K.,” says that Mr. X was a composite character, based in part on Prouty.) In the eighties, Prouty worked as a consultant for Scientology.“We finally got so frustrated with this point of conflicting medical records that we took all of Mr. Hubbard’s records to Fletcher Prouty,” Davis told me. “He actually solved the conundrum for us.” According to Davis, Prouty explained to the church representatives that, because Hubbard had an “intelligence background,” his records were subjected to a process known as “sheep-dipping.” Davis explained that this was military parlance for “what gets done to a set of records for an intelligence officer. And, essentially, they create two sets.” He said, “Fletcher Prouty basically issued an affidavit saying L. Ron Hubbard’s records were sheep-dipped.” Prouty died in 2001.Davis later sent me a copy of what he said was a document that confirmed Hubbard’s heroism: a “Notice of Separation from the U.S. Naval Service,” dated December 6, 1945. The document specifies medals won by Hubbard, including a Purple Heart with a Palm, implying that he was wounded in action twice. But John E. Bircher, the spokesman for the Military Order of the Purple Heart, wrote to me that the Navy uses gold and silver stars, “NOT a palm,” to indicate multiple wounds. Davis included a photograph of medals that Hubbard supposedly won. Two of the medals in the photograph weren’t even created until after Hubbard left active service.After filing a request with the National Archives in St. Louis, The New Yorker obtained what archivists assured us were Hubbard’s complete military records—more than nine hundred pages. Nowhere in the file is there mention of Hubbard’s being wounded in battle or breaking his feet. X-rays taken of Hubbard’s right shoulder and hip showed calcium deposits, but there was no evidence of any bone or joint disease in his ankle.There is a “Notice of Separation” in the records, but it is not the one that Davis sent me. The differences in the two documents are telling. The St. Louis document indicates that Hubbard earned four medals for service, but they reflect no distinction or valor. In the church document, his job preference after the service is listed as “Studio (screen writing)”; in the official record, it is “uncertain.” The church document indicates, falsely, that Hubbard completed four years of college, obtaining a degree in civil engineering. The official document correctly notes two years of college and no degree.On the church document, the commanding officer who signed off on Hubbard’s separation was “Howard D. Thompson, Lt. Cmdr.” The file contains a letter, from 2000, to another researcher, who had written for more information about Thompson. An analyst with the National Archives responded that the records of commissioned naval officers at that time had been reviewed, and “there was no Howard D. Thompson listed.”The church, after being informed of these discrepancies, said, “Our expert on military records has advised us that, in his considered opinion, there is nothing in the Thompson notice that would lead him to question its validity.” Eric Voelz, an archivist who has worked at the St. Louis archive for three decades, looked at the document and pronounced it a forgery.
 
In his resignation letter, Haggis explained to Davis that, for the first time, he had explored outside perspectives on Scientology. He had read a recent exposé in a Florida newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times, which reported, among other things, that senior executives in the church had been subjecting other Scientologists to physical violence. Haggis said that he felt “dumbstruck and horrified,” adding, “Tommy, if only a fraction of these accusations are true, we are talking about serious, indefensible human and civil-rights violations.”
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=473499&hl=
 
Brolin says that he once witnessed John Travolta practicing Scientology. Brolin was at a dinner party in Los Angeles with Travolta and Marlon Brando. Brando arrived with a cut on his leg, and explained that he had injured himself while helping a stranded motorist on the Pacific Coast Highway. He was in pain. Travolta offered to help, saying that he had just reached a new level in Scientology. Travolta touched Brando’s leg and Brando closed his eyes. “I watched this process going on—it was very physical,” Brolin recalls. “I was thinking, This is really ####### bizarre! Then, after ten minutes, Brando opens his eyes and says, ‘That really helped. I actually feel different!’ "
 
I'm about halfway through this. It's an incredible read so far. Not only is it a fascinating topic, but it's flawlessly done. Slate called it "candy for journalism nerds."

 
Wow...what an incredible article...some of the details described are like nothing I've read, and most are directly from defectors...chilling.And to see into the thoughts of a man so accomplished in it, and now so against it...and how it happened...is amazing.

I was in a cult for thirty-four years. Everyone else could see it. I don't know why I couldn't.
I have a new favorite director :bowtie:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I categorize Scientology along with every other religion under the sun: If it helps you to be happy and productive, and it doesn't directly impact my happiness and productivity, have at it.

Otherwise, you do you and I'll do me.

 
I categorize Scientology along with every other religion under the sun: If it helps you to be happy and productive, and it doesn't directly impact my happiness and productivity, have at it.

Otherwise, you do you and I'll do me.
That's a healthy attitude ... for adults. From the article:
At his house, Haggis finished telling his friends what he had learned. He suggested that they should at least examine the evidence. “I directed them to certain Web sites,” he said, mentioning Exscientologykids.com, which was created by three young women who grew up in Scientology and subsequently left. Many stories on the site are from men and women who joined the Sea Org before turning eighteen. One of them was Jenna Miscavige Hill, David Miscavige’s niece, who joined when she was twelve. For Hill and many others, formal education had stopped when they entered the Sea Org, leaving them especially ill-prepared, they say, for coping with life outside the church.

