What’s great about Scientology is that it’s a perennial gift basket for journalists and reporters. There’s always some new outrage, some new guts-spilling defector, or some new Tom Cruise hissy-fit. Last week, ABC’s Nightline did a lengthy investigative piece on the religion (if the IRS defines them that way, then who am I to say otherwise?), with heavy emphasis on the behavior of the church’s leader, David Miscavige. Among other not-very-charming idiosyncrasies, he was accused by former colleagues of various physical abuses, as well as a slavish devotion to his dog, whom he dressed in the uniform of a military commander and insisted that all church members salute. If this is true, then why didn’t the tell-all apostates relating these stories run away screaming after the first putative beat-down or forced doggy salute? Weak wills? Brainwashing? Masochism? Whatever the case, the timing of the report is interesting as a respected Hollywood heavy-hitter has just “disconnected” from the religion after 35 years: director and Academy-Award-winner film festival Paul Haggis.

According to Roger Friedman’s blog, Hollywood 411, Haggis is not disposed to publicly talk about his reasons, but his “letter of resignation” has come to light. Haggis seems to have had difficulty with some of Scientology’s public positions, as well as its interference in his personal life. As a result of a policy regularly cited by other former church members, Haggis and his wife Deborah were barred from associating with her parents, who had previously turned their backs on the church. What seems to have proved the tipping point for Haggis is when he saw Scientology spokesperson (and well-known celebrity-wrangler) Tommy Davis on CNN, laughing at the suggestion that such practices were integral to the church’s doctrine. He wrote to Davis in his letter: “To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?” Of course Haggis’ defection will mean that he, himself, will now be similarly snubbed by the party faithful, though he has no illusions about this. “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.” Freidman calls this a brave move on Haggis part, and I’m inclined to agree. Whatever the consequences might be, at least Haggis’ children will get to see their grandparents again.