Slashdot Mirror


Scientologists In Row With BBC

CmdrGravy writes "The Church Of Scientology is currently engaged in a row with the BBC, a result of an investigation by reporter John Sweeney. Sweeney is investigating the Church Of Scientology, trying to judge changes in the organization over the last few years; He's trying to discover if they've moved away from the questionable practices and secrecy they have employed in the past. The conflict centers around a YouTube video posted by the scientologists. It shows Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with a scientology spokesman. Mr. Sweeney's outburst came at the end of a tour of a scientology exhibition which attempts to portray psychiatrists as evil nazi type torturers entitled 'Psychiatry: Industry of Death' which is both gruesome and utterly unconvincing. The BBC appears willing to stand behind its reporter, in spite of the pressure brought to bear by the scientologist organization."

19 of 763 comments (clear)

  1. Link to YouTube video in TFA by svunt · · Score: 5, Informative
  2. Scientology Brain Police by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative
    The founder - Hubbard - was a SF writer, who worked in US Govenment mind control programs, performed Enochian and Crowleyan magickal evocations - and bet his editor $1 Million he'd start a successful religion, claiming it would pay much more than hacking out pulp-stories.

    If there were ever devil-worshipping human slime, with a penchant for pederasty, it was L. Ron Hubbard.

    Oh, yeah. Charles Manson was a Scientologist.

    http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/why- they-fight_15.html

    'Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.'

    - U.S. government mind manipulator, Dr. Jose Delgado, Congressional Record, No. 262E, Vol. 118, 1974.
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  3. Re:Funky by arcade · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're obviously new here. Slashdot and the Co$ are old buddies.

    http://slashdot.org/yro/01/03/16/1256226.shtml
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/10/13 49237
    http://slashdot.org/yro/02/03/21/0453200.shtml?tid =99

    They've attempted to force comments off slashdot. They've forced xenu.net to be delisted from google. They're going after people who publish the OTIII "documents". They're abusing the DMCA.

    That's why this is on slashdot.

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  4. BBC rebuttal + dif. Angle of Incident on Youtube by realitybath1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8hpHY9zDQ It doesn't seem so harsh at this angle and the scientologist is the one who starts with the voice raising. Sweeney just takes it to the next level. Obviously out of hand for a journalist, but quite satisfying to see.

    The one characteristic that I've noticed is consistent across scientologist interviews I've seen is that they all have a creepy boneheadedness when it comes to answering any question, no matter how innocuous it may be. It's as if every moment in life has to be a confirmation of their beliefs.

  5. Especially worrying by tttonyyy · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology _Moscow_versus_Russia

    This is a recent development - in April the European court of human rights decided that it was against EU law for Russia to deny Scientology religeon status - a judgement that applies to all EU member states including the UK and Germany (who have previously been quite outspoken against it).

    May I draw people's attention to http://www.xenu.net/

    Scientology - the cult pyramid scheme

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
  6. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's most likely here because scientology nutjobs have sent Slashdot a cease and desist in the past, and made them pull down posts with copyrighted material (I'm fine with that) and links to copyrighted material (I'm not fine with that).

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  7. Re:Funky by arcade · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, I'm sure. I'm also sure that I was the one that first discovered it, reported it to kuro5hin, to alt.religion.scientology, and attempted to report it to slashdot (but someone got their article accepted instead of mine ).

    Here are the links:

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/21/04 53200&tid=99
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/01 41250

    So, they did force xenu.net to be delisted by google. Google luckily changed hearts, probably due to the enourmous amounts of attention that was generated here, on kuro5hin, and all over the internet. In addition to hating the idea of letting themselves be censored in such a way. It was also one of the first time google linked that some searches were excluded - linking to chillingeffects.

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  8. Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The end of the BBC...

    You are aware that it is effectively part of the British state apparatus, aren't you? It isn't just a British CNN, NBC or whatever, it was established and is maintained by Royal Charter.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/

    I think it highly likely that any action launched against the BBC in this respect would fall flat at the first hurdle. And if they do actually get sued in the US then in every other place the BBC operates, the plaintiff can expect a huge campaign of negative publicity for the rest of time; they won't back down when they believe that they are right - for any reason.

  9. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by SamSim · · Score: 5, Informative

    And being attacked for criticizing Scientology is something that could have happened to you. For, let's say, talking bad about those Sons-of-a-Bitch here on Slashdot.

    This has, in fact, happened. As far as I am aware this is the only time in history that a Slashdot comment has been edited.

  10. Re:This is on TV tonight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is very easy to hear about the Church of Scientology and write it off as a cult but I feel it's as valid a religion as any other, and it deserves as much protection (or as little protection) as any other. People who publicly write off Scientology as a "cult" are dangerously misleading the public and using Scientology as a scapegoat for problems that should be pinned on religion in general.

