() ● ()
September 29, 2014 Audrey Cooper Managing Editor
San Francisco Chronicle
acooper@sfchronicle.com
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Re: “Descendant of Scientology’s founder has disciples of his own;”
Nanette Asimov, September 27, 2014
Dear Ms. Cooper: Nanette Asimov has taken another opportunity to go outside her mandate as an “education reporter” to make false and disparaging comments about Scientology and its Founder, L. Ron Hubbard. This is America and she certainly has a right to her own opinion. However, label it for what it is: Bigotry. Ms. Asimov has been indulging in her one-woman crusade against this religion for more than a decade and the
Chronicle
is permitting it. This time, she profiles Jamie DeWolf, a thirty-something who hosts erotic and horror film festivals and emcees slam poetry shows, but who also happens to be a biological descendent of L. Ron Hubbard. The fact that DeWolf is three generations and fifty-five years removed from
anyone
in his immediate family having had any contact with the Church of Scientology (his grandfather walked out of the Church in 1959) is ignored. It is evidently enough for Ms. Asimov and the
Chronicle
that he is willing to say bad things about Mr. Hubbard. Let’s be clear: This is America. And, it was founded on freedom of religion. Moreover, Scientology
is
a religion. Millions of people call it their religion. And more than that, much smarter people than Ms. Asimov have declared it a religion, including virtually every Supreme Court in every civilized country.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 September 29, 2014
There are numerous falsehoods in her article. Ms. Asimov refers to the religion as being founded by “a storyteller, just another name on dime-store pulp mags paid only a penny a page.” That is as insulting as saying that Christianity was “founded by a carpenter.” Yet it’s no different than what the Romans said at the time. Yes, Mr. Hubbard was a writer—one of the giants of the Golden Age of pulp fiction, during the Great Depression. But he wrote westerns, adventure, romances and,
least of all,
science fiction. But why not keep going? He was also the author of 13
New York Times
bestsellers in the 1980s. Indeed, his works are published to this day in 50 languages and have sold hundreds of millions of copies. Why stop there? Mr. Hubbard was also a man who traveled the world and into the Far East, in the 1920s, studying and learning Eastern religions—all this at a time when most young men had never ventured beyond the boundaries of their own town. He was also a member of the famed Explorers Club and was awarded three expedition flags. He was also a naval officer during the Second World War, commissioned as an officer on the recommendation of Congressmen and Senators. And the list goes on. He was also the youngest Eagle Scout in America at the age of 13, a licensed pilot at the advent of aviation and a master mariner, licensed to captain any vessel on any ocean.
So yes, there’s certainly more to Mr. Hubbard than either Ms. Asimov or Jamie DeWolf know. And considering that neither Ms. Asimov nor DeWolf can claim even a fraction of what L. Ron Hubbard accomplished in his life by the time he was their ages, let alone during his entire lifetime, she ought to be ashamed of writing such a hackneyed disparagement about a man who is the founder of a religion. It is an insult to all members of the religion. Were the
Chronicle
to say such about the Jews, the paper would accurately be called anti-Semitic. And if your paper tried to characterize Mohammed in such a fashion, one can only imagine how that would be received. You may say that is different. No. Bigotry is bigotry. And Ms. Asimov’s characterization of the founder of the religion was obviously intended to disparage. DeWolf’s other statements about his great-grandfather, which Ms. Asimov dutifully reports, are born of ignorance and prejudice, including attributing to L. Ron Hubbard a statement about starting a religion that he did not make and about which the Church has obtained judgments in Germany, as well as De Wolf’s other gratuitous insults. But please, don’t believe this is a letter simply intended to defend Scientology on the basis of “freedom of religion.” It’s far more than that. The Church and its members work to create a better society for one and all-regardless of religion. Our efforts in the name of drug prevention, drug rehabilitation, literacy, criminal reform, morality, human rights and interfaith cooperation are, factually, legendary. Per capita, Scientologists engage in more community betterment than can be said of any other religion. That’s not
San Francisco Chronicle
3 September 29, 2014
to knock other religions. It’s to state that we’re a new and minority religion and, as can be expected, members of Scientology have quite a level of dedication. Why else would they put up with the nonsense from “journalists” like Ms. Asimov? If the
Chronicle
is interested, it can find out what Scientology really is by logging onto Scientology.org. But I strongly suggest you use another reporter to cover Scientology. Nanette Asimov has shown her personal prejudice against Scientology. She should not be permitted to waste the resources of the
Chronicle
publishing her bigoted opinion disguised as news stories. Regards, Karin Pouw Church of Scientology International