Scientology

[Killroy]

I don't get it.

I don't mean I don't get what they believe, as it isn't really any more hokey than any other religion...I mean, I don't get how some of these people are into this group. Is it actually a joke? Do the celebrities, or people with money, know it's bullshit and use the group for money, influence and connections? While the more gullible "common people" slave around for the group?

Anyone know of any quotes, or stories about celebrities who have gotten out of Scientology? I don't need to know what they believe, as that is all old news, but what is everyone's feelings about this particular...religion. I just wonder if people actually believe in the group, or just use what the group can provide.

[Athena]

I'd like to believe it's more a networking function than anything. The sheer volume of affluent people attracted to the "religion" gives me that impression.

Frankly, I think scientology is more ridiculous than most. I take Wiccans more seriously. People are certainly free to "believe" what they will, but if it's Scientology, just don't tell me about it...I will think less of you.

[sweet_misery]

Anyone know of any quotes, or stories about celebrities who have gotten out of Scientology?

Some Diana Canova (from the tv show Soap and others) quotes about Scientology from Premiere magazine 9/93.


"I remember having a choking anger against anyone who ever said anything against Scientology," says actress Diana Canova (Soap), a former member. "I would get crazy, I was just so angry. I would have done anything for them."

During her seven years in Scientology, Canova experienced the Celebrity Center from both sides of fame. "When I started, I wasn't in television yet. I was a nobody--I'd done some TV, but I was not one of the elite, not by a long shot--until I did Soap. Then it became . . . I mean, you really are treated like royalty."

"There was always pressure to get other celebrities in. The first time I walked in those doors, they said, 'Just give us all the money in your bank account. You'll get it back tenfold.'" When she joined, auditing prices were about $25. "It went up to about $175 in the early '80s," she recalls. "That was shocking to me. I was beginning to wonder, Is it really worth it? They're telling you, 'Don't spend $100 an hour on a shrink's couch, it'll ruin your mind.' Auditing is so much better?"

"It took me years before I decided to quit," says Canova. "I guess finally I was so fed up with being afraid. You've heard all these horror stories . . ." Canova warns: "They're capable of doing a lot of things."

Canova says she spoke up because she thought it was important. "I see some of my friends having to keep their mouths shut for personal reasons, for business reasons," she says. "I don't believe that's right. If it's going to be termed a religion, or a church, then those kinds of fears have no business being there. Nobody should be afraid. And you can quote me on that."

A couple more celebrities who are no longer Scientologists.


Singer Lou Rawls, 42, still appears on church membership rolls, even though he has long been disaffected. "Lou is no longer involved in Scientology, it's not an interest at this point and never will be again," his agent says. "He doesn't want to be associated with those people."

John Brodie, a former San Francisco 49'ers quarterback, was involved in Scientology from 1970 to 1982. He was one of the first 25 Scientologists to reach the level of OT 7, considered a formidable accomplishment by members. Still, Brodie says he never considered himself part of the group. Brodie said he gave up promoting Scientology after some of his friends in Scientology were expelled and harassed during a power struggle with church management. "There were many in the church I felt were treated unfairly," Brodie said.

There are many Hollywood people who have left Scientology but fear speaking out. Some of them leave and just order Scientology to stop using their names and "success" stories. Hopefully, because of this report and the full Scientology celebrity listing at the end of part two, more former Scientology celebrities will begin to tell their stories in the media.

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/celeb1.htm

That is just a small part of what is in the article, which is pretty interesting and worth a read.

[swivel]

Excellent! Thanks, Sweet Misery. Killroy and I were talking about this and we kept coming back to it being a pyramid scheme of lunatics. Hearing accounts of people who were on the inside, came back out, and said, "Yup, those people are fucking scary" is just the perspective I wanted to hear.

It's a Hollywood Cult. A hulla-hoop religion. I hope it burns out before it takes too many decent performers with it.


According to Hubbard, Scientologists should target prominent individuals as their "quarry" and bring them back like trophies for Scientology. He listed the following people of that era as suitable prey: Edward R. Murrow, Marlene Dietrich, Ernest Hemingway, Howard Hughes, Greta Garbo, Walt Disney, Henry Luce, Billy Graham, Groucho Marx and others of similar stature. "If you bring one of them home you will get a small plaque as a reward," Hubbard wrote in a Scientology magazine more than three decades ago. Although the original effort faded, the idea of using celebrities to promote and defend Scientology survived and is now being expanded though Hubbard's successor David Miscavige.



