An eagle eyed Special Correspondent spotted something in Tony Ortega’s Sunday Funnies on 19 Oct.
From there he dug a little more and some interesting things emerged.
It is well known that Scientology is notoriously homophobic. L. Ron Hubbard was extremely anti-gay in his early writings, most notably in his 1951 book Science Of Survival. Unfortunately, it is fundamental and unalterable dogma in scientology that the words of L. Ron Hubbard must be followed to the letter and without deviation. So, things change VERY slowly, if at all.
The church’s stance against gay rights was brought into sharp focus by Lawrence Wright’s piece in The New Yorker recounting the story of Oscar winning writer/director Paul Haggis’ departure from the church.
With that background this story is somewhat puzzling.
But another piece of the puzzle is also important to perhaps understanding what is going on. In today’s scientology there is one thing that trumps everything — money. If you are willing to turn over cash to scientology, they will not only bend the rules, they will write new ones. Dozens of stories have appeared exposing the fact that church donors are accommodated with preferential treatment, unusual favors and waiving of the “deeply held religious beliefs” that are touted to keep those without money in line.
And so we look at the promotional piece from the Mountain View org that appeared on the Underground Bunker excerpted below:
“Greg and Tim” were the only contributors to Silicon Valley’s Ideal Org #3 with no last name. Or were they? Look closely under the “&” and we see “Tim D’agostino”….
From there our intrepid SC found that Tim D’agostino has a Facebook page where he mentions Greg.
Tim tags Gregory Paige, upper right — but calls him Gregory Andrew in the caption…
Checking Gregory Paige’s Facebook page comes up with this (along with a lot of other scientology material and some pretty sad whining about people who don’t understand his choice of being a scientologist and how all the claims of abuse and people being locked up and money being taken are just lies “[dis]proven in court”?):
The location for the wedding is the planned auditorium/chapel of the “new” “ideal” Mountain View church of scientology.
Apparently, the donation is with the idea that if this facility ever gets built, they will be married there. (Just a word of advice guys, if this is what you are waiting for, you have astonishing patience).
A further look at FB reveals that they are also apparently staff members…
Pretty clearly, Mountain View org has at least one, if not two, openly gay staff members who are planning to get married in the church.
Does this signal a massive policy change in scientology?
If so, why are they not promoting it? They even seem to be hiding it — not giving the last names of these two, the ONLY ones omitted in the entire promo piece?
Or is this just the dream of a couple of romantics who are hoping that this is going to happen, but are soon to be crushed when the church explains things to them with some selected quotes from Science of Survival? Did the church hire them and then discover they were gay, and were afraid to let them go because of the backlash it would bring, especially in the Bay Area which for many years has been at the forefront of gay rights issues.
I surely hope it is the former and the church has FINALLY decided to treat gays like anyone else, for two reasons:
1. I think discrimination against anyone based on ANYTHING, if they are not hurting anyone else, is wrong. And by discrimination I mean not affording the courtesy, dignity and rights that others in society enjoy.
2. It would mean that the church CAN change based on societal pressure. QED the abusive, discriminatory practices of disconnection can also be brought to an end.
Or does the fact that the org left out the last names of ONLY these two mean that they are trying to keep it a secret and just milk these guys for the money and then boot them to the curb?
It will be interesting to watch. Because sooner or later, scientology is going to have to clean up its act on this subject.
Two famous exceptions in Scientology history were William Burroughs (he was even publicly known as gay) and John McMasters (his gayness must have been somewhat privately known common knowledge to other top Sea Org staff and Saint Hill staff of that time period when John was the prominent spokesperson role model Scientologists and Clear Number 1).
McMasters and Burroughs will always be relevant to add to the discussion of Scientology’s gay tolerance or not in Scientology history.
Sorry but I reckon these poor guys will get financially raped blind before they discover they are unable to progress up the Bridge due to their “aberration”. Any organisation that still refers to telexes and mimeographs is seriously lagging, and that applies to their stance on gay rights too.
Although the law allows the CoS to descriminate at will when it comes to the clergy and theology, it doesn’t give church related businesses the same right. For example, if NARCONON and WISE provide benefits, such healthcare or pensions, they have to offer the same benefits to same sex married couples as they do to heterosexual married couples if those couples reside in a state where same sex marriage is recognized. The penalties are steep for failing to do. In addition, If any WISE business contracts with the federal government, a new federal law makes it illegal for them to discriminate against gays in employment. Perhaps it is dawning on a few church leaders that if WISE businesses, or businesses like Robert Duggan’s, don’t adapt to comply with law, the lawsuits and loss of federal contracts will not only be bad PR for the church, it will dry up a lot of the revenue stream the church counts on. It will be interesting to see how Miscavige deals with the new laws and with the planned same sex wedding in the yet-to-completed Ideal Org. If he acts predictably, and shoots himself in the foot, there will many more ex-members commenting on this blog.
Mike, you said: “Well, I dont know about the rest of this, but your “fairly exact quote from SOS” is not exact at all. I don’t think it exists and I have read that book many times. Perhaps you can provide the exact quote and page number?”
I am out of town right now and will not be able to get to my references until I return. I will find it and post it when I return. Thinking about it, I believe that the quote said, “Any society which either condones or ‘condemns’ homosexuality is on it’s way out.” Not “condones or ‘suppresses’ ” as I stated.
Anyhow, I will find and post the reference I remember when I return and post it here.
As for Mario’s award from LRH I believe it is true, because I have no reason to doubt Mario’s word. As of about a year ago he was receiving NOTS at no charge at AOLA based on a letter from LRH in which Ron made the award to him. My guess is that the COS would not dare to refuse to honor it due to his stature in the world of classical music and the enormous good will he has.
Hi Mike,
I’m back from out of town. I looked for that quote I remembered in SOS and could not find it in the index. You may be right that it is not there, but I was pretty sure that I saw it somewhere.
I will keep looking for what I remembered and will send it to you and/or post it if I find it.
I did find a similar quote in my 1968 edition of DMSMH, the one with the introduction by Dr. Winter. While writing on the subject of sexual “perversion” (in which he did include homosexuality) he said:
“He (the “pervert”)is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that the tolerance for perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for it.” from the chapter entitled Psycho-Somatic Illness)
True, he does express his view that homosexuality is an severe behavioral aberration. Many people agree that this view is true and many disagree.
