Blog Readers, Why Be Haters?

Nicely said Claire!

The problem with the previous article (which I read but never commented on) was that the reason Scientology is considered dangerous by the German government is really simple: they want to create a society where non-scientologists will not have any rights. Their beliefs, are completely irrelevant when the church's mandate is to "Clear the Planet" (by that they mean making everyone "clear" as per their teachings). This was published in a document called "Protecting the Constitution" which comes out annually. Scientology in Germany has been watched by the "Scientology Task Force for the Hamburg Interior Authority" for years and they feel that they are legitimately dangerous to the greater population.

They have a core belief in 2.5% of the population are Suppressive Persons and that they should be exterminated. That is why the German government is wary of the church, any group that tries to control politics while condemning another group is considered dangerous. Germany of all places has a right to be suspicious of those organizations.

I can only speak for myself, but my feelings of frustration over the last 8 years has boiled over to a fever pitch as I've watched Christian conservatism, in my opinion, nearly ruin this country. Christian dogma has been inserted into our science, our children's classrooms, and deeply into our politics. It's insanity!

And yet, what can I do about it? It's been eight long years of a dark nightmare watching the most uneducated and superstitious segment of our population run rampant through all levels of our society.

One thing I can do about it is vent my emotions anonymously to at least get some sanity out there on the airwaves, and to see if anyone else in America actually still agrees with me.

As to the wild venting about Tom Cruise, Oprah, Scientology, and other topics, that stuff doesn't set me off at all. But I wonder what the breakdown is between Conservative voices vs. Liberal Voices?

I've observed myself that, in general, on these blogs, Liberal voice are more coherent, insightful and fact-based, while conservative voices are filled with vitriol, juvenile name-calling and character assassination.

Just my perspective.

"At first, it bummed me out to read all these screaming comments weekly, seemingly willful in misunderstanding everything I'd written."

First question to ask is of yourself: are people misunderstanding you because your writing style doesn't clearer convey your intent?

I'd start there. You may find that the rest will take care of itself.

I can understand your frustration - no matter what you write, someone will disagree strongly, that is the nature of hot topics like religion.

And on the internet, people can be disturbingly rude, or interpret an innocent remark the wrong way, due to the absence of tone and context.

However I must admit I was taken aback by the Scientology issue, because the German government has made their position clear and it has nothing to do with religious belief. The organizational structure and policy platform of Scientology directly contradicts the constitutional principles of Germany.

As former high-level Scientologist Lawrence Brennan stated in his May 6 affidavit,

"The true danger lurking behind those corporate veils and hidden behind religious cloaking is organized scientology’s intention to control the legal systems and educational systems of the world, to rid the world of its enemies and it apply its brutal ethics policies to everyone. That is what is in store for the world should the policies of organized scientology be applied throughout the world. It has long been the intention of organized scientology to do the above as it uses its front groups like Narconon, Applied Scholastics, the Way to Happiness Foundation etc. to get inroads into society for organized scientology."

And as L. Ron Hubbard stated:
“Once the world is Clear - a nation, a state, a city or a village - the Scientology-organization in the area becomes its government! And once this has taken place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology policy.”
- "Future Org Trends," January 9th 1962. By L. Ron Hubbard.

People should be free to practice and believe what they want, but an organization should always be accountable to the laws of the nations in which it operates.

I understand perfectly your surprise. At first, the enthusiasm/venom with which some respond to articles about the Scientology cult can be alarming.

However, you must understand that this is an organisation that has no interest in religious freedom, freedom of speech, and certainly not self-improvement. It's motivations are ENTIRELY financial. Why else would they charge you $360,000 to learn that you are composed of dead aliens?

Scientology has ruined the lives of so many, and has gradually transformed into something more and more malign, and with this transformation has emerged Anonymous, a collective determined to expose the criminality of the cult. When articles make no mention of Operation Snow White, the RPF, forced abortions, Operation Freakout, disconnection, Fair Game, and brainwashing, some Anonymous have a tendency to unleash the cannons. They may seem venomous, but are utterly passionate and dedicated to defeating the Scientology cult.

Thank you for convering this story though. As you can see, there is nothing quite like Scientology to fire up the debate!

I understand perfectly your surprise. At first, the enthusiasm/venom with which some respond to articles about the Scientology cult can be alarming.

However, you must understand that this is an organisation that has no interest in religious freedom, freedom of speech, and certainly not self-improvement. It's motivations are ENTIRELY financial. Why else would they charge you $360,000 to learn that you are composed of dead aliens?

Scientology has ruined the lives of so many, and has gradually transformed into something more and more malign, and with this transformation has emerged Anonymous, a collective determined to expose the criminality of the cult. When articles make no mention of Operation Snow White, the RPF, forced abortions, Operation Freakout, disconnection, Fair Game, and brainwashing, some Anonymous have a tendency to unleash the cannons. They may seem venomous, but are utterly passionate and dedicated to defeating the Scientology cult.

Thank you for convering this story though. As you can see, there is nothing quite like Scientology to fire up the debate!

Hi Claire,

I personally responded (and quite politely, I hope) because I was deeply concerned about the tone of the posting – mainly, that Scientology’s a quirky-but-harmless new-age religion.

Having spent months researching the Church of Scientology, you must have talked to former members. You must have seen that the only way to progress in the cult is via “fixed donation”. The testimony about Church leaders being mentally and physically abusive is all over the place – this is no playgroup, this is a pyramid scheme that is harmful to both its members and surrounding communities.

You’re going to get a lot of feedback on this (again), and sometimes huge swathes of information are overwhelming, so please check out enturbulation.org to see where a lot of people are coming from. Barring that, check out Clearwater FL, where stores have been pressured into putting up signs denying service to members of Anonymous. The local Starbucks said no, and was promptly told that if they DIDN’T use the supplied signage and continued to serve the protest group, then it would lose all Scientology custom. Starbucks, again, refused – and its business has gone straight through the floor.

This is generally known as racketeering, I think, and while only effective in areas with high Scientologist concentrations, it’s a rather chilling effect, no?

I realize that you’re probably trying to be evenhanded. But there’s a huge difference between giving both sides equal time, and actually stating the truth. Germans are wary of Scientology for very good reason, and so should we all be.

Claire,

The "pew sitters" are tired of the mumbo jumbo coming from the pulpits. They have a right to be upset. Hateful are they? No, they simply want the truth of it all. The "bowers" would be equally tired of the Islamic mumbo jumbo if they knew their founder was an illiterate, hallucinating, greed-lust driven, warmongering and womanizing Arab.

As a synopsis of the flaws and errors of the major religions for your perusal and commentary:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site)

- "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship/veneration/revering are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Claire, you are right. However, some of us have been trying to get people to look at the facts about Scientology for so long, and we are used to fighting OSA trolls who enter these boards just to drown out criticism and suppress free speech, that we often forget about people who truly have no idea what is going on.

Instead of criticizing you, I will ask you to do a few things.

Google the following, and decide for yourself.

"Operation Snow White"
"Operation Freakout"
"Paulette Cooper"
"Lisa McPherson"
"Scientology Tax Exemption"
"Fair Game"
"Introspection Rundown"
"Rehabilitation Project Force"
"Disconnection"
"SP Declare" or "SP Policy"
"Scientology Abuse"
"Scientology Fraud"
"Jason Beghe Interview"
"Astra Woodcroft Interview"
"Jenna Miscavige Hill Interview"
"Scientology Affadvit"
"Mark Bunker"
"Anonymous"

After reading through all of these, I think you will understand why some of us can be a little rabid at the media not actually researching their opinion pieces before they publish... google is such an easy to use tool. You put info in, you get info out.

Thank you for your time. I wish you well.

Actually whether anyone believes that Jesus is Who He Is or not, a lot of the pure hatred and slander that is spoken on these sites is exactly what He spoke about.

It is a shame that the very simple and direct message that Jesus taught is not PROCLAIMED.

Of course, since satan is real, Jesus told us that also.

It seems that a lot of people are going to be surprised to find out that God, Who is Pure Love, is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

And also to find out that it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

We really do try to make the simple, complex, do we not?

It is so simple that a child can understand it and yet so hard that one needs to become child-like rather than childish to even attempt it. Does not some of the postings seem to be, shall we say, like a temper tandrum?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Claire wrote:
"The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution. That seems weird to me and even more important, makes the German government look kind of like pansies for spending a lot of money surveilling and punishing people who mostly walk around modeling their emotions and listening to the recordings of LRH. Right?"

If it seems weird to you that Germany wants to ban the Cult of Scientology you really MUST do more homework. The whacky naval uniforms and modeling emotions are hardly the main concerns of the German government and I think the comments on the previous article made that clear (even if loudly). What about THOSE issues don't you understand (at the same time she worries about being followed)...your current article does not seem genuine based on all the educating comments from the previous article.

Scientology theology (or rather, directives from that funny little man in a navy suit) dictates that members infiltrate governments and blackmail anyone and everyone possible in order to turn things their way. THAT is why the very smart Germans will not allow Scientologists to work in government, that is why they keep a close eye on them, that is why they call them a CULT. Since when is Scientology a religion? Since certain members of the U.S. gov agency the IRS were blackmailed into agreeing that they WERE a religion versus a business.

Would you even be writing this article about a business? Thought not. Germany believes the cult is dangerous and a business. It IS their right and duty to protect their citizens from the abuses as such. Why is it YOUR business what they think about this cult? Rather it would be more your business to work on educating our own govrnment as to why Americans should be protected from this dangerous cult and pyramid scheme, but that might be hard considering another cult leader is in deep in Washington, you know, the Rev. Sun Yung Moon? Do you consider HIM a religion too?

Americans better wake up.

$cientology-Patsy?

Wow!

PS: Once upon a time "i" asked me Bose fo a Raze & da Fool said, "Bend Over, I'll give ya a Raise!"

Eeeeee Haaaaaa!

"what gives with all this knee-jerk hysteria around discussions of religion?"

"Is there no room for a little gray in the area of religious belief?"

Questions for the ages, Claire.

Has there ever been?

Why so suprised?

Ever heard the expression "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?

If you CHOOSE to write about controversial topics, then you should know well enough to be prepared for the kind of feedback that may result.

I am sorry to sound harsh, but it is what it is.

If you can't handle it, then I suggest you choose "safer" topics to write about.

If you had thoroughly researched scientology then you wouldn't have needed to ask the questions you asked in your previous article. Nor would you have flippantly accused the German government of having something to be afraid of. I'm sure you didn't like being accused of being a 'patsy' for scientology, but given that you acted in a similar fashion to scientologists when confronted with criticism (asking what people are afraid of), you should hardly be surprised.

I don't hate scientologists. I don't hate anyone for what they believe, even if I think it's totally insane. What I do hate, is a business using 'religious cloaking' to mask the fact that it is a business. I hate the human rights abuses committed by scientology, I hate the freedom of speech abuses committed by scientology. I hate a lot of things about scientology, but I don't hate the people who have been fooled into believing in scientology.

Let me add THE KABBALAH CENTRE to the list of EVIL CULTS that are gaining ground.

Just ONE example of MANY: At the Kabbalah Centre, each week they ask for the names of the sick, so they can "send them healing light." What they really do is hound them for an amount of money "as painful as the sickness itself" in order to "open a channel to receive light."

Think of someone who has cancer. Or an autistic child. Or a spouse with altzheimers. Or has been in an auto accident. Imagine the pain and desparation. Then imagine the KABBALAH CENTRE swindling you out of EVERYTHING YOU OWN at the same time. The worse things get, the more desparate you get, the more they take. AND THEY DON'T STOP. YOUR LIFE SAVINGS. YOUR HOME. EVERYTHING!!!

I have observed this same lack of reasoned discussion not just on blogs devoted to hot button topics like religion and politics. Even on blogs for topics as seemingly harmless as cooking or sewing, someone ends up flamin' someone over something innocuous, such as a cornbread recipe.
The anonymity of blog comments seems to have stripped away any pretense of manners or fair play that we all learned in grade school. That is one of the reasons I rarely read blog comments or bother to comment anymore. It is such a shame with a modicum of respect blog comments could be a perfect place for enjoyable full bodied, open discussions and exchanges.

well we are an internet hate machine. :)

come to a protest, we generally have cake and refreshments; music and dancing. and everyone is welcome.

I've been a Scientologist for 40 years. I am not employed by any Church of Scientology nor any of its affiliated organizations.

I am well trained in Dianetics and through its procedures have helped free men and women of severe emotional distress (stemming from such things as horrific physical trauma and physical abuse, including childhood rape). Nearly all of these individuals had had extensive histories of psych "therapy", several for more than 15 years each -- with no lasting results.

One of the benefits of Dianetics and Scientologist methodologies is becoming free of past life traumas that (unknowingly) dictate how a person responds to the current lifetime.

(The physical body lives one life, but the individual continues and often (particularly in the West)forgets what happened in previous life times.

It is only because of Dianetics (1950) and Scientology (1954) that it has now become fairly okay to speak about past lives in the West. The Eastern cultures have long recognized that a person is an immortal spiritual being, and the body only a vessel.

Now, to the point -- harmed by Scientology? Have you spoken to the thousands of Scientologists who are at this moment taking classes or receiving auditing throughout the world? (See: www.Scientology.org for what that is)

Have you carefully reviewed the data at www.CCHR.org or www.FreedomMag.org?

From your article, it appears that you have not.

Have a small percentage of individuals not received good service or were treated unfairly. Yes. There are 15,000+ staff of the various Scientology organizations.

But for every one of those there are thousands who have benefited, either as a Scientologist or a non-Scientologist benefiting from the technologies developed by L Ron Hubbard.

Were it not for the "don't fu*k with me" approach, Scientology and its technologies would not now exist.

You think Iraq is a war?

It is, but even more pressing as a worldwide situation in which monopolies (including the psych and drug industries) seek absolute control from cradle to grave-- with the psych and drug industries manufacturing more mental diseases to get more drugs sold.

If you read Dianetics, you'll understand that drugs decrease awareness (feel mellow or apathetic or 'happy'), and by doing so open the door to hidden past antagonisms surfacing, as is clearly evidenced by the increase number in crimes. There are now more people in prison in US than ever before. Children are killing children.

Disconnection?

Sure it exists. It's right there. Take a look at www.ScientologyHandbook.org

No one can be permitted to take services at a Church of Scientology who is constantly be berated for “being involved in Scientology.” That brow-beating creates problems. So a person can tell the antagonistic individual, "Hey, give me a break. You hate Scientology? That's okay. Just keep it to yourself when you're around me. Let me make my own decision."

If a person wants to continue with Scientology, and is still being berated then he disengages from the bigot or stops going to any Scientology center.

(How many parents have ruined and/or harmed their children's lives by demanding that they live according to the parent's view of existence? You should not be ... You've got to be ... You are no good...)

I've helped many adults with Dianetics repair ruined lives caused by others' "holier than thou" mindsets.

If you don't want to do disconnect (until the antagonistic person stops being a bigot), then you can still take extension courses via mail, or read books and use methods such as contained in Hubbard's books Self Analysis or Scientology: New Slant on Life or Scientology: Problems of Work.

These same protestors would better serve society were they to get up to date on what an increasing number of psychiatrists and psychologists are now reporting: psych drugs are a marketing tool and have no basis in fact. There is no pathological testing for "chemical imbalance."

How many people have died in psychiatric tax-funded centers? The data is IMPOSSIBLE to get. Why is that information being hidden, when 99% of all psych "therapy" is paid for through taxes and the ever increasing insurance premium.

You've a society fast going down the tubes.

A society that is illiterate.

Did you know that the American Psychiatric Association was given free hand to "restructure the US curriculum" in the mid-1960's to make children more "sociable" -- and the APA created "new math" / "new science" / and "new reading" that quickly destroyed the core subjects of reading, writing and math and is the cause of the almost immediate decrease in literacy and the now epidemic school drop outs.

Even The Wall Street Journal has reported that college literacy is at an all time low.

You have no idea as to how much benefit the Chruch of Scientology has provided this society, and done so because it made certain that it protected itself from monopolies that really do want to control people from crade-to-grave.

Well, having very good past life recall and having seen protests against religions time and time again (in the distant past) -- this will blow over.

Scientology is here to stay and will continue to grow.

Att: A N N' E, et al;

Ye are Wise as "Cyber Apostle(s) "WARM-HEAR" & "BUTTERFLY" & "THE-LiON" et al;

Huggs n Kiss's To MOMMA! and POPPA Too forever more! Ya Si{STAR}!

PS: "i" have similar inSitu!

Remember: "WE Take Care Of OUR Own!"

Ms. Hoffman:

For the months you've spent researching the Scientology Organization, only approximately ten minutes of it came through in your article.

You seem to be disregarding people’s right to personal opinion in an attempt to open up a fruitless dialogue and continuation of a topic you have diluted, so as to further your blogs surge in traffic.

When people start using and or abusing others personal beliefs for their own gain I find it shameful.

Maybe I’m disillusioned and this is what all bloggers, journalists etc do?

This is all just my personal opinion though. I'm actually open to opposing views.

To those of you whining about the bad manners that result from anonymity on the internet:

There is a time and place for manners. Too many times I have seen injustices go by unchecked because people are too concerned about being polite and not making a fuss.

If anonymity is what it takes to give people the courage to stand up for what is right, then I say so be it. It is RAW TRUTH that results in these exchanges. It can be cruel, but so can those who wish to take advantage of people's kindness and good manners.

Mr. Lightfield wrote:

"How many people have died in psychiatric tax-funded centers? The data is IMPOSSIBLE to get. Why is that information being hidden, when 99% of all psych "therapy" is paid for through taxes and the ever increasing insurance premium."

Data which is also impossible to get is any kind of hard scientific evidence (peer-reviewed studies and the like) which back up any claim whatsoever in Dianetics or any other Scientology book.

I would be happy to concede that Scientology raises one's IQ (something that is often claimed) if you could provide evidence to that effect. A report by a research facility, for example.

In Germany is since 09 May 2008, says a high ranking German justice that Scientology is forbidden and must go home to the united states of America to 2010.
When not they will failed to prison for like terror happenings.
This News come not over in the media while this organization give money to say this not.
This is ugly.

claire, you know what i think is hilarious.

you look through those comments from that scientology article, all the scientology critical ones are based on rational well thought out arguments. venom is notably absent.

You look at the comments here on other faits, and they attack the faiths.

When people criticize scientology they attack the policies.

If you cant see the difference between the two, thats a article in and of itself.

Also, if you were wondering why germany is cracking down on what you call a group with a taste for nautical uniforms, then you can claim to have researched scientology, but your statement proves otherwise, and is infact stereotyping scientologists. The naval uniforms, are used by a very small part of the church, known as the sea org. And when i say small, i mean single digit percentages. If you bothered to walk into any org in the world you would know that. Claiming to have researched scientology to poo poo critics opinions is one thing, but then making comments that reveal you have not researched the religion to the point that you make a comment which in stereoyped to the point of being prejudice is quite another.

Scientologists arent evil, and they dont all have a perchant for naval uniforms. The church of scientology will never be destroyed, because you cant destroy an idea. But it can, and will be reformed. And it can and will have to deal with the actions and polices which it carried out, but still denies.

A catholic is not a bigot for protesting for an investigation of child molestation claims against an official of his church.

Scientology critics are not bigots for protesting based on the piles and piles of information on polices like fair game and disconnection, which get added to every single day, before the protesters eyes, by the actions scientology takes to ruin their lives.

To James Lightfield 6.14PM, you might want to get in touch with Tommy Davis (Scientology PR), because you just contradicted what he said about disconnection on CNN the other day. Is he a liar?

You proudly mention the "Don't fu*k with me approach" (may I remind you that this policy is something that Scientology shares with the Mafia). It is this attitude that makes Organized Scientology repugnant to the rest of society. Why do you call us wogs? Why do you believe you are Homo novis instead of Homo sapien? Why do you assume you know better than us about the reality of our world?

