Freedom Magazine – now with videos

The Freedommag.org site of the Church of Scientology now has investigative videos now, about Anderson Cooper and some others.

Interesting! And off I go watching….

– L

Advertisements

51 Comments

  1. Hi there, You have done an incredible job. I will certainly digg it and personally suggest to my friends.
    I’m confident they will be benefited from this web site.

  2. DeathereX, that’s not freedom. You’re still thinking inside the Scientology box because you have to. The only free Scientologist is an independent Scientologist.

    You still HAVE TO listen to what management tells you and who they say is an SP.
    And it’s just silly of you to say you can do your own research on why the person was declared because even if you disagreed, you can’t do anything about it. And you’re going to automatically take the side of management over the declared individual. You admitted that the person can get back in good standing….well what about the injustice? Many never get that even after asking for Board of Investigations. You’ve already admitted you leave it up to the people who know more about declaring people than you do.
    I can tell you exactly who that is. It’s someone with no experience beyond the experience you have. Because the person writing the declares are being told to write them based on what Ron said…minus the ones DM adds in for shits and giggles. That leaves the door wide open…

  3. I meant “rhetorically”, not “metaphorically”. Oops

  4. “There is an intention to expand Scientology in order to improve
    conditions. There is absolutely nothing wrong about that and
    everything right. I’m amused at the SPs trying to make that into a
    “wrongness”, because if we expand and help people become less prone to
    being suppressed by those who can’t see anyone getting better. Your
    comments such as above put you in that category.”

    Pat (and I ask this metaphorically, as Pat historically won’t respond
    or post again for some time),

    Are you seeing this happen, anywhere? Are you seeing crime rates
    dropping dramatically in the cities that have ideal orgs? You may have
    been told so… but actual quantifiable data shows that this is not
    happening.

    Are you seeing any actual clears (as defined by Hubbard) going around
    and improving conditions?

    Are you seeing a widespread appreciation for scientology, touting all
    of these “expansions” and “betterment” activities? No. Do a Google
    news search. Look in the newspapers or news outlets. The only good
    news you’ll find are from internal publications (like freedom mag) or
    self-generated press releases, generally from free press release
    web-sites. No reputable news agency will pick up or carry these press
    releases. In fact, you can’t find any positive news about scientology,
    save an occasional fluff piece about a new building, in which the news
    agency is invited to attend.

    Are you seeing an increase, perhaps, in the capability and health of
    scientologists, beyond purely anecdotal feelings?

    So how exactly are they improving conditions? Is it by their many fine
    and lovely websites? Is it by distributing copies of “the way to
    happiness”? What is it that’s being done?

  5. “Comment by Anon on June 5, 2010 7:08 am

    “Scientology’s intention is to improve conditions”

    “””No, Scientology’s intention is only the expansion of Scientology.””””

    There is an intention to expand Scientology in order to improve conditions. There is absolutely nothing wrong about that and everything right. I’m amused at the SPs trying to make that into a “wrongness”, because if we expand and help people become less prone to being suppressed by those who can’t see anyone getting better. Your comments such as above put you in that category.

    Pat”

    If you actually wanted to improve conditions you would just join any of the already established, uncontroversial human rights group or charities like the red cross, which are doing a billion times more than Scientology to improve conditions and are a trillion times more effective at that than Scientology and just DO IT. Improve conditions.
    No, you don’t want to improve conditions. Be honest with yourself. You just want to spread your Scientology ideology. Nothing more.

  6. I neglected to add an element.

    According to those that have reportedly suffered from the “disconnection policy”, as well as those that have been subjected to its mechanisms and ended up eventually reuniting with their loved ones when they themselves left scientology, it’s a painful consequence of falling “out of line”. However, of course, I could not expect the words of individuals to carry any weight, but there has been significant study into this phenomenon from outside entities.

    Consider formal scientologist Randy Payne. He and his wife published a Scientology newspaper in Clearwater. He paid tens of thousands of dollars for Scientology training.He expanded his Clearwater private school, Lighthouse, which incorporated L. Ron Hubbard’s study techniques, and opened sister schools in Scientology’s target markets of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Italy. Clearly, a loyal and active man. However, he went on record in 2003, after he stopped using and paying for LRH tech in his schools. For that reason, he found himself declared as an SP, which reportedly was used to impact his school and related ventures, as the scientologist employees and students all “voluntarily” left.

    J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, a scholar who at one time spoke positively of scientology, writes after studying scientoogy from a neutral point of view, “That’s the way the church keeps discipline, for them, that’s an internal control mechanism.” and “The policy hurts everybody.”

