Home
May 12, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper
Hubbard love

Barry Didcock puts his scepticism aside and goes in search of the truth behind one of the world’s most controversial religions

WHEN BOB Keenan was young he joined the Royal Marines and served his country. In 1991 he was living in Bristol, his back damaged during the decade he had spent as a fireman after leaving the army. "I was an inquisitive bugger," he tells me over lunch, "always trying to find out how I could be better at what I did. In some instances, I would be scared or apprehensive, or have some physical reaction that would stop me from doing something. In the fire brigade a split-second decision can be the difference between someone living and dying. And I wanted to be able to handle that. It was primarily philosophy I was looking at. Then one day someone put a leaflet through my door."

The leaflet was promoting Dianetics by pulp novelist-turned-self-help-guru, L Ron Hubbard. Published in 1950, the book outlines Hubbard's thesis for self-improvement and self-awareness and introduces some of the central planks of what would become Scientology: that hidden in our subconscious or "reactive" mind are traumatic memories ("engrams"); that these must be removed by a process called "auditing" if we are to achieve the state known as "Clear"; that only when we become "Clear" can we fully realise our potential as human beings.

"Ironically, I'd never seen all the crap that was written about Scientology," says Keenan. "I read the book and thought That makes sense'". His conversion to Scientology had begun.

That "crap", as Keenan calls it, is a handy catch-all for every biography, exposé, newspaper article, website and South Park episode that has ever attacked the Church of Scientology, its founder, its practices and its adherents - people such as Tom Cruise, John Travolta and, at least according to some recent US press reports, David and Victoria Beckham. These attacks started on August 15, 1950, with a review of Dianetics in American magazine New Republic which called it a "bold and immodest mixture of complete nonsense and perfectly reasonable common sense, taken from long acknowledged findings and disguised and distorted by a crazy, newly invented terminology". And it continues today, with websites such as Operation Clambake, which calls Scientology "a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion".

Of course one person's "crap" is another person's truth and, while the church dismisses its critics as acting out of vested interest or sectophobia, or writes them off as disaffected former members or out-and-out troublemakers, their voices need to be listened to.

In an effort to sift fact from fiction, I've come to the Church of Scientology's massive new London HQ to talk to three of its leading British members - about their beliefs, primarily, but also about their reaction to the various controversies that swirl around this curious institution. Do they really believe in aliens? Why do they venerate Hubbard to the extent that he is mythologised and his achievements (to my eyes at least) embellished? Do they accept that free speech allows me the right to mock or is mild scepticism all I am allowed? And what's behind the hatred of psychiatry?

Keenan is one of my three guides. He is "Clear" and informs me that he has an IQ of 148 (Scientology claims to be able to raise a person's IQ; 148 is very high, just a little way behind Carol Vorderman). Now 47, his back pain is cured (a pleasant side effect of Dianetics, he says) and he has left the fire service behind him. Today he is director of the L Ron Hubbard Foundation which oversees Hubbard's vast literary legacy.

The others sitting round the table with me are 51-year-old Janet Laveau and 43-year-old North Berwick-born Graeme Wilson. Both have been Scientologists since their teens, Laveau entering the church while studying medicine in her native Canada, Wilson while a fresher at the University of Edinburgh in the early 1980s. He found Scientology via its Scottish centre which has operated from the same building on Edinburgh's South Bridge since 1968.

Wilson handles public affairs for the church and Laveau is head of external affairs for the UK. All three are based at the Saint Hill complex in East Grinstead in West Sussex, formerly Hubbard's home and now Scientology's UK administrative headquarters. The church claims 123,000 members in Britain and some 10 million worldwide, up two million from 1997. However, these figures are disputed. The most conservative third party estimates put the worldwide membership at 500,000, and some have it as low as 100,000.

Later I will also meet 27-year-old Mark Pinchin, a former drug addict who helps run the London centre. Dressed - like most of the 75 staff here - in a dark suit and red tie, he will show me the auditing rooms which contain the E-meters: face-and-dial contraptions that measure the body's electrical current. He will also show me the office that is set aside for L Ron Hubbard.

Every church has one of these and for some it's proof of yet another wacky Scientology belief - that Hubbard will return one day, that when he does he'll need a desk and a blotter and a comfy leather swivel chair, and that until then the room must stay hermetically sealed. In fact, it's open for all to see and, says Pinchin, intended simply as a celebration of Hubbard's achievements as a writer. And are people allowed in? "Of course," he says. "I mean someone has to clean it."

Finally, I'll see the shop where CD and book sets sell for up to £90. There are a lot of them - L Ron Hubbard completists would find Scientology an expensive habit to acquire.

First, though, let me rewind a couple of hours, to the moment I arrived outside the front door of number 146, Queen Victoria Street, formerly the home of BP and once the headquarters of the British and Foreign Bible Society but now adorned with the flag of St George and the logo of the Church of Scientology.

It's here that I need to take stock of the prejudice and bias I will check in at the door. I've promised Keenan, Laveau and Wilson a fair hearing. I want to find out what they believe. To do that I have to jettison the opinions about Scientology I've gleaned from watching South Park, from reading those biographies and newspaper articles, or from looking at the many websites that attack the church. I have to prepare myself for the possibility that everything I see might actually be true.

Getting inside Scientology's new multi-million pound centre was easier than I thought. I just rang up. No problem, they said. Come for lunch but be prepared to spend the day here. Fine, I countered, but for your part, be prepared to answer the complaints that have been levelled against the church over the years: of criminality, of avarice, of hypocrisy, of unwarranted hostility towards those who leave the church or attack it.

No problem, they said. Come at 11am.

So here I am outside. It's five minutes before the hour and my mind is open, my scepticism is in neutral and I'm as prepared as you can be for a Damascene conversion.

My tour begins with a series of audio-visual presentations promoting the church's secular activities, primarily Narconon and Criminon (drug and criminal rehabilitation programmes) and Applied Scholastics (an educational skills set based on lectures delivered by Hubbard at Saint Hill in 1964). Anyone can come in and watch these presentations, though nobody else does when I'm there. In fact, I see very few people during my time in the building.

