May
14
Sweeney vs Scientology
ByUPDATE: I’ve returned to this post a little later because I don’t see the point in posting a video and adding nothing to it. My initial reaction to Sweeney’s outburst was that it was a terrible mistake. But the more I thought about it, the more I began to understand and even admire Sweeney’s tirade. While his behavior as a journalist is shocking, does it not also say something about the Church of Scientology that it would force a BBC journalist to lose his cool like this? I wish I could see the documentary in full.
AND AGAIN: You can watch the full Scientology program online.
33 Comments
May 15th, 2007 at 9:21 am
I did watch and it was totally surreal, anywhere he went and anyone he interviewed the Church of Scientology rep would actually turn up with his own camera crew to try and discredit the interviewees. He was being constantly followed either by cars or people on foot if Scientologists don’t want people thinking they belong to a c**t, they’re not going about it very well. Seriously scary people. And the scariest was seeing the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police publicly welcoming them at their new headquarters in London, seems like anyone is for sale if you’ve got enough money and know the right people. Happy days.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:57 am
And they said that Psychiatrists were responsible for the Holocaust. Or possibly it was Psychologists. Or both. I always thought it was the nazis, but since I was so enchanted and convinced by their theory that humans are descended from a group of aliens who were sent to earth and destroyed by Ming the Merciless (and we are a product of their amalgamated soles), I may have to reconsider my stance on nazi culpability.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:21 am
It was an unsettling insight into one particular aspect of Scientology (namely the darker side of the religion/cult), but it was far from balanced or in-depth as far an investigative documentary goes. Whilst the 1980′s Tom Cruise impersonator following Mr Sweeney around was disturbing, Sweeney was an argumentative arse, provoking exactly the response he had hoped, to make an otherwise dull documentary slightly interesting. Panorama at it’s old tricks. Tabloid TV.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I don’t think you can blame Scientology for someone’s outbursts. The british in general have always been hostile toward anything that comes out of the United States. This goes as far back as the birth of America. The British press looks down on Scientology in much the same way it degrades Mormonism (another American religion), but rarely will the British press criticize Islam, which ironically threatens Britain’s survival as we know it. Mormons and Scientologists are not strapping bombs to themselves and bombing London’s tube. Many Europeans after centuries are still frightened of what comes out of the New World. I would like to say that I believe Scientology is a wacked out religion, but then again they all are, especially socialism. It’s a shame that Britain spends so much effort berating Scientology (a safe target) but cowars from criticizing even the most radical and violent elements of Islam. Very sad. Britain is in dire straights indeed.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Vikram, based on your views I would hazard a guess that you have spent little, if any, time in Britain.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Where is the integrity of being a journalist? Why is the journalist a steamroller? From what I have experienced in my working and studying life people steamroll when they can’t convince the other person with their point of view. Have you ever watched Louis Sebastian Theroux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux) documentaries, he never loses his patience and he always gets his answer with a calm intelligent approach.
The question I want to ask is would he have done had he been interviewing a British politician? My answer would be no, he only done what he has done to the Scientologist because he taught he is a joke.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Paul, are you honestly suggesting that the British press is not, with an exception of a few, antiAmerican? I have travalled to Britain often, especially since I have a mother, father and two brothers who live there. Even they are aware of the growing antiAmericanism in Britain, to the point where they see it as being associated with xenophobia and therefore a threat to themselves. They are especially sensitive to it after visiting me in the U.S. for four months and realising that what the Beeb tells them is total hogwash. Truly, this kind of American bashing dates back centuries. Why dispute history?
May 17th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Hi Vikram. i don’t deny that elements of the British media can be anti-American. But i don’t think you can use that to explain one Panorama reporter’s hostility towards Scientology. Whether Scientology originated in America, France or Timbuktu, it would (and should) be vigorously investigated and challenged. (I don’t know about the British media degrading Mormonism but I would hate to lump Mormonism in the same category as Scientology, which in my view is far closer to a cult than it is to a religion.)
I also don’t think you can say that Britain in general is hostile to everything that originates in America. Walk down any high street, turn on any radio or television, and you can see that Britain devours US culture and ideas as readily as any other nation. Yes, there is a hostility towards ‘America the Superpower’ as well as a bigoted view among a section of the population that Britain is intellectually and culturally superior. But isn’t the same self-righteous superiority found in sections of America, and indeed, every other country in the world? Which country doesn’t think it has all the world’s answers?
As for the British press avoiding criticizing “even the most radical and violent elements of Islam,” there are plenty of examples of a hysterical British media, particularly the tabloids, playing that role admirably. Sure the Guardian, for example, may provide a home for anti-American opinion that is also often sympathetic to more extreme Islamic voices. But the Sun and the Daily Mail, two of the most powerful newspapers in Britain (and far more influential than the left wing/liberal newspapers), could never be labeled soft on Islam, radical or otherwise.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Well put Paul.
Ermyas, Scientology IS a joke. That’s why sane people don’t become members. I agree all religions are a joke, but you really have to be a prize chump to buy into Scientology.