The stories Haggis found on the Internet of children drafted into the Sea Org appalled him. “They were ten years old, twelve years old, signing billion-year contracts—and their parents go along with this?” Haggis told me. “Scrubbing pots, manual labor—that so deeply touched me. My God, it horrified me!” The stories of the Sea Org children reminded Haggis of child slaves he had seen in Haiti.

Many Sea Org volunteers find themselves with no viable options for adulthood. If they try to leave, the church presents them with a “freeloader tab” for all the coursework and counselling they have received; the bill can amount to more than a hundred thousand dollars. Payment is required in order to leave in good standing. “Many of them actually pay it,” Haggis said. “They leave, they’re ashamed of what they’ve done, they’ve got no money, no job history, they’re lost, they just disappear.” In what seemed like a very unguarded comment, he said, “I would gladly take down the church for that one thing.”

The church says that it adheres to “all child labor laws,” and that minors can’t sign up without parental consent; the freeloader tabs are an “ecclesiastical matter” and are not enforced through litigation.
 
Forgot to mention- there's also a ton of allegations of physical and emotional abuse, imprisonment, etc. of adults. I think that also falls outside of the "whatever works for you" creed. It's not just a financial scam, although it certainly is that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I categorize Scientology along with every other religion under the sun: If it helps you to be happy and productive, and it doesn't directly impact my happiness and productivity, have at it.

Otherwise, you do you and I'll do me.
You must have missed the parts about child slave labor, physical violence, forced disconnection from family and friends and threats to those to leave Scientology.
 
I categorize Scientology along with every other religion under the sun: If it helps you to be happy and productive, and it doesn't directly impact my happiness and productivity, have at it.

Otherwise, you do you and I'll do me.
You must have missed the parts about child slave labor, physical violence, forced disconnection from family and friends and threats to those to leave Scientology.
No, I didn't miss them, but take all of that with a grain of salt, just as I do the cosmology of that particular "religion." Besides which, what I said was, "If it makes you happy and productive. One imagines a child slave isn't very happy...but apparently, too, there are some who are. Some folks would call dumpster-scrubbing "character building."

I just feel like...

like...

OK, I don't hunt, right? But I have family members who do, and God (or Whomever) bless 'em; I do love me some venison. My objection is not a moral one, but an understanding that I don't have whatever it takes to kill an animal. That would likely change if ever grocery stores stop selling meat...

Now. If you are the other kind of hunter, the type who glorifies himself by killing lions and tigers and bears for sport, then maybe I do have a moral problem with it, but I still recognize that hunter's right (provided he is within the laws extant) to go out and kill stuff. This dovetails with what I said above so far, right? Don't overlap in my sphere, and we're all good.

So if you're out hunting lions, and one of them happens to eviscerate you with a well-placed swipe of its bayonet-sized claws, don't come crying to me about it. You put yourself in that position, and in the jungle, it really is kill or be killed.

Similarly, every one of these people got involved in a crackpot theology of their own volition. Adults who sign over their kids are idiots, and it's horrible to contemplate what it would be like to be a 10-year-old swabby. But Davis refers to many of the "punishments" as ecclesiastical concerns; who am I to doubt that? The military ain't much different, structurally; there is a command chain in place and one tacitly (sometimes explicitly) agrees to do...whatever it is they tell you to, by joining up. Again, I may not agree with it on some level, but anyone who joins can't complain after the fact. Or rather, they can, but I have no sympathy.

Maybe put another way: If I thought Miscavige was a tyrant, it would be incumbent upon me to knock his little ### out; that these people are afraid (conditioned) to, out of fear of retribution or exile, is out of my hands. If the life they chose is too tough, get out or effect some kind of change. If your family is also "brainwashed," and the splintered members can't see past their "religion" far enough to reconcile among themselves, then yes, it's a messed up thing, and it's sad, but these people have to take some ownership of their own minds at some point. I also think Southern Baptists are freaks. :shrug:

I don't know, man. I think none of us knows enough about the inner workings of Scientology to really have an informed opinion. The article is fascinating and full of heretofore unknown nuggets, but...There is propaganda, and anti-propaganda, and the only thing I KNOW is that if it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to understand, it ain't for me.

 
I categorize Scientology along with every other religion under the sun: If it helps you to be happy and productive, and it doesn't directly impact my happiness and productivity, have at it.

Otherwise, you do you and I'll do me.
You must have missed the parts about child slave labor, physical violence, forced disconnection from family and friends and threats to those to leave Scientology.
No, I didn't miss them, but take all of that with a grain of salt, just as I do the cosmology of that particular "religion." Besides which, what I said was, "If it makes you happy and productive. One imagines a child slave isn't very happy...but apparently, too, there are some who are. Some folks would call dumpster-scrubbing "character building."

I just feel like...

like...

OK, I don't hunt, right? But I have family members who do, and God (or Whomever) bless 'em; I do love me some venison. My objection is not a moral one, but an understanding that I don't have whatever it takes to kill an animal. That would likely change if ever grocery stores stop selling meat...