Your comments about "war" and psychiatry are all the more disturbing. Do you realize that such a view is quite extreme? What evidence do you have to support such bizarre claims? If psychiatry is the root of all evil why are we so stupid that we can't see it but you can?

And to Claire, I'm not sure what the response was in the blog you refer to but I can understand vehement opposition to Scientology if posts like James Lightfield's are representative of Scientology attitudes.

The first night I did research on Scientology, I knew there was something very sinister about it. I continued my own research for months and would never question Germany's decision regarding the CULT! I only wish our own government would grow a pair and shut this cult down!

You claim to have done months of research, and yet you appear to have doubts about how dangerous this cult truly is.

I hope your readers do their own research because you have clearly not done enough homework of your own to even think about giving an "informed opinion" on the internet regarding this cult. Another reader has already left you a great list to use on Google. I hope Google works on your pc, because it really is a useful tool to learn information about the horrendous crimes of the Cult of Scientology.

I pray that your children never join Scientology because you are truly clueless about how harmful this cult is to its' members and the communities it operates in.

Education is not a hate crime.

The first night I did research on Scientology, I knew there was something very sinister about it. I continued my own research for months and would never question Germany's decision regarding the CULT! I only wish our own government would grow a pair and shut this cult down!

You claim to have done months of research, and yet you appear to have doubts about how dangerous this cult truly is.

I hope your readers do their own research because you have clearly not done enough homework of your own to even think about giving an "informed opinion" on the internet regarding this cult. Another reader has already left you a great list to use on Google. I hope Google works on your pc, because it really is a useful tool to learn information about the horrendous crimes of the Cult of Scientology.

I pray that your children never join Scientology because you are truly clueless about how harmful this cult is to its' members and the communities it operates in.

Education is not a hate crime.

It's too obvious that you have NOT done months of research on the CoS, unless it's on their own websites or in emails and phone calls with them.

Anonymous has been in 5 protests now since the beginning of this year, and knows countless more than you do on the abuses and agenda of the CoS.
Total fail, Claire. Serious fail.

It's too obvious that you have NOT done months of research on the CoS, unless it's on their own websites or in emails and phone calls with them.

Anonymous has been in 5 protests now since the beginning of this year, and knows countless more than you do on the abuses and agenda of the CoS.
Total fail on your part, Claire. Serious fail.

Ann, 6.11PM.

Cornbread recipes are VERY serious business, and they are certainly not innocuous as you asserted in your flippant comment. I have seen many an evening ruined because of a misapplied or faulty cornbread recipe.

Do your homework first, please, and then maybe you'll realize that there is something truly sinister going on behind the curtain.

We are not protesting a religion, we are protesting a cult/corporation.

Claire,

Scientology is not recognized as a religion in Germany. The German government's opposition to it has nothing to do with what people believe. It has everything to do with what German government officials know Scientology does.

Scientology's stated goal of governmental takeover is more than enough reason to suppress expansion. A mafia by any other name is still a criminal syndicate.

I'm not trying to throw insults, but your "entry level" argument does not hold water. New recruits clearly avoid the organization's inevitable criminal prosecution, but a habitually corrupt criminal syndicate does not gain justification by snagging a few uneducated passers-by.

Equating scientology to religion is a disservice to humanity everywhere. Your months of research should undeniably show this.

Well I'm not sure why you did not post my other comment but that's all good because based on the other comments I have read you have been exposed. You obviously did not look into the history and practices CO$ very hard. As a journalist you should be ashamed of that Dribble. I always thought the Post was a reputable publication but that is questionable!!

LOOK UP!!!!!
"Operation Snow White"
"Operation Freakout"
"Paulette Cooper"

I as did others also wrote to

To:executive.editor@washingtonpost.com,

CC:CEO-CarolineLittle@wpni.com,

Clair, I've not posted in awhile but do want to give at least a partial answer to your greater question, of the perceived hostility toward religious ideas in general, and how such a public forum "On Faith" might generate controversy like it does.

The short version: Some of us over 40 have come to see, and can put into context, the harm that has come to our country "under the banner of heaven." Simply put, to the extent that religious ideas propogate unchallenged, we fear for our and our children's very liberties and for this hard-earned democratic experiment, and don't take for granted any more that religious views will be important as a personal virtue for individuals and families. We've seen what rides in under God's banner, from both sides of the aisle.

Susan Jacoby has written "The Age of American Unreason," and countless others have documented the forces that have shaped our antagonism to rational thought and debate, and religious zeal has a palce right up there on the top.

Eboo Patel's "interfaith" section is usually interesting but would be more fairly labeled "On An Attempt at Universalism/Deism" to be more accurate. While his heart is in the right place, and in light of the last article you'd written about Scientology, what is the value of "celebrating" all beliefs? Should we value everyone's "truths?" I and others would argue that with few exceptions, the "great religions" are NOT sympathetic to harmony, inclusion, and community. They are tribal, exclusive, and prosyletizing, and that is the charge of the Scripture.

People are recognizing and calling to task those who would turn this nation into a theocracy. The messages of "love" and "turn the other cheek" and "service" have been drowned by the demands made in the public square, and by the very actions of those carrying the biggest Bible, which is always amusing to read about in "The God Vote" by Jacques Berlinerblau. His latest on the "Evangelical Manifesto" describes an interesting posturing by a group of Evangelicals that at first read, appears like an attempt to open dialogue but upon further reflection, reads like a recipe to purify the ranks.

When the Washington Post/Newsweek corporation puts out a forum and invites the world, you will certainly hear more from the world than "Amen, sister!" And it may be a reply from "the world" that is so demonized, isolated and spat upon from a large percentage of those collared clerics that lead the masses each Sunday morning.

It won't be hatred from the disagreeable for the most part--and you might even recognize some clear thinking, logical reasoning, and good referencing--but it will be another view that's not so "warm and fuzzy" toward religious wonder.

Dear Claire,

You seem to be the latest victim caught in the crossfire of a bitter information war currently being waged between Scientology critics and the Office of Special Affairs of the Church of Scientology International.

According to defectors such as Tory Christman, there is a team in the Office of Special Affairs dedicated to stifling criticism of Scientology on the internet and in the media. If you were accused of being a Scientology patsy, then this is why. They use patsies. They use misinformation, manipulation and deception. It is standard policy.

Recently a rather strange opposition has emerged, I am not sure what to make of it. But it seems the war known as the "Internet vs Scientology" (originating on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup) has now spread across the entire internet and even into the real world.

Clearly someone hasn't researched all the facts about Scientology.

Beliefs are meaningless to me, but the crimes are a very serious matter.

The simple solution for Scientology is to reform itself into the business it is. Stop the harrasment of their critics, free the slave labor they employ, and , allow members to leave on their own free will if they chose, instead of locking them away in the RPF under guard.

Scientology's crimes are being expose a little more everyday. Once the public becomes fully aware Scientology will be the fastest failing religion in the world.

Your original article questioned why the German government was concerned about Scientology.

I, as well as many others, posted a ton of material and links to other material explaining just why the German government should be so concerned. This not a matter of belief. This is a matter of legality, as the CoS has and does to this very day break many, many laws around the world to maintain its organization.

Many people, silenced by legal threats and threats to their person, have found a voice on the internet to talk about the danger of this global scam of a religion. Because the media has turned a blind eye to this for years, we're going to shout as long and hard as we can. Some of us are going to be nice about it, but because this is the internet, not all of us will.

You did not state in your original post that you'd spent months of your life investigating Scientology. You presented no evidence that you had any knowledge of its inner workings. Even to relate it specifically to Germany, you made no reference to anything that might concern them, or the German documentary about Scientology's forced labor camp. German, apparently, are not found of forced labor camps.

If you'd said, "Actual church issues aside, let's discuss the constitution of Germany" then it would have been a legal discussion. If that wasn't your intention, then honest, I don't know what you meant. You asked, we answered.

It was not a knee-jerk. It was a jerk of 15,000 computer-savvy activists moving into action. That many people and you're just going to make a lot of noise.

We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. And definitely expect us.

Oh Claire, this is just awful. Misrepresenting your own commenters from an article that has been published less than a month ago?

The commenters attacked the policies of Scientology. The venom was directed at you, for terrible journalism, and a wilful misrepresentation of facts. This wilful misrepresentation continues, as you claim to have done months of research.

That's a load of bull, and you know it. More importantly, so do we all. And we will continue to call you on your shoddy reporting (or corporate shilling), while continuing to free good and honest people from the clutches of the Scam of Scientology.

Do some research, folks. Google Operation Freakout. That's a good place to start if you're looking for the true face of Scientology. This lady's ignorant, or bought, or both. She's not worth our time anymore.

In your months of research, have you read "Science of survival" of LRH ? If so, do you remember the following sentences:
- pg 90: "There is a strange mechanism in some men, an aberration of a decadent age, which causes them to seek out and help and protect the pitiful and weak amongst women. The reverse is sometimes found amongst women, a woman of strength seeking out and defending a weak and pitiful man. In either case, a failure is postulated at the beginning of such an association.
However much the weak member may be raised on the tone scale by this association, the person on the higher level is inevitably lowered."
- pg 100: "The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered."
"A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country."
- pg 117: "Rather than give psychotics such treatment it would be far kinder to kill them
immediately and completely..."

As you are a long time researcher of scientology, I don't need to translate. To summarize: get rid of those who prevent you from being the chosen ones.

Germany tried it once and does not want to try again. I cannot blame them. Can you ?

Claire,

Most of these people coming out of the woodwork to attack Scientology do so out of boredom and a search for a cause. Obviously, many of them will also reply to my own post with their attacks (ranging from a long list of internet memes (rickrolls, lolcats, etc.), to calling me a "scifag" or that they will kill me (I've gotten two of those so far).

If you look at these people, almost all of them are college -- or just post-college -- kids, who didn't even do their research before deciding that the mass movement against Scientology was the "right" thing, since all the other kids they know were doing it. (Ever notice peer pressure in college?)

So these kids learn one or two misguided things about Scientology and instantly assume they know all of it because nothing on Wikipedia is wrong, they think (and if anyone dares correct it, you can be sure it will be reverted). So then they go around acting like they have a cause, because they are too afraid to protest things that really matter -- like the Iraq occupation, or the fact that Blackwater is still just as strong in Iraq. Any evidence you provide that discounts what they believe -- ironically, through a faith twice as blind as what they accuse Scientologists of having -- it is their form of blasphemy.

As someone about their age, but certainly not in their circle, and also as a non-Scientologist (though I admit I know many), I assure you that not just are their claims baseless, but their group is too. The protests have gotten smaller and smaller, but their voices get louder and louder to cover the fact that this is all just a passing tide.

Claire, please keep up your good posts. Please do not be "bought" by a few anti-religious extremists (they are no better than the religious extremists) and turn this blog into another message of hate. All religions have a place, and if you objectively examine Scientology, you'll know it is one.

Remember: don't buy into the hate.

You know something has gone wrong when you have scientology critics, and one of the most prominent scientologist internet commentators giving out about the same article.

LOL

And i have to say, i respect lightfields structured arguments a lot more than Tommy Davis on CNN who denied the very existence of disconnection infront of a few million people. At least Lightfield is willing to attest to its obvious existence. They need you doing the serious PR stuff lightfiled, you need to get promoted.

And furthermore, while i take issue with his description of disconnection, as its execution often takes a different form in the critical cases, and some of his other comments regarding psychiatry, i gotta say as an anon, and a critic, i have no problem with most of what he is saying. I'm sure there are lots of happy people in scientology, HE HIMSELF CLEARLY IS. But the critics are clearly protesting abuses of these policies, or in the case of fair game, use of said policies.

Why the hate? That's easy. It's inherent in religion. All religions. Religion is inherently irrational. Religion claiming the only way to salvation is inherently hateful.

Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, it makes no difference. Frauds all.

Oh bing, while i think the total lack of hate in my comments more or less speaks for itself, on a slightly interesting side note, there are many studies to indicate that wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedia brittanica.

THE MOAR YOU KNOW BING, THE MOAR YOU KNOW.

Also my bing buddy, you dont get to decide why people come out of the woodwork, and you dont get to decide what is and is not worth protesting.

Claire, surely you seem to be a person with compassion. Have you really researched the CoS for months, read all about the atrocities they've caused and lives they've ruined, and yet still be sympathetic to it because it was somehow labeled as a religion? Did you miss certain aspects of the CoS like Fair Game, Disconnection, Operation: Freakout, Operation: Snow White, etc? The hundreds of videos on youtube displaying the way scientologists are taught to conduct themselves that still occur today? I guess after all my research into the CoS I don't see how somebody else researching them could hold anything else but contempt for their organization. I also have yet to hear an answer from a scientologist about what embodies their "religion" that isn't entirely wrapped in a series of generalizations and vagueness. But that's a standard byproduct of getting brainwashed by any cult I guess.

Dear miss Claire,

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. You are somehow shocked to discover this?

Perhaps reactions to your articles would be different, if your questions were less sophomoric.

To Bing,

You have questioned the motivation and knowledge of the protesters, but you have not addressed any of their concerns.

I am quite horrified by the stories of former Scientologists and others who have been harmed by Scientology. Many have have endured documented abuses which are detailed in police and court records. Have you read them? Are you suggesting the world should ignore human rights abuses committed by the Church of Scientology, simply because college kids are also concerned? Is it hateful to be concerned for the welfare of Scientologists, their families, and wider society?

Ms. Claire Hoffman, for all the hate the Internet hate machine is so good at producing, it still manage to type out 513 comments on the Scientology/Germany blog entry. That in itself is amazing, and a simple check of IP addresses should ordain how many of those replies were from separate, individual users. There were a great deal!

But all that was not addressed in this second article. Ms. Hoffman, I respect you, but as a journalist you should not be defending yourself in this entry, but rather discussing what happened following your Scientology/Germany entry. There were 513 comments, more than anything on your blog before! Clearly something is going on in the world of the Internet versus Scientology. Why? Therein lies the gray area, grasp it!

You launched questions out in the Internet void, and many people pinged back an answer. In those answers, there came criticism, some of which bordered on the constructive as well as the usual Internet habit of being deconstructive. Some entries had one, the other or both of these aspects. Many of us (ie Internet users) have grown accustomed to Internet hate and have grown a heavy outer layer of Internet skin to compensate. You don't have to do the same, but believe me, Ms. Hoffman, it makes posting on the Internet a lot easier. You even learn a thing or two about yourself when you shrug off the latest Internet trolls.

But still, not every comment was filled to the brim with anger. Many were well thought-out and educated posts, and therefore none of those constructive people appreciated being branded as "Internet-haters" - just as you do not like being branded as "misinformed."

Overall, I think the miscommunication in this situation occurred on both fronts, and perhaps we should start over and discuss the controversy of Scientology in a wholly new manner. There is much gray to talk about, and I'm more than eager to dive into the topic with people as passionate as I am.

Believe me, I'm all for it. I have much to talk about!

Good luck, Ms. Hoffman. Because I'm sure there are plenty more Internet harpoons coming towards you.

"The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution. That seems weird to me and even more important, makes the German government look kind of like pansies for spending a lot of money surveilling and punishing people who mostly walk around modeling their emotions and listening to the recordings of LRH. Right?"

Ms Hoffman, if your premise that scientology was simply a rather weird odd religious group were true, then you would have point.

But that is not what scientology is. Germany, due to their history is constitutionally mandated (at the insistence of the US gov and its allies after WW II btw) to outlaw any group, religious or political, who has a stated goal of taking over world power. Now, I would agree with you, that there is little chance that scientology would be successful in this respect, but it is their stated goal, and as such the German government has a responsibility to uphold their constitution.

I am a lifelong practicing, church-going Presbyterian, so it is rather odd to find myself lumped in with religious haters.

Please do not take offense from those who are acting on their knowledge which clearly skews against Scientology. Learn why they are so angry (it isn't hate as you would believe).

Almost every single one of the individuals who are anti-church of scientology want nothing more than for the parishioners to continue to worship, just with out the abuse of the institution. They will actively advocate the Free-Zone and willingly help scientologists get out of their abusive institution.

Bing, why on earth would you claim not be a Scientologist? Including an obvious lie into your post ony helped to invalidate it. Protip: don't do that anymore.

And if you are looking for some warm fuzzyness coming from the protestors, perhaps you should join our operation Over the wall: postcards from paradise.

We are sending postcards to those who are currently in SP Hall (prison) and RPF (slave-camps) of $cientology. We have already sent over 1300 postcards!

PS I am a member of Anonymous, I'm a thirty-something and I did research for well over a month before I was willing to believe that Scientology actually has a prison and runs slave camps. Evidence (because we provide evidence throughout this thread) can be found by Googling Wikileaks RPF (the internal policy documents regarding the slavecamps) and Scientology SP Hall (corraborated testimonies from ex-members)

Why be haters?

That's what you took away from over 100 comments asking you to do some actual research.

Missed the point MUCH ??

Seriously, I can barely believe this is the response to a barrage of requests to do your job and research a topic.

You want "craziness" - then research $cientology.

All those 'months of research' and then a fluff article.

Then you defend yourself instead of addressing the issue more fully.

Months of research, you say? And who were these families, these critics? Where are they now?

(see, I can ask obvious an uninspiring questions too!)

Enlightenment has Alzheimer's Disease and the cruft of humanity is inane.

Why should people have tolerance?

A truthful statement needs no meaning. Only Society attempts to impose such a restriction. And the Fourth Estate excels in herding the masses to some "group think" conclusion.

Okay, what is this?

James Lightfield, scientologist: I don't know much about this scientology stuff, but you just really creeped me out.

Is he for real? I had to reread it a couple of times.
It's like taking some good ideas and then going WAY TOO FAR with them and twisting them into insanely flawed logic.

But hey, Lightfield, you are free to believe what you like. Just don't go meddling in medical matters if you can't adequately substantiate your claims.

Ms Hoffman, What makes you assume that strongly expressed negative opinions on a subject are necessarily due to knee-jerk hate? You say that you have researched Scientology's beliefs. Very well - could I ask if you have also researched their actions? You are aware of Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, the stalking of BBC reporter John Sweeney, the current criminal charges that have been laid against them in Belgium, the measures Greece had to take against infiltration of government agencies, the accounts of many, many ex-members and their families who have had their lives destroyed by this organisation?

You asked a banal question and received a vehement answer. Remember your position - you have the privilege of writing for a prestigious news organisation: when you imply that the German government's measures to protect its citizens are somehow inappropriate under the aegis of the Washington Post you can expect an emphatic response from those who believe otherwise.

Even your characterising Scientology as a religion is offensive to some and indeed there are many European countries, my own included, where this is not accepted as true. The idea that "knee-jerk hysteria" is somehow due to this being perceived as a religious topic is untrue - Scientology's beliefs are not the issue, their methods and associated abuses are. As a citizen of the EU I applaud the German government for having the courage to do their own research and recognise Scientology for the insidious menace that it truly is.

What you have experienced Ms Hoffman is not knee-jerk hysteria, but well-researched, cold, focused anger at a pernicious menace within our societies that masquerades as a religion for the purposes of acquiring wealth and influence.

Forgive me for being blunt, but in your latest article you come across as both precious and ignorant.

One more thing. I am over 40, and my post got away from me before I was finished. I know that while I was critical of scientology, and supportive of the German govs position, when I commented in response to the questions that you posed in your last post, I did not ridicule or criticize you. I read many other thoughtful comments as well.

So now I am going to criticize you, generalization will get you nowhere. Just because I express my opinion anonymously (as did many of our founding fathers btw), I do not consider myself to be a member of the internet hate machine. Assuming that such a thing even exists.

Why would they think it's a threat to their constitution?

Amazing, those wacky Germans!

I mean, really. An organization with assets in the billions, which maintains comprehensive blackmail dossiers on its membership (and former membership), with the stated goal of eliminating all opposition to their organization, and a history of criminal infiltrations of governments. Where's the harm in THAT?

A hint: The problem isn't with "nautical uniforms". The problem is with "Operation Snow White".

I would have loved to see your writing during the Inquisition. "Why are people acting like some people who wear funny hats are such a threat?"