And since when was Louis Theroux known as Louis Sebastian Theroux? That’s a hell of a mouthful. I suspect you cut and pasted his name from Wikipedia, which makes me wonder if you have ever seen his esteemed works? Last time I watched him, he was taking the piss out of Jimmy Saville. Entertaining for sure, but hardly world class objective journalism.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Ermyas,
To answer your question of whether John Sweeney would have behaved similarly if he had been interviewing a polititian. An unfair question as Sweeny’s outburst came after several days of harrassment and intimidation tactics. However, his Panorama colleague James Mossman was sacked for verbally attacking Harold Wilson. So maybe he would.
For the record, Scientology is a joke.
Vikram,
You might like to know that Scientology is partly inspired by L Ron Hubbards favouriste English satanist Aleistair Crowley. So perhaps we should celebrate the coming together of two sociopaths across the Atlantic.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“Walk down any high street, turn on any radio or television, and you can see that Britain devours US culture and ideas as readily as any other nation.”
I suppose that explains why there is so much hostility toward America across the “pond.” With all that yearning for American culture by the average British subject, surely someone who sees themselves as the upper crust will find that rather offensive, and maybe even write about it? Interesting, France is the number one devourer (if that’s a word) of American culture (EuroDisney–no. 1 tourist spot in all of Europe; McDonald’s–most sales outside of the US are in France; Hollywood films–France no. 1 importer of U.S. films), yet that doesn’t stop it from perpetuating the most petulant American stereotypes. Britain jumps in at number two. But unlike the French, the British take themselves seriously. (The French actually hate themselves as much as everyone else.) I suppose that the elites that you speak of unfortunately have the most access to the media which gives the illusion that all of France and Britain are antiAmerican. The snobs cringe when they see their fellow countrymen lined up to see “Spiderman 3″ and scarfing down Starbucks coffees?? The funniest thing I ever read out of a British paper was a column written by some woman (her name escapes me) blaming the United States for fattening up Britain, which now has an obesity rate higher than America’s. Of course, the Left blames America for everything, even here in the States. But what was hysterical about this woman’s rant was when she blamed America’s Dunkin Donuts for ruining the diet of the average Brit. The funny thing is Dunkin Donuts is owned by a British conglomerate. Maybe Americans can blame Brits for obesity then? Hatred can always be traced back to ignorance. But in my observations, anti-Americanism in Britain, Europe in general, is a serious issue that is dumbing down the entire population.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Simon:
…And since when was Louis Theroux known as Louis Sebastian Theroux
Doesn’t the link I posted obvious to you. I copied the name from Wikipedia. Add to that I am admirer of Louis works from KKK (he is Jewish by the way) to his recent work about a fundamental religion. He never shouts even when the going gets nasty, he is always in control and gets what he is seeking for.
It does not mean I agree with Scientology, but it need to be respected for what it is, not what it stands for. We live in a western world where every religion respected on its merit.
Josh:
Let me share with you something about the boss I used to have who always uses her physical and mouth to put her point forward. She would shout about me arriving late remonstrating with boxer like posture (she is physically built like a boxer).
I would disagree with Sweeny’s reaction no matter what. If he had been threatened and targeted by the Scientologist, may be he should have employed a guard and also reported it to the police.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Ermiyas,
Sorry for spelling your name wrong earlier, that was rude.
Your boss, was she bantam or heavy weight? I truly hope for your sake bantam (or feather..)
What would the police have done to help?
If Sweeney had been shouting at an interviewee that was simply putting their point across, entering into dialogue, listening and then countering, in fact, taking any notice of Sweeney and his questions – as opposed to having decided to wage war against him from the moment he decided not to film a BBC infomercial on Scientology – maybe I would care.
Ultimately Sweeney shouted at a guy who was behaving like a prick, end of story. Is that really such a big deal? (that is half rhetorical)
He didn’t threaten him, he didn’t berate his religion (directly), he caused no (physical and probably not spiritual) harm to the man etc, is the religion not big enough for debate? The literature claims it is.
The only regretable thing is that he behaved in a way that was clearly unfortunate, and most importantly in a way that damaged the integrity of his story.
So, yes – it’s bad to lose your temper but it happens and in this youtube age it is definately on the menu. Screw professionalism. We are going to see much more of this kind of “Docu-battle” in years to come…
Your other point, if you could explain the merits of Scientology I would appreciate it.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Vikram, what do you think about anti-Europeanism in America?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Paul,
I think it’s about time…. But you do have to admit it’s comical that when American’s criticize Europeans they are accused of being “fascists,” and when Europeans criticize Americans (if you want to call Polly Toynbee’s take on America criticisms) it’s considered “intellectual debate.” And then when someone like me comes along, it’s consider “proof” Americans are fascists. Double standards?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
It all depends on who’s doing the criticizing and who’s doing the name calling.
Plenty of people consider Polly Toynbee a great writer. Others think she’s a loon. (It’s not for nothing that one of her nicknames in the UK is Polly Pot.) But couldn’t you say the same about all highly opinionated writers, Coulter for example?
