Paul Haggis ditches Scientology, writes scathing letter
October 25, 2009 by Jane Boursaw
It shouldn’t be news when a celebrity leaves a particular religion, but Scientology is always fascinating to me, as is the fact that writer-director Paul Haggis (pictured, with wife Deborah Rennard) has left the Church of Scientology.
According to Showbiz411, Haggis wrote a letter explaining his decision to Tommy Davis, the celebrity wrangler for Scientology and the son of Scientologist actress Anne Archer.
Two things played into Haggis’ decision to leave the church: Scientology’s backing of Proposition 8 in California banning gay marriage (quite the move, considering they’re always looking for celebs to join the church); and Haggis’ wife, actress Deborah Rennard (J.R. Ewing’s loyal secretary, Sly, on “Dallas”) being ordered to cut ties with her parents because they’d violated some code of the sect.
Haggis is the Oscar-winning writer-director whose credits include “Crash,” “Million Dollar Baby,” and Letters from Iwo Jima.” He’s currently filming “The Next Three Days” with Russell Crowe, Liam Neeson, and former Scientologist Jason Beghe. After the jump, a portion of Haggis’ letter…
Tommy,
As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make
a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology
of San Diego. Their public sponsorship of Proposition 8, a hate-filled
legislation that succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and
lesbian citizens of California — rights that were granted them by the
Supreme Court of our state — shames us.
I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of
the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good
conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was
tolerated.
In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year,
you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it
and “heads would roll.” You promised action. Ten months passed. No action
was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded
press release, which praised the church’s human rights record and took
no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.
The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots,
hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word.
Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.
I joined the Church of Scientology thirty-five years ago. During my
twenties and early thirties I studied and received a great deal of
counseling. While I have not been an active member for many years,
I found much of what I learned to be very helpful, and I still apply
it in my daily life. I have never pretended to be the best Scientologist,
but I openly and vigorously defended the church whenever it was criticized,
as I railed against the kind of intolerance that I believed was directed
against it. I had my disagreements, but I dealt with them internally.
I saw the organization — with all its warts, growing pains and
problems — as an underdog. And I have always had a thing for underdogs.
But I reached a point several weeks ago where I no longer knew what to
think. You had allowed our name to be allied with the worst elements of
the Christian Right. In order to contain a potential “PR flap” you
allowed our sponsorship of Proposition 8 to stand. Despite all the
church’s words about promoting freedom and human rights, its name is
now in the public record alongside those who promote bigotry and
intolerance, homophobia and fear.
The fact that the Mormon Church drew all the fire, that no one noticed,
doesn’t matter. I noticed. And I felt sick. I wondered how the church
could, in good conscience, through the action of a few and then the
inaction of its leadership, support a bill that strips a group of its
civil rights.
This was my state of mind when I was online doing research and chanced
upon an interview clip with you on CNN. The interview lasted maybe ten
minutes — it was just you and the newscaster. And in it I saw you deny
the church’s policy of disconnection. You said straight-out there was no
such policy, that it did not exist.
I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search
for verification — I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.
You might recall that my wife was ordered to disconnect from her parents
because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five
years ago when they resigned from the church. This is a lovely retired
couple, never said a negative word about Scientology to me or anyone
else I know — hardly raving maniacs or enemies of the church. In fact
it was they who introduced my wife to Scientology.
Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all
contact with them. I refused to do so. I’ve never been good at following
orders, especially when I find them morally reprehensible.
For a year and a half, despite her protestations, my wife did not speak
to her parents and they had limited access to their grandchild. It was a
terrible time.
That’s not ancient history, Tommy. It was a year ago.
And you could laugh at the question as if it was a joke? You could
publicly state that it doesn’t exist?
To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else
are you lying about?
The great majority of Scientologists I know are good people who are
genuinely interested in improving conditions on this planet and helping
others. I have to believe that if they knew what I now know, they too
would be horrified. But I know how easy it was for me to defend our
organization and dismiss our critics, without ever truly looking at what
was being said; I did it for thirty-five years. And so, after writing
this letter, I am fully aware that some of my friends may choose to no
longer associate with me, or in some cases work with me. I will always
take their calls, as I always took yours. However, I have finally come
to the conclusion that I can no longer be a part of this group. Frankly,
I had to look no further than your refusal to denounce the church’s
anti-gay stance, and the indefensible actions, and inactions, of those
who condone this behavior within the organization. I am only ashamed
that I waited this many months to act. I hereby resign my membership in
the Church of Scientology.
Sincerely,
Paul Haggis
Ps. I’ve attached our email correspondence. At some point it became
evident that you did not value my concerns about the church’s tacit
support of an amendment that violated the civil rights of so many of our
citizens. Perhaps if you had done a little more research on me, the
church’s senior management wouldn’t have dismissed those concerns quite
so cavalierly. While I am no great believer in resumes and awards, this
is what you would have discovered:
[Haggis lists his numerous awards]
The full text of the letter can be found here. I wonder how it will affect other celebrity Scientologists, and if more of them will leave the church, too. I would imagine that Prop 8 would be a pretty big deal among the Hollywood crowd.