He does state here, however, that punishing homosexuality is a bad thing.
I didn’t observe that his personal behavior or the attitude of orgs in the early days were uniformly “homophobic”. As has been mentioned by myself and others, John McMasters, William Burroughs, and Mario Feninger were openly gay men. John was the spokesperson for Scientology in his day and touted as “the worlds first clear”. I’ve heard John speak and can’t imagine that Ron did not notice that he was gay. Same goes for Mario Feninger with whom he spent a good deal of time at one point. Mario never hid the fact that he was gay and was very open about it. Mario is also a Class VIII and I knew another Class VII (Richard Coleman) who as openly gay. I’ve also known several staff members in the 1970’s who were gay. And then there is the HCOPL entitled “Second Dynamic Rules” as mentioned by Dan351 which basically states that as far as Scientology is concerned, there are no rules as to what people do between the sheets as long as there is mutual consent.
LRH’s opinion about homosexuality was what it was, but at the same time he had some gay friends and did not shun people because they were gay. Maybe Ron changed as he got older, but back in the day I don’t think that his personal behavior was homophobic.
However, Miscavige and his little cult ARE homophobic. That guy is just basically a mean little person.
I’ve always wanted to get married at Saint Hill 🙂
Foolproof?
I have read “yip yap” come off it how many things that are written about the sex lives of “stars” are simply not true.
I for one will be quite happy when 90% of the planet is homosexual, that means more girls for me chase LOL!
It is very frustrating when people are deluded because they have been lied to and when you tell them the truth they believe that you are the one lying. Therein lies the lot of the Scientology critic.
Of course the one thing we are somewhat forgetting here (sorry – many do mention it above actually) is the leverage that imposing a moral standard has on the recipient’s wallet. I would think that this was just another lever, well, crow bar actually, on many parishioner’s wallets for “donations” to atone for their “sins”. Why could they not have just sold courses and intensives and left people alone?
Scientology’s in such a sick state that it’s waking up to a hitherto ignored demographic. Apparently, it occurred to them that gays and lesbians are usually well-employed and have above-average disposable income. Maybe that asshole Miscavige saw an Ikea or Subaru advertisement and got the bright idea, who knows? When a principle comes up against His insatiable appetite for money, the principle always fares ill.
I was on staff at an Ideal Org and we had an active and enthusiastic gay man on our lines; a really sweet fellow.
He really wanted to join staff and was frankly a “perfect candidate” due to his excitement for the church.
When I asked the Exec over the area why they hadn’t brought him on yet, she responded nicely, “Well, you know he’s gay right? We’re going to have him get through his basics and Grades and see where he’s at then to re-evaluate if he can join staff.” What she meant was, “We’ll see if he’s still gay after some auditing, and if he’s not, he can join.”
This wasn’t that long ago.
Well, things have REALLY changed from when I got into Scientology. I joined staff in 1970 and the 2D was simply NOT an issue. Believe it or not, PL 2D Rules actually was applied. We had two very out gay guys on HSDC (one a Cl 6) and a few years later I shared an office with an openly gay CS, and the other Fdn CS was very effeminate in manner and none of this was any sort of problem at the time in regards to them being on staff or in high tech posts. ALTHOUGH, when my gay office mate, a very nice fellow, was about to go to LA to do his OT levels, it was sort of assumed he would come back straight (!) and there a few females in the org already jockeying for position to be chosen by him upon his return. As fate would have it, he did not come back straight and it THEN become a problem for him apparently and he eventually left staff and Scientology. Even for “heteros” there were no ethics actions ever taken re: the 2D that I can recall (and I was a staff staff auditor, staff CS and SSO through those years). We even had two female staff who moonlighted as nude dancers in town in 1971 (not kidding). I audited a woman in the HGC for quite a long time in the mid 70s who was having an affair with her boss, a married and while she ran a lot of ruds on it, she was not sent to ethics. It was simply accepted at that time that the 2D was your own thing unless you wanted to bring it up in session. Ah, but that would have lasted …….. (talk about dev fucking T, if I may coin a phrase) …..
Yes, Joe, people do police themselves somewhat. I suppose to be fair if something reads on the meter then – it reads on the meter. In other words somewhere along the line the PC has resisted something usually based on accepting other’s moral codes as his or her own and built up charge on it so the auditor cannot ignore the reading charge of course. And of course people do do immoral things as well – it just depends on viewpoint. I think in most of these cases the charge was before they became staff but some staff carried on imposing their moral standards on them, in some cases right, probably most wrong. But if the PC was fortunate he had not imposed these self-restrictions on himself. In my time on staff heterosexual 2D “action” was quite rife and er, normal. Gays were tromped upon though.
For instance many of the staff’s children were conceived in the auditing rooms of the HGC with staff sleeping overnight in the Org. These days I would think the idea of “having sex in the Org” would be met with loud gasps of indignation and demands for Goldenrod blood running from tumbrels at the thought of “despoiling our (empty) Ideal Org with such grossness”.In my time nobody thought anything about it. The nightwatchman used to regularly stumble across couples in flagrante delicto. Nobody gave a hoot! But then we were making auditors and auditing PCs.
“Despoiling” is the wrong word to use above, should have been “spoiling” or “degrading”. There is nothing of any value now to despoil in an empty Ideal Org apart from a few glass cabinets and office chairs.
And I missed a chance for a joke above – should have said “Nobody gave a hoot, or even a hooter”! (sorry ladies but the joke lightens things up and puts the “seriousness” in perspective).
When I was on staff in the late ’70’s, we had an gay exec. I’d consider him an upstat who wore his hat as a staff member and he keep his private life private. Another staff member, over a period of time ridiculed this exec to other staff about his sexuality.
The staff member who did the ridiculing got declared as a joker and degrader.
Foolproof,
I don’t know if the SO “PAC Masturbation Mission” you mention is the same as the SO mission into PAC with Jenny DeVocht as I/C in 1996. Anyway, there were daily all-PAC-staff briefings and in one of them she went on and on about a poor SO member who got caught masturbating. My Gawd, if that is all this ‘powerful mission’ could find wrong that day, how ridiculous! It was also VERY degrading to the person concerned.
It was one of several experiences that marked strong disagreements with ‘command intention’ leading to my deciding to leave once Jenny had dumped me onto the RPF. In a way I view it now as being grateful as I clearly saw that I could not share this group-think anymore.
