Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology

eldavojohn writes "It's a lengthy read, but Lawrence Wright at The New Yorker has released a 26 page expose on Scientology. In a world where such innocuous sounding words as 'squirrels,' 'security-checked,' 'disconnection,' 'contra-survival,' 'suppressive persons,' 'clear' and 'open season' carry very serious and heavy baggage, director Paul Haggis has exited after thirty four years of membership and massive funding. Now he speaks at length of Scientology's controversies. From how celebrities were recruited with a 10% commission by a worker at Beverly Hills Playhouse to the current investigation by the FBI of physical abuse and human trafficking, Wright draws surrounding histories and accounts of the Church including Anonymous' crusade. The length of this article reflects the unusually large number of individuals (12 cases of physical abuse) cited as testimony of Scientology Leader David Miscavige's inurement and physical violence. The case remains open as the FBI collects data and testimony — especially in relation to Sea Org. Most disturbing are the disappearances of people that the New Yorker piece enumerates. The piece concludes with the author's interaction with the Church that results in several conflicting foundational statements from its stance on homosexuality (Haggis' original reason for publicly leaving it) to almost all details of L. Ron Hubbard's naval service and discharge. The article ends with Haggis' quote: 'I was in a cult for thirty-four years. Everyone else could see it. I don't know why I couldn't.' You can find summaries of the lengthy article and its suspected results along with corresponding reports listing politicians involved with the Church. Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence."

Comments

Re:Scientology is a cult

[glwtta]

It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion.

Can you provide a workable definition of both 'cult' and 'legitimate religion' that allows to differentiate between the two?

Hell, to a lot of people the Branch Davidians are a perfectly legitimate church that was unlawfully attacked, and its members murdered, by the US government. Once we accept that "legitimate religions" get a pass on pretty much anything, it become quite hard to figure out where to draw the line (legally, at least).

I'm In a Cult!

[Greyfox]

'I was in a cult for thirty-four years. Everyone else could see it. I don't know why I couldn't.'

Because people will do almost anything to be able to continue believing in something they want to believe in. Kind of like why you believe in God.

Oh, not so much fun when it's your guy, eh? Is their evil Darth Vader guy really much less plausible than your nebulous guy who arbitrarily torments his faithful in the old testament or your zombie dead guy in the new one? Should he not stand next to Zeus, or Vishnu, or Allah, or Quezecotwhathal? Are soul catchers in the sky really that much harder to believe than Coyote coming back to life again and again, or the Great Father making humanity out of corn? Are flying space DC-9s much less plausible than Joseph Smith reading a new testament out of a hat?

Only one of them can be right, but it's just as likely that all of them are wrong, so pick your poison well, because at the end of the day someone had to put all that order there, and that person was you.