    During the research period a 2006 Saint Petersburg Times article, then scientology spokesman Ben Shaw suggested that reporters speak to two other professors who had previously spoken positively of scientology, and even testified on their behalf in previous legal cases. The reporters followed Shaw’s advice and spoke to his named professors,  F.K. Flinn, adjunct professor of religious studies at Washington University in St. Louis and Newton Maloney, a professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.

    Flinn called the disconnection policy “rather strict” and said that the policy was pushed because “It has to do with feeling threatened because you’re not that big. You do everything you can to keep unity in the group.”

    Maloney called the disconnection policy “too extreme,” particularly in the way that it affects families. “Some people I’ve talked to, they just wanted to go on with their lives and they wanted to be in touch with their daughter or son or parent. The shunning was just painful. And I don’t know what it was accomplishing. And the very terms they use are scary”.

    Even David Miscavige’s own neice, Jenna Miscavige Hill, spoke out about the policy in 2008, painfully recounting how she was forbidden to communicate with her parents once they left the fold. Her parents reportedly had to result to legal action to see her, something for which Jenna says she is grateful. This has also resulted in several high-profile defections. Actor Jason Beghe states that when he left in 2008, his former friends who remained in scientology turned their back on him. That’s also one of the reasons why acclaimed director Paul Haggis left in 2009. “We all know this policy exists,” and said his wife had been ordered to disconnect from her ex-Scientologist parents, “although it caused her terrible personal pain. For a year-and-a-half, [she] didn’t speak to her parents and they had limited access to their grandchild. It was a terrible time”.

  7. Comment by Anon on June 5, 2010 7:08 am

    “Scientology’s intention is to improve conditions”

    “””No, Scientology’s intention is only the expansion of Scientology.””””

    There is an intention to expand Scientology in order to improve conditions. There is absolutely nothing wrong about that and everything right. I’m amused at the SPs trying to make that into a “wrongness”, because if we expand and help people become less prone to being suppressed by those who can’t see anyone getting better. Your comments such as above put you in that category.

    Pat

  8. background checks? lol, no- it’s been covered on this blawg before :)

    Now, you bring up a very good point when you ask “Do you have full control of the references towards declaring someone suppressive?”. The answer is no. But the issue’s much larger than that. The question is, do you? Does any average scientologist? Or is there a certain “human” element that can be the source of the flaws?

    Consider this: Out of Hubbard’s personal staff, over 90% of them were later declared to be “Supressive” after his death. Clearly, his trusted staff were not suppressive by his standards, but the standards had changed since his death- or someone made the decision to do so based on their own volition.

    A key in this puzzle is in the definition of an “antisocial personality”, of course, the functional and literary equivalent of an “SP”. The medical world, and the common understanding, is that an antisocial personality is “A personality characterized by attitudes and behaviors at odds with society’s customs and moral standards, including illegal acts”. However, Scientology defines this as those “who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group,” Do you see this important difference? This is compounded by the fact that scientology (corporate members, at least) will consider themselves to be part of a “betterment activity or group”. Therefor, by this important and unique definition, completely at odds with all other accepted definitions, if anyone opposes scientology, they must be antisocial. This accounts for the frequent “victim mentality” that one sees from scientologists, most notably Mr. Tommy Davis. I would also imagine that this is why you ASSUMED I was an SP, based on what little you know of me. Pat perfectly embodies this mindset in the “anonymous” section, down to the letter (with the very endearing quotes, such as “you’re critical, what are your crimes” and “terrorists”). It’s a very extreme example of the same concept.

    One must consider the procedure for declaring someone to be “supressive”. Let’s not forget that this is a serious charge, implying that such a person is OFFICIALLY said to be “person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous” and who “supports only destructive groups”. To anyone who understands what an SP is said to be, and believes what they’re told simply because they were told so, this is a very serious charge that can ruin families, businesses and friendships. As such, it must be handled with the utmost seriousness and consideration.

    Problem is that even Hubbard said that this wasn’t being done properly, even in his time. “Well, in all the time we’ve been around here we only had one SP that I know of. One real SP that was on staff…. And I don’t know of another single SP that we’ve ever had on staff. Isn’t that interesting. You see all these SP orders and so on… Don’t throw it around carelessly, because this is an–a very exaggerated condition, SP” (L. Ron Hubbard, 1966). There is more recent anecdotal evidence of SP declares for very dubious reasons, but certainly not with the careful consideration that such a serious and life-altering charge warrants.