Greta
Greta as I recall the mission was around 2002 I believe.Fortunately I had left before it got that bad, otherwise I probably would have been arrested for affray and grievous bodily harm. In other words the person hectoring and lecturing would have had a swift right hook from me (well, I would have said something in the staff meeting). Yes, shades of North Korea all this sort of thing. Instead of training auditors they were trying to catch staff masturbating. You couldn’t make this sort of thing up! LRH must be turning in his grave if he had one.
In my time on staff of course there were many guys (mostly – I never heard or came across lesbian Scientologists) who were routed out for being gay. This was unfortunate as many of them were very capable individuals and contributed quite a lot. I still believe it was mostly down to the spitefulness and prejudices of the local management, or the HAS or MAA or whoever made the decision to get rid of them. If I was a HAS I would never have routed people out for this but simply followed the HCO PL on 2D Rules – that is what a HAS has as one his or her priorities – getting in Policy, not ignoring it based on one’s own prejudices or usually thinking it was some higher Exec’s prejudices and one had to follow the party line. But many HASes or MAAs of course cannot stand their ground and cave in when some higher FOLO or Flag Exec states “get rid of him”. One supposes they (the HAS or MAA) might fear being ordered to their own “2D Sec Check” if they give any bother.
It also occurred to me years later that if these supposedly homosexual men quoted the definition of the 2nd Dynamic – “the sexual or bisexual urge…” and had said to the HAS/MAA “how are you going to gainsay that – I am bisexual?” they could have, perhaps, handled this prejudice. Or at least mollified it somewhat. Probably not as the prejudice is/was somewhat ingrained. Probably many of these men/women were actually bisexual.But regardless if they are/were whatever sexual orientation they were/are, then the Policy on 2D rules is quite explicit. There are no rules (well, there are if you read the Policy carefully but only where the sexual activity is causing other problems – which actually is fair enough).
Same thing with masturbation and “certain” sexual practices being now taboo (and being shown “references” on these which I have never come across), never mind the forced abortions and sex in general being frowned upon by some. How ridiculous can they get? I was amazed when I read about the SO “PAC Masturbation Mission” which was just downright prudish and ridiculous. The irony is that the person who ordered that mission to occur is probably sitting on “big ones” – real humdingers! He can assuage his own “guilt” (he thinks) by getting others to admit what he thinks is theirs.
These prejudices are mostly again part of an unspoken group engram passed down from generation to generation of so-called “Executives”. None of them think about what they are doing.
But there is really no argument with the HCO PL on 2D Rules.Thing is – people ignored it, as usual. That is my point here.
And my other point is that a real Scientologist is generally quite a liberal, decent chap or gal – not the frothing at the mouth, stern, serious, rabid dogs (with huge whole track overts and crimes that have been missed- ha!) – that now call themselves “Scientologists”.
The defintion that appeared in the glossaries of some books defined sex as “any sexual or bisexual activity”. That definition, I understand, was not written by LRH, but, according to what I was told the orignial had been altered by a bisexual guy at Saint Hill back in the day. (It was later corrected in the glossaries.) The original said simply “any sexual activity.” I saw a copy of the original definition in LRH’s handwriting. It did not mention the word “bisexual”.
That said, to be fair to LRH, in addition to inferring that all gay people are 1.1 and stuff like that, he also did say in Science of Survival (and I think this is a fairly exact quote):
“Any society that either condones or suppresses homosexuality is on its way out.”
……That was a fairly strong statement for tolerance back in the 1950s.
Some perspective: In the 1950’s if you were gay you HAD to be covert about it. If you were not, not only would you be shunned, you could wind up dead and it might not even be investigated in many circumstances. And being covert in one area often spills over into other areas. It would have been easy to observe that gay people tended to be covert because it was largely true.
Today it is not politically correct or socially acceptable to bash gays.
Until the 1960’s and ’70’s only a few gay people, mostly celebrities such as Walt Witman and Alan Ginsburg, had ever dared to come out of the closet publicly.
I think that LRH went through periods in his life when he was more tolerant and periods where he was less tolerant. He apparently was very upset about his son, Quentin, being gay. And yet he was very close friends with and had great respect for Mario Fenninger. Ron awarded Mario all the free auditing he wanted for the rest of his life….the only person I have ever known to receive such an award.
My personal opinion is that LRH was 1000% more tolerant of homosexual people than most members of his generation.
I think that most of the mean and unfair actions and intolerance of the COS on the subject in the past has been the action of abberrated individuals such as DM who cherry picked the worst to serve their own reactive purposes and enforced those initiatives on others.
Well, I dont know about the rest of this, but your “fairly exact quote from SOS” is not exact at all. I don’t think it exists and I have read that book many times. Perhaps you can provide the exact quote and page number?
And it is more than “inferring” that all gay people are 1.1 — this IS an exact quote from Handbook For Preclears: Break this life continuum concept by running sympathy and grief for the dominant parent and then run off the desires to be an effect and their failures and the homosexual is rehabilitated. Homosexuality is about 1.1 on the tone scale. So is general promiscuity.
Perhaps this is where the strange idea that the homosexual can be “rehabilitated” or cured, comes from?
Trying to think in the most evil terms I can muster up, I vote for “get all their money and then be rid of them.” I truly believe they are being lied to 100% of the time. Maybe everyone talking to them/regging them doesn’t share the actual lie, but Mi$cavige is a cruel homophobe too. I don’t think he’ll ever let their marriage happen. Maybe now he knows they are on staff and THAT’S a flap with him. Wouldn’t be surprised. Soooo, they keep regging the couple for all their money based on the lies of getting a new org/chapel built, then when they run dry Mi$cavige “just found out about it” and oh, we’re soooooo sorry but you can’t get married here and you’re relieved of your staff duties too. If that turns out to be the case, take the invitation and run, guys, run! Be free, be happy somewhere ELSE.
I will also point out in regards to that promo piece photo directly to the left of Greg and Tim, that Traci Boya is a very out lesbian (completely no secret from anyone) and kind of surprising that she is contributing money, considering that her long time partner (of a few years ago anyway), the former Diana Solo was given so much trouble (because she was gay) attempting to get auditing at the FSO a few years ago.
Thanks Joe. Interesting.
