Church of Scientology Melbourne – Grand Opening – 29 January 2011

Congrats to Melbourne! Great new home!

Source: http://www.cisionwire.com/church-of-scientology-international/church-of-scientology-melbourne-the-first-ideal-scientology-church-beneath-the-southern-cross78155

70 Comments

  1. Pat, I’m just trying to close out old conversations. May I please inquire as to what you found good in fred’s point?

  2. Indeed, lol. And I do think that it’s a positive step, that we’ve reached. Perhaps, this is the first step towards true common ground? I’d like that.

    But, in all sincerity, no hook was intended. .

  3. Indeed, lol. And I do think that it’s a positive step, that we’ve reached. Perhaps, this is the first step towards true common ground? I’d like that.

    But, in all sincerity, no hook was intended.

  4. :) a compliment with a little hook in it.

    Anyway, never mind. I am as happy as you that we settled on this and move on to more interesting subjects. Thanks for acknowledging that!

    – L

  5. Odd way to respond to a compliment….

  6. “Comment by Bigdaddy on March 2, 2011 5:42 pm
    Wisdom win:”

    Peanut Gallery talking…

    – L

  7. Wisdom win:

    “You are right, there is a lot of polarization going on, but the truth is somewhere in between.”

  8. “Comment by Anon on February 15, 2011 12:45 am

    I used to comment here a lot in the last two years, because it really angered me how you Scientologists were always so stubborn and could not see what i perceived as obvious injustices and how much of the PR from your church was so obviously lies to me.
    I don’t have to repeat here now what i mean, because this has already been discussed ad nauseam.
    At this point in time this doesn’t bother me anymore.”

    Thanks, Anon, for your message. You are right, there is a lot of polarization going on, but the truth is somewhere in between.

    – L

  9. Nothing pat or Fred? Are you not willing or not able to back up your personal accusations? That includes you, pat- surely you had reasons to support his “point”?

  10. crickets.wav

    It’s odd. I see an anon get on this site and post rudely, and at least me and BD call him on it. But a scientologist comes on this site and posts rudely, and he’s congratulated by Pat. Strange how that works.

  11. well, Fred, while I suspect that yours is more of a “drive by” insult, I’m always up for a good conversation. So, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and take your comment seriously.

    You say “there is lots of good news on scientology”… where?
    I’ll even do the hard part for you: http://tinyurl.com/sortedscientologynews
    This link is to a google news search for “scientology”, and shows 785 recent news stories about scientology. I would invite you to find “lots” of good news about scientology, with the exception of self-generated press releases, of course. I’ll wait- you oppose my premise and question my motives- I look forward to seeing what you can come up with, assuming that you have facts behind your attack.

    You also say that I “do oppose the group of scientology”. How do you presume to judge my intentions and motives? You don’t see me mocking their beliefs or sharing the inner secrets, do you? No, everything that I post is valid and based in fact. My analysis of the facts is purely my own, and you’re free to disagree with it- I just wonder if you can do it without the personal attacks that you’ve started with.

    What’s interesting, Pat, is that if Fred’s comments were directed towards a scientologist, I suspect that you would have cried foul at the “ad hom” personal attack. When it’s directed towards me, suddenly it’s a good point?

  12. It follows a trend, pat, that you consider his non-fact based opinions to be good points ;)

  13. Comment by Fred on February 19, 2011 8:42 pm

    Good point, Fred.

    Pat

  14. Fred:
    Hmm, immediately insulting, vague, unable to fully formulate an argument. Yeah, great way to introduce your point and represent scientology.
    If you’d like to discuss your point, by all means we can, but I hope that you’re not as combative the whole time…
    Let me know.

  15. “””there’s actually precious little “good news” about the group. I don’t oppose scientology as a whole””””
    There is lots of good news on scientology… you just make out that it never happens or that it isnt good news at all.
    You do oppose the group of scientology thats why you post here several million times arguing with everyone.
    Grow balls and admit to your own intentions.

