This is Taylor Tweed’s mother and brother speaking out about how they feel about Taylor’s suicide being featured on A&E’s Scientology and the Aftermath. I think A&E should interview Cathy Tweed – and give her time on their network after what has been done to her.
There are always at least two sides to every story – usually many more. Hear Cathy Tweed’s version of events. There is a lot of information that neither Tony Ortega, nor Rachel Bernstein, nor Leah Remini, nor Mike Rinder have given you.
And that is really very disappointing.
Published by Cathy T on January 12, 2015
Yes Ms Tweed-“we need kindness, love and respect”…well said. And those things start at home. I am truly sorry for the loss of your beautiful daughter. It sounds like you tried to help her and in the best way you knew. But I can’t help but wonder if she would stil be here if her family was willing to look beyond the blinders of their belief and get her some actual mental health treatment.
Second guessing a mother who has lost a daughter to suicide like this is pretty cruel, don’t you think? This kind of cruelty is strewn throughout the anti-Scientology community right now, including fans of Scientology and the Aftermath, because that kind of cruel second-guessing was built right into the episode you watched.
They said it – so you think it.
What if Tayler was your daughter? Would you like a TV show to make an episode about you and your dead daughter without your consent, and second guess you like this to millions of people?
People commit suicide under the care of the best psychiatrists, too, right?
I don’t want to put you on the spot, but you are really putting Cathy Tweed on the spot very harshly here. As have many very cruel people before you.
So … let’s just stick to the kindness, love, and respect, shall we?
This is all about protecting David Miscavige and the Church. No real mother would ever be truly at peace with a child blowing their head off. Finally, someone has told the REAL story…..the Church of Scientology did NOTHING to help this poor girl…it cast her out. But…let’s go get tattoos so we can feel better about it.
Hi Lisa!
Have you ever been to one of your own children’s funerals?
You do know that Tony Ortega got that quote from Cathy Tweed about being “at peace with it” during a phone call he made to her on the day of Tayler’s funeral, right?
So let’s look at this. You’ve just attended the funeral of your own daughter who committed suicide and a journalist calls you up to talk to you about it. What are you going to say? Are you even going to be aware of what you are saying at that time?
Then that journalist posts that quote from you on the Internet, and a whole bunch of party-bus sociopaths start going off on that quote and ripping you to shreds for saying it. And that includes posting it again, a year later, for a licensed therapist to psycho-analyze you using that quote of yours that you told to Tony on the day of your daughter’s funeral.
I’m pretty sure this tactic of trying to put you in Cathy Tweed’s shoes is not getting through to you. Because people like you who come on to blogs to post anonymously to trash a mother whose daughter committed suicide don’t really get things like this, no matter what you say to them.
But maybe others didn’t know the true story of how Tony Ortega got that quote from Cathy Tweed.
But now they do.
So thanks for playing, Lisa!
“You do know that Tony Ortega got that quote from Cathy Tweed about being ‘at peace with it’ during a phone call he made to her on the day of Tayler’s funeral, right?”
How do you know that for a fact, Alanzo, if you don’t mind telling me? I am just curious, I am not challenging you.
The first time Tony reported on Tayler Tweed was from a phone conversation with her mother the day after her daughter’s funeral. All the quotes you have seen from Cathy Tweed came from Tony’s conversation with Tayler’s mother the day after she buried her daughter. These same quote were used on Leah’s show to make Cathy Tweed appear insane, as well:
https://tonyortega.org/2014/01/20/tales-from-scientologys-hollywood-celebrity-centre-tayler-tweed-steven-mango/
It’s the second item that day.
And then over 2 years later, Tony Ortega brought in a licensed family therapist, Rachel Bernstein, to psychoanalyze the quotes from Cathy Tweeds which were made the day after her daughter’s funeral.
https://tonyortega.org/2016/04/28/a-scientologist-heading-for-suicide-the-missing-tayler-tweed-facebook-postings/
My blog post on these.
Ok Alanzo; thanks! I’ll check it out.
Now that I’ve checked, my memory was incorrect. Tony Ortega got that quote from Cathy Tweed the day after her daughter’s funeral.
But I’m sure that for anyone who has buried their child, the day after is still the same day.
In fact, the year after may still be the same day.
But she’s a Scientologist, so what do we care about that, right?
“But I’m sure that for anyone who has buried their child, the day after is still the same day.”
Of course is the same! I will look into this in every detail of it to connect a few dots, and to fill the vacuum of lack of enough information with facts instead of assumptions. By “assumptions”, I meant what was presented on the episode 2 of “The Aftermath” season 2.
I updated my reply to you with another link where Tony dragged her through it a 2nd time on his blog. Check that one out too.
Ok Alanzo, thanks! I’ll check that out too.
This is not about leaving the so called church, it is about the stupidity of joining and believing. Either you are dumb enough to do it or your not. You seem to be on the fence. You are defending a woman who dragged her daughter into a mythological realm of nonsense that refused to help her. Now she is defending the cult. C’mon open your blogger’s eyes.
Really? What about Scientology kids. Like me. And as to people like my dad, well, Scientology starts as basic self help courses with a strong pop psychology aspect to them. That’s how they get people hooked.
In my pre Miscavige time I looked at scn as a form of psychology and self improvement. If someone told me I was joining a church I would have run for the door.
You got that right.
This show wasn’t about Kathy Tweed! This was about her daughter and how she ( Kathy ) and Scientology failed Taylor!
“This show wasn’t about Kathy Tweed! This was about her daughter and how she ( Kathy ) and Scientology failed Taylor!”
That’s just rhetorical horse shit! I bet the if were the case of your own deceased daughter being shown in national TV while making you guilty, you would then think and speak differently.
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of plain stupidly from the anti-Scientology camp! My God, and you dare criticize Scientologists by their alleged lack of compassion? What the fuck do you call what you are doing? I am tired the shit of you guys. Must be Hurracaine Irma!
TC! I’ve been thinking about you!
Did you make it through Irma okay?
Hi Alanzo! Yeah, I made it through just fine; thanks for asking! 🙂
As a rather usual phenomenon that we Puerto Ricans can’t still understand, “Irma” went off towards the North just as it was approaching the island. No lives were lost as far as I know, and besides lots of fallen trees and electricity poles (and power lines), not heavy damage was done to personal properties. Not that much if compared with the expected scenario.
Most debris that were blocking the streets have already been taken care of, and the biggest “damage” is from 50-75% of the island without electrical power, and cell phones and internet signals either inactive or very poor.
But now my concern is with my daughter and her mom. Both of them are living in centrsl Florida. I am currently working on that.
All right then, thanks for the update from Irma’s path!
Sure! 🙂
Shouldn’t any real and caring mother, second guess herself, if her daughter felt that ending her life was the best option.? Maybe if she had felt more support in her own family or in her own mother, instead of being publicly criticized by the very people whom should always be on her side, she wouldn’t have taken such drastic measures. It’s just sad that after being the first to demean her own daughter online that she now wants to cry wolf at those who criticize her for being a less than worthy mother to her own child. It’s just sad.
Hi Dixie –
Your comment was interesting to me. Why do you think that Cathy Tweed is not human, just like you? Why do you think that Cathy Tweed would not second guess herself every single day?
Why would you want to contribute to Cathy Tweed’s own inner hell?
Can you answer that for me?
Alanzo:
Why are you working so hard to defend her?
You are way to eager to defend Cathy and this so called “church”.
Why is that?
You’re extremely eager to call out Mike and Leah. Why is that?
Why are you not calling out Scientology’s ways of handling these situations?
Could it be that you ARE one????
Tribalism is real.
But it’s not real smart.
Taylor was never shown any kindness – this church simply needs to be stopped. Feel free to add me to your “undesired” list.
Please don’t tell me that you have seen one half of a segment of one episode of Leah Remini’s show, which repeated an article written by Tony Ortega while adding NOTHING new to it, and you think you have enough knowledge here to say “Taylor was never shown any kindness”.
I can sympathize with trying to use one’s frame of reference to help their kid. It’s the fact that they threw her out that gets me.
“I can sympathize with trying to use one’s frame of reference to help their kid. It’s the fact that they threw her out that gets me.”
You know, that’s EXACTLY the problem with the AGREED UPON “anti-Scientology narrative”, Claire, that you take as “facts” statements that are NOT necessarily facts, and that ACTUALLY, are assumptions not backed up by ANY evidence whatsoever, but which are mostly based on HEARSAY evidence (“someone told me that he heard…..” kind of thing).
Please, be so kind to exactly quote or present the exact time tap(s) in that 2nd episode of The Aftermath where ANY ACTUAL evidence was presented as to Tayler’s mother – Cathy Tweed – having “thrown out” her daughter or disconnected from her. Please be so kind to PRESENT that evidence, leaving apart pure HEARSAY, and we can take it from there. Fair enough?
