(image: Encyclopaedia Metallum)
The following just-published news story has a bearing on an episode of hypocrisy that caught my eye … and gave me more food for thought about one of our themes: What is it ‘right’ to do in the face of wrongdoing?
Or put another way, How should we then live? Read on…
Paul Haggis Renounces Church of Scientology in Blistering Letter
By Kyle Buchanan. Movieline.com | 25 Oct 2009
The Church of Scientology has long claimed many of Hollywood’s most elite talents amongst its members, but now, one famous Scientologist is leaving the church, and he’s not going quietly. In a candid, confrontational letter to Scientology top brass that’s just been published online, Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis (Crash) details the abuses and cover-ups that have forced him to to leave Scientology after 35 years. It’s a must-read.
The letter was originally published in four parts on the blog of ex-Scientologist Marty Rathbun, and it’s directed at Scientology’s current national spokesman, Tommy Davis. In it, Haggis takes Davis to task for doing nothing after the church’s San Diego branch publicly sponsored the anti-gay Proposition 8.
As you know, 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. […] I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated. […]
The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.
The whole letter is worth reading. Available in 4 parts here.
For me, the key line…
“The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly … Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent”
… absolutely shrieks. Why? Because I AGREE.
And because I’ve been part of a conversation about someone who holds himself out as a servant of God. This man, who claims to be “quite prophetic” says he was aware of financial wrongdoing … but said (after some other brave souls blew the whistle) that God had told him repeatedly to be silent about it — to “cover” the sin. So he said nothing.
Well I had one particular situation where I knew things that were not right and people were potentially being taken advantage of. I have over and over again had to stop myself from saying anything publicly and it has been incredibly hard for me. Every time I said to God that I wanted to see this thing put right HE would say to me “Dean it is your job to cover sin, justice is my problem”.
It’s jarring to consider this guy’s claim, that he had agonised about the situation, that he “over and over again” wanted to speak up and tell the truth — but that God had repeatedly ‘told him’ to maintain a collusive silence in the face of “things that were not right” and harm being done to others.
Paul Haggis says it well AND IT RINGS TRUE:
Silence is cowardly and it is consent to the crime.
.
I don’t support Scientology myself, but tonight as I read this calm, brave, principled letter to the Church’s very smooth head of propaganda national spokesman — a letter from an authentic, loyal member of the church who’d “openly and vigorously defended the church whenever it was criticized” I realised again how OBSCENE it was to claim a so-called instruction from God to provide “cover” for sin in that way.
Why maintain silence in the face of wrongdoing as people were harmed? Speak up! Expose it! That’s more godly, more “prophetic”. Surely?
Help me see it a different way, if you can. – P
I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated.
The organisation was / is a church. Almost all are unconscionable organisations. Only the degree of offence, obfuscation and masking varies. And the people all around and about have become victims of the same malaise, choosing euphemisms, instead of real words. “Homosexual-bashing” is what needed to be said.
I recall the film (but not the title) in which Sir Thomas More eloquently proclaimed that “silence bespeaks consent.” In it’s context, it was poignant and irrefutable. But he lost his head, anyway. (In the film)
And so it has ever been, in its many re-incarnations. All that is needed for evil to flourish is that the good shall do nothing.
“Almost all [churches] are unconscionable organisations. Only the degree of offence, obfuscation and masking varies.”
Whew, Perry. Pretty harsh, mate. But a valid point of view and (no doubt) based on considerable observation & thought. So, fair enough. Thanks.
As for euphemism, yes, agreed. Bleurgh. Spade = spade. But it ain’t that simple, is it? Language is seldom neutral.
George Orwell captured the ‘point’ of so much of that right-speak. Thomas Szasz, to whom I referred earlier, also unveils the power of ‘labels’ and the language used — particularly around behaviour that makes us uncomfortable and what he called the medical metaphor being applied to mental/emotional states. He saw language/labels as a factor in control mechanisms.