Hi Mike. I was once in OSA UK. Not for long though once I’d experienced the utter incompitence of one Gream Wilson as well as Khalini and that Italian guy she was with. Do you know they used to come see me in my home town for recruitment chats before I signed up. They used to stop off on the way and from EG for a quickie.
Also the male, Mario I think his name was, had a punch-up at Brighton Org and we, the staff, all covered it up. There’s an old withold for you. lol.
I remember your last event at St. Hill very well. The one on ‘that’ day. You did look rather pensive. I was sitting about 3 feet from where you were standing. I went awol a week later and celebrate the day every day.
Apologies for creating a misunderstanding about Mr. McMaster. But in the parlance of that era John was known as a ‘confirmed bachelor’. So when I say ‘openly’ this is what I refer to. When he spoke it was like listening to Cecil Beaton. Listen to him on YT.
Thanks. Send me a message from the homepage. I dont recall who Khalini is?
Got it John Mac. There was no doubt he was gay — it just was not openly discussed. I met him when he went on his “world tour” to promote the state of Clear.
Yes, but The *Church* eagerly wants Gay money $$$$$$$$
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pks9lEwfNB8
Always ahead of the curve K#1 🙂
The first Clear, John McMaster was openly gay.
Openly? Don’t think so…
“Has Scientology Finally Changed Its Tune On Gays?”
That question, of course, could be restated as, “Has david miscavige changed his current command intention regarding the handling of gays within the church?”
Personally, I think he’ll just leave that hot topic alone and continue to make a list of who to blame for what when things go bad.
He’s an equal opportunity hater and a grand master of the blame game.
Astute Les.
In the late 80s I was auditing a known lesbian public at CC INT.. She was doing great on her program but suddenly the Sr C/S, __________ Kevenaar (someone please help me out with her first name I cannot remember for the life of me) got wind of this and stopped abruptly this well running pc. I mean just ‘that’s it’. No clean up, no handling of the ARC break, nothing! It was utterly disgusting, kicking that public out.
I have never forgiven that ‘C/S’.
Greta
This is all about being “PC” especially in Calif. Tolerance? ha, yeah it’s ‘tolerance’ alright for the MONEY. It’s all about the money.
Dan351-I’m glad you brought up and reminded me of the “Second Dynamic Rules”. This statement alone should curtail any invalidation or shunning towards the gays but unfortunately the concept of Granting Beingness is a foreign thought to the Scientologists of today or maybe it was always like that and I couldn’t admit to my self. Silly me!
It’s ironic that the other person listed on the promo is also gay. I’ve known her for years and she is a warm, caring, artistic woman. She was in a same-sex relationship with another Scientologist for over a dozen years. She’s on staff at Mountain View Org. Hope that is a good sign as far as tolerance and that she is happy and doing well.
I thought Miscavige was blazing this trail a few years ago with all those more-than-chummy pictures with Tom Cruise.
Is it really possible for Scientology to change?
The late and infamous Keith Relkin was a friend of mine. I got him into Scientology about 35 years ago. We were both tormented young gays trying desperately to be straight. The “tech” would save us from a life of depravity. I left Seattle in 1980 and lost track of Keith. After several miserable years on staff at a CL IV Org, which included many attempted “ethics handlings” regarding my sexual orientation I bailed.
Fast forward 20 some odd years later, I found Keith on FB. To my amazement he was still very much “in” Scientology and “out” as a gay man. He worked vigorously to recover me to Scientology. He was forthcoming with the discrimination that he had had to endure in his 30 years in Scientology but he continued the fight. He quoted LRH, as all good Scientologists do to to justify his stance and to bolster his position that he “could too be gay and a good Scientologist, and go up the bridge”. I have pages of this conversation. He really was deluded that he could create a kinder, gayer world of Scientology.
I think the point is that like the Bible, in Scientology you can always find an LRH quote to back up your point of view. If a young gay man/woman truly believes that Scientology is the answer to his/her spiritual eternity he/she can find that reference that makes it palatable. For example, the policy about “Second dynamic rules” which “cancels” previous rules regarding 2D is a later policy than the reference that lists homosexual relations as a suppressive act. If so determined a reference to fend off the homophobes can be applied, unfortunately that goes the other was as well and the world, and I would guess especially the koolaid drinking world of Scientology has no shortage of homophobes.
And lest us not forget homophobe number one, L. Ron Hubbard. Even if one could discount the policies which would initiate ecclesiastical justice cycles and punishments there are references through out the body of work that is Scienotolgy that label gays as 1.1’s etc. There is no escape. Scientology is homophobic and it is written is stone.
So Greg and Tim, grab your wallets and run for the hills. It’s only a matter of time.
Michael, I have nothing against what you say but what reference is there that states homosexuality is a suppressive act? I do not recall this.
I confess Foolproof, it’s been a long time. I threw my OEC Volumes away about 27 years ago (kind of wish I hadn’t). I have a vague recollection of a PL listing High Crimes, one of those crimes having to do with homosexuality, perhaps it had to do with being involved in activity that could be subject to blackmail? Not sure but somehow in my mind that was how it was interpreted to me, or that I interpreted it to myself. I guess when it comes down to it I was quite homophobic myself back than. This would have been early 80’s. I got into Scn in 1979. If I have misstated I cry “senior moment” and my apologies. All that aside it was not acceptable to be gay in the day, especially as staff, and more so as an exec. That was my experience.
Okey dokey. People were declared for “doing it” but usually the High Crime they were charged with was something else, probably something like “bringing Scientology into disrepute” or similar. As I say I do not recall a specific High Crime of Homosexuality – there simply isn’t one that states that specifically.
More info on Keith at http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/09/scientology_keith_relkin.php
MW
Thank you for this link.
OMG, this story about Keith Relkin just REEKS of ‘wrong items’, ‘wrong indications’ this poor fellow has been sec checked over and all of that on top of his ‘gay problem’ that obviously
did not resolve. I’d say that’s another corpse caused by the misapplication of the tech by the Co$!
This is very, very sad.
Greta
When Stevens Creek was a mission back in early 80’s or so, there was a staff member who come out as gay. He went around the mission telling all staff one by one. I believe he thought he could remain on staff. I never found out how they got rid of him.
One of his buddies who was also gay ended up staying on staff for many more years constantly trying to get his gayness (prob what hubbard would have coined it) handled.
Mike says, sooner or later Scientology will have to clean up its act on the subject.