I’ve seen and been told of quite a few parents who seemed to love their kids but wouldn’t speak with them. Marie Billheimer-also in that show- said (it was an extra scene that wasn’t used in the main episode) said that she’d gone to her grandma’s funeral and her folks were right there-and on the flight- and wouldn’t say one word to her. Taylor’s folks disconnected from her and threw her out. That’s tough for me to get past. Some ppl have questioned the fact that Tayler’s friend was the one speaking out and I can see why. But there’s a reason.
It’s similar to families who bring their kids up seeming to dote on them, but murder them in an honor killing lately. You wonder “how could they?” Yeah. And how could someone stand right next to her kid in a ticket line at the airport or at the funeral and say nothing. I could not do anything like that.
“Taylor’s folks disconnected from her and threw her out.”
AGAIN Claire, you sre ASSUMING that just because a THIRD PARTY who has ABSOLUTELY no personal knowledge of such events – but mostly through hearsay not backed up by ANY texts of FB posts, ANYTHING – is saying so. Is that an habit of yours to believe in everything you see presented in a TV show, even when no actual facts are presented? Or you just like the “anti-Scientology narrative”? Do you know that something called “Critical Thinking” exists?
“Or you just like the “anti Scientology narrative?”
Sorry, but that’s evaluative and rude. You don’t know me. Friendly hint- don’t say the sorts of things that you might criticize or object to others saying. Cuts both ways.
Do not ever yell at me again.
Sorry; I got carried away. There was no need to insult you.
`Anyone who knowingly follows a man like Hubbard deserves exactly what they get. Belief in aliens, and auditing, going clear and of course the extraterrestrial nonsense is ludicrous. It has all been proven to be a fraudulent business just like Hubbard was proven to be simply insane. Whatever this woman says relating to how she tried to help cannot be taken seriously because she followed Hubbard….that makes her statements and response null and void.
I know that you think you are making the world a better place by coming on to a blog and expressing your disgust and hatred for a mother who lost her daughter to suicide, but you’re really not.
Bullshit. Auditing is just counseling. There are many different sorts. Most is like talk therapy. Aliens? So what. Many people who aren’t involved in Scientology believe in that.
But in any event, the world is full of false beliefs. NOBODY deserves to be starved and beaten and to lose their families.
“Whatever this woman says relating to how she tried to help cannot be taken seriously because she followed Hubbard….that makes her statements and response null and void.”
That must be the most fallacious argument that I’ve ever heard! I sincerely hope that you are not into law, because God help us if you are!!!
Let’s follow your “logic” with an analogy, shall we? A woman is married to a known fundamentalist Jehovah Witness minister. This “minister” is a cult leader who ask for unquestionable obedience. He is somewhat psychotic, actually, you know, a little like LRH himself got. At one point in time, this lady dared to question one of her husband’s beliefs, which enraged the man resulting in a heavy beating and even rape of this lady. This lady decides to go to the police to report this physical and sexual abuse from her own husband. But you are the police officer taking her complaint. Are you following me all right so far, dear Henri Chef? Or am I going too fast?
Now because this police officer – that wouldd be YOU – thinks that the statements from ANYBODY who follows a psychotic fundamentalist Jehovah Witness minister, should be considered “null and void”, you decides then that the lady might be lying and refuse to even investigate her claims.
Do you see the absurdity of your “argument”, Mr. “Critical Thinking”?
This is EXACTLY why the “anti-Scientology narrative” is so DANGEROUS; because it can turn good people into “Fair Gamers” themselves, totally neglecting the Human and civil Rights of those whose belief system they disagree with.
I don’t have a specific with this particular case or episode, that’s down to the people involved and those who felt they should have been more of an influence, or less of an influence with this story and tragedy. They know who they are,, and will leave it at that.
On the broader perspective of ‘exes’ and ‘whistleblowers’ who have sufficient experience within the churches or Orgs to know the policies and tech points that motivate and guide the group effort, as well as the counselling and training points that create the graduated indoc into the subject and benefits across the dynamics,,, i find it very curious that a situation is created that these would have the need to go to external and non scn sources in order to ‘get justice’ or ‘warn others’ ,,, It’s telling me that the wisdom and purpose of the subject matter contained in books and lectures is being sidelined for the purpose of enforcing attitudes and behaviours in a very careless and stupid manner. Whether or not this is specific to sea org indoc, i don’t know,, my experience has been with class 5 orgs as staff and public, tho the presence of advanced org staff has been more noticeable during the last period i was back on service – 2005 -2010.
I can see the ‘public interest’ perspective with this series and and other productions that seek to find a story and tell it,, it has been created with key words – cult – secret – confidential – gulag ,, and so on … not to mention the mood music and lighting,,, It’s what media does,, it’s never enough just to have a story confined to the specifics and analyse it,,,no one buys that approach anymore.
“I can see the ‘public interest’ perspective with this series and and other productions that seek to find a story and tell it,, it has been created with key words – cult – secret – confidential – gulag ,, and so on … not to mention the mood music and lighting,,, It’s what media does,, it’s never enough just to have a story confined to the specifics and analyse it,,,no one buys that approach anymore.”
Yeah, Dave Luck, that’s a very sad truth indeed! Most Media, are not particularly interested in truth as much as they are interested in what sells and gives ratings. Leah Remini is very aware of this, and is using it to her advantage, but in an irresponsible way, IMHO. They – Mike Rinder and her – decided on a specific narrative beforehand, and they are “fishing” for stories that fits and support that narrative. They are not really interested in reform and correct justice. If they were, their approach in the show would be different, and they would be more careful with the facts and about not making generalizations out of a few instances and stereotyping the Scientologists in general.
There is no denying that the church is guilty of many abuses even, even if some of those abuses are not exactly “illegal”. But in my opinion, most of these abuses are not based on sensible uses of the existing Scn policies, but in misinterpretation of them, or using them in fundamentalistic ways without proper discernment and good judgement. This isn’t to be interpreted as meaning that there are no LRH’s policies that by themselves, unadulterated in any way, are destructive enough so as to make it a necessity to just get rid of them; we have just too many of those. But, IMHO, the biggest part of the general upset has been created by misapplication and by a fundamentalistic, fanatical approach to policy and “Tech”.
In my opinion, the best way to handle this is not by trying to demonstrate who is “stronger” or more “badass”, which is the current narrative of BOTH, the church and the anti-Scientology movement. If Leah and Mike would have emphasized specific instances of Disconnection and Fair Game practices, where only factual data capable of being PROVED was shown – preferably with documents, videos, etc – that might have acted as enough Media pressure for the church to decide to reform a few things, even if they would do it “backstage”, you know, without publicly admitting to anything.
And if the narrative of the program was not, “Scientology need to be stopped and destroyed” – which IS the one they’ve been using even if not in those words – but instead a plea for reformation for the greater good, we might have gotten somewhere in terms of reformation. But what we have from BOTH sides is the dramatization of a huge “Service Facsimile” (“You are wrong; I am totally right”), that totally blind both parties from sensible communication. But from my point of view, it is up to US and not to them, to take the first step towards proper dialogue and “peace talks”.
Seeking criminal convictions is not a correct path, as if after 67± years nothing criminal has been able to hold – except the “Snow White Operation” – then is very unlikely that this will ever happen in any near future. Most abuses in Scientology happened (with the exception of children who of course, have not enough will power) because people AGREED to being abused. They either didn’t fight back, or just willingly accepted what was happening to them. If we were to go and try to “rescue” those in the RPF or “The Hole” (if it even exist today, which I DOUBT it very much), they would probably say, “What the fuck are you doing here? I am doing this willingly”.
What we need to do is to push for reformation with an specific message (non accusative, non punitive, non harshly critical) repeated over and over again, while showing specific instances that totally prove our points. Then, sooner or later, they might actually listen. I am no expert at Public Relations, but I am no amateur, neither.
I suspect Mike and Leah’s tactics are based on the supposition that public exposure to harmful practices results in reformation. Case in point, the DeCrescenzo lawsuit brought forced abortions to the forefront, the reaction from the church – no more abortions (so I’m told). So, they have this idea, that if they publically expose the church’s harmful practice, and rub their nose in it, that the church will reform and cease such actions.
But a court room and a TV show are two different arenas. One is geared towards the discovery of truth, the other is entertainment. And unfortunately, human misery and tragedy have entertainment value.
Technically, what Mike and Leah are doing IS a documentary.
But, no one who watches a documentary, should walk away and think they know everything about the subject matter. All documentaries have a viewpoint. There are MANY viewpoints.
However, most Scn watchers do not have the time, resources, or capacity to explore all facets of a Scn-related event. Instead, they consume information from what they consider trusted sources (Leah, Mike, Tony O, etc), which aligns with their own convictions and emotions. Truth and fairness are not necessarily part of that equation.
This is always a liability for anyone seeking the truth.
