Read the Church of Scientology’s response
|
The full statement issued by the Church of Scientology in response to Nick Xenophon’s speech: This is an outrageous abuse of Parliamentary privilege from a Senator who would not even meet with Church representatives several months ago to discuss his concerns. Senator Xenophon is obviously being pressured by disgruntled former members who use hate speech and distorted accounts of their experiences in the Church. They are about as reliable as former spouses are when talking about their ex-partner. Senator Xenophon’s attempt to marginalise Scientologists by saying that they should not be believed, is fascistic and violates freedom of speech and the right to religious beliefs. It is former members or apostates that are notoriously unreliable as witnesses. The late Bryan Wilson, Ph.D. of Oxford University, one of the most renowned sociologists of modern times, put it this way: The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of selfjustification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates… Apostates, sensationalised by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers…” As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in an objective statement of the truth. This is a propaganda campaign that would suit a totalitarian regime not Australia, a country that recognises freedom of religion. Scientology has fought for and upheld religious freedom around the world and is accepted as a religion throughout the world. In a few countries, the Church has been forced to litigate the issue of its religiosity, either affirmatively or in response to outrageous unfounded charges. Inevitably, the Church has prevailed in these cases and its religious bona fides have been unequivocally recognised. Some of these decisions, including decisions by the Cassation Court in Italy and the 1983 decision by the High Court in Australia, are now considered by leading scholars and judicial authorities to have established the standards regarding religious recognition that all religions must meet. The High Court of 1983 that decided the case that declared Scientology was a bona fide religion in Australia was one of the most venerated benches in the history of the High Court. Moreover the decision was a unanimous decision of the full bench. The decision has stood the test of time and has proven an authority on issues related to religions and tax status in Australia and throughout the Commonwealth. The Church of Scientology internationally has grown from one Church in 1954 to more than 8000 Churches, Missions and groups in 165 countries today. The Church sponsors an international human rights education initiative as well as the world’s largest nongovernmental drug education program. Four new Churches have opened in 2009, most recently the Church of Scientology of Rome on October 24, with a new Church opening in Washington, DC, on October 31. In April, three new Churches were dedicated: in Malmo, Sweden; Dallas, Texas; and Nashville, Tennessee. The Scientology religion has expanded more in the past year than in the past five years combined and more in the past five years than in the past five decades combined. |
|
|
|
16 Comments
Church? You jest. A vicious, toxic cult. A sophisticated cult which targets the middle class, a cult which recruits celebrities to suck in suckers with healthy bank accounts.
It’s an anathema that organised religions have tax exempt status to begin with - particularly in recent time with all the crazy cults and extremist churches. There’s really no difference between these groups and marketers selling dodgy products with dubious claims.
Does the definition of Apostate fit Mark Latham? just askin
@Frank - how does “A vicious, toxic cult. A sophisticated cult which targets the middle class, a cult which recruits celebrities to suck in suckers with healthy bank accounts” differ from a description of the Catholic church, or the Sydney Jensenites?
How much money does it cost to become a 12th-level enlightened Catholic?
A tenth of your income (tithe), plus school fees, plus the collection plate, plus…
Kate: you sussed my militant atheism. After all, Christianity began as a deviant Jewish sect, then set out to rule the world. Religion corrupts. Absolute religion corrupts absolutely. Hide your pin numbers from anyone who fronts for a supreme being or, as with Scientology, aliens.
All of which is voluntary, yes?
Voluntary, sure - unless you’ve been told since birth that you are evil, that you were born evil and can only be cured of your sin if you do what you are told [ie support the Church], that if you do not believe you will go to Hell [and belief can best be demonstrated by - you guessed it - supporting the Church], that you are guilty and must pay for your sins [ie support the Church], that there is only one way to salvation and the keys to heaven are held by God’s representative on Earth is the Head of the Church, so naturally you will want to support the Church
etc
Unfortunately the attempts to deny, discredit or blatantly disguise allegations of abuse seem to be a common thread in all religions.
If you have nothing to hide, and you genuinely abhor the allegations that have been made, then give full support to an investigation and open your records.
One thing that no-one seems to notice which distinguishes scientology from other religions is their championing of human rights, especially those of mental health patients. Jan Eastgate, then the head of CCHR Citizens Committee for Human Rights - a sub group of scientology) was highly instrumental in exposing the deep sleep therapy scandal. She is now the head of CCHR in Los Angeles.
Who else in Australia is concerned about the involuntary commitment and drugging of those deemed to be mentally ill?
In Australia, CCHR has been prominent in making public the dangers of ADHD medications in children - and the massive cost to the Australian tax-payer of these drugs, new antidepressants, whose side-effects are often pathogenic (causing mania, increased suicidality, palpitations to name a few) and atypical antipsychotics, which cause the brain damage which they are purported to cure.
Re the religious aspect, I agree that all religions which produce profits should pay taxes. I also believe that people have the right to their own beliefs, wacky or otherwise. If we had a Bill of Rights, freedom of religious observance would be ensured. So would the right of freedom from incarceration of citizens who have not committed crimes.