    Now, disconnection. As I mentioned earlier, maybe no one will tell you to disconnect from that person. Maybe. Of course, the Scientology Ethics  Book provides guidelines, should you know an SP. Of course, first you are to attempt to “handle” them. That can be a good thing, or it can turn very hostile, especially if one wishes to avoid the next step. The next step is the “option” of disconnection. Clearly, in the book, it’s up to the individual. That’s the written part. But we come back to the INSTITUTIONAL pressures. What if you don’t disconnect? According to the definition, you may now be considered to be a Potential Trouble Source, or PTS. According to the Scientology handbook, you are a PTS type I if you remain “associated with or connected to a suppressive person in his present time environment”. This, in the book (SH11_3), includes being in the vicinity of or in communication with in some way. In other words, in very clear writing, if you do not disconnect and continue communicating with someone has been declared an SP, something in which you had no say, you are a PTS. Worse, you could simply be restimulated by PAST suppression, which would make you a PTS type II!

    What is the belief regarding you (hypothetically speaking), now a PTS? According to the Scientology Handbook (SH11_4) it is “stable data” that is “true” that the person connected to the suppressive will become ill, as “That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition”. ALso, that “That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or (C) Disconnect.” No longer your options, now these are your requirements in order to remove the PTS condition. Do one of 2 out of the three, or you will remain in that condition. Do you really think that people have a choice, if they believe these things to be true? The handbook is very clear (same section), “don’t push off, or even worse tolerate, PTS conditions in people”.

    More to the point, if all illness stems from a PTS condition… have you ever been ill?

    So how does one obtain this frightening label, that will potentially force people to choose between their safety and their loved one? The “International Justice Chief” makes this final determination. Who is this person? I don’t know. You don’t know. It’s not on the website, and it’s not something that any scientologist, out of those that I’ve asked, has ever known, nor been able to find out when taking the question as a challenge. I admire your faith, but I couldn’t trust a procedure with so many repercussions, with so little visibility.

    Lastly, in the US, we have something called a “whistleblower”. Basically, we believe that if there’s something dangerous or illegal happening, it needs to be brought to the authorities or public at large, often instead of the very group that would have a vested interest in keeping such a thing out of the public eye. Would you say there should be such secrecy, if the claims are valid to any degree? Should scientology have anything to hide, even to the extent of refusing to consent to government inquiries? What if, just for the sake of argument, the org lines are aware of the problem, and it’s not getting fixed?

    Let’s bring it into a different sphere. We not know that children were molested and abused within certain elements of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Does that mean that all Catholics and Protestants are bad people? No, certainly not- just like not all scientologists are bad people. But in the case of the sex abuse scandals, the “org lines” were aware of the issue, we now know all the way up to the Pope. Sure, those that were aware of the abuse could have fought and lobbied to fix the issues internally, which would take time. Or they could have brought it to light, having it fixed far faster. The former would have resulted in the same children continuing to be abused for a longer period of time- it would have been a betrayal to them.

  9. “Scientology’s intention is to improve conditions”

    No, Scientology’s intention is only the expansion of Scientology.

  10. “You are making the assumption that there is no room for error or flaw in the system. How do you know that they are the guilty party? I don’t know how it works in Oslo, but once in a while, our legal system convicts an innocent person. Does such a thing never happen in scientology?”

    I’ve never said errors can not happen, but it shouldn’t. Do you have full control of the referances towards declaring someone suppressive?

    Oslo? Doing backgroundchecks now? =p

    “It’s not the individual scientologist that has any say in that matter. It’s someone else defining it for them, defining who is “supressive” and that they are no longer part of your same group. What would happen if you disagree with what that someone else is telling you to be true?”

    Frankly I am a public, I dont have time or interest to invest in that process. If I wanted to have a part in it I could request a position in that line of duty and work myself up there. I’m sure there are people who are more qualified than me to deliver out declares. Remember that even though you can declare someone SP it doesnt mean that you can’t come back. I’ve seen official statements that people who have been declared has come back to good standing again.

    But lets say a good friend of mine would be declared supressive, then I would first need to find out what the person has done to get this declare, and ask him his viewpoint on it. If he had done something bad towards the church he would have a chance to put things right again. He would have a choice to make it right so that he doesnt make trouble for his friends who wants to do service and still be his friend. He would then just have to do conditions back up to normal again and we would be fine.
    If the situation was different, like lets say he claims to be declared for a bogus reason, a lie, and I believed my friend, I would try to understand more about the situation by asking staff in charge of handling it and take a decition there. If he had overts against the organisation and wouldnt admit it then we have a problem. Not only does it make a problem because I cant do service anymore and still be in contact with my friend, my friend is also a liability to me because since he has betraiyed the organisation and can also in fact betray me due to that fact.
    If my friend did not do the things the church claimed him to have done, I would certainly write KR’s about the situation and get it handled that way. I get your point but I just dont think I will be in a situation like that,I have more faith in the management than that.

    “My point is- just because someone else tells you that someone’s “bad”, doesn’t make it true.”