I think LRH was heading in that direction when he wrote “Second Dynamic Rules” in 1967 page 479 OEC vol. 4.
“It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals.
Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition…
I have no concern about the second dynamic activities of Scientologists save only where they bring suffering to others and so impede forward progress.
Therefore: ALL FORMER RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE SECOND DYNAMIC ACTIVITIES OF STUDENTS, PRECLEARS, STAFF AND SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE CANCELLED.”
If the current church wanted to change, it could just site this policy.
Well, yes, they could cite this. But like so much else in scientology there are very contradictory things said in other places…
Re: PL Second Dynamic Rules. Where LRH was heading at any particular time is not where he continued to go or where he wound up at. In any practical terms, this PL was no longer in force by the late 70s (LRH had laid the groundwork for church control of parishioners’ second dynamics with various PLs, among them Ethics, Justice and the Dynamics and a number of others in the 70s). PL Second Dynamic Rules was issued in 1967, which was the high point year of the counter culture, famous as “The Summer of Love.” Culturally, 2D rules would not have been even real, much less acceptable to young people in Scientology at that time. Staff in the early and mid 70s were definitely NOT monogamous (quite the opposite, a big Saturday night party every other week in my city, with music, drinking and …..). In her book, Kate Bornstein, tells about having a cabin on the Apollo below LRHs, where she (before her transition to becoming a woman)was living for a year and having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old girl. LRH changed his mind in this area as he did in so many others, and when he changed, Scientologists had to turn on a dime. Ultimately, unfortunately, Scientology followed the tried and true method of so many Earth religions, of using second dynamic “sin and shame” to further control its parishioners’ lives, which always included various types of punishment (in Scientology mostly lower conditions which is heavy with amends, INCLUDING OF COURSE HANDING OVER AS MUCH MONEY AS CAN BE GOTTEN FROM THE SINNER).
Excellent comment
Homosexuality is considered a condition in Scientology, something to be handled on the Bridge, like kleptomania, alcoholism, promiscuity, etc. That being said, in my experience as a public person and never staff, I never heard it said that someone could not be accepted for training or processing, nor, for that matter, allowed on staff, es
My org was continually starved for staff and IMO would never have refused a viable willing individual to be on staff staff because he/she was gay.
In fact, per the policy about fast flow hiring, what I observed as a public over the decades being frequently myself regged to join staff was that any mass of ambulatory protoplasm collected and arranged in something resembling human form would be considered fully eligible to sign a staff contract and to that end would be indefatigably love-bombed and admiration-flowed to do so 🙂
Very good Aqua, made me laugh.
Aqua, you are so right about the protoplasm. As long as it was breathing out fog onto that stupid mirror it was recruitable.
Love your way with words!
In the mid ’70’s the St. Louis org had a couple gays on staff and one public gay.
The public person did not reveal he was gay until 30 years later…..after LOTS of
auditing at Flag and being married with kids. He got up to OT 5, saw the 7 material but never started and also did the L’s (before he revealed he was gay). Apparently he had secretly been having gay encounters over all of
those years and the auditing he received (mostly at Flag) was in my mind suspect at best (after the fact).
Suspect in that surely all the Cl XII auditors and C/S’s he had, at least one of them might have pulled that
w/h. Assuming that the w/h was pulled then it appears to me Flag kept selling him auditing (at CL XII rates
I might add) to “handle” his situation…..he had money of course.
I know for a fact he was never made to reveal his sexual preferences to his WIFE during any “ethics” handlings he had at Flag. And there were quite a few. All very strange indeed. Money is the word I guess.
He could have saved a shit load of money by just coming out before Flag got their hands on him.
As for the staff members….both were HGC auditors….one a CL IV and the other a CL VIII.
One is still in and the other has passed on.
And don’t ask for names cuz you won’t get them.
Potpie,
Not asking for names . . . but did the Class VIII pass away? He was a dear and close friend (not 2d) back in the day and a very decent person. Would like to know. Never able to find anything about him on the Internet.
Yep, I guess it depends on which way the wind blows. A number of years ago there was an ANZO recruit mission at Joburg Org, and some idiot decided that if one didn’t actually see “pink elephants” then they had not taken “real LSD, and so 5 South African were recruited and sent to ANZO. One of these was an openly gay guy. About two years later this “arbitrary” was reversed, and the 5 South Africans were sent packing.
In 2012 the same ex-SO gay who had been in the Sea Org for close to 2 years appears in the org in uniform on FDN staff and I ask WTF? Not only is this guy ex-SO, but he’s also gay – and now on staff? The mind boggles. It was explained to me that because he never actually qualled for the SO in the first place this didn’t count, and the fact that he was not “active sexually” meant it was ok for him to be on staff. Huh??.
Another chap (one I really liked and became friends with) was desperate to get to Anzo, but kept being denied because of his sexual orientation. Finally, they told him that if he could prove he was not a “practicing” gay, then he would be allowed onto the OT levels. I don’t believe he ever made it to Anzo.
The “not a practicing gay” is the key phrase. That is how Mario Fenninger was able to stay in the church as a public for decades and even get onto OT VII. Everyone knew that Ian and Mario were gay lovers who lived together, but all pretended not to know. I inquired about it to one of Mario’s piano students and she said, “well he doesn’t have sex nowadays cuz he is so old, so he isn’t a practicing homosexual.” Really? And my question to that is, or should have been, “how do you know he doesn’t have sex?” As an aside, Mario knew Ron personally in France in the 40’s or 50’s. If Ron was so homophobic, why did he count Mario Feninger as a friend? Maybe he doth protest too much?
Mario fought it all his life as it was not acceptable.
Very difficult .
And LRH used to have dinner with Errol Flynn in the 50s, who would literally “take on all comers” of whatever gender (or age unfortunately), or so I have read. Flynn would dip his wick in anything that came near him – or so I have read. So I don’t believe LRH was so prudish as later Sea Org Execs wished he had been to justify their own prudishness.
If one reads the Mission Earth Dekalogy I was quite surprised at the lewdness contained therein and remember thinking at the time when I read them “the leader of a religion wrote these (quite sexually explicit) books”. But then I was probably a bit prudish myself 30 years ago.
You are opening the door to a discussion that is going to swamp you Foolproof. You are fortunate this thread is now on an older post.