Now. If you are the other kind of hunter, the type who glorifies himself by killing lions and tigers and bears for sport, then maybe I do have a moral problem with it, but I still recognize that hunter's right (provided he is within the laws extant) to go out and kill stuff. This dovetails with what I said above so far, right? Don't overlap in my sphere, and we're all good.

So if you're out hunting lions, and one of them happens to eviscerate you with a well-placed swipe of its bayonet-sized claws, don't come crying to me about it. You put yourself in that position, and in the jungle, it really is kill or be killed.

Similarly, every one of these people got involved in a crackpot theology of their own volition. Adults who sign over their kids are idiots, and it's horrible to contemplate what it would be like to be a 10-year-old swabby. But Davis refers to many of the "punishments" as ecclesiastical concerns; who am I to doubt that? The military ain't much different, structurally; there is a command chain in place and one tacitly (sometimes explicitly) agrees to do...whatever it is they tell you to, by joining up. Again, I may not agree with it on some level, but anyone who joins can't complain after the fact. Or rather, they can, but I have no sympathy.

Maybe put another way: If I thought Miscavige was a tyrant, it would be incumbent upon me to knock his little ### out; that these people are afraid (conditioned) to, out of fear of retribution or exile, is out of my hands. If the life they chose is too tough, get out or effect some kind of change. If your family is also "brainwashed," and the splintered members can't see past their "religion" far enough to reconcile among themselves, then yes, it's a messed up thing, and it's sad, but these people have to take some ownership of their own minds at some point. I also think Southern Baptists are freaks. :bye:

I don't know, man. I think none of us knows enough about the inner workings of Scientology to really have an informed opinion. The article is fascinating and full of heretofore unknown nuggets, but...There is propaganda, and anti-propaganda, and the only thing I KNOW is that if it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to understand, it ain't for me.
Interesting. I assumed you were taking a "live and let live" position, but it's more of a "you made your bed, you gotta lie in it" position.As far as how it affects you, obviously you're correct. The only impact it has on any of us is that the church maintains tax-exempt status, which according to what is in the article they clearly should not, but that impact is so small that it's not worth discussing.

I would say, though, that these people are being obviously misled. And my impression was that in many instances they were physically prevented from "vetting out or effecting some kind of change," as you say.

The military analogy is also a bit strained. The military keeps no secrets regarding life for its members. They'll tell you the deal up front. Nobody's ever threatened to sue a writer or a filmmaker for a negative portrayal of life in the military, and there's obviously been plenty.

Basically, your position is based on freedom to make your own decisions, which is great, but that freedom is only legitimate if you can make an informed decision. I don't think that's happening here.

And then there's the kids. No way to defend that. Yeah, it drives me nuts when I see other religions to it, too (you should see the annual Roe v. Wade pro-life march in DC, I'd say the average age of participants is 13). But "they do it too" is no defense, especially when you're talking about forced labor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I could also argue that all religion misleads its adherents in one way or another. But not today.

Scientologists are lured by the idea of self-improvement, as opposed, I suppose, to being lured by the idea of a "closer relationship with God" that is promised by more conventional religions. If the end-game is some nebulous idea of being "better" or more centered or "together," then they all really do play the same game. Hubbard's ideas are no more insane, to ME, than the idea that a man died and was resurrected 3 days later and that he went through all that for US.

I absolutely do not want to get involved in any kind of debate about Christianity, though. My point was only that, on its surface, Scientology is no better or worse than any other system in which one book (!) is the Answer to all one's ills; and that these children everyone is up in arms over were all put there by their parents, so blame them, not the organization. Presumably the parents knew that "forced labor" was part of the bargain; one of those spokespeople very reasonably said that the labor is simply the upkeep and beautification of the grounds these people live on. It seems possible to me that some of the allegations really are overblown. Let's face it, my 14-year old, after being told to mow the lawn and put away the dishes certainly thinks life is unfair from his perspective...

 
I could also argue that all religion misleads its adherents in one way or another. But not today.

Scientologists are lured by the idea of self-improvement, as opposed, I suppose, to being lured by the idea of a "closer relationship with God" that is promised by more conventional religions. If the end-game is some nebulous idea of being "better" or more centered or "together," then they all really do play the same game. Hubbard's ideas are no more insane, to ME, than the idea that a man died and was resurrected 3 days later and that he went through all that for US.

I absolutely do not want to get involved in any kind of debate about Christianity, though. My point was only that, on its surface, Scientology is no better or worse than any other system in which one book (!) is the Answer to all one's ills; and that these children everyone is up in arms over were all put there by their parents, so blame them, not the organization. Presumably the parents knew that "forced labor" was part of the bargain; one of those spokespeople very reasonably said that the labor is simply the upkeep and beautification of the grounds these people live on. It seems possible to me that some of the allegations really are overblown. Let's face it, my 14-year old, after being told to mow the lawn and put away the dishes certainly thinks life is unfair from his perspective...
I can agree with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top