Ah yes, Scientology’s brave protection of mentally ill people that amounts to “Don’t take these drugs prescribed to you by actual doctors, use our bullshit e-meter which will measure the amount of alien souls in your body, also give us all your money, your house, your assets and your children”.
Reminder that Scientologists literally believe all that stuff about Xenu and alien Boeings dropping nukes into volcanoes, and before people say Christianity is just as crazy remember that at least Christian doctrine is out there for everybody to read and comprehend and doesn’t require the handing over of your entire life-savings to acquire.
If it walks like a duck …
“The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection.”
What a marvellously convenient way to discredit anything anyone ever says about you. Trying to discredit claims of abuse by, in effect, saying that all ex-victims are bitter liars, does nothing but further Xenophon’s argument that you are an abusive, vicious, greedy cult.
Quote from L Ron Hubbard -
“You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.”
And L Ron Hubbard on how to deal with criticism of the organisation -
“(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. “
Yet another quote from the man himself on how to deal with criticism -
“Te purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
Straight from the horse’s mouth boys and girls. This is not the great man that $cientologists claim him to be but a power mad looney control freak. $cientologists seem to forget that hand in hand with freedom of religion comes freedom of criticism.
The church uses trademark law and copyright law to silence criticism. Quote too much when criticizing any you may just get sued (but I thought that it was okay to quote for purposes of reviewing fiction). That is a coward’s way to deal with criticism.
One of the more disturbing aspects of $cientology history comes with Operation Snow White, the largest infiltration of US government in history in which members tried to remove all government documents that had negative things to say about $cientology. That one is a doozy. Talk about organized.
$cientologists’ practice of disconnection with former members is also troubling. Families stop talking to children who have left the church. Wierd. What are $cientologists afraid of? Difference of opinion seems to be the answer. Such a closed system of secrecy and disconnection reminds me of another sci fi story, namely Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. Everyone must be like the pod people or else.
As to $cientology’s claims to promoting religious tolerance, it seems the main time they have a problem with people saying anything bad about religion it is when their religion is attacked. Look at Isaac Hayes who spent several years as a voice actor on South Park happily taking part in lampooning various religions amongst other things. But when $cientology is lampooned, oh no, he’s got to quit because “There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins.”
As to $cientology’s great protection of the mentally ill it seems odd that Lisa MacPherson in America died during a Scientology Introspection Rundown to “treat” her mental illness.
The church’s response to Xenophon ends with a bizarre self congratulatory pat on the back, a six million Elvis fans can’t be wrong moment. How does the fact that there are 8000 $cientology churches prove anything. Does that make it right? Following the same logic of numbers, in 2006 in Australia 3,903,300 people claimed to be Anglican on the Census. Does that make them righter than everybody in Australia? 2,948.900 had no religion does that make them righter than the 68600 people who were listed as Other (Into which $cientology amongst others falls in the results of the census). Lots of $cientology arguements run this way. There are X amount of us so it’s ok. It’s safety in numbers theory. We can’t be wrong when there’s all these other people who believe the same thing. The Church mustn’t have had anything to do with any abuses because it is so popular. What sort of an arguement is that?
But really for me the biggest turn off to $cientology comes with L Ron Hubbard (& Friends’) totally abysmal album The Road To Freedom in which he “sings” painfully bad lyrics along with John Travolta, Leif Garrett and others. It is one of the worst musical experiences EVER. Dear L Ronny Hubbard, if you are listening from one of your spaceships, if becoming “clear” is does this to you, turns you into a totally talentless and bland idiot, I would rather remain opaque forever.
No one seems to have noted that before scientology was a ‘church’, the organisation in Australia was investigated by the police and banned because of the blackmail and psychological brainwashing used on its victims, sorry, ‘members’. The witness statements were shocking, providing clear examples of the trauma caused to members and their families. After failing to get the ban overturned, it changed its name and registered as a religion, and won the resulting in a challenge in the courts. As touched on in the comments above, it is difficult to distinguish in law between organisations that improve the world, including its members, and those that don’t.
Ron had a strange life (google it), and formed an obsessive dislike of psychiatrists, which became embedded in his ‘religion’. While you might be able to point to an example of scientology assisting in closing down a dangerous psychiatric clinic, they actually want to rid the world of all of psychiatrists. Members simply follow Ron’s hatred of psychiatry - all of it - along with the use of modern medicines. The irony is that scientology practices an intense form of behavior modification and control i.e., psychology, on its own members.
The wider issue is how to identify and manage damaging religious sects in our society, like scientology, and prevent them from wrecking too many lives. A good start is to have the beliefs and the history of the organisation made publicly available, and it should not be an offence to quote from their own literature - that is an easy legal opportunity that should be taken.
On the face of it, who could possibly believe the B-grade science fiction story of Ron’s about a race of aliens infecting our bodies. Sad really…