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."

10 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Actually, the New Yorker article was quite tame by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      They have 35 years worth of audits, they don't have to hire PIs to keep their own people quiet.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  2. Operation Clambake by TheGreatAvatar · · Score: 5, Informative

    The obligatory link when discussing $cientology:

    http://www.clambake.org/

    --
    Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
  3. Hrmm... by SniperJoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Hrmm... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My personal take on the differences is this:

      With Catholic child abuse scandal, your average Catholic believer does not condone it in any way, shape or form - it's entirely contrary to what they believe in. Many of them do refuse to believe that things like that happened, but when they finally realize that this is all true, they are disgusted. In other words, this is a case of Church hierarchy deviating from the very things they teach.

      With Scientology, concepts such as "squirrels" and "suppressive persons" are taught to the rank-and-file, and their persecution is the doctrine of the church, fully supported by all its members (because those who don't are kicked out). Thus, the entire Church, as a single entity, stands behind all this - which makes the whole thing evil, and not just some people (or even all leaders).

  4. Too Bad... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. Re:WRONG by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you read your sig yet?

  6. Re:SUCK IT, Anonymous! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trying to defeat a religion's organization and beliefs by using logic has been tried many, many times before and never stops people from being convinced they are right. If you think this will have any impact whatsoever, I think you need to open your eyes.

    As they guy said, you can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into! On the other hand, this isn't about scientology being a religion, its about it being a criminal organisation.

  7. Re:Scientology is a cult by blair1q · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Well to give credit by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Funny

    You three must all be new here.