    Very true, that’s why I would do research on my own to get to the bottom of it. People who go to the media and speak bad about the organisation does it out of egoistic reason rather than for the common good. Scientology’s intention is to improve conditions, and if a person goes to the media he probably cant get back in again because of the suppression he has caused.
    If you are a part of an organisation which wants to improve conditions, and you go to the media instead of going through the org lines, you are probably a suppressive, thats my opinion though.

  11. ” if someone gets an SP declare then they are not a part of the group anymore”
    That’s the point, Dx. It’s not YOU deciding that. It’s not the individual scientologist that has any say in that matter. It’s someone else defining it for them, defining who is “supressive” and that they are no longer part of your same group. What would happen if you disagree with what that someone else is telling you to be true?

    “Yes I’ve heard. And I bet those people were not very eager to tell what they had done exactly to get that declare”
    You are making the assumption that there is no room for error or flaw in the system. How do you know that they are the guilty party? I don’t know how it works in Oslo, but once in a while, our legal system convicts an innocent person. Does such a thing never happen in scientology?

    Your soccer metaphor is nice, but logically flawed and ignores several key variables. For example- what if you’ve never spoken to the entire defense team- you don’t know anything about them, and don’t have any idea what they’re up to. But, maybe they’re all hispanic. And those were the ones that were kicked off the team, leaving only white men on the team. My point is- just because someone else tells you that someone’s “bad”, doesn’t make it true.

    “This is a good point, but it’s a group tendensee, it doesnt mean that the perceptions are wrong, but you could question whether it is real or its some sort of euphoria.”
    The point is not the validity, but the difference between the source of the shared perceptions.

  12. Bigdaddy:

    We are together as a group, we work together towards a goal, if someone gets an SP declare then they are not a part of the group anymore. I have two friends who are scientologists. The rest of the people within the church are not people I would associate with and consider as real friends. The organisation and its goals are our only thing in common.

    “Perhaps there is no pressure on your part. Perhaps your fellow scientologists at your center don’t feel that way. Could be. But the point is not whether it happened to YOU, the point is that it is something that allegedly, and fairly certainly, happened to others, in general.”

    Yes I’ve heard. And I bet those people were not very eager to tell what they had done exactly to get that declare.And considering the media who doesnt seem to care if they put all the information in their reports.

    Lets put it like this: Lets say me and you play soccer together on a local club. Suddenly there is a conflict between some of the players. They get kicked off the team, but you like it there on the team and would like to continue playing soccer: You also feel that your coach really trains you well and the other players have good sportmanship together. Do you immidiatly feel that you need to go through all kinds of people to find out whether someone had done something immoral when you see your teammates flurishing as never before?
    My point is that when something feels good to be a part of, or you feel good being around a friend, its usually a good indicator. Actually that has never disappointed me.

    “Scientologists, however, seem to have the opposite- they begin, perhaps, with a common drive or intent, but assimilate the unique verbiage and perceptions that come with their path up the bridge, particularly the secret (some would call it elitist) secret material.”

    This is a good point, but it’s a group tendensee, it doesnt mean that the perceptions are wrong, but you could question whether it is real or its some sort of euphoria.

  13. But LRH was right. Psychiatry can’t harm a thetan. Prefrontal lobotomy and electroshocks can only hurt the brain, they can’t hurt the thetan.
    Therefore the PC can just in the next lifetime join Scientology.
    Where is the problem?

  14. Just for the record, DX, you were the one that brought up psychiatry :)
     
    Anywho, about disconnection. You can liken it to institutional racism. Or sexism, if you’d prefer. It’s not always a specific policy, rule, or guide, but it’s something that’s rampant and permiates the organization as a whole. Perhaps there is no pressure on your part. Perhaps your fellow scientologists at your center don’t feel that way. Could be. But the point is not whether it happened to YOU, the point is that it is something that allegedly, and fairly certainly, happened to others, in general.
     
    For example, maybe the local store, a Stuff-Co, doesn’t “officially” have a racist policy. However, maybe they just “happen” to not hire minorities. Do you see what I’m saying? Consider this- do you think that your scientology minister would have anything to say if you were hanging out with a group of “anons”? Or, a similar question, if someone you knew were declared to be an SP- how would that effect your relationship?
     
    “Someone brings a sign where it says “scientology killed Lisa” and then immidiatly it must be true and then that is the new argument.”
    That, of course, is a drastic oversimplification, but I understand your point. Recall that “anons” are, generally, computer-savvy individuals, most often younger folks that grew up with the internet. Information is out there, and opinions are less impacted by a sign than you might believe. You can call it a party line, of course, but it seems to me that the opinion is formed before one joins a protest or a group- that they are united by their beliefs, not molded into them based on pre-existing associations. Scientologists, however, seem to have the opposite- they begin, perhaps, with a common drive or intent, but assimilate the unique verbiage and perceptions that come with their path up the bridge, particularly the secret (some would call it elitist) secret material.