Once all this information is assembled the Celebrity Center staff implements the Battle Plan. They try to set up a meeting scenario that looks like a chance meeting. The best "set ups" are enacted where a lot of unknown Scientology shills can be placed around the target celebrity. Some other Scientology celebrity friends are there too, (Scientology has been using charity events lately for this.)

Once the meeting is started some general communication is first established to relax the target. They can't obviously just walk up and say "Come to the Scientology center"; first they have to establish a rapport with the person. Once they have got a conversation going they gradually try to steer the discussion over to the target's emotional or psychological buttons, and\or they start "admiration-bombing" the target. When the emotional button "hook" has been placed into the target then they start telling them about Scientology and invite them to an event or in to the center.

Goddamn, this is a wonderful read.

[sweet_misery]

Excellent! Thanks, Sweet Misery.

You're welcome. :)


Killroy and I were talking about this and we kept coming back to it being a pyramid scheme of lunatics. Hearing accounts of people who were on the inside, came back out, and said, "Yup, those people are fucking scary" is just the perspective I wanted to hear.

It's a Hollywood Cult. A hulla-hoop religion. I hope it burns out before it takes too many decent performers with it.

Yep, it's pretty much all about the money. Dini Petty (Canadian radio and tv host) quit in the 80s because it had become "pretty much money-oriented." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists

[swivel]

Killroy, you need to read the article posted by Sweet Misery. It has all the answers you were looking for.

They get you while you are down, or in a transition stage. For the celebs, they prey on their desire for fame and attention. One of the first things you do is have them divulge all the horrible things they have ever done in their lives. These sessions are recorded. Eplains why people feel stuck, and why they stay quiet if they leave.

Check this out.

L_w-YWwC1lI

[Killroy]

Thanks. I'll have to check it all out when I get home. I'm blocked from all the links provided.

[swivel]

qLZJBdvqAv8

NlPu6pbv05g

^^^ Again, the religious nut looks sane in comparison to the anti-religious asshole.

[alizardsbet]

this wasnt what you were asking for in the post specifically, but i think it might be useful to you all the same. Germany is waging a religious war against the scientologists claiming that their views are too totalitarian for them to sit comfortably. France thinks they're political spies sent from the u.s., and has refused to site them a license to practice their religion. which i think is a great idea personally, people should have to meet regulations and have a license to practice such loony politics. i also don't think they would be too far off the mark how our media interacts with our gov't.

that's interesting the scheme bit, and doesn't surprise me in the least; i haven't found anything that contradicts the information. as far as "evil" cults practicing i think they are the poster child. the whole blackmail scheme though reminds of the history of confession and how that developed in the Catholic church to keep noblity in control and supportive of church agenda.

i've heard some disturbing stories about being inside. the introduction and the dividing into groups and what the church allows outsiders to see and the true followers actually do is in a way amusing. their fanatasism is no worse in a lot of ways to any other sect though. their antics are just a bit more humoring than some others... not quite as much of a downer... which is their selling pt.

[CPL CHUD]

I think people should be able to openly practice any religion they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights. It saves time by letting us know who the morons are right from the get go.

[swivel]

I think people should be able to openly practice any religion they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights. It saves time by letting us know who the morons are right from the get go.

If you look into most religions, you will find that people's rights are being trampled by ill-meaning charlatans who prey on weakness in order to gain power. I think it is the responsibility of those of us on the outside to reach out to those who are being taken advantage of.

[brokenandtwisted]

Scientology is more of a...philosophy than a religion. I just believe the 'religious' aspect is way out in left field.

I think you should all read Dianetics. Although it sounds ridiculous, Scientology is really about mind and spirit. It has an interesting premise, but the execution is just fucked. I concur with Athena, it's more of a network than a series belief.

[swivel]

Scientology is more of a...philosophy than a religion. I just believe the 'religious' aspect is way out in left field.

Most Scientologists would disagree with you. Especially around tax time.

Really, it would fit the definition of "Cult" more than religion. When they are started by an admitted mortal, and develop due to that mortal's charisma, you have a cult.

Now, when that mortal dies, and the cult members start to pretend that the mortal wasn't really a moral, and even put words in the mortal's mouth, claiming that the mortal claimed to be god... then you have Christianity.