We look at things a certain way, or are encouraged to do so, to help justify a stripping away of rights or redirection of resources. In Policy Analysis classes at Victoria I glimpsed the power (I mean it) of labelling something as a ‘problem’ to attract funding or — more ominously — to bring the force of the state to bear.
Good on Thomas Moore for his courage and outspokenness.
I saw a portrait of him at the Frick Collection in New York City years ago and felt a real sense of pathos. Sad fate. (But I’m sure those he persecuted — for want of the right ‘label’? — saw it differently.)
Update: what an ignoramus I can be at times! Read this fascinating history of Thomas More. Wow.
(Thanks to google.)
That’s harsh?
Organised religion of nearly all sorts represent the greatest, longest-running and most successful confidence trick in the history of humanity.
And that’s praising it.
… or the history of the galaxy, if the Scientologists are to be taken seriously.
One space cadet ex-Scientologist friend of mine told me that I (me, Peter) had “enslaved planets” in a past life! (Mind you, she also told me she’d sat on the Galactic Council with L. Ron Hubbard himself — so I took it with a pinch of salt.)
re Organised Religion: Perry, I think it’s the ultimate Group A vs Group B schism.
viz… “I despise you for your religion!” [you wha?? for my wha?? huh???]
Confidence trick or no, I believe freedom of religion is the only civilised stand we can take in our society. (So long as proselytising doesn’t involve compulsion, torture, witch trials and beheading.)
What about you?
-P
PS That Thomas More was ‘celebrated’ in that Encyclopaedia I quoted above because “only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office” made me wince.
Once the veneer of civility is pared, religion and ethnic chauvinism stand arm-in-arm as the greatest agents of divisiveness. Religion should only be lawfully allowed between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.
However, such customs and institutions can be appraised differently from people. “Hate the religion, not the religionist,” to paraphrase liberally.
The specialdom treatment of religion is a grievous offence to human morality. Especially given its appalling human rights track record. Take the phrase:
“I believe freedom of . . . . . . . . . . is the only civilised stand we can take in our society” and put whatever offends you in place of the dots. Then ask yourself why you wouldn’t accept that postulate, after what you put in there. Then ask why you’d so for religion.
Silence, in the face of those religion’s crimes against humanity bespeaks consent. Silent I shall not be; neither is Paul Haggis.
There’s something oddly perverse about it all. In the old nonsense rhyme, an observer pointed out that falling from the cliff did not cause any injury. Rather, it was the sudden stop at the bottom. Technically, that’s correct. Does that prevent prudent people from fencing the cliff edge? No. Neither should it prevent people from fencing off religion from all but mature adults.
Next poll: should the
drinkingreligion age be raised to 21?Religion is – by and large – a scam. One in the business of selling salvation, absolution, heaven, hell, flim-flam, hocus pocus, whatever. Once all its egregiously favourable tax breaks are removed and the product assessed pursuant to the Fair Trading Act, it should quickly disappear.
We allow freedom of belief in Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, spooks under the bed, Davy Jones, Mother Goose and a whole range of other childish fantasies. But society usually takes the view that once adulthood has been achieved, the stuff of childhood should be sloughed. Some people never grow up, it seems – they just grow old, evidence-averse and twittery.
For the turpitudinous scourge called religion, there is nothing too abominable, bestial, depraved, repugnant, abhorrent, atrocious, unspeakable or offensive that it cannot accept, endorse, tolerate, excuse or promote.
Thanks for your rip-snortin’ comments, Perry! That’s calling a spade a spade. Good to hear from you.
I agree with much of what you say, especially the divisive nature of religion or religious interpretation.
You do, I think, run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however, if you don’t mind me saying. I know people whose, let’s call it ‘understanding’ of God leads them to be very real practical servants of their fellow man/woman etc.
Perhaps I am deluded (I suggest that as a real possibility) but let me put forward the idea that there is some value to be gained from meditation/prayerfulness/contemplation on the role of Godness/goodness in the world … and our role as brethren (small b) of each other.
Of course, what I refer too is far, far deeper than the trite ‘What would Jesus do?’ bumper sticker/mental chewing gum stuff.
“Hate the religion” you say?