“I suspect Mike and Leah’s tactics are based on the supposition that public exposure to harmful practices results in reformation. Case in point, the DeCrescenzo lawsuit brought forced abortions to the forefront, the reaction from the church – no more abortions (so I’m told). So, they have this idea, that if they publically expose the church’s harmful practice, and rub their nose in it, that the church will reform and cease such actions.”
I beg to differ, Statpush, and I am not trying to influence your opinion here. But just let me discuss my premises leading to my conclusion (based on induction, and not in deduction, meaning is something reasonable and highly probable, but not necessarily a fact) that Mike’s and Leah’s purpose (ESPECIALLY Mike’s) is not reformation but mostly the punishment of DM, and the eradication of the church.
Premises :
The Aftermath is not fair and totally truthful when presenting the “facts”. Mere assumptions, suppositions, and half-truths are presented as “facts”. A LOT is based on hearsay, which at almost every court of law in the planet would be considered as inadmissible evidence, and for obvious justice reasons.
Mike is not sticking to a narrative – like the narrative that most people who wanted the Catholic Church to stop child abuse stuck with – that only focus on specific abuses, and on very specific and irrefutable evidence while leaving alone the religious aspects; but they are sticking to a narrative sort of : “The church is an evil entity who doesn’t believe in medicine, whose members never go see a medical doctor, and who are so ‘brainwashed’ that they feel no loss when they lose their kids through Disconnection or death, and blah, blah”. Honestly Statpush, does that sound like an agenda for “reformation” to you?
Mike Rinder DAILY post at his blogs stories NOT related in any way (save for when an “The Aftermath” show is aired) to specific abuses, but mostly trying to prove to his sheeple that the church is not as big as they claim it is, how the buildings are empty, how the Volunteer Ministers really don’t help anybody, etc, etc, etc, etc. I mean, just today Mike posted something basically mocking all those Scientologists who at least are trying to help at the disaster at Texas. Of course, that he opened his piece sort of “validating” their efforts, in a SENTENCE. But the rest of the post was about trashing it all as he ALWAYS DO. But I don’t see him getting into a plane and going to Texas to help. Yet he criticises the ones who do. Hypocrisy!!
Mike does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when a Scientologist post a comment there at his blog, and a lot of commenters start attacking him/her left and right with all kinds of insults, just because that Scientologist says something (ANYTHING) positive about LRH or Scn. I MYSELF had been doing just that until recently, though I didn’t do it that much. I used to think, “Well, Mike is a supporter of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, so he just tries to interfere as little as he can, you know”. But I realized that he just DIDN’T care if others were invalidating a Scientologist left and right, as long as the attacks weren’t too viscous or too repetitive from one specific poster.
His posts at his blog don’t mention ANYTHING about reformation, nor he uses a narrative leading to ask the church officials to please stop using the destructive policies, to come to senses regarding attacking the dissenters and critics, etc. No, his narrative is about the punishment of DM and the destruction of the church as we know it. For Christ’s sakes, what is “Thursday Funnies” and “Regraded Being” about If not about mocking the church? Can be really call that a “Desire at reformation”? I don’t think so.
Those 5 premises inductively lead to conclude that Mike Rinder is NOT after reformation, but after punishment and revenge because his family DECIDED ON THEIR OWN to disconnect from him, but he blames DM for it. He doesn’t take responsibility for the fact that it was HIM the one who got them into Scn in the first place, but now he just think of them as “brainwashed”, “mind controlled”, “imprisoned”, and having no free will to decide on their own. How can he possibly know what is on their minds? Does he read minds now?
Leah’s career before The Aftermath was practically non-existent. Don’t get me wrong, She is a GREAT artist, and she seems to be a GREAT lady. But that doesn’t alter the fact that she wasn’t any longer on the public eye – not that she necessarily needed any money. But now after going public about leaving the church, writing a book about it, and doing “The Aftermath”, suddenly she is all over the Media, being mentioned at almost every newspaper and magazine on the planet. Are we that naive so as to negate that her “Fight against the abuses” HAS been very helpful for her career? She went from a “Where is Leah these days” to a “Leah Remini is an awesome badass”. Uhmmm, makes me wonder…..
I just don’t buy it, Statpush. Not any longer. I used to think – up to just 1-2 week ago – that Rathbun had gone crazy with this “fantasy” of his and sort of “conspiracy theory” about an ASC (“Anti-Scientology Cult”). “The guy is NUTS”, I thought. Then I watched a YouTube video from the “Vulcan First Officer” Chris Shelton where he was using “Critical” thinking to mock that “absurd” idea of an “Anti-Scientology Cult”. I remember him saying something along the line that a “Cult” required a leader and some form of organization, and a belief system, and that there just wasn’t any coordinated effort with specific “leaders” to destroy the church. That they were “independent” minds working “independently” of each other. Are they, really? Let’s analyze this for a minute, shall we?
COINCIDENTALLY enough, what Ortega, Jeffrey Augustine, Shelton, Aaron Smith-Levin, and Mike Rinder post, are in PERFECT synchronicity about the SAME EXACT subjects. And they are all good friends, as far as I know. So, from my own observations, there is AT LEAST a very clear professional relationship among all of them as to a VERY specific and defined anti-Scientology narrative. Let’s put Karen De La Carriere on that list, and we are all set, 😉 That specific group of 6, plus their sheeple decided upon a VERY specific narrative since SEVERAL years ago, and since then their specific agenda DOES NOT include reformation AT ALL.
I rest my case! 🙂 Sorry for all my delusional conspiracies, haha. Perhaps I need MEDICATION, 😉 I must be going crazy or something, because, I mean, this is just me and a very few others who think like this. And we all know that the opinion of the majority is the correct one, isn’t it? So we all must be at least a little bit paranoid. Hundreds or thousands (or even millions) individuals thinking in one direction, against a few of us who got tired of being one-sided and used as sheeple to support a narrative made up of injustice, generalizations, and desires for punishment and revenge.
Well, TC, a compelling posting, indeed. I can’t fault you on your logic. Clearly Leah and Mike have some type of agenda, and as you point out, it is not reformation.
Thinking about this a bit more, the only set policy regarding suicide that I’m aware of, is the routing-in metered interviews to the HGC (and possibly on sec checks), designed to filter-out undesirables. And the PTS Type III declare for onlines public.
For Type III, I would expect the person to get a Qual program, which may include The Introspection Rundown. My local AO wouldn’t deliver this, instead either hat a family member, or turn it over to a field auditor.
This aspect of Hubbard and Scn always irked me. They are quite outspoken about the “barbaric” psyches and the treatment of the mentally ill, yet, they will have nothing to do with the mentally ill. A lot of criticisms, but no solutions.
Getting back on track…what could the church do to “reform” this aspect of their religion (if we’re to believe Mike and Leah)? There really is nothing there TO reform. Do you think the church really cares what treatment a Type III receives? They just want them off their lines, so they can concentrate on the “able”.
Despite Hubbard’s blovations about curing mental aberrations, the church knows they do not have the solution to insanity. Caring for the insane is costly and time-consuming and requires resources. And its ridiculous to expect the church to reform along these lines.
In this light, it appears The Aftermath has but one goal: To rain upon the church so much bad PR that the public is repulsed.
“{This aspect of Hubbard and Scn always irked me. They are quite outspoken about the “barbaric” psyches and the treatment of the mentally ill, yet, they will have nothing to do with the mentally ill. A lot of criticisms, but no solutions.”
Do you know a reference that says “they will have nothing to do with the mentally ill”? The only related reference I know of concerns those who have had psychiatric drugs or who have been institutionalized.
Until auditors are licensed, I do not think they should have anything to do with the mentally ill.
Based on what, Al?
I get that you don’t have much confidence in the tech (leave aside the church) – but I do. Hence, we both probably have our bias. But first of all, what is meant by “mentally ill”? And what does the actual record indicate with respect to what auditing can do for it? I’d like to know what some experienced tech people have to say on the subject.
Anyway, my comment above had to do with the notion that the church does not treat the “mentally ill.” This seems to me like an ASC false datum that fits their agenda – and they’ve convinced others that it’s true so now it’s an “everybody know,” like so many of their assertions.
.
Well the distinctions you made about those who have had psych drugs and who have been institutionalized are good things to bring up. But there is a general dysfunction in Scientology technology that treats the brain like no other organ in the body. For some reason, no medications that treat the brain are allowed. It’s like that organ can’t get sick. Or something actually never explained.
The problem with this is that the brain can get sick. And there are drug treatments for depression and other brain illnesses which are sometimes-to-mostly effective, and which do not at all interfere with any spiritual development. And yet Scientology has this utterly dysfunctional policy of forbidding these drugs to treat the brain.
Depression can result in death. It is a dangerous brain illness. That Scientology limits its treatment to exercise, PTS handlings and vitamins is very suppressive. And that it then forbids its parishioners from trying out medications is actually, literally, dangerous for Scientologists who suffer from depression.
If auditors were licensed, then they could not forbid people from getting the medical treatment they need without losing their license.
And that would be one way of reforming the abuses in Scientology, and making Scientology technology safer for Scientologists.