  16. And that is absolutely correct, anon. The average scientologist sincerely hopes to improve conditions, and often believes that the best way to accomplish this is through the cos itself.

  17. I used to comment here a lot in the last two years, because it really angered me how you Scientologists were always so stubborn and could not see what i perceived as obvious injustices and how much of the PR from your church was so obviously lies to me.
    I don’t have to repeat here now what i mean, because this has already been discussed ad nauseam.
    At this point in time this doesn’t bother me anymore.
    I have now more tolerance for Scientologists, the Scientology belief system and even the Church of Scientology as an organisation, not so much for the upper management and that department of OSA, which is responsible for “handling” critics and ex-scientologists, but the majority of other Scientologists, who work in the CoS and are honestly motivated by their desire to help people with their particular methods.
    You are basically right that the civilization is in a dwindling downward spiral and that despite all the technological and scientific progress and accumulated material wealth in the western world, we as a human species haven’t improved one bit morally and spiritually, which is the reason, why we are doing so badly on a global scale. The idea that in order to improve the world as a whole, each individual has to begin by improving itself and work on its own ethical and spiritual conditions is fundamentally true (no one could have said it better than Michael Jackson in his song “man in the mirror”). So, i agree with your basic premise, even though i don’t find your methods so helpful myself.

    with kind regards,
    Anon

    PS:
    I speak only for myself.

  18. “then I’ll quit asking and write it off as another anti-Scientology propaganda attempt.”

    I suspect that was already a foregone conclusion, that your mind was already made up.

    Quite honestly, I think that this can turn into quite a deep conversation. I outlined the reasons why I directed the question to Louanne in our “other” thread. Quite honestly, I just think it would be more productive between me and her for reasons already listed.

    Besides that, with your moral outrage when I failed to “respect your comms cycle” by commenting on another thread, I feel that it would be unfair of me to expect you to post in my and louanne’s conversation. Unfair for me to expect it, hypocritical of you to do it.

    Besides that, you and I already have a lot of open comm cycles (your “criminon test” for one, which you’ve never closed), so adding another would only result in another dangling thread.

    In other words, I have my data, I don’t believe you’ll consider it for what it is, I think Louanne is able to discuss it… I’ll spend my time more wisely than I had in the past.

  19. BD,

    Not at all. Actually it will be refreshing.

    In the meantime, since you don’t have a link to an official statement of the COS saying

    “On an aside, the official statement of the COS, through Tommy Davis, is that if Hubbard did not actually sustain those injuries that he claimed, then Scientology is essentially invalidated. Was he speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the church leadership at that point?”

    then I’ll quit asking and write it off as another anti-Scientology propaganda attempt.

    Bye Bye :)

    Pat

  20. No, you joined in between me and louanne on February 11, 2011 2:28 am. Are you trying to force me to communicate with you about this?

  21. BD,

    Correction: The question wasn’t directed at anyone. Which is why I addressed it.

    Pat

  22. Comment by Bigdaddy on February 12, 2011 4:55 pm

    “Pat, once again, this does not fall under the purview of what you have agreed to discuss. Nor have I observed a capacity for discussing such issues. Thank you for your time, but I was asking louanne and, if I recall, you consider it rude to comment when the question was directed towards another”

    You asked the question about LRH in a response to my originated communication.

    Before I answer it I want the actual “official statement” you say Tommy made. What you say he said and what the New yorker says he said are different. Where is the source data for that comment, i.e. the letter or video, etc.

    Pat
    .

  23. Pat, once again, this does not fall under the purview of what you have agreed to discuss. Nor have I observed a capacity for discussing such issues. Thank you for your time, but I was asking louanne and, if I recall, you consider it rude to comment when the question was directed towards another.

  24. Comment by BigDaddy on February 12, 2011 10:11 am

    ‘Of course, if it’s true that Mr. Hubbard was never injured during the war, then he never did heal himself using Dianetics principles, then Dianetics is based on a lie, and then Scientology is based on a lie. The truth is that Mr. Hubbard was a war hero.’
    -Tommy Davis, spokesperson for the church of scientology in his interview with New Yorker

    That isn’t what the New Yorker says Tommy says (note the hearsay?)