  15. So it seems there are a few different topics here, we have psychiatry vs scientology on human right abuses, we have scientologist party line, freezone, suppressive person, disconnection.

    I have a few viewpoints on a lot of these topics and I probably list them up so I have answered them all in one post.

    About disconnection: The disconnection is a personal choice which the church should not interfere with. If it happens or has happened, it surely is wrong in my opinion. No staff member has ever tried to convince me of disconnecting with people even though I’ve been into sessions where I’ve talked about people in my life who made trouble for me. Actually not being able to handle a person in your life that supresses you is a sign of weakness and should in itself be handled. I have a lot of old friends who are sceptical of scientology and I have never felt that any of them have treated me disrespectfully, it would just be a matter of different opinions really.
    But on the other hand if someone came to me and gave me a hard time because of my personal belifs and wouldnt leave it alone, they would frankly not be my friends anymore.

    That would mean disconnection, and its as natural as it can be.

    About partyline: Its clear that it exists a partyline among scientologists, but then again there is a partyline among anonymous protesters. Someone brings a sign where it says “scientology killed Lisa” and then immidiatly it must be true and then that is the new argument.

    “Truth: I have to give DeathereX some credit here for not following the party line on Squirrels like Lou and Pat. Very unlike a Scientologist. But refreshing to see.”

    I follow my own observations and dont need to join any partyline, I am as free as I have ever been and I am not about to change that.

  16. Anon:

    LRH Source of Life Energy. Introduction: The Q List and Beginning of Logics page 11″

    And you didnt just fail to mention that this was said out of sarcasm like he very often does in his lectures? And those things gets taken out of context literally and put up like its bloody serious.

  17. Good point, Anon. And, of course, in 1947, Hubbard requested psychiatric care from the Veterans Administration, due to his “moreseness” and “suicidal inclinations”, and referenced “certain medications” on which he was placed.

  18. “Now how about psychiatry’s abuses, lets take them first.”

    Why? LRH said:
    “There are certain things which I have decided to be mad at in this universe. I’ve decided to be mad at psychiatrist. There is no reason why I should be mad at psychiatrists. Really, the sensible thing for me to do about psychiatrists is simply go over and talk to them, make a couple of patients well, show them how they can make bigger fees, pat them all on the head and you’ve got Dianetics and psychiatry.

    But there is no randomity there. No randomity at all. They’re never going to hurt a preclear, really. I can rave and rant about electric shock and prefrontal lobotomy—you can pick them up in the next life and they’ll be as good as new.”

    LRH Source of Life Energy. Introduction: The Q List and Beginning of Logics page 11”

    So it is not that bad.

  19. “Comment by DeathereX on June 3, 2010 4:49 pm
    Truth:
    Blabla. Yes I get it. Now how about psychiatry’s abuses, lets take them first.”

    Not only is it changing the subject but it’s ignoring the fact that Scientology itself is saying one thing and doing another.
    It’s hypocritical to have Scientology telling others how to live a cleaner life.

    I have to give DeathereX some credit here for not following the party line on Squirrels like Lou and Pat. Very unlike a Scientologist. But refreshing to see.

  20. “Freezone? Well, no I am not against them, I dont understand really what they have done wrong, they have something in common with me, they like the scientology philosophy.”

    so then, you would disagree with louanne, who says they are “squirrels” and that they “have had many criminals in their midst”, and are “money making ventures”?

    I don’t agree with her on that, either.

  21. “Comment by DeathereX on June 3, 2010 4:49 pm
    Truth:
    Blabla. Yes I get it. Now how about psychiatry’s abuses, lets take them first.”

    isn’t that changing the subject? There’s other forums for that discussion, and I would be very happy to provide links, if you would like.

  22. “No I ASSUMED that you were an SP”

    why?

  23. Truth:

    Blabla. Yes I get it. Now how about psychiatry’s abuses, lets take them first.

  24. BigDaddy:

    No I ASSUMED that you were an SP, it didnt mean I was convinced, nor did it mean that I used any form of “out of 12” guidelines.

    Freezone? Well, no I am not against them, I dont understand really what they have done wrong, they have something in common with me, they like the scientology philosophy.

    I would never try to take away your right.

  25. Same ol same ol. Scientology will attack anyone that doesn’t just simply agree with them. See if Anderson Cooper agreed with Scientology they’d hail him a hero. But that’s not the case so they go on the attack. Because he is doing his job in not taking a side.