Hmm, or should the ‘object’ of this hatred be the exercise of power — especially the corrupt, craven abuse of power — religious persecution being just one of its guises.
(I know you are talking about more than just this ‘power’ issue.)
The use of coercion is despicable.
My wife Pearl snorted this afternoon when I mentioned that comment about “only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy” in More’s term — Yep, she sniffed. What happened to the rest?
Peeled alive, blinded, lamed, branded, choked, half-drowned, castrated, hot pokers up the rectum … stolen and enslaved children, lost generations … brutality, just as you say, Perry, and ‘in the name of God’. Ghastly.
In my contention, it’s this exercise/abuse of power that has the ‘appalling human rights track record’ of which you speak.
e.g. Pol Pott, Mao Zedong, Lenin — Man’s inhumanity to man requires no ‘divine’ inspiration.
(My evangelist friends would perhaps differ with me on the ‘source’ of evil.)
OK, let’s think about that.
What offends me are lies. I wouldn’t say freedom to perjure is a right worth maintaining. Nope.
Something else that offends me is sexual abuse. … Neither is that a ‘human right’ I would protect.
— OK, so why isn’t this working, Perry? —
—
“Religion is – by and large – a scam.”
That’s a very broad statement, but I see where you’re coming from.
Another space cadet friend of mine (not the Scientologist) was deeply involved for many years in a cult based in Southern California. This cult — the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness (MSIA) set up by someone known as John-Roger — comprehensively fulfils your description (viz. “One in the business of selling salvation, absolution, heaven, hell, flim-flam, hocus pocus, whatever”) … yet my friend has taught me valuable insights into communication and caring, that she learnt from MSIA teachings.
And it was through her I connected with one of the happiest, sanest, most down-to-earth influences in my life, the writing of a wonderful man called Peter McWilliams (RIP). I’ll dig out his disbeliever’s treatise on God for you sometime. (Remind me: on babies, baths and bathwater.)
McWilliams was ‘into’ Transcendental Meditation for a decade, then got sucked into John-Roger’s MSIA …. with fruitful but ultimately awful effect. His book Life 202: What to do when your guru sues you is a must-read, seriously, if you can get it.
With glamour and sex appeal — and good-hearted human caring, MSIA attracts and breeds new members … it nurtures them, teaches them soulful meditation, communication skills, leadership etc and seeks to grow in influence (just like Scientology) … and benefits from its ‘tax status’ as a church.
Does it do NO good? No, that’s too sweeping a statement to make.
Humans thinking ‘higher thoughts’ and seeking to live with compassion DO help each other — they do good.
Does it do enough to ‘justify’ its tax-free status etc?
Hmmm It’s too late now, but sometime let’s discuss the Lottery grants and Pokie machine grants to sports clubs etc.
Perry, thanks again for your contribution to The Paepae. Very stimulating discussion. – P
[PS Some other time I’ll tell you about my visit to another cult in the Sierra Nevadas, north of San Francisco. As I said at the time: “Wow, such impressive people. Another week and I would have joined.”]
Quite so. And religion – of course – with its shalt not kill ‘advisory,’ incontrovertibly evidences itself as the epitome of the opposite? (cue the Tui advert)
Of course not. Was/is the price worth paying?
What do these have in common?
Peace, Love & Lentils
Death, Torture & War
Humans – with or without religion.
Why isn’t what [not] working? I’m confuddled.
A logical fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) and delusional nonsense, no matter how apparently benign the alleged ‘understanding.’ It was an understanding of something-or-other that they thought to give a deity name to. Who knows what it was? Humanity’s capacity for self deception is vast. History leads us to believe the Crusaders and Inquisitors et al had a different deity construct/fallacy understanding, to many people’s terminal pain.
The idea that human selfless service needs a deity construct as a prerequisite is absurd.
Has anyone reasonably, fairly and empirically defined the S, as in MSIA? Will ‘o’ the wisp? Ka? Soul? Psyche? Humbug?
I am enjoying this conversation, Perry. Thanks!