    Where is the link to the official statement by Tommy that you say your original question on this stems from? “Show me”. Do you really believe what these guys say after the so-called “FBI investigation” stunt they tried to pull?

    Pat

  25. Then, Pat, I thank you for you time. I understand and respect your position, and will make every effort to work within it. If I have any questions relating to your personal experiences, I will gladly direct them to you. Similarly, if I have questions relating to fundamental information that can be found only in the current books or website, I will also happily consider you for those answers.

    I believe that this current question, which would organically result in a follow-up regarding Hubbard’s medical record, is beyond the scope of what you’re willing to consider, and can see no benefit from making the attempt at this time. I will, with all due respect, continue this line of conversation with Louanne when she’s back and available.

    As I said before, I ack your point about “personal experience” and “trying it yourself”, which is also echoed in your statement today. I have received your communication and thabk you for it. However, I believe that Louanne may be better suited to discuss this topic.

    Because, however, I do not believe in ignoring direct and well-meaning questions, for your own edification, please find the quote below:

    ‘Of course, if it’s true that Mr. Hubbard was never injured during the war, then he never did heal himself using Dianetics principles, then Dianetics is based on a lie, and then Scientology is based on a lie. The truth is that Mr. Hubbard was a war hero.’
    -Tommy Davis, spokesperson for the church of scientology in his interview with New Yorker

  26. Personal observation:

    I have found that any allegations about LRH and / or Church management are a waste of time to address.

    1) Matters discussed in this site have no effect on the overall view of Scientology, good or bad.

    2) Opinions, allegations etc. about LRH and / or Church Management are irrelevant in the face of personal experience by Scientologists who observe the workability, and require no proof to those who question without being able to or refusal to understand that the only answer is to try it for oneself.

    I will gladly answer what I can with source data, but when it comes to allegations / statements I see it only as attempts to “deprogram”.

    This is my personal viewpoint and I won’t be debating it, as I see that as an attempt to change my mind.

    Pat

  27. Comment by Bigdaddy on February 11, 2011 6:24 pm

    BD, I read the official Church statements regarding the New Yorker article. I don’t see any reference there regarding LRH’s injuries that you allude to. I just need the link. “Show me” as you say.

    Pat

  28. Pat,
    I would enjoy discussing this issue with you, as I feel it’s quite important.
    Under what circumstances or provisions are you willing to discuss it?

  29. Comment by BigDaddy on February 10, 2011 11:13 pm

    “On an aside, the official statement of the COS, through Tommy Davis, is that if Hubbard did not actually sustain those injuries that he claimed, then Scientology is essentially invalidated. Was he speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the church leadership at that point?”

    Link please. I don’t see it in the official statement of the COS.

    Pat

  30. I must be petty :) I suppose that I would want to know what DM meant when he said that Hubbard left to do additional research. But, I understand that it’s not something that you’re interested in. But I wonder how DM knew that that was the reason that LRH left his body, but not what would come of it. I dunno, that’s just me.

    Who is it that determines when there are “enough people” that reached OT VIII?

    On an aside, the official statement of the COS, through Tommy Davis, is that if Hubbard did not actually sustain those injuries that he claimed, then scientology is essentially invalidated. Was he speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the church leadership at that point?

  31. “Comment by Stk&Ptoes on February 10, 2011 8:02 pm
    Are there scientologists, wogs, and criticts in other galaxies?”

    I hope not. One such place is quite enough for me.

    – L

  32. “Comment by BigDaddy on February 10, 2011 7:41 pm
    I see what you’re saying. So it’s not entirely important to scientology why hubbard left to pursue additional research? I understand about the works he left behind, but are there some that you know of that wonder what’s coming up next?”

