Troublemaker: Surviving Hollywood and Scientology

[Chaplin]

slamming Rimini is straight out of the Scientology playbook. Call her a drug-addict, unstable, a has-been... do everything to discredit the person, but don't try and discredit what she's said. Gotta wonder why that happens so consistently when people leave Scientology.

Do you know here? Because I know a few (not many, but a few) that do.

 

[Chaplin]

The story out there is that Shelly had re-arranged furniture and some rooms at one of the church's compounds without her husband's approval which apparently angered him mightily. Shortly after that she went missing and has not been seen since. The church apparently wants us to believe that she is "willingly" existing hermit-like doing church business at one of the compounds, communicating with nobody. But since there is no official information available who knows what to believe?

But it's ok to jump to conclusions. Right.

I'm done talking about this--you are all going to believe what you believe and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. I only ask to keep an open mind, but with some people that's a tall order. (Not directed specifically towards you, RC, but certainly some others that have posted in this thread)

 

[Rivercard]

Do you know here? Because I know a few (not many, but a few) that do.

So the folks you know tell you that Remini is "unstable" and that this book is a self serving lie? If so, basically what they are saying to you is that Scientology is a failure if a life long member who has donated millions of dollars to their cause is so flawed in the basic principals they teach. Scientologists don't seem to realize that all the negativity they project onto ex-members does their cause an extreme disservice.

 

[Chaplin]

So the folks you know tell you that Remini is "unstable" and that this book is a self serving lie? If so, basically what they are saying to you is that Scientology is a failure if a life long member who has donated millions of dollars to their cause is so flawed in the basic principals they teach.

So you don't have one shred of doubt that this book by an out-of-work actress with little to no career anymore is true and genuine? That's actually quite a stretch in and of itself. That book is ABSOLUTELY self-serving. I'm sure she doesn't like the church and the church doesn't like her, but being excommunicated is actually common in many religions. Being bitter about it is also a factor--wouldn't you concede that possibility?

The book is just another unsubstantiated account that people just eat up. And because it fits the anti-Scientology narrative that people are buying without evidence, it's automatically believable and the truth. Same exact thing happened with the HBO documentary that came out last year. I have actually asked people why they don't respond and their answer is exactly what I said above--it won't make a difference, so why bother?

It's no secret the media HATES Scientology, which traces back to the psychiatric lobby, so you are going to find very little response to all this backlash. And the response you do find is immediately dismissed. Why? Because minds are already made up. People kidnapped and put in basements for years? Having people killed? Come on.

Look at Tom Cruise. People say he's Looney Tunes because of Scientology. Why? What evidence do people have that Tom Cruise is crazy? Jumping on a couch? What else? And by evidence, I mean actual evidence, not conjecture or he said, she said.

Scientologists don't seem to realize that all the negativity they project onto ex-members does their cause an extreme disservice.

Interesting that you say that. The very fact of that sentence is reason to doubt some of the negativity that has come out. Why would they continue these practices if they were actually happening? They are destroyed in the press, and simply ignore it. Just like the world ignores the good work they do around the world, and there is a lot of it.

Now, to let you know, I despise religion in all forms. I think it's all just mumbo jumbo in many respects, but there is also something in having a moral and ethical code of conduct, and in my 5 years being around this particular religion, that is exactly what it is. Strange and weird, sure, but most religions are. Think about what it must have been like when Christianity first appeared. Scientology is only a few decades old, after all. And most people fear or disdain new things.

 

[Rivercard]

I'm done talking about this--you are all going to believe what you believe and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. I only ask to keep an open mind,

Oh you could definitely convince me otherwise. Like you say, there is often only 1 side of the story told, but IMHO that is the church's fault because of their policy of silence combined with personal attacks in response to serious allegations. That is easily interpreted as guilt. What are folks supposed to think?

 

[Chaplin]

Oh you could definitely convince me otherwise. Like you say, there is often only 1 side of the story told, but IMHO that is the church's fault because of their policy of silence combined with personal attacks in response to serious allegations. That is easily interpreted as guilt. What are folks supposed to think?