[Athena]

If you look into most religions, you will find that people's rights are being trampled by ill-meaning charlatans who prey on weakness in order to gain power. I think it is the responsibility of those of us on the outside to reach out to those who are being taken advantage of.



Really, it would fit the definition of "Cult" more than religion. When they are started by an admitted mortal, and develop due to that mortal's charisma, you have a cult.


Not to redirect the thread, here....But these remarks are reminiscent of a conversation I had recently regarding cultism and society's responsibility to save people from it.

I would be very interested to hear peoples' opinions on what separates a cult from a religion and if creation of a cult should be punishable by law due to their often predatory nature.

If you care to share...I'm listening. :)

[swivel]

Not to redirect the thread, here....But these remarks are reminiscent of a conversation I had recently regarding cultism and society's responsibility to save people from it.

I would be very interested to hear peoples' opinions on what separates a cult from a religion and if creation of a cult should be punishable by law due to their often predatory nature.

If you care to share...I'm listening. :)

Yes. Cults should be prosecuted against. But carefully. You could easily add credence to the cult by coming down on them too hard.

I think that all superstitious groups that ask for special treatment from the government should first prove their claims. Just like the rest of us. If a cop pulls me over, I can not tell him, "This is my car. My driving record is clean. I have had it inspected within the last year". Nope, the cop is going to want a bit of proof.

We should ask the same from every person who wants to operate within (but usually outside) the law. You want your tax breaks? We need evidence that you are not taking advantage of people, so prove any claims that you are making to them, and being paid for.

The idea of "Separation of Church and State" was a progressive one for its time. It was an age of state-sponsored religion that killed heretics as a matter of policy. But progressive 200 years ago is not the end of the process. These were SLAVE-OWNERS. People that did not protect endangered cultures, species, and habitats. War-mongerers and expansionists. The absolute best men of their age. Men who would be outcasts today.

We do not need to bronze their work, we need to CONTINUE it. The next step is to respect only the belief systems that have verifiable merit, or do not operate with any sort of coercion or profit. That means not telling children, and people in weakened states (alcoholics) things which can not be demonstrated to contain an ounce of truth.

This is the SLAVERY OF TODAY. You can be "current", and give space to these atrocities, and suffer the disdain of future generations, or you can be a true progressive. See how barbaric today's practices will appear tomorrow, and help usher change.

[Athena]

But aren't there already fraud-oriented laws on the books that should be protecting people from cults (much like they protect people from Amway scams or other predatory organisations)? Furthermore, many established churches encourage, maybe even coerce people to donate large sums of money - What makes them different?

[Killroy]

I only consider an organization, or religion, a cult if the members of the organization are afraid to leave because of any type of retaliation (whether it is mental or physical) for doing so and remain members purely out of fear and not beleif in what the organization stands for. Or something like that.

[swivel]

I only consider an organization, or religion, a cult if the members of the organization are afraid to leave because of any type of retaliation (whether it is mental or physical) for doing so and remain members purely out of fear and not beleif in what the organization stands for. Or something like that.

So, you put Christianity and Islam in the "Cult" bracket, eh?

[swivel]

But aren't there already fraud-oriented laws on the books that should be protecting people from cults (much like they protect people from Amway scams or other predatory organisations)? Furthermore, many established churches encourage, maybe even coerce people to donate large sums of money - What makes them different?

Nothing. Read my post again. I am calling for an end to religion in general. I equate it with slavery and other barbarisms of the past.

Religions are immune from fraud laws. They hide behind the veil of "improvable".

[Killroy]

So, you put Christianity and Islam in the "Cult" bracket, eh?

People can leave the church they attend at any time they want.

[I am Legend]

yeap-religion/cult.............same thing. problem is..............if we ban religion there will be thousands of idiots running around with a serious need to direct some energy somewhere, and since they are idiots.........................

any religion has its "cult" groups which spring from them, but in the end, all are cults. and anyone who follows these cults/religions ARE mental slaves (at the very least).

its like someone running around saying "gawd told me the sun rises in the west and sets in the north so thats what i believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AMEN!!!!!!!!"...................ok..but you are still a fucking moroni, now stfu and gfy cult-monkey.

the freedom to let people walk around hee-hawing like jackasses should be reexamined i think.

[swivel]

People can leave the church they attend at any time they want.

Go ask them. Even the ones that do walk away from their religion do so after a period of guilt and fear. And they are socially ostracized for their lack of faith.