I don’t necessarily doubt that a person can benefit from medical treatment for brain illnesses. But it’s a big stretch and a falsehood to broaden that to say the church doesn’t treat the “mentally ill.” There are references for doing so going back to the first books, such as in “Science of Survival” with its Chart of Human Evaluation which specifies how to audit neurosis and psychosis.
That point aside, what you say in the following about the church is really the basic – and most important – issue at stake:
“If auditors were licensed, then they could not forbid people from getting the medical treatment they need without losing their license.”
I’m sure you know that there are other religions that don’t believe in medical treatment, either – and that this is actually a matter of freedom of religion. That, btw, is the key principle I believe Marty is standing up for. And it’s the most insidious problem with what Leah and Mike are doing.
No religion has the freedom to deny medical care that then results in death.
There have been manslaughter convictions of Christian Scientists and others who kept their own children from the medical care they needed and ended up in prison.
Criminal acts are not covered by the first amendment.
Because medical science has advanced since the publication of Science of Survival (66 years), and because these advancements save peoples’ lives, then it is extremely unethical – even from the perspective of a Scientologist – to forbid these treatments after everything else has been tried. It is the very definition of suppression.
If I remember right it was a tough decision that went to the Supreme Court – and that was with regard to children. With adults, I think it’s a slippery slope to tell them what they should or should not believe in and practice.
A less loaded example of this principle is what happened with chiropractors. For decades it was even taught in schools that they were quacks – which I think was said about anything that wasn’t medicine and under the control of the AMA. Yet the chiros survived – for the simple reason they did help people, often much better than doctors. Eventually even insurance companies were covering chiropractic care. Why? Because they learned tha often more effective than medical treatment.
Don’t get me wrong, the medical field produces a lot of miracles and I’m not down on them in general. But I’m not convinced it should be up to them – or any other government or private agency – to say how the ill should be treated. Again, it’s a matter of freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state.
“I’m sure you know that there are other religions that don’t believe in medical treatment, either – and that this is actually a matter of freedom of religion. That, btw, is the key principle I believe Marty is standing up for. And it’s the most insidious problem with what Leah and Mike are doing.”
Hi Marildi,
I agree with most of your points that you have discussed with Alanzo, except for the above one. You see, I feel that we must be very careful with mixing the religious aspect of Scientology with its psychotherapeutic aspect. Mental health should be under the heading of “psychotherapy” not under the heading of “religion”. It is the same with for example, priests who are also trained clinical psychologists, and who besides using the scriptures as a priest to spiritually orient the individuals he/she is trying to help, he also uses the tools of his trade as a trained clinical psychologist (or other type of psychotherapist) to help his parishioner. In fact, most of the time, this specific service is charged around $80-$125 an hour by such priests. For his “hat” or role as a psychotherapist he is expected to be trained and properly licensed. For his role as a spiritual healer, or advisor, no licensing is expected, of course.
Getting licensed is actually a great idea for auditors dealing specifically with the mentally ill as opposed to those auditors dealing with the more stable ones. This way, more trust can be built among Scientology practitioners and society which is what Scientologists must focus on, IMHO.
“Mental health should be under the heading of “psychotherapy” not under the heading of ‘religion’.”
According to whose belief system?
It seems to me that most spiritual teachers I have come across absolutely do include psychotherapy as part of their spiritual teaching, although they might not use that term. I’m truly amazed at how much the descriptions of their students’ barriers to awakening sound like a description of the reactive mind! Would you want those teachings to be licensed? Not me, TC. 😉
Good point, I give you that! 🙂 I must confess that I sort of don’t have a definite position on that yet, as I must first analyze all sorts of good arguments such as yours. Now you got me confused again, Marildi. Don’t you know that I like to feel certain about things? 🙂
One of the spiritual teachings, which might seem contrary to Ron’s idea, is to not be too certain – at least not in a fixed way. It says that in order to “know” you first have to be willing to completely “not know,” in which case the universe will be open to you. Of course, “know” and “not know” are the same words that are on the Know to Mystery Scale – with Know at the top, and in order to get there you have to go through Not-Know.
In the other teaching (Ron’s too, I would say), Know is where intuition and wisdom lie. One keeps building on the wisdom because one’s data in the world of duality keeps increasing, while at the same time one’s ability to connect with the divine (non-duality) also increases.
There’s your little sermon for the day. 🙂
Could you guys try to keep this somewhere in the vicinity of Cathy Tweed, Leah Remini and Scientology and the Aftermath?
Since that’s the post you’re commenting on?
By the way, I found two videos that Cathy Tweed and a friend of hers uploaded to youtube a couple of years ago as a memorial to Tayler. I added them to the post.
Sorry, Al. In my mind, at least the point about freedom of religion did relate to Cathy Tweed. But okay.
I’ll watch the youtube vid. Thanks.
It’s certainly an argument I am open to – how so?
Here’s an example of a religious tenet:
“If people come to me and are not ready to abandon their fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as their own lives, they cannot be my disciples.”
As you probably know, that’s from the Bible – quoting Jesus.
It sounds a lot like the viewpoint of church Scientologists, don’t you think? And that is their right, IMO. I don’t happen to resonate with that belief system, but I think it’s the right path for some people at this moment in their spiritual journey.
Basically, it’s not a universal given that family has to be placed first in the search for spiritual freedom – unless that’s your belief.
Yes. Rights to practice your religious beliefs are legally protected in the US even though they might go against some peoples’ moral codes, or even the moral (not.legal) codes of of the larger culture around them.
This is where the word “cult” shows some utility – it can be used to designate a group which has morals that differ from the culture surrounding it.
But no cult has the right to break the law.
So there are these areas such as child labor and blocking access to medical care where I believe critics can legitimately point out criminality by scientology and try to get the government to act. These are areas of legal vulnerability for scientology and I think they are areas where they need to reform.
I think the important baseline to keep in mind is the law. Many critics are so focused on moral issues that they pound away at things that simply do not matter, thankfully, to any government. They think scientology is a “criminal organization” because they break up families.
No part of “Breaking up families” is illegal. And in adults there are clear rights to association which can not be denied. And so it is a waste of time to harp on that if you really want to make scientology less dangerous. You end up having to lie and cover over important information and over simplify things to mold disconnection into a weapon that creates a moral panic around scientology.
This simply makes critics into hysterical ninnies who should continue to be ignored by anyone with legal power and who is serious about reforming scientology.
And Al, I’m really glad you’re sticking up for Cathy Tweed.
My bad, Alanzo! And I’ll take a look at those videos, thanks!
Thanks Marildi; that’s a VERY interesting viewpoint indeed! Sorry that Alanzo spoiled our fun, haha. I guess that we will have to continue this interesting discussion at another forum, or through email lines, 🙂
“Well, TC, a compelling posting, indeed. I can’t fault you on your logic.”
Thank you!
“Clearly Leah and Mike have some type of agenda, and as you point out, it is not reformation.”
Exactly!
“Thinking about this a bit more, the only set policy regarding suicide that I’m aware of, is the routing-in metered interviews to the HGC (and possibly on sec checks), designed to filter-out undesirables. And the PTS Type III declare for onlines public.”
My own experience had mostly been as a Mission staff that then became a small org. What we used to do at my Mission/org was to do what we called an “A to J Check” based on the policy, “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Sources of Trouble”. This “check” was not exactly an official routine form from the church, but rather something made locally to detect possible “Sources of Trouble”. This test (questionnaire, which was mostly done unmetered) was usually done by me, as I was kind of “famous” for spotting troublemakers even without the e-meter, and on the spot.
Part of the questionnaire, included questions to locate what was called “Illegal PCs” as per the “ILLEGAL PCS, ACCEPTANCE OF HIGH CRIME BULLETIN” PL. We considered as “Illegal PCs” – among other things, of course – those who had actually ATTEMPTED, not just thought of – suicide. We let them do courses, but not to get processed, until some evidence of case stability was evident. My judgement – even though I wasn’t that high on the org board – was always seriously taken into account by both the Snr C/S and the ED.
Of course, we were mostly trying to avoid future lawsuits and “PR flaps”. I must confess that I didn’t have any moral problem with that, back then. Today, I would just get those to sign a waiver, if I were to audit them. Any professional therapists SHOULD also seek legal protection, and there isn’t anything immoral about that.
“For Type III, I would expect the person to get a Qual program, which may include The Introspection Rundown. My local AO wouldn’t deliver this, instead either hat a family member, or turn it over to a field auditor.”
We weren’t supposed to accept those, but the ED (a GREAT individual indeed! VERY compassionate) and me, took them as part of our “self-proclaimed” Chaplain hat, haha. We just said, “Sign here please, so you don’t suit our asses”, and then go ahead and do on them :
A VERY high ARC kind of VERY compassionate treatment. Not that “unmuzzled” stupid “handling” from the “Instrospection Rundown”.