Oh, I agree with you to a point there. As I've said, I've asked why they don't respond, but it's a never ending cycle. You can see a little of it in this thread, but not nearly as much as the Going Clear thread in the Movie forum. It was me against the world there.

I get why people are skeptical of the religion--it's frustrating seeing people who have never ever knowingly met a Scientologist spout the same tired rhetoric and put down those that have evidence to the contrary.

As I've said, every religion has problems, which is why Covert Rain's example has some truth to it. He mentions the church discourages its members to be around "suppressive" people. That's basically them suggesting members to cut ties with people that can lead them down immoral or unethical paths. They are so against criminal behavior, it's strange but interesting how much of an interest they take. Part of that is a little invasion of privacy, IMO, but a part of it is trying to avoid getting even more bad press. They're trying to avoid being associated with potential criminal behavior. I myself know someone that is being investigated by the church for excommunication because he apparently had an affair with a married woman.

They make it a point to concentrate on the moral side of humanity -- whether that going to Haiti for earthquake relief or providing marriage and financial counseling. They also use strange terms like "auditing", which is basically seeing a therapist. And no, aliens are not part of the religion.

 

[Rivercard]

Good post Chap. Have you read the book you are commenting on in this thread?

So you don't have one shred of doubt that this book by an out-of-work actress with little to no career anymore is true and genuine? The book is just another unsubstantiated account that people just eat up. And because it fits the anti-Scientology narrative that people are buying without evidence, it's automatically believable and the truth. Same exact thing happened with the HBO documentary that came out last year.

I have no reason to doubt Leah or any ex-member who is telling their story. Could there sometimes be sour grapes involved? Sure, but there are thousands of people out there telling their story, each one different that the other yet all strangely similar in some ways. I think you have to ask yourself why that is. have you ever went to any ex-member forums like Covert Rain mentioned in an earlier post?

I have actually asked people why they don't respond and their answer is exactly what I said above--it won't make a difference, so why bother?

They are wrong, it would certainly benefit the church to disprove certain allegations. Members should be smart enough to realize that. Many scientologists are on record saying they don't allow themselves or are forbidden to be exposed to critical thinking in regards to the church. Do you think that is true?

It's no secret the media HATES Scientology, which traces back to the psychiatric lobby, so you are going to find very little response to all this backlash. And the response you do find is immediately dismissed. Why? Because minds are already made up. People kidnapped and put in basements for years? Having people killed? Come on.

Church officials refuse to do interviews, and their use of lawsuits are legendary, so they can blame themselves when it comes to media treatment.

Look at Tom Cruise. People say he's Looney Tunes because of Scientology. Why? What evidence do people have that Tom Cruise is crazy? Jumping on a couch? What else? And by evidence, I mean actual evidence, not conjecture or he said, she said.

I don't know Tom, so I don't know if he is loony (Just as you don't know if Leah is unstable). If he is indeed loony he would probably be loony with or without Scientology.

The very fact of that sentence is reason to doubt some of the negativity that has come out. Why would they continue these practices if they were actually happening?

That's a great question. higher-ups within the church appear to be allowed to behave differently than regular members. LRH set things up in a certain way and drafted aggressive policies for a reason.

in my 5 years being around this particular religion, that is exactly what it is. Strange and weird, sure, but most religions are.

That is what I like about Scientology, that it is strange and weird I find how the church operates to be fascinating.

 

[Chaplin]

Good post Chap. Have you read the book you are commenting on in this thread?

I've read excerpts, but no, I haven't read the whole thing. I'll admit that.

I have no reason to doubt Leah or any ex-member who is telling their story, and there are thousands of people out there telling their story, each one different that the other yet all strangely similar in some ways. I think you have to ask yourself why that is. have you ever went to any ex-member forums like Covert Rain mentioned in an earlier post?

I'll also admit I've never gone to any ex-member forums, but I'm not exaggerating when I say EVERY Scientologist I've met hasn't fit the Leah Rimini narrative. The dozens of Scientologiest I know, including ones that right now work at the huge church in Hollywood (including a relative) have nothing in common with not just the Rimini accusations, but for the multitude of others out there.