The concept of Satan is no different than any other cult tactic designed to make one fear reprisals for thinking freely. All religions have these, because they need them. If there was no fear, nobody would buy the bullshit or waste their time on it.

[Athena]

Nothing. Read my post again. I am calling for an end to religion in general. I equate it with slavery and other barbarisms of the past.

Religions are immune from fraud laws. They hide behind the veil of "improvable".

Oh yeah. I forgot you're all...Extremist and stuff. ;)

[Athena]

Even the ones that do walk away from their religion do so after a period of guilt and fear. And they are socially ostracized for their lack of faith.


Blanket generalisations detract from credibility, my dear.

I say that, of course, as a once baptised and practicing Catholic-turned-Atheist who suffered no ill-effects from my conscience OR my peers. ;)

[swivel]

Blanket generalisations detract from credibility, my dear.

I say that, of course, as a once baptised and practicing Catholic-turned-Atheist who suffered no ill-effects from my conscience OR my peers. ;)

Your family and friends are all faithful, and they have no qualms with your atheism?

You used to believe in god, talk to him, pray to him, accept the concepts of heaven and hell, and one day you just decided, "Nope, not for me anymore, I quit"?

If so, you are the exception that proves the rule. If we are going to pile up anecdotal evidence, my stack is going to be thousands of times larger than yours. The thing that I will grant you is that the people who are involved in religion, that never believe any of it, have no problem going on to not believe it later in life.

The best thing about your post is that "blanket generalizations detract from credibility" is itself a blanket generalization. I'm sure you meant, "Sometimes when people generalize, they might lose some of their credibility".

[Tolo]

I always see them in Hollywood on the Boulevard. They ask if you want to take a free personality test.

This video is pretty scary:

rCGP-0545EU

I can't figure out the YouTube tags...So if someone wants to fix it go right ahead.

[swivel]

I can't figure out the YouTube tags...So if someone wants to fix it go right ahead.

It's the opposite of what you would expect. Paste the Youtube hash right into the message: ymald2hdy, highlight this hash, then click the YouTube button, and when it asks you for input, that is just the text going into the Title bar of the video.

[Tolo]

Ah, okay. Thanks.

[swivel]

Ah, okay. Thanks.

Well, damn... click the "Thanks" button for me. :D

[CPL CHUD]

As long as there are unanswered questions there will be people looking for supernatural causation. The God of the gaps will remain untill the majority of human kind become mature enough to abandon fantasy, and that's a long way off.

Untill then we are forced to deal with these nuts with kiddy gloves. Being too harsh on them makes them martyrs. Ignoring them isn't the answer either; they thrive on ignorance. The only thing you can really do to the dolts who willingly buy into this crap is embarrass them with rationality, but that only works if they get the joke.

[McVain]

Interesting video Tolo.

Much like Tom Cruise, Charles Manson also reached the highest possible level of Scientology. What does this have to do with the religion? Nothing really, but it does amuse me to compare Tom Cruise to Charles Manson.

[Athena]

Your family and friends are all faithful, and they have no qualms with your atheism?

None whatsoever.


You used to believe in god, talk to him, pray to him, accept the concepts of heaven and hell, and one day you just decided, "Nope, not for me anymore, I quit"?

Not exactly a watershed moment, but yes, once upon a time I believed and now I don't.


If so, you are the exception that proves the rule. If we are going to pile up anecdotal evidence, my stack is going to be thousands of times larger than yours.

Yes, yes...Personal experience is typically not a substantial argument. I realise. That being said, I've never met anyone who suffered, internally or externally, as the result of leaving their religion behind. Perhaps it's my location. Seattle's awfully liberal, after all...


The best thing about your post is that "blanket generalizations detract from credibility" is itself a blanket generalization. I'm sure you meant, "Sometimes when people generalize, they might lose some of their credibility".

Hypocrisy does not necessarily damage the accuracy of a statement. I could tell someone that smoking may kill them between drags and it certainly wouldn't make my assertion any less true.

Do you think that, sometimes, blanket generalisations are anything other than lazy and inaccurate? Your assertion may be the rule, but words like "some" and "most" are specifically for instances when assertions are not absolute. Your version of my statement proves that you know how it's done, but I still like my version better.

Annoyingly nitpicky, I know...But it's hard to take a statement seriously when it blatantly contradicts one's own experience; an experience that is not all that uncommon.