Search the word “Apostate” on Scientology’s Stand League site and one will be bombarded with post after post addressing the subject.
Bottom line is that Scientology desperately wants the world to ignore its former members.
From personal opinions to the citing of experts, Scientology insists that there can be no credibility or honesty found in the testimony of exes.
While an apostate is usually considered someone who has left a religion, it can also be used in a more general form. According to Mirriam-Webster apostate is used synonymously with deserter, renegade and traitor.
Hate Monitor recently took to Twitter quoting reviews of Kelly Novak’s company, ID culled from Glassdoor.
What is the different between a disgruntled former employee of a company and a disgruntled former member of Scientology?
COS expects others to believe that those who have abandoned the group cannot, must not, be believed under any circumstance. Deserters of L. Ron Hubbard’s conglomerate are the ones in the wrong, they were thrown out and are now just angry and lashing out. Nothing they say can possibly be unbiased and is, in fact, just discontented grumbling.
Scientologist David Aden wrote of apostates on Stand League, “I think we all instinctively know that Church ex-members—when they are loud, grating and sensational—have an ax to grind, much like a bitter ex-spouse. Turns out the scholarly literature backs up that intuition: it explains that apostates are distinctly unreliable when talking about their former faiths, tend to blame others for their circumstances and are often on a mission to justify or explain their own actions.”
Eva Mahoney, notable for recently pretending to be a journalist at the Danny Masterson rape trial, expressed her thoughts: “It is no small thing to be a traitor. At their core, traitors are liars seeking to justify themselves rather than find a common ground over their disagreements. At all levels, whether it be national, familial, organizational, or religious, the traitor is scorned and rejected as untrustworthy.”
Strong words intended to firmly attest to the idea that those who have deserted the institution are never to be believed.
So it is confusing that this group who so insistently demands the words of former adherents be dismissed, suddenly uses the words of former employees of a company to bolster their attacks against Kelly Bush Novak.
There is no way of knowing the truth of these ex-employees circumstances in the company. All that exists is a scathing review against the business they no longer work for. Surely this is apostasy equal to any other?
Scientology once again wants to have their cake and eat it too. They dismiss as unreliable the countless stories aired by so many disaffected and abused former members while wanting belief for the same when it suits the agenda.
Either one takes the reviews (whether from a former religion or a former job) as credible or one dismisses them as mere discontent. One cannot simply pick and choose, providing a black hat for a renegade one day and a white one the next.
Scientology’s hypocrisy is one of its few consistencies. What is good for it is not allowed for others.
As we are supposed to take the Glassdoor reviews seriously, here are a few more:
Confront And Shatter 
Just to emphasize the veracity of the assertions you make, I’ll share some L. Ron Hubbard quotes:
“If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.”
L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955
“When we need somebody haunted we investigate…When we investigate we do so noisily always.”
L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959
“When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia [sic] and bribe the police.”
L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 12 February 1967, “The Responsibilities of Leaders”
In scientology, Hubbard is regarded as “Source”, that is, the originator of the only “technology” which can “save” humankind and the rest of the universe. His words are taken literally and followed to the letter, and there are severe punishments exacted upon those who not only FAIL do this, but also dare to privately(within the “church”) or publicly question, disagree with, or criticize them.
“In all the broad Universe there is no other hope for Man than ourselves.”
L. Ron Hubbard, “Ron’s Journal” 1967
So, being the “only hope for Man” equals “we are right and everyone else is wrong, period.” THAT is the whack, culty mindset behind those incredibly loopy social media posts…
Nothing spiritual here, just an international criminal cult engaged in its usual Orwellian fuckery…
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is too much wrong with this whole “apostasy” business to do all of it justice. For starters, it’s telling that among all of the definitions, the cult has to go nuclear and choose “traitor” as the preferable, seemingly only allowable, definition. What legitimate religion in the Western world would refer to all of its former adherents as “traitors?”
No evidence is given how defining someone in a term even as extreme as a “traitor” allows to conclude from that that they’re also a liar. Even if someone were to hold all the venom of an angry ex-spouse, this does not mean that they don’t have good reasons to be angry for one, and have removed themselves from the situation for another.
It’s utterly hypocritical to claim that apostates are “are liars seeking to justify themselves rather than find a common ground over their disagreements.” There is no such thing as finding common ground. Disagreement and common ground may be possible in legitimate religions or ideologies. Not only is disagreement even on minor issues explicitly forbidden in scientology but it will inevitably result in Ethics, Disconnection, SP Declares and Fair Game. There is no room for compromise.
Most puzzling: Even though the toxicity of its brand makes it near impossible, the cult goes to great lengths to make new “converts.” But where do these come from? They leave other belief systems behind, most commonly Judaism and Christianity. In other words, they are persuaded into apostasy from their former belief systems by the very “religion” that shows such contempt for “apostates.” By their own words, it would appear that scientology is a “religion” made up largely of “traitors” aka “liars.”
Of course, there are those who were brought up in the cult by their parents. These folks would typically live in countries with at least some degree of religious freedom, which is what allows scientology to exist in these places at all. So should these younger generations exercise their religious freedom–a value that scientology pretends to champion–and leave their parents “religion” this would make them “traitors” and “liars” for distancing themselves from a “religious” preference that they never even made for themselves in the first place? Apparently so, as their parents will be forced to disconnect form them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well and beautifully said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Turns out the scholarly literature […] explains that apostates are distinctly unreliable when talking about their former faiths, tend to blame others for their circumstances and are often on a mission to justify or explain their own actions.”
THE scholarly literature does no such thing. If it did, it would be easy to provide abundant citations for this apparent scholarly agreement. As it stands, there is not even one!
In 1995, an academic, Dr Lonnie Kliever was the lone outlier to take up this issue. Of note: Kliever makes no claims that he performed independent research; he strictly stuck to info provided by the “church.” He admits that his paper was commissioned by the “church” (i.e. bought and paid for). In his own words, his paper is an “expert opinion.” As anyone knows who has ever watched a court case, dueling experts will use the identical facts to come to diametrically opposed conclusions–depending on who pays them. (If they cannot bring themselves to provide the pre-ordained results, their opinion will never see the light of day.)
The closest Kliever came to giving them what they wanted: “I am convinced by reason of my own professional training and scholarly research, that the apostate should not be accepted uncritically.”
Having received academic training and performed scholarly research myself, I know exactly what the good Dr is saying. He is uttering a truism that any scholar, journalist and critical thinker will affirm: Never accept anyone’s word uncritically. For anything.
Of course, you consider the possible bias of apostates. As you would that of one who’s currently a member of an organization and advocating for it (especially if said organization is renowned for suppressing dissent and encouraging lying to serve their ends). However, considering someone’s assertions critically is diametrically opposed to rejecting anything they have to say uncritically and branding them liars.
Sorry, culties, but even a paid expert trying to be as accommodating as possible won’t give you that. Only your dedicated hate bloggers will venture there!
LikeLiked by 1 person