I had some serious disagreements with him and apparently in the eyes of some, disagreements are considered attacks among some anti-cultists who are still apparently in the us vs. them cult mindset. To set the record straight, I am going to clarify what my position is on the issues and provide an analysis of why I think the situation escalated into a heated dispute.
This whole matter began when Steve Hassan did an interview with CNN where he made the following statement about Scientology:
STEVE HASSAN, COUNSELOR/SCIENTOLOGY EXPERT: Well, Scientology basically believes that all medical problems whatsoever can be handled by their techniques, through their auditing policies and such. So they very much dissuade members from seeking out medical attention, getting any medication.This statement was not accurate. The reason I challenged it is because when critics make inaccurate statements, they lose credibility on the many valid criticisms that exist. I considered this especially egregious, given the circumstances under which the statement was made, weeks after the tragic death of John Travolta's son, Jett. I felt that many critics of Scientology were using this death to make a point about Scientology when we really had very few facts available and jumping to conclusions was not warranted. This statement on CNN was, in my opinion, an example of what I considered to be a knee-jerk reaction.
Scientology forbids its members to see psychiatrists or other mental health professionals and forbids psychiatric drugs. However, they do not forbid or even dissuade people from getting all medical attention or taking any medication. In other words, they have a policy against psychiatry, but no policy against being a Scientologist in good standing and seeing a doctor for medical reasons or taking medication for medical reasons. Sometimes, yes, there have been tragic cases such as Roxanne Friend, where people with cancer have believed Scientology would take care of it and did not seek help in time, but the generalization made in the above statement is not warranted.
There are even Sea Org members who report that they did get good medical care. For example, Nancy Many, in her recent honest, excellent, well-written book My Billion Year Contract reported a great deal of harm that came from her experience in Scientology, including being pushed into a state of psychosis by a series of lengthy interrogations. However, she also reported that when she was in the Sea Org in Clearwater and even on the RPF, she saw a doctor once a week while pregnant, at Scientology's expense, gave birth in a hospital and her infant received medical care for a serious problem, again all at Scientology's expense. She reported wanting to leave but one of the the reasons she didn't was that she could not get such medical care on her own if she left. So, she actually stayed because of the good medical care she was getting at Scientology's expense. This in no way excuses all the bad they did and the fact that LRH ordered her onto the RPF while she was 5 months pregnant. My point here is that there is plenty to criticize Scientology about, without making unwarranted generalizations. Nancy Many's book was very honest and I applaud her for that.
The issue with Jett Travolta was even more complicated because he was on and then went off a drug considered a psychiatric drug, but it was prescribed for a physical condition. At the time this was written, it was only a few weeks after his death and very little was known about it. My point in challenging this was that we really needed to get more facts before jumping to any unwarranted, premature conclusions about Scientology's role and I did not feel that experts going onto CNN and making these kinds of statements was helpful. I am going to post my actual response to Steve Hassan in a separate blog entry, so it is here, on the record, showing that it was a legitimate disagreement, not the nasty attack it is being misportrayed to be.
What escalated the situation was that Steve was instantly offended by my response. Instead of having a dialogue with me directly, either off or on the list serv, he contacted Dennis Erlich and had him join the list serv. Dennis came on and attacked me. This is not just my opinion and perception. It is also the opinion and perception of the person who was then the moderator and owner of the Freedomodmind list serv. After Dennis came on, the exchanges became very ugly and Steve Hassan completely retreated. The situation got so out of hand that Cathleen Mann, the moderator and owner, decided to shut down the list serv. Steve Hassan and I did not speak for months, but in October 2009 we sat down with someone and had a discussion in an attempt to work out our differences. We had reached a place where we had come to terms with our differences and both were prepared to put this whole unfortunate incident in the past and move on.
However, Dennis Erlich has made this impossible to do without leaving readers with false impressions of what actually transpired. He is misportraying me as harassing Steve Hassan and "slandering" him when I have done neither. Apparently, he is incapable of distinguishing between a disagreement and challenge of an authority and harassment. Harassment means badgering someone after they have asked not to be contacted. I did not do that. What I did was to post my own opinions on my own blog. At no time did I make any factually false statements and I did not bear him any malice. My intention was to bring up issues that needed to be challenged and discussed regarding certain assumptions that are made in the cult recovery area that in my opinion, needed to be challenged. This, of course, did not make me popular but it was in no way harassment.
Steve had asked me to take the entries down and at the time I did because the matter had become so contentious, I just wanted to put it in the past and move on, although I intended all along to continue discussing these issues. Now, however, I realize that I made a mistake in removing these entries, as it made it falsely appear as if I in some way did not mean what I had written when in fact, I stand by what I wrote. I now realize that it was a mistake on my part to take these entries down. Therefore, I am going to continue to write on this topic and where appropriate, will express my differences with Steve and others. I am not doing this to be mean and vindictive. I am doing this because I have nothing to be ashamed of and therefore will be standing up to Dennis Erlich and his attempts to shame me. My views on this topic are my views and I stand by them.
Some people have asked, who cares? To those people I would respond that you are certainly free not to care and to disregard all of this. No one forces you to read these postings. However, I maintain that this is an issue that is an important one to care about because it involves what happens when someone challenges a person who is a recognized expert. If we are to have a free society it is imperative that freedom to challenge authority be preserved. If we want to engage in a legitimate study of cults and truly want to further our knowledge and have the field progress, openness to criticism is essential. Shouting down of critics creates an ideology, which is the antithesis of a field where knowledge is growing and progress is being made. If the people opposing cults shout down anyone who challenges the party line, then what we will have is just another ideology and closed system, not unlike that of the cults.
No comments:
Post a Comment