No, I didn’t say/don’t mean that “human selfless service needs a deity construct as a prerequisite” — and I don’t believe it.
I guess what I was trying to say was: religion and spirituality/mysticism (however one defines it) have not had universally bad effects. (You of course may see it differently, focusing on the ‘confidence trick/false hope’ aspects, as you are entitled to do.)
Throughout time, a ‘concept’ of a ‘higher power’ has led many (including me) to consider their own morality and righteousness (awful word) — and, in some cases, it affects/drives ‘better’ actions — the ‘How should we then live?’ already mentioned.
Logical fallacy or not, the ‘fruit’ is not ALL bitter… as in the case of MSIA and their ‘care’ for their fellow cult members, the higher thoughts/appreciation of each other evinced by some other ‘fellowships’.
Yes, there’s been great harm done, monstrous injustice and cruelty in the so-called ‘name of God’… and you are entitled, some would say obliged to ask the key question you do:
“Was/is the price worth paying?”
Good question, Perry. Bloody good question. Especially when one reads of the various kinds of abuse dished out in cults etc. (But is that any different to, say, the Communist party?)
My view: with comparatively few exceptions, humans are trash. (OK that’s too harsh, but judging by results.) [UPDATE: NOT a well-expressed thought, if I say so myself. See this subsequent comment.]
Alienation (a la ‘Group A’ vs ‘Group B’ schisms and all they ‘justify’) and the unprincipled exercise of power (to identify just one facet of the problem) get my vote.
– P
PS Sorry if I wasn’t clear: I couldn’t get the shift from your instruction to “put whatever offends you in place of the dots” to “ask yourself why you wouldn’t accept that postulate [that freedom to do that ‘offensive’ thing was OK] … I’m not connecting. More coffee!
A reasonably comprehensive and careful plod back through history indicates that many of the precepts of wholesome community living as espoused by many great thinkers, were arrogated by religions. Remember that all confidence tricks have to contain some plausible, even laudable component, as part of their modus operandi.
Abomination to horror to tolerance to indifference to justification to acceptance to endorsement: to their shame!
Religion vs communist party? Just differing deity-type constructs and titles used as part of the oppression – the ‘power’ – as you put it. A mass opiate by any other name . . . ?
You opine that humans are trash but religions may have a saving grace. I take the reciprocal view, generally speaking.
Hello new word: arrogated. (Thanks for the introduction, Perry. Nice.)
Yes. I know I vastly overstated the ‘humans are trash’ thought. (Poetic licence?)
I’m not that cynical and that’s not quite what I mean… just a somewhat useful working model. I routinely do look on the good side and for the good in people. I just don’t assume it’s the default position. (As I said elsewhere, I’m blessed in my friends.)
“Abomination to horror to tolerance to indifference to justification to acceptance to endorsement” Well put, my dear boy. That’s it, all right, sadly.
– P
Mass-opiates. … Well, there’s a conversation we could have, Perry. By golly.
OK, my slip. I was probably discombobulated by
the subject matter.
“Masses opiate” any better?
Was Hanlon any relation to Occam?
I completely understood what you meant by mass opiates, Perry. (No ‘correction’ implied.)
I meant to say I would enjoy discussing that topic with you.
Vance Packard’s book Hidden Persuaders (on the emergence of mass-market advertising and the use of psychology to manipulate people) was a seminal influence on my thinking. Thomas Szasz came much later, as part of my politics/psych studies, but dovetailed in with it.
As for Occam’s Razor —“The simplest solution that fits the facts is the most likely” — I’m not sure if they were related. But they may have sat on the Galactic Council together at some stage. 😉
re Razors, I’ve always liked this one from Winston Churchill:
[…] I quoted Haggis’s resignation letter with it’s core message: ‘Silence is consent … I refuse to consent‘ in an early post here on thePaepae.com. […]
[…] Silence implies consent as we have discussed before. And sometimes, as Judge Tony Adeane found in this case, it can […]
[…] wrongdoing) is, it seems to me, a sign of character much more potent than any personality test. Silence is consent, as we discussed in relation to Paul Haggis and the Church of […]