On August 30, Mark C. “Marty” Rathbun posted the following piece on his blog: “Scientific proof II”. At some point, he states:

From a true Scientologist’s perspective it is ridiculous to try to make Scientology prove itself through science

However, puzzingly, most of his post, including the title, is discourse to suggest that Scientology is scientifically sound.

But my interest is that on Marty Rathbun’s blog, there is this overall theme, that David Miscavige only gave Scientology a bad name. This of course, I find ridiculous, as the track record of crimes, abuses and deceit traces back all the way to the 50s. When I read this passage:

Miscavige’s first impulse when he reads this post will likely be to strut around the office ranting to his inner circle

I felt compelled to answer, so yesterday, I replied on his blog as follow:

“Miscavige’s first impulse when he reads this post will likely be to strut around the office ranting to his inner circle”

L. Ron Hubbard’s first impulse when he saw Jim Berry’s cartoon in 1977 (URL supplied below), was to order his crew to disenfranchise Jim Berry, so that he would stop “SP Scientology.”

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/operation-funny-bone.html

Where was David Miscavige at the time?

Regarding Linde, he a real scientist, meaning that he his of the opinion that *ultimately*, any scientific theory must go through the validation/invalidation process of repeatable, quantifiable objective experiments, which always involves measuring things (or else there is absolutely *no use* for the theory.) Real scientists embrace debates and peer reviews. I doubt he would be pleased to have Hubbard compared to him. It boggles my mind to even see those two names mentioned on the same page.

My point, of course, was to illustrate that Scientology was already corrupt prior to David Miscavige. In my opinion, Scientology doctrines such as “Suppressive Person”, “stats”, etc. will invariably lead to a culture of abuses and arbitraries.

Previously, I had been pleasantly surprised that he did accept to publicize my commments on his blog (like here, here, here).

However, this time, it appears my reply didn’t make the cut. Today, in the comments section, he posted something which I feel explains why my reply wasn’t accepted. I quote him:

… I attempted to open discussion to anyone, giving some who have attacked Scientology generally the benefit of the doubt that they were simply misinformed. The responses you don’t see, and won’t anymore, are worse than distractions. They are attempts to discredit any positive spiritual experience people may have attained using Scientology. That is hate, not discussion. They are living proof that some who say they are in the Scientology protest business for the sole purpose of protecting fundamental human and civil rights are not being sincere. The latest was attacking me as ”blaming everything on Miscavige.” The implication is that Hubbard needs to be blamed. I cannot in good conscience, and will not, give Miscavige a pass on that score. …

Oh well. I will go through each of his points.

… I attempted to open discussion to anyone, giving some who have attacked Scientology generally the benefit of the doubt that they were simply misinformed …

Thanks for this, I really appreciated it (while it lasted.)

… The responses you don’t see, and won’t anymore, are worse than distractions. …

This answers well why my last reply wasn’t accepted for publication on your blog. I was wondering.

… They are attempts to discredit any positive spiritual experience people may have attained using Scientology. …

Not really. This was rather an attempt to show that many Scientology doctrines are at the root of pattern of crimes, abuses, deceit of organized Scientology. They act as natural selection to bring people like David Miscavige at the helm of organized Scientology. Prior to David Miscavige, it was the Guardian’s Office.

… That is hate, not discussion. …

There we go, associating critical analysis and dissent to “hate”… There is this French expression, “Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop,” which I found translate as follow: “Leopard cannot change its spots”, that is, critical analysis of Scientology is still perceived as “hate” to former Church of Scientology officer Mark Rathbun.

… They are living proof that some who say they are in the Scientology protest business for the sole purpose of protecting fundamental human and civil rights are not being sincere. …

I point at harmful Scientology doctrines, obviously, being sincere can’t be part of my character.

… The latest was attacking me as “blaming everything on Miscavige.” The implication is that Hubbard needs to be blamed. I cannot in good conscience, and will not, give Miscavige a pass on that score. …

So apparently, making a case that Scientology contains many harmful doctrines is to “give Miscavige a pass”… I started to assemble a web page on Church of Scientology leader David Miscavige back in October 2005. Does it look like I am attempting to give David Miscavige a free pass? To me, it rather looks like Mark Rathbun is attempting to give Scientology a free pass.

I will note that Paulette Cooper and countless others certainly deserve more than this kind of Scientology apologetics. In my opinion, they have never been totally vindicated, I wish they will be one day, as of now, it’s not going to come from Mark C. “Marty” Rathbun, this I can tell.

Advertisements