Scientologists In Row With BBC 763
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."
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So? Most religions are nutty. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I had an experience simular to this (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
A rational response from a provoked man (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:BBC rebuttal + dif. Angle of Incident on Youtub (Score:4, Interesting)
Scientologists on Wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
2 Hours later my friend got me liberated by shouting the place down in no uncertain terms and threatening them with the police for kidnapping.
I'd just split with my g/f and was feeling very low which needless to say they picked up on and I quickly found myself in a side room getting the good cop/bad cop routine, being told it would take 20 years to undo all the damage in my head that was stopping me achieve etc. etc. They would not let me go. Every time I tried to get up they stopped me, not with a gun but in ways that stop a polite person - gentle hand on shoulder, standing in the way of the door etc. as well as all the 'Please, you really need help, I'd be a bad person if I let you just leave - at least buy our book!'.
In hindsite, a lucky escape c/o my friend. Whilst I knew it was all highly dodgy, something in the way they quickly stripped my defences, pulled me apart and offered the 'only' way to be put back together again was with their help was compelling.
Re:Why (Score:4, Interesting)
The presentation, a series of picture displays and video documentaries in the style of "fox news" or "americas 100 worst criminals" is very one-sided and lacking any kind of objectivity. Its point is psychiatry is evil, psychiatrists through the ages have committed torture and that psychiatry should be outlawed. However, there is absolutely no discussion of any alternatives therapies / treatments.
Many of the points raised are valid ones -
- In the middle ages people with mental health problems were subjected to horrific, barbaric treatments not disimilar to torture.
- Lobotomy and electro shock therapy are both destructuive non-reversable practices that permanently destroy a patients mental capacity.
- Modern pyschotropic drug therapies are often over prescribed by a for-profit, capitalist health and pharmacuetical industry.
However, more problematic for me -
- A long discussion directly blaming the holocaust and Nazi idealogy on psychiatry and psychological ideology.
- Direct association of modern medical psychotherapeutic practice with interrogation and torture (videos of Guantanamo Bay, pictures from Abu Ghraib)
- A picture display claiming the creativity of celebrities including Kurt Cobain, Marlyn Monroe, Duke Ellington, Peter Green was destroyed by psychiatry.
- No discussion of more benign and benficial psycho-therapeutic practices and no right of reply from healthcare practitioners
- Hiding "scientology" behind a front organisation and masquerading a cult recruitment seminar as pseudo science
The somewhat confrontational exhibition staged in a seaside resort hotel seemed to be attracting few visitors (people here are more interested in going to the beach / casino) and appeared to be disturbing the other paying guests and unnerving hotel staff. I heard they were forced to close the show 2days after starting despite having booked the suite for a week.
Re:Why (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but every religion is fundamentally ridiculous, including believing Jesus Christ was the son of god etc. After all, Christianity started off as a cult as I'm sure did every other religion. The only thing that separates L Ron Hubbard and Jesus Christ is 2000 years of propoganda.
So its important to push back on cults like Scientology whenever possible. Nip them in the bud. Expose their fantasist, insane, compulsive liar, tax dodging dead leader. Expose the lies they've built up around the man (war hero, explorer etc.). Expose their ridiculous teachings (Xenu etc.) and the money you have to pay to hear such garbage. Do everything to innoculate potential cult members before they are financially and psychologically ruined. The world already has enough religions, it doesn't need any more. Especially one as fundamentally rotten as scientology.
CoS = Mental DoS = 404 (Score:2, Interesting)
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!
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Funky (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee, NO slant here! Re:This is on TV tonight (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [apologeticsindex.org]
http://www.ex-cult.org/General/identifying-a-cult [ex-cult.org]
http://www.cultfaq.org/ [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.
Re:Scientology Brain Police (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. (Score:3, Interesting)
If governments want to fight scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:If governments want to fight scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why (Score:1, Interesting)
You don't see many poor leaders of ANY religion.
And honestly, look at the Vatican and all its immense wealth and tell me that again with a straight face.
Why should you be called upon to judge it, if it's not affecting you? I seriously don't get it. If you question any Scientologist they will gladly tell you it's worth it, and Scientology does in fact issue refunds for the dissatisfied (though they are also excommunicated).
IMHO, it's more of a distillation of religion, sort of like a business process reengineering of the major faiths. You're probably a believer in one of those, which is why you'd want to create distance, but objectively Hubbard did nothing new besides make the system more efficient.
Scientology is a mirror to all religions, in content and processes, and if you oppose it, you necessarily oppose them - whether you can admit it or not.
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all they showed me some video and then I filled in a questionaire or something and went for a private interview with one of their practioners. He was trying to insinuate that I had psychological problems by asking things like "So, what do you regret most in life then eh ?". "Actually, nothing. I am very happy with my life - how about you ?". He was getting more and more frustrated by me insisting that life and great and I was the worlds best example of a rounded, well adjusted human being and in the end explained his theory about how auditing can help erase bad influences in my psyche so I asked him to explain exactly, scientifically, how this process worked and disagreed with everything he said. This carried on for 10 minutes or so and then he lost his temper when I told him that from what I'd heard so far he was peddling a load of nonsense and would be well advised to get out while he could. Then he accused me of being a reporter and wouldn't say anything else. He just sat there and wouldn't talk at all. I sat there for another couple of minutes or so reading a book I had just bought in town until he got up and left the room without saying anything.