    How can you claim Scientology supports human rights when it’s an organization with human rights abuses?
    Anyone that speaks out even about what they experienced within Scientology is vilified to the point where other Scientologists are unwilling to look into the matter themselves and immediately take the side of what Scientology management says…you know why. Because Scientologists really can’t LOOK DON’T LISTEN. And they know they might be the next person disconnected from their family and from what they consider “spiritual freedom”. So they look the other way. It’s happened time and time again.

    I just love watching Scientology dig it’s own grave.

  26. Deatherex,
    while you ignored my point/question, I will gladly answer you own.
    You seem to be confusing “Scientology” with the corporate entity of Scientology, against Scientology itself? Nothing major. Heck, I think there’s a few mighty fine elements to it, although mostly heavily borrowed from older sources. But it’s not about the belief system. Consider this: where are the protests against the freezone? Only other scientologists speak I’ll of them. And no fz member has ever called me an sp. Do you, too, oppose them?
    It is indeed the structure that I criticize, and advocate merely for reform. Effectiveness aside, having certain Programs does not absolve an organization of all problems which may be criticises. My beloved US government has many anti-drug, literacy and other wonderful social Programs. Are you saying I may not criticize their other policies based on that fact? The Catholic Church has great Programs too. May I not criticize their handling of the child abuse scandal?
    And, if you refuse to acknowledge my right to critize something that effects me, perhaps you could tell me what IS acceptable to you?

  27. Here is a comparison between
    Clearwater : most active Scientology area
    Los Angeles : second most active Scientology area
    and
    national

    The crime rate in Clearwater in all categories except auto theft is worse than the national average and Clearwater is even worse than Los Angeles in most categories.
    http://clearwater.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Los+Angeles&s1=CA&c2=Clearwater&s2=FL

    =>
    Scientology’s crime prevention programs DO NOT WORK!

  28. In Clearwater for example, the area where Scientology is most active, the crime rate in 2006 was larger than the national average.
    5156.5 crimes per 100,000 people in Clearwater
    vs
    4479.3 crimes per 100,000 people national
    http://clearwater.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

  29. The problem is that CoS doesn’t support human rights and that it doesn’t haveworking programs to prevent drug use and crime.

  30. I’m sorry BigDaddy, why dont you tell me what your real problem with scientology is so I dont have to look up your one million posts critical of scientology. I want to know why you are so critical of an organisation that supports human rights, and has own programs to prevent drug use and crime, and tell me why that is less important than “that it is wrong that sea org doesnt allow children” or because “miscavige beats his staff”.

  31. Re: deatherex:

    I’m going to take the leap and assume he’s responding to someone here, or someone related to this conversation. Either way the concepts hold true, and demonstrate an important concept.

    see, this is something that you see often from scientologists, and indeed any highly religious type that prefers to avoid fact, reason and discourse in favor of insults and emotional reaction. I’m not singling out deatherex for that, but his comment niceli illustrates that point.

    The term “suppressive person” or “sp” is the harshest label (and often insult) in Scientology, reserved for a small portion of the population (except for Hubbards personal staff, of which over 90% of the population has been declared to be so). However, the term is frequently and casually thrown about by scientologists, similar to how other extremists, such as Fred phelps, use their insulting and equivilent phrases, such as “evil” or “demonic”.

    However, hubbard was very clear on what an sp is and does. I would wonder how an individual can make that judgement without being able to evaluate the rest of the person? It seems to me that it’s simply a matter of “Scientology is good, so if you oppose (criticize) it, you must be an sp”. And that’s based on being labeled as such multiple times, each time after the accuser gets more angry and desperate in their argument.

  32. So them, we’re back to “he stumbled over his words so you mock him.”
    classy.

  33. ” Comment by Bigdaddy on May 31, 2010 8:47 pm
    Drunk? Says who?”

    Says I. Might not be true. He might just have been incapacitated for some other reason. Maybe someone’s hand in his pants.

    – L

  34. Drunk? Says who?

  35. “Comment by Bigdaddy on May 27, 2010 8:38 pm
    Are you making fun of his speech mistakes?”

    No, I am making fun of his lack of professionalism. Drunk on TV reporting about the President’s inauguration? You gotta be kidding.

    – L

  36. ^ yes, pray tell?

  37. ^Who are you talking about?

  38. Amazingly fun to see true SP’s in action. Hilarious!

  39. Are you making fun of his speech mistakes?

  40. Way to take the high road :)
    I’m not defending him, and if you want to insult him, it won’t hurt me personally. But the points seem to stand.

  41. Say what you want. I enjoy watching the other side of the story.

    As to Anderson Cooper, well, he is the kind of guy that you would expect selling aftershave or something. As a host he is just a joke.

