Scientology attempts to dismiss accusations by former members against the group as biased and untrue because they come from “apostates”, thus furthering the negative connotation often associated with the term.
What is an apostate?
“Apostasy – (“a defection or revolt”) is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion that is contrary to one’s previous religious beliefs.[1] One who undertakes apostasy is known as an apostate. Undertaking apostasy is called apostatizing (or apostasizing – also spelled apostacizing). The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean the renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person’s former religion, in a technical sense, with no pejorative connotation.”
Scientology is not a religion. It’s not even a science.
It is a sham created by a mentally ill conman in the name of materialism and financial gluttony.
True religions ultimately strive towards God in whatever form. They don’t include God in the program then embrace doctrine that precludes any real place for Him. Scientology has no need for any Supreme Being because the belief is that Man saves himself.
Scientology’s beginning lies not in the spiritual but in a man who is, for his followers SOURCE.
Hubbard’s words are their sacred scripture.
The implication here is unavoidable.
There is no god but Hubbard and money is his charism.
Underlying everything Scientology does is one unmistakable fact; L. Ron Hubbard was a bigger apostate than even Martin Luther.
At least Luther was driven by a desire to stop abuse and bring people back to the spiritual. Hubbard was driven by the demons of each of the 7 Deadly Sins and he ran with them.
L. Ron Hubbard was born to a Christian Methodist family.
By the time he created his cult he’d gleefully sailed past “lapsed” or “non-practicing” straight into the very definition of apostasy.
Hubbard was an active, vocal, scornful opponent of God, religion, Jesus and every tenet of Christian belief. He heretically denied God as an implant meant to mislead, turned Heaven into a way station for his alien spirits and announced that HE was the only one capable of saving Mankind.
He even went so far as to mock Jesus’ Resurrection by claiming he, himself died and returned.
LRH did not simply renounce or criticize Christianity, he elevated blasphemy to an art form.
Apostasy is to renounce one’s former religious beliefs; this Hubbard did in spades.
@ExposeNetwork’s tweet, directed primarily at Mike Rinder and Leah Remini, quotes Dr. Bryan Wilson who was known to be a Scientology apologist.
Wilson also wrote; “The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates.” All of which succinctly describes Hubbard.
Scientology is the physical result of L. Ron Hubbard’s lifetime of apostatizing.
It is testimony to schism; a rejection of Christianity and creation of a separate, deviant entity in its place.
Scientology proffers the idea that apostates are biased, unreliable and should be viewed with disbelief.
“Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader” .
COS repeats Dr. Wilson’s claim to justify their Dead Agent attempts against Mike Rinder, Leah Remini and others while conveniently ignoring the incredible irony found in their own genesis.
The glaring difference here is in the details.
While Hubbard directly attacked Christianity, criticizing and scorning its spirituality, God, Jesus and everything associated, former members like Remini and Rinder are not focused on Scientology’s doctrine except as it relates to crime and abuse causing harm.
Hubbard disparaged mainstream religion, especially Christianity and Catholicism, for their spiritual beliefs. He was the ultimate religious bigot as well as an unapologetic apostate.
Mike Rinder, Leah Remini and so many others who have come forward are not apostatizing at all.
Rather they are focused on fighting against destruction and abuse in order to effect much needed change.
L. Ron Hubbard locked his followers in darkness in the name of greed.
Those who Scientology label “apostate” are working to free those trapped and blinded souls so they can return to the light.
That is why Scientology is so afraid.
Confront And Shatter 
I would like to mention this important detail to underscore the points you so astutely make in this post: Hubbard’s self-deification vis-vis the creation of his criminal cult corporation was driven by Crowley’s maxim ” Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”. See his “Affirmations” and his “Philadelphia Doctorate Course” lectures for confirmation. He not only snubbed and mocked religion and spirituality, he proudly and consciously devoted his life to conniving, manipulating, defrauding, and abusing others, unapologetically, for his own sociopathic, sadistic pleasure and financial gain.
This was an evil, life-long con game…and it continues to this day, administered with the same degree of evil, disingenuous committment by David “The Pimping Profane Pontiff” Miscavige.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliant take, Stefani!
It’s equally telling that the whole “apostasy” theme ran through much more of hubbard’s life than just religion. Whether he dramatically failed in educational attainment, as an officer, as a husband, etc, he was always quick to rewrite history, self-mythologize and make others wrong and himself brilliant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The whole “apostasy” discussion is about as phony as scientology clerical collars, perfunctory Sunday “services”, religious titles, scientology “scriptures” and the–however aptly chosen–sign of the double-cross. All of these are blatant ripoffs from the predominant religion of the Western world. Even hubbard himself was clear that he was simply playing the “religion angle”–his words–to gain various financial advantages and exemptions from legal and regulatory scrutiny.
Scientology bases its claim of being a religion and its cries of victimhood solely on its all too indiscriminately attained IRS status in a single country, the US. Interestingly, most other countries refuse religious status to the money-grubbing cult. Many look askance at it! Just to name the two leading European countries: Germany keeps the organization under governmental scrutiny as they are considered corrosive to the Constitutional rights and liberties of German citizens. France convicted elron in absentia, has gone after the cult numerous times for its fraudulent activities and has made it clear that scientology is just one more scandal away from outright nation-wide prohibition. Religion? Nein. Putain, non!
So is there such a thing as a situational “apostate?” Namely, if you live in the US, you’re an apostate but if you live in France you are a victim of fraud and harassment?
Even if one were to view scientology uncritically as “just another religion”, the definition of “apostasy” is clear: “the renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person’s former religion, in a technical sense, with no pejorative connotation.” Even here, the cult gets greedy, trying to portray apostates distinctly pejoratively, as “wrongdoers” who “have been expelled from their religion.”
These are schoolyard antics, like “I broke up with him first; he didn’t dump me.” Trouble is, this definitional change undermines the cult’s own case, along with that of their presumably paid academic expert: An expelled “parishioner” does NOT fit the definition of an apostate, one who “renounced” their religion, even their “religion” (wink, wink).
The “apostacy” argument is a logically deficient strawman argument. It puts forth a one-size-fits-all generic “apostate.” By focusing on this caricature of an “apostate” as the malefactor, it tries to negate the critical importance of considering what this alleged miscreant is defecting from. Does Martin Luther’s undeniable apostasy mean that the Catholic church was free of deep-seated systemic corruption when he split? Did Luther defect from the Christian religion or renounce the abuses of a power structure? Or in the secular realm, is the fact that millions of people renounced their allegiance to Hitler and Stalin a millions-strong vindication of these murderous regimes?
LikeLiked by 1 person