Written by
I read this comment on a website today -
"Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis has admitted that serious violence was often carried out against subordinates in Scientology (see the St Petersburg Times). Davis, defending Scientology leader David Miscavige, said that the violence was carried out by former Scientology executives such as Marty Rathbun. but never by leader Miscavige, as asserted by numerous witnesses.Yet Tommy Davis, angrily and ineffectually running to the aid of the besieged Miscavige, against whom the weight of evidence points, is now changing his story. Now that it is clear that Miscavige's defenses don't hold water, Davis wants to imply that the violence didn't really occur. Davis says to Nightline's Martin Bashir "Why did Mike Rinder [an alleged victim of the violence] who was married for 35 years, why has his wife made it very clear that never did he come home with any bruises, any marks [...]" Why indeed does Mike Rinder's wife claim not to know he was often beaten, when Tommy Davis has admitted that Mike Rinder was often seriously beaten? Why does Tommy Davis disingenuously ask people to put stock in Rinder's wife's claimed ignorance of what Tommy Davis has already stated to be a fact? It seems Tommy Davis has overreached himself here and exposed himself.The likely answer to the question of why the vicitms' former wives have turned against their husbands and in support of their cult leader, must be clear to most people and no less clear to Tommy Davis. The clear implication is that the cultists who speak in support of David Miscavige will say whatever is suggested to them to support the current defense of David Miscavige -”yes, there was violence”, no, there wasn't violence”, “yes, there were bruises”, “no, there weren't bruises”. “what answer do you want.” It's a sordid, spectacle to see a marriage of 35 years abused in the service of David Miscavige's desperate defense. What kind of person would ask or allow a wife to do such a degrading and pathetic thing? I have my view on that.The upshot of this is that we now know that Tommy Davis will say anything he think will turn to his cult's advantage for the moment, no matter if he knows there is no logicial or factual for anyone to give it any credence No matter if he knows it won't fool most people, as long as it fools someone, Tommy Davis must think that is better than nothing, even if it loses the respect of everyone else."
(http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/scientology/scientologists-level-accusations/Story?id=8792417&page=3)
If the comment poster had more common sense she would have realized the simple and logical explanation for what Tommy Davis said.
While some people have reported that Mr Miscavige has a habit of abusing his position to inflict violence against subordinates, Tommy Davis has staunchly blamed the violence on other top-ranking Scientology leaders abusing their positions.
Tommy Davis and Mike Rinder's wife are protecting the Church from evil allegations, as they must. What Tommy Davis is doing nothing dishonest, but simply providing alternative explanations that help to defend Mr David Miscavige in different ways. While some people say there is only one truth there may be alternative truths that both advance the same conclusion that must be reached.
These alternatives are as follow:
1.Mike Rinder was never assaulted because his wife would have known if he was. Conclusion: Mike Rinder was not assaulted by David Miscavige.
2.Mike Rinder was frequently brutally assaulted by Marty Rathbun in ways in which a loyal wife could not be unaware. Conclusion: Mike Rinder was not assaulted by David Miscavige.
Tommy Davis is not being disingenuous here by using alternative versions of what happened. Tommy Davis' suggestion that Mike Rinder was never assaulted will have meaning for those people who are not aware enough to see the contradictions with the story that the assaults were carried out only by Marty Rathbun.
These two different stories will help the less aware people to come to conclusion they need to reach anyway, in whatever way they need to reach it. They must come up to the level of reality that they need to achieve – that David Miscavige did not assault anyone.
If there is question of either supporting your former husband - a has been - or supporting the Church that holds the keys to your future and your future salvation, there really is no choice. Mike Rinder's wife commendably put reality issues and loyalty to her husband in to perspective, and chose to support the greater truths.
Loyalty to one's Church leaders and Church is an admirable thing. The Church is at a higher dynamic than marriage and holds the keys to eternal salvation whereas marriage is merely a temporary thing for one lifetime. Scientology spouses are not in bondage to each other.
Mr Davis might simply have been trying to illustrate that the abuses suffered by the husbands in the Church were not of memorable significance to their wives in the big scheme of things, and not something to get worked up over when the fate of the planet is at stake.