I sit in an armchair beside Wilson who uses an on-screen display to bring up what is essentially a series of infomercials on the huge wall-mounted flatscreen TVs. From these I learn that Applied Scholastics aims to create a "new and literate civilisation on Earth" and that under current educational procedures "millions of children are forced into psychiatric tests". One American boy says he was cured of the dyslexia a psychiatrist told him he had, through his use of "study tech", an Applied Scholastics technique. Gambia's secretary of state for education is also seen praising Applied Scholastics.

Finally, Tom Cruise pops up, filmed giving a speech to celebrate the opening of Applied Scholastics International's headquarters in St Louis, Missouri. He talks fluently, charmingly and persuasively about the difference "study tech" made to him. He is long-haired and bearded. "Must have been when he was doing The Last Samurai," Wilson murmurs.

"Study tech" is as an educational system which addresses the problems of how to learn, rather them how to teach or how to shape a syllabus. There is a school in the UK - Greenfields in East Sussex. Founded in 1981 and with with annual fees of up to £13,956, the school's prospectus states that it is non-denominational and welcomes children from all faiths. But, it adds, "we do teach a non-religious moral code as a foundation for successful living - The Way To Happiness developed by L Ron Hubbard, noted educator, humanitarian and philosopher".

The Way To Happiness is made up of 21 precepts, things such as Love And Help Children, Be Worthy Of Trust and Be Competent. I watch an illustration of Be Competent which involves a young girl who wants to be a fencer. It ends with her winning some sort of Olympian accolade. Were it not for the cheesy muzak it could be a Nike ad.

The official position on these secular activities - Narconon, Criminon and Applied Scholastics - is that they simply use the teachings of L Ron Hubbard and are otherwise independent of the Church of Scientology. However, that didn't prevent Edinburgh University Students' Union (EUSA) stopping Narconon Scotland putting up posters advertising its services. The rationale behind the move was that the union couldn't be sure Narconon was, in the words of EUSA's then vice-president Mark Calder, "independent".

"We carried out research which showed it has strong links with Scientology," Calder said at the time. "We were also concerned that this link was not made explicit so a decision was made to take the posters down."

The audio-visual presentation lasts for well over an hour. I have to say it drags a little, though I do enjoy the film about Venezualean Scientologists Audrey Cabrera and Ruddy Rodriguez. It seems it was only the personal intervention of these indomitable women that prevented the country falling into anarchy during and after the 2002 coup attempt against president Hugo Chavez. There's even a picture of the women meeting him, alongside other images of them handing out copies of The Way To Happiness.

And so we come full circle: I'm eating lunch at a round table in an ante room with the blinds pulled down; Keenan is telling me about the Royal Marines, serving his country, about his bad back and his being "an inquisitive bugger".

Time, though, for an inquisition of my own. I mention South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker's ribald animated series about Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman, four schoolboys in the eponymous Colorado town. In episode 912 of series nine, screened in America on the Comedy Central channel in November 2005, the Church of Scientology gets the satirical equivalent of a happy-slapping. Former soul singer Isaac Hayes, who played Chef in the series and is a Scientologist, quit as a result and because of the controversy Comedy Central was forced to cancel a planned repeat in March 2006.

Keenan has seen the offending episode, but for those such as Laveau who haven't, it involves Stan taking a personality test and being told he is depressed. He raises the $240 he is told he needs for auditing and is then discovered to be the reincarnation of L Ron Hubbard. Tom Cruise turns up but hides in a closet when Stan says Leonardo DiCaprio and Gene Hackman are better actors.

The president of the Church of Scientology also arrives and reveals to Stan the innermost secrets of Scientology. These involve an intergalactic federation of planets ruled over by the evil Lord Xenu, frozen alien bodies and giant soul catchers in the sky. An onscreen caption reads: "This is what Scientologists actually believe."

The inspiration for this is supposed to derive from an official church document which is only shown to those who reach the level of Operating Thetan III, one of the levels above Clear in the church hierarchy. But is it what Scientologists actually believe? "You mean the science fiction stuff?" laughs Keenan. "It's not part of any theology you will study in the church. "This science fiction material that they continually take out of books is a classic example of the marginalising of the group. It's a sectophobic viewpoint trying to create the idea that we're a bit weird."

It works. But to be sure I ask the question again: so you definitely don't believe in the intergalactic war, in Xenu, in the volcanoes and soul catchers?

"That is not part of the theology of Scientology," says Keenan. Laveau, who has achieved Operating Thetan level III, chips in here. "South Park is a cartoon," she says dismissively. "On this whole subject of aliens, I did a test: Mr Hubbard has written 3000 lectures on Scientology and I've looked in all the indexes for the word alien. I found it once and that was in reference to a person from a different country."

Official Scientology biographies are at variance with the story of L Ron Hubbard's life as told in books such as Bare-faced Messiah by former Sunday Times journalist Russell Miller. "I've read all the Russell Miller crap," says Keenan. "I think the guy was misled, personally. I read it and I thought Where's your evidence? What are you trying to say?'."

He is equally dismissive of every other biography that questions the Church-sanctioned view of Hubbard's life. "The evidence they tend to have is often ambiguous and often has a viewpoint attached to it. I understood that and I set out to find out what people who knew him say."

Keenan has spent four years working on a documentary about Hubbard in conjunction with author Dan Sherman. He has travelled the world, he says, tracking down people who knew Hubbard, "people who aren't scientologists, everyone from nuclear scientists in America to Indians in Guam. I've found people we thought were dead. I've had the weirdest experiences."

Such as? He tells me about a former CIA recruiter he met in Washington DC who claimed he saw Hubbard coming out of a restricted area of the Pentagon sometime in the 1950s. Hubbard, says Keenan, was working for US naval intelligence. "When we talk about Hubbard's history the first thing people say is, where's the evidence?' Well we've got the evidence. I've got rooms bigger than this, full of evidence of what Hubbard was doing, including his wartime history, what he was doing in Australia with naval intelligence, what he was doing up in Alaska when he was chasing a spy up there who J Edgar Hoover was looking for."