Who ever is using my name to post Scientology copy and paste stuff needs to stop. I WAS a Scientologist for 40 years but I am not any longer. I don't appreciate the libel. NOTE the time of my first post...Shame on you whoever you are.

Hi Claire,

while I certainly agree with you that several comments to your last post about Scientology have been tactless to put it mildly, there is one key issue in your writings about the German government's extreme stance against Scientology that I need to bring up here: You seemingly fail to read up upon *why* they are trying to ban it!

Among borderline rude and condescending comments, posts of rather clumsy Scientology-plants and the general noise level these hot topics tend to attract, there have been many posters who took their free time to explain to you in detail why "Scientology" the organization - and not "Scientology" the religion - clearly contradict the German constitution with quotations from both, Scientology scripture and the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, and who took their time to link you to the necessary sources so that you can investigate for yourself.

"Scientology" the religion is not the issue! Freezone-orgs, who are practising pure LRH-tech are fully in compliance with Germany's constitution and are not monitored by the "Bundesverfassungsschutz".
This banning proposal is solely about "Scientology" as an organization and not about the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.

Reading your follow-up post just now leaves me with a grimm feeling that you still cling to your preformed opinion on this matter with complete disregard of your readers' comments and the actual reality with no intentions of even feigning just the slightest interest in informing yourself about the matter at hand.

Yes, asking questions is fundamental to a free society. Inquiring about governments trying to ban organizations (religious or not) or governments doing anything in general is one of the most important obligations we as citizens of a democratic system have.
Not listening to the answers, though, will lead you to unpleasant results.

Ms/Mrs Hoffman,

I hardly think hysteria is the right word to describe our responses.

If we ran around screaming and sobbing hysterically, threatening to injure others or ourselves, that would be hysteria. Instead, we picket, we protest, we inform, and we invite others- Scientologist or not- to discuss opinions and fact.

Germany is one of several countries that has laid down the law with Scientology, for good reason. While we may not agree with the religions of others, the fact is, other religions do not, as part of their standard procedure, exhort members to give up vast amounts of money and/or other tradeable commodities to their cause. They do not place members of their own belief system into working situations that are intolerable and inhumane. They do not advocate destroying families- which I think we can all agree provides the basis for a strong society- with a policy of forbidding them from communication. This is the 21st century; such rules, standards, and policies are draconian and against the spirit of humanity.

And so to say that the church is about self-improvement goes beyond namby-pamby; though you may not mean it to be, it's a false statement. Some of us have spoken personally with the survivors of such treatment; we listen to those left behind as they tell stories of suicide, bankruptcy, children vanished and parents who are spirited away because their children have the courage to stand up and say 'Hang on a minute... is this right?'

Our reaction is not about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. Our reaction is based on stories of survivors and victims alike. The Church of Scientology is, at the very best, a cult- at the very worse, a business corporation who abuses the laws set by out gov't to bully, harrass, degrade, and ultimately break both their opponents outside their 'denomination' and to subdue their own followers within. They would abuse the rights of man- which they claim to champion- to further their own ends. The Church of Scientology (as opposed to individual Scientologists) is not odd, random, weird, quirky, or eccentric- those terms would render them harmless, nothing more than a quaint oddity. It is dangerous, it needs to be addressed, and that is why Anonymous is here.

You're more than welcome to ask us questions- we're not hiding from the rest of the world. Come speak with us at a protest, or find a site.

@Jimmy B. here's your answer. You are stupid. You can't see the our children in many schools being made into zombies by psychotropic drugs. Even the FDA is finally waking up. Psychiatry's roots are far more cultish than any religion on earth today. You don't see our culture wasting way because the the literacy levels of our kids has taken a downward plunge. You don't see street drugs finding thier way onto school campuses. What you do see is regugitated old stories about Scientology, but bulk being either false or over 30 years old. Maybe stupid is the wrong word for you to use. Asleep is better.

@Grace. Prove it. I live in Clearwater and have been to Starbucks many times. Where did you get the data that somebody pressured them or the merchants to avoid the masked, shouting protesters?

Dear Ms. Hoffman:

As stated by others, the main reason you received so many comments was not because of religion or even Scientology specifically. It was due to your claim that you researched for months, then went on to write what was essentially a puff piece.

Many of the commenters on the previous article were simply asking you to actually do the research into the cult, into Germany's history and into the current situation with Germany. Apparently, that was too much to ask, since the above is the response.

BTW, I'm 46 years old - not a college kid by any means. A lot of us are older. You couldn't even get that right. And I don't hate the people in Scientology; I wish them all well and believe that they can worship anything they want. Just as I have the right to believe in Christ or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they have the right to believe that all of their illnesses are caused by the ghosts of dead aliens.

I hate the abuses of the cult - their written policies of Fair Game and Disconnection, the coerced abortions in the Sea Org, the RPF (prison work camp). I hate SP Hall (at Gold Base, Hemet, CA). Google it. I hate that they've had Sea Org members do work on their fail asbestos boat without telling them it was there, even though Bitty Miscavige (David's sister-in-law) was told about it in 1987. The upper echelon still deny it. Finally, I hate the lies.

Do some actual research; you'll be amazed.

Claire, many comments here are the result of largely unconscious reflexive mental/emotional states (beliefs & reactive patterns) stored in the mind or ego.

The ego at bottom is a bunch of conditioned thoughts and it's got to be right or it's diminished. It can't see that others may have a different, sometimes even valid point worth discussing or contemplating.

It hates to be wrong, loves to be angry, to provoke and be provoked; and many posters here and elsewhere seem to demonstrate this over and over.

Keep writing, you do a decent job and your intentions are basically good. Civil and reasoned discourse is good no matter the side of an issue one comes down on.

Thankfully some posters are thoughtful and respectful no matter how much they may disagree with you or others. It is a big lesson to learn that we can't know the world as it is, but only as we are.

Claire,

I would advise you to read up on Germany's past, especially the very interesting story about how Hitler's NSDAP came to power in the 1930s.
Germany was a democracy then, but it was a defenseless democracy. Hitler's movement started small and wacky, and politician and journalists alike belittled it, thinking that it was harmless and interest in it will fade soon. They were wrong, as we all know.
Just like Hitler's "Mein Kampf", L. Ron Hubbard wrote down his world domination aspirations in a book.
And Germany is now determined to never allow something like that to happen again. And I think they are right.

The sheep lead themselves to slaughter - nothing can be done to prevent it, whether it be a tendency to gravitate to Scientology or the Moonies, or any other bizarre cult - better leave Scientology to the mega-rich celebrities that are still trying to find themselves. They can always bail when they come to their senses........

What is it about the USA that first generates the the madness for celebrity and great wealth, and then leaves the winners high and dry - seeking repentence and spiritual truth in a nutzo cult invented by an equally nutzo dead sci-fi writer?? Is that a dead giveway or what???

And still science fiction by any other name.....

Germany is still smarting from the cult of Nazism and is probably hypersensitive to the dangers - but really, can you really protect feeble people from their own innate tendency to be duped by con-artists?? Shell games are everywhere, and often operating under the aegis of religion - never try to beat the House - first rule for Las Vegas tourists, gamblers and afficianados of religion.....that includes Scientology.

This wasn't actually my statement; I copypasted it from a post by Jeannie36863 at enturbulation.org. It was just too good to not cross-post here.
---------------------------------
I'm wondering how much of it went like this:

Claire: I want to write a piece on the abuses of Scientology.
Editor: Aw, legal says no. We can't afford a lawsuit.
Claire: Fine. I'll let Anonymous do it for me in the comment section.

Scientology is the lowest rated belief in America....under everything else, including aetheism. I find that funny. I bet information about the ugly side of Scientology is exagerated, or in cases false. But you gotta admit....theres just too much of it for it all to be smoke and mirrors and lies. The problem with Scientology, and why it will fail, is it is based on modern ideas of the 50s and hasnt changed, and unlike other religions which a person must look to a higher unproveable power, Scientologists use 50's era pseudo science. Well, science has pressed on since they, and so much more is known. Scientology's fault, unlike the other religions is it can be proven to be false and lies in our age. No other religion can because they tackle the unmeasurable. But L Ron doesnt care, because it made him rich so mission accomplished. As education seeps out, Scientology will wither, and maybe then, we will have our town back in Florida.

Steve, dude. I'm no scientologist, but your posts arent exactly screaming up the old tone scale.

Also, you dont see lightfield say that its all old regurgitated stories from 30 years ago.

By saying that, you are asking critics to prove you wrong, and when you do that, you start to get links. Links you wont like. Im not posting those links because the current freewinds situation, , the fraud case in belgium right now etc etc etc and going back a decade the ban from greece for infiltrating and taking documents arent really central to the topic at hand, but feel free to go read up.

"Forgive me for being blunt, but in your latest article you come across as both precious and ignorant."

^^^ THIS

Although while the precious bit could be accidental, I cannot see how the ignorance is anything other than deliberate. More particularly, to say: "I've spent months of my life researching and writing about Scientology" - and then write that you cannot understand the German governments position, can only mean that you are either lying about doing that research, or that it was done with a strong pro-scientology bias.

It would not be possible to spend months researching scientology, and make that assessment, when thousands upon thousands are discovering that a few hours research brings up more than sufficient, independently verifiable, reliable information for any person to go "ohhhh, THAT'S why"...

So, you have told a mistruth - one that anyone can establish for themselves (research Operation Snow White, read the affidavit of Lawrence Brennan) - and so to conclude that you have a pro-scientology bias is not unreasonable.

Again, your ignorance cannot be other than willful.

"Is there no room for a little gray in the area of religious belief?"

Why don't you ask Lisa McPherson's parents that question? I'd say it's black and white.

Steve wrote:

"@Jimmy B. here's your answer. You are stupid. You can't see the our children in many schools being made into zombies by psychotropic drugs. Even the FDA is finally waking up. Psychiatry's roots are far more cultish than any religion on earth today. You don't see our culture wasting way because the the literacy levels of our kids has taken a downward plunge. You don't see street drugs finding thier way onto school campuses. What you do see is regugitated old stories about Scientology, but bulk being either false or over 30 years old. Maybe stupid is the wrong word for you to use. Asleep is better."
May 12, 2008 7:32 PM

What an arrogant and insulting comment!
Is this a typical Scientology attitude? And why can't Steve spell 'their' or 'regurgitated' when he is lecturing us lowly non-Scientologists about literacy and our declining standards? Can you tell me any Scientologists who are also great writers, scientists, or engineers? The only ones I know are actors (skilled at pretending) and businessmen (skilled at making money). Is the rest of society really stupid and asleep compared to you geniuses?

Accusation: "little ear for nuance,"
And then you write: "an odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms."

Claire,

Better little ear for nuance than little brain for understanding.

Scientology is not a religion, it is a cult. Read a biography of L. Ron Hubbard, that is not an official church biography. You seem to be taking a fresh look at Scientology, as if it has no history!

P.S. Just because I wrote you have a little brain for understanding, does not mean I hate you. Love, Woggles.

while i fundamentally agree with the thesis that steve is not the most eloquent person on earth at communicating(which is like one of the first courses you can do in scientology), i imagine there are probably as many engineer scientologists as there are engineer anons or engineers in the general population.

I would agree though, that given scientology's premise of raising iq's and homonouvis(spl) being skyscrapers above homosapiens in evolutionary terms and all that, that all scientologists should in theory be leaders in their fields. They clearly are not, or rather it has no impact on whether they are or not.

It's far too easy to pick on the German government. What's more (insert obligatory note of ad hominem here!) the approach depends on old prejudices which, unlike Napoleon brandy, do not age gracefully. And if you wanted to describe by simile a group focused largely on self-improvement into a new and superior form of humanity (at the expense of others, and those who fail to make the cut), what political organisation of the past would you choose as a comparison? If you came to the same conclusion I did, symbols evocative of that group were banned in Germany in 1945...

As to that, though, a month of research ought to have picked up on the fact that Germany are by no means the only country to take that viewpoint, and is therefore remarkable only in that reactionary individuals find it more rewarding to get upset at Germans as opposed to, say, the Belgians (this is mildly offensive, by the way). A brief Google brings up news articles that suggest the following:

Sci activity in St Petersburg was banned last November. The COS and various other groups including the Russian branch of sci front group Narconon are under surveillance and/or have recently been raided or closed in certain areas. The Belgians have brought a whole set of formal charges against the organisation, following a set of raids of their own. The Spanish are suing right and left. The Dutch papers have recently covered a Scientologist hired killer - what's more, the Dutch consider the organisation to be a business, and tax it accordingly. The French have been talking about a ban for over a decade now. The Norwegians are still deciding how to react to the death of Kaja Bordevich Ballo. Even the UK, who are so open-minded on multiculturalism that their brains are at risk of falling out, refuse to classify Scientology as a religion.

Why focus on Germany? Europe as a whole takes a dim view of this sort of thing.

In short: nobody, not even the German government, actually cares what one believes. It is a matter of profound disinterest to us all. But governments rightly take an interest when the organisation which has your trust misuses it to do things that are profoundly harmful to you. There are existing laws in most countries against points like medical malpractice, extortion of money, etc. In some countries such as France there exists an explicit law against 'fraudulent abuse of a state of ignorance or weakness'. This is not a religious matter.

"a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniform"

"people who mostly walk around modeling their emotions and listening to the recordings of LRH."

Talking about Scientology like it is merely a group of oddballs gives it power. The less people talk about their abusive policies and criminal behavior and settle for calling them weirdo Xenu-chasers, the easier it is for them to believably say "That stuff you heard about us on the internet isn't true, come on in for a personality test and we'll let you know how it really is."

It is especially irresponsible to talk as though the complaints about your previous Scientology article are due to a predisposition to be offended by whatever you say. Surely, it can't be the fact that you dedicated all of half a sentence ("I'm well aware of their checkered past") to the side of the story that makes sense to anyone who has actually researched the subject. As lovely as it would be for everything that happens online to be about you, it isn't.

If you had a better grasp on the subject and the current events surrounding it, you'd know that any and every online article that allows readers' comments gets immediately swamped with Anonymous supporters making sure that no discrepancies or oversights are left unchallenged. This has nothing to do with you, your column, and your apparent desire to have people speak civilly about religion on the internet (HAW HAW HAW!). It hardly has anything to do with religion in the first place—it's the Church of Scientology corporation that we're up against. It is obvious that there would never be such a huge movement against Scientology if this was a simple matter of failing to acknowledge a grey area regarding a belief in modeling one's emotions and reading LRH books.

> The ego at bottom is a bunch of conditioned thoughts and it's got to be right or it's diminished. It can't see that others may have a different, sometimes even valid point worth discussing or contemplating.

This sentence is actually quite interesting seeing that far too many scientologists still stay in this organization once they reach OT3, have yet to develop any superhuman abilities despite being promised to do so and are just to find out that all that crazy "Xenu"-stuff about the souls of dead aliens covering your body, that your auditor told you was just a myth propagated by those evil, suppressive persons picketing your org to hide their own crimes and who are payed by psychiatrists... is actually 100% true LRH scripture. When you realize that an SP told you the truth when every auditor choose to lie to you.

Are you a bad enough dude to realize that you pumped more than $360.000 and several years of your live into a self-perpetuating fraud, that you have been lied to and that you have absolutely no grasp of matter, energy, space or time despite being officially declared an Operating Thetan? That you have been duped? Would you be able to leave Scientology at this point?

To all Scientologists reading this, if reality is agreement, why has the CoS been banned in Greece, why is the CoS under heavy investigation in France, Belgium and Germany, why are thousands of people protesting right in front of your orgs against the crimes of your church every month and why are your orgs empty? Why is Scientology not expanding and why are your Stats way down? What does this tell you about reality and the way you percieve it?

How many of your friends need to leave Scientology until you realize, that all your blood, sweat and tears you put into KSW were all in vain and everything you thought was true was just a fraud? Are you a bad enough dude to acknowledge that you fell for a con artist?

L. Ron Hubbard was known by friends, family, co-workers and biographer to be a pathological liar.

And all Scientologists follow in his footsteps, except the pathological part. No, They are trained to lie.

Several insiders have suggested David Miscavige is psychotic. Funny, he seems kind of psychotic, even in youtube clips.

Anyone with a whit of knowledge about Scientology knows that the current higher level members cannot answer even basic questions about their comic book cosmology truthfully. That is supposed to be the basis for Scientology being a "religion" since Ron knew religion was where the money was, for his pseudo-science.

And there is NOTHING harmless about wanting to rule the world, as they want to?

Is it hateful to write these things? No, it is just being honest. If people get a little overheated or lack "nuance," chalk it up to passion.

People need to be curious about Scientology for our future. Let's not wait until there are ten million zombies, programmed to follow their leader.

Cecile Kantrell is not my real name, because I do not want these brainwashed cult members tracking me down. (And yes, Scientologists probably are following you. Buy a thousand copies of Dianetics, to try to get them off your back.)

@Steve

"@Grace. Prove it. I live in Clearwater and have been to Starbucks many times. Where did you get the data that somebody pressured them or the merchants to avoid the masked, shouting protesters?"

Hello there, Steve! Here's the blog posting with delightful photographic evidence of anti-Anonymous signage:

http://blackfish.biz/allen/?p=257#commen

And thank you for the entertaining (if highly inaccurate) mental image of Guy Fawkes rocking up to the counter and shouting "HALF-FAT CARAMEL CAP, NO WHIP!" at the barista. Hee!

Dear Claire,

Did you get a directive your blog was going to be cut, if you didn't get like a million hits in the next few weeks. This article as well as the Germany vs. Scientology one both sound like it.

Or is it the being followed thing.

I don't blame you honey, I'd feel the same if there were a bunch of Scientologist freaks following me around. Watching the Tom Cruise hidden video, yikes, I don't think I can ever watch a movie of his again without being totally creeped out.

"Is it irritating that as a reporter I've spent months of my life researching and writing about Scientology, interviewing former members, photo copying property records"

I find it hard to believe that you really did as much research as you claim.

If you had, you wouldn't talk about Scientology like it's a quirky, but harmless, religion.

If you had you'd be aware of the severe, heart breaking abuses of human rights that have occurred with regularity over the years.

Claire: So my question for readers of this blog is this: what gives with all this knee-jerk hysteria around discussions of religion? What makes you stop your project at work and explode in rage about these topics in this forum?

Yea all this knee-jerk hysteria around discussions of religion. That's why all of your articles about religion have received ~500 comments.

Oh wait...

It seems that all that shoud be said has allready been said, but oh well, here's my 2 cents:
- Scientology is NOT a religon, its a cult, its a corporation, its a criminal organisation, but not a religon. Therefore by calling it a relligion you will anger the people who believe its not. Is that so hard to figure out?
- I find it hard that you woud speak of them so ligtly if they have indeed followed you. I find it hard to believe that if you researched scientology as much as you claim, you woud take them so ligtly.

By the way, you thing the german goverment is basing their criticism on prejudise and lies? How about you AT LEAST read what they have to say on the matter, before posting.
Here is the offitial book by the german goverment about scientology:
http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/Gesamtliste-.613.2104517/index.htm

If i may add, what kind of a journalist knows less on the matter she/he is speaking about that the people that read the article

Claire,

I think it's necessary to highlight this section of your posting:

"The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution. That seems weird to me and even more important, makes the German government look kind of like pansies for spending a lot of money surveilling and punishing people who mostly walk around modeling their emotions and listening to the recordings of LRH. Right?"

This is the pin pulled from the grenade, right here. Because for any Church of Scientology opponent (which I have been casually, as a researcher, since 2001 and much more actively since Anonymous stepped up), the only answer to your "Right?" is "WRONG".

You're talking about an organization that infiltrated the IRS. An organization that stalks critics. The fact that you claim to know this (there is no bloody way you've researched the cult for months and NOT found this info), and still blithely label the cult as harmless?

I don't know what to do with that. At the very least, it seems irresponsible journalism.