But I will save the crowds from rushing in and say this:
There is absolutely no evidence that I am aware of that LRH “had dinner” with Errol Flynn, it’s another of those myths about him.
But there is plenty of evidence that LRH was very promiscuous and treated his first two wives and their children very badly, even denying they existed.
The subject of the 2nd Dynamic and L. Ron Hubbard is especially unseemly.
Mike, I didn’t or wasn’t saying otherwise (?). On the Errol Flynn thing, ok if it is untrue it is untrue – I believe it was something his grandson or son stated in an interview and the son/grandson was there, or so he said. It’s not a big deal either way. As to LRH’s promiscuity etc. I am not arguing with you. Why do you assume I am? I think you have tarred me with the brush of defending LRH when I haven’t done anything of the sort.I never implied that LRH was a saint on the 2D.
FP == no tarring intended. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. I know that the minute you open the floodgates about LRH 2D history there is so much to come tumbling out that it can be like an avalanche and I didnt want the blog to get sidetracked. No problem with your comments generally. Cut me a little slack as I read a LOT of stuff, often on my phone, and I don’t always fully duplicate everything.
I would think that if He could get away with it, David Miscavige would really want gays as SO Int Staff now, because not only are they forbidden to engage in any 2D action if unmarried, but according to what I’ve read, at Int, marriage has been banned altogether.
Marriage was “unbanned” a while ago. And so was any thought of trying to “gently persuade” pregnant women to have abortions. So, this has become the way out.
Of course, if the flood of departures gets too great, the sands may shift and all will return to the good old days of singledom and celibacy.
And I’ll weigh in and say here that as far as being a public Scientologist, any not openly gay person would be sold whatever is around. Delivered – maybe not. But sold, yes, sure. I honestly believe that someone could be shagging sheep and the cult would not refuse their money.
But the real question is why would any “religion” not accept someone who was “shagging sheep” — or whatever? Either the person doesn’t think it’s a problem, in which case, why would anyone care. Or he does think its a problem and isn’t that what religion is there for?
There is a very pronounced superiority problem in scientology. Certain people and “types” are not worthy of “help”.
It’s another sign of fundamentalism.
Mike, there was no reply button on your point about why a religion should not refuse to help certain people with certain problems, so I’m answering it here: You’re right, a religion should NOT cherry pick who it wants to help and who it does not. A true religion would never do this. Yet this “religion” most certainly does and always has. Case in point; the insane. Scientology says flat out that anyone currently mentally ill or who has ever at any time been institutionalized for mental illness may not be processed. Not sure about training but such a person would be an illegal PC. IMO Scientology should become a business again, as it began, and as it truly is.
And let me add that Scientology should stop selling what it has no intention of delivering because it is prohibited by its own policy from doing so. Sure, the “church” will SELL anyone anything, any service, but will they deliver it – not necessarily. I know a still-in illegal PC being scammed this way. I’ve done my best to inform, but what I get back from this individual is, “Don’t be negative”, or “I’m heavily invested”. No confront, which why the scam can continue, but then, that’s another story.
Answer to Mike,
There really could be some plus points to having gays at INT. Think about it, no pregnancies,
no abortions….
Greta
Mike: the slack is cut! No “problemo”.
Paige also has a LinkedIn page, which says he is a contractor at Google, previously worked at EverNote.
I don’t think they are staffers, I think the “Work/Church” arrow is because Google is also in Mountain View.
You could be right…
Tim’s LinkedIn page says he works at Google, as a “Brand Producer” for Google for Education, and has been there since April.
If that’s true, I hope he gets himself educated on scientology. Maybe he was behind the Goggle ad grant?
It may be a case of “desperate times calling for desperate measures,” as orgs continue to hemorrhage staff and public.
But I’ll bet that Slappy will NOT be happy about this, unless it adds to his coffers, in which case he’ll somehow manage to repress the fact that he engages in overcompensation of his own latent homosexuality through his dramatizations of ‘machismo’. The beatings and bullying reflect his own deep sexual ambivalence, and a repressed desire for male contact, as do his constant SCOHB references. It’s quite obvious, IMO.
I’m sure the beatings will continue until morale improves.
And I’m sure the beatings will increase until morale improves…
Yep. Unless you begin smiling soon we will break out the whips and chains. Now you know how to get COB to salivate!
I think that this piece of shit Cob, when he engages in these behaviors: beatings, debasings, belittlings, and any kind of physical violence is actually a sexual turn on. I say to Espi, COB is the Irma Grese of the German concentration camps. He GETS OFF ON THIS SHIT! It’s a turn on!
Spot on Mike Leopold
Mike Leopold – – “he engages in overcompensation of his own latent homosexuality through his dramatizations of ‘machismo’ “. Spot on observation!
His constant YSCOHB comments AND the Hermes blouse he wore for the ‘We Stand Tall’ video shoot
Boy that is dark, hustling donations from two gays guys telling them they will be able to get married in this future ideal org.
But, I’d love for this to be a set-up by are two gay staff members. Gay marriage is LEGAL now. These guys gave a donation and were made a promise obviously about future nuptials in return for their donation. If the cult (ever) builds this place and try to refuse to let these two have a totally legal marriage here then they may just sue the pants off the cult for fraud and discrimination.
I won’t hold my breath, but I do hope DM has been kept abreast of the lovely impending nuptials. Maybe they will even ask DM to perform the ceremony himself? They can ALL wear John Lobb shoes and look so snazzy in three matching black tuxes!
But I think these guys are just in heavy denial. There’s no way they haven’t felt the nasty homophobic undercurrents that envelope this cult. If they want to get anywhere on the “bridge” they are in for a very rude awakening.
” Maybe they will even ask DM to perform the ceremony himself? They can ALL wear John Lobb shoes and look so snazzy in three matching black tuxes!” LOL!
Just leaked from the top floor of the SP building.
Different Strokes for Different Folks !!!!!!!!
Upgrade your statuses now.
it’s been a year almost since I finally de-programmed myself completely, 2 years of staff = 8 years of self-recovery, it’s great to come back here and always see new information from a dude I always trusted, but had no reason to, Thanks Mike
MOTY2014
Huh? Science of Survival? Which chapter? I remember that SoS has a chapter about sexual characteristics in different positions on the tone scale (“Column P”), but I can’t recall it saying anything about homosexuality in particular.
