On November 4th, 2009, the author of “Leaving Scientology” posted the following comment on Marty Rathbun’s blog:

rebel008 // November 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Reply

Compare how LRH [L. Ron Hubbard] handled the defection of and criticism from prominent writer William S. Burroughs. In an April [that would be August], 1970 response in Mayfair magazine, he was respectful of Burroughs, and stated, “Outright lies and false accusations are not something that can be corrected. But honest and valid criticism is always welcome because it helps a lot of good people do a better job.”

Miscavige is incapable of thinking that way, or writing such a response. His first and only thought will be “how do I get revenge.”


There is no question David Miscavige, sociopathic leader of Scientology, Inc. is totally unable to handle criticism of himself, his church, or his religion. But, I wholeheartedly disagree that L. Ron Hubbard was any better at handling criticism. So I felt compelled to answer:

I tend to give more weight to acts performed away from PR [public relation] fronts. LRH’s handling of Paulette Cooper, Jim Berry and countless others doesn’t strike me as respectful.

My comment was never approved by Marty Rathbun. What is it that was so unbearable in my post that it couldn’t possibly be read by others? Isn’t this ingrained culture of hush-hush and censorship – even after leaving the Church of Scientology – just plain tiresome in the long run?

Intolerance to criticism runs deep in Scientology teachings. One just has to read one of the most important policy letter L. Ron Hubbard wrote regarding Scientology: Keeping Scientology Working Series I, dated February 7, 1965, in which L. Ron Hubbard makes it clear that his Scientology writings are infallible, which obviously implies that it is not open to criticism.

How ironic that my comment re. L. Ron Hubbard intolerance to criticism wasn’t accepted as valid criticism by Scientologist Marty Rathbun.

I will conclude with this quote from the Foster Report, regarding the inherent culture of intolerance to criticism in Scientology teachings:

The reactions of individuals and groups to criticism varies from grateful acceptance. or amused tolerance, at one end of the scale to a sense of outrage and vindictive counter-attack on the other. Perhaps unfortunately (especially for its adherents) Scientology falls at the hyper-sensitive end of the scale. Judging from the documents, this would seem to have its origin in a personality trait of Mr. Hubbard, whose attitude to critics is one of extreme hostility. One can take the view that anyone whose attitude to criticism is such as Mr. Hubbard displays in his writings cannot be too surprised if the world treats him with suspicion rather than affection.


Addendum: In case I hadn’t make this clear, it’s less about having my comment moderated, and more about whitewashing L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings when it comes to explain the long track record of abuses/wrongdoings/crimes in Scientology.