Slashdot Mirror
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."
It didn't even mention the Fair Game practice, Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, or the numerous other nasty bits from the history of this organization.
Of course, that probably won't stop Scientologists from calling the author a child molester and sending private detectives out to his house to harass him and try to dig up dirt on him. They don't seem to do measured responses very well.
Of course, anyone who believes such attempts to discredit Haggis and Wright probably also believes that Julian Assange is a rapist.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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...
'Security-checked', 'contra-survival', and 'suppressive persons' are innocuous sounding words? One of us doesn't know the meaning of that word.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The obligatory link when discussing $cientology:
http://www.clambake.org/
Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
I've personally known someone who was, for a decade along with his wife, a scientologist. He now has no qualms about calling them cultists and thieves and is glad to be out of there, though he deeply regrets the years he wasted there. I'm pretty sure that the drones of the church of happiology will be pretty pissed off at me for this, but hey, since this article is purely an opinion, there's no law they can pull to force this comment off slashdot.
I could have sworn that several years back some comments were removed because they contained a threat to the US president?
> For those still unaware, "human trafficking" is basically a euphemism for slavery. See River of Innocents for a good primer. In the US alone, tens of thousands of kids are at high risk for being enslaved every year.
Victor Malarek's The Natashas is also good.
I've always heard Scientology engaged in some disreputable tactics, but seriously, this is a new low.
Excuse me, my Kitchen is on fire.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.
But the whole story is about Scientology, and it even talks about Scientologists killing people, so what's to guess?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
When did freedom of religion become freedom from rule of law? As an incredibly disenfranchised Catholic, I am disgusted by some of the things that my church has done and failed to do. Where are the criminal charges related to the many abuses that people (especially children) have suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church? I ask the same question about Scientology. I am not trying to troll, I'm just trying to understand.
what Anon can't, Paul Haggis delivers
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Slashdot has deleted other posts due to DMCA (Microsoft also comes to mind).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
'Security-checked'
To me: Checked for security. Maybe used to say you checked out a building for how safe and secure it is or even referring to the process everyone goes through when they fly or enter a sports arena.
To a scientologist: when someone "blows" (or flees the church) they recover them ("blow drill") sometimes physically against the persons will and subject them to an E-meter test which the article says is a powerful form of thought control.
'contra-survival'
To me: Contrary to survival. Doesn't sound like you're committing suicide but maybe smoking or drinking? Making bad choices that jeopardize your health? Hell, driving while texting on a cell phone could be called 'contra-survival.'
To a scientologist: when someone explodes violently, often hitting someone or throwing things at them that is contra-survival. The article mentions that this often traces back to prior lives where the person was a violent or disturbed individual.
'suppressive persons'
To me: Anyone who suppresses you. Probably a jerk or bully. Maybe an evil tyrant?
To a scientologist: anyone in your life that says anything negative about scientology. It's always only someone you have a personal relationship with. The church determines who this is and oftentimes you must cut off contact with them completely or you will never be clear. The article lists tons of stories of families and lifelong friends being separated because of this. I'm sure Haggis is probably an SP now. If I ever meet a scientologist, I plan to announce immediately that I am an SP.
To me these words seemed harmless and tame until you realize what these labels function as inside the church. It's so arcane and ridiculous. I can't believe people don't recognize the easily abused power system here that has very direct and serious consequences in your life. The article was a real eye opener as to how that crazy O.T. III shit is gobbled up by people because by that point they've maybe signed a billion year contract and have easily spent $400k on course work and auditing so they have a huge investment and desire to keep the lie going in their mind.
My work here is dung.
Reading that list of charges and tactics, I may finally be ready to accept Scientology as a member of the fraternity of religions.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Any christian church, any fits that description. So do some flavors of Judaism and Islam. Ironically most flavors of modern paganism don't. Yet are still called such by these groups...
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
You know, it's too bad that the average, God fearing, America loving, violence glorifying redneck didn't care enough about nuance to pay attention to the Church of Scientology. It would be fun to see the Church of Scientology try to play one of its smear campaigns/depowering operations against a group like the Westboro Baptist church. The ensuing holy war would be a thing of song and poem. Hell, they could probably make an MMO out of it.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Does it want your money?