Image: INF; Paul Haggis and Deborah Rennard, 2008














Wow. I guess under his logic all Christians should leave Christianity and all Mormons should leave the Mormon Church as they were for Prop. 8. Sounds like he lost it and also sounds like he has not been practicing Scientology for a while. I saw him once and he was smoking & cursing the whole time.
I’d like to make just one simple observation, and then comment, regarding Mr. Haggis’ use of the word “homophobe”. As someone who’s known and been friends with gay folks, I’d like to make clear that I’m not, nor are people who take a stance against gay unions, afraid of homosexuals. There’s truly no phobia about it, and there’s a difference between someone who’s against the concept of gays, and someone who’s truly “afraid” of gays. “Homophobia” is just a word that pro-gay activists use to make themselves feel better, and I wish they’d learn to distinguish the difference between being afraid of something, and believing it’s wrong in the eyes of God.
Hello–
I hope this is read by as many as possible. I was in the “Church” for a while, and feel my age and background will give me an excellent bunch of qualifications to give an honest assessment. I divide my comments into 4 categories:
POLICY MAY HAVE CHANGED AND/OR I DON’T KNOW
FAVORABLE TO THE CHURCH
UNFAVORABLE TO THE CHURCH
MIXED FEELINGS
POLICY MAY HAVE CHANGED, ETC:
On gay marriage, when I was there, in 1977-78, I asked policy and got a kind of “silly” answer. Since it was not “Anti”, or malicious, I didn’t react. Had there been any formal denouncement of gays, I would have quit, or fought them.
On “splitting families apart”, there was no evidence then whatsoever, and even, to be truthful, nice attempts toward maintaining closeness.
FAVORABLE
L. Ron Hubbard’s opposition to physical violence–including no spanking of kids.
It worked for many, where nothing else did.
Attempts to get everyone to “reason out” things
A history of success with many hard core, problematic or delinquent etc
Freud’s better ideas converted nicely to simple, workable methods
Non judgmental problem solving–
Excellent conditioning–but just for those able to take it (like sesitivity training or a “T group”.)
AGAINST THE CHURCH.NOTE: ALTHOUGH I LIST MANY, I DID NOT QUIT, AS MANY OF THESE I FELT WERE MINOR, AND/OR THERE WERE WAYS AROUND, OR I COULD JUST IGNORE.
Very Dogmatic (I was able to accept this a bit more than maybe I should have, due to my belief that, at least, I consider ‘Hubbard to have been brilliant, and, although interested in $$$$, absolutely worked hard to give a lot in return.
A stupid E Meter that was childish
Everything becomes, soon, very expensive (but secret is to take the first two courses, then buy their books only from then on.)
Everyone kind of acts like a “robot”–stereo type “How are you?” ” I am fine”. This you would hear constantly.
The dogmatic stand against “Prozac”, etc. There was no Prozac then, but, Tom (Cruise), you are an idiot on this one. You are no doctor, and Prozac and such has saved enormous amount of lives.
MIXED FEELINGS
The strong “anti drug” stand, and their solutions. They mean well, are to be applauded for tackling, with a lot of success, this issue. But it is too simplistic for many drug issues, and gets them into having to judge, often incorrectly, drug problems on one hand, and those taking for legitamite reasons.
Also, although it is a behavior modification, intense therapy, it is shallow in the understanding and learning about life and teaches little insight. This I could accept–as “changing situations for the better” was a lot–and the lack of “intellect”, I overlooked. Many did not need “intellectual understanding” so much anyway–but something that would change behavior fast.
I think the above to be be about as honest and fair and accurate as possible.
Sincerely,
Jeff Singer
Jehovah’s Witnesses have the same “policy” for lack of a better word. It is called disfellowshipment. The members in good standing can take this to extreme’s as in one mother I remember bragging about how she would not let her disfellowshipped, starving and “down-and-out” son to even step into her home for a meal…she insisted that he eat outside, like a bum in her front yard! They are so emotionally numb inside that this kind of action is not only condoned, but encouraged. I myself have been disfellowshipped for many years, and have not had a loving and normal relationship with my aging mother for the past couple of years.
i held a certain respect for mr. haggis as i read his letter; that respect then vaporized when i discovered he had itemized his numerous awards in his communication with mr. davis, as if his career achievements entitled him to some platform of greater importance than someone who does not entertain for a living. i love the lead-in…”while i’m no great believer in resumes and awards….” the faux humility was palpable! felt like I was reading a high school journalism project.
P.S.– this homophobia thing is a bit passe’ isn’t it. i’m not afraid of pedophiles, but i still have a strong opinion about their conduct. i don’t think trying to attach the “homophobe” label to those who see marriage as a religious institution really works any more…seems more desperate than intellectual.