Dear Claire,

Because you come off as a glib "see no evil" type of person. Your knowledge of the history of the cult of Scientology may be wide but appears to be very shallow.

I don't accept $cientology as a religion as it is godless. If any one can put on a ministers outfit and gain tax exemption while committing crimes against the government, then what has this country come to? Culture of the Buck?

The FACTS are that the criminal cult of Scientology has a long history of stifling dissent, framing critics with crimes of its own manufacture, and human rights abuses of iys long term staff.

Why do you support such a group?

Criticism of policies is not hate.

Was it hate when the Catholic Church was protested against for the pedophilia cases? No.

We are doing nothing different - after looking at some of the info others provided above you might realise that stuff was child's play compared to what the Co$ Does.

Claire,

Amazingly, most of the posters here did not respond to your question, rather they are critiquing your article on Scientology. Don't feel badly. Throw up any topic and you will receive vitriole. And its not just you.

What saddens me is that I honestly thought, until I started posting comments on various news items and opinion pieces a couple of months ago, that I would encounter intelligent debate. Instead, what has been revealed to me that there are far more self-righteous, narcissitic "readers" than I thought and indeed the cloak of anonymity allows them to spew their venom unedited and unbridled by polite behavior.

So, just keep writing. There are those of us who find what you say interesting and thought provoking, and just shake our heads at the nonsense. Sometimes the best response is no response at all.

Claire,

The problem is that you still sound less like a reporter (or commentator, or opinion columnist, or whatever you want to be) than an uninformed newbie.

(May 7) "Ban Scientology? Doesn't that seem kind of extreme?"
I don't know Claire, what do YOU think? (We could do this back-and-forth all day.) Really, what do you think? What are the charges? What is the evidence? What did you dig up in your months of research? We actually showed you quite a bit, but you have ignored that in the interest of amateurish self-defense.

(May 12) "What makes you stop your project at work and explode in rage about these topics in this forum?"
Oh Claire, this is not the same thing as checking for the latest dinosaur comic strip or posting new kirk/spock slash (although we enjoy that too.) What you don't seem to understand, is that the internet offers a new form of social organizing and activism. What we are doing is serious business, even if we aren't getting paid for it. Yes, I know it is very different from the model you are used to, in which the limited few decide the the agenda from the top-down. We decide the agenda, and together we're smarter. You can be one of us, but not with the way you're acting.

Clearly we don't hate you (well, most of us). We just recognize that your antiquated mass-media pulpit can still do damage if it's used for vapid dismissals of legitimate and complex concerns.

Here's an idea: stop pointing fingers and try to seriously answer some of your own questions.

Let me sincerely apologize for my sins of the past and I promise to never criticize you again even though you falsely accuse me of anger. I'm not angry but am threatened with death from laughter at the others here. In my defense let me say that I thought that criticism was what blogging was all about and admit that there were cases where I had to dig deep to find one for your posts.

You wrote, "The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution." is one of those cases. So bad in fact that I gave up until now. Are you familiar with what is going on in Texas right now, Baptists armed with law enforcement including the judge going after Mormons?

I thought I'd mention that so you can better understand how, "commenters here on the topic of religion have little ear for nuance and much propensity for deep and energetic anger."

Remember me? I'm the one that says religion is not the solution, it's the problem. Don't take what the commenters say personally no more than if you went into an insane asylum and got criticized by the nut cases.

Doesn't a person have to be really stupid to believe the, "Moses spoke to a ball of fire that's almighty God" tale? What can one expect from stupid people? Remember, they don't feel stupid believing that story which tells you all about them. Wonder if they feel stupid paying $4 headed for the moon a gallon for gas yet?

Its awful that some people don't believe the BS religous people spew.

Boo hoo.

Boo hoo.

That whatever religion you have, and shove it.

The answer to your question is:

All religion (by definition) is stupid and only gullible people believe in it.

Why tolerate ignorance? It should be mocked.

Why tolerate people who believe in the supernatural? There is no evidence.

It comes down to that the average American is pretty stupid.

Evidence #1: GW got elected for a first term.

Evidence #2 GW got elected for a second term.

If thats not evidence of American ignorance, I don't know what is...

Sometimes I think stupidity should be punished with a spanking... I hear in US-America this is still a top notch approach for raising children. This is outlawed Germany and I think it is barbaric so I'll refrain from suggesting it even though I was thinking of grown-ups... and I know stupidity won't be cured by it.. but oh the pleasure in thinking it. You don't mind now do you...? Afterall what is wrong with a bit of grey?

But back to your post. You were wondering as to why Germany and lots of other countries would take steps against Scientology and have taken steps.. like Greece in completely banning/outlawing it.... Ehm, you call yourself reporter don't you? How about some reasearch? After month of investigating Scientology.. (How? By taking courses? Reveal your sources or methods of your research so we can understand what you did. I certainly don't believe that yoour 'months of research' resulted in such a tiny uninformed post like the last one or this for that matter.) .. I think you could have taken a week at least or just a day.. and investigate the 'why'.. even one or two hours of research into the history, legal situation and actual action taken against Scientology, certainly would have helped. But no you didn't and now you wonder why this resulted in a big reader and comment tunrout. *shakes head*

Well, you failed as reporter that is why! And you failed again with this post. Instead of welcoming critzism and all the constructive posts which provided you with tons of material from both sides. You still don't manage to take a look into it and learn! No. Instead you whine about the responses you got and no doubt you will continue to do so.

I am not even sorry to say this, but you deserve harsh answers, until you learn what it means to be journalist.

P.S.: I was polite! If you want to experience hate post write something critical about Christian, Hindu or Islamic Core beliefs.. I am sure you'll think of this post like a relaxing bath after a hard days work. Hater... geez... ROFLMAO... I am on the internet since 1995, hardly a student kid, you Lady, are not doing your job, and hate looks very different from what was posted in your blog.

P.P.S.: To your last question. There is no grey in a religious belief. Either you believe in it or you don't. How can there be grey... just a little belief? You have to be kidding me! But that is the wrong question here.. Scientology is not a religion, it is just disguised as one. Religion doesn't want your money as a main goal to sell (literally) a (the Xenu and Marcab) story.
And that's an Atheist talking here!

Dear Claire

I think you will find that people are passionate about scientology because it is an
organisation that cynically preys on the good will of its adherents and the public.

Its' stated goal is world domination. You would have read this in Hubbard's writing, no doubt. You would have read Hubbard's disdain for democracy, and his firm belief that any action is justified if it helps profit the organisation. It is a malignant venal, supremacist organisation. Pure and simple.

If the realm of the human spirit is anything to be passionate about, if the freedom of
democracy is anything to be passionate about, if evil is something to be opposed with enlightenment, scientology must be described as what it is. Ex-scientologists, bless them, uniformly do this. They have been more sinned against than sinned.

It's hurtful to people of good will to see the harm that scientology causes to its adherents, and the deception on which it relies to recruit them. It is an insult to humanity. You might well berate your readers for being passionately opposed to white supremacists.

It is true that even cynical, malignant organisations like the Mafia can have their good sides. One good side of scientology is that it won't achieve its aims. Scientology won't achieve its aims because people like your readers, be they of any religion, or no religion at all, care enough to know about scientology.

The tobacco industry like to pretend the jury is still out on the link between smoking and cancer. The jury has returned on scientology. The people have spoken. Only the ignorant remain to be victims. Scientology is falling down like a house of cards.

Good will is wasted, if it goes to perpetuate this tired, old cult.

You are welcome to grey areas.

"The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution."

I did not "explode in rage" in my original reply to you. I merely pointed you to a study performed by the German Goverment into Scientology so that you could see their resoning behind their decision.

"Is there no room for a little gray in the area of religious belief?"

Of course there is. I believe that it is not only present, but neccessary. But there is a reason they say never to discuss politics or religion. People get very fired up very quickly around these subjects because they are things that affect us deeply. It may seem to you that you are asking a banal question, but in another person it will flare up into passion or anger. This is the way of things - every opinion on the planet is disagreed with by someone else, somewhere. From mild things like whether you like chinese food to more serious things like religion.

All the best.

Lucy

It is good that CoS has been introduced on a religious forum. It gives believers and religious leaders of other religions an opportunity to take a really close look at what CoS is about, read and do in-depth research, to shed more light on it and maybe explain to spiritual seekers how their religion differs from CoS.

Protectors of the German Constitution are aware of the vulnerability of Germans to master race ideologies and would like to nip it in the bud as early as they possibly can with the rights and responsibility towards their citizens enshrined in their Constitution. Remember how an Austrian sold them Nazi ideology which they bought like gullible fools an ideology that soon turned them into a nation of brainwashed zombies willing to die unquestioningly for an evil dictator and paid for their folly with crushing defeat in WW II? Even at the height of Nazi power there were Germans who did not toe the line and were willing to die to save their nation and vulnerable Jews and others targeted by Nazis. Germany has not forgotten its past. They have relentlessly reminded their citizens since the end of WW II of their shameful past so that it will never happen again. The first article of the German Constitution states that human dignity shall not be violated. It is their right to take into consideration all evidence available internationally about whether CoS does in fact pose a threat to the human dignity and freedom of all Germans. If indeed CoS is a religion at all and has the noblest motives it should be open about its teachings to the whole world and not fear any close scrutiny. Other world religions are.

CoS has attracted the serious attention of the protectors of the German Constitution. The US
Congress need to take serious note of that and access any information the Germans are willing to provide.

World religions have no secret agenda. All their Scripture is available to the public.

Alexander, said, "any action is justified if it helps profit the organization"

That's what makes religion religion. Lies that cause people to believe are moral. Form that one can deduce the meaning of the word moral. I know nothing about Scientology except that it is moral, assuming Alexander spoke the truth. Of course it could be a moral lie aimed at pushing folks away from Scientology to something else.

I can see what the Germans are afraid of, a new Nazi type thing developing around Scientology. Maybe they should give all religion the same scrutiny. I understand the pope plans to make everyone Catholic. Then he'll be the real government, again.

Is it true that everyone in Germany is taxed and the money turned over to churches?

Claire as an ex-Scientologist I have to take issue with your statements that your questions are "innocent"

You yourself said you have researched Scientology and clearly you should know how desctructive it can be. Yet you continue to play the "Scientology is harmless" line which baffles me

Hello Ms Hoffman,

Both though commenting and e-mailing, I expressed regret that some of the reactions to your previous post on Scientology were not very constructive.

I can understand you had to swallow, so I haven't lost hope that you will write another post in which you actually do some research into the questions you have posed yourself.

- Why is Germany considering Co$ un-constitutional?

CO$ has a master-race ideology (they call themselves Homo Nobis, for crying out loud). Is it really so strange that Germany is considering this un-constitutional?

- Scientology is mostly harmless. Right?

Honestly, I find it extremely disappointing when in your first post you say Co$ has a 'checkered past', after which critics of Co$ provide hundreds of posts with evidence of current abuse. Now you call them silly. Right? No, Ms Hoffman. NOT RIGHT. We are trying to point out evidence to you that Scientology is neither funny nor that its misdeeds are in the past.

You claim to have done a lot of research. I seriously suggest to do a bit more. Don't forget Co$ is like concentric circles. The more you get to the centre (David Miscaviage and L Ron Hubbard) the extremer the abuses and crimes get. And I assure you that are going on at this very moment.

@BGONE:
Can you quote how the pope openly defies democracy?

You can opt out of church tax in Germany by filling out a simple form (or never tick the box in the first place).

Ms. Hoffman,

I've read both your articles and both times I was deeply troubled by what I was seeing. As far as this goes, I'm afraid you dropped the ball... not once, but twice.

The 'Church' of Scientology is something that has become the subject of hot debate in the last few months. From the release of the now infamous Tom Cruise video, followed by the COS's attempt to suppress it, sprang a movement that is valiantly trying to educate the public on this corrupt orgainization and bring it's atrocities to light.

This is NOT ABOUT FAITH; this cannot be stressed enough. This is about putting an end to nearly fifty years of fraud, deception and abuse in all their forms that hide under the cloak of religion.

The German government has EVERY RIGHT AND REASON to be concerned about the COS; they had infiltrated the American government once before and they did it in Greece as well. Who's to say they won't try again or that they haven't already?

To be quite honest, I can't believe for a moment that you really did 'months' of research. If you had, your article would not be so dismissive. In the last article, MANY people responded with information. You were given cited sources, links, names to look up and a host of other useful information that is easily available anywhere on the web. But instead of deciding to really inform yourself, to dig deeper and see this corrupt business for what it truly is, you turn a blind eye and ignore every bit of information that people were willing to give you. This is criticism, not hate speech as you seem to think it is. All this article shows is that you remain woefully uninformed about the true dangers of the COS. I would think a journalist with such a respected paper would do a lot more research on this subject. This reads more like a COS PR piece.

We are citing POLICY, not BELIEFS.

Reposting link provided earlier by another blogger. To be included in essential reading about CoS. Information Brochure @2004 by the State Government of Bavaria, Germany

http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/Anlage2104516/DasSystemScientology.pdf

Leaving Germany aside, can anyone tell me why scientologists should enjoy tax-free status? Why is it that every crackpot religious organization in America can avoid taxes by claiming they "serve the lord".

You maintain "the Church was largely about self-improvement" and referred to their "entry-level doctrine." Since when do self-improvement organizations qualify for tax-free status?

It's a business. Big, big, big business. Like the moonies. What it does to the minds of the sheep in its shiny paddock is another matter.

I generally appreciate your column. What I don't understand in this case is your apparent willingness to accept at face value the self-aggrandizing claims of a highly controversial syndicate. It's that kind of lazy journalism that has done so much to damage our country.

gg - Berlin, Germany

"Claire, please keep up your good posts. Please do not be "bought" by a few anti-religious extremists..."

A *few*? I'd say the opinion that Scientology is a criminal corporation runs about 95% to you and your 5% that think it's legitimate. I know the math hurts, but try and be honest. I know that's tough for the religiously helpless.

Scientology is no more "big business" than is the Catholic, Mormon and American mega church.

It never ceases to amaze me that people condemn others without seeing the same fault in themselves and their own sacred organizations.

All religion is about money, power, guilt, submission and control. It doesn't matter how it is disguised.

Hoffman wrote: "So my question for readers of this blog is this: what gives with all this knee-jerk hysteria around discussions of religion?"

Well, everyone has a knee jerk reaction to religion. That's why you do not bring it up at parties, along with politics.

Hoffman wrote: "What makes you stop your project at work and explode in rage about these topics in this forum?"

I read your colunm last week and what I found lacking was that you didn't talk with anyone in the German government. Did you ask why they think Scientology is a "business" and did you then try to find out whether their accusations were true? All you did was take some AP wire reports and comment on them.

Hoffman wrote: "I don't want to seem flip."

Well, you do. Since this is a followup column I thought you might have taken some of the postings that were critical of your column last week and investigate their claims. Most seemed pretty consistent and many exposed what goes on in the "church" and why it IS a business and not a religion. But instead you are lashing out here. So yes, you seem flip.

I suggest you condense the major claims made by the bloggers, say about 10 of them, investigate those 10 and report back. I suggest you read up on Lisa McFadden, as one blogger suggested. I did. The tale of her death while in Scientologist custody and their continued defense of their actions alone deserves a column. Now some might look at that incident and then point to the Catholics, and how they allowed priests to abuse children and tried to protect those that did after the fact. But what I find glaring in your column Claire is that you did not even bring it up. Why did a blogger have to bring it up? And why did you not mention it in this column?

A good journalist gets down to the truth. You seem to be choosing to not dig deeper and are instead attacking those who are pointing out facts you ignored.

And your advisors are correct, being anonymous on the blog allows one to speak a little more freely, with more color. That should be something you would want, rather than the careful answers of a face to face meeting. A blog allows you to ignore the real hate and look at the gems handed to you by people who know things you do not. Consider them a gift and do some more research based on what these bloggers are telling you. Instead of calling them haters, tell them why they are wrong, if you can, and report what you found they were right about.

You and other columnists are not the only source of knowledge on topics of religion. Considering the outcry and the consistency of that outcry you should at least try to read up on their accusations. What little I have read about Scientology points to more than a checkered past and more closely agrees with the German government's putting them into the class of a business, not a religion. Jenny Craig is also about self improvement, but they get taxed, why not Scientologists?

Let me reinforce the key point made by others on his blog. Germany rightfully views itself as a special case when it comes to determining the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a particular religious or political group. That's because of its recent history. Germany is still coping with the legacy of the Nazi era. As a result, Germany imposes more legal restraints on groups than in most Western countries, especially the United States.

In fact, restrictions that would be flagrantly unconstitutional in the US are explicitly called for by the German constitution. Maybe other posters have pointed out--I haven't read all of them--that the Nazi Party is outlawed in Germany. It's that same policy that determines the German view of Scientology. The COS, in other words, is not a special case, but is treated equally within the unique framework of German law and practice.

Is Ms. Hoffman really blind to the parallel that could be drawn between the COS and the Nazis? The latter, too, were once a small and insignificant party. In fact, they were almost comical. Remember the Beer Hall putsch? And that funny little former corporal and all around failure, Adolph Hitler? What harm could such a ridiculous figure ever do?

Finally, as to Ms. Hoffman's shock over the content and tone of web posters. Yes, it will always be off the scale of what an intelligent, rational person considers tolerable. It's unfortunately the name of the game. But there is always wheat from that chaff.

But Ms. Hoffman has taken an action contrary to almost all of her fellow contributors to On Faith. It's to her credit that she has done so, but not to her credit that she does not even know what it is. She has actually bothered to respond to what her readers have said. Go to any other blog on On Faith, like Eboo Patel's. Show me where any of them ever deign to engage in a dialogue with their commentators. That, too, violates the spirit of free and open dialogue and debate.

And how about the censorship practiced on this blog? I and others have protested having our responses blocked, even though they met the standards for this blog. Only one contributor, Susan Jacoby, ever bothered to respond. Never Ms. Quinn or Mr. Meacham. So don't be so shocked, shocked, Ms. Hoffman, when standards blur. The powers that be at the Washington Post share the blame.

Correction: When I mentioned "Lisa McFadden" in my previous comment it should have been "Lisa McPherson".

The so called "knee jerk reactions" are really theprovcatiions of your own limited, ignorant and yes "hateful" thinking. You practise the crudest for of self serving censorship and then deny it? How crude. One solution you mmust learn to practice is letting the bloggers write the columns rather than the ignorant provoking writers you - I assume - the Post actualy pays for their sociopathic work. Don't censor this item or you will hear about it.

The so called "knee jerk reactions" are really theprovcatiions of your own limited, ignorant and yes "hateful" thinking. You practise the crudest for of self serving censorship and then deny it? How crude. One solution you mmust learn to practice is letting the bloggers write the columns rather than the ignorant provoking writers you - I assume - the Post actualy pays for their sociopathic work. Don't censor this item or you will hear about it.

"Is there no room for a little gray in the area of religious belief?"

Uh no. I don't think you get the point of religion. Probably one of those people who label themselves as "spiritual".

I think there are two types of haters.

1. First are those who feel attacked. People can feel attacked for two reasons: a) because you made a factual error or material misrepresentation about a group with which they're affiliated or b) because you disagree with them on some point. The first reason for feeling attacked is justifiable, but the second isn't.

2. Second are people who feel you are not doing enough attacking.

Example of 1.a: calling polygamists Mormons.

Example of 1.b: opining on public prayer.

Example of 2: describing Scientology in non-derisive terms.

IMHO:

As a threshold matter, you should ignore people who get so emotional that they can't respond without spewing personal vitriol. Those people have issues to work out.

Once you get past that threshold, you should listen carefully to reasonable people who respond to 1.a, and likely take their comments on board. If someone feels you have misrepresented or made a mistake in relation to their views, chances are decent that they're right. Who knows about belief systems better than their educated adherents?

You should listen carefully to reasonable people who respond to 1.b. But whether to take their comments on board is up to you. After all, you're each discussing your respective opinions.

