Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:43:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: Diana M Hsieh <diana(at)dianahsieh.com>
To: Ignatius Piazza <ignatius@frontsight.com>
Subject: More on Scientology
Naish,
Thank you for your letter of October 14th; I appreciate your taking the
time to clarify your relationship to Scientology.
You wrote:
> Quite frankly, I have never personally experienced any of the issues
> you are referring to. As we both know, personal experience is the
> definitive answer. To see and experience is to know.
I agree that direct experience is indispensable. But direct experience is
not the only source of knowledge. Testimony from trustworthy outside
sources is more often than not a necessary aspect of wisely choosing our
associations. Based upon the vast quantity of reliable and disturbing
information about the Church of Scientology available on the web, there is
good reason for you to be as wary of that organization as I and so many
other supporters of Front Sight are. Of course, we ought to be very
selective about the information we do regard as reliable, given people's
biases and propensity for baseless speculation. But mutually-consistent
first-hand reports from solid witnesses, investigations by reputable
reporters, court documents, and so on ought not be dismissed.
For example, this account from Monica Pignotti (who I know personally to
be an honest and forthright person) of her years in Scientology is simply
frightening: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/
This article discusses the harassment experienced by journalists who write
articles critical of the Church of Scientology:
http://www.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/media/quill-11.91
Another disturbing story is that of Roxanne Friend, who detailed being
held against her will, drugged, kidnapped, and harassed by the Church of
Scientology in court documents: http://www.lisamcpherson.org/roxandec.htm
I'd appreciate your letting me know whether you are willing to carefully
look at these documents or not.
> As I have already stated, I have personally had Scientology services
> and will most likely continue as I feel appropriate.
You have the freedom to make that choice. However, your reputation -- and
therefore Front Sight's reputation -- is being and will continue to be
damaged by this connection to Scientology, even though the Gamburd lawsuit
has been settled. No organization, particularly not a firearms training
institute, can afford to be associated in any way with the immoral,
cultish, and apparently criminal organization of the Church of
Scientology. (That the association is yours personally and that you have
not personally witnessed any questionable behavior may mitigate somewhat,
but not nearly enough.) In my opinion, there are two likely major
ramifications of a continued association:
First, the connection may harm Front Sight's otherwise bright financial
future. I have received a large number of e-mails, many of them from
Front Sight alumni and First Family members, expressing deep concern and
dismay over this issue. Like me, they recognize the amazing quality and
value of Front Sight's firearms training. Nevertheless, like me, they no
longer feel able offer the enthusiastic word-of-mouth recommendations that
bring so many new students to Front Sight. Additionally, satisfied Front
Sight alumni have told me they will not return to Front Sight; potential
new students have regretfully said they will now go elsewhere. (You may
not have heard directly from these people, as many are using me as an
intermediary, waiting for more information from me before choosing their
own course of action. But they do exist in substantial numbers.) As the
news about your involvement with Scientology and information about
Scientology trickles through the gun community, more and more such people
will emerge. Front Sight cannot afford to limit its clientele to only
those people who are ignorant of or indifferent to this important issue.
So I ask: Is your association with the Church of Scientology so important
to you that you are willing to risk Front Sight's financial future for it?
Second, your association with Scientology may well pose a grave danger to
the gun rights movement as a whole. As you succeed in "changing hearts
and minds" about guns, the anti-gun lobby and media will look for any
convenient smear tactic to advance their cause. Your association with
Scientology would be the perfect fodder for such folks. The damage that
could be done by a "60 Minutes" report exposing the "disturbing connection
between the dangerous cult of Scientology and owner of a massive firearms
training facility in the desert of Nevada" is unfathomable. Gun
enthusiasts would no longer be thought of as uneducated, paranoid
rednecks, but rather brainwashed cult members. The cause of gun rights
could be seriously damaged.
So I ask: Is your association with the Church of Scientology so important
to you that you are willing to risk the future of the gun rights movement
for it?
Naish, if you are not deeply committed to Scientology, I hope that I have
given you some food for thought. Surely, whatever "services" you might
receive from the Church of Scientology are not worth the risks to the
future of Front Sight and the gun rights movement. On the other hand, if
you are deeply committed to Scientology, then I suppose we need to be
having a different sort of conversation. As someone who cares deeply
about ideas and their real-life consequences, I could not in good
conscience continue my association with Front Sight under such
circumstances.
Paul and I are planning to attend the Four Day Handgun course next
weekend, November 1st through 4th. (FYI, we will be departing for Vegas
early in the morning of Wednesday October 30th, so I'll be incommunicado
from then until we reach Front Sight.) If you wish, I would be happy to
speak with you in person about this issue while we are at Front Sight.
Thanks again for your time and consideration,
diana.
|