A “PAB 6 Handling” which basically consisted of A) Daily extroversion using “Take a Walk” and “Look Them Over” processes from the “Problems of Work” book. B) A thorough medical examination by a REAL doctor to locate possible deficiencies, and unknown illnesses or injuries; and a professional medical treatment done on whatever was found. C) Getting the person to move to a non stressful environment and to temporarily “get away” from hostile people and environments. D) A good nutritional diet that provided all essential nutrients. E) Getting the person to put “his/her MEST in order” by giving him one simple step to do each day. F) Getting the person to list her/his backlogged incomplete cycles of actions, and deciding on completing just one simple thing at a time. And G) Getting the person to get in communication with the people she/he had neglected, but that they were in good ARC with, so as to raise their general ARC for life.
Different from that “Introspection Rundown”, isn’t it? 🙂 And totally based on the “Tech” as well. It was me the one who usually wrote the “Program” for such a handling, and very detailed notes of progress were kept. I told you this little story, so that others here understand that not ALL of us were uncompassionate and ignorant of how to REALLY help someone. Our rate of success? VERY high. But this was something done kind of “offlines”, you know, where both the ED and me knew, that if we fucked it up, it was only our heads that would be cut. A very small price to pay for helping somebody. Heads are replaceable, haha.
I
“This aspect of Hubbard and Scn always irked me. They are quite outspoken about the ‘barbaric’ psyches and the treatment of the mentally ill, yet, they will have nothing to do with the mentally ill. A lot of criticisms, but no solutions.”
TOTALLY in agreement with that! That’s why I was a “squirrel” who seldom followed LRH to the letter. Perhaps no more than a 70-80% of the time, I did followed LRH, 🙂
“Getting back on track…what could the church do to ‘reform’ this aspect of their religion (if we’re to believe Mike and Leah)? There really is nothing there TO reform. Do you think the church really cares what treatment a Type III receives? They just want them off their lines, so they can concentrate on the ‘able’.”
I DO believe in the goodness of others, my friend, as one of my basic beliefs in live. I would rather err in trusting others than in thinking that they can not change. Perhaps we ex(es) have forgotten our “Auditor’s Hat” to the world, and became insensitive. But we auditors know better than to hate and punish. That’s not what we were trained for. We were trained to be able to raise above our own cases, and to keep our “Acts One in” (“Straightwiring” out the reasons why we didn’t want to help a certain PC). We must become “auditors” TO THEM if we are to expect any reformations to happen.
I my humble opinion, reform IS possible, and even using specific LRH’s policies themselves. Things CAN be reversed for the great good, and sanity can be restored. I’ll believe that until my death. Humans CAN change if only we love them hard enough so as to be able to overcome our own bias (I have a TON myself, haha), lack of sensitiveness and compassion, and our desires for punishment and revenge.
“Despite Hubbard’s blovations about curing mental aberrations, the church knows they do not have the solution to insanity. Caring for the insane is costly and time-consuming and requires resources. And its ridiculous to expect the church to reform along these lines.”
Perhaps not along these lines, no, but perhaps we can teach them to recover the compassion that was once part of the Scientology world on a long gone past, so they can AT LEAST be able to offer sensible recommendations, and referrals to responsible psychotherapists who don’t use primitive methods of “healing” and dangerous drugs to “help” their patients.
Regarding, Type III cases, I was referring to current onlines public. Certainly, any raw public exhibiting Type III behaviour would be refused service.
Certainly, the church needs to be more compassionate in general, especially with their existing public. Towards the end of my involvement with the church, they got positively mean and nasty. I wanted to go quietly, but they would have none of it.
I do feel, from being a member for 30 years, that my compassion and humanity was eroded. Scn, as an activity, is very much self-centered; and VERY focused on “the able” (e.g. those with money).
Can they reform? Sure. Will they reform? Unlikely.
“Regarding, Type III cases, I was referring to current onlines public. Certainly, any raw public exhibiting Type III behaviour would be refused service.”
Ok, got it, and I am sorry for the long “comm lag” in replying. Yes, I know that they would be refused service.
“Certainly, the church needs to be more compassionate in general, especially with their existing public. Towards the end of my involvement with the church, they got positively mean and nasty. I wanted to go quietly, but they would have none of it.”
I fully agree; the church in general, need to become more compassionate. I noticed the same thing about how the staff was being turned into uncaring individuals by the implementation programs enforced by DM. This became more evident after GAT2 when the “Survival Rundown” was implemented, and most Objectives completions had to either re-do their whole Objectives, or get audited on additional Objective processes for dozens (or even more than a hundred) of hours. At my org, this acted as a huge invalidation for quite a few individuals who protested about the looong running of processes disregarding any cognitions except the very specific and arbitrary ones decided by DM out of his own misinterpretation of the Tech.
I witnessed how badly and uncompassionate their originations as to feeling overrun were handled by uncaring Course sups. Fortunately, I was able to take the mother of my daughter off the lines after she has been kept for almost 50 hours!!! in a process because allegedly “she still had not ‘voiced’ the ‘correct’ EP”. They were robotically and literally interpreting these “EPs” and confusing them with the “Purpose Section” of each Objective process. It all became a psychological bull shit of plain invalidations and case evaluations. It was a crazy scenario indeed!
“I do feel, from being a member for 30 years, that my compassion and humanity was eroded.”
I understand. That never happened that me, though; I never compromised with my own reality. I never allowed them to change my basic personality. That’s why I left staff even though I continued being a Scientologist.
“Scn, as an activity, is very much self-centered; and VERY focused on “the able” (e.g. those with money).”
Agreed!
“Can they reform? Sure. Will they reform? Unlikely.”
I don’t think that there is a “They”, Statpush, but rather a “HE”. And if the “HE” goes, then “THEY” would start acting sane. The unlikeliness of reform does not come from a group but only from one single individual. When most anti-Scientologists refer to “The church is doing this or that, and so on”, or “The church is Fair Gaming this or that one”, they fail to recognize that they are ACTUALLY referring to ONE single individual whose orders are being robotically followed. Remove (or reform, or rehabilitate) such individual form the scenario, and sanity will find its way in again, I guarantee you that.
Yep ,,,, I am beginning to believe the man at the top is deliberately creating situations to implode the group,, He has already positioned himself into the ‘only one’ category – Tech Dict: ‘All criminals are in that bracket’ ,,, His tone floats around the hostile band, and his ‘ideals’ are clearly MEST related ,,, The Org Bd has long since been dropped and by-passed in favor of command channels only. From what i can see with my local org, the staff are hanging on to a purpose in the absence of KRC , Can’t be done.
This makes me absolutely sad You are saying that you were taking your daughter to doctors when Scientologist don’t believe in “doctors” she should have went to a therapist and got help when she needed it !!
“This makes me absolutely sad You are saying that you were taking your daughter to doctors when Scientologist don’t believe in “doctors” she should have went to a therapist and got help when she needed it !!”
Mary, no offense, but you are either naively buying into what Mike Rinder and Leah Remini are saying in The Aftermath because you don’t know much about Scientology’s policies as you were never a Scientologist yourself, or you were involved with Scientology but were not very familiar with its policies. Either way, your assertions aren’t factual. That’s just part of the “anti-Scientology narrative” conveniently created by the “anti-Scientology camp” to drive home their own personal agendas. Here is what ACTUALLY LRH said about medical doctors. This is part of the STANDARD policy to handle, insanity (mental illnesses), what LRH called “Sources of Trouble”, and physical healing. It is called, “POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE” written on 27 Oct 1964 :
“Any process labeled “healing,” old or new, refers to healing by mental and spiritual means and should therefore be looked upon as the relief of difficulties arising from mental and spiritual causes.”
“The proper procedure in being requested to heal some complained-of physical disability is as follows:”
“1. Require a physical examination from whatever practitioners of the physical healing arts may be competent and available;”
“2. Clearly establish that the disability does not stem from immediately physical causes;”
“3. If the disability is pronounced to be curable within the skill of the physical practitioner and is in actual fact a disease or illness which surrenders to contemporary physical treatment, to require the person to be so treated before Scientology processing may be undertaken;” (End of quote)
Now, I challenge anyone to show me ANY reference where Scientology prohibits seeing a medical doctor; ANY.
Like SO MANY medical doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists BELIEVE today, there is such a thing called “Psychosomatic Illnesses”, which means illnesses brought about by the different kinds of mental stresses that an individual might be undergoing in his/her life. This phenomenon is WELL KNOWN on the medical and psychotherapeutic community. This isn’t just the belief of Scientologists.
Now, the anti-Scientology movement will try to get us to believe that “most” Scientologists “doesn’t” believe in medical doctors, and that they never seek proper medical treatment. Well, try to go to Flag (the principal Scientology organization) for services and tell them that you are sick, and see what happens. They will KICK YOU OUT!! You’ll be send back in a plane (if that’s how you got there) to your home to go see a licensed medical doctor, get properly treated, and once you are DONE, go back WITH the evidence that you did so. Otherwise, you can forget about getting audited.