You should take anything said in response to 2 with a grain of salt or two. For every Jim Jones and David Koresh deserving of our derision, there are thousands of religious (and anti-religious) movements that improve peoples' lives. Aside from the (rare) victims of cultish experiences, people responding to 2 are just too closed-minded to accept that other people can find value in something they find worthless.

There may be a reason your responses are getting such a reaction. In your post for Islamic divorce-my repsonses contained no knee jerk reaction, hate nor hysteria.

However, your post was such a caricature representation- of a man who is clearly not acting as a muslim, within islamic law- that you found resonating haters to agree with your misinformed post.

heres an example of the lack of effort you put into your research- as you stated-

"Under Islamic traditions, talaq can be invoked only by a husband, unless he grants his wife the same right."

No- a husband doesnt grant his wife the "right" to talaq.
A wife may seek khula- divorce.
she does not require consent from her husband to do so.
Likewise- a husband cannot invoke khula.

you also said-
"the talaq decision makes me think of the polygamists and the privacy issues raised in West Texas, as well."

why it made you think of this is anybodys guess- but there is no relation between the two.

"On a cultural level (not a legal one -- I'm not qualified to tell you about that) the Aleems' divorce raises the same questions as the polygamists about the parameters between the freedom to live life in adherence with God's law and the larger freedoms given to us as U.S. citizens."

muslim marry in the mosque in a civil/religious ceremony- with a certified marriage certicate from the county just like anyone else.

the case you cited- an anecdotal incident outside of islamic law- serves no purpose other than to perpetuate false stereotypes-
it does not foster understanding- edify or enlighten or educate anyone.

yet you choose to wirte abou a subject that you haven't the most cursory knowlede about.

if you are not qualified to speak on a subject- why speak?

and if you speak when you are not qualified, what real right do you have to complain when you are called out for it?

There may be a reason your responses are getting such a reaction. In your post for Islamic divorce-my repsonses contained no knee jerk reaction, hate nor hysteria.

However, your post was such a caricature representation- of a man who is clearly not acting as a muslim, within islamic law- that you found resonating haters to agree with your misinformed post.

heres an example of the lack of effort you put into your research- as you stated-

"Under Islamic traditions, talaq can be invoked only by a husband, unless he grants his wife the same right."

No- a husband doesnt grant his wife the "right" to talaq.
A wife may seek khula- divorce.
she does not require consent from her husband to do so.
Likewise- a husband cannot invoke khula.

you also said-
"the talaq decision makes me think of the polygamists and the privacy issues raised in West Texas, as well."

why it made you think of this is anybodys guess- but there is no relation between the two.

"On a cultural level (not a legal one -- I'm not qualified to tell you about that) the Aleems' divorce raises the same questions as the polygamists about the parameters between the freedom to live life in adherence with God's law and the larger freedoms given to us as U.S. citizens."

muslim marry in the mosque in a civil/religious ceremony- with a certified marriage certicate from the county just like anyone else.

muslims are not attmepting to live outside of vicil law in america- it does not raise the same issues.
the case you cited- an anecdotal incident outside of islamic law- serves no purpose other than to perpetuate false stereotypes-
it does not foster understanding- edify or enlighten or educate anyone.

yet you choose to write abou a subject that you haven't the most cursory knowledge about.

from your own admission-
if you are not qualified to speak on a subject- why speak?

and if you speak when you are not qualified, what real right do you have to complain when you are called out for it?

reasearch a subject before you attempt to write about it.
that is responsible and mature journalism.

Claire,

Your latest offering is not simply shoddy journalism, lacking any decent research. It is an exercise in whining and self-pity. Read between the lines and we can hear you thinking, 'Why can't we just all get along?', and 'Let's all have a big group hug'.

Hundreds of sincere people have shown you where you can begin your long path to true investigative journalism. They did this with anger, yes, but not hatred. The only way to save yourself from being considered only an Advice to the Lovelorn columnist is to dive in and look at the offered links. If you disagree with the information, then tell us why.

Or, even better, there is a guy there at WaPo, name of Bob Woodward. Seems to me he has some experience in investigative journalism.... I'm sure he would be happy to give you some pointers.

Arminius

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Hmmm, criticism from a Muslim who cites an anti-Muslim source as being a source of Muslim truth. You should take your own advice and simply keep quiet.

The ordinary citizen lives in a world where they have no public outlet for expression of their ideas. Being able to speak out on something they feel passionately about is a new experience, one that's bound to bring out a lot of bad expression because people aren't practiced at it. Perhaps when blogs are decades old the population will be more experienced at writing on them and the tone will change; certainly these forums are a good thing, not a bad thing as some squeamish journalists think, because they allow ordinary people to fulfill the Jeffersonian ideal of participatory democracy by the masses. After 30 years of listening to jerks and dorks like Jerry Falwell and Newt Gingrich getting to have their public say with no chance to respond, I get passionate in my blog rhetoric, too.

Since much of the public is using a blog to vent suppressed feelings, expect much of the commentary to be negative. If the comments are neutral, consider your article to be wildly successful; mild criticism also indicates a good result. And fierce criticism may indicate you actually deserved some criticism...

Miss Claire Hoffman:

Judging from your responders here you are being accused of, "not telling the whole truth." The truth comes via, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not telling the whole truth can and does happen for three reasons, another one of the many trinities.

1. Space allotted is insufficient to tell the whole truth. It's your blog?

2. You do not know the whole truth, ignorance, (no excuse under the law). Some of your posters here accuses you of doing that form of the lie. They say you are talking about something you know too little about or have improperly researched the subject making what you say about it a lie in the form of something less than the whole truth. That can be the result of incompetence or done on purpose and is done on purpose by many.

3. One intentionally lies by not telling the whole truth. This is the standard form of the moral lie, causes people to believe and have faith. Used car salesmen and other sellers of many products thrived on this kind of lie until laws were passed or the court made the big award, big tobacco for instance. Still a very common thing in business, religion and politics to say nothing of personal relations.

It's my understanding that you have a lot of contrary information about the Bible being the word of God. And I can't help but notice this moralist blog has barricades against it's visitors even finding out it exists. So count me in the set that say you and yours fail to tell the whole truth. I could be wrong about that but at this time that's my whole truth as I see it, so help me God.

Does the truth really set us free or are we better for believing the unbelievable lie that comes from less than the whole truth? Have you ever heard the prefix, "if the whole truth were known"? Who is responsible for the whole truth not being known, publishers, readers or commenter's?

Religion brings out the worst in people.

People who are religious tend to have very strong feelings and their expression can sometimes become over boiled. Trouble comes when those expressions turn into violent actions. When that happens the zealot has in effect decapitated himself from God, whose undeniable manifestation is Creation, the opposite of destruction.

People who have a religion understand this. People who have strong faith can keep an open mind and treat even their most ardent antagonists as brothers and sisters.

Claire,

Here is a good place to start your real research: go to Time magazine online, and read the article titled "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power".

Arminius

Atheism brings out the worst in people… the banal and nihilistic view of the individual who has nothing to believe in renders him jealously afraid of men and women of faith. It is natural that an atheist/agnostic would react with such hate.

William

Atheism means not believing in God. It does not mean nihilism. You are very, very mistaken on that point. Religious zealotry has more in common with nihilism than does atheism, which once again, means, not believing in God.

Being religious does not make a person good, and being a Christian does not a person good, and being an atheist does not make a person bad. And Christians are not superior to non-Christians, although many of them vainly would like you to believe so.

The fact is that many religious people carry alot of very heavy psychological baggage with them and that is why religion is often a very dangerous, difficult, and touchy subject to bring up in conversation, in blog like this, or in real life, too.

Religeous tolerance was codified in the American Constitution, but, obviously, many, many Americans remain intolerant of others' relgious views. Many people mistankenly think that "tolerance" means accepting the beliefs of others. But that is not what tolerance is. The key to tolerance is that, if you would allow others to believe as they will, then you will also be extended that same right to believe as you will. And if the system ever does break down, and an intolerant religious view comes to dominate all the others, there is a very good chance that what you believe may fall under the category of "intolerable."

Tolerance and toleration is not a religious belief; it is a pragmatic acceptance that there are many people with many belifs, all claiming truth, but which cannot all be true; how can they all live together, and get along, except by toleration, each for the other.

Rejection of religious tolerance is a rejection and betrayal of our American heritage.

William wrote: "Atheism brings out the worst in people… the banal and nihilistic view of the individual who has nothing to believe in renders him jealously afraid of men and women of faith."

How did you determine this? Who walks around in fear of an unseen God or the end of the world? Who speaks of being good for God's sake and not for goodness sake? If you think atheists are jealous of men and women of faith you seriously do not understand atheism or who occupies our prisons to a greater extent.

William wrote: "It is natural that an atheist/agnostic would react with such hate."

If I propose that government require your children to read and understand the Bahai faith in school and learn that it is the only path to redemption and everlasting life how would you react to that? What I have found is the religious gladly give up their freedoms and rights if it is due to their religion being promoted over others. I love the US Constitution you see, which allows you to practice whatever faith you choose. But it does not allow you to bring your faith into my world or my children's world. What you see as hate is a strong reaction to that in many ways this past 8 years and even before.

With Stanley on the particular issue, ...there's a big difference between a government witch-hunt over religious beliefs and Germany being worried about an organization like Scientology. And I say that with the greatest reluctance, as someone who gets presumed to be part of Satanic conspiracies all the time, but, dag, there's a difference between ascribing nasty things to people over things that *just aren't there,* and a wealthy and aggressive *organization* like Scientology crying oppression if people don't just accept their high-priced lawyers' *spin* of what they're on record as doing as a corporation.

Germany's Constitution, in fact is meant to *specifically* guard against things like that. They got a history.

But before we rehash that, (again) yeah, clearly, these boards, as so many others, ...general hating, well, obviously this place will attract folks who are into that, and maybe drive a lot of others away who *aren't.* One can either speak otherwise or be driven away.

Even some of the general vitriol can be useful to hear about (Though maybe a fair bit less would do)
...Cause it didn't come out of nowhere. People do walk around thinking like that, and, frankly, perhaps think that they're being perfectly sensible till they open their 'mouths' and are shocked to find others have reasonable basis to think differently.

Some learn, some don't, some troll. Such is the Net.

Arminius wrote: "Claire, Here is a good place to start your real research: go to Time magazine online..."

omg Arminius, are you asking Claire Hoffman of the WashingtonPost/Newsweek to go to Time magazine for information!?! I can't think of anything more that would set her off with knee-jerk hysteria. You must simply be asking for a hateful response :-)

Fate,

Well, Claire's possible reaction to being encouraged to read something from a competitor did occur to me - but I did not dwell on it, except to think that such a reaction would be highly entertaining. Yet, if Time can write a better piece of journalism than she can, then perhaps it's a good place for her to start.

Arminius

Claire, I'm glad to hear you've read your comments on the Scientology article. You should know, with all of your research, that even giving this corrupt organization an INCH will give them a MILE.

In all your research you must have found:

www.whyaretheydead.net

Right?

Any logical discussion of religion will lead to only one conclusion:

Religion isn't based on logic, just superstition.

Because there is no logical basis for religious people to discuss their disagreements, they can't convince each other that their faith is the true faith. Since they can't prove they are right, many religious people end up just screaming their beliefs at each other.

Georgiason: I actually agree with much of the first part of your post, but a little perspective from a regular on this:

"Go to any other blog on On Faith, like Eboo Patel's. Show me where any of them ever deign to engage in a dialogue with their commentators. That, too, violates the spirit of free and open dialogue and debate."

In Mr. Patel's case, if I don't much misremember, he started out doing that, but certain people have turned every thread under his columns into exercises in cut-and-paste-spamming general attacks on Islam and, for a long while, calling him to his face 'Boo boy.' The great irony about it being that this is often in the course of demanding just the kinds of 'reforms' of Islam that Mr. Patel's actively a voice for, ..just not in the way they'd like.

"And how about the censorship practiced on this blog? I and others have protested having our responses blocked, even though they met the standards for this blog."

Much of what people claim is 'censorship' is simply *automated filters* intended to try and keep out 'fighting words' and maybe keep the debate a little more elevated. It doesn't always work, but it seems you've gotten plenty of offensive things through, yourself.

As for this, William, if you want to talk about 'hate,'

" William:

"Atheism brings out the worst in people… the banal and nihilistic view of the individual who has nothing to believe in renders him jealously afraid of men and women of faith. It is natural that an atheist/agnostic would react with such hate."

This is at *best* a sampling error: most atheists are profoundly-humanistic and have a live-and-let-live attitude. Atheists that talk about *religion* or who *oppose their own disenfranchisement by religion in politics* will have a tendency to be dismissive at best of, shall we say, 'extra-rational' claims of 'fact.' Especially when it comes in aggressive packages.

I have certainly met plenty of atheists such as you describe, William, but even the most of *those* are no more arrogant than *anyone* who thinks they have the 'One Truth' by dint of their belief.

In fact, a whole lot of atheists are disbelieving in a *very specific religion,* ...yours, if I'm not much mistaken, but still live under the same fundamental assumptions about reality: they've just taken a different 'side' in essentially the same worldview. Christians constantly pose the 'question' of 'Which would you like? Our God as we say, or nothing?'

No, it's not 'natural' to atheism, never mind *agnosticism* to 'jealously hate' religion... those that come out with the childish comments are either still in a process of defending themselves, and/or believe they're going to 'save' people with 'the real truth.'

You just don't *hear* from the rest, cause they don't really care. Till, maybe, you threaten their rights as Americans or assault their dignity. Then you see more attacks... at the very bases which the political-religious *use to try and disenfranchise them.*

It's kind of like a then-atheist friend said, in the course of a classic internal intellectual struggle someone posed as difficult: "Does altruism exist?"

After much talk, I said, "If altruism doesn't exist in us, why are you spending all this time *worrying if people are being fooled by the notion in the first place,* instead of *using* it in some way? If you were wrong to believe there's some good in the world, *who or what do you believe would be there to judge the 'purity' of your motivations? Would an 'altruist' *care* where that good comes from? Or just encourage the good?"

Sure, there's a number of 'banal and nihilistic' atheists out there, but in a way, ironically, many of them are not actually 'atheists...' Some still seem to believe in a judging intelligence to the universe which is first and foremost concerned with what people *believe.* In this case, one which scorns *our natural subjectivity.*

Just as do those who scorn our natural subjectivity and instead substitute playing games with written words for 'Reason.'

Still believing in very similar ways that the Universe cares more what you *believe* than what you *do* or *experience.*

Sometimes, this is more a cult of 'rationalism' than a way of *rationality,* I think, and they naturally lock horns with people who *rationalize* certain rationalisms as though they were *reason.*

Certainly, they rightfully go after people who try to claim anti-knowledge *is* knowledge, try to pose Scripture *as* science, or somehow just as good at being science as is science. In that case, it's not 'jealousy,' ....it's rightfully identifying a tyranny over the human intellect that authoritarian religion is too-often allied with.

In many ways, the 'debate' is set up *by religion* to frame such thoughts in just that way, ensuring that it goes nowhere in particular. To *enlist* people's very creativity and intelligence to spin people eventually right back into that authority, after much important-seeming effort.

The Net is, when you really look at it, a realm of nothing but words, ...though subjective things certainly happen here. If you believe that it's a 'fight' over something with 'verbal might,' then, that's all you'll get.

Don't assume that all atheists are like those who come to places like this with a chip on. Many just don't need it.

And most of the reasonable ones, like anyone else, get tired of the BS.

One of my best friends in this life is an Ayn Rand-loving atheist who, if someone wanted to have a Good People contest, I'd put up without question. No nihilist, to be sure. But, he's hung around me through enough adventures to greet certain things I attribute to 'Spirit' with true reason. He does *not* operate on a level of, 'If anything different from what we call 'rationalistically acceptable' happens, then what monotheists beat into me must be real, so I must lash out at anything I can't feel that I control.'

Just *confident in his humanity.*

He's not unique, that way.

Come to think of it, I've had a good friend who was a Scientologist, too. Kinda hard to characterize, briefly, but he could be a stand-up guy when he wanted to.

Hi Claire,

I have only read the one blog post by you: that about scientology and the German Constitution - so I can't comment about the responses to those posts. However, I read every comment on that one blog (now at 513 comments) and I didn't detect much "knee-jerk hysteria" at all. What you got in response to your question was a lot of very educated, highly-referenced comments answering your questions and providing you (and any readers who might have been vulnerable to relying on your representation of scientology) with vast amounts of information to support their case.

Criticism, even strong criticism, is not hatred.

Another person, reading those comments about their writing, might have enjoyed the opportunity for robust debate or even, God forbid, taken another look at what they wrote and asked whether they could have done it better.

Yesterday's comments were not about the beliefs of scientology; they addressed serious concerns about the legality and morality of the actions of organized scientology. BIG difference. As the California Court of Appeals stated in Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989). 212 Cal.App.3d 872 , 260 Cal.Rptr. 331, "while the free exercise clause provides absolute protection for a person's religious beliefs, it provides only limited protection for the expression of those beliefs and especially actions based on those beliefs....Freedom of belief is absolutely guaranteed, freedom of action is not."

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/wollersheim/opinion-1989-07-18.html

The subject matter of your blog deserved a more thorough treatment than you gave it.

From visiting different blog sites it seems that their a individuals who will actually try to make an intelligent thoughtful comment, those who simply are reactionary responses to their own projected ideas and those who "work" the web, professionally, for whatever political, religious, financial interests they are working for, lobbying for, invested in and simply comment with multiple cut and pastes or very angry comments, offensive.....I respond to a blog and their are it seems professional bloggers that will simply cut and paste thirty comments for pro Obama if one pro Hillary is comment is made and they do it at all hours of the day and night...they do it with religious versus science issues too...

It is the Nature of the web,and these blogging sites, to be taken over by the propaganda lobbyists. Sure you will have numerous angry, offensive individuals who feel safe making their hate-filled responses but more than not they are professional web browsers doing their lobbying....

QUOTE from your article above: "But there's a larger trend here and an important one: many readers seem predisposed to be offended or infuriated by the most banal of questions. How can there be any reasonable or even enlightened discussion about Scientology or for that matter the Mormon history of polygamy or the place of prayer in public or Obama's religious views if we are always in a gnashing tail spin?"

I don't see what you see. I confess I have not read all the comments but having skimmed a fair nuber all I find are reasoned arguements against your points both on this and the previous article. There are no hate filled rants and noone's posts appear to imply infuriation or offence.

For the record I find your comment quoted above unsupported by the comments to this and your previous article. Both articles appear indicative of someone who's missing the point and this is puzzling rather than infuriating.

Perhaps next time you could quote from posted comments things you feel support your view that the people who are protesting against scientology are infuriated or offended by your apparent miscomprehension of the issues.

Interestingly it is the church of scientology who is quick to offend. They have claimed to be extremely offended and infuriated at some people in London UK taking the view that they are a cult. So much so that one person is being prosecuted under the UK public order act of 1986, section 5, for displaying a banner where someone may find it offensive; it said cult on it and he was protesting along with a few hundred others near the London Org. Sadly our freedom of speech is defended only by our European Human Rights, which this act predates so the result of the trial could have ramifications on future protests and put the poor 16 year old through the court system possibly up to the Human Court of Human rights. And all because the Church of Scintology is the quickest to claim offense. Infuriated? No, just saddened.

I do believe that you have misunderstood something here...

The doctrine of Scientology, Dianetics and so on, is not what the German government is fighting against, its the criminal organization that calls itself the Church of Scientology.

Albeit Hubbards doctrine can be considered highly controversial with its discrimination policies and the infamous "Fair Game"(read: licence to kill)-policy, the ideas are not new and have been around throughout the whole 20th century.

But the Church of Scientology is the actual criminal organization that has used and still continues to use this doctrine to justify actions that hurt thousands of people around the world.

Germany has a past with this kind of hate-groups, that is why Germany is the first to notice this threat and respond to it... nobody there wants another nazi party to take over. And thats what Scientology is doing, their mission *is* to take over the world. The mission is not unique amongst religions, but Scientology is definitely more serious about it today than any other religion.