    Wrong. The difference between a cult and a religion is that you can leave a religion. The Church of Scientology disconnects its members from their families so they have nowhere to go when they leave, and brainwashes them under hypnosis to keep them from wanting to. The Church of Scientology is also the only "religion" to keep its core beliefs secret, to be run for profit, and to have its own paramilitary[1] and counter-intelligence[2] operations.

    There may be a Scientology religion, but that is NOT the same as the Church of Scientology. Separate the religion from the organization which practices it, and you will see that the organization is so thoroughly corrupt that it cannot be allowed to continue to exist in its present form.

    (Posted anonymously for my own protection, as everyone else who casually criticizes Scientology should.)

    [1] http://www.xenu.net/archive/so/
    [2] http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/index.htm
  11. Here's a good read: Cold Reading by cheros · · Score: 4, Informative
    I just read The Full Facts of Cold Reading by Ian Rowland, and I would recommend this as basic education for anyone wanting to become aware of manipulation. In this book, Ian shows how 'mentalists', tarot card readers and those who predict the future actually ply their trade. It's a bit too much broken down IMHO, but Ian knows his stuff and brings it with a wry sense of humour (evident in little asides like how to identify an English football fan).

    Other stuff to read is anything about the sort of tricks that Derren Brown gets up to - he has done a 2 DVD pack with card tricks of which the second one is mostly about psychological manipulation like how to make people think of one particular card in a full 52 deck.

    Study, and be amazed as to just how easy it is to put someone on the wrong track. The "church" (bit of an insult to the word) makes full use of this. Start an argument on false premises and then walk away, witter away at one flaw in a story to invalidate the whole story .. hey! Where did I hear that before?

    :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  12. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're living 10 years in the past. The Church of Scientology doesn't have the resources it had in the 70s, at the peak of its power, or the 90s, when everything bad about it was exposed and they tried to sue it all into the cornfield. Like the South Park episode, this is beating a dead horse. It's almost enough to make me root for Scientology, being a sucker for the underdog. I'd be more willing to believe that were it not posted anonymously, and coming from an established account whose biases I could judge.

    If you're referring to the "Chef" episode of South Park, and assuming that Hayes did say the things attributed to him (*), then he deserved all the piss-taking he got. No-one likes a hypocrite who's happy to take part in making fun of any religion until it comes to their own.

    (*) At the time (he was ill with a stroke) it was unclear if words had been put in his mouth by other figures in the Scientology movement, but I don't see him denying it now.
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  13. Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can you explain the difference for those of us who aren't experts in four thousand year old texts?
    Google for '"thou shalt not kill" murder'; some nuanced discussions are available. See this one for an example. That said, the general distinction is that while "thou shalt not kill" implies that no killing is acceptable, it's pretty much undisputed that the original Hebrew word did not apply to, for instance, killing in the course of a just war.
  14. Re:Sorry you're mistaken by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

    hat would be news to the countries called England, Wales and Scotland.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom Nevertheless, they don't exist as countries. There is only the United Kingdom. Scotland an England were subsumed as part of the act of union in 1707.

    I think if you read Wikipedia more carefully you'll see that the term "constituent country" has no legal basis. Scotland, England and Wales no longer exist as countries and haven't for several hundred years.

    --
    Deleted
  15. Re:This is on TV tonight by pkphilip · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks for dropping by. Your decision to post anonymously indicates that you are probably a scientologist sent here to astro turf.
    I guess this will post will give you a discount during your next dianetics session.

    First a few facts:

    1. No religion in existence goes after dissenters the way the church of scientology does; yes, it is true that in some third world countries and in the middle east, turning away from islam can get you killed. But in the west and in most westernized nations, there is the rule of law and the law protects people from being targetted by proponents of their religion. But CoS is able to pervert even this system of law in western nations to target even influential dissenters via harassment, and even death.

    2. Scientology is perhaps the only religion in the world where the only way to get to its "cures" is by paying a lot of money. Any other religion - Islam, Christianity etc - it is possible to become a muslim or a christian without paying any money.

    3. Scientology is also the newest religion on this planet created by Ron Hubbard - a known criminal. LRH's views on using harassment as a way of quelling dissent is well documented.

    4. Scientology also copyrights its "scriptures" - the only religion in the world to do that.

    In short - you guys are just scamsters trying to pass off what is really a scam as a religion; scientology was created by LRH with the explicit purpose of scamming people.

  16. Re:Why by Chrisje · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, I can argue that. You don't seem to be too informed about the history of Christianity. Back in the day, before banks proper even got invented, it was the biggest money-laundry and extortion operation in the world. You were supposed to pay the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars to get to heaven, while no one was supposed to ever Learn about Christianity except what the clergy would tell you. The biblical texts were in Latin/Greek, and were not to be translated.

