(Section 23 of Part 3 – Why I Left the Church)
Attempts by terminals in the area of PR in the church, to make a case that the church was telling the truth and that those who were making claims against David Miscavige and church management were lying, ended up backfiring. In other words where they were supposed to convince me that church management was the ethical one, worthy of my support (that I had mistakenly made a turn in the wrong direction by believing the former Int Management staff), all they did in the end was add to my conviction that the exact opposite was the truth.
At the time all this was happening (February and March 2010), the official public spokesman of the Church of Scientology was Tommy Davis. I saw an excerpt of an interview with him by a newsman (CNN) in response to protests against the church’s disconnection policy. In this interview, Tommy Davis clearly, blatantly and unmistakably denied that there was any policy or practice of disconnection in Scientology.
Now you and I both know that that’s not true. What would happen if you remained connected to me and in communication with me since I left the church? Are you totally free to communicate to me without consequence? How many times in your time in Scientology have you been told not to communicate with someone? Have you ever received a notice on Facebook from any of your Scientologist friends that so-and-so was in disagreement with the church or has been declared and that you should remove that person from your friends list? How many people do you know in Scientology who cannot talk to a family member because the family member has spoken out against the church?
Yet Tommy Davis was going on TV saying that disconnection doesn’t happen in the church. This is easily proven as a lie.
At that time, I was in the middle of this “dead agent” handling and here is a lie being told by the church. As one celebrity who left the church stated in response to Tommy Davis’ lie, “What else are you lying about?”
Here’s another one: the “Freedom” magazine issue that had come out in late 2009, in response to the “Truth Rundown” interviews put out by the St Petersburg Times, was dedicated to attempting to prove how Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Amy Scobee, Tom Devocht, Jeff Hawkins and others were lying when they had given accounts of specific acts of violence said to have been committed by David Miscavige. (By now this may be considered old news but I bring it up so that you know what I was looking at two years ago in order to help me determine for myself the correct ethical viewpoint.)
For I think more than half the magazine, it went on and on about how the reporters who created the Truth Rundown refused to interview David Miscavige. The claim by Freedom was that they couldn’t have done a fair job of reporting without interviewing him to get both sides of the story. Fair enough. The particular article making that point went on for pages and pages giving dialogue that was recorded, between the reporters and the church terminals involved.
In this dialogue, the church terminals were trying to convince the reporters that the reporters should not come out with their story without interviewing COB. But they were saying that COB couldn’t do an interview yet because he was too busy through a certain date in June (it was earlier than June at the time of the discussion) because he had to do the Maiden Voyage events and he would be too busy to do an interview, but that he would be available for an interview after that. They were urging the reporters to wait until after the Maiden Voyage events to publish their story so that they could include an interview with COB.
What ended up happening, after seemingly endless debate, was that the reporters would not wait for COB to be available to do an interview and they went to press with their story regardless. The church terminals claimed this was one-sided, unfair reporting. This was the main point being emphasized in the “Freedom” article.
Bear with me here while I relate that Freedom article with another publication about alleged church violence that occurred during the same time period that I had read the above. I’m going to make a point about contrary facts.
I had read this Freedom Mag article around February and again in March 2010. Right around that time, there was also a series of special reports on CNN’s Anderson Cooper show which was another show about alleged violence in the management sector of the church. There was a segment of an interview (see 8:55 of this link) between Anderson Cooper and Tommy Davis where Mr. Cooper offered to interview David Miscavige.
In response to that question, Tommy Davis chuckles and tries to make it seem absurd that COB would ever grant such an interview, by statements such as “It’s not worth his time”,“He’s the leader of a worldwide religion”, “He speaks very well for himself”, “Never in a million years would he respond to something like that.”
Okay, so in the “Freedom” magazine they went to great lengths to prove to us that the SP Times reporters couldn’t have possibly given a fair story because they would not allow David Miscavige to be interviewed for their story, then when Anderson Cooper flat-out offers to interview him on his show, with no deadline given, he denies that COB would ever stoop so low as to do an interview with a reporter.
And he just drives the whole purpose of that “Freedom” article right into the ground! I don’t think the church terminals ever intended for COB to be interviewed by the SP Times reporters! Two contrary facts make at least one lie. Tommy Davis, backed up by the church in their publications, once again proved to me that he was lying.
For that matter what’s to stop COB from originating for himself? Why doesn’t he just come out with his own public statement if it is so important for his viewpoint to be known to the public? I doubt that he couldn’t find at least one reporter to interview him.
To this day, COB has not once spoken publicly in defense of himself, so what is all this in the Freedom magazine about how unfair it was that those reporters would not get his side of the story?
All this was part of my process of looking for myself into who I believed and who I did not. This was a life-changing decision I was making and I wasn’t going to do it half-assed.
Here’s another one: That same “Freedom” mag edition has as one of its main premises, that the violence that continually occurred at Int Management headquarters was all perpetrated by Marty Rathbun, not David Miscavige. The claim was that Marty Rathbun led a “reign of terror”. There were details given about how Marty Rathbun often physically beat up Mike Rinder. Then on Cooper’s show, Rinder’s ex-wife is trying to prove that Miscavige never beat up on Rinder by saying that she never saw a mark on his body during that whole period. Well, then, what about the claim that Marty Rathbun continually beat up Rinder, wouldn’t he have marks on his body because of that?
The point I’m trying to make here is not whether or not I think Marty Rathbun beat up Int staff, but the lies revealed to me by the contrary facts that church execs are making. They were proving to me that they weren’t telling the truth.
Another point I want to bring up is that the church execs were claiming that Marty Rathbun had no position of authority in the church but at the same time they are claiming that he inflicted a “reign of terror” on the Int base by continual acts of violence on others for several years. They say that COB didn’t stop it because he didn’t know about it because he wasn’t there. Assuming that’s true, then why didn’t someone else, or the whole group stop Rathbun from inflicting this violence, if he had no position of authority?
There are so many outpoints in the arguments that they make that one could do an easy Data Series drill on spotting outpoints by listening to these arguments, and really become confident that one can spot them.