Theres a reason why you might find those hostile, even paranoid comments on your blog when you defend Scientology. Almost everyone who has criticized the Church of Scientology knows what its like to be targeted by the organization, just ask anyone here: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/

I couldn't agree more than online forums reflect some of the worst tendencies of our abysmal excuse for public discourse in this country.

That said, the issue of Ms. Hoffman's opinions about Germany's response to Scientology is really quite separate. Yes, a taste for nautical uniforms and pulp science-fiction is one thing. But child abuse, coercion, stalking, harassment, and fraud are quite another. And when Ms. Hoffman equates the latter with the former and suggests the problem lies, in fact, with Germany, then it's little wonder the critics come out in full force.

If Ms. Hoffman is truly interested in dialogue, now is the chance to engage in it. Rather than ignoring the claims of critics because they are "haters," address them. If Scientology is responsible for coercing members to remain--as numerous escapees have attested to--how is it compatible with a free society? If it is responsible for breaking apart families--as the family of its current leader and countless others have attested to--how is it compatible with a just and compassionate society? If it is responsible for fraud and extortion--as it has been convicted of in several countries and regions--how is it compatible with the spirit of "self-improvement"?

Ms. Hoffman seems to be claiming that only the great injustices are worthy of attention. I certainly hope that's not the case.

They were denied proper educations, forced to separate from their parents, exposed to sexual abuse, forced into manual labour, refused sleep, underfed, blackmailed, threatened, berated, psychologically tortured, encouraged to abort pregnancies, married under-age, separated from spouses, and/or brainwashed into hating the mental health professionals who could have helped them.

Ask them if they think your question was banal.

www.exscientologykids.com

As you have learned there is absolutely no grey area when discussing religion. That this is somehow a surprise to you shows a marked naivete about religion in public life. There is no grey area, period.

After reading the previous article and this one, I have to question just what were your sources exactly when you researched the subject for months while your readers appear to know far more about the issue being discussed than you do.

My suggestion: Next article, please argue (with sources cited) why you say scientology is merely eccentric but not harmful. In other words, please explain why you hold the opinion that you do.

For the record, your first post didn't cite anything so even your claim that you researched the subject already is questionable. So please understand that the issue here isn't religion at all, it's the actions of a shady organization that pretends to be a religion that IS the issue, and what readers are irked at is why you see them as eccentric but not dangerous when the evidence out there overwhelmingly points to the contrary.

" DCer:

As you have learned there is absolutely no grey area when discussing religion. That this is somehow a surprise to you shows a marked naivete about religion in public life. There is no grey area, period."

Actually, there *is,* ...it's just that some people don't *like* it.

Ms. Hoffman, I was shocked by the response myself. But that was because I didn't know anything at all about Scientology except that Tom Cruise went lulu after getting a sniff. I generally don't spend my extra time researching other religions- my own but not others. But the responses were so colorful and entertaining even that I had to research this for myself. If people felt this passionate about the subject, there had to be something to it. And after doing the research, I agree that this religion is indeed toxic. However, I'm still surprised that people already knew so much about this religion which I consider to be secretive. No one in my own circle knows anything about them. And the attacks on you were hilarious I thought. I figured you're a journalist so you can handle it, right? Of course.

Gee Claire, I don't know why anyone would be angry about you saying scientology is harmless and misunderstood.

http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/cos-organization-1/fo-3434-rb-rpf-1974.pdf

Obviously this document proves that scientology is entirely harmless... Oh wait, no. That's the internal Scientology document detailing how the RPF (Rehabilitation Protection Force, a scientology prison camp) is to be run.

It's probably best if you just skip to the bottom of page 9/Page 10. Personal restrictions & Penalties. Some of my personal favourites:

The RPF Member:

2) Has no liberties

3) Is restricted to FH (Fort Harrison in Clearwater) at all times except when on authorised work cycles in other Flag buildings

4) Is burthed in a space which is isolated from the rest and is only for RPF

6) (details how they can't talk to anyone, even their family unless they're producing, it's really long)

15) Must suffer additional time if sentenced to it for violation of regulations (and other stuff)

There's more good stuff in there, but the short verion of this story is that they are running prisons on US soil and holding people against their will. That's not exactly harmless or misunderstood.

As I wrote before, and do not need to apologize for: Dianetics is the new Mein Kampf and Germany was smart enough to realize it.

"clears" do not need to "clear the planet" and they do not need to practice any sort of coerced "self-help" which involves telling people that they are imperfect, abberations (LRH's word) and horrible beings which need fixing and that Scientology is the only answer.

Perhaps Germany saw Scientology for what it truly is, not what their propaganda site tells you. I fear what you would have written about the nazis after only a month of reading the books they gave you.

Proper research involves BOTH sides of the issue. Not the one you feel most comfortable reading. I will not coddle you. I am an author and an investigative reporter. So no, i will cut you no slack on this one. You messed up. Own up to it or find a new profession.

"... as a reporter I've spent months of my life researching and writing about Scientology, interviewing former members, photo copying property records, wondering at being followed myself ..."

You could have fooled me.

So you went through the hundreds of replies from your previous post and conclude, it was "knee-jerk hysteria"?

Now it is clearer to me how you could have spent months researching scientology and concluded it was a religion largely based on self-improvement and the Germans are just a bunch of "pansies".

Since you have demonstrated such inability to pick out the salient and sapient points in your "research", I'll send my furthur correspondence to your editor.

Our essayist writes: "So this last week I wrote a short post wondering at the degree to which the German state had cracked down on Scientology and deemed the religion a threat to their constitution. Is it irritating that as a reporter I've spent months of my life researching and writing about Scientology, interviewing former members, photo copying property records, wondering at being followed myself only to receive hundreds of comments on a blog post accusing me of being misinformed or, more bizarrely, a Scientology patsy? Yes. Yes it is."

You wondered about being followed yourself and yet you show surprise about the reception that your essay received?

C'mon. Please.

My God, Claire, cannot you see?

Fully 95% of the posts here are crying out to you to search for the truth. The other 5% are the $cientologists, groveling and shouting their praise to you for covering up their crimes.

Either dive in and find the truth, or have the human decency to resign. I'm sure the $cientologists will love to have you. Lots of money there. But will you be able to sleep at night? Judging from your last two essays, yes.

Arminius

Claire,

these guys answering you in "rage" don't "stop their project at work". They are working and doing what they are being paid and acknowledged for, right here, in this forum. What you see is an organized propaganda campaign by some anti-Scientology shills.

It's as simple. There might be some dupes who feel for the campaign and just repeat what they've been told over and over. Those are the harmless ones and easy to distinguish from the pro-marketers. I'm sure you can detect them.

Keep your distance and congrats again for the nice blog!

- Louanne

PS: Yes, I am a Scientologist. I have seen "anti" campaigns come and go and this here is just another one. If you know Scientology and Scientologists this nonsense does not affect you.

The defense rests. Louanne's post proved it. The $cientologists are genuflecting to Claire for protecting their crimes.

My God, what depths has the once so good journalism sunk to?

Arminius

A black mark on the good name of the Washington Post.

Arminius,

Claire is just telling the truth. She knows what will happen to her if she tells something else.

Louanne offered:

"Claire is just telling the truth. She knows what will happen to her if she tells something else."

Apparently Claire knows what would happen to her if she tells the truth about $cientology. Such as harrassment, death threats, law suits, and the other crimes that you sick people commit.

Again, I rest my case. You proved it completely.

Go seek professional help. TRUE professional help.

Ms. Hoffman, it saddens me to read that instead of using the information provided to you to perhaps rethink your opinion, you take people's comments as attacks (or even worse, blow them off as "haters"). That you feel Scientology is harmless shows a seeming lack of either knowledge on the subject or an unwillingness to recognize the danger the *leadership* of this group posses.

You are correct that the entry level courses of Scientology are all about self improvement. In fact that is the basis of the "religion" itself (I use the term loosely ). This is not a bad thing. The principles of Scientology are not evil, and even have some very worthwhile teachings. That being said, if you truly want to understand why Germany would take such actions, you need to go deeper.

Is Scientology harmless when they feel that unless they are in charge of the world, mankind is doomed? It is the mentality of keeping someone prisoner in order to "protect" them. Are they harmless when they actively seek to infiltrate organizations and governments in order to further their mission to "clear" the planet? (Google - Operation: Snow White)

Is Scientology harmless when they turn our children into mindless fanatics that will disconnect from their lifelong friends, and family if you so much as question Scientology? When a member is not allowed to even be around others that question the motives of the church, how much freedom do you think that member has?

Harmless? Hardly...

Had you only followed some of the recommended links, you would have seen legitimate info about the 'church' and why we feel the need to share it with you.

Not to mention that if you went into the journalism field (and posting your articles on the internet for the world to see, no less) expecting there would never be backlash, you went into the wrong line of work, babes. Can't stand the heat, GTFO of the kitchen.

If you were followed by scientology members, why were you wondering why Germany would put a ban on it?

Once again:
xenutv.net
xenu.com
enturbulation.org
whyaretheydead.net

Googe: Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White

In some ways, it's pretty simple, some of it.

Dress in old clothes, and go try and check out one of their recruitment drives in high-dollar neighborhoods. Compare response with slogans. :)

This "knee jerk reaction" was because of what appeared to be your willful ignorance to the facts. Germany isn't the only country that is now scrutinizing the CoS.

See Norway for example. A young woman kills herself after a Scientologist gives her a failing grade on their "personality test". (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece)

Type in "scientology" and "death" into any search engine and you will be OVERWHELMED by the amount of news out there.

It's disgusting and for them to hide under the guise of a religion while hurting people. Just because you claim it's a religion doesn't make it good for you or anyone else.

Police probe suicide linked to Scientologists

The daughter of a member of Norway's parliament committed suicide hours after she received what her family claims were "devastating" results from a personality test administered by the Church of Scientology. Police in France, where the young woman was studying, are investigating...

'Break you down, build you up,' for a fee

Psychologist Rudy said a test like the one administered by the Scientologists is not constructive, and rather aimed "at breaking you down, and then they'll offer to build you up again." It's a recruitment tool, he said, and a means of generating future income for the church.

A church critic agreed, claiming the Scientologists viewed people like "'raw meat from the street.' You're told you're worth nothing."

Matthias Fosse, information chief for the Church of Scientology in Norway, rejected such claims, and denied the church preys on young, impressionable people.

Info from

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece

On Oxford Capacity Analysis the non-Oxfordian "personality test" developed by CoS

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/o07.html

Essential reading

Info @1971 UK Foster Report

holysmoke(dot)org(forward slash)fpt(forward slash)the(underscore)foster(underscore)report(dot)pdf

http://www.holysmoke.org/fpt/the_foster_report.pdf

Providing reliable information that benefits the public is one way bloggers fulfill their civic duty.

Comparing the UK report of 1971 and the Bavarian State Government report of 2004 gives an indication of how CoS has evolved in its practice in the intervening 33 years. Even the information contained in the German info brochure is four years old. Updated versions must be searched for and added to the reading list. Other current reports prepared for the German Constitutional Court would shed more light.

Information Brochure @2004 by the State Government of Bavaria, Germany

http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/Anlage2104516/DasSystemScientology.pdf

I recently watched the CNN broadcast in which the anchor asked a few difficult questions to $cientology spokesman Tommy Davis. It was amazing how to see that the answers Mr Davis provided were outright lies.

Take for example the issue of disconnection, the policy of $cientology that puts pressure on members to disengage from family and friends who are critical of $cientology. Mr Davis outright denied the existence of such a policy. Amazing. Not only do some of the responses from $cientologists below confirm the existence of this policy, even more so, the policy is stated on $cientology’s own website! If you go to faq (dot) scientology (dor) org (slash) page40 (dot) htm, you can read the very lines which causes thousands of families to be broken up as a matter of policy.

Another shining example concerns the alleged bomb threats made by Anonymous. $cientology has widely distributed a video which includes a video bomb threat first placed on YouTube. It is striking that the video that $cientology distributed has a better quality (ie more pixels) than the YouTube video. A logical conclusion would be that $cientology fabricated a bomb threat against itself. After all, they have done it before (Google Paulette Cooper) and it is in line with $cientology policies ‘Fair game’ and ‘Confidential Intelligence Actions’.

A third great example concerned the question whether it is true that $cientology beliefs that space aliens souls are attached to humans. Mr Davis denied and retorted with the rhetorical question ‘Doesn’t that sound silly to you?’. Well yes, it does, but the thing is: it is true. A Dutch judge ruled the following about the materials describing this belief (OTII and OTIII):
“Scientology c.s. do not shun the rejection of democratic values (red: where have we heard that before?). From these texts it is also apparent that one of the objectives of keeping OT II and OT III secret is to wield power over members of the Scientology organisation and to prevent discussion about the teachings and practices of the Scientology organisation."

So why would a $cientology spokesman lie several times in the space of a few minutes? Could it be a matter of policy? Well, perhaps you can guess the answer by now: Google TR-L, Training Routine Lie.

Dear Ms Hoffman,

In the comments below and in the previous post, a lot of people have given you numerous arguments which support two broad notions.

Firstly, the entry level courses of Scientology constitute an ingenious bait-and-switch pyramid scheme, in which the bait is a belief that you are part an elite which will conquer the planet with their super-powers. The switch is that ethics are loose to put it mildly and that your super-powers are pretty expensive (perfect memory is 50K, telepathy another 100K-ish and if you want complete control over ‘Mass, Energy, Space and Time’ that will set you back some $380.000; needless to say no-one has ever shown any such powers).

Secondly, the authoritarian leader of Scientology (David Miscavige) runs a crime syndicate cum cult which uses thoroughly brainwashed members (called Sea Org) to run and perpetuate the above bait-and-switch scheme. These Sea Org members have to undergo often terrible abuse (Google forced abortions, slave labor, child labor and musical chairs). A blog with a very good first hand account can be found on counterfeitdreams (dot) blogspot (dot) com.

From your post I gather that you are still not aware of the second notion. That is a terrible shame since people put in countless hours to provide you with information after your first post and it seems have not bothered to read and follow up on this information. As far as the first notion concerned, I suspect you do realize there’s some truth to it, but that you are too politically correct towards this ‘religion’ to make a decent mention of it.

You have asked questions to your readers in both posts. We have answered them and we kindly ask you (well..most of the time we ask kindly) not to just ignore these answers.

Louanne said:

"It's as simple. There might be some dupes who feel for the campaign and just repeat what they've been told over and over. Those are the harmless ones and easy to distinguish from the pro-marketers. I'm sure you can detect them."

I say:

Louanne, do we have to link the readers to the leaked internal scientology LEAF emails? For the readers who don't know what I'm talking about, LEAF is Letters to the Editor Attack Force. It's a scientology program where the head of the LEAF program Doyle links them to articles and tells scientologists what to write and to email back when they've complied. If you want to see the emails just go to Wikileaks ( www.wikileaks.com ) and search for LEAF or scientology.

There's lots of interesting stuff to read there. Like their violation of US law regarding tax exempt groups telling followers who to vote for (there's an email from Karin Pouw, head of PR for Scientology telling scientologists who to vote for in a mayoral election).

One of my favourite parts of LEAF, in a lot of the emails they tell Scientology followers to NOT read all or parts of the article. Just comment and report. Take that to mean what you will in regards to this and the previous article.

Misinformed Journo is misinformed.

DCP said:

Ms. Hoffman, I was shocked by the response myself. But that was because I didn't know anything at all about Scientology except that Tom Cruise went lulu after getting a sniff. I generally don't spend my extra time researching other religions- my own but not others. But the responses were so colorful and entertaining even that I had to research this for myself. If people felt this passionate about the subject, there had to be something to it. And after doing the research, I agree that this religion is indeed toxic. However, I'm still surprised that people already knew so much about this religion which I consider to be secretive. No one in my own circle knows anything about them. And the attacks on you were hilarious I thought. I figured you're a journalist so you can handle it, right? Of course.

Thank goodness and thank you! It is good to know that those critical of Scientology were able to reach out to at least one person.

This is hot off the press. I just read this a few minutes ago!

A German journalist went undercover doing Scientology courses for five months. His experiences will be published tomorrow! (Exclamation mark because I am excited about this)

Of course it includes a lot of pressure to donate money and promises of super-human capabilities, but the most interesting quote is (translated into English):

"The beginning of a new civilisation", says Irmi Tjarks, Executive Director Berlin at the last new-years party, "Here in Berlin and the whole of whole Germany.". Clapping ensues, after which Tharks continues: "And that's how we will convert Europe!"

Now of course, every religion (term to be used loosely in the case of the Cult of Scientology) has its missionaries. However, given the criminal nature of Scientology, this shows perfectly clear why the German government is right in wanting to ban Scientology. Right?

Dear Louanne

I refer to your earlier comments.

Scientologists have been instructed by their leaders to believe that critics of scientology are agents of a paid conspiracy, as you said.

Accordingly, compliant scientologists will dismiss negative information, because they know beforehand that all bad information about scientology has been made up.

Scientology the organisation won't give you the bad information, and you won't believe it when it comes from anyone else. You are in a trap. If there is bad information about scientology, you have been primed not to ever believe it.

This is called fanaticism. For the people of Nazi Germany, failings and criticism could all be blamed on Jewish people or their paid co-conspirators. The death camps of Nazi Germany, were made-up propaganda, that could be dismissed in utter confidence as the made-up criticism of paid troublemakers or dupes, because the Nazi state was perfect, or would have been if not for the critics.

I wish you all strength.

PS: Yes, I have seen totalitarian organisations come and go.

Claire,

Anti scientologists really HATE scientology. They feel that they've been conned by the religion and they want to say "f*ck you" to scientology, and they would like to protect others from being conned by it.

There are many people who get involved with a particular religion and believe in it whole heartedly. Some of them later "lose their faith". They decide that it is all a bunch of b.s. When you talk to people who have turned against their former beliefs - say for instance in Christianity - they will often have some amount of anger about it in their hearts. However, I believe that the former scientologists (anti-scientologists) have a much higher level of hatred and a much higher level of "activism" in protesting the religion.

So the question is "why the amped up hatred"? I think there are several reasons:

With Christianity if you start ranting about "jesus and god are a lie", you won't be able to generate much sympathy or get people to agree with you. In contrast, Scientology is a minority religion - the average person on the street doesn't really have any first hand knowledge about it and relatively speaking there are few Scientologists so unlike major world religions, the average person doesn't even have one person he/she personally knows who is a Scientologist. Therefore, by pointing out the unusual aspects of scientology and calling it a cult, former members HAVE the ABILITY - the OPPORTUNITY to get people riled up and can start influencing public opinion. I believe they want to influence public opinion because they feel like they were duped into believing something that isn't true and they dedicated their time, effort, and money to it (something they now feel is b.s.)

I think another aspect of why they get SO UPSET is that unlike other religions that specifically talk about faith, Scientology talks about obtaining heightened spiritual awareness in the here and now. Disgruntled former members at one point were very interested in gaining the talked about heightened spiritual awareness abilities. They probably wanted it VERY BADLY. Many of the most vocal former members have donated much money, time and effort to the church. Once they decided that a state of heightened spiritual awareness wasn't possible, they feel betrayed and mislead. The difference is that if Christianity says "if you truly know jesus and do the work of the lord, when you die, you will go to heaven" - people don't get upset because the promise has to do with faith and an event that happens after you're dead. Other religions such as Kabbalah, and Transcendental Meditation have members experience heightened spiritual awareness, but they are not loud about it - they don't print brochures touting the promised potential benefits.

In contrast, Scientology is very "in your face" and "loud" about what it is and what is can do for you. Again, they actively promote the heightened spiritual awareness as something you can attain in the here and now. Because it's being laid out on the table as a totally attainable state of awareness, when former members don't achieve it, they feel betrayed and lied to, and lash back in a very "in your face" manner. The church of Scientology says that there are several reasons you might not be advancing spiritually, including being involved in unethical activities or continuing to harbor bad intentions. I believe that many a former member wants to take the church's viewpoints about why they are not advancing and turn it around and say "f*ck you - the reason I didn't ascend to higher awareness was not because something is wrong with me - it is because the state of awareness doesn't exist, it is because these 'abilities' don't exist, it is because the church is a fraud, I was duped, etc."