They are wrong, it would certainly benefit the church to disprove certain allegations. Members should be smart enough to realize that. Many scientologists are on record saying they don't allow themselves or are forbidden to be exposed to critical thinking in regards to the church. Do you think that is true?

Strangely enough, I think you are too optimistic that a reply would do any good. There actually WAS a reply made to the accusations against them in the Going Clear documentary, but again, nobody knew about it because the media was certainly not going to post it. Difficult enough when any response is being censored by the very media they are trying to use to disseminate their message.

Church officials refuse to do interviews, and their use of lawsuits are legendary, so they can blame themselves when it comes to media treatment.

See above. It doesn't do any good.

I don't know Tom, so I don't know if he is loony (Just as you don't know if Leah is unstable). If he is indeed loony he would probably be loony with or without Scientology.

I truly think you are in the minority on this point.

That's a great question. higher-ups within the church appear to be allowed to behave differently than regular members. LRH set things up in a certain way and drafted aggressive policies for a reason.

Now that could have some truth to it, but the problem comes up that if a higher-up does something bad, it reflects on the entire congregation. That is wrong IMO. Imagine if the same thing applied to the Catholics and the sodomy scandal?

That is what I like about Scientology, that it is strange and weird I find how the church operates to be fascinating.

Have you ever been to a church before? As much as I hate being preached to, I've gone through their pitch and it's interesting, but I'm ambivalent towards it. But a lot of my friends live great lives according to its teachings, so who am I to complain about it? I think it's more sad how many people dismiss it so readily with the reasons they are using. I dismiss it because it's religion, not because it puts people in dungeons. LOL

 

[Covert Rain]

I get why people are skeptical of the religion--it's frustrating seeing people who have never ever knowingly met a Scientologist spout the same tired rhetoric and put down those that have evidence to the contrary.

As I've said, every religion has problems, which is why Covert Rain's example has some truth to it. He mentions the church discourages its members to be around "suppressive" people. That's basically them suggesting members to cut ties with people that can lead them down immoral or unethical paths. They are so against criminal behavior, it's strange but interesting how much of an interest they take. Part of that is a little invasion of privacy, IMO, but a part of it is trying to avoid getting even more bad press. They're trying to avoid being associated with potential criminal behavior. I myself know someone that is being investigated by the church for excommunication because he apparently had an affair with a married woman.

In my case, that is definitely not the scenario. I mean I have heard it from the horses mouth so to speak. Oh and so I didn't cause waves I didn't post alot of details or some of the specifics. It's not fair to them. However, what you said about "suppressives" is right on. Only that problem they had with it, is the alleged "suppresives" they were told to cut ties with? None were criminals or bad people. Some were family members that the Church new nothing about. It was then followed up with if you don't want to distance yourself convince them to join the Church. It was very manipulative and they felt like they were being forced to cut ties with good people in their lives. I would give more details about their influence on their business and other stuff I mentioned above but again...it's not fair to them.

Again, all the stuff I pointed out was true in terms of their experience in the Church. I don't think this is a case of "some". If you knew these people and lives they lead....you wouldn't question the honestly of their story. Again..these people are not out to blast Scientology or make money off their story. Aside from close friends and family....they are off the grid so to speak. They just want to distance themselves from the experience and repair all the bridges they burnt in the name of Scientology.

 

[Chaplin]

In my case, that is definitely not the scenario. I mean I have heard it from the horses mouth so to speak. Oh and so I didn't cause waves I didn't post alot of details or some of the specifics. It's not fair to them. However, what you said about "suppressives" is right on. Only that problem they had with it, is the alleged "suppresives" they were told to cut ties with? None were criminals or bad people. Some were family members that the Church new nothing about. It was then followed up with if you don't want to distance yourself convince them to join the Church. It was very manipulative and they felt like they were being forced to cut ties with good people in their lives. I would give more details about their influence on their business and other stuff I mentioned above but again...it's not fair to them. They just want to distance themselves from the experience.

Again, all the stuff I pointed out was true in terms of their experience in the Church. I don't think this is a case of "some". If you knew these people and lives they lead....you wouldn't question the honestly of their story. Again..these people are not out to blast Scientology or make money of their story. Aside from close friends and family....they are off the grid so to speak.