    Things got a little better thanks to people like Martin Luther (not King, in this context), who pushed for mainstream access to translated Bibles, but the basic premise of mind-control or financial extortion didn't change much. One modern day example that comes to mind is Sweden. In Sweden, the State and Church only got separated in 2000, but still almost all of its citizens pay a 1.25% tax to the church automatically. And that's in a socialist country. It amazes me every time I think about it.

    Scientology isn't much worse, it would just appear that it's still in the primitive, expansionist cult-state that Christianity managed to shake in most parts of the world. Way I see it, this is a part of the life-cycle of any religion or dogma.

  17. The BBC can look after themselves by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not sure it's fair to say they got fscked by the government.

    For one thing, if you recall, they were right. The problem was that at the time, they couldn't prove it sufficiently to defend themselves. But history has shown that they made the right call, and it's entirely possible that they knew they were making the right call at the time but didn't back it up to avoid compromising their sources.

    For another thing, although the two top guys stepped down — effectively "doing the decent thing" and taking the hit to protect everyone below them — they left with crowds of hundreds of BBC staff cheering them outside the building, and hundreds more sending them personal messages encouraging them not to go. Name me any other organisation in the world, on the same scale, where the staff publicly show that much loyalty to the guys at the top. Can't? That's why the culture at the Beeb is special in a world full of cookie-cutter journalism and commercial advertising.

    Oh, and did we mention that almost all of the other staff who were directly responsible for the original reporting in that case are still working at the BBC in the same or similar roles? Just because they cut the head off, doesn't mean the rest of the beast is dead.

    It's a shame they are tending toward "celebrity journalists" like Nick Robinson and Evan Davies these days. There's certainly been a lot of Blair worship in recent days, with some very rose-tinted views of the results of his ten years in power. Bring back Andrew Marr, I say!

    But that's about the limit of their political compromise, even now. If it ever comes down to Hubbard vs. Paxman, I know which side I'll be betting on.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  18. Re:too much by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Informative

    The religions you mention don't plant cameras, get you fired, and sue you until you scream with rage and your family leaves you. Don't conflate.

    Scientology isn't hated because it's a wacky religion. It's hated because it's a evil corporation masquerading as a religion. And they always make it personal. Hubbard was a paranoid, insecure, vengeful little gamer twit (yes, he was a geek -- SF writer AND wargamer, probably bad at both), and he made Scientology an expression of his ego. When you deal with a Scientology Sea Org navy member, naval uniform and all, you are dealing with the mentally ill.

    And their is a difference between the cute girls taking and giving personality tests in the public orgs and the bastards who join the Sea Org, and no comparison at all with the corporate lawyers who moved in from the top and run the thing.

    And religions don't keep their beliefs secret from their own members. That's the critical thing, the moral difference, all Hubbard detestation aside. They don't tell their recruits that they REALLY believe that we are infested with spirits from aliens killed by H-bombs inside of volcanoes by the evil galactic dictator Xenu, and that it will cost them either a lifetime of work or tens of thousands of dollars to find this fact out. It's not a health club, it's a UFO cult.

  19. Re:Why by MenTaLguY · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't seem to be too informed about the history of Christianity.

    Neither are you, apparently.

    Paying one's way into heaven was never a fundamental part of Christianity; the closest thing that happened historically was the selling of indulgences (remission of the earthly consequences of sin), a real and grave abuse, but one which emerged late in Christian history and which was subsequently eliminated.

    It's also worth pointing out that for much of Church history, Greek (and later Latin; the texts were translated accordingly) was the language everyone spoke, and even after the various Romance languages became differentiated, for a long time it was a reasonable expectation that anyone who was literate could still read the two languages (Latin, at a minimum). Later, as literacy in these local languages became more widespread, there were recurring issues with "creative" translations which did result in many local translations being banned. The Church, an organization more than a millennium old at that point, was (perhaps overly) conservative about producing new, official, translations, but did eventually produce them out of necessity as more people became literate in their local tongues.

    The European church taxes which you are rightly appalled by were actually an (unintended!) consequence of the Reformation movement led by Martin Luther et al. -- unmoored from the central organization of the Church, the European monarchs were able to establish themselves as the heads of the national churches and turned them into instruments of the State. While the Church, as the only central institution left after the collapse of the Roman Empire, had become too involved in secular affairs, such a development represented a radical overcompensation which made the situation worse rather than better. Incidentally, it is a desire to avoid this state of affairs -- an established State church -- which motivated the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution.

    Lastly, as the two religions (if Scientology can be called that) differ greatly in their fundamentals, I think it would be especially constructive for you examine the first few decades of Christianity and compare them with the first few decades of Scientology. For instance, how many Christians (particularly the leadership!) could expect to be (and generally were) killed for their religion? Money really was the least of their concerns...

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...