  42. I pulled this from rantrave.com, and it spoke to my previous post:

    ” Freedom Magazine launched a massive attack, in cooperation with other Scientology entities, in response to the St. Petersburg Time investigative report. Yes, there were personal attacks. Yes, they dug up information on some of the accusers, including from information that they conceivably assumed would be private.
     
    But that’s not new information. That’s not unusual. They’re doing the same thing with Anderson Cooper.
     
    But what was unique was Scientology hiring two Journalists (Russell Carollo and Christopher Szechenyi), who in turn hired an editor (Steve Weinberg), to “investigate” the St. Petersburg Times. According to the society of Professional Journalists, this is something that’s both unusual and ill-advised.
     
    According to the three paid investigators, they insisted upon complete editorial freedom when they signed contracts with the Church, but also accepted the Church’s requirement that the Church would ultimately have the freedom to decide when, as well as whether or not, to publish the report.  To date, the results have not been released.
     
    Fred Brown, former president of the Society of Professional Journalists, and current vice chairman of the SPJ Ethics Committee says that such contractual stipulations should have been a “red flag” to such veteran journalists. “It goes against the basis of any piece of investigative journalism,” Brown said. “Investigative journalism is supposed to be when an organization whose mission is to get information to the public has an idea that something bad is going on and then tries to prove it. But here you’ve got an organization that doesn’t want to get this information to the public, but wants it for its own internal satisfaction. Ethically, that’s not something a journalist should get involved in.”
     
    Even a member of the team, Steve Weinberg, the hired editor, spoke out against the nature and conduct of the investigation after reflection. “More than any other existing organization that comes to mind, the Scientologists have been so hostile to outside journalists that I cannot see crossing the line to accept employment there.” Although cashing the Scientology check gave Weinberg pause, he accepted the offer because of the promise of editorial freedom and financial betterment.  He concluded that “This is unusual. I would presume that not many organizations that get covered seek and find investigative journalists who would then study the coverage.”
     
    And he’s not the only one with such concerns. Chris Rodell, adjunct professor of magazine journalism at Point Park University and contributor to Sports Illustrated, Men’s Health, Playboy, and Esquire, among other national magazines, has said that he’s sympathetic to Weinberg’s position. “I think ethics become elastic when you’re a freelancer,” Rodell said. “Everybody strives to be ethical, and I don’t want to do anything that’s going to hurt anyone or damage my own credibility, but if you don’t have a paycheck coming in in a long time, you do become more or less ethical depending on the organization offering the money.” Rodell said that he would not have accepted the assignment, as the Church of Scientology is “too historically hostile” to journalists.
     
    Dani Elliot, professor and Eleanor Poynter Jamison Chair in Media Ethics and Press Policy at the University of South Florida,  echoes the same concern. “Journalism by definition serves the public interest and not the private interest,” she said. “And if you have an organization that has the power to decide what part of an investigation or whether the piece of writing is used or not used – and furthermore if that organization is not part of a news organization – then you’re not talking about journalism, you’re talking about public relations.”
     
    Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, as another organization that has faced numerous public and controversial struggles, as offered public advice to the CoS: ignoring trouble won’t make it go away. “If you’re standing around with a chicken on your head, someone will ask about it,” she said. “So when things are so obvious, we can expect people to ask about it. That’s how we handle things internally. Externally, we try to get out as much information as possible. Hiding things is only going to make the situation worse.”
     
    The St. Petersburg Times, while aware of the counter-investigation, declined to participate, with Neil Brown, executive editor of the St. Petersburg Times, saying, “We were surprised and a little disappointed that they felt it was a good idea to stop what we were doing and cooperate on an independent review of our work, particularly when I, only upon pressing them, found out they were being paid to do it by the Church of Scientology. So they wanted us to participate in a study of our work paid for by the subjects of our work. It seemed odd at best. They have, at various points, threatened litigation against us for performing this kind of journalism. When you’ve been threatened with lawsuits, it doesn’t make sense to have a conversation with subjects who are threatening you about the work. So, we ultimately had to say, this isn’t an independent, objective review, and we’ve got a lot of journalism left to do and we’re going to go forward with it.” Participating, it was feared, would “fuel the religion’s ongoing campaign to discredit The Times.”
     
    CoS Spokesperson, Tommy Davis, has only referenced the report as being “highly critical” of the Times, to which the reporting team has stated, of Davis, that he “did not accurately portray the full scope of our work” and urged the Church to release the report.”

  43. Exactly true. I am always eager to see neutral third party sources, as promised in this blog description, but these simple to obtain records are never made availible, for some reason

  44. ^Yes, that’s of course another possibility :)
    The point i am trying to make though, is that it would be very easy to prove that DM was not present at Gold Base at the specific dates the incidents happened, if this were indeed the case.
    If he for example was in England during that time, then there would certainly be impartial non-Scientologist witnesses and documents of the hotel he checked in on that day.
    FM’s attempts to disprove the allegations are very unconvincing and cumbersome.