All in all it was a very strange experience.
Re:Well, I need the explanation I guess (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Scientology Brain Police (Score:1, Interesting)
So was Philip K. Dick. What were your thoughts on VALIS?
Honestly, I've always thought it lowered the credibility of the anti-Scientology argument when this fact was invoked, as if science fiction authors were barred from experiencing metaphysical revelations by the fact of their profession.
There isn't any evidence of that AFAIK, but I'd be interested to read a citation.
However, there is evidence that L. Ron Hubbard had a great interest in hypnosis; when the Australian government held hearings on Scientology, their findings were that it was little more than disguised hypnosis. See: The Anderson Report on Dianetics and Scientology, Chapter 18 [xenu.net]
Unless your criticism of Scientology comes from a strictly Christian perspective, you ought to clarify. The book "Sex and Rockets," which is about the life of Marvel "Jack" Parsons but includes a chapter or two on Hubbard and their relationship, is a good read on this issue, as is Ron DeWolf (L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.)'s Penthouse interview. Hubbard's self-hypnotic "Admissions" offer insight as well. Performing magick isn't much of a pot-stirrer, in and of itself, but doing so in attempts to enslave others, bring about armageddon and so on would be viewed as disagreeable even by non-Christians.
Questionable claim at best, moreso because Eric Blair (George Orwell) said a very similar thing.
He was a low-rent Hubbard. Hubbard got away with instructing his followers to do far worse, over a much longer period of time. Still, this is a fact which Scientology tries very hard to conceal.
Re:Why (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is a great point and helps illustrate the difference between Scientology and religions. In other religions, you give money freely because you think it will help the church/society/causes, etc. In Scientology, you are presented with a "self help" system that is designed to help you with vague problems ("Do you ever have negative thoughts?"), and the teachings are VERY EXPENSIVE. HOWEVER, you are generally not asked to pony up 100% of the cost. The rest is loaned to you interest-free for as long as you're a part of the church. You can rack up millions of dollars of "debt" to the church through their normal course of training. Which is irrelevant as long as you never leave the church, but if you ever do, millions of dollars of loans come due and you've destroyed your life.
And that's just the economic side of things. When they send a private investigator to your town and tell your neighbors that you're an accused child molester, call the news and tell them that you're being investigated for terrorism, and follow you around day and night, it starts to get old.
Re:Sorry you're mistaken (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, looking at the definition of "nation" [google.co.uk] we find
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
So, usually an independent government, but not always. The United Kingdom is a union of small nations. Those small nations live in small countries. Which together form a larger nation and a larger country.
Personally, I prefer the "supernationality" of being British over the constituent bits, but that doesn't mean I have to deny England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland any national identity. As for the passports, it's also got European Union on them, but I wouldn't consider myself European (or do I have no choice, now that it's written on my passport?).
Re:Why (Score:3, Interesting)
It didn't matter if I strongly supported HIS right to do Scientology stuff.
It didn't matter that I had even lent him money to do Scientology.
What mattered was that I thought it was bunk, and because I thought it was bunk, Scientology wasn't working for him. So he had to disconnect from me.
This is a dangerous, evil organization that pretends to have all the answers, and has a very carefully laid out plan (called "The Bridge to Total Freedom") in order to slowly indoctrinate you and cause you to alienate yourself from other people.
It's a social dead-end, folks.
And yes, I'm posting anonymously. Mojo this evil is freaking SCARY.
Re:The BBC can look after themselves (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see how cookie cutter journalism without ads is that special compared to cookie-cutter journalism with ads. The BBC's journalism isn't that good. About the only thing they do is badger whoever they're interviewing, and they're an institutional left-wing bias.
Re:Scientologists are MASTERS at pissing you off. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it's far, far more intensive than you describe. Scientologists practice "pushing buttons" hour after hour after hour on a course called the "Pro TRs". In this course, you practice:
1) How to seem completely relaxed and calm in nearly any circumstance. You sit in a chair in various places, both private and public, while somebody watches you intently for any outward sign of discomfort.
2) How to not "lose it" despite having somebody right in front of you trying to get you to. You sit in a chair and try to appear completely calm and relaxed while somebody is authorized to do ANYTHING to try to get you to react. They are encouraged to use any means to "get you", including jeering, screaming, feaux sexual come-ons, depictions of anal sex, teasing, yelling, etc.
3) How to lie effectively and believably. It's called "originating a communication", and the practitioner sits in a chair (notice a theme here?) facing another person. The practitioner then has to say ridiculous, nonsense things from a list, convincingly. The practitioner repeats this until he/she can say virtually anything with conviction and apparent honesty, no matter how crazy.
It goes on and on - I think I've covered maybe the first days of a weeks long course. Also included:
How to order somebody to do something with enough conviction to do something they don't want to.
How to effectively project communication at a distance with apparent ease.
How to appear physically intimidating/threatening without appearing overtly hostile.
How to physically direct somebody who's openly defiant.
And on and on and on. If you want to "go up" against these guys, you'd better practice first. Do like "The Sims" and practice your charisma and your calm very, very intensively first - you're going to need it!
Re:too much (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Re:I guess this is the end of the BBC. (Score:1, Interesting)
In fact, even BBC executives has admitted that they were biased and they manipulated stories. They have a bias for Islam/muslims, multiculturalism and they have a bias against the US and Israel.