Wednesday, 6 June 2007


John Sweeney of the BBC has recently done some investigative work on the 'cult' of Scientology. It really is very scary stuff indeed. Poor old John did lose it somewhat when a rather unpleasant and aggressive scientologist kept ranting in his face, John started shouting at top volume back in his face. Having seen what John had to put up with from the scientologists, I have to say it is remarkable he lasted that long before blowing his top. Having said that it was pretty dim to give the scientologists the ammunition that they would have been looking for.

Scientology is frankly a load of absolute codswallop, and was created by a very strange man called L Ron Hubbard in 1952. The religion appears to have been crafted by a deranged squirrel, however I am reliably informed that L Ron was in fact a human being. Unofortunately the mighty L Ron is no longer with us. Have a peek at these revealing slants on Scientology; crazy scientology followers, the scientology south park episode, scientology vs south park, scientology dirty tricks, L Ron documentary, inside London scientology, south park what they believe, scientology fraud, scientology takeover, the cult business and there is a lot more out there.

Scientology has demonstrated that a big problem exists in the way that the western world handles religion. Scientology has gained a massive amount of protection by hiding behind the smokescreen of being called a 'religion' in the US. Scientology is now trying to hide in the UK.

It highlights just how dangerous it is to give special protection to any belief system, no matter how bizarre that belief system is. As when a belief is afforded special protection by the law of the land, it can hide away from rational criticism, which then allows irrational dogma to triumph over reason. That is why laws that protect religion selectively over other non-religious beliefs are inherently dangerous.

Beliefs are beliefs and should not need to be protected by legislation. If something cannot stand up to rational argument and debate, then why should it not be termed 'nonsense'?


Yes, a Scientologist said...

Oh dear, you have swallowed hook line and sinker the story you have been fed.

You list a series of sites which are all rabidly anti-Scientology. If that was all that I knew, I too would be feeling just like you.

I have been a Scientologist since 1966, entirely voluntarily, and based only on the fact that when I apply what I have learned to myself and others, I have been able to make improvements in lives, or to overcome some pretty horrendous events.

I respect what you do, and what you believe. I doubt if Patsy Hewitt does - so in your specific area there seem to be two points of view, and some research beyond the headlines and spin gives you the chance to draw your own conclusions.

There IS a 2nd side to the Sweeney programme - he abused the Scientologists' hospitality to ask nearly 80 % of loaded and negative questions of people who willingly gave of their time to be interviewed by him. One lady whom he accused of being "brain-washed" (although he admitted he was no expert on "brain-washing", asked him directly "Do I look brain-washed to you ?", and his face was a delight to behold, he did not know where to look, and gave no answer. the lady went on to exclaim "How DARE you ?", and quite rightly too.

On the internet another group came to our defense and stated that Sweeney had done his ranting and raving shouting thing before, continuously asking a crying and fearful woman the same question over and over again. This group complimented us on having handled Sweeney the way they had failed to do.

For a while there was a very thorough "investigative journalism" style report on HOW Sweeney went about his "impartial" job, giving the other side of the story, but it has been removed for copyright reasons. I have a DVD of this, I am quite willing to send it to you, if you promise to view the whole 30 mins. You will find it interesting, if only for the very thorough way it exposes Sweeney's methods - going to the fire doors of a huge complex of buildings to hammer on them, thus "proving" he was denied access, when the main doors were open and inviting him in sometimes just yards away, and filming this "rejection" 3 or 4 times to get the best shot. Frankly, pathetic. This happened at least twice, possibly 3 times, on this DVD.

There are some things about Scientology with which I am not in 100 % agreement. But then, there seem to be a few things about the DoH, or even our perfect Labour government, with which I am not 100 % in agreement either. Does this mean that ALL MEDICINE is a fraud etc etc ? Of course not. Same applies to Scientology, which amongst other things has the most workable answers to our deplorable educational standards, or to successfully helping addicts off drugs, who then stay off and very often become useful members of society, many also becoming counsellors to help more people off their addictions, to name but two.

Is it just possible that such activities and success grate with those who make a good living from "managing" these problems ? (But failing to cure them.)

I very rarely post as "Anonymous", but I will check back here to see if you want my copy of that DVD. Perhaps you can leave me an email address where I can reveal myself and get your snail address.

Anonymous said...

scientology is a money making pyramid scheme that hides behind the cloak of religion

(I'm not defending religion either- no religion deserves any extra protection in my opinion)

Anonymous said...

"John Sweeney of the BBC has recently done some investigative work on the 'cult' of Scientology"

If you look at the codumentary about the documentary (made by Scientology) at you will notice what John Sweeneys story was supposed to be.

Then the 'exploding tomato' clip with Sweeney was released via days before the BBC Panorama was to air. And so was the documentary about the documentary.

This led Sweeney to re-edit the whole Panorama show just before it was shown: Gone was the original sory about (fire doors and back) doors not being opened and other stuff. Now the only - and true - story was that Scientology had Sweeney on film.

In the old days Panorama would just have shown the story Sweeney had planned. In this internet age 350,000 people had seen Sweeney behind the scene even before his own show aired. And that is why hed had to change strategy as his REAL story had been exposed as untrue already before he had a chance to show it.