    From the viewpoint of someone who is following the path of Scientology (The Bridge I linked to earlier) it’s more important what you do right now. Personally I think that 74 years of age (when you are born 1911 and lived through two World Wars) is quite a good run time for a body. In fact he was done with research and its relevant publications years earlier and said so. So I really don’t spent a thought on what might happen in some distant future. I do know what I don’t want to happen in the near future, which is that this civilization is going downhill any further.

    “Is it known why IX – XV are unreleased? Who will be the one to determine when they are relased?”

    Yes, it is known. They will be released when enough people made it through OT VIII and the facilities for OT IX and above are ready. My bet is for 2012.

    – L

  33. Are there scientologists, wogs, and criticts in other galaxies?

  34. I see what you’re saying. So it’s not entirely important to scientology why hubbard left to pursue additional research? I understand about the works he left behind, but are there some that you know of that wonder what’s coming up next?

    Is it known why IX – XV are unreleased? Who will be the one to determine when they are relased?

  35. “Comment by BigDaddy on February 10, 2011 7:33 pm
    With you, being a thetan, are the current works of hubbard benifiting you?”

    Current works? If you mean the work that he is currently doing? I don’t think so. I don’t know what he is currently doing. Maybe he is having a drink in Malibu or somewhere else. The works that he left behind are relevant for me right now.

    “Are there any OT IX’s or highter currently in existence?”

    No.

    – L

  36. “There is no “my thetan”, just me.”

    Yes, I know- that’s what I meant when I said “I know, you are a thetan, I just have to visualize it in terms a wog like me can understand”. With you, being a thetan, are the current works of hubbard benifiting you?

    Are there any OT IX’s or highter currently in existence?

  37. “Comment by Bigdaddy on February 10, 2011 7:06 pm
    So you’re saying that the work that Hubbard is doing now, exterior, is still beneficial to “your” thetan. (I know, you are a thetan, I just have to visualize it in terms a wog like me can understand!) ?”

    There is no “my thetan”, just me.
    ( http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/basic-principles-of-scientology/the-parts-of-man.html )

    “Do you have access to that data while you’re louanne, or after you exteriorize before choosing another body?”

    Why would I want that or even care? I am not trying to go on an exterior (out of the body) search for “data”. I think something here must have slipped your attention.
    Maybe this: http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-and-dianetics-auditing/can-one-go-exterior-in-auditing.html

    “Also, if Hubbard reached a level in which he no longer required (or would only be burdened by) a body, is it believed that all scientologists will eventually also be able to reach such a state?”

    Yes.

    “Lastly, is hubbard’s current research going to complete the ot levels? (I thought I had heard that more are planned above 8?)”

    He didn’t leave a plan if you mean that. So I don’t know. The OT Levels go up to XV and they are all written up and complete. (The Bridge, that is: http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/the-bridge.php )

    – L

  38. So you’re saying that the work that Hubbard is doing now, exterior, is still beneficial to “your” thetan. (I know, you are a thetan, I just have to visualize it in terms a wog like me can understand!) ? Do you have access to that data while you’re louanne, or after you exteriorize before choosing another body?
    Also, if Hubbard reached a level in which he no longer required (or would only be burdened by) a body, is it believed that all scientologists will eventually also be able to reach such a state?
    Lastly, is hubbard’s current research going to complete the ot levels? (I thought I had heard that more are planned above 8?)
    Thanks for helping me understand these concepts!

  39. “Comment by Bigdaddy on February 10, 2011 1:18 pm
    That’s what I had thought, thank you, louanne!
    From that, I recall that dm reported that lrh had left in order to pursue higher level research in sn exterior state. Has it ever been reported or considered as to how that data will benefit the earthbound based scientologists?
    Thanks, louanne!”

    You are stuck to the physical universe. There is no physical location for a thetan unless he/she/it is stuck to a body. I find your concept of “earthbound based scientologists” rather funny. Anyway, I am happy you got it.

