Having been away for a while, I haven’t written on this blog for 27 days. A lot can happen in 27 days… Today we’re going to add some truth to the media soup. Firstly, the majority of time I have been away was spent preparing for the 25th anniversary celebrations of the International Assocation of Scientologists (IAS), the Church of Scientology‘s membership organisation which, through membership dues and donations, funds Church-sponsored religious and secular activities such as its Volunteer Minister programme, secular programmes in anti-drug and human rights education, and new, ideal Churches of Scientology in capital cities and cultural centres around the world.
Being the 25th anniversary of the IAS, the celebration attracted quite some attention—including a number of high-profile Scientologists and their families. This of course included Tom Cruise, quite possibly the most mentioned name relating to Scientology today. Cruise was merely a guest at this celebration, enjoying a front-row seat with his fellow Freedom Medal winners, which medal signifies a tremendous achievement for a Scientologist. But, contrary to reports by American weekly magazine Us Weekly, at no point did he stand before the crowd to address the several thousand guests present. Rather, toward the end of the annual update on IAS-sponsored programmes and activities around the world, high-ranking Scientology official David Miscavige closed his speech with some of the words attributed to Cruise in Us and subsequently mirrored in other media. It would have been very strange to have a public Scientologist, celebrity or not, speak before the crowd at an IAS anniversary briefing, unless they were one of that year’s Freedom Medal winners. So whoever “leaked” that one to the press is clearly blind and/or stupid, mistaking the man who had been on the stage for the best part of three hours for a different guy who happens to look and sound different and, oh, who happens to be extremely famous, who allegedly stood to “briefly address the crowd”. Whatever Trevor!
Neeeext… Kabooom—some guy I’ve never heard of decides he’s not going to be a Scientologist anymore. He’s a film director and quite possibly known by some, but I’d certainly never heard of him either as a director or as a Scientologist. Apparently he’d been involved with Scientology for quite some time, but clearly he missed the boat somewhere. He was upset that a Church spokesperson refused to denounce, in private correspondence, the apparent public support of a proposed law in California proscribing (banning) same-sex marriage, which support was said to have come from a Californian Church of Scientology.
Alright, so there are two things to take up here. First is the Church’s actual position regarding homosexuality. The foremost thing to know is that Scientology is open to anyone, and even those who are excommunicated from the Church have recourse to rejoin the Church. Some people cannot take certain counselling services within a Church because of legal or medical ramifications that could harm the group, but they are free to be assisted by trained Scientology ministers who are not members of Church staff; this may be a little-known fact. There is nothing barring people of whatever sexuality, race, religion or political leaning, from involving themselves in the Scientology religion. There are writings within the Scientology scripture concerning sex and sexuality, but they do not preclude the participation of homosexual persons from joining the Church or partaking of services therein. There is however a traditional pro-family viewpoint shared by many Scientologists, and marriage is encouraged between partners in a serious relationship, though more important is application of the moral precept, “Don’t be promiscuous.”
Now that’s out of the way, second is the policy of Churches of Scientology regarding politics, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter of 14th June 1965, Issue III, POLITICS, FREEDOM FROM, wherein Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard states:
“I hereby declare Scientology to be nonpolitical and nonideological.”
…
“Scientologists may be members of any political group on this planet without restraint only so long as these individuals or that group do not attempt to seize Scientology for their own warlike ends and so make it unworkable or distasteful by invidious connection.”
So whatever happened in California, either the newspapers were wrong or the Church was. Newspapers don’t have such a good fact-checking reputation when it comes to Scientology. Churches of Scientology do not engage in political debate, support or attack. The only time a Church may become involved with politics would be where proposed laws may inhibit religious freedom or restrict human rights in a way that is harmful to its community or nation.
Moving on… Just as a brief interlude before speaking of that lovely place south of the English Channel, I would like to pose the question, ‘What makes it acceptable for a journalist to be obnoxious and offensive toward a religious official and pass it off as an interview or journalistic inquiry?’ It happened recently to a Church spokesperson who was faced with a highly offensive line of questioning relating to the Scientology religion. I feel there should be more compassion and respect among journalists covering stories on Scientology. After all, it is my religion.
Okay so France. What the hell happened there?! Their record of religious tolerance continues to look like a multi-car pile-up on the M25 at rush hour. This time the papers clung on to the ‘story’ of some court case involving a Paris Church. What actually happened was this: The Paris Correctional Court rejected the recommendations of prosecutors in a case against a Paris Church of Scientology, a Scientology bookstore and six Church members. The court cited the absence of any complaints against the Church in more than a decade, as reason for refusing to impose restrictions on the Church’s activities in France, which had been sought by the prosecution. And what of the plaintiff? A woman with 5 months’ participation in Scientology religious practices, leeched onto by anti-religionists and pushed to litigate. The US State Department’s annual International Religious Freedom Report issued this week said that “discriminatory treatment” of Scientologists in France “remained a concern.”
Paradoxically, the European Court of Human Rights, serving the member nations of the Council of Europe, is located in Strasbourg, part of France. They recently handed down a judgement in favour of two Scientology groups in Russia, affirming the basic human rights of their members to freedom of religious association and practice, which itself follows the European Court of Human Rights’ earlier landmark decision concerning the Church of Scientology of Moscow.
Add to the above myth-busting the fact that the Church of Scientology has more than 8,000 Churches, Missions and groups in 165 countries, sponsors the world’s largest non-governmental drug education programme, and sponsors the largest international human rights education intiative, all while opening four major new Churches in 2009 alone: Rome, Malmö, Dallas and Nashville, as well as new Churches set to open in Washington, D.C. and Brussels before the year is out.
just checking