Of course, DMSMH does say a lot of silly things about homosexuality in Book 2 Chapter 5 and in other parts. If the Church’s PR people have any sense left, they must be dying to find a way to get rid of it.
The entire books discusses the traits of the 1.1 in gory detail, which is where Hubbard proclaimed homosexuality was to be found on the Tone Scale. You will find that clearly stated in Handbook For Preclears — I do not think the word homosexual appears in SOS, but pervert, irregular practices, promiscuity are sprinkled liberally throughout the discussion, so too the statement “a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of the opposite sex.”
I was in close touch with some people from the Denver Org, who told me a few years back that they had a young gay couple on staff. Apparently, a little while after they joined staff, they started dating two girls (also staff I believe) and were “trying not to be gay”. Shockingly, that did not work out, and they went back to being a gay couple, but were still on staff. I’ll try to get an update on that situation when I can, but my guess (and hope) is that they are long gone by now.
In case anyone thinks allowing gays on staff means there is tolerance for homosexuality in the church management, believe me, nothing could be further from the truth. The only “tolerance” is of the temporary sort, while everyone waits for the person to quit being gay, either by coming uptone or by handling whatever wholetrack incident they are stuck in. And while some public scientologists are “tolerant” of homosexuality, they all believe it is “aberrated” behavior, and therefore something that can and should be fixed.
In the 80’s, a gay acquaintance of mine joined the SO. On the routing in metered ethics interview, he flunked it because the question of gay came up. They may not have used that word but it was something like “sexual perversion” or something like that on the recruiting ethics interview. He admitted he was gay and they showed him the door fast. Didn’t let him in the SO.
Well I don’t think they let people masturbate either. No wonder Jenny and Mark are so pissed!
This is spot on. I’ve seen this same scenario a couple of times now over the years. If you have money, you can actually do quite a bit in Scientology while being gay, even up through your Grades and onto NED. But if you think you are going to go Clear and be gay, think again. A gay Clear is an oxymoron to a C/S (and most Scientologists) because Clear means un-aberrated and gay means aberrated. So if you don’t go straight on NED they’ll do more FPRD, have you do some courses as if they can TRAIN the gay out of you, more auditing, more training, more auditing, more training, etc, etc. But you won’t make it to Clear or beyond and you will wind up with so much invalidation and evaluation on your case that it will overshadow any wins or gains you might have had from your services. And that’s what you’ll get for $100,000-$200,000. I’d love to hear from the people that this has happened to.
And people like Greg and Tim have no idea that they can’t progress fully in Scientology, but the Org staff definitely knows this, though they will take their money anyway…. Deceit? Fraud?
Michael Pattinson went up to OT VIII (and paid nearly half a million dollars for it).
He says in this video (“On Scientology and Homosexuality”): ”They love gay money …”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3zcGqt8nGo
Here is his full story: http://www.lermanet.com/michaelpattinson/
Great link ka. If only Greg and Tim could see it now before they wind up with a similar story.
There used to be a yahoo group for scientologists some years ago. Called ” Clear Rainbow”
I believe. I googled ” Yahoo group for gay scientologists” 4 times. On clicked this link all
windows open on my computer closed. Never happened before.
I’m shocked that they are staff members and can afford an apartment.
They may have other jobs, or have worked hard in other industries and have savings. It is because they can afford an apartment that $cientology is interested in them.
Lol, right?
They are milking these 2 boys for sure, just as they would anyone else, as long as they have money. I bet they would take money from you too Mike. When it comes to getting money, they have no rules. Ha.
Robert, I think they’re being milked not only because they have money, but because they work for Google, which has 1000 or so employees in Mountain View. I think the RCS would prefer that these guys to not be gay but are cultivating them (pun intended) because of where they work, hoping that they’ll disseminate. I’m sure that Mountain View is salivating at the thought of all these monied “upstats” – so near, and yet, so far, LOL.
Does the Demented Midget know of this? Hasn’t he used homophobic slurs to insult his executives in the past? I think these two young men are being played, for their money. That is all that DM cares about.
Of course they’re being played! ANYTHING FOR A BUCK. ANYTHING…
Dave,
Isil is the new scientology. They’re radical and making a million a day. All for a ‘better world’.
Gregory has a Google shirt. Maybe he should Google a few things.
Why wait? They should go get married at the Mecca in Clearwater!!!! They’ll get the answer quick as to whether its #1 or #2 above.
Yeah! I am sure the Super Power building has a chapel.
.. or at Saint Hill
Well, you’ve reached the top of my list on Why I Protest. As a GayAnon, Scientology’s homophobia and insistence that auditing is a “gay cure” is as repulsive to me as Disconnection and forced abortions are to other people. They’re worse than Westboro Baptist when it comes to LGBTs.
The Church isn’t going to change in this matter. They had their chance when they released the Basics, where references to homosexuality could have been redacted. Adapt or die is a good maxim, Mike, but we all know that their choice is adherence to KSW or else. Therefore, death is their destiny. And the quicker it happens, the better.
(The same goes for any Indies that promote KSW like Milestone Two.)
This.
The SO members I knew were the most himophobic people I have met so far.
You can ask Derek Bloch what life as a young gay man in the Sea Org is like. Just reserve a lot of time and be prepared to be horrified.
Of course they are! Hubbard wanted to quarantine all LBGTs people. Take them out of society because they’re so aberated. So sick. So disgusting. Maybe Hubbard was mirroring himself.
OSD: Quarantine? I think that “eliminate, quietly and without sorrow” goes a little beyond quarantine. He wanted us gays exterminated, and published this fact six years after the world was confronted by what went on in the concentration camps. Remember that a half million of my tribe was forced to wear the Pink Triangle and were killed.
And some Indies wonder why I go after Hubbard’s corpus of putrid writing so vociferously.
” Maybe Hubbard was mirroring himself.”
OSD, Well if not on the gay issue he sure did when he got to the SP tech.
After years in the cult, when I began to wake up the obvious choice was to blame DM for the problems. Then came round two of the ‘wake up call’ realizing Hubbard was really one sick puppy.
Espiando
“And some Indies wonder why I go after Hubbard’s corpus of putrid writing so vociferously.”
No wondering here. Go for it ! No wonder he chose Dave Miscavige as his heir apparent. It also explains why the likes of David Mayo and Mary Sue were hung out to dry.
You’re awesome, Espiando!