    – L

  40. That’s what I had thought, thank you, louanne!
    From that, I recall that dm reported that lrh had left in order to pursue higher level research in sn exterior state. Has it ever been reported or considered as to how that data will benefit the earthbound based scientologists?
    Thanks, louanne!

  41. “Comment by BigDaddy on February 9, 2011 11:14 pm
    Louanne,
    I’m aware that every church has an office set aside for LRH. What is the significance of this? Is it symbolic of his never-ending presence within the church (as in when people say, “so and so’s still here in spirit”) or is it indicative of a belief that he will someday return to earth?”

    It’s NOT indicative for any kind of belief that he would “return to earth”. That’s not part of any Scientology teachings. There won’t be a “return of the savior” or something like that (not in Scientology philosophy anyway).

    What the Office of L. Ron Hubbard stands for is respect for him as a founder and and expression of loyalty. Just like you would put up a photo of him or a bust. Except that these offices usually look much nicer that just a photo. Here is the one in Mlebourne:

    http://www.scientologynews.org/image-gallery/press-releases/grand-opening-scientology-ideal-organization-opens-melbourne-australia.html (pic 25)

    – L

  42. Louanne,

    I’m aware that every church has an office set aside for LRH. What is the significance of this? Is it symbolic of his never-ending presence within the church (as in when people say, “so and so’s still here in spirit”) or is it indicative of a belief that he will someday return to earth?

  43. Yes, seriously. I’d love to hear what you have to say, but this is a classy place (well, mostly). I think that you could really have a lot to add- you have some great ideas and are obviously very able to formulate them- I hope that you’ll organize your thoughts in such a way to be able to discuss with Louanne (as she’s the only one here on the “pro” side that’s able to discuss such concepts), and we would all be able to enjoy a good discussion.

  44. Mainer-
    While you raise decent enough points, Louanne (who runs this blog) is generally respectful and willing to discuss actual issues. You’re in her house, so you should do the same if you actually want to discuss something. If you actually want to discuss something, leave the insults and rhetoric in the thunderdome. If you’re just here to bring drama, that’s not helping anyone, least of all the people that stumble on the blog.

  45. While I agree that discussing problems in an open environment is helpful, you are deluding yourselves if you pay money to have some quack hook you up and tell you how many ancient aliens are inside of you. “ooh it’s a bad day, you’re thetans must be acting up.” It’s like you don’t possess functional brains. Has all logic left you? Spoler Alert- L. Ron Hubbard wrote SCIENCE FICTION in order to make money. With Dianetics, he wrote SCIENCE FICTION to…. wait for it….. MAKE MONEY! Here’s a rule of thumb for all you; If you can’t join a religion or reach the next level of spiritual understanding without paying cold hard cash…. it’s not a religion. And don’t try to spout the BS of churches passing around collections, it’s not compulsory and you can listen to the preacher and read the holy books without your wallet.

  46. “Comment by Pat on February 9, 2011 2:03 am”

    That’s what I believed Davis was referring to. And if you add Melton, that’s two people saying that “apostates” cannot be relied upon.
    And, to a degree, I would agree with what kliever wrote, that former members may be biased. The same is true for current members.
    I would also agree that most leaving bearing no ill will, buy will speak honestly of how their needs and expectations were not met- we see that often with former believers. And, as kliever points out, a “small number” may leave embittered and want to do harm to the group.
    But, what kliever does not adress is what of those with legitimate grievances? For example, those children that were raped within the catholic church. Certainly you wouldn’t say that their experiences could not be considered because they may leave the church over it?

  47. Okay… What are we defining as “works” in terms of auditing? What I mean is what “happens” for those for which auditing is successful?

    I have no doubt whatsoever that auditing “works”. Even without the use of an e-meter, talking about problems in a comfortable environment will help clear up problems. I can’t say that I accept that thoughts have mass, but that’s an aspect of belief.