How many times was I PERSONALLY told about this by the people who had this experience? A LOT, I assure you, one of them being myself, and another being the mother of my daughter. I mean, she LITERALLY begged them to let her stay, but she couldn’t even go inside the building. I WAS THERE. As opposed to Lauren’s Haggis “narrative”, mine is not hearsay.
In my OWN organization – a VERY small class V org – I was sent to go see a medical doctor to get lab tests and get treated in anything found before being let to start a Life Repair program. This was around 2000 more or less. I went to see a doctor, did the tests, was found with my triglycerides very high, and my blood pressure high enough so as to be put on a special diet (I used to eat a lot of junk food back then; now, I don’t), which I did long enough to get everything back down to normal. And like me, there were others who had to do the same. I was on staff on technical lines, so I was privy to this kind of information.
What Mike Rinder and Leah Remini fail to clarify in their Anti-Scientology narrative, is that – LIKE MOST PEOPLE INVOLVED IN VEGETARIANISM AND NATURAL HEALTH – Scientologists prefer to use natural remedies and alternative medicine (which is practiced by a PROFESSIONAL LICENSED “REAL” DOCTOR – as they like to call them, haha) before engaging in taking medicines and using conventional methods. But if we are going to blame and criticize Scientologists for this, then I am afraid, that we would have to do the same with MILLIONS of Americans, to not mention the other millions from other countries. I mean, how hypocritical can one get?
Now, it is TRUE – as in ANY freaking group in society – that there ARE some Scientologists that get very fundamentalistic about this, and go to the fucking extremes. But did L. Ronald Hubbard intend it that way? No, he DIDN’T; read the policies on it. Asserting that “most” Scientologists don’t seek proper medical treatment (be it through alternative more natural methods, or through conventional medicine) when they need it, is not only false, but it is an assertion only trying to “Back PR” (denigrate through lies) Scientology and Scientologists.
Perhaps Mike Rinder’s memory got blank because he went pass a misunderstood word, and now he has forgotten about the policies, haha. How convenient!!!
And how does the Church feel about psychiatry and receiving psychiatric treatment?
“And how does the Church feel about psychiatry and receiving psychiatric treatment?”
Nice try, Gtsix, but I know better than to fall into the traps of rhetoric, 😉
I think that a MUCH better question would be, “How does society in general feel about psychiatric treatments such as the use of psychotropic drugs?” “Are there any other groups opposed to such treatments besides Scientology?” The answers to such questions would then put into a CORRECT and more balanced perspective, this apparent dilemma. Let me enlighten you here, a little about how those answers look like. Just THESE links would be enough to prove my point :
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201505/the-anti-psychiatry-movement
At that above link, you’ll be able to see that the opposition against psychiatry is something WIDELY shared by many groups – including medical doctors and different kinds of psychotherapists THEMSELVES – and an opposition that HAVE existed independently of Scn and even before it.
This link is about the dangerousness of many psychiatric treatments by a psychiatrist himself, Dr. Peter Breggin :
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/223922
Now, many anti-Scientology individuals will say that Dr. Breggin “works” for Scientology, or is or was a Scientologists, just because his narrative is similar in many ways to the one used by CCHR. Here is what Dr. Breggin has to say about that :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/interviews/breggin.html
Now, the anti-Scientology narrative and the anti-Scientologists would attempt us to believe that LRH was only a lunatic who thought that psychiatry was guilty of many Human Rights abuses, and of many abusive treatments; and that “ONLY” Scientology opposes psychiatry. Nothing could be further from the truth; the anti-psychiatry movement has always existed PRIOR to Scn, and has been supported by many medical doctors and psychotherapists THEMSELVES, and by a large portion of the population (though I am not quoting any percentages here, but certainly, there are in the thousands!). But of course, the current anti-Scientology narrative used by haters and by uninformed individuals to help their OWN personal agendas, disseminate a false perception brought about by the Media show.
So, to answer your question, Gtsix, about “….how does the Church feel about psychiatry and receiving psychiatric treatment?”, my answers to that is :
“The SAME way that THOUSANDS of individuals who have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Scientology think : uncomfortable and against it, and with VALID REASONS”.
Is my post to be interpreted that there aren’t many, many psychiatrists who try to do the best they can do for their patients, and who concentrate on less invasive, and more alternative ways of effectively treating their patients? OF COURSE, that I don’t mean that.
Is my post to be interpreted as that I think that ALL psychotropic drugs are harmful for the patient, and that at no moment any of them should be used to help someone? Of course, that I don’t mean that, neither.
But ask MILLIONS of Americans who are into alternative medicine and natural remedies if they will ever consider using any psychotropic drug, and I am sure that the most probable answer from the GREAT majority of them would be, “NO, I would not”.
I consider my point PROVED! And btw, I DO study the works of many, many great psychiatrists whom I greatly admire. I am not anti ANYTHING, but I have my own mind about things without having to follow any sheeple or any narratives, 🙂
Ah, and here is the information about Dr. Breggin. He has even been used as an expert witness in several court cases of psychiatry abuses :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin
Gee, I think that David Miscavige ought to hire me as his spoke person, instead of that lawer of his, who I feel that a little training in correct public relations, would be a good thing for her to consider, 😉
She doesn’t stand a chance. Public relations is not the answer to the Church of Scientology’s problems. Getting rid of David Miscavige as “Chairman of the Board” and having to answer to the US government – or lose their tax exemption – is.
“She doesn’t stand a chance.”
I agree, but perhaps she can learn the better ways. I can’t honestly say that I know enough about her to make a fair comment as to her potentials. So far, she has not handled the PR issues correctly, and by “correctly” I don’t mean to lie or hide the truth.
“Public relations is not the answer to the Church of Scientology’s problems.”
Oh, but I do feel that it is, Alanzo – at least a big portion of it – but let me explain myself.
Perhaps, we are starting from a different definition of “Correct Public Relations”. Here is what correct PR is not about, from my perspective :
About lying about events that did happened
About personally attacking the dissenters and the critics, instead of specifically dealing with the veracity or lack thereof of their statements or claims.
About not showing compassion when one former member of the religion (or whatever group for that matter) has suffered a loss or any abuse, regardless if the group in question is guilty of or not of such abuses or losses.
Correct Public Relations :
Publicly accept when any wrongdoing has occurred.
Take effective measures to correct such wrongdoings where and when they have occurred
Does not use lies
Does not hide facts
Survey their public for disagreements wish the existing policies, and correct/modify them accordingly.
Now, looked at from the above clarifications, do you still feel the same way about it?
“Getting rid of David Miscavige as _Chairman of the Board’ and having to answer to the US government – or lose their tax exemption – is.’
“Getting rid of David Miscavige”? Uhmmm, I prefer to give him the chance to change, and to help him see better ways at doing things. I think that we all need a second chance at redemption, forgiveness, and the opportunity to right our wrongdoings. But if my honest attempts at correcting anyone doesn’t yield good results and sensible reformations, them I am obliged to act according for the greater good. But my first impulse and action, is to try to reform and rehabilitate the individual.
As to the tax exemption thing, my own personal opinion on this is that even though that Scientology might very well fall into the category of a religion, its principal activities are not religious in nature, but psychotherapeutic as an institution that SELLS therapeutic services and make a profit from it. So they should pay taxes as any other professionals from the psychotherapy community do. No more complex than that really.
The tax exemption could be either revoked or revised, and a fair payment plan could be allowed for any past payments required as a result of such a revocation or revision. And the church would be able to survive it. Any leniency from IRS would have to be based on evidence of reformation and good will.
“And how does the Church feel about psychiatry and receiving psychiatric treatment?”
“Nice try, Gtsix, but I know better than to fall into the traps of rhetoric,”
Nice try, Thetaclear. Way to absolutely avoid the question. This was not a trap. But you strawmanned the topic perfectly, refusing to answer. Other groups were not the topic. Scientology was. Of course you proved “your point”. That is what a strawman is.
“Nice try, Thetaclear. Way to absolutely avoid the question.”
“Absolutely avoid the question”??? Funny, I thought that I had already answered it. Did you miss this from my reply? :
“So, to answer your question, Gtsix, about, ‘….how does the Church feel about psychiatry and receiving psychiatric treatment?’, my answers to that is :”
“The SAME way that THOUSANDS of individuals who have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Scientology think : uncomfortable and against it, and with VALID REASONS”.
But somehow I feel that you HAD already seen that part of my reply the first time I posted it, 😉
I don’t know where this idea that Scnists don’t believe in doctors came from (Leah? Tony?), but its simply not true. Now, a Scnist may not hold a medical doctor in the same regard as a non-Scnist, but that does not mean they do not utilize their services.
Most Scnists I know (knew), would initially seek “natural” treatments (e.g. vitamins, minerals, chiropractors, etc) to address a medical condition, along with some type of auditing program or PTS handling. But, if that condition did not resolve they would seek traditional medical treatment.