Ok, and I have no reason to doubt you on this. However, they would appear IMO to be the exception, not the rule. You've said you've known others that haven't had any problems and I know a lot that haven't had problems. So by our own experience, your friend's situation is not the norm, even if the media would have you believe it is. And it still is a far cry from putting people in dungeons and making people "disappear".

 

[Covert Rain]

Ok, and I have no reason to doubt you on this. However, they would appear IMO to be the exception, not the rule. You've said you've known others that haven't had any problems and I know a lot that haven't had problems. So by our own experience, your friend's situation is not the norm, even if the media would have you believe it is. And it still is a far cry from putting people in dungeons and making people "disappear".

No what I said is I have met others (still in the Church) and they were nice people. This is the first family I personally know that was involved with the Church that left. However, one detail I left out is this family is spread over 3 different states and the family as a whole had the EXACT same experience which led to basically the entire family leaving the church. They did mention that they have also had friends leave for the same reason.

That can't be coincidental. Again, not saying that means every inch of the Church is that way. Only that it would be a huge stretch to buy this isn't a much larger issue within the Church itself. That doesn't mean the people are bad only that the leadership of the Church is a different story.

 

[Rivercard]

I'll also admit I've never gone to any ex-member forums,

Click if you dare....

http://www.forum.exscn.net/forum.php

I'm not exaggerating when I say EVERY Scientologist I've met have nothing in common with not just the Rimini accusations, but for the multitude of others out there

Leah didn't really have accusations about scientologists themselves, she seems to like them. When there is criticism it's more about church officials and policy, other celebrities, money, and of course the Shelly issue. But the book isn't really filled with vinegar and hate. She talks about going up the bridge and her experiences while there (i.e. the celebrity center is emptied out when TC is there).

There actually WAS a reply made to the accusations against them in the Going Clear documentary, but again, nobody knew about it because the media was certainly not going to post it.

What was the official response to Going Clear?

I've seen the websites they created to trash the filmmakers, those are classic. They have a "who is" site to blast most of their high profile critics, though I haven't seen one for Leah yet. Click here if you want to get creeped out....

http://www.freedommag.org/going-clear/white-papers/paul-haggis.html

Have you ever been to a church before?

I live in SoCal and I've been inside the big blue building in Hollywood. My brother is a science fiction writer and a few years ago he was getting an award there for his work being included in some of the L.Ron Hubbard science fiction book publications (though my bro is not a scientologist), so I went there to meet him and hung out in the building for a bit.
Many years ago I thought about doing an introductory session in Hollywood, but I never got the gusto to try it. I would never get involved now, I enjoy the view from afar.

 

[Covert Rain]

Leah didn't really have accusations about scientologists themselves, she seems to like them. When there is criticism it's more about church officials and policy, other celebrities, money, and of course the Shelly issue. But the book isn't really filled with vinegar and hate. She talks about going up the bridge and her experiences while there (i.e. the celebrity center is emptied out when TC is there).

This! That is exactly the scenario with the family I mentioned. They never bad mouthed their fellow Scientologists to me and even expressed regrets over losing some of those relationships (friends). However, their friends from the Church are no longer allowed to speak to them because now they are labeled "suppresives". Which I find ironic because that is the polar opposite of who these people are. It's the Leadership and policies they had an issue with not their fellow Scientologists.

 

[Dan H]

We can totally discount Leah Remini, how about Paul Haggis? Is Paul Haggis unstable, too?

Going Clear is pretty eye-opening. You can watch the videos of Hubbard speaking and know for sure he was not a stable person, and Miscavige is much the same.

 

[Rivercard]

Is Paul Haggis unstable, too?

According to the church, yes he is. Apparently he is also a has-been self obsessed hypocrite (gee, that sounds familiar). for fun, here's an excerpt from the "Who is Paul Haggis" website link I provided in my last post above:

All of this underscores what the Church has said before: Paul Haggis is a selfish status-obsessed screenwriter who cannot be trusted and whose only interest is doing anything it takes to get attention. In the words of The Hollywood Reporter, he has been in “the wilderness” professionally and yearns to be relevant again. In the past, he took advantage of Scientologists to gain work and money, including more than $5 million for projects that never materialized. It’s no wonder he is desperate now. And the desperation gets worse and worse as each successive film fails.