As for the discrepancies in Hubbard's war record - most biographers claim he never saw active service with the US navy, was twice relieved of command and once shot up Mexico by mistake - Keenan has his own explanation. "I have in my possession five different records issued by five different departments in the military that say five different things about his war record. Not written by him or by us but by different departments."

And the reason? "Sheep dipping." Excuse me? "Sheep dipping. It's a standard intelligence procedure - you create several records for someone so that you can't get the clear picture. Hubbard used to say, I always told the lesser tale because I don't think a lot of people would believe me.'"

When I start talking about psychiatry, however, the mood changes. Answers become shrill and the subject seems to elicit a Pavlovian response - ironic given Scientology's dismissal of stimulus-response behaviour. It's true that psychiatry has a serious case to answer and their long campaign against Ritalin is now being echoed in the mainstream media where concerns about its use are mounting. They have also campaigned against Seroxat and Prozac. Yet it's the manner of that campaigning and the single-minded pursuit of this one subject that I find confusing.

Finally, I mention the "make a million, start a religion" maxim which is often attributed by Hubbard, and taken by knockers as proof that Hubbard developed the theology of Scientology simply to make money.

"George Orwell," my companions chorus. Wilson leaves the room and returns with a photocopied excerpt from volume one of the Collected Essays, Journalism And Letters Of George Orwell (there will be several more of these handouts over the course of our lunch as the refutations continue). It is a letter from Orwell (signed Eric Blair) to Jack Common, dated February 16 1938. "I've always thought there might be a lot of cash in starting a new religion," he writes. "We'll talk it over sometime."

"I'm sick of it," says Keenan. "The only evidence that ever came out was two guys at a science fiction convention who said they heard Hubbard saying it. What they could have heard was Hubbard quoting it."

Actually, that isn't the only evidence. A lengthy and well-researched article by Rolling Stone's Janet Reitman in 2006 dug up the autobiography of science fiction writer Lloyd Eshbach. In it, Eshbach claims Hubbard said the same thing to him in the late 1940s. Hubbard's estranged son, Ron DeWolf, said in a 1983 interview with Penthouse magazine that he too heard those sentiments from his father. Ultimately, however, it is unprovable. As claim and counter-claim flash around the world - and, increasingly, the internet - perhaps it's not that easy to separate fact from fiction.

Some facts are beyond dispute, of course: for instance, Mr Justice Latey's judicial conclusion in a case before the family division of the Royal Courts of Justice on July 23 1984 that "Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious. In my opinion it is corrupt, sinister and dangerous"; or the fact that in 1979 nine high-ranking Scientologists - including Hubbard's then-wife - were convicted of breaking into government offices and stealing official documents.

"Yes we've had our fair share of bad apples," says Keenan. "Of that there is no doubt. And we've expelled them when we found them out." The church has changed, he says. So why were there still people protesting outside this very building when it opened last October?

"There were four of them," says Keenan. "What about the eight million people in London who don't have a problem with Scientology?" Why were there even four then? "Maybe they've heard that somewhere, sometime, someone got upset with Scientology and they're fighting their cause. I don't know."

Laveau interjects. "Some of these guys who show up are paid. We've been told." Paid by who? "We've never found out." Why do you think you get such a bad press generally then? "We'd like to know sometimes," says Keenan. "Obviously, we're going to say to you Hubbard never said this, obviously, we're going to say to you Scientology's good. But at what point do we start to make sense? Here's a thought: what if Scientology has been maligned to stop certain areas of society - those who need drug rehabilitation, education - receiving something that would not be in the vested interests of others? What if one of the only natural drug rehabilitation programmes actually did work? Who would that upset? We don't have multi-million pound budgets to go lobbying governments."

Don't you? I thought the church was rich. You have to pay for auditing, the church seems to be run like a business and one of the major complaints against it is that it is simply a money-making enterprise aimed at enriching its top executives. Time Magazine, for one, inclined to this view in a notorious cover story published on May 6 1991 with the strapline: "How the growing Dianetics empire squeezes millions from believers worldwide." And then there's this building, a new building in Berlin Keenan sighs, as if he is weary of answering this question. "I wish I knew where this f***ing money was "

Laveau tells me that several faiths charge for particular ceremonies or even for rent of a pew, and reels off a list of Christian denominations, such as the Mormons, which expect followers to tithe a part of their earnings to their church.

And so we roll on like this for more than two hours. Mostly Keenan, Wilson and Laveau are reasonable in their answers. I find some of their more grandiose claims for Hubbard a little hard to take but I'm aware that his critics are just as selective with their use of the facts. It's their stand on psychiatry that I find most baffling. Why not get exercised about the arms trade too? Or the environment? Or globalisation? How about landmines, child soldiers, prostitution, the rainforest?

Back in Scotland, I speak to Dr Steven Sutcliffe, a lecturer in religion and society at the University of Edinburgh, who says the Scientologists' apparent fixation on Hubbard is not that unusual. "Most religions have a very revere

Share this story on: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | NowPublic | Yahoo!

   

Posted by: James Lightfield, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA on 12:00pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Mr. Didcock,

Amazing. It appears (because no mention was made) that you wrote an article about Scientology without even taking the time to listen to Hubbard’s lecture, The Story of Dianetics and Scientology (http://classics.goldeneraproductions.org/en_US/index.html) or see Hubbard’s 45 minute “Introduction to Scientology” interview. It is the only interview he ever did. Filmed in 1966, it has been remastered into DVD format.

Apparently you did not even bother to read one chapter of Hubbard’s first book on Dianetics that is posted at: http://www.dianetics-theevolutionofascience.org/

What possible way can a person understand Scientology (an APPLIED religious philosophy) without at least some first hand experience? I suggest you go to www.ScientologyHandbook.org, select the chapter on Assists for Illnesses and Injuries. Study it with a friend and do some of the exercises.

Studies of Scientology were done by world renowned theologians and religious scholars regarding Scientology and are posted at http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/07/index.htm. Did you read any?

A writer writes an article for an important newspaper about a subject, and the article is based solely upon opinions, Scientologists and non-Scientologists.
Posted by: Arnie Lerma, arlington virginia usa on 4:13pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Plug any of the keywords in the article above into the search engine at http://www.lermanet.com and you will find multiple testimonies of the truth.

4118 files collected over ten years.

Enjoy!

PS: Even L Ron Hubbard said that Scientology was not a religion.
http://www.lermanet.com/LRonHubbard2.htm

PPS: Oh yeah, and the XENU story is real see
http://www.lermanet.com/xenu-in-southpark-is-real.htm

Posted by: James Lightfield on 4:49pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Being a good Christian and a Scientologist

This newspaper article about a Chrisitian who preaches the Gospel on his weekly radio show and who is also a Scientologist may answer a question that some have.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/features/5904706.html

In the newspaper article title, "BR" refers to the city of Baton Rouge, in the Louisiana (a southern state in the US)
Posted by: Dave Touretzky, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA on 6:46pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Scientologists routinely lie about their beliefs, especially the space alien stuff. But top Scientology officials have testified under oath in open court that Xenu the evil space alien is part of their "advanced spiritual technology". Read what Warren McShane, President of their Religious Technology Center, told the court about this:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII

Posted by: Bob, Wyoming, USA on 7:24pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Scientology is a evil, money-making scam... now that I have that out of the way, will you please post the entire story!

It's truncated at:
"... Hubbard is not that unusual. "Most religions have a very revere"
Posted by: Formerly Fooled, Eastern USA on 7:52pm Sat 17 Feb 07
To the Sunday Herald readers of the christian and or Presbyterian faith, the renowned Rev. Ian Brown said it best in his sermon:
Scientology - The Great Sci-Fi Scam!

"One of the most outrageous fables of this modern times is the teaching of Scientology"

This Audio Sermon by Rev. Ian Brown
Scientology - The Great Sci-Fi Scam!
Londonderry Free Presbyterian Church
In this message, both the:
1. BACKGROUND and
2. BELIEFS
of this unscriptural cult are examined.
It begins:
"In an age when Hollywood stars such as Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstie Alley and Lisa Marie Presley champion the cause of Scientology before the minds of our young people, God's people need to be equipped with facts that expose it."
Brief Sermon Overview from Rev. Brown's sermonaudio.com web site:

"The apostles give us clear warning against turning our back on the truth of the Word of God and following after fables."
(1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14)

They also assure us that, in delivering the Word of God to us, they did not delve into the realm of fantasy or fiction (2 Peter 1:16).

Scientology – The Great Sci-Fi Scam! Rev Ian Brown • Major Deceptions Of Our Day • 24 min 1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 4:4; 2 Peter 1:16

Play Audio! (Streaming) · 24 minutes
Download MP3 (2.9MB) •
http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=9905194113
I found tyhis sermon on the internet. Here is how one can reach Rev. Ian Brown:
Londonderry Free Presbyterian Church
Lisnagelvin Road
Londonderry, Northern Ireland BT47 1QX

Many thanks to Rev. Ian Brown for permission to link to his excellent sermon to my blog
http://free-from-scientology.blogspot.com
Posted by: Artoo 45, California, USA on 9:57pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Until you've been on the receiving end of a disconnect or black PR campaign, you can't believe that these happy, kind folks (public $cientologists) could be representing anything more sinister than a knitting club. Hubbard's paranoia lives on in the organization he spawned.
Posted by: Roxie, U.S. on 10:17pm Sat 17 Feb 07
How nice for Mr. Keenan that Dianetics has cured his back pain. I recently learned of a lifelong Scientologist in his thirties who's been diagnosed with osteoporosis and suffers terribly from back pain because of it. Why hasn't Dianetics cured him? I expect he's been told that Dianetics hasn't failed him, that he's the one who failed--that he "pulled it in" or is associating with Suppressive Persons or isn't getting enough auditing or needs some rundown or other. Maybe that's true...but it's remarkable how Scientologists always credit Scientology for their gains but never blame it for their losses. If you read past issues of Scientology's Celebrity magazine, for instance, you often see actors enthusiastically recounting how they won a part because of some Scientology course they took. But if the actor's career takes a nosedive, Celebrity never reports on it!
Posted by: Benny Lloyd, London on 10:56pm Sat 17 Feb 07
Having done OTIII with the Church of Scientology at Saint Hill, I can confirm that "intergalactic war, Xenu, the volcanoes and soul catchers?" is most definitely a vital element of OTIII
Posted by: Benny Llyoyd, London on 11:07pm Sat 17 Feb 07
I was a Scientologist from 1970 to 1982.

The people interviewed in this article are not giving an accurate picture of the Church of Scientolgy. You get a more honest view of it by watching the South Park episode referred to or visiting the ex-scientologist forum at http://www.forum.exscn.net
Posted by: James Lightfield, Philadelphia, PA, USA on 11:33pm Sat 17 Feb 07
For nearly 40 years, I have read similar nay-saying. He said / she said. How very tedious and boring.

If anything, the last 2,000 years have clearly shown that there are those (a small percentage) who in leaving a religion give their lives to attacking their former group.

That's there right. As is the right of a person who can thinks for him/herself to evaluate a subject from the use of it.

Scientology is an APPLIED religious philosophy.

You learn and apply skills, and come to your own conclusions. Rather simple.

An easy way (in the privacy of one's own home) is to visit www.ScientologyHandbook.org and
select a chapter that interests and apply some of the "how-to" methods developed by Hubbard.

How this applies in the world in general, see:
www.ABLE.org.

If you're interested in breakthrough discoveries related to the mind and how it affects a person, read online the book (or any chapter) of Dianetics: Evolution of a Science at:
http://www.dianetics-theevolutionofascience.org/

Of course, for those who might be concerned about the wholesale drugging of children through the efforts of the psychiatric and drug industries (worldwide revenue in 2005 was $2 TRILLION USD, visit:
www.cchr.org
Posted by: James Lightfield on 11:36pm Sat 17 Feb 07
My 2nd paragraph should have read:
"That's their right. As is the right of a person who can think for him/herself to evaluate a subject through the use of it."
Posted by: Benny Lloyd, London on 11:56pm Sat 17 Feb 07
As a scientologist, when you get to OTIII in your spiritual counselling, you have to believe in Xenu, intergalactic aliens, entrapment of spiritual beings in volcanoes on earth, and electonic implantation of the being with images and emotions. If you don't subscribe to these ideas, then you cannot continue with your counselling.

As referred to above, Scientology officials have testified under oath in open court that Xenu the evil space alien is part of their "advanced spiritual technology".

This is testimony, undisputed by the church of scientology, therefore the interviewees in the article are either lying or they have not achieved OTIII yet and these things are being kept secret from then by their church.

Mr Lightfield is simply trying to obscure the criticism, but those of us who know about these things will calmly continue to state the undisputed facts.
Posted by: T Anthony, canada on 7:10am Sun 18 Feb 07
Interesting article Barry. The answer to your question concerning Psychiatry is contained in the book "Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler" by Roder, Kubillus, Burwell. Also read books by Dr. Thomas Szasz. If you can stomach barbaric and inhuman actions by an entire quasi-medical group, read those books. Thanks for the article. I learned a few things.
Posted by: Wax-Q on 7:35am Sun 18 Feb 07
"Scientologists routinely lie about their beliefs"?? Wow.

Could the bigotry be any more blatant?

Scientology doesn't frighten me. Xenu allegations don't frighten me. Bigots do.

These rabid Anti-Scientologists display every bit of the cult-like behavior, paranoia, and inhumanity they accuse Scientology of. If you handed one of these cranks a button and told them that pushing it would make every Scientologist cease to exist, they'd push it in a heartbeat. Oh yes, they would. And they'd rationalize to themselves that they did it for the "good of mankind".
Posted by: wee folding bike, Scotland on 7:40am Sun 18 Feb 07
Huh, there's no Messiah in here. There's a mess, all right, but no Messiah. Now, go away!

Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!

Now don't do it again.
Posted by: Roxie, U.S. on 9:31am Sun 18 Feb 07
Wax-Q, how do you know what anyone (besides yourself) would do "if you handed one of these cranks a button and told them that pushing it would make every Scientologist cease to exist"? How arrogant of you to claim to know what total strangers would do, and to presume that people who are critical of the Church of Scientology would blithely end the lives of its members! You clearly don't appreciate sweeping generalizations being made about Scientologists, yet you are willing to make them about critics.
Posted by: AF, New York, NY on 9:52am Sun 18 Feb 07
Wax-Q, when was the last time one of these "rabid Anti-Scientologists" framed a Scientologist for a bomb threat that never happened? You know, like the Scientologists' "Operation Freakout"?

Or when did any anti-Scientology group break into and infiltrate more than 100 government agencies, stealing information from private files, bugging meetings, inserting false documents into files? You know, like Scientology's "Operation Snow White", the reason why eleven senior Church of Scientology executives including Hubbard's own wife served federal prison sentences?

The fact is that Scientologists are "accused of" cult-like behavior, paranoia, and inhumanity because they have such a long history of it. You can speak very glibly about how anti-Scientologists would, "in a heartbeat", make use of some theoretical "make-all-Scientologists-cease-to-exist" button. (Can you tell us how you would know such a thing? Without resorting to "We Scientologists are so brilliant that we can tell for a fact what people who aren't us would do in completely imaginary hypothetical situations" and the like, I mean.) You can demonize the "Anti-Scientologists" all day long but was it the anti-Scientologists who said that their enemies could freely be "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed"? No, that was L. Ron Hubbard, laying out the "Fair Game" doctrine. Was it the anti-Scientologists who told themselves they knew how to measure how "spiritually alive" a person was -- and that the solution for those who were measured low according to this dubious test should be "to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow"? No, sorry, L. Ron Hubbard again. (Why did he say the low scorers should be disposed of? Why, for the "good of mankind", of course. "The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered.")

If you want to see "cult-like behavior, paranoia and inhumanity" then I suggest Googling on the phrase "dirty little gnat with secrets".
Posted by: Jens Tingleff, Cambridge, UK on 10:42am Sun 18 Feb 07
How very authoritative of the $cientology spokespersons to say that biographies of L Ron Hubbard are merely say-so. Perhaps the readers would like to actually read one of these sources and learn that they are based on first-hand evidence (of how, for instance, L Ron Hubbard kidnapped his daughter and ran away to Cuba with her in order to obtain a divorce). "Bare Faced Messiah" is available on the Internet.

But I believe that the spokespersons themselves should have last word (I'm one of the guys show show up to demonstrate, although I missed the demo in question) : 'Laveau interjects. "Some of these guys who show up are paid. We've been told."'
Posted by: Jens Tingleff, Cambridge, UK on 11:53am Sun 18 Feb 07


About pushing a button and causing people to cease to exist, perhaps one of the $cientologists would like to explain how many people are to be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow?"

http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/dispose.htm

Quote from around page 100 of Science of Survival by L Ron Hubbard, ISBN 0884044181, available in all $cientology shops:

"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."

The reason that XENU and the aliens are important is not that belief in them is funny. The reason is that the aliens are the motivation behind many of the $cientology obsessions, e.g. with psychiatry.

http://www.solitarytrees.net/cowen/misc/psywar.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry

So, while I believe that "Wax-Q" is merely pretending to be mortally afraid of critics, I equally have a good idea about where he got the inspiration for his ghastly visions: the psychosis of L Ron Hubbard as indoctrinated into the victims which are his followers.
Posted by: John Lootprun, France on 1:17pm Sun 18 Feb 07
For a clear view of scientology look at the url below. You may learn some interesting things.
http://www.xenu.net/
Posted by: Benny Lloyd, London on 2:48pm Sun 18 Feb 07
Those posting here attacking Sciemtolgy critics are simply following Hubbard's policy of never defending and always attacking. Their silly posts are simply efforts to distract attention from their church's lies.

The truth is that OTIII IS about aliens and trapping them in volcanoes. The spokespeople in the article are either lying or are having the OTIII secrets hidden from them by their senior members of the church.

If this point about OTIII is inaccurate in the article, then you have to ask yourself what else that these spokespeople answered may be innaccurate or outright lies.
Posted by: Wax-Q on 5:51pm Sun 18 Feb 07
Anyone who does a Google search will find that there are dozens of anti-Catholic sites on the net. These hate sites use the same tactics and motivation as the anti-Scientology sites. They're composed of armchair know-nothings and disgruntled ex-members lashing out in anger because they didn't get their way about everything. These are the type of people who always have to be RIGHT. They dig for gossip, rumors, dirt, and outright lies in an effort to try to tear down someone's else's hard work that they're secretly jealous of.

Most of the anti-Catholic sites love to take out of context any wrongdoing by any Catholic anywhere and try to claim that it reflects the entire church and somehow "proves" their bigoted claim that Catholics are evil. The Anti-Scientology nuts do the exact same thing: they set forth a mentally ill conspiracy theory that Scientology is evil, then go hunting for things that bolster their theory.... and when they finally manage to find controversies related to a specific Scientologist or a specific local office, they blame the entire Church from the top on down, and their conclusion is that this somehow "proves" their quack hypothesis.

I propose that Anti-Scientology has become a cult unto itself: a small group of angry little people with way too much free time who all have their little conspiracy-theory sites that all link to each other and all chat with each other and all edit Wikipedia together and live in a self-created fantasy world where they're "heroic cult fighters" saving the planet from that evilwickedbad Scientology. I face FAR more of a frighteningly cultic close-minded worldview from these people than I do any Scientologist I have ever met.
Posted by: Kilia on 6:03pm Sun 18 Feb 07
Scientologists- you're living in a non-existing world! WAKE UP!!
Posted by: JeraldR on 8:23pm Sun 18 Feb 07
Wax Q,

Try as hard as you might the court and public records on the xenu sites stand on their own. Do you think every site critical to scientology is a hate site?
Critic's don't care what the members of scientology belive in. The do however care about the bad action's and crimes scientology has commited. Why can't you grasp that?

It looks like you are the one here acting like a bigot. Lumpping all critic's into one group. Even your own blog site is full of hatefulness and nasty name calling.

For someone who claims not to be a member of scientology you seem to be deep into it. If it's so great why are you not a member?

Posted by: Becky, Liverpool, NY, USA on 3:15am Mon 19 Feb 07
Well whatever good may be in Scientology it seems like to much of a money making venture for it to be good for most people. I am not aware that Scientology does anything to help the world at large. I don't think they feed the homeless, look out for the earth's environment or anything else good like that.

If I had to choose a new religion based on a work of fiction I would go with Matrixism . It seems to care more about helping the world.
Posted by: AF, New York, NY on 3:17am Mon 19 Feb 07
Well, Wax-Q, "when they finally manage to find controversies related to a specific (member of the group), they blame (the entire group) from the top on down, and their conclusion is that this somehow 'proves' their quack hypothesis" is just about the best description I've ever heard for Scientology's campaign to, in the words of David Miscavige, "eliminate psychiatry in all its forms". It was, after all, Hubbard himself who instructed his followers "We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one." Well, that sure sounds like "They dig for gossip, rumors, dirt, and outright lies in an effort to try to tear down someone's else's hard work that they're secretly jealous of." Fits to a tee the description of 'setting forth a mentally ill conspiracy theory that something is evil, then going hunting for things that bolster that theory.'

But as regards Scientology, well, if you've done your homework on Operation Snow White, you know that that conspiracy did go all the way to the very top of Scientology, with L. Ron Hubbard himself listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. It makes it a bit ridiculous for you to dismiss as "close-minded" any suggestion that there might actually be something wrong with Scientology.
Posted by: Jens Tingleff, Cambridge, UK on 8:34am Mon 19 Feb 07
Well, "Wax-Q," the next time you see Graeme Wilson perhaps you should ask him how much trouble $cientologists get into when they lie about critics. Bonnie Woods collected six-digits figure pounds in compensation when the $cientology organisation surrendered on the steps of the High Court.

The Times Wednesday 6th June 1999, "Today in the High Court, Scientology totally capitulated in the libel case brought by ex-member Bonnie Woods, settling for the following conditions: A profuse apology was read out in open court by Scientology's counsel, officially acknowledging that hurtful statements made about Bonnie were untrue."

Not that the $cientology organisation cares one way or the other about winning or losing court cases. The important thing was that they had made Bonnie Woods spend six years in and out of court, in accordance with L Ron Hubbard's edict to use the courts to "ruin him utterly." any critics.

Jens
"The Scientologist - A Manual on the Dissemination of Material," L Ron Hubbard, 1951 version.
Posted by: Wax-Q on 3:56pm Mon 19 Feb 07
Becky: you said you weren't aware of Scientology doing anything to help the world at large? Please peruse these sites:

http://www.volunteerministers.org/
http://www.theta.com/
http://www.helpcommunity.org/
http://www.cbaa.org/
http://www.worldliteracy.org/
http://www.able.org/


"AF", I don't think there's anything paranoid in the least about opposing psychiatry. There's absolutely no basis for defending it unless you honestly think those people have a right to experiment with our brains. I don't. Incidentally, there are MANY anti-psychiatry and anti-pharmaceutical organizations out there who have nothing to do with Scientology whatsoever - it's not something that only the Church is espousing. Psychiatry is increasingly distrusted by Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike.

Jens, I'm not a member of the Church so I can't speak for them. Speaking for myself, I think if anyone wants to attack the Church in an overzealous way (stalkerly "protest vigils", handing out anti-Scientology leaflets filled with lies, running an anti-Scientology telephone hotline), then you should be prepared to accept a taste of your own medicine. The fact that the Church chose to stop pursuing the matter - even though they had a good case against her - proves your own claim wrong that they wanted to "ruin her utterly". They made their point for awhile, and then withdrew. They could have kept the matter tied up in court for the rest of her life if they really wanted to be malicious about it.
Posted by: Kilia on 4:16pm Mon 19 Feb 07
"Becky: you said you weren't aware of Scientology doing anything to help the world at large? Please peruse these sites:

http://www.volunteerministers.org/
http://www.theta.com/
http://www.helpcommunity.org/
http://www.cbaa.org/
http://www.worldliteracy.org/
http://www.able.org/ "
==========================
Wax-Q,

The sites you list and ALL sites run by the CoS lie in their teeth! Known fact!!

They *HAVE* to lie to get unwary people involved with the church, because they have nothing else that's decent to offer.

Posted by: Wax-Q on 4:28pm Mon 19 Feb 07
That's not a very intelligent or informational response. Do you have anything more substantial than just shrieking "Known fact!!", etc.?

You know, like proof?


Posted by: moontaco, USA on 4:58pm Mon 19 Feb 07
Gee, Wax-Q, wouldn't it have been much easier for you and more helpful to the reader if you'd simply given the url to your blog, where you list way over 100 links to sites run by the Church of Scientology? (I stopped counting at 100!) I'm guessing that at least 50 of them are devoted to helping the world at large. And even if there aren't that many listed on your blog, you still give this enticing invitation: "Let me know if you want more, there's plenty where this came from...."

Posted by: Wax-Q on 5:57pm Mon 19 Feb 07
I preferred to give direct URLs of Church sites rather than send the reader on a side trip through my own. And also because some heckler would no doubt say I'm only trying to promote my own blog. But since you brought the matter up anyway, here 'tis:

http://stabledatum.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Greg, Las Vegas on 6:29pm Mon 19 Feb 07
Interesting.
I think I get the MO of this thread. Anything posted by a Scientology-hater *must be* "known fact. Anything posted by a Scientologist *must be* lies.
What a classic example of "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
Posted by: AF, New York, NY on 6:39pm Mon 19 Feb 07
Wax-Q, I didn't say there was something paranoid about opposing psychiatry. I said there was something paranoid about either assuming without proof that every psychiatrist in England was guilty of "a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one", or considering it acceptable to frame every psychiatrist in England for such crimes. Would you like to try and argue that either of those is not paranoid, and not a close match for your description of 'setting forth a mentally ill conspiracy theory that something is evil, then going hunting for things that bolster that theory'?

As far as the Volunteer Ministers being something Scientology does that betters the world, that's open to question, isn't it? In 2006 the BBC played tapes of Volunteer Ministers taking credit for actively preventing victims from getting help from "psychs" after the 2005 London bombings. Yes, there are plenty of organizations who question and oppose psychiatry. How many of them go to that extreme, actively trying to deny trauma victims the assistance of any psychiatrist?
Posted by: John, Espinol on 6:43pm Mon 19 Feb 07
The claim by scientologists that Scientology does not deal with "sci-fi" or "aliens" is a bloody lie. It may be true that the word "alien" is only mentioned once in selected thousands of pages of Scientology materials. But Scientology is chock-a-block full of space opera material.
Get a copy of 'History of Man' by L. Ron Hubbard. It makes for some very entretaining reading.


Posted by: charlotte, Berkshire on 7:03pm Mon 19 Feb 07

I was one of the four picketers that the scientologists speak of in the interview, i cant believe that they whent on record and said they think i am being paid to protest against them! I wish, then i could quit my day job. Typical church thinking. Anyone not for us, MUST be in the pay of the "Evil Psychs!"

The truth is i simply recognise a con when i see one. This one just happens to call itself a religion.
If the "science fiction" about xenu that they mock were not part of church teachings, then the church could simply sue the creators of south park for liebel and win millions. I suggest they try if that is the case.




Posted by: Jens Tingleff, Cambridge, UK on 8:06pm Mon 19 Feb 07
"Wax-Q," your insight into the cases brought by Bonnie Woods against the $cientology organisation impresses me. The organisation was being sued by Bonnie Woods and "capitulated completely." I suppose that counts as stopping pursuing the matter - to someone who only reads $cientology websites. Your statement - as fact - that the organisation "had a good case" against her is something to cherish. You could mention what that case was, you know, if you didn't limit yourself to broad generalities...

"Wax-Q," don't be shy about the really bad things that psychiatrists have done! They did, after all, invent "pain and sex" as control mechanisms. This was, of course, on another planet, a long time ago... This according to L Ron Hubbard, in a HCOB (that's a "religious scripture" in $cientology) not in a science-fiction story.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/versus.htm

The $cientology organisation teaches some of its members to lie. The "training Routine Lying," or TR-L, indoctrination programme is available in a notified copy for use on TV or in court ( ;-) ) or on the Web at http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/trs/tr-l.htm

To "Wax-Q" and "Greg:" Maybe you would like to share one inaccurate statement made in any of the references given, or any piece of writing incorrectly attributed to L Ron Hubbard on the websites given so far. You know you can do it - don't just spout generalities!

LOL
Posted by: Jens Tingleff, Cambridge, UK on 8:32pm Mon 19 Feb 07
"Wax-Q," since you've decided to blacken Bonnie Woods' good name in a public forum, I think it's fair to give the address showing some of the documents that she says vindicates her.

http://www.escapeint.org/legal/legal_section.htm

Posted by: Wax-Q on 9:39pm Mon 19 Feb 07
Oh, please, Jens, wipe the foam from the sides of your mouth. I haven't "blackened her name". I don't even know this person. What I said about her is strictly based on what I've read in mainstream media news reports of her public court case.

The media said she held protest vigils outside Scientology churches and handed out anti-Scientology leaflets. It just happens to be my personal opinion that I find any form of "protest vigil" to be inherently stalkerly, whether it's outside an abortion clinic, a person's home, a factory, or a Church. I simply don't approve of such confrontational tactics, whether done by this Bonnie Woods person or by anyone else (including Scientologists). Likewise, it's my personal opinion that any anti-Scientology pamphlet automatically contains lies because there's nothing damningly negative about the Church that can't be explained. There is literally no good reason for any informed person to be anti-Scientology.

And would I ever picket or protest outside an organization I oppose, like, say, a psychiatrist's office? No. That's simply not my style. I realize there are plenty of Scientologists who disagree with me on this matter, and that's fine. I personally think standing on sidewalks holding a crudely painted protest sign is a quaint ritual whose time has passed.

I don't want to see anyone harassed or unhappy. Not Bonnie Woods. Not the Church of Scientology. I want everyone to be happy. I want everyone to get along.
Posted by: AF, New York, NY on 2:05am Tue 20 Feb 07
"Likewise, it's my personal opinion that any anti-Scientology pamphlet automatically contains lies because there's nothing damningly negative about the Church that can't be explained."

Well, I can honestly say that I'm surprised. Not so much by your attitude, so much as the fact that you admitted to it. I think it's good that you did, though; it lets everyone know that when you say "there's nothing wrong with the Church of Scientology", it's not because you looked at the evidence and then came to that conclusion; it's because you decided you wanted to come to that conclusion and applied that filter to even evidence you haven't laid eyes on.
Posted by: Jens Tingleff, Cambridge, UK on 6:42am Tue 20 Feb 07
Oh, come on, "Wax-Q!" Surely you can mention one specific lie about $cientology from a leaflet distributed by Bonnie Woods. Or any other leaflet distributed at anti-$cientology protests.

Here is one of the leaflets we use: http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/

Again, the $cientology organisation has perhaps provided the inspiration for your uninformed spouting of generalities. The leaflet that they published about Bonnie Woods certainly had lies in it, and the organisation admitted as much in their apology as they "stopped pursuing the matter further" to use you own silly phrase.

(Hey, "Wax-Q," do you think that if I sue the $cientology organisation that they would "stop pursuing the matter" and pay me 155.000 pounds? - LOL!!)

They lied in public, were found out, and paid up in the High Court.

Have they learned a lesson since then? Well, they're telling reporters that "Some of these guys who show up are paid." If that had come from a purportedly reliable source that could well be libel. Since it comes from a $cientology spokesperson, it's a badge of honour :-)
Posted by: Wax-Q on 2:26pm Tue 20 Feb 07
So much for civil discourse. I have no problem answering these questions from civil people, but I will not entertain insulting and condescending questions posed by bigots who insert dollar signs into the word Scientology. You'll have to play your wannabe-prosecuting-attorney fantasy roleplay with someone else, sorry.
Posted by: Jens Tingleff, Cambridge, UK on 6:43am Wed 21 Feb 07
Aawh, "Wax-Q," so you're not going to consider me more than a "rabid Anti-Scientologist" after all?

At least your paranoia seems to have subsided to the point where you're merely afraid of me inserting $ in $cientology as opposed to your fantasy of critics wanting to do away with all $cientologists.

LOL!!

Anything to avoid an on-topic discussion. Heber Jentzsch, the president of $cientology at the time, was quite frankly not afraid to appear to be out of his mind, if he could stop relevant discussion of the $cientology space-opera extra-terrestrial ghost exorcism, on a radio show. Look for KFI radio show linked to on this page.

http://www.holysmoke.org/heber/heber.htm

Your inability to answer simple direct questions is not missed by the general public, I assure you.

There. I'll let you have the last word, and in plenty of time for Thursday 2pm.
Posted by: Xenu on 1:30pm Wed 21 Feb 07
Check out the following sites:

http://gerryarmstrong.org
http://www.xenu.net


**
Posted by: Raymond Hill, Quebec, Canada on 4:04pm Wed 21 Feb 07
Dear 'Wax-Q', how do you feel about the conduct of the Church of Scientology leader, David Miscavige, who stated to an audience in London that "a woman is safer in a park at midnight than on a psychiatrist's couch," while "backed by savage graphics of psychiatrists being machine-gunned out of existence."

I find this very concerning. Does that make me a 'bigot'?

Reference:
Evening Standard, Oct. 2006, David Cohen.
Full article at:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20061023/ai_n16798948/pg_1
Posted by: roger gonnet, Lyon, France on 7:15pm Wed 21 Feb 07
No problem with scientology: it's the most criminal and most persuasive fraud of the last century. So, when i read that a scientologists says that nobody who has not listened a Hubbard lecture has no right to describe what he reads from that cult, I explode in laughters!

Scientology is a fraud, one of the most massoive ever perpetuated since one millenium. It'll finish with its wwide leaders in jail (its founder was already convicted in France for fraud and extortion to 4 years unsuspended + amend).
Posted by: Peter Schilte, Vierlingsbeek, The Netherlands on 7:54am Sun 25 Feb 07
Davey Miscavige showed during the Newyears Eve Event a picture of a handgrenade. Then he showed a picture of the explosion of a handgrenade, followed by a picture of the word "Obliteration", all refering to psychiatrists. Now, isn't that something a real religion is supposed to do? Putting out deadthreats to their selfinvented enemies?
Public scientologists don't know **** about their own leaders, not even about Hubbard! All they know are the lies they are beeing told.
I have one, simple question: what are the results of over 50 years of Scientology in "clearing the planet"? The only results I can see are thousands of indoctrinated and scammed members and huge amounts of money flowing into the pockets of the cult, numerous empty orgs and a desperate Miscavige, seeing the cult crumbling.
The same desperation I see here: scientologists knowing nothing about their own cult because they are not allowed to do some research on their own, only allowed to visit the websites of the cult which are full of lies. Allowed only to think, act and say what they are told to, indoctrinated and brainwashed to.
People wanting a good laugh should visit this website:
http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/fun/
It shows to what lengths some scientologist go to please their bosses. Have fun!
Posted by: S. McGuinness, Scotland on 12:21pm Sun 25 Feb 07
I was disappointed with an aspect of this article.

Whilst it gave a fairer hearing to Scientology than many newspaper articles, I found the author to be a little insinuative in his manner.

For example, the allegation is parroted that Scientology is "...simply a money-making enterprise aimed at enriching its top executives."

How could this be when the U.S. Inland Revenue Service (which is responsible for collecting taxes in the U.S.) granted the Church tax-exempt status in the 1990's? Would it have been likely to do this if Scientology was a profit-making enterprise? I don't think so!

More facts please and less insinuation! Other than that it was a well-written and interesting article!
Posted by: Peter Schilte, Vierlingsbeek, The Netherlands on 6:21am Mon 26 Feb 07
Google is your friend: type "Operation Snow White" and you will find that even today there are many questions about the legitimacy of the decision of the IRS to give the cult tax exemption. Blackmail is the first word that comes in mind. It is also fact that the cult is only in it for the money: it is the only "religion" where one has to pay for everything, and one has to pay lots! What about people having paid up to over one million US Dollars!?
And you say they are not in it for the money??
Posted by: AF, New York, NY on 7:05am Mon 26 Feb 07