  48. “Dianetics and Scientology technologies are very exact and well-tested procedures that work in 100 percent of the cases in which they are applied standardly and as intended. Which is to say, the procedures must be applied in exact accord with L. Ron Hubbard’s direction as preserved in the Scientology scripture, which very much includes the moral and ethical standards by which the individual participating in auditing must abide.

    A further proviso is that the individual must participate on their own determinism.

    The Church makes no guarantee of results as auditing is something which requires the active participation of the individual. Auditing is not something done to an individual; it is something done in which the individual is the active participant.”

    http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-and-dianetics-auditing/does-auditing-really-work-in-all-cases.html

  49. Bob… been in australia since 1950… aint going anywhere…

  50. can you lot fuck off out of my city and stay in the USA.

  51. Comment by BigDaddy on February 8, 2011 9:08 pm

    I believe it refers to this

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/apostates/docs/kliever_the%20reliability%20of%20apostate%20testimony.pdf

    Pat

  52. “I talked to some people about this FBI thing and got additional assurance of the state of affairs about this “investigation”.”

    Fair enough. I’m not going to ask for details, of course, but are those people in a position that they would know the details of a possible investigation?

    “And you know which one to call, right?”

    I’m afraid I don’t- I just emailed the public affairs line… Do you have any idea of a better line for the data?

    Regarding this pitch sheet, I cant seem to find a source for that. I see an NPR “Interview Highlights” section, but I can see no indication that those highlights were encouraged by the NY Post. Am I missing something?

  53. I get what you’re saying, BD. I talked to some people about this FBI thing and got additional assurance of the state of affairs about this “investigation”. Then I saw what Scobee had to say about it and that confirmed the former (A riddle for you, but rookie class :) ).

    Also, if you call the responsible FBI office trying to reach these two named “agents” (who actually did not say what Wright claims, but that is coming from another unnamed “source”), you’ll find out something interesting. But I won’t discuss that here. You got a phone yourself. And you know which one to call, right?

    For me it’s an observation, one of those that got me going to establish this blog and my website, that media, particularly online media one-man shows, don’t give a damn about truth in their reporting. It’s only a handful media that have real trained journalists and of those a very low percentage is capable in research. Wright is trying to sell a book for which he couldn’t find a publisher since October. So the pitch sheet that the New Yorker sent out (mentioned I believe on NPR) named the alleged FBI investigation and the war hero story as the juiciest points in the whole article (no, not Haggis, curiously). As expected, the media machine printed the lies. That’s the way it goes for “truth”, dude. I never expect truth in media.

    Anyway, gotta do some work now. Spent too much time online in the last days. Surprise me with intelligent research data ;)

    – L

  54. A similar question, as the apostates thread has been closed.

    I see that Davis’s statement was in reference to an “apostate, someone religious scholars unanimously denounce as unreliable”. I can’t find anything to support this, aside from one scholar saying that such people’s stories should be treated with criticism, which I completely agree with. Criticism- not outright dismissal, or else multiple court cases against cults or sects (not saying cos is one) would be thrown out just based on the fact that the people had left.

    Another point that confuses me. An apostate is a generally derogitory term that is given to “enemies” of a group, rather than through self identification. It’s defined as “deserter: a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend etc”. Do you define one as an apostate if they leave the folds of the church and go independant? Similarly, what of a Jew that converts to Catholicism?

  55. “A fact is that the New Yorker has pitched their story to other media and when doing so decided that the most important part was on “FBI”.”
    I don’t doubt what you’re saying, but I’m wondering how it is that you determined this to be a fact?

    I also wonder how it is that you know that to be a lie? I only ask because the math is difficult. You have on journalist who suggests a fact and sites his sources by name. You also have 176 other news agencies that trust it to be true and report it as such- each with editors and fact checkers. On the other hand, you have a single journalist that claims the statement is false, but won’t list his source.

    Now my understanding is that a scientologist won’t believe something just because they’re told it’s true, even if it’s tommy davis saying it. Me, I’ve emailed the FBI directly because I believe in finding out for myself. May I ask, in all sincerity, if you’re attempting to validate the facts?