  45. Also quite possible is that the schdule, unverified and provided after the fact, is itself a lie.

  46. “bd, somewhere in that wall of text you lost the most vital point: the allegations are a lie. ”

    I am assuming you are referring to my wall of text here.

    That might be true or not, but the freedom magazine videos don’t prove them to be lies.
    There has to be a specific date, when these beatings happened. DM claims that Rathbun was the perpetrator of the violence and not himself and that they were reported to him. Scientology has a system of Knowledge Reports to report such incidents, where the exact time and location of the incident must be specified. So it is reasonable to assume that DM knows the exact date and time the incidents happened.
    Freedom Magazine should prove that DM was not present at these specific dates, instead of just giving DM’s tour schedule during the whole last 4 months of the year 2003 with no specific dates, but only months. What is shown in the second video doesn’t prove that DM was not present when the beatings occured, because obviously DM could have been at Gold Base somewhere in between those appointments he had.

  47. I’ve been sticking to verifiable facts… You’re in the realm of belief and opinion.

  48. bd, somewhere in that wall of text you lost the most vital point: the allegations are a lie.

    What else matters? Nothing.

    – L

  49. Ok, let’s see what Freedom Magazine has to criticize about Cooper’s show:
    1. He didn’t talk enough about Scientology’s new buildings
    2. He didn’t give the affidavits and other documents that were provided to him by the CoS enough attention
    3. He didn’t show the entire interview with the ex-wife’s , but showed only parts of it
    4. He refused to accept a tour of church facilities, which allegedly would have included an interview with David Miscavige himself
    5. He ignored the church’s ad-hominem attacks against Rathbun, de Vocht, Hawkins and Scobee

    ad 1)
    I think that would have gone beyond the scope of the show. The topic of the show was very narrowly focussed only on an episode of violence that happened in the higher ranks of CoS. It is beyond any doubt that there was an episode of violence, because both sides agree at least on this fact. The only question that is open and that also Anderson Cooper explicitely left for the viewers to decide is who was the perpetrator of the violence.
    ad 2) Well, he mentioned several times that the CoS had provided him with affidavits, but he didn’t disclose the contents of these affidavits. That’s true and a legitimate criticism.
    ad 3) I don’t know the complete content of the interview, but imho the parts that he showed probably already contained the essence of the interviews. The message of the ex-wife’s came clearly across to the viewer from that parts he showed:: DM never hit anyone. Rathbun was the sole perpetrator. In all the years they never saw a single scratch on their former husbands.
    So again, one cannot expect that he shows the complete interview, when it doesn’t fit into the time frame of the show. He very likely didn’t show the complete interview with Rathbun and the other guests either. I think he gave both parties approximately the same time to present their sides of the story.
    ad 4) Once again. A church tour wouldn’t have been relevant to the topic of the show. One cannot expect that Cooper makes this into some kind of promotional show for Scientology.
    I am skeptical, whether they really offered him an interview with David Miscavige, because in the show we see Tommy Davis saying that DM had no time for an interview, since he has better things to do.
    ad 5) Rightfully so. Why should he care that CoS considers Rathbun to be a “psychotic” and Rinder to be a “beer drinker” etc.?

    Personally i didn’t find Cooper’s show very groundbreaking either. It was just a repetition of something that had already been covered extensively in the SP times “truthrundown” series and it was too narrowly focussed only on the “DM beats his staff” story and i don’t like the format of Cooper’s show with all the annoying commercial breaks and constant repetitions of the same segments that had already been show every 5 minutes either.
    However unlike Freedom magazine i didn’t find it to be biased at all. He showed what both sides had to say in equal parts.
    A much better researched and more investigative show was imho ABC’s four corner in Australia.

  50. What I mean is this: in this latest issue, you have 1 piece, just one, about dm. That
    ties with the one piece about the sp times, but pales in comparison to the SIX pieces about CNN in general, or even mr. Cooper personally.

    This is the exact same thing that happened when the sptimes did their series, fm just became an attack platform. By the way, what ever happened to the investigation into the paper that Scientology commissioned?

    I had thought that, this time, we would see some docs or evidence. The articles talk of all these emails and phone calls, each of which leaves a paper trail that would be very easy to post, lending credibility to their tale. But, alas, we find none.

  51. Wow, freedom mag is looking more and more like the national enquirer every day.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    Hermandad del Calvario en el altar de Ánimas - Mayo 2017

    Virgen de Montserrat en la Magdalena - Mayo 2017

    Santísimo Cristo de la Conversión en la Magdalena - Mayo 2017

    More Photos