The information about Haggis has been known for four years. The Haggis story about Scientology is a fraud. That anyone showcases his bigoted claims in an article, book or movie is unconscionable. All the Church of Scientology ever was to Paul Haggis was a shortcut by which he could use others for his own selfish goals. Having recently cut a deal to direct a miniseries for HBO, it’s obvious Haggis’ participation is just quid pro quo, the result of which will spread hate in the name of corrupt corporate synergy.

 

[Chaplin]

We can totally discount Leah Remini, how about Paul Haggis? Is Paul Haggis unstable, too?

Going Clear is pretty eye-opening. You can watch the videos of Hubbard speaking and know for sure he was not a stable person, and Miscavige is much the same.

Paul Haggis had an extremely large axe to grind, much larger than Leah Rimini. Going Clear is clearly biased, do you not see that? Much like Michael Moore's films, but people don't take him seriously, why is Going Clear all that different?

 

[Rivercard]

Paul Haggis had an extremely large axe to grind

Why?

 

[Covert Rain]

Paul Haggis had an extremely large axe to grind, much larger than Leah Rimini. Going Clear is clearly biased, do you not see that? Much like Michael Moore's films, but people don't take him seriously, why is Going Clear all that different?

Personally, I think I am more pragmatic about these types of things. I go into them thinking that there might be an axe to grind but I am also a big believer on where there is smoke there is fire. Not a big fan of Michael Moore but I do think he is spot on with some of the stuff in his films.

Plus, even if one has an axe to grind, it doesn't necessarily mean what they are saying doesn't ring true. I mean really you just described the other side of the same coin. On one side this person has a shared bad experience so we should believe everything. On the other, well they have an axe to grind so you should completely discount what they are saying. More often than not, I find that it's probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[Rivercard]

I myself know someone that is being investigated by the church for excommunication because he apparently had an affair with a married woman.

So he is being investigated for excommunication for possibly having an affair, meanwhile the COB and his wife haven't lived together for 7 years and nobody in the church seems to care. Isn't that odd?

 

[BigRedRage]

nevermind a whole nother page was available

 

[Chaplin]

So he is being investigated for excommunication for possibly having an affair, meanwhile the COB and his wife haven't lived together for 7 years and nobody in the church seems to care. Isn't that odd?

Sure. And?

Sorry, but not sure what you're getting at. Doesn't mean that some nefarious plot is at hand with Miscavage, who I don't know much about and am not really interested in. He always seems like a used car salesman to me.

 

[Rivercard]

slamming Rimini is straight out of the Scientology playbook. do everything to discredit the person.

LRH Quotes from the "DEAD AGENTING" document...........

This is correct procedure:
1. Spot who is attacking us.

2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.

3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. (LRH)

ALWAYS ATTACK in a press release. Never Defend or Deny. (LRH)

If there will be a long-term threat, you are to immediately evaluate and originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly that they will be ostracized. (LRH)

In other words, handle the hell out of it. (LRH)

PR isn't "being nice." It is a dynamic subject. (LRH)

 

[Rivercard]

Sure. And? Sorry, but not sure what you're getting at.

You have a point. If scientologists are fine with double standards then who am I to complain.

 

[Chaplin]

You have a point. If scientologists are fine with double standards then who am I to complain.

What double standards? Just because my friend is a Catholic doesn't make him a pedophile, because, you know, some of the higher ups at the church were.

I see now where this is going, so I'll end it here. It was a good discussion.

 

[Rivercard]

I see now where this is going, so I'll end it here. It was a good discussion.

Yes it's a good discussion. I have no idea where it's going though. It's just the irony is so rich. On one hand we have church officials Investigating an extra-marital affair, which indicates they hold family bonds to a high standard and breaking them is a moral offense. Yet on the other hand we know the church has a policy of disconnection from spouses and family members. So I guess family isn't really that important to church policy after all, so why do they care so much about the affair with a married person? It's all just really strange to me, but it must make sense to those on the inside.