Scientology, like other religions, teaches that you need to do things that are good, and not do things that are bad. Generally, people who join a religion which teaches these kind of basics are good people. However, once they've decided that they've been betrayed and lied to, these good people decide that "destroying the lying church" will be their "good thing" - their "contribution to society".

I've seen people who have left other religions get into a mindset where they believe that their religion is b.s. They feel like the entire religious experience was a big "mind-f*ck".

The two times in my life that I have been the most upset both involved instances where I have had someone who I held in very high esteem who then "did me wrong". Boy, the infuriation. Anyway, I think that is what you have with former Scientologists. You have a group of people who once upon a time LOVED Scientology, who have now literally made it their life's mission to do everything they can to destroy it because they feel that spiritual salvation is b.s., and they feel really burned and stupid for previously having dedicated so much of their lives to it.

They certainly make a lot of noise. Every article on Tom Cruise or Scientology has hundreds of bloggers who have lots of anger and hatred to spew. As you say in your article, it's like before the article comes out, they are already crouched in a corner with a knife drawn. I also agree that you can't even have an intelligent discussion because there are so many bows and arrows whizzing around that all you can take away from it is the hate in the air.

Gary,

Do those who depart from any religion and speak hatefully of their experience within do so out of bitterness? Some do, but it is as not as commonplace as you may suppose. I think it's very presumptuous to assume otherwise. These people who are speaking out against the COS are not doing so out of bitterness; they are speaking out against numerous, reprehensible abuses that have all been perpetrated by an extremely secretive and litigious group.

From what I have read, there has been MORE than enough people speaking intelligently in regards to the COS. Many people have even gone to the trouble of providing information and links to numerous sources. Ms. Hoffman however, has willfully chosen, for whatever reason, to brush aside concerns that she could be mistaken in her assumptions that there's a far more sinister agenda to the COS than what their entry level doctrine will let on. After that, it's too late; the poor, unwitting soul has invested so much of their life, time and finances into this cunningly guised scheme that the mere idea of ever leaving is unimaginable.

And speaking of information, for all reading, I hope these recent news articles prove enlightening.

This first one is in regards to the Blue asbestos that was recently discovered on the Freewinds, a ship owned and operated by the 'Church' of Scientology

http://www.kget.com/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=a02471c5-bd2d-4188-b704-fb81985ebef6

This one talks about an attempt by the 'Church' to prevent the group Anonymous from protesting in Clearwater, Florida. The COS's request was denied.

(And to clarify; ALL of the businesses named on the petition to stop the protests were owned and run by members of the COS. Clearwater is a Mecca for Scientologist's. Based on several accounts from residents, downtown Clearwater is practically a ghost town; the COS practically OWN Clearwater!)

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article506348.ece

PS. Sorry about the downstat, Gary. But it's for your own good. I hope and pray you'll be all right.

Claire,

If you were did all this research, and wondered at being followed yourself, how does that jive with seeing them as harmless. You say you are talking about their entry level doctrine. Don't you realize that the cults always have something "harmless" to get you into the door. Do you think they tell you right off that you are going to being drinking poison kool aid, or believing in space aliens? The problem with what you wrote is that you only wrote about the harmless. You gave no warning not even to provide the "other" side. Your article to some unsuspecting or uninformed person would make it seem like they were just some harmless organization and they aren't. You are wrong Claire and you are trying to justify yourself. It just doesn't make sense what you are saying. It should say something to you...the reaction that you received last week. The fact that it didn't shows that you are really out of touch, or are as many here already think some pansie for Scientology. Either way I think you have still done your readers a disservice again this week by not really providing the real story. Geesh. I am so not surprised.

Disgusted in Canada

Said blogger Patrick Trench -

A German journalist went undercover doing Scientology courses for five months. His experiences will be published ...

Read up on the CoS experience of investigative journalists

1. Richard Behar of Time Magazine

2. John Sweeney of BBC UK

Gary, your entire argument is based on your belief of other peoples motives. Thus, your entire argument is fundamentally void.

You assume critics are low level ex scientologists. That upon not reaching enlightenment, they quit and are bitter.

Explain then how some leading scientology critics and people who are openly criticizing the church have not only gone clear (the initial spiritual carrot in scientology) they have reached OT5 like Jason Beghe or OT 7 like Tory Christman. Some are even OT8, the highest level a scientologist can currently attain. How can these people be critics? How could anyone turn their back on scientology after going clear, let alone OT8. How is it possible. These are named people. Facts. Not speculative guesses.

Anyone who is clear is supposed to be able to recall with perfect clarity, every single thing they have ever experienced. Can a single clear do that? Just one? No. Its so sad to see how scientology treats its members. In a video on youtube the head of the manchester org had no idea the freewinds has asbestos on it. The head of one of your 'churches' told it was simply a refit. And all the people in his 'flock' then are still totally unaware their lives may have been placed at risk.

Its sad. Because you could see on this guys face, he really did not know. I can only hope, he can muster up enough courage to doubt his superiors and do the research, so that he can inform the people he is supposed to be helping, even if it means a trip to a work camp as a result.

> The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution. That seems weird to me and even more important, makes the German government look kind of like pansies for spending a lot of money surveilling and punishing people who mostly walk around modeling their emotions and listening to the recordings of LRH. Right?

Ok, let's say I'm building a corporation. Let's say I'm in latex and I have several bald and short men as my salesmen.

To be profitable and compete, I make the following rules:

1) You must sign an agreement stating that you cannot sue my corporation for anything, regardless if I violate your human rights.

2) If you are female, the corporation will pressure you to have an abortion if you become pregnant. If you decide to have your child, it will be taken away so you can continue your work for the corporation.

3) Your child will be reared by the corporation and upon reaching the age of 12, will be employed by the corporation. He/She will be expected to handle a full adult's workloadd.

4) We will not be truthful about our company's objectives, and we will hide the truth from you until you've become an executive.

5) You will be expected to take training courses that can be upwards of $5000 dollars. If you cannot afford this fee, you will be required to work even more hours for the corporation.

6) Should a department not be up to snuff, they will only be allowed to eat beans and rice until they become productive again.

7) Regardless of position, if you fail to perform as expected by your superiors, you will be demoted to the lowest possible form of work we can find.

8) If you do something wrong in the corporation, it's because you are not working correctly. If you do something right, it's because of our wonderful management system.

9) I am the leader of the corporation and I will physically abuse you if I'm upset with you.

Sound like a good and moral organization? No?

Well that's what Scientology does. Educate yourself. It's not a self-help group. It's a dangerous cult bent on world domination.

www.xenu.net
www.enturbulation.org
www.exscientologykids.com

Claire,

Passionate responses to say the least! I won't dare to speak for the critics of scientology as a whole. What I will do instead is speak for myself and try to give you insight into the reasons that, in my opinion, I believe this subject draws such heartfelt emotion from every side.

I have researched scientology for some months now, spending more time than I should have diving down what many equate to 'the rabbit hole'. I have done what many scientologists on forums and blogs accuse me of not doing, which is reading L. Ron Hubbard's writings. I have made the best attempt possible at understanding both sides of this loaded debate. So far as I can tell, if actual research is done that does not begin and end with scientology promoted websites, one can only come out on the side of the critics.

There are books, news articles, television news reports and court testimonies to draw information from. There are Internet websites, Internet groups and support groups full of interviews, video, articles, and all manner of testimony from ex-scientologists. All of this information combined seems to point to a secretive, cult-like and often dangerous business hiding behind the cloak of religious status.

This organization has many front groups that claim to be secular yet apparently recruit for the religion while operating under charity non-profit status. Some of these groups relate to child education and promote L. Ron Hubbard ‘technology’ for use in our public schools in the form of a program called Applied Scholastics.

The Church of Scientology has been sued repeatedly for failure to deliver on their promised claims such as improving eyesight, raising IQ, etc. Others have refused traditional medical treatments for diseases such as cancer in exchange for scientology's "tech" and have lost their lives. Some ex-scientologists speak of being the victims of all manner of abuses as children and adults. Many, including Jenna Miscavige Hill, the niece of scientology's leader, claim to have been separated from their parents and families as children. A handful of claims could be dismissed but I personally could not dismiss hundreds.

There are many reasons to believe this organization is a potential threat to society. Families have been ripped apart by a scientology policy called “Disconnection” which is addressed on its own Website while their PR spokespersons publicly deny its existence. The church’s practice of following, investigating and harassing critics is alarming enough but in researching you find that one alarming bit of information only leads to another, more frightening one. Scientology has been compared to a heavily layered onion. It is one I am sometimes sorry I started to peel.

What anyone chooses to call his or her religion is obviously a personal choice. I doubt many critics would want to take away the right of scientologists to cling to Hubbard’s writings. The law, nor society at large, should dictate one’s personal religious beliefs or morals but it is the duty of all government bodies and the prerogative of the private citizen to do what is legal and necessary to protect the general public from those that would prey upon it. It is unacceptable and not the right of any one person or organization to do harm in any form under the guise or name of religion.

“We do not have to blindly respect something because it calls itself a religion or a church.” - Andreas Heldal Lund

I would encourage you to do more research for any future articles you might decide to write. Even an opinion piece can carry weight if it is in print as I'm sure you know. With your career title comes responsibility and I would ask that you not take that lightly if there is even a chance you might sway someone toward a life of ruin.

Carrie

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

If this blog succeeds in initiating a full scale US Congress investigation and an intense education campaign in all possible ways it will have served its purpose.

Vulnerable citizens deserve to be informed and protected.

Even one person who is negatively affected by CoS is one person too much.

'Is there no room for a little gray in the area of religious belief?'

Ms Hoffman,
The question you should be asking is where does that 'little gray area' cross the line and become unacceptable to the community. And the answer is quite simple, that line varies between individuals and between nations. People of different cultural backgrounds draw the line at different places.

It is thus interesting to note that current anti-scientology sentiment, comes from people all over the world, from Japan, Philippines, India, Canada, US, Greece, South Africa, Isreal, Europe, Russia, France, Holland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, and UK.

So the question becomes, why and how can one organisation cause the ire of people from so many nations? And if you had done a little digging the answer is self evident. The Organisation of Scientology, I believe is unique. Its' problems lie in fact that it done so many different reprehensible deeds that the Organisation of Scientology can infuriate and frighten just about any body.

And like you said, people are talking time out of their daily lives to read and comment about Scientology. And if there was nothing wrong with Scientology or even only a few things strange about it, this snow ball of anti-Scientology feelings would not continue to grow with every passing month. It would just melt in the heat of day to day life.

And finally, I ask you, would you defend a religion which uses a racial slur when referring to non-believes? What does it say about the religion? Especially since it was formed in modern times and its aims are to clear the world of undesirable people. What if that racial slur they use referred to people of your race?

In case there were any remaining question about what does and does not constitute in-depth journalism on this topic, Anonymous delivers a rough english translation of the investigative reporting from German magazine Stern (just published today).

-----
Page 2
-----

Sören wants me to come with him to the 2nd floor again. He points to the contract and tells me that in contradiction to a normal company there is no pay. Company? I always thought they would denounce themselves as church. At some point Sören talks about his partents. They were against Scientology till he "handled" them. A word I will encounter often. In Scientology-jargon it means: to win somebody for the cause. Time passes and it becomes more exhausting to fight off Sören. As I am leaving the building shortly before midnight it feels like peeling off a heavy coat.

Tuesday, April 1st. On my way to the course Sören intercepts me in the foyer. "I want to show you a movie", he says, "about the meaning of Berlin." Sören starts playing a DVD. The movie shows Kennedy, he speaks his famous words in front of Schöneberger Rathaus. Berlin has ethic presence, the movie argues, Berlin stands for freedom. Us against them, the movie narrates. And about the resistance they encounter. "So bad things we already had to experience in Germany" Sören says. What bad things? "Scientologists have been tortured, to reprogram them." By whom? "By the church, secret service, Interpol. By those who have money."

Money is what they want as well. In the movie Hubbard appeals to push people into closings, to put them on courses, to sell them books: Don't be stopped. No matter what excuse they have. "Clear Deutschland!" The movie ends with that. "Clear" in Scientology means the liberation of the psyche from the subconscious. Sören switches off the tv and presents the workcontract to me. This is no job, he clarifies. This is a crusade.

I hesitate. Sören alters his tactics. He shows me on the organigram positions I could work in. Org-security for instance. What are they doing? Sören's fingertips touch each other: "Press can write anythng" he says "but someone has to leak this information – we find these people and put them to court."

I nod. I hear yelling: "Let me go! Let me go!" It has to be in the room around the corner. I look at Sören askingly. Is that by chance? He only smiles und shrugs his shoulders. "I am expecting a decision till thursday, 2 pm", he says.

Wednesday, April 2nd. Courseroom. My current course is called "Selfanalysis." A mixture of philosophy, psychology, banalities and lies. The target: dressage to unresistancy. If I am not asking a question for 10 minutes, I am suspect. Then the course supervisor appears on my side, goes through my book, asks questions. Until the answer is congruent with Hubbard's demand. If I am looking out of the window for a bit, the course supervisor stands besides me again. Might say that I should use the "demokit" - a bowl with some kind of building bricks – to receive "more mass". If I don't do it, I am urged to it over and over again.
I answer the question in the books and write essays. As long as I am using Hubbard's key words, everything is fine, then the rest can be the biggest rubbish.Any critical discourse about the content ends most likely like that: "who believes to know everything never learns the right thing." To end a course one has to get attached to the infamous "e-meter", the central tool of the Scientologists, a sort of a lie-detector. One has to "attest" to have understood everything. One gets a certificate and holds a speech in the courseroom. The applause does good to many. After to the "registrar", pay for the next course. One of my first lessons was: Let yourself be controlled.

I learn that you can heal diseases as a Scientologist. "Skin diseases too?", I ask course supervisor Hermias. He: "Exactly." Me: "And if I continue: Can I then cure cancer?" He: "Totally. You are then the cuase over the physical universe." Hermias isn't the only one telling me that so cloudedly. At what point, I think, does one stop to ask questions? At what point one starts to adopt that nonsense?

Thursday, April 3rd. Sören's office. The recruitment form Sören gave me last time I didn't fill in. Ten pages of personal questions. For instance question 41: "Have you committed crimes you haven't been convicted of?" Question 42: "Did you ever had anything to do with prostitution, homosexuality, illegal sex oder any sexual perversions? Please state with any incident with who, where and when it happened."
I tell Sören my girlfriend has found the papers and torn them apart. "Hm", Sören says. "It's best you do a different course now." Immediately. "To overcome the ups and downs in life." 90 Euro and 50 Cent. "Do you have the money?" Of course not. "I am unemployed."

In case there were any remaining question about what does and does not constitute in-depth journalism on this topic, Anonymous delivers a rough english translation of the investigative reporting from German magazine Stern (just published today).

-----
Page 2
-----

Sören wants me to come with him to the 2nd floor again. He points to the contract and tells me that in contradiction to a normal company there is no pay. Company? I always thought they would denounce themselves as church. At some point Sören talks about his partents. They were against Scientology till he "handled" them. A word I will encounter often. In Scientology-jargon it means: to win somebody for the cause. Time passes and it becomes more exhausting to fight off Sören. As I am leaving the building shortly before midnight it feels like peeling off a heavy coat.

Tuesday, April 1st. On my way to the course Sören intercepts me in the foyer. "I want to show you a movie", he says, "about the meaning of Berlin." Sören starts playing a DVD. The movie shows Kennedy, he speaks his famous words in front of Schöneberger Rathaus. Berlin has ethic presence, the movie argues, Berlin stands for freedom. Us against them, the movie narrates. And about the resistance they encounter. "So bad things we already had to experience in Germany" Sören says. What bad things? "Scientologists have been tortured, to reprogram them." By whom? "By the church, secret service, Interpol. By those who have money."

Money is what they want as well. In the movie Hubbard appeals to push people into closings, to put them on courses, to sell them books: Don't be stopped. No matter what excuse they have. "Clear Deutschland!" The movie ends with that. "Clear" in Scientology means the liberation of the psyche from the subconscious. Sören switches off the tv and presents the workcontract to me. This is no job, he clarifies. This is a crusade.
I hesitate. Sören alters his tactics. He shows me on the organigram positions I could work in. Org-security for instance. What are they doing? Sören's fingertips touch each other: "Press can write anythng" he says "but someone has to leak this information – we find these people and put them to court."

I nod. I hear yelling: "Let me go! Let me go!" It has to be in the room around the corner. I look at Sören askingly. Is that by chance? He only smiles und shrugs his shoulders. "I am expecting a decision till thursday, 2 pm", he says.

Wednesday, April 2nd. Courseroom. My current course is called "Selfanalysis." A mixture of philosophy, psychology, banalities and lies. The target: dressage to unresistancy. If I am not asking a question for 10 minutes, I am suspect. Then the course supervisor appears on my side, goes through my book, asks questions. Until the answer is congruent with Hubbard's demand. If I am looking out of the window for a bit, the course supervisor stands besides me again. Might say that I should use the "demokit" - a bowl with some kind of building bricks – to receive "more mass". If I don't do it, I am urged to it over and over again.
I answer the question in the books and write essays. As long as I am using Hubbard's key words, everything is fine, then the rest can be the biggest rubbish.Any critical discourse about the content ends most likely like that: "who believes to know everything never learns the right thing." To end a course one has to get attached to the infamous "e-meter", the central tool of the Scientologists, a sort of a lie-detector. One has to "attest" to have understood everything. One gets a certificate and holds a speech in the courseroom. The applause does good to many. After to the "registrar", pay for the next course. One of my first lessons was: Let yourself be controlled.

I learn that you can heal diseases as a Scientologist. "Skin diseases too?", I ask course supervisor Hermias. He: "Exactly." Me: "And if I continue: Can I then cure cancer?" He: "Totally. You are then the cuase over the physical universe." Hermias isn't the only one telling me that so cloudedly. At what point, I think, does one stop to ask questions? At what point one starts to adopt that nonsense?

Thursday, April 3rd. Sören's office. The recruitment form Sören gave me last time I didn't fill in. Ten pages of personal questions. For instance question 41: "Have you committed crimes you haven't been convicted of?" Question 42: "Did you ever had anything to do with prostitution, homosexuality, illegal sex oder any sexual perversions? Please state with any incident with who, where and when it happened."

I tell Sören my girlfriend has found the papers and torn them apart. "Hm", Sören says. "It's best you do a different course now." Immediately. "To overcome the ups and downs in life." 90 Euro and 50 Cent. "Do you have the money?" Of course not. "I am unemployed."

In case there were any remaining question about what does and does not constitute in-depth journalism on this topic, Anonymous delivers a rough english translation of the investigative reporting from German magazine Stern (just published today).

-----
Page 1:
-----

While the sun sets behind the Berlin scenery, Scientologists are celebrating a birthday. The 97th of their founder L. Ron Hubbard, died in 1986. Torches line the red carpet leading into the Scientology-Residency in Charlottenburg. The building at the Otto-Suhr-Allee is a complex of glass and steel, the Scientology-cross above the entrance. The Scientologists – dark suits, dresses – are jolly laughing in the foyer. Berlin, so is the internal saying, allegedly works ten times better than planned.And: Berlin is meant to grow even further.

To the Scientologists I am Thorsten Brock, workless specialist in American studies, fan of Tom Cruise and his success. I pretend to live with my girlfriend in a 2-room-flat in the Prenzlauer Berg quarter. Sandra is against Scientology. For five months overall I have been able to hide my true identity .Have smuggled in a micro cam. I am a journalist and want to document what is really happening behind that glass front.
About 250 Scientologists, among them obviously lots of newbies, have gathered on this saturday in the end of march. They want to reflect on the past year and set the marching route for the future. There will be a video from Los Angeles, then buffet on the 6th floor.