Scientology made the pragmatic decision to take gay money…some brilliant OT made the observation it’s still green.
Bottom line – just like other differences – race, sex, national origin, hair color, age, etc. Scientology provides an equal opportunity to all of getting royally fucked over.
Wait until they read S of S on their Basics lineup. I wonder if they will call the supe over to clarify what LRH says about homosexuality!
He has been drilled to tell them not to worry, it’s just old, historical information, not in use anymore.
Lying comes as easily to scientologist (especially SO & staff) as breathing comes to the rest of us. Lies from the beginning and lies to the end. All lies all the time. They even have a course on lying: TR-L, or Training Routine Lying. It teaches how to lie effectively and how to tell and “ACCEPTABLE TRUTH, aka known as lying.
Church of the BIG LIE!
.. and if they have any doubts they get to pay for auditing to take any doubt away…
I suspect the Pope on a Box will make the necessary edits to SOS ………….. call it GAG III or something to that effect.
Of course he will! ANYTHING to keep the money rolling in. And, of course, the sheeple will keep on keeping on.
Makes me laugh, Steph. Call the sup over 🙂 Like when I first saw OT III material, I called the sup over. 🙂
He told me to get my auditor hat on, look up my MU’s, just apply the tech of it. 🙂 (God! How much stupider could I have been.)
But it goes way back … I remember calling my mom over 🙂 to explain the virgin birth to me. 🙂
Mare, I would love to have your mom explain the virgin birth to me. LOL She is such a lighthearted person that it would be a good story telling !
Steph, you just reminded me of a similar issue, when in my org there was a new receptionist, an African American girl, very polite, uptone and pleased to be there. Well, she was on a course and happened upon a reference of LRH’s where he makes some remarks about the Congo. As a public, I was sitting in Reception during a lunch while she, at her desk, queried these remarks with the one of the staff, who was trying valiantly to handle her on remarks that certainly came across as racist. I forget the reference but it pertains to the image of an org, and the Congo village remark serves as what LRH doesn’t want an org to be like. I had to go back on course, and as I left she was still upset – being polite about it, but not happy, asking questions about why LRH would use those words if he didn’t mean to convey racism, etc.. She was gone a few weeks later.
Wow, great story ! I’m glad she left so quickly.
“Because sooner or later, scientology is going to have to clean up its act on this subject.” Mike, I sincerely hope you don’t plan on holding your breath until then. 🙂
Erm, no. But just like ending disconnection, it is inevitable. Adapt or die.
Probably the second will happen first.
Do you really think they will end disconnection? It’s probably the reason half the current group has not left. It’s the ultimate form of control and we all know how much a certain someone loves to control.
I have to agree with Tommy Davis on this one…..disconnection will always exist because it works.
I think they will eventually bow to societal pressure (esp if they want to remain relevant in Hollywood) on gay acceptance but, yea, I would LOVE to see a gay wedding at a cos chapel…..
The gay community might be the next target after the NOI…..after all, they are usually wealthy and they generally don’t have kids ….the perfect DINKs (double income, no kids)
I do believe the church will adapt.
…eventually.
The faithful take Ron’s words literally. I had an OT VIII tell me how gays are 1.1 and bad etc and I protested and said the one that works here I work is higher toned and nice and has even helped me. She said, “I will show you the reference.” She was pushing that on me strongly. Ron was homophobic because in that time period, the 50’s, most people were down on gays and he had his own case and things going on on top of that. And he hated it that his son was gay, like he did it on purpose to personally hurt him. (a narcissistic trait). I tried to get my friend to be able to think without the generalities and take each person on a person by person basis to determine whether he/she was 1.1 or not. She couldn’t do it. So if change happens at all on the gay front, it will have to come from DM himself and flow downward.
” So if change happens at all on the gay front, it will have to come from DM himself and flow downward”
Now that is likely to happen!!!! 🙂
” So if change happens at all on the gay front, it will have to come from DM himself and flow downward”
Only one thing really flows downward from Miscavige, and its first two letters are “sh”.
I’m afraid I’d bet it is almost certainly the latter (milk and discard). Being broke and gay in scn sucks (COHB).
PR control, once again.
I wonder if either one of them has ever seen their PC folders.
Haha! Or read the original version of Science Of Survival book.
Watch Miscavige re-issue SOS with all the anti-gay references removed and blaming it on an ‘SP’. Really, Hubbard was never homophobic. According to fatty, all gays were 1.1 on his absurd tone scale.
Nobody is allowed to see his PC files; it could “damage one’s case” (if you get damaged otherwise it doesn’t matter – you get just told that you “pulled it in”).
You can look at your ethics files, but you are not allowed to touch them. I had access to my ethics file once and was taking a look. I was shocked what was written about me behind my back (talk about 1.1). I’m sure that when some members would have open access to their files, that they would make up their mind rather fast who their friends are.
Greg and Tim would be astounded what they would come upon (if KR’s and evaluations of them would not be taken out of their files for the viewing).
“Nobody is allowed to see his PC files; it could “damage one’s case”
Except for the Auditors, C/Ses, D of Ps, MAAs, regges, Dave Miscavige, Jenny DeVoght, and perhaps others that are just looking out for your welfare within the friendliest cult in the world.
Also, I know for a fact that Julian Schwartz will not let public even look at their ethics files these days. And who the fuck cares anyway; if you don’t have enough juicy stuff in there by your own accord, the MAAs will seed your files with the appropriate data …… to help you out, especially if there are ‘external influences’.
Yo Julian,
When someone happens to submit to a committee of evidence and learns that some of the charges are false, do you then try to correct the data? Or do you decide that your own faulty data is RIGHT and proceed accordingly? Just checking good buddy. I’m sure whatever you decide is in the best interest of all concerned. Justice, no doubt, can only be entrusted to the most ethical group on the planet! Pardon me while I puke ……. again!
Yes, and as an example 259 different ‘ministers’ had access to Laura DeCrescenzo’s PC files:
http://tonyortega.org/2013/07/01/8011/
“During her employment, DeCrescenzo was subject to Scientology “auditing” and interrogations. Throughout these procedures, detailed notes were taken, compiled, and reviewed by church officials — 259 different “ministers” had access to her most private thoughts. Judge Sohigian agreed that DeCrescenzo deserved access to those notes, but Scientology fought the order, saying that to turn over the files would violate the church’s “clergy-penitent privilege.”