Also, orgs pretty standardly recommend parishioners seek medical treatment for a physical condition. Their motives for doing this may be more of a legal rudiment, rather than a professed belief in medicine.
Hubbard had some harsh words for “medicos” and learned men, in general. He often would refer to the body as a second class citizen, or imply it was a trap; that you need to grab it by the scruff of the neck and take charge. Even to go so far to say (paraphrase), “If the body is sick, force it to dig a ditch”. Scnists readily adopt these views as their own, which may result in a delay in proper medical treatment. They, incorrectly, do not give it the attention it deserves.
I couldn’t have said it any better, Statpush! Very, very accurate description!! That’s what I call being able to see truth for what it is.
I think it is the show that has created this belief that Scientologists don’t go to Doctors. My step-Mom asked me last week if it was true that Scientology doesn’t allow its members to use medical doctors. In fact when I was in I was told to go to a medical doctor twice. The first time was to get a physical and full check up before the Purif. Granted that is probably due to legal reasons. If I were to drop dead in the sauna then the cult could say, “Well he passed his physical exam by a medical doctor.” But the second time was before another cycle of action. I think it was before I was to start onTR’s and Objectives. Apparently it was a policy set by Hubbard that one needed to find out about any health issues and then get it or them taken care of before starting this course. Does that sound familiar to anyone was in? I do distinctly remember being told I needed another check up and I was not happy about it. In fact I flat out refused to do it. The reg was flabbergasted with me but he finally said, “Well if you just don’t want to do it then I won’t make you do it”. So how ironic it is that I refused to go to a doctor when the ch-rch insisted that I go.
“Apparently it was a policy set by Hubbard that one needed to find out about any health issues and then get it or them taken care of before starting this course. Does that sound familiar to anyone was in?”
I don’t know of such a policy regarding that specific case of “TRs & Objectives”, but I DO know about other policies (or HCOBs “Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins”) that requires having a physical examination and full medical checkup before being allowed to receive auditing. Certainly, if one is sick to begin with, then the “HCOPL: Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Sources of Trouble” applies, specifically on this point :
“The proper procedure in being requested to heal some complained-of physical disability is as follows:”
“1. Require a physical examination from whatever practitioners of the physical healing arts may be competent and available;”
“2. Clearly establish that the disability does not stem from immediately physical causes;”
“3. If the disability is pronounced to be curable within the skill of the physical practitioner and is in actual fact a disease or illness which surrenders to contemporary physical treatment, to require the person to be so treated before Scientology processing may be undertaken;”
Then you have the HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JUNE 1969RA REVISED 26 JULY 1978 RE-REVISED 21 SEPTEMBER 1978, “HOW TO CASE SUPERVISE DIANETICS FOLDERS” which says :
“Very sick pcs are sent directly to a medico of course.”
Then you have the standard Scn reference covering EVERYTHING about “Assists” (Scientology physical healing type of processes) and how to go about it if a PC (“Preclear” – the one undergoing Scientology counseling) gets sick. HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1973RB RE-REVISED 21 SEPTEMBER 1978, “ASSIST SUMMARY”. I quote from it :
“Injuries, operations, delivery of babies, severe illnesses and periods of intense emotional shock all deserve to be handled with thorough and complete assists.”
“Medical examination and diagnosis should be sought where needed, and where treatment is routinely successful, medical treatment should be obtained.”
“As an assist can at times cover up an actual injury or broken bone, no chances should be taken, especially if the condition does not easily respond. In other words where something is merely thought to be a slight sprain, to be on the safe side an X-ray should be obtained, particularly if it does not at once respond. An assist is not a substitute for medical treatment but is complementary to it. It is even doubtful if full healing can be accomplished by medical treatment alone and it is certain that an assist greatly speeds recovery. In short, one should realize that physical healing does not take into account the being and the repercussion on the spiritual beingness of the person.”
“The purely physical facts of injuries, illnesses and stresses are themselves incapacitating and do themselves often require physical analysis and treatment by a doctor or nutritionist. These could be briefly catalogued as:” (and he gives a list)
Now, it should be clear enough what LRH thought about taking care of an I’ll body by BOTH using the proper medical treatment and “Assists” which could be thought as the “religious” aspect of it AS EXPECTED from any religion.
So much for the anti-Scientology narrative regarding Scientologists “not using or seeking proper medical care”. I wonder what the anti-Scientology camp “Science Officer” would have to say about this, 😉
Excuse my manners, Alanzo! I just couldn’t resist it, 🙂
Yes that jogs my memory. It was before TRs and Objectives because after all that course is considered to be an auditing or processing cycle.
It isn’t true that Scn doesn’t believe in doctors. It’s psychology and psychology that are not allowed-not that I’m ok with that. Regular medical care is allowed though Hubbard did and members do tend to look down on traditional medical care. Still, I had multiple prescriptions and two surgeries when I was in CofS. I also have know Freezoners who took psychiatric meds.
SCIENTOLOGY IS THE LOW BLOW. THEY TREAT PEOPLE WORSE THAN THE NAZIS!
You do know that the nazis invaded countries and built concentration camps, right?
I am glad Leah and Mike are finally getting the truth out there. God bless Tayler. What she went through is horrific. Thank you Lauren for sitting down with Leah and Mike.
“I am glad Leah and Mike are finally getting the truth out there”.
The “Truth”? Really, the “Truth”???
Shar, did you even took the time to read my looong post at this thread?? :
http://alanzosblog.com/critics-scientology-withdraw-support-direction-season-2-scientology-aftermath/
I went in GREAT details EXACTLY quoting from the that episode all the parts where Leah, Mike, and Lauren BLAMED Cathy Tayler for the death of her daughter without showing one IOTA of proof beyond HEARSAY. And I also explained how they used half-truths, ungrounded assumptions, and PLAIN lies to support their Anti-Scientology narrative. This is about “ending the abuses” as Mike and Leah are trying to get us to believe. This is about a PERSONAL AGENDA of desires of destruction and revenge, while cleverly (and DISGUSTINGLY) manipulating human emotion.
Leah and Mike “heroes”??? Please, give me a fucking break!!!!
Correction; it should have read , ‘This ISN’T about “ending the abuses” as Mike and Leah are trying to get us to believe.”
I enjoy the show. Friends of mine have been on it and know Leah. I’ve met Mike and like him just fine though he DID try to get in my way back when he was still in and I was starting to wake up. I say this with affection.
Leah and Mike are human beings, Not omniscient enlightened perfect masters with IQs of 6000. I think they do just fine but I do not expect them to get everything right. Nobody does. I don’t agree with Leah on everything but I like and support her on the whole-Mike, too.
And I’m mos’ def not an anti Scientologist. Hell, I just got booted out of a Facebook group for being a little too conciliatory Scn theory-wise. I don’t have to agree with Leah on everything to respect her.
She’s shining a light on some very horrific things.
That’s honest and balanced, 🙂
Thanks!
Am I the only one that realizes this woman never actually cries… she just fake sniffles. How about the fact that she never refers to Tayler as her “daughter”!! That pisses me off the most! She just refers to her as a “troubled young woman”. That is pathetic. I cannot believe Scientology turned this mother into coal when it comes to her own flesh and blood! And her “brother” can shut his mouth. He clearly knew NOTHING of what was actually happening. I could’ve said the same stuff about Tayler and I never met her. This is pathetic and sad. Tayler deserved so much better!
It does appear the mother attempt to coordinate care for her daughter at some level. She provided financial support while her child chose to try to have a career. I am sure there are two sides to every story, and while I am not sure how supportive the Tweed’s actually were, I am fully sure that A&E provided a very balanced side of the tragedy, given the most outraged friend didn’t have the solid history of seeing Tayler in person. Seems that most of her information came from FB and text messages that Tayler had with a friend. Seems so sad that people may be sharing her tragedy for personal gain. Also, the Rachel Berenstein commentary on the mother’s comments > dismissive – hearsay.
Thank you, Laura.
Yeah, THANK YOU, Laura. One sane and balanced comment, at last!
I realize there are many sides to documentaries, but if all the stuff Leah and Mike say are false, why isn’t the “church” proving them wrong? Am I really suppose to believe that all the people who have spoken up just woke up one day and decided to try and fuck this “church” up for no reason? To each their own on their belief system, but many things about this “church” don’t sit well with me.
Guest12, of course that the church have committed many Human Rights abuses, and of course that there is truth to those stories. I don’t think that anybody here is denying that. But there are always 2 sides of a coin, and in the show only one coin is shown, and usually their stories besides facts, also contain half-truths, generalizations, unsupported assumptions, hearsay, and faulty conclusions.
And it is that which makes it unfair; not their desires to expose the abuses themselves. It is the narrative of blame, destroy, and stereotyping others, and the attempt to make believe that some specific instances represent the attitudes of ALL Scientologists, that makes it wrong. And the lack of compassion of publicly exposing the members of the church to big loses that they had gone through, just so that Mike and Leah can support their own specific agendas. It is to THAT that I am objecting.