    “Selfish, eh?”
    No, not at all. It’s faith, and I respect that. And it’s a matter of your personal experiences and beliefs, which is sacred. If it works for you, I’m all for that, and wouldn’t want to try to take that from you. I doubt I could, to be honest, even if I wanted to! I don’t really care about the belief, I care about the truth, which I believe to be different and distinct from the fact that it works for you and many, many others.

    I only wonder about it because Tommy Davis, in his capacity as spokesperson for scientology, said, if “it’s true that Mr. Hubbard was never injured during the war, then he never did heal himself using Dianetics principles, then Dianetics is based on a lie, and then Scientology is based on a lie.”
    To me, that’s quite a wager, and there’s very little to support it.

    The thing is that classified documents are declassified after 20 years, unless the operation is still ongoing or something. The other factor is that if the documents WERE still classified for some reason, then Hubbard would have known better than to break presidential directive and reveal the classified information. Also, it would seem that someone would have remembered how he sustained such injuries.

    I dunno, just thinking out loud.

  56. BD, 971 absurd questions and sitting around a table for hours are no guarantee for a true article. I can attest to that. I read the one in the New Yorker. I’ll send Lawrence Wright a bill for the two Venti Drips that it took to keep me awake.

    A fact is that the New Yorker has pitched their story to other media and when doing so decided that the most important part was on “FBI”. Exactly that part of the article, which has some 25,000 words on 28 pages, now turns out to be a lie. As a Scientologist you get an idea what else Lawrence Wright lies about but I am curious how it will take “investigative journalists” to find it.

    I can’t say anything on the War records discussion. The Church’s position is that the war records were kept secret due to LRHs war assignments and later activity for ONI. It does not matter to me, and pretty much all Scientologists I know (if they even subject themselves to 28 pages of pure boredom). What LRH wrote works. I don’t care if he got his ideas from “unblinding” himself in a hospital or while drinking a bottle of rum. He’s got it right and that’s what counts. Selfish, eh?

    – L

  57. I see what you’re saying. And, we have two journalists siting “sources”, without many specifics. For me, personally, I’m not going to believe either one just based on what I’ve read, but will wait for my email to be returned. I’m a “show me” kind of guy, I suppose.

    But, while I agree that that charge is at best unproven, that’s really not the most salacious (sp?) of the aspects of the article.

    Have you, perhaps, seen this link from the NPR?
    http://m.npr.org/story/133561256?url=/2011/02/08/133561256/the-church-of-scientology-fact-checked

    [I read that one, see my comment under the article. – L]

    It sounds like the New Yorker was actually quite thorough with their research.

  58. Sorry, BD, that was for you, yes.

    This is an interesting piece how a complete lie can spread through the “media”.

    The New Yorker turned tabloid now, actually worse. They started spreading outright lies, something that can be often noted when observing anti-scientology rants.

    The New Yorker press release and Lawrence Wright’s profile on Paul Haggis, “Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology,” released Monday, reported on an alleged federal investigation. The New Yorker was well aware the Church knew nothing of the investigation but had refuted the same claims based on a case already thrown out by a Federal Court Judge. Nonetheless, The New Yorker irresponsibly used the same sources who were discredited in the dismissed case to claim an “investigation” so as to garner headlines for an otherwise stale article containing nothing but rehashed unfounded allegations.

    Allan Lengel, a former Washington Post reporter who writes for AOL News on federal law enforcement matters, filed this late today in a breaking story on Wright’s allegations: “The author cites two sources in the FBI who ‘assured me that the case remains open.’ However, a federal law enforcement source told AOL News the investigation has fallen short and no criminal charges are expected to be filed.” Click here for the article: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/.

    Obviously, this contradicts what Wright wrote in The New Yorker. If you published Wright’s account, this contradiction should be made known to your viewers and/or readers.