Does it want your mind?
Does it want to govern your life?
It's a cult.
Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)
My ex comes to mind.
Note that all of the above could easily apply to first-century Christianity; indeed it is difficult to think of *any* definition for a cult that wouldn't (and yes I'm well aware there is an abundance of /. users who don't particularly care for Christianity, or any other religion).
Here is the definition of a cult as people really use it:
"A religion I don't like"
I don't personally have any warm fuzzies about scientology, but to label it "a cult" doesn't describe anything substantive about the organisation except your opinion of it.
Those with low UID are more likely to do that from time to time.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
The most dangerous idea known to man is "The end justifies any means." All cults tend to believe this is true. Most "legitimate religions" tend to frown on using unethical means to achieve their end. For example, the organization Lifespring used to tell adherents that it was okay to lie to people to get them to attend the recruitment events -- that makes them a cult.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
No, we who have four digit IDs do not need to read the article, we already know what it will say. I was really just messing with OverloardQ, who obviously wanted everyone to guess "Teh ebil Gubermint!" Some people can't resist an opportunity to express their hatred of democracy and collective action.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What are you talking about whippersnapper! not reading the article is a time honored tradition. You would know that if you had registered your account 6 hours earlier like I did.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
I've always wondered how people can use the phrase "legitimate religion" with a straight face.
"Any christian church, any fits that description. So do some flavors of Judaism and Islam."
They want to control your mind, but they're quite modest with money. You can learn everything about these religions, without getting in debt. And there are no restricted scriptures, everything is accesible to newbs as well. That's a huge difference.
Not the first time religions have embargoed their own literature.
It used to be illegal to own a bible that wasn't in Latin. The Priests thought that if people could read it for themselves they'd (a) figure out they were being lied to about what it contains and (b) not need priests even if they told the truth.
You three must all be new here.
Religions are cults practiced by a majority. Cults are religions practiced by a minority.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
You're quite right, except that most Christian groups (certainly most Protestant-based groups) don't want to control your mind. They want you to believe certain things, because they think those things are true. But they want your ultimate loyalty to be to God, not people or their institutions. In the Protestant tradition, you can reject the authority of any given group and still retain your salvation.
To me, that's the most useful indicator of a cult: does the group acknowledge that salvation is possible outside their particular institution? In other words, do they allow forking? Most Protestant groups do. Even the Catholic Church does these days, in a way (they see other Christian groups as definitely inferior, but acknowledge that salvation is possible with them).
The distinction is important for the same reasons forkability is important in software. Groups denying that salvation (or "enlightenment", or equivalent concepts) exists outside their institution maintain enormous power of their members, and that power is easily abused.
Sorry, I haven't bothered to memorize any of them, just laughed when I noticed.
But here's one of his vanity cards that air after the credit of every episode that mentions it:
http://www.chucklorre.com/index-mnm.php?p=293
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
As an atheist, I'd say a legitimate religion is one where the leaders also believe in that religion, and where the leaders believe that their religion benefits their followers.
A religious leader being legitimate does not preclude him from being intellectually lazy, full of hate, dumb or ignorant. It just means he'll honestly believe what he says. I think that's a fair and important distinction to make.
Also there are many religious people who are really nice, educated and intelligent - who I genuinely admire. They are honest in their beliefs - I disagree with them, but I respect that they are genuine.
As an atheist, I'd say a legitimate religion is one where the leaders also believe in that religion, and where the leaders believe that their religion benefits their followers.
We're talking about different uses of the phrase, apparently. I'm sure that witch-doctors honestly believe that sacrificing a goat, pouring it's blood in a circle, and shaking some rattles will cure a guy dying from dysentery, but I wouldn't consider them to be legitimate medical professionals. You can say that the individual is legitimately expressing his beliefs - not that the beliefs themselves are legitimate.
Also there are many religious people who are really nice, educated and intelligent - who I genuinely admire. They are honest in their beliefs - I disagree with them, but I respect that they are genuine.
Ditto, but that's rather irrelevant.