“I realize there are many sides to documentaries, but if all the stuff Leah and Mike say are false, why isn’t the ‘church’ proving them wrong?”
Guest12, the “church” (as you called it, which irrelevant to the point under discussion), DID made attempts to prove them wrong by sending the executives of A&E letters of protests, and by specific videos done by the family members (who are still in the church) of those individuals being talked about in the show. Did you read those letters and watched those videos as well so as to have a more balanced viewpoint on the scenario?
And if by “prove them wrong”, you meant specific legal actions (like a lawsuit) against Leah, Mike, or A&E for saying things that weren’t true; then the same “logic” could be used the other way around : “If the church is guilty of soooooooo many ‘illegal’ actions and specifics ‘abuses’, then why (except for ‘Snow White’ and the non productive of ANY evidence, FBI human trafficking investigation into Scn) hasn’t ANY law enforcement agency taken the church to court?
Are we expected to believe that in the allegedly most powerful country in the world, there is a “mighty” church who is guilty of many illegalities left and right, but that somehow the mighty USA government is totally incapable of doing anything about it, and for DECADES? I don’t know about you, but for me, that sounds more like one of those “conspiracy theories” that people LOVE to hold on to, to ease their boredom.
Scientology is a cult that is a criminal organization with very few members and lots of real estate.
I can’t get my comment posted because I’m telling the truth about the sham that is “Scientology.” It’s a cult with few members and lots of real estate, paying NO TAXES. Avoid the cult at all costs.
On this episode I thought the half which addressed the young man’s story in the Sea Org did a good job of showing how toxic the SO culture and mindset is. I think the show would’ve been better served if it had done another story on a Sea Org related suicide because there are certainly more of them. The second half which concerned Tayler Tweed did make me feel uncomfortable because I kept thinking about how devastating this must be to the mother and other relatives. Did Cathy make some mistakes as a mother? Well, do all mothers make some mistakes? Absolutely. But not all mothers have award winning, network sponsored TV shows magnifying their mistakes. Plus it is now becoming more evident that there was a lot more to the story regarding Tayler and her mother which was left out of the episode. I do think Mike Rinder should’ve spoken up and recommended, “Hey let’s find another story where it is more apparent that “the tech” was a major factor in a suicide”. He should know of quite a few of these stories after all. Of course he knows.
But, lets just face the facts…..it was awfully tempting to run with the Tayler story because one of her best Scientology friends was the daughter of Hollywood’s own Alex Gibney. This is TV we’re talking about. And what drives TV? Ratings. What drives ratings? Yeah, we all know the answer to that question I think.
The suicide rate among young adults and teens has been growing over the past few decades. No one organization is to blame for this. Clearly people go through much worse situations and never commit suicide. It’s often hard to predict who is truly suicidal.
Actually Lauren Haggis is the daughter of Paul Haggis and I have no problem with her wanting to do a segment for her friend. She has no responsibility over the content of the episode she was in. I think the painting she made of Tayler is beautiful and I hope she gets a whole bunch of new business from the show.
As you say, it was the decision to air that segment using only Tony Ortega’s information with no attempt to update it with anything new, or even fair, that I believe is the height of cruel emotional manipulation by Mike Rinder, Leah Remini, and the rest of the show’s producers.
People are doxxing Cathy Tweed online. After the incredible inflow of Crazy hatred being generated by the show and coming in as comments on my blog – the overwhelming majority of which I have trashed – I am actually concerned for Cathy Tweed’s safety.
Doh! I was actually picturing Paul Haggis when I typed “Alex Gibney”. Another one of my increasing senior moments I’m afraid. And I’m not even past 55 yet! The Horror! The Horror!
That’s okay – they are both academy award winning bald guys!
Seen one – you’ve seen them all!
Wow, what a most accurate and balanced post indeed!!! This is what I call being fair to all sides!! Thank you, Jim Dandy!! This is what we need, being fair and balanced, and showing both sides of the coin while remaining compassionate to all sides.
Thanks TC.
I am Jim Dandy and I’m here to the rescue. Lol…
The mother has no room to talk when she let her belief structure blind her to real issues. Attention whore and trying to look like the good guy. Period.
She’s not trying to look like the good guy, she’s giving her side of the story. None of which appeared in scientology and the aftermath or in Tony Ortega s earlier reporting.
It’s not right to leave out information just so you can demonize someone. I’m pretty sure you would not like that if it was done to you.
The video from Cathy Tweed reeks of damage control. If Tayler Tweed was diagnosed with Bipolar, then of course she would be good on programs and bad off them. Would Scientology allow someone to be on Bipolar medication which is usually quite heavy? Would Scientology allow Tayler to see a psychiatrist accredited by the American Psychiatric Association? I highly doubt that. I highly doubt that Cathy Tweed would allow that. She states that she did take her daughter to doctors, but what kind of doctors? Naturopaths? Pseudoscientists in Scientology?
This whole video reeks like a ad misericordiam, the logical fallacy that because someone should be pitied, they’re innocent. Yes, I pity this family, but they are not innocent. Yes, this mother lost a child, but her son says they “tried everything” and yet they didn’t. This young woman was crying for help and her mother posted a Facebook message telling people to distance themselves from her.
In your blog post, you write “There is a lot of information that neither Tony Ortega, nor Rachel Bernstein, nor Leah Remini, nor Mike Rinder have given you”, yet I see no actual proof of any information, only anecdotal accounts of how they tried to help her. Whereas the Aftermath program clearly had Facebook messages from Tayler asking for help, and of Cathy pushing Tayler away.
The whole diatribe about spreading hate is something someone says because they don’t like the message. Ms Remini and her team aren’t spreading hate. There isn’t really hate involved. They’re telling peoples’ stories. They told this story. The family does not address the story in a believeable way.
Finally, the website that is mentioned on the end of the video goes to an obvious anti-Aftermath smear website aimed at discrediting Leah Remini. Come on, how obvious does it have to get? I’ve done a whois search to see who owns the domain and it’s been made by proxies, which means that whoever runs the website wants to remain private. This screams Scientology to me.
Crystal wrote:
She states very clearly that she took her to the University of Oregon where she was examined by 10 different doctors.
But that’s obviously not good enough for you. You seem to know that if they only did what YOU wanted them to do that Taylor would be alive today.
Is that true, though? Do you really know that to say this and to second-guess a mother who lost her daughter suicide?
I don’t think you do. Just like Brock, I think you just hate Scientology and Scientologists, and you want to tear one down, and Cathy Tweed seems like the perfect person for you to victimize.
Leah and Mike added nothing – as in no new information – to Tony Ortega’s 2 year old story. They had Lauren Haggis on, who is a friend of Leah’s family, as the vehicle to tell the story. But Lauren hadn’t seen Taylor in 10 years.
As far as journalism goes – you getting all sides of the story – Leah and Mike suck. I think even they would agree to that because they are not operating on the standard of getting all sides of their stories. They’re presenting one side, and especially in this case, doing it in a very exploitative and manipulative way.
Maybe you are just a willing participant to their manipulation. But their manipulation does not extend to this blog.
So we present Cathy Tweed’s statement and her memorial video. My only regret is that it opens up Cathy Tweed to cruel second-guessing by people like you.
This has to be one of the most horrific videos I have seen posted by a “parent” in response to a suicide awareness video. The level of delusion and victimhood on behalf of the mother is sickening.
You are not the victim in this story, there is only one. Through my career and lived experience I have worked intimately with survivors of suicide. I have never, not once, seen a parent state they were blameless. It is unnatural. No one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. Can you really look in the mirror and say you did everything you could (breaking the bank/spending money is one of the easiest things to do by the way because it is putting the responsibility of the real work onto others).
Was your love unconditional. Explain to me why she was so extremely desperate to be heard. Painting her as a drug addicted person who would not “do the work” is revolting.
This video only strengthens the anti-scientology/cult dialogue, as it is cold, calculated, and defensive.
I am so grateful for my amazing parents and brother, whose love is unconditional, and support unwavering no matter how “bad” or “misguided” my youth was.
Why do you think it’s Cathy Tweed’s duty to prostrate herself before you?
If you really have that much experience with suicide survivors, how could you possibly be this cruel to one that you would dictate what her response should be to you on her own daughter’s suicide? Have you ever seen a suicide survivor have a show done about her that blames her for her daughter’s suicide to millions of people?
Doubt it.
Most people, unless there was some kind of religious or ideological vengeance they wanted to exact, would never do such a thing to someone like that.
With your response here, I really have a hard believing you know anything about suicide at all.
I think you just hate Scientologists and you want to vent your spleen on one here on the Internet – and so a mother who lost her daughter to suicide will do just fine for you.
I have to say that I have little respect for your experience with suicide survivors if it results in a comment like this. Unless your experience results in greater tolerance and compassion and wisdom for suicide survivors – what good is it?