    – L

  59. @ Stewart
    Stewart on February 5, 2011 2:23 pm

    I didn’t want to step on the answer, but I think that you can see that you won’t get that information from official or quasi-official sources. I have some information on that somewhere, and I’ll post it once I put something together.
    Of course, louanne, this Is your blog- I would happily defer to you if you would rather answer?

  60. I believe you intended that reply for me?

    If so, that’s certainly a lot of major news outlets doing so! You would think that they would confirm the story- at least one.

    But I must ask, how do you know it’s a lie? Is it only from the cos’s statement?

  61. Anon, one lie is the source and the usual spineless media is parroting it where they can. Looks big but is nothing but a little vicious lie. Doesn’t help you to repeat it.

    – L

  62. Louanne:
    Nice to see you again. A few sources for this data (links could be provided, but I’m sure your google-fu is more than sufficient):

    new york daily news: “The FBI Is Investigating Scientology for Human Trafficking”

    new york post: “Feds investigating Church of Scientology for human trafficking”

    yahoo news: “Report: FBI investigating Scientology for trafficking”

    telegraph (UK): “Church of Scientology ‘investigated by FBI'”

    The asutralian: “‘Inquiry’ into abuse claims at Church of Scientology”

    daily mail: “Church of Scientology under FBI probe into alleged human trafficking”

    AOL News: “Church of Scientology Faces Controversy Over Latest Abuse Allegations”

    Surely you can understand where some people may get the idea that scientology may be under investigation.

    Now you say that the FBI doesn’t know anything about this… may I ask how you know this? Did you actually ask Agents Whitehill and Venegas, who were named in this document?

  63. @Anon

    Sorry, but the FBI does not know anything about that. What delusional “news” have you read again?

    – L

  64. Holy Hubbard! Did you see that? The FBI is investigating your church for human trafficking!
    http://gawker.com/5753_356/the-fbi-is-investigating-scientology-for-human-trafficking

  65. Not the right post for this comment, but I can’t find a correct way / place to ask questions (email address given on the main scientologymyths site bounced)
    Does scientologymyths have any reliable explanded info on Mary Sue or LRH’s marital history?

  66. “Hey BigDaddy, I guess you couldn’t bring yourself to watch the video. Too much good new for Scientology, eh?”
     
    This statement is offensive and harshly judgemental of my intentions.
    I don’t care if there’s “good news” for scientology, even if it’s only that they had the money to open a new building- and there’s actually precious little “good news” about the group. I don’t oppose scientology as a whole, each person can believe what they want (which I won’t discuss here, out of respect for the secretive beliefs at the higher levels), but I’m not one that only looks at “part” of the information. If the mayor says one thing, and then later denies the sentiment, then that seems relevant to the discussion, wouldn’t you say?

  67. woah, Dave, that’s a lot of name calling and assumptions there, isn’t it?
    I’m quoting the article- if you don’t agree with what the man said in a follow up interview, take it up with him.

  68. It’s beautiful! Thanks for the post, Louanne

    Pat

  69. Hey BigDaddy, I guess you couldn’t bring yourself to watch the video. Too much good new for Scientology, eh?

    If you’d bothered to watch it, you’d have heard the Lord Mayor say:

    “I look forward to this church and this center prospering in Melbourne. … I hope benefits flow in partnerships, in community connection and in goodwill. … I invite you to celebrate this opening in the heart of our exciting welcoming and diverse Melbourne.”

    and other dignatories said even more. So swallow your bigotry for a moment and just watch the video so you get to hear what was actually said.

  70. Just in the interest of accuracy, from his interview with abc news:

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3126125.htm

    “The release says the Lord Mayor praised the church’s “active role in community life” and hoped the new centre would see “benefits flow in partnerships, community connection and goodwill”.

    But Cr Doyle isn’t happy with that wording.

    ROBERT DOYLE: Well that’s not what I said. They may have put that in the press release. I actually said I was there, I congratulated them on the restoration of an historic building. To be honest I don’t know enough about what it does. ”

    Surely an honest mistake


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • 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

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos