« Previous | Main | Next »

The Secrets of Scientology - Join in the debate

Post categories:

Eamonn Walsh | 14:48 UK time, Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Reporter John Sweeney's last investigation into the Church of Scientology resulted in an explosive confrontation with church officials.

This time, in a
Panorama Special
, one of those officials has turned whistleblower to help him reveal the dark secrets of the church, which boasts Hollywood A-listers Tom Cruise and John Travolta among its devotees.

We welcome your comments on this week's Panorama. Please do join in the debate.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    We welcome your comments on The Secrets of Scientology. Please do join in the debate.

  • Comment number 2.

    How far has Scientology spread throughout Governments world wide? Seems to me that the UK wanted cameras everywhere, wants citizens to be more robotised to a common purpose and I have already been advised that families control our Government not the Government officials themselves. I fight for the right of parents to retain their children from the smaller reasons that the state use to remove children, but is this due to scientology and the common purpose? My feelings regarding the actors and actresses shown to be followers of such a cult mafia type organisation, has distained me from ever following the films or shows that those actors/actresses are present in. Brain washed and they seem comfortable with it, destroys the whole concept of human life and togetherness. Can those that follow scientology not see the truth behind this scam cult?

  • Comment number 3.

    I Personally think the show was exellent. showing what happened to the lives of Ex-Scientologists, I applaud Mr Sweeney for acting professional throughout the program and wish him the best of luck with future programmes, And i personally don't blame him for losing his temper in 2007 as Mike said "He was trying to push the bigot button".

    I also found myself feeling for the Ex-scientologists or reformist scientologists, as they were subject to harassment.

    I think the show was informitive, well balanced (as well balanced as it could be with the Church Of Scientology being Un-Cooprative) and education. Job well done!

  • Comment number 4.

    I can't believe your findings, those poor people and what they have /are going through, being cut off from their friends and families, that isn't a religion it's brain washing and a disgusting way of taking peoples money for their own good, a bit like another religion that brain washes!!!. Welldone your man.

  • Comment number 5.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 6.

    Thanks from the U.S. to Sweeney and BBC staff for exposing this corporate group for what it actually is and does. I hope all parents will teach their children the 10 signs of a cult, as well as Scientology.
    It has become a very dangerous, sinister and exploitive business.

    This one-hour expose only covers the tip of the iceburg. Stories, documents, videos abound on the internet, as well as many books written, for those interested. The message should be clear: Don't get involved in the first place. Once you get in, you are considered Fair Game. Google. Already ready for another series! Thanks again, Gazpacho

  • Comment number 7.

    No religion should treat their followers/members on a celeb basis depending on how much money you contribute to them having separate areas for them. We are told in the eyes of God all men/women are equal!!! Also to insist that you can only marry one of your own kind is wrong and it seems those previous brainwashed in the previous Panorama programme have seen the light. Others will learn that you do not have to hand over large sums of money to a cult to "learn" about yourself. I wish them luck I do not follow any particular religion but do believe in God and respect others and treat them like you would want to be treated. Celeb culture is growing out of control these days, but in religion this is wrong in some many aspects.

  • Comment number 8.

    An excellent expose of the cult by John Sweeney- I admire his willingness to expose himself to the coordinated harassment of PI's and cameramen sent by the "church". I personally know people who have lost familly, time and money in the cult, it's thanks to programs like Panorama and the internet based group Anonymous that many are speaking out.

    Although many think scientology is just an American thing- they have many buildings and recruitment centres in the UK, in most major cities. They are also cunning enough to have many front groups that appear benighn until you lookk below the PR gloss.

  • Comment number 9.

    This is why the bbc are still the best at what they do john sweeny at his best heres hoping the great british public will see this cult for what they are, and during this recesion isnt it time scientology paid its dues.

  • Comment number 10.

    I can relate to this programme as I have left the Jehovahs Witnesses and there are many similarities, including shunning. I have also seen what this does to families, the hurt and the pain.

  • Comment number 11.

    Whats even more disturbing is that, Scientology has now brought out something called , and I quote "Desperate lies" on their freedom website and its being advertised on youtube, I do feel horrified that scientology are attempting to smear Mr sweeney, Panorama and the BBC who are a world reowned news organisation.

  • Comment number 12.

    Glad you covered the fact that Scientologists aren't allowed to internet freely. The fact is, only those with OSA (as mentioned, Office of Special Affairs) staff are allowed, and post on places like these.
    Three main tactics are part of their training. One is deflection, which you see in Post 5. And if you see a post from someone saying they are a Scientologist and how wonderful it is, likely OSA. You might find the documents about this in training checkseets for OSA staff if you Google well enough. Staff aren't allowed TV's either.

  • Comment number 13.

    Anonymous thanks you. Best of luck with the lawsuits that will follow from these "people". Google to learn more, very dangerous cult.

  • Comment number 14.

    Excellent job Mr. Sweeney. I just wish your peers in the USA would do show on this cult, a show that shows what it's really like in the *cough* church.

  • Comment number 15.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 16.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 17.

    I am a Scientologist and this programme is just same old same old. If you really what to know about Scientology and how truely great it is you should find out for your self

  • Comment number 18.

    After the last Panorama show, or should that be the last John Sweeney show on Scientology, I would have thought the BBC paymasters would cut their losses and put the show down to experience.

    Further investment however in the notorious John Sweeney, and at tax payers expense, is simply bad management. As a license holder and as a Scientologist, I object to funding the antics of a man seeking revenge.

    John Sweeney's chagrin must have been, and obviously continues to be intense, and is likely to be the driving force behind his current 'investigative journalism'.

    As a Scientologist of 20 years, I have gained a certainty of what drives people, in all walks of life, to do what they do, to say what they say, whether good or bad. That stands me in good stead when another like John Sweeney along with his new buddies try to refute or deny the source of my certainty.

    In a world that's crying out for solutions to everyday problems, the Church of Scientology provides real answers, so that individuals can flourish and prosper in life, and be successful. But then for someone like John Sweeney, a purpose like that would be unthinkable.

    It's a natural law that the truth prevails. I doubt that very much of the John Sweeney show will be prevailing.

  • Comment number 19.

    Well done John Sweeney and the whole production staff, also messrs Rinder and Rathbun. No tommy davis to spoil the proceedings this time, apart from having them followed everywhere with cameras. Surely now people will open their eyes to this " CULT" cos thats what they are.

  • Comment number 20.

    Well I'm still not convinced. If I knew someone was writing about my company and they'd done a horrible job before, I'd be likely to follow them too. At least those cameramen weren't hiding in the bushes, even if they didn't have tongues! You didn't really show much about Scientology itself, though the pinch meter thing was interesting, even John Sweeney was intrigued by it.

  • Comment number 21.

    In 2007 Sweeney not only lost his reputation as a professional journalist, he lost his sense for fair and true reporting as well. Any information in the Panorama show got swallowed by John Sweeney’s overriding and futile attempts to get his status back. Yes, the church filmed him when he was trying to trick them. Yes, the Church of Scientology is a strong group that does not tolerate being lied about. Wow, what’s new?

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

  • Comment number 22.

    I'm a Scientologist, and I watched the show. Mike Rinder disappoints me, because he knows that what he's doing now will upset a lot of people who once respected him. It may seem he's just in his actions but really he's been going downhill for a number of years. Yes, the Church has published its own documentation of BBC's filming, at freedommag.org, but while limited airtime was given to Scientologists talking about their religion, I felt this was once again a show about Scientology that ignored Scientology. There's a religion there that people care deeply about, yet its name is taken in vain by the media. Surely it's time for a real, unbiased look at what Scientologists really do. Then again, maybe that's not 'controversial' enough.

  • Comment number 23.

    Thank you John,
    I never usually watch documentaries but I was fascinated by the topic. I used to be a Christian but now I believe in no religion and at the very least CULTS like Scientology, the fact is that this "Religion" is taking money from you so you can move higher up the table and for you to leave you also have to pay. I know when I enter a Catholic Church I have a choice to donate and I most certainly didn't have to pay to leave the church. Where as this Scientology CULT makes you sign a contract (where to my knowledge no RELIGION ask's for) to get higher up in the CULT. I do believe the way you shouted at the Public Relations Officer was just playing into the hands of them. You should visit this website http://www.freedommag.org/&source=gaw?gclid=CPOR-K6Tq6QCFdj92AoduQKh3w
    as the Scientology Church has posted a video saying you were wrong in the approach of the way you tried to interview the "Church" .

  • Comment number 24.

    I'm sorry but there are still far too many Ofcom violations in this one sided piece of what you pass off for journalism. The meer definition of media is to mediate, that means both sides of the story. You failed once again to do that and tried to pass of the lies of your so-called credible witnesses as truth. If you want to see the other side of the story go to www.freedommag.org. You forget that Scientology is one of the fastest growing religions in the world, and there's good reason these 'few' defectors go on camera and rant their woes. It takes a lot to get expelled from the Church, perhaps that's why they all lavished for 20 years or more inside the Church enjoying their status.

  • Comment number 25.

    Thanks to the Panorama team for an informative show.
    On a side note, it is interesting to see adverts for scientology.org and freedom.org on various searches in YouTube and Google. I also have seen them on other websites related to articles covering Scientology.
    If you search for "John Sweeney" in Google, the only sponsored link above the results is......yes you guessed it,
    "Scientology Secrets FreedomMag.org/JohnSweeney Investigative Video Report: See The Real Story!"
    Just some of my thoughts as to why great effort and expense is spent on trying to promote Scientology to people who are interested in John Sweeney's Panorama investigation.

  • Comment number 26.

    Dear Mr Sweeney and BBC Producers: I realize this is too much to ask or consider, but would love to see interviews of the IRS Commissioner, U.S. Attorney General, FBI Internal Affairs Director and others, as to why, despite outcries and requests for decades now, Scientology still has not been investigated, audited, raided, or more.

    Anyone who's even had a short involvement with this group lives in fear of reprisal and retaliation. While there's plenty of speculation why there continues to this day no assistance, protection, or legal action, it's long overdue for some real answers. Is this even possible? If so, it would be an epic, award winning expose. Thank you for listening.

  • Comment number 27.

    There are clearly some Scientologists posting here! More of the more of the same? Thou protesteth too much! We do not wish to hear of you putting down Panaramo for their follow up programme. We would much prefer to hear your defence. Do you have any? Defend yourself so that we may begin to understand you. Thank you to John Sweeney for this explosive follow up! Scientology is more than a cult ... it's a ridiculous sham! It may have begun in a different way but that is not how it is today. I fully understand that the present day Scientology may have moved on from the original but I just cannot perceive any cult or religion that separates families (amongst other things). I do not get my head around that and hence, any cult or religion which supports and encourages such things is diabolic! Keep up the good work John Sweeney!

  • Comment number 28.

    I have been a Scientologist (mostly in the UK) for 28 years, and I regret that the management has gone so far off the rails that I welcome TV shows like this and books like the one Marc Headley wrote about what life is like for the most senior staff. The materials of the subject have been corrupted and things have been slowly deteriorating for the last two decades.

  • Comment number 29.

    Simply a marvelous show tonight, BBC. Thank you for having the courage to air it. And a heartfelt kudos to John Sweeney.
    You're the best John!

  • Comment number 30.

    @ Remembered, perhaps you should take another word clearing course. Media does NOT mean to mediate. It comes from the word medium.

    The correct definition:
    a pl. of medium.
    2.
    ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight.
    –adjective
    3.
    pertaining to or concerned with such means: a job in media research.
    Use media in a Sentence
    See images of media
    Search media on the Web
    —Usage note
    Media, like data, is the plural form of a word borrowed directly from Latin. The singular, medium, early developed the meaning “an intervening agency, means, or instrument” and was first applied to newspapers two centuries ago. In the 1920s media began to appear as a singular collective noun, sometimes with the plural medias. This singular use is now common in the fields of mass communication and advertising, but it is not frequently found outside them: The media is (or are ) not antibusiness.
    Perhaps that scientology education isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

  • Comment number 31.

    I had to laugh a bit when I saw the "media means to mediate" comment. However it seems Scientology is quite fond of giving a whole new meaning to words when it suits them. For example, "help" "ethical" and "church", to name but a few.

  • Comment number 32.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 33.

    I also have to congratulate Mr Sweeney for having the courage to go back for another report of scientology, even though last time had a "issue"

    Honestly, What are these scientologists thinking? Having Mr Sweeney Followed will make them look worse!

    again good show BBC and Panorama

  • Comment number 34.

    Having read an article in one of the weekend papers about this programme, I was looking forward to it and it didn't disappoint.

    John Sweeney has been at pains to express his apology for his emotional outburst in the first report, despite many, like me, feeling there was sufficient evidence of provocation to justify an even more emphatic reaction than the one we witnessed. The new programme undermined any claims the church might make that Sweeney was at fault and surely anyone who was uncertain about the practices of the church can't be now.

    We are all aware of the threat to our welfare posed by zealots of another faith, with proposed terrorist strikes featuring in today's headlines, but the Church of Scientology's intimidation is very much more focussed and personal, even if there has never been any mention of violence. As with the other zealots, a question is posed by such an investigation, can this extreme behaviour be attributed to the faith or just one part of it.

    Those who shed some light on the practices of the Church of Scientology seem convinced Scientology itself still has much to commend it, but that the practices of the present church have strayed a long way from what its founder had intended. I have no problem with people finding their lives enriched by their faith, but I always have a problem with any religion trying to intimidate those who question it. This programme confirmed many inconsistencies between what is claimed by the church and what is done in practice and some uncorroborated testimony as to what tactics are employed to prevent members leaving. It also confirmed, beyond dispute, that the church will go to great lengths to dissuade anyone from exposing it for what it really is, a cult.

    Perhaps there are many others who are unwilling to stand in front of the two sets of cameras to discuss their problems with the church and it is quite understandable that they would be reluctant. I would prefer that there was more substance and more people willing to expose the church's practices, as, though this programme left little doubt "cult" is an entirely appropriate term, more opposition to its advance is required.

    In summary, Scientology itself seems to have something positive to offer, but the Church of Scientology, on balance, does not.

  • Comment number 35.

    The last word that John Sweeney used in his excellent documentary was the word "cult". Sums up Scientology exactly.

  • Comment number 36.

    Thank you John Sweeney and Panorama! This is why I like the Beeb so much. A thoughtful, considered and accurate portrayal of this sinister and abusive organization. Of course, some might complain that you didn’t go far enough and left out many extremely nasty and sickening things that the CoS has done over the years, but clearly these couldn’t all be accommodated in the time available. Suffice it to say, no matter how bad you think the CoS is, the truth is much worse.
    I was in the Church of Scientology for over 20 years. I left when I (finally) realised that it was a cult and that all they really wanted was my money. To get that, they tried to control who I spoke to, what I read and how I lived my life.
    The harassment that John Sweeney, Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun, Amy Scobee and others received from the CoS was not a surprise to me. This is the standard response of the cult when dealing with critics. The whole point of it is to intimidate and suppress free speech.
    I myself have been verbally abused by a member of Scientology’s elite Sea Org, on the street in broad daylight. A video of part of this can be seen here: http://www.vimeo.com/6358888
    It was originally posted on YouTube, but removed without my permission after a complaint by the cult, alleging invasion of privacy. Rather hypocritical considering that we have seen the cult employing PIs to follow and film anyone who dares to criticise them. They have no hesitation in making these videos publicly available when it suits them, with no consideration for the privacy of those involved.
    I mean, what ‘church’ sends intimate details of a person’s sex-life (with her future husband) to a newspaper in order to smear her?
    There are many, many truly decent, kind and caring people who are Scientologists and who have given so much of their lives to trying to make a better world. They have been betrayed and are often the biggest victims in this story.
    The Church of Scientology is a sinister, brainwashing cult. You only have to look at the way they behave in order to see this.

  • Comment number 37.

    Revenge is a dish best eaten cold and John Sweeney did it in style last night. After the previous episode where the scientologists were smug about making John lose his temper, last nights episode was an exercise in cool journalism! Well done John!
    A member of my family did a journalistic piece for radio about scientology on 5Live and they did everything they could to discredit her!
    Keep up the good work!

  • Comment number 38.

    As an atheist, hypnotherapist and magician/mentalist entertainer, I was fascinated by just about every aspect of this latest documentary. Notably, from a magician's perspective, I watched the demonstration of the 'e-meter' with genuine concern. The auditor's left hand never leaves the unit while the 'readings' are being processed. For entertainment purposes, this could be considered amusing, but while focussing on the subjects' negative emotions while manipulating the result to one's own ends is quite unforgiveable. In my opinion, if you genuinely want to gain control of your own life, do not hand it over to this organisation.

  • Comment number 39.

    Television is going to the dogs. This was not a documentary, let's face it. This was a self-serving brilliantly scripted and acted piece - each word carefully constructed and acted with wide eyed disbelief and exaggerated expressions. And the defectors had their scripted part too. How funny! They are unreliable because they apparently were ousted from their positions and certainly are not going to be truthful in some payback mechanism. Sweeney feels he has to save his image and likely the BBCs. Who cares? He screwed up with his last piece and now is trying to redeem himself. Get over it! You have to watch both shows and the Church's footage to see that what he says simply isn't true. There is a lot of footage of him being a downright bully and doing everything he acusses the Scientologists of. So he got some of his own medicine back. A supposedly veteran reporter can maintain calm in all circumstances. If they can't, get a new job. When Sweeney yelled in the first Panorama show, he is clearly in total and complete control, no matter what excuse he parades. He screams like on a parade ground, suddenly stops screaming to ask if the person he was screaming at got that and then starts screaming again. He was in total absolute control and no technique from anyone could rattle a person who can then scream like that. He knew exactly what he was doing and this show is his excuse for messing up - a total hour at tax payer expense to explain away his behaviour which obviously backfired. John Sweeney is an actor for sure and that is a poor show. He should just say "I messed up" and leave it alone, not spend an hour trying to make us feel sorry for him because of those "powerful" Scientologists. Really! For interest sake, check out the Church's footage - it shows another side and one which John Sweeney won't admit to. It is shoddy work. The dramatic sighs, the wide-eyed looks. Irregardless of subject matter is is a poor show!

  • Comment number 40.

    I am an ex scientologist who is no longer able to have any contact with my parents or siblings because I left the church when I moved to the uk.
    My parents wept as other members of the church held them back. they were told if they contacted me they would be seen as defectors and would not be able to see or speak to my 15yr old brother and 13yr old sister again. they made their choice based on the fact that i am 23 and old enough to survive in this world on my own now. I still believe one day my parents will meet their Grandkids.
    Scientology in itself is not a cult or a bad thing. The problems come from the people at the top of the hierarchy. They have changed scientology from a religion of choice into almost a dictatorship. They will continue to do so untill scientologists themselves choose a better way to practice. Instead they are so terrified of the concequences of the church that they stay silent and follow in a sheep-like fashion.
    Leaving the church was the hardest thing i have ever done but i am now extreamly happy and free. Hopefully people will realise one day and the rest of society will try to support theese people back into normallity. GRANMA AND GRANPA SHILA AND HARRY SENT HUGE HUGS AND KISSES XX

  • Comment number 41.

    I am glad Panorama revisited the issues highlighted in the previous documentary on Scientology. The report raises major concerns of the threats and intimidating tactics used by such an organisation, on many people such as those featured in the programme. I was alarmed to learn how such an organisation that claims to be a 'religion' can ruin the lives of many families and individuals such as splitting families up if one of the members wants to leave, the issues raised about abortion and no sex before marriage etc. This is an infringement of the most basic of human tights, I can only imagine that the picture is far worse as there is so much more that we do not know and need to get to the bottom of. Scientology is global and I would like to see a follow on from this documentary covering the impact of Scientology in the UK. As it appears to be unoticed in this country, partly because it is not categorised as a religion in the UK and also that or at least I assume there are low numbers in scientologists, possibly? Because it is a secret society I don't really know but it would be interesting if Panorama could uncover it's position in the UK, who they target as followers, confirm numbers of followers, and whether they use the same intimidation factors as their US counterparts.
    Well done to John and the BBC for excellence in journalism, and for bringing this issue to the attention of the public.

  • Comment number 42.

    They do protest too loudly!

  • Comment number 43.

    What a wonderful documentary! I was shocked to see a "church" resort to intimidation tactics and PIs following Sweeney et al. to try to throw him off the trail. OK, so the church didn't directly hire the PIs... rather, they were in the employ of lawyers working for the church of Scientology. But still.

    From what I have learned of the CoScientology, it feels more like a business than a religion. I didn't hear any of the words I would expect from a religion, namely love, compassion, peace, etc. I did hear the words manager and management a lot, however, which was a little bit strange. It sounds like a business, they copyright their material, and you can't read their scriptures unless you pay? That seems strange to me.

    Compared to the first documentary, Sweeney was helped here by former high ranking officials M Rinder and M Rathbun. Rinder's voice was the most impressive, as he truly was Sweeney's bogeyman in the first documentary. To hear him say that he followed Sweeney to San Francisco made me think of a mafia like group. Scary! And to think of how much money they have managed to get from their members? Even scarier!

    If disconnection, as the church claims, is a personal choice, then surely the church can find ONE ex-member-turned-critic of the church who is still in contact with family members who are still card carrying members of the Church. If not, then is it truly personal choice?

    Last but not least, Jason Beghe's final word was quite chilling. To the question, is scientology a religion or a cult, his answer of "they're not mutually exclusive" cut to the bone.

    Fantastic job, BBC, and great work by Sweeney! Who says the Beeb doesn't deserve the license fee? Now where can I buy a copy of the show? I want one!

  • Comment number 44.

    I'm replying to the comment by girldownunder in which she wrote that the defectors (all ex-RTC, WDC or Int guys) are not going to be truthful. I suspect that she believes that the Church is what it once was, when it most certainly isn't. The website http://www.friendsoflrh.org/ contains a good rundown of the differences between what should be happening and what has been happening under the dictatorship of Miscavige. It's a good site but can be initially tricky to navigate.

  • Comment number 45.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 46.

    I like the parts where they show and tell about what Scientology actually is - in contrast to how it is sometimes portrayed by critics. And also I think the show was quite aestethical and beautiful at parts.

    I wonder about Sweeneys obvious obsession and hangup about being followed - which he certainly was - though. Is that really so controversial or even surprising?

    That said, unlike people like Mr Rinder and others, who see the Church Of Scientology through a filter of their past experiences (or even worse, from their second hand info from internet) - and adjust all info to align with that filter - I am a current and active member of this Church, today and in the real world. I´m not working AT a Church, but I´m quite "involved". And yes, I can see this kind of stuff without any repercussion from my Church. It is a personal responsibility. And I would definetely disconnect from Rinder, no matter what my Church recommends. That is my own natural right!

    The current and overall and actual activity and intention of the Church, in the Churches themselves and outside in the world in the many programs you will never hear about if you don´t check www.volunteerministers.org f.ex.

    I object when Mr Rinder says all people inside the church are "unhappy". This probably comes from the feeling HE had at the end of his serving, where he didn´t want to be in the Church any more. Of course he would be unhappy - no matter if it´s his own fault or not. Especially as Scientology is not something that can be done half heartedly if ones team mates are as dedicated to the cause as they often are at the upper echelon. That´s why it´s not übersurprising that people leave the top at times.

  • Comment number 47.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 48.

    I was involved with Scientology for many years and completed clearing, so I have some knowledge of it. It didn't help me, which was the reason that I didn't carry on with it, but it didn't hurt, other than costing a lot of money.

    The main problem with Scientology is that it is based on Hubbard's statement that the best way to make money is to start your own religion. Thus they will do anything to protect their income. This is why, unlike any other religion, they assiduously trademark, copyright and protect everything. Imagine the church trademarking the Bible, Islam copyrighting the Koran, or temples charging admission to services. It is also why Scientology refuses to divulge any financial information.

    Scientology didn't start as a religion. However, in the mid 1960s, someone came up with the wheeze of registering it as a religion and they have benefited ever since. Hubbard was originally against the idea, until the overwhelming advantages were demonstrated to him. I was in Saint Hill when all of this was discussed and arranged. Of course, now they try and make it look like a religion, with dog collars, quasi-crucifixes etc.

    I once had a fun time with the Scientology centre in London, going in as a novice and being given an assessment, free of charge. Of course I was told how much it could help me - and how much it would cost (but scaled back of course, they never tell you the true cost). After some time I got bored and asked how valid the assessment was given that I was already "clear". The member didn't believe me until I should them proof of my having gone clear, at which point I was told very firmly to leave, but only after having sown some doubt in my "assessor". They will do anything to get their hooks into people and a free personal assessment - which will always come up with the same outcome regardless of how you answer, is just one of many similar "hooks".

    The truth is that Scientology is just another form of talking therapy. If you let people talk long enough and freely, they will invariably feel better, for a time. What is scary is how Scientology has evolved into this all-embracing control-freakery that makes North Korea look like paradise. What those in charge fail to realise - because they are incapable of rational thought - is that they would be far more palatable if they took the criticism on the chin and rode it like any proper religion. Scientology isn't for everyone, it's OK for guys like Tom Cruise whose main talent is for repeating whatever dialogue is put in front to him. But Scientologists can't accept this, because they see it as a threat to their cashflow. That is why they threaten, harrass and generally try to destroy anyone that doesn't agree with them - it is in their creed and I personally heard Hubbard say so - many times.

    Some years ago I worked as a volunteer for a well known organization supporting the depressed and suicidal. We had many Scientologists - both active and lapsed - as clients. One sticks in my mind, an ex-serviceman who paid a lot for courses at Scientology. He was quite a disturbed person, partly due to combat-related stress, and after a time Scientology refused to allow him access to courses that he had paid for. They also refused a refund - instead sending him a "receipt" for his "voluntary donation". When he threatened them with legal action, they responded by threatening to expose everything he had said during auditing. I heard many stories of similar threat both when I was in Scientology and after.

  • Comment number 49.

    I thought the interviews with the celebs was the most damning. The mere mention of space warriors brought out their vest worst.





  • Comment number 50.

    I certainly hope there will be a follow-up program. There are so many issues that could be addressed. The physical beatings one is subjected to from Scientology leaders, the ridiculously inflated numbers in terms of membership, the undeserved tax exempt status (although thankfully in Australia they'll soon be taking care of that) the upcoming wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of Kyle Brennan, the countless suicides, the bogus medical claims, etc

    Still, wonderful job; the miilions who watched your program will never fall victim to Scientology.They now know the truth.

  • Comment number 51.

    "I wonder about Sweeneys obvious obsession and hangup about being followed - which he certainly was - though. Is that really so controversial or even surprising?"

    It most certainly is controversial for a church to be involved in such activity, which it indisputably was. Obviously the men with the cameras had been hired, but the gentleman who refused to shake hands in the car park was from the church. That and following the car to Tom Rinder's house is intimidation and not acceptable behaviour for a body claiming to bring contentment into people's lives.

  • Comment number 52.

    Although I can understand Sweeny's attempt at making a comeback, I think this programme is likely to create interest in the subject rather then dissuade.
    It's not the first time disgruntled ex's speak out against their church or organisation and it won't be the last. It's an interesting phenomena.
    I think overall it promised more and gave little; blown out of proportion like so many things.
    It really wasn't that riveting as some people have written. It seems as though those that thought it was have been converted into being an ex-scientologist. Bit like when an ex-smoker has an opportunity to rant.
    Perhaps I will look at a Scientology website now to get another perspective.

  • Comment number 53.

    I agree this program seems important, but it's lost it's way: why the childish determination to prove Scientology is a 'cult'?
    The over-reaction to this word is a disingenuous tool that avoids discussion of Scientology's impact on real people (and Tom Cruise). The program fudges this, implying a distinction betwen Rinder "still believing in Scientology" and the activities of the Church itself.
    Stop.
    Stop right there.
    Nothing Hubbard claimed for Scientology has ever been proved in an independent test or experiment. The Church is sensitive and vulnerable because it is a lucrative business based on a series of weak lies that people can see through if they are given space to think and question for themselves. That is why the weird reactions. That is why people are forced to 'disconnect' from critics. That is why the damage is done.
    I'm sure Rinder is genuine, but criticising the Church while protecting the practice means we drop into a futile Wonderland of proving that the Church is a 'cult', instead of following the real question: how does the Church part so many intelligent people from their money and freedom when it is based on nothing more than fantasy?
    Answer that, Mr. Sweeney, and you will have earned the right to call the Church any damn thing you please!

  • Comment number 54.

    "how does the Church part so many intelligent people from their money and freedom when it is based on nothing more than fantasy? "

    By offering them peace and contentment and then making it very difficult to leave. For some, the sense of belonging to something is a comfort in itself and for others the prospect of advancement through the various levels offers them the sense of achievement they desire. If they ultimately feel they have, in reality, achieved nothing, the programme gave you a very clear understanding of the consequences of wishing to leave.

  • Comment number 55.

    By all means check out the website Cwhatusee. They're quite lonely over there.
    If you believe that a program that shows a supposed "church" following and stalking people like a Mafia organization will increase interest, well then you're just the type Scientology is looking for.

  • Comment number 56.


    The celebs were most obliging:

    e.g.
    Ann Archer (rants) 'DO I LOOK BRAINWASHED?!'

    Mr.Sweeney - plays it cool (correct move - well done!)

    BBC Licence payer answers:
    'No, but you don't sound very rational either.'

    One wonders what's on her auditing tapes then?

    Seriously though, how does this organisation get away with it? It may not be mind control, but it's got a problem trying to avoid the impression of being based on a conveyor-belt of emotional manipulation and coersion.






  • Comment number 57.

    I commend the BBC and John Sweeney on their excellent journalism in this programme, and in the previous "Scientology" Panorama. I don't believe for a second that he has to apologise for what was a completely justified outburst at an obnoxious, and frankly horrible man. Well done Mr Sweeney and the BBC for exposing a supposed "religion" to the rest of the world for what it really is: a dangerous and bigoted cult. Long may this high standard of journalism continue.

  • Comment number 58.

    @Axiom142 : thank you for posting the link to your video re your encounter with the Scientology Sea Org. That man so reminded me of Tommy Davis who goaded John Sweeney in the first programme. He was trying to use similar tactics on you and he wouldn't let you speak. Irritating, horrible person. Who would want to be like him?

  • Comment number 59.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 60.

    No one is interested in Freedom Mag's (a Scientology publication) "full story". The "full story" is in the BBC Panorama program: Destroyed families, stalking, bullying and harassing of anyone who speaks out, special treatment of "celebrities", coerced abortions, the expensive upper level teachings of Xenu-the intergalactic warlord from Teegeeack, and on and on. We KNOW the full story Louanne, that is your problem. There are no more secrets for Scientology, it's 2010 and people are no longer afraid to speak out.
    There is a reason all those pretty buildings sit empty dear.
    And your constant cries of "censorship" have grown tiresome.

  • Comment number 61.

    I don't think so! I would much prefer to read a clear definitive outline of the doctrine of Scientology.

  • Comment number 62.

    Scientologists always say to not listen to any ex-members or journalists and to go 'find out for yourself' I did. Now I'm SP and can never talk with members again. Great church huh? Panorama was an excellent overview of this crazy cult and hopefully those who saw the show will never be sucked into the scam of 'checking it out for yourself.' Thank you BBC.

  • Comment number 63.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 64.

    Thank you John Sweeney, the Panorama team and the BBC for continuing to expose what scientology is really all about.

    Initially I did not think it was a hard enough piece, but that is because of my own involvement as a child and later as an adult on the recieving end of both disconnection and bullying tactics.

    I have really struggled with the Mike and Marty thing, but again that is because of the treatment of myself and some of my friends by scientology and scientologists.Are they all bad, No. There are good people in scientology, unfortunately they are deluded into believing the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.

    One of the things that really gets to me, is those who say "we are against the abuses, but still follow the scientology doctrine". L. Ron Hubbard wrote scientology, all it's policy letters, books, tapes etc and as a scientologist you are expected to follow these to the letter.In Hubbards scientology, the abusive aspects are written into the doctrine. Therefore in my eyes if you are a follower of Hubbards scientology, you are condoning the abuse which is rife throughout scientology and always has been. L. Ron Hubbard wrote it, and took to sea in the 60s to avoid scrutiny from governments and law enforcement.You can break away from the 'church', but if you still believe in Hubbard,then abuse will continue to be rife, Hubbards doctrines make it that way.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the people who have been wrapped up in this philosophy for 20,30,40 years. If you've never known anything else, then it is a difficult thing to adjust your thought patterns.I was lucky enough to escape whilst still quite young, but it still messed with my head a lot and in some ways still does to this day.Such is the danger of scientology.One of the most evil practises being that of disconnection.

    I hope in the future Panorama will do more programmes on this cult, showing all aspects of this insidious organization.

  • Comment number 65.

    Re: post 54 - sorry drowningnotwaving, but I don't entirely buy your explanation of how the Church gets so much dedication and cash out of people.

    Have you ever been a Scientologist? I haven't, so if you have then I guess I'd have to accept what you say. But I find it hard to believe that people are simply suckered-in like you describe - on this scale anyway.

    I think the Scientology phenomenon is fascinating. Even those people in Sweeney's program who had left the Church still continue to think of themselves as Scientologists - apparently they continue to practice it (whatever that means). But why? What is so seductive about the fantasy world that Hubbard created?

    My theory is that Hubbard has created a near-perfect viral Wonderland. The whole entity - from its underpinning philosophy, to the fogging of the minds of its attendents, to its bureaucratic structure - form a wilderness of mirrors - a 'strange loop' that you pay to keep moving through. It's a cerebral trap really - a bit like the Matrix! - that turns thinking people with good intentions, into cash.

    So here's a good question: does David Misgavige truly believe in Scientology? What about other senior Scientologists, such as Tommy Davis?

    If not, it would mean Misgavige surfaced from under Hubbard's spell while still inside Scientology, and while Hubbard himself was still alive! Knowing what we know about the way Scientology controls its people, and particularly about Hubbard's ability to psychologically dominate those close to him, does Misgavige's apostasy sound at all realistic? Remember, Misgavige is doing nothing essentially new. He is continuing the Hubbard doctrine of recruit and recruit, earn and earn, and protect the Church at all costs.

    So perhaps Misgavige is not aware it's a con. Perhaps he, and Tommy Davis and Tom Cruise really, truly believe in Scientology. Isn't this far more primal and scary than anything Sweeney's program has so far surfaced? It would mean that Scientology is now a self-spun maze of such perfect design that it continues to funnel cash to the centre, even as the centre is trapped in the maze.

    Weird, man.

    Seriously, weird.

  • Comment number 66.

    Anyone else see remarkable signs of similarity between the church of scientology and North Korea?

    The North Koreans have massive lavish buildings on the border, which are empty inside. Their sole purpose being into tricking the south koreans into thinking that its prosperous and nice in North Korea.
    The church of scientology seems to do a similar thing with their nice looking resorts and buildings.

    North Korea also censors internet and TV and doesn't let people out.
    hmm

  • Comment number 67.

    @ iamsam
    Well, let's take a look at one aspect, shall we? Tax, in England, for COSRECI. Nice and simple. It touches on the funding angle, so this should be relevant to the interests of those who criticise the BBC...

    The English scientology organisations are grouped together in COSRECI (Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc). The COSRECI declarations for tax purposes state "The Church is a South Australian charity, and is established in England for charitable purposes only. The trustees consider that corporation tax should not therefore be applicable." (Available at Companies House.)

    In Australia, "Today Tonight" looked at this (programme aired on June 22nd 2010) and received a reply from the scientology organisation which contained the following quote "Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc is an
    incorporated non-profit association. Whilst it does have charitable
    purposes as laid out in its Rules of Association, it is not a registered
    charity in South Australia or with the Australia Taxation Office."

    http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/7442179/general/scientology-tax

    So, which is it? What is the purpose of the statement "The Church is a South Australian charity" if COSRECI is not, actually, a registered charity?

    Best Regards

    Jens

  • Comment number 68.

    Encouraging to see that this Panorama programme attracted an average of 4.8M viewers, which must be second only to the record 4.9M for the first programme.
    Of course there’s little new in it for those who have followed the history of Hubbard, Dianetics, Xenu and the CoS - but it wasn’t targeted at us.
    Equally transparent are its attempts to attract new recruits by superficially ‘scientific’ means such as cod psychology, meaningless personality tests and toys such as the e-meter - all leading to the promise of personal achievement as personified by the likes of Tom Cruise!
    Its operation as a money-making cult, the subjugation of its members, the contrived attacks on its critics and those who dare to leave, often after decades of total obedience, are well documented. But that doesn’t mean they are familiar to its potential new recruits.
    Scientology dismisses such revelations as a conspiracy of the inadequate, the tainted, the incompetent, the criminal, the ‘unclear’ and such like. Of course its current members will rush to denounce the experiences of those who have managed to break away and have, ironically, achieved the ‘freedom’ that they were promised in the first place. Not to do so would require recognition that they were themselves being duped and exploited.
    So although much of it came across as a personal vindication of John Sweeney, it did so by exposing that virtually all the denials and accusations by Tommy Davis and other leading members, were in fact lies.
    They were practicing what Hubbard called ‘fair game’. Those who seek to damage the church, he said, "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.''
    If that revelation alone gives any potential recruit pause for thought, it will have served them well.


  • Comment number 69.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 70.

    I am thrilled to see John Sweeney return to this subject after a harrowing experience the first time. The program is everything that I hoped for and more. Bravo to all the brave ex-members who agreed to speak out this time - especially to Mike, who provides some excellent perspective on his own previous behavior. I hope that this program inspires other journalists to be brave and tackle this subject instead of allowing themselves to be intimidated.

  • Comment number 71.

    I notice heavy filtering going on on this blog. What guidelines are used here?

  • Comment number 72.

    As a scientologist for many years I can't confirm any of the allegations in the Panorama program. The show appeared to me as a series of unfounded and emotionally presented allegations that were done with the sole purpose of provoking and insulting members of the Church of Scientology, and to forward personal viewpoints of one journalist, John Sweeney, who, in my view, undoubtedly failed to present the scope and reach of the Church of Scientology, especially in the UK.

  • Comment number 73.

    I can't help but notice a lot of comments that were not in favour of the John Sweeney show on Tuesday, have been removed or are blanked for more scrutiny. Is John Sweeney the moderator as well as the so-called reporter?

  • Comment number 74.

    So the Scientologists were not happy being insulted by a BBC journalist, over the course of several weeks, and started documenting the harassment with their cameras? One can't really criticize them for that. As for the content of the show, it made me wonder how other shows are being produced. The amount of emotional and staged scenes was endless and the egocentric appearance and whining of John Sweeney an embarrassment for the BBC. I understand that each group has it's disgruntled ex-members whose statements will focus on the negative and I am sure BBC's John Sweeney knew that too.

  • Comment number 75.

    I am a TV license holder and a Scientologist. Accordingly, I should, hopefully, have the opportunity to speak on the Panorama show without being moderated off the screen.

    I thought that perhaps the show should have been called the John Sweeney show. I felt he was trying, but failed, to excuse his previous rant in 2007. I realise it's an episode he would probably want to forget, but to try and excuse himself through a further Panorama show, is simply unacceptable.

    Like Members of Parliament earlier this year, he's using public funds for his own personal gain, and to forward his own agenda. This has nothing to do with journalism whatsoever.

  • Comment number 76.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 77.

    BBCfanforlife, how come you can respond to one of my comments that never got published? Are you working for the BBC?

  • Comment number 78.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 79.

    Find out for yourself!


    Scientology is a religion in its highest meaning, as it helps bring man to total freedom and truth. The essential tenets of Scientology are these:

    You are an immortal spiritual being.

    Your experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. And your capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

    Furthermore, man is basically good. He is seeking to survive. And his survival depends upon himself and his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

    http://www.scientology.org/

  • Comment number 80.

    After having read some of the other comments on this page it is very clear to me that it is very easy for biased reporting in the media to once again help endorse and further intolerance amongst members of the public against a little understood group.
    I am a Scientologist of over fifteen years and understand that part of the media's job is to give voice to those who are both for and against whatever the issue of the day is. What I object to is "journalism" which seems 100% biased and refuses to acknowledge the other side of the story.
    For every 1 disgruntled ex-Scientologist there are plenty more who get a lot out of it and are perfectly happy doing what they are doing.

  • Comment number 81.

    @BBCfanforlife Well, are you working for the BBC? If the comment never got published, and you've responded to it, what are we supposed to think? Doesn't look good.

  • Comment number 82.

    If you want to see how Scientology helps others go to:

    http://www.scientology.org/activity/activity.html

  • Comment number 83.

    If you want to find out what Scientology is about. Find out from them not from people bigoted and hateful.

    Meet a Scientologist!

    http://www.scientology.org/video/meet-a-scientologist.html

  • Comment number 84.

    I believe in article one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    "Article 1 - All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

  • Comment number 85.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 86.

    @BBCfanforlife In the pursuit of decency and honesty in this forum, the silence is deafening. If the moderator will allow me, I'll ask again. Are you working for the BBC?

  • Comment number 87.

    I had lots of questions about life and death when I was younger, only Scientology answered them. When I had a major problem in my life, only Scientology gave me the solutions. I'm proud to be a Scientologist and more importantly proud to fight for my right to practice the religion of my choice. Life can be understood, go to:

    http://www.scientology.org/videos.html#/videos/category/scnads/ad-invitation-to-freedom

  • Comment number 88.

    Found a small bio on Sweeney on the Panorama web site:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6229043.stm.

    Part of it says, "John Sweeney says there are three rules in journalism. First, find a crocodile. Two, poke it in the eye with a stick. Three, stand back and report what happens next." Sounds like provocation to me. Not reporting.

  • Comment number 89.

    FlourishAndProsper, I am not surprised. You can see this in the program and he seems to be proud of it. And he is attacking a group that works to salvage society from moral decay (scientology.org presents a list of worldwide activities that are supported by millions of Scientologists). Again, no surprise.

  • Comment number 90.

    Wow, just came back to look at what went on here; @Jens what are you talking about tax for? My closing remark was "Surely it's time for a real, unbiased look at what Scientologists really do. Then again, maybe that's not 'controversial' enough." Your comment is fine, in an isolated context, but why direct it at me? That made no sense. I can't comment with certainty on your question, but I know that a charity isn't just a charity because it is a "registered charity" so perhaps that would offer some insight into the perceived discrepancy.

    As this is an open forum for comment, I would just like to reiterate my point that I think it would be interesting to look at what Scientologists do, because they are people with lives and their practice of Scientology has an impact on their day-to-day living, and vice versa. There are practices in Scientology that are different to other religions and an insight into this might be interesting to people who aren't Scientologists. There are also many community and social programmes that Scientologists are involved in and it would be good to see this being represented, as much as with members of any other religion.

  • Comment number 91.

    An important distinction that should be made, and I think was made in the program, is that there is a huge difference between your average Scientoligist and the Church of Scientology.

    From what I have seen, your average Scientologist is a well meaning and good natured person, who believes they are helping the greater good. Some of them are sacrificing a great deal toward what they believe is a very important goal.

    And then you have the Church, or more importantly the RTC. This is the management and control of the church. And this is where all the problems begin and end. Everything that is creepy about Scientology comes from the management. If these guys were sorted out by the concerned governments, this problem would disappear.

    Now I know very well that the "Scientologists" that spammed this comment section above will totally ignore and not respond to my comment (even though they are going after BBCfanforlife with venom). Because they can't play the "you are attacking my freedom of religion" card with me. Those guys above are not your normal Scientologists as they are employed by the Church (RTC) in the OSA organisation to attack any criticism of the management in places such as this.

    For the record, I am not a Scientologist, I just know a lot about them over a long period of time.

  • Comment number 92.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 93.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 94.

    When do 76, 78 and 85 get the nod?

  • Comment number 95.

    @DanF An important distinction that should be made, is that there is a huge difference between your average investigative reporters and... you-know-who.

    From what I have seen, your average investigative reporter is a well meaning and good natured person, who listens to both sides of the story and doesn't have an agenda. Some of them are reporting what they believe to be a very important story.

    And then you have... you-know-who, or more importantly the management sector that looks after the likes of... you-know-who. And this is where all the problems begin and end. If these guys were to sort out... you-know-who, this problem would probably disappear.

    For the record, I am a Scientologist, and I know a lot about it because I've been one for 20 years.

  • Comment number 96.

    @DanF You've got to admit it's a deafening silence from BBCfanforlife. Perhaps the moderators have taken action and changed his/her user name to BBCbanforlife.

  • Comment number 97.

    Re- Important distinctions made about your average 'normal' scientologists.

    Do they not follow the written word by L. Ron Hubbard then? Are they not on Ron's 'road to total freedom'?Do they not have their children do the Training Routines (TRs) Do their children not have auditing? Do they not pay exhorbitant amounts of money to follow Ron's 'road to total freedom'? Are they not made to believe that Scientology is the only thing in life that can help them?

    If not, then they are not scientologists. Average, normal or otherwise.The 'Religious Technology Center' (RTC) is what may run the money making side of Scientology, but The Sea Organization is what runs scientology, or at least it was back in the day, that being in the late 60s when L. Ron Hubbard set it up. He was not only the founder of Scientology, but the Commadore of a psuedo navy that he called the Sea Organization or sea project when it was initially set up in 1967.

    Normal,average scientologists joined the sea organization and were transformed overnight into 'the elite' of the world, many but not all stayed in the sea organization for years, spanning decades in some instances. Most, if not all suffered severe punishments along the way. These punishments were directly ordered from Scientologys' guru, L. Ron Hubbard. Overboarding was rife, being locked up was rife. Children were not exempt from these punishments. You were taught you were a being thousands of years old. You are not your body.So, if you happened to be 10 years old, you were not, according to L. Ron Hubbard. You were a child in a little body.

    Not only was I ten years old once, but I have children that were once 10 years old and I can assure you, they and I were not adults in little bodies, when only ten years of age.Watch Panorama again,or better yet watch the Shrinking world of L. Ron Hubbard and you can see all the little adults in childrens bodies,right alongside some of the crew who were the most elite people on earth, living on the most ethical place on earth, ruled by L. Ron Hubbard.Originally these people were normal, average scientologists.

    In 1976,when Good old Ron ran out of places to hide,he settled in the town of Clearwater, Florida, under the psudonym of United Churches of Florida because Scientology was a dirty word. The once average, normal scientologists all but took over the town of Clearwater, because L. Ron Hubbard wanted his own principality. This was the first step in world takeover.

    When you find average,normal scientologists in your town, using pseudonyms to 'Keep Scientology Working'you will find a very real need for concern as they just may be trying to take over your town.

    Speaking of average, normal scientologists, I have it on good authority that George Baillee on the video that Axiom142 put up was once a nice chap, then following his bridge to total freedom, he became an Operating Thetan (OT),a super,duper human being.A God upon the Earth.I don't know how many people have seen this video, but if that is being a God upon the Earth, then we are all doomed. You won't be able to see this video on vimeo now as, like most things where scientology is concerned it has been removed.Scientology are good at this kind of thing, it's called 'Keeping Scientology Working'

  • Comment number 98.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 99.

    @Sharone Stainforth
    This is the problem. Many people don't make the distinction between the somewhat odd policies that LRH wrote, combined with the even more creepy and disturbing policies that Miscavige has introduced afterwards and the general "tech" that normal Scientologists use daily. The "tech" itself is not that harmful. From a Christian point of view, the Bible is generally a good book full of good lessons and morales. But there are some insane Christian groups out there that distort the words in the Bible to do some creepy stuff.

    @FlourishAndProsper
    That's brilliant, don't answer any point I made, you just continue with your ad hominem attack on Mr Sweeney. I mean God forbid you answer a critics actual critic... when it's far easier to rubbish the critics name. Your silence on the accusations laid at the feet of RTC is equally deafening.

  • Comment number 100.

    'Keeping Scientology Working'

    This is an explanation in English, not scientology language, which has it's own language which contributes to confusing you into believing that YOU, are always wrong and scientology is always right.

    The main purposes and goals of scientology are to make every living being on earth a scientologist. That means YOU, every one of you that lives on earth.The goal is to make everyone, and I mean everyone become a scientologist.It started long before I even knew what a scientologist was, but as a child I did not fully understand this. As an adult, I do.

    Nothing and I mean nothing has changed in scientology for 40 years to my knowledge.Scientologists are still out there trying to and somehow managing to win people over. How can this be?

    Because if you have a vulnerable time in your life and nothing is making it better, scientology comes along with their promotion of a free stress test and as it happens you are stressed because of work, because of love, because of whatever it is that is causing you concern in your life, they have all the answers. They promise to make life better. They give you a goal to achieve, they give you the attention that you maybe crave for, they make it seem like you can achieve the goals that you want so badly but are unable to achieve on your own.And you buy a book, you take a course, it doesn't cost that much, but you feel better because someone is concerned about your well being. So you attribute that to scientology, and the 'wins' just keep on coming, until you are hooked, dependancy. Dependant on scientology to make you feel better.

    You have auditing, you feel that this is helping you, you are able to talk about things that have been holding you back(the silly thing is, you do not need auditing to achieve these goals, you just need someone to talk to)but you don't realise that, these people have given you help and you feel obligated. You are told you cannot talk about about your case to anyone, the reason you cannot talk about your case(scientology jargon for what is going on in your life) is because if you did you would achieve the same 'wins' in life as you would in scientology. YOU can't do that because COB or in previous years LRH would not get the money or adulation that they deserve for making you CLEAR.

    It's a viscious cycle. Scientology wants new recruits(raw meat)but they do not tell you that. You are made to feel welcome,after all they have all the answers to the universe. You are made to feel like you are a very special person and they can help you, and at that perticular time in your life you need help, you feel you cannot cope for whatever reason, so you are 'love bombed' with we can help you, and it seems as if they do, so instead of attributing any goals in life you may achieve with being your own, you attribute it to scientology.

    You think WOW, this is really good, I have a child who has a few problems in life, due to past traumas, this could really help them. The child, who is obligated to said parent for making their life better thinks WOW, this will help not only me, but will make my parent happy.What goals in life does a young child want, to make their parents happy and proud of them.So, they follow this indoctrination and guess what, the parents are happy, so the child is too, even though they are not, but the parents are happy and to the child that is what matters.

    To keep scientology working you have to keep giving people wins and goals, the wins and goals are achieved by falsely declaring you cannot discuss your case with anyone else. Therefore everyone is falsely declaring how good this is, no one is speaking their mind,because everyone else is so god damned happy.

    It is claimed that if you find fault with any of this, then you are the one at fault. L. Ron Hubbard was always right, he was the power, he is the source, nothing and no one can dispute this, he made a breakthrough with Dianetics and is the sole source of this scientific research into the mind.

    Do you want to know what I really think about all of this? I think he knew exactly what he was doing, I think he was doing experiments, experiments on how far people would go to follow his indoctrination.And people did go far beyond what he thought people would to keep scientology working,until it didn't work for them any more.

 

Page 1 of 2

More from this blog...

Categories

These are some of the popular topics this blog covers.

Latest contributors

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.