On the 1st floor Irmi Tjarks, Executive Director Berlin, goes before the audience. Her red short hair is shimmering in the lights, her smile is bright. The former real estate agent has just been to the USA. She brought along her a gold cup, with a galopping horse on top. In the worldwide comparison of the Scientology-organizations – a yearly race for fixures, sales, stats – Berlin made the top. Allegedly. Not even the local Scientologists had been reckoning that. "The start for a new civilization" says Irmi Tjarks "here in Berlin and in the whole of Germany." Stong applause. "And with that we gonna turn Europe around!".

Statements like that the general public doesn't get to hear usually. The video tape is about the expansion as well. David Miscavice, Ron Hubbard's successor, presents 13 new "orgs" - that's how Scientologists call their "parish" - as well as plans for Africe and China. Confidently he lays out the charactor of Scientology "We are a train without brakes, and we're even putting more coals into the fire." After leaviing the the room, I am being intercepted by someone in a dark suit. "I am Sören", he says "Director personnel." Kennen wir uns? "No", he replies smilingly "but I know of you – come along."

It started last year. A Scientologist called Corinna accosted me on the street right outside the Berlin Org. Tight white shirt, black trousers, crimped hair, 19 years old. She opened her mouth to a shining white smile and asked, whether I wouldn't like to come in. She was very nice, sweet even.

So I went in and filled out a personality test. The result was "inacceptable". All stats severely down. But they would be able to help. With a course called "Troubles of work." Pay rightaway, start now. Tom Cruise did that course too, they said.

My provisional membership ID dates from the 22th of November 2007. Since then I did 4 courses, und the Scientologists tightened the circle around me. The phone rang more frequently, more often I was meant to come, and ever longer I was meant to stay. Four months that went on, first with a loose leash, that was strained always further – and now, on Hubbards birthday they wanted to get the catch into the boat. I was to be a part of the system.
While the others are moving to the buffet, Sören leads me to the 2nd floor on the back stairs. The window is open, it's chilling. Sören is blond, in his early 20ies and suddenly has a form in his hand. "That's how an employee contract looks like", he says, and his green eyes drill into me. He keeps eye contact till I turn away. A trick of the Scientologists. Who looks away, gives in. Sören wants me to sign.

In my distress I pretend to be hungry, to evade Sören. On the 6th floor I am putting some salami on my plate, more is impossible, my stomach is a fist.When my plate is emtpy, Sören appears again, his hand behind his back. He won't take his eyes away from me. All other, who are relatively new, experience the same. They are being worked on by Scientologists with clipboards in their hands.It's about donations, course, staff work.

Undercover journalist
"Scientology sect wants to crack Berlin"

For five months, journalist Fredy Gareis investigated undercover at scientology. Whether at parties or during the twisting courses: The hidden camera always on. In the interview with Stern TV, he explains why Germany is the most important area of operations for the scientologists.

Mr. Gareis, some weeks ago you left Scientology again. Does the cult accept your departure?
Not at all. I still get daily calls. It is like fishing, sometimes they gives it more cord and are completely understanding and friendly. And then they increase the pressure again and the frequency of the calls.

What does Scientology still expect from you?
I must absolutely go back again to the center in Berlin. There are still hopes to be able to turn me in. In the meantime I do not go however any longer to my telephone.
Scientology is very interested by Germany. One says internally: "if we crack Berlin, then we can do it everywhere." That is their ambition. Germany is considered as the most difficult field for the cult, nowhere does it face so much antagonistic winds. Therefore a success in this country is for Scientology more important than in every other country; it would have an enormous symbolic value for the organization.

At the end of March a large party was held in Berlin with approximately 250 Scientologists. Is it correct that no other European meeting had as much participation as Berlin?
I am not sure. That can also be propaganda turned inwards, in order to motivate the members. The course areas, into which I could throw a view, were never full. However I saw a few new members. It was frightening to see how many children ran around in the center. I found it uncanny to see these eight to ten-year old children attached to these e-meters and questioned.

What is the most important recruiting method for Scientology?
The stands on the street are extremely important. There up to 200 contacts are made daily, i.e. those bring 200 people daily to make a so-called stress test and leave their address.

Is there a certain clientele, which falls for it?
It would be a big mistake to be believed that e.g. only unstable humans came into the catches of the cult. Scientologists try to find your crucial weakness and offer then a solution. But in principle everyone is susceptible, because who does not want to improve their life?

Have you experimented changes, even if your intention was to research scientology from the beginning?
To my own astonishment a conflicting thought developed inside me: I surprised myself to want to reach this stupid "bridge". Sometimes after the courses I asked myself: "Damn, why did I not yet come higher?" In addition one takes over this typical propaganda language: In the end I spoke also privately of "church" and "religion" - although I knew that the terms do not apply.

Did you learn something meaningful in the courses, which occupied you at Scientology?
The predominantly banalities are spread, added with lessons such as "let yourself be controlled", which are natural in the sense of the organization. I can understand that these courses can appeal to some people, because they aim at a better life. The costs are at first relatively low and rise then strongly. One must invest a quantity money and time, in order to advance on the "bridge".

Did they try to fool into believing that they can later heal diseases such as cancer?
Yes, one told me very seriously that I can fly when achieving a certain status to the universe. One must release not only the human citizens, but also billions of extraterrestrial ones.
But do not the today followers really believe any longer in stories of the Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard that an intergalactic ruler named Xenu hunted so-called Thetans with hydrogen bombs millions of years ago?
Do not laugh, that are uncanny. This founding myth is probably to give a religious painting to the organization. They really believe in it, even if it does not follow any logic. Scientologists can switch off their understanding completely, function like robots and are immune to each criticism or skeptical questions. However the majority of the members cannot give you any details, because they did not attain yet the status, at which this knowledge is taught.
In an interview with Stern TV, the German Scientology spokeswoman said: "We will come closer with security not at humans and state, we can heal." The internal and external communications are completely different. A further example: Officially Scientology sect does not aim at influence in the politics, but internally one is called however to build "roads into the Bundestag". At Scientology one told me even proudly that they have already won important politicians, who would only wait for a signal, in order to admit it publicly.

Scientology is known to deal not very nicely with critics. What do you fear after publication of your history on Stern TV and in Stern?
Usually the organization attacks aggressively at a personal level. Perhaps one will try to defame me; perhaps they get something on me from the five months of investigation, which are suitable for a public dirt laundry. On the other hand the opportunity would be offered now for a critical argument. I believe, Scientology will not want to risk too large public annoyance in this country. Because Germany is simply too important.

Interview: Soenke Wiese

About the person
Fredy Gareis, 33, is graduate of the German journalist school in Munich and is active as a free journalist. Contact him on his homepage: Fredy Gareis :: Freier Journalist & Autor

Claire.

If your goal was to get many reponses to your blog to prove that somebody is looking at it - you have succeeded.

If your goal was to defend your previously published fluff piece on scientology and the German government - you have failed. The evidence clearly points to you either not doing your homework or forgetting that you had done your homework and winging it.

Did you even bother to attemtp to find out what the German constitution is all about in regards to this case before you began to critize the document and Germany?

I hope that somebody at your publication with editorial oversight takes note of this glaring deficiency in your journalistic efforts.

I hope you read his Claire.

It is a great shame that while you received hundreds of responses to your misleading, and frankly offensive (to victims of Scientology) article, you still have not strived to actually show journalistic integrity and admit that you did not research the piece as would be appropriate for a journalist in your position.

The greatest shame is that you can be spoon-fed all the necessary facts by concerned citizens and still not care enough about the truth to put it first.
Instead you defend yourself, imply that people referencing court documents are "crazies" and that people who know, and care, more about this topic than you are "radical", "venomous", "hysterical", "hateful" and their comments are "knee jerk reactions".

This is sad, and frankly, you should be ashamed of what you have done here.

Claire you wrote:
"I certainly make my living by communicating and I do feel like a miscommunication has been made when I get sincere and heartfelt emails from those who have been hurt by the Church of Scientology. In saying that the Church was largely about self-improvement, I referred to their entry-level doctrine. The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution."
You do understand you are writing the way a scientologist speaks here, right? "A miscommunication has been made..." Re: why does Germany feel threatened, Claire, you missed your true calling (it wasn't journalism). Neil Gaiman's father (THE Neil Gaiman) David burgled the Max Plank Institut in West Germany in order to prove one of LRH's harebrained theories about SMERCH and how the bankers/trilaterals/psychiatrists all had it in for him personally. And yes Neil Gaiman was a level 7 auditor and headed the Birmingham org in the UK before getting big in comics and moving to Minnesota. THAT's the kind of sensational stuff a real journalist would focus on at least for a second before moving on to more checkered pasts.

Bing:

You are the reason why I protest. I find it said to see someone so entrenched in the cult, so deep in to it that they will ignore well structured arguments, that they blind themselves from the truth,the various sauces, and the staggering amount of court dox that are found on the subject. Yes some are looking for a cause, yes some are doing it because their bored. But I am doing this for You Bing, and my Sister. You both are whom I am fighting for.

cheers <3

Claire:

I used to want to write for the Washington Post. That used to be my dream. Now after reading your last post and now this. I do not think WP is the place for me. I want you to endeavor to do more in depth research of any thing that you are writing about. It makes you sound like a raging idiot when you post drivel. People will call you out on it and it does your journalistic career harm, and if you ever do leave the Washington Post any person will look back on this and would be "What the hell?" It is not about hating you or the tenants of scientology. Its about Journalists doing a half-assed job, and corporations masquerading as religion getting away with murder,abuse, and fraud.

Books about CoS

Ursula Caberta:

Schwarzbuch Scientology (Black book of Scientology)

Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2007
ISBN: 3579069748

Wilfried Handl:

Scientology: Wahn und Wirklichkeit. 28 Jahre in einer Psychosekte (Scientology - Illusion and Reality - 28 years in a Psycho-Sect)

Eigenverlag 2005
ISBN: 3200003944

testing

testing

Information about CoS for the public from the state of Hamburg, Germany

http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt/Aktuell/behoerden/inneres/arbeitsgruppe-scientology/publikationen

Be grateful that Claire Hoffman brought up such a sensitive topic on her blog at considerable risk to herself. It takes extreme courage to open this can of worms.

CoS might interest the Democracy in Action group

http://www.MoveOn.org

Democracy in Action

MoveOn.org

Third attempt to post

Democracy in Action - MoveOn(dot)org

"Es braucht den Mut zur Intoleranz denen gegenüber, die die Demokratie gebrauchen wollen, um sie umzubringen."

It takes courage to be intolerant towards those who exploit democracy in order to destroy it.

--- Carlo Schmid

The explanation why you got such an enormous reaction:
(from the blog entry in question:)
"Ban Scientology? Doesn't that seem kind of extreme? They are a religion largely focused on self-improvement. WHILE I'M WELL AWARE OF THEIR CHECKERED PAST, decrying it unconstitutional seems like a threatened position to take by a nation."

The highlighted part is extremely vague, and moreover sounds like you think their malpractices are all in the past. The cult of Scientology is bent on maintaining a polished public image, even going as far as patently lie about aspects of their organization(see the recent appearance of Tommy Davis on CNN deny the existence of Disconnection), and there are many journalists pressed on time who have fallen for this without digging in deeper.
Furthermore, the somewhat paranoid reactions on the blog stem from the fact that anti-Scientology activism is mainly concentrated on the internet. An active particpant has likely seen the way Scientology deals with critics up close: active surveillance and even stalking after protests. When they see a journalist for a highly esteemed newspaper write a piece that seems uninformed, they are eager to share their experiences, mainly by quoting a wealth of sourced material that shows the dark underbelly of the CoS.

On a broader note, be prepared that arguing on the internet is no holds barred, especially on hot topic issues. Grow a thicker skin, and be glad that your blog gets sourced and spellchecked replies, which means that you have an educated circle of readers. Consider it a success when you actively spark a discussion, because that is the purpose of an opinion piece.

Our Father who art in heaven
Holy be Your name
Your kingdom come
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins
As we forgive those who sin against us
Do not lead us into temptation
But deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power and the glory
Are yours now and forever.

Amen!

Claire, you wrote:

"The discussion was about why the German state would feel a rather marginal and odd religious group, with a taste for nautical uniforms, would be a threat to their constitution."

The above sentence is structured so as to minimize the abusive, intrusive, deceptive, and greedy nature of scientology.

Here you write:
"It feels like the audience out there on the web for these topics are already in a corner with their knives out."

This sentence is structured to invoke fear in the reader. You're portraying critics of scientology as violent. Otherwise, why not choose the word "pens" or "keyboards" instead of the provocative image of the "knives?"

Claire, please be honest with us.
You are intentionally provoking your readers. Again. So why? Stats?

Claire,

I have read your blog entry here today, and I thought that perhaps I could offer the following perspective:

Claire, you are a PRODUCER, and what you write here in this blog is your product. The people who read what you write are the CUSTOMERS of your product.

(I know, journalism isn't exactly like manufacturing, but I think it can be a useful analogy.)

Customers are often demanding and annoying, but remember, the first motto of business is "The customer is always right."

It appears to me that as a result of your blog entry on Germany vs. Scientology, your customers have complained loudly that your product is inferior.

The most successful businesses today put a very high value on customer complaints. Customers provide the critical feedback a business needs to help improve its product.

For every customer who complains about a product, you can bet there are 10 others who just don't bother. They might remain silent but they are unsatisfied and will take their business (or readership,) elsewhere, so when we do hear back from a customer, we take that very seriously.

Today you have offered your customers even MORE inferior product, and repeatedly insulted them while doing it!

You should be THANKING those people who left their comments on your Germany vs. Scientology piece. THEY are the people who could help you achieve excellence in your chosen field. Can you see how your stance today suggests that you don't appreciate this sort of feedback? Instead, it seems that you want your customers to change to suit you.

Do you expect to see 500 comments such as,
"Bravo Claire, you are oh, so, Brilliant?"

I looked at those comments. Out of over 500, a few are crap, that is for sure. Simply to be ignored. However, it seems to me that MOST of those comments are very helpful and informative. Many of the comments are part of an ongoing lively debate, which you must have known you were inviting when you chose your topic. Some of those commenters have even thanked YOU, Claire.
Wow, some of them actually took the time to thank you!
And you insulted them ALL today.
(Yes, you did, in your very first sentence, you insult ALL of your commenters.)

I sincerely hope that you can take a step back, put yourself in your readers' shoes, and try to gain an objective perspective on all of this.

(I wrote this, not for Scientology, not for Anonymous, but because I thought it might help you, Claire.)

Scientology vs. Anonymous

A group that calls itself Anonymous has been putting the Church of Scientology in a world of hurt lately-with cyber mischief and costumed protests around the world -- but nobody much seems to care. Why?

In Monday's LA Times Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, says it's because most people don't consider the Church a church.

Shermer writes that "this latest turn against the organization founded in 1954 by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard has an air of farcical comedy to it. Why? Why aren't civil rights organizations and anti-hate-speech activists pouncing on these protesters? The reason, I suspect, is that most of us do not consider Scientology a religion, at least not a religion that resembles in the slightest the world's major faiths."

He continues:

"I'm a scientist who studies belief systems for a living, so take it from me: Scientology is unlike any other religion in history. Although the Church of Scientology is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt religion (despite years of litigation by the IRS to collect taxes on its income), no other religion I know of considers theological doctrines and core religious tenets to be intellectual property accessible only for a fee."

Just to re-cap what's been going on, a group of anti-Scientologists calling themselves "Anonymous" have been organizing on the web and in the streets for at least the last few weeks. On January 21st, they released a YouTube video and then another on the 10th of February, which coincided with demonstrations at Scientology centers in New York, Toronto, Britain, Australia. Protestors creepily wore Guy Fawkes/"V for Vendetta" masks and, in Los Angeles, held posters that read "Religion Is Free, Scientology Is Not" and "Trade Secrets Are For Business, Not Religion" and "Honk If You Hate Scientology."

Certainly, as Shermer points out in his column, the Church of Scientology has a highly commodified approach to religious teaching, with expensive books, audio recordings and lessons necessary to achieve spiritual enlightenment. But Shermer starts to sound naive when he says that what isn't tolerated these days is "the hypocrisy of comporting itself as a faux religion in a society willing to reward corporate success but not religious greed."

For a skeptic, Shermer sounds like an optimist. I think most readers of this blog who have belonged to a religious organization at some point in life will agree with me that Scientology is by no means alone in it's pursuit of worldly gain. So is it because most people don't believe Scientology is deserving of the First Amendment shroud?

Posted by Claire Hoffman on February 18, 2008 11:20 PM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/there_was_an_interesting_item.html

Lama Surya Das, an American Tibetan Buddhist, has very good advice for spiritual seekers, including a checklist to identify dangerous cults in his book, 'Awakening the Buddha within.'

Claire,

You are as deluded as the Co$. You are so firm in your beliefs about this "religion" that you refuse to see the truth. You seem very critical of the true religions yet give Scientology a pass for being "quirky."

To be honest, most of us feel you've either been converted to the Co$ or threatened and coerced into your views. Which is it?

Kaos

I'm with you on this one, Claire. I hate reading religious tirades and soul-saving missions over comments. But on the other hand, I guess I am a bit fascinated by them at the same time. Here's my two or three cents worth of thought.

Being a member of a certain faith, I believe that MY way is the truth and believe in it with all my heart. Along with this, I believe that it would behoove others to believe in my faith as well. Judging from the number of religions that employ missionaries, I think it's safe to say that I'm not alone in this. If you write something about my faith with even a skeptical tone, immediately I take the defensive. If you write something that is incorrect in the slightest (and let's face it, you can study other religions all you want, but until you actually practice and believe it, there is no possible way for you to understand it completely), I take the defensive.

What I'm trying to say, and I know you can relate to this, is that I become frustrated when I feel that something I value and cherish is being misunderstood and misconstrued.

To the one with all the answers, I completely understand where you are coming from and I agree. Freedom of religion is a hard-won and important freedom for the American people. Although I am European myself, where separation of Church and State is probably more thoroughly enforced, freedom of religion is deeply and widely respected here too, including by myself. So what is happening here, why did Scientology create such a storm in Ms. Hoffman’s initial post?

Being the one with Google, I Googled Scientology. And what did I find? I found Time magazine called the Church of Scientology ‘The cult of greed and power’. I found Justice Latey of the London High Court called the Church of Scientology ‘A sinister, corrupt and dangerous cult’.

Since Ms Hoffman’s primary type of argumentation seems to be to ask a rhetorical questions, please allow me to ask one myself: Is Scientology perhaps not a religion?

I hope readers will care enough to form an answer for themself. An overview of Scientology can be found on xenu-directory.net. Be warned however, that the abusive practices of this ‘religion’ run very deep and you will encounter claims that you will strike you as paranoid and that you feel must be unbased. So did I, when I first Googled Scientology. However, I did my research and I have reached a firm conclusion: Scientology has nothing to do whatsoever with a proper religion.

I will do short to the complexity of the scam and the organization by trying to describe Scientology in a few words, but this is my go at it. Scientologists are indoctrinated to believe they are saving the world, but are in reality operating a vast bait-‘n’-switch scheme. They looks like a self-help group on the surface, but once they have entangled you, they charge obscene amounts of money for courses which make completely unbased claims to outrageous gains (perfect memory, higer IQ, never sick at the lower levels, God-like abilities at higher levels). Although this in itself is worrisome, it is the abuse inflicted on the most loyal followers which is outright disturbing. Please Google Scientology in combination with words such as forced abortion, slave labor or child labor and look at the number of hits to get a taste of it. And this is, sadly enough, substantiated with internal documents, hundreds of testimonies, reports from established journalists and dozens of court rulings. It really, really is true. They do have gulags. They do destroy families. They do ruthlessly try to destroy critics. And yes, there are numerous accounts of child labor and forced abortions.

I hope people reading this will take time to follow the path down the rabbit hole.