I don’t think your views are proof that Americans are fascists. I just don’t agree that Britain is an American-bashing nation sleepwalking towards a new Caliphate. Likewise, I don’t think America is full of gun-toting, bible bashing hicks who never travel further than the nearest McDonalds drive-thru.
The only double standards I see are between the two opposing camps who hold a version of one of the above views.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I think the media blows anti-Americanism way out of proportion. The media is always showing us anti-American demonstrations but never the pro-American ones. And if you don’t think there are pro-American ones held all over the world do a google. They even have them in Iran. I personally witnessed one in Denmark when Bush travelled there a few years ago. There were as many supporters as there were detractors who for the most part were college-age Marxists all wearing glasses and dressed in black turtlenecks. The media there I must say was unbiased in covering both camps. When I was in Dublin, Ireland in 2001, we went to THE only gay bar in the city, and the guys there when finding out we were American said things like “Oh, you’re the bad guys,” but then they swarmed us like we were rock stars. There was a fight who got to take the evil Americans home. Hehehehehe! Same thing happened in Vietnam a few years later. If you ask me, the world worships Americans. We are gods!! It’s only the snooty snoots who want you to think otherwise!
May 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Josh:
I said
…We live in a western world where EVERY RELIGION respected on its merit.
What I meant by ‘merit’ is that it needs to be respected for what it is, whether you agree with Scientology or not it doesn’t matter, what matter is that we should respect them the same way we respect Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Islam and so forth.
Don’t get me wrong as a Christian I loath Scientology but the same way we respect other races, sexual orientations, I say we should respect other religions.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Yes Josh, liberty is a two-way street. Too bad we are forgetting that. When my gay friends bash Christians I tell them they are no different than the religious right, then they call me a gay Uncle Tom. People have become way too self-righteous. It’s unattractive.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Can I just point out that in many countries, including the UK and the US, Scientology is NOT accepted as a religion.
Indeed, in many countries it is viewed as a cult.
Should we be giving cults equal respect too?
Ermiyas, I don’t mean to pick on you, but I don’t see why just because a group claims to be a religion we should show them respect. Sometimes, it is necessary to stand up to people with whom you don’t agree.
Take for example Westboro Baptist Church. Because they claim to be religious, should we respect them?
May 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
…Ermiyas, I don’t mean to pick on you, but I don’t see why just because a group claims to be a religion we should show them respect.
Paul:
You say Scientology is a cult, if so doest the UK government allow a cult practice within the UK?
And Paul you are getting me wrong, I never said they were right or wrong, but if they are a recognised organisation or church – they should be given the same respect as you would give to a Catholic, Born Again or Islam, but that doesn’t mean YOU HAVE TO LIKE THEM, AGREE WITH THEM OR BELIEVE IN THEM.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
From Wikipedia
“The United Kingdom government does not recognize Scientology as a bona fide religion, and the Church’s application for charity status in the United Kingdom was rejected in 1999″
***
Scientology as a cult
[...]The Anderson Report, an official inquiry conducted for the state of Victoria, Australia, found that the auditing process involved a form of “authoritative” or “command” hypnosis, in which the hypnotist assumes “positive authoritative control” over the patient. “It is the firm conclusion of this Board that most scientology and dianetic techniques are those of authoritative hypnosis and as such are dangerous. … the scientific evidence which the Board heard from several expert witnesses of the highest repute … which was virtually unchallengedâ€â€leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is only in name that there is any difference between authoritative hypnosis and most of the techniques of scientology. Many scientology techniques are in fact hypnotic techniques, and Hubbard has not changed their nature by changing their names.”[131] Hubbard was an accomplished hypnotist, and close acquaintances such as Forrest Ackerman (Hubbard’s literary agent) and A. E. van Vogt (an important early supporter of Dianetics) witnessed repeated demonstrations of his hypnotic skills.[132] (See Scientology and hypnosis). Licensed psychotherapists have alleged that the Church’s auditing sessions amount to mental health treatment without a license[citation needed], but the Church disputes these allegations, and claims to have established in courts of law that its practice leads to spiritual relief. So, according to the Church, the psychotherapist treats mental health and the Church treats the spiritual being. Using the synonym of alternative religions, Barrett (1998:237) and Hunt (2003:195) place Scientology in the sociological grouping of personal development movements together with the Neurolinguistic Programming, Emin, and Insight.
In France, the Church of Scientology was categorized as a sect (or cult) in the 2468 report of the Assemblée Nationale (the legislative body), in 1995. A more recent government report (1999) categorized the church as an “absolute sect” and recommended that all its activities be prohibited.[citation needed]
The federal government of Germany as well as its states, have to a greater or lesser degree and for varying periods placed Scientology and Scientologists under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz intelligence agencies since the early 1970s, based on alleged anti-democratic tendencies.[133] No criminal or civil charges have been brought as a result of this surveillance. Some German states and the ruling political party, the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), have passed rules or regulations limiting the participation of Scientologists in politics, business and public life.[citation needed] On Federal level Scientology lost a complaint against continued surveillance by the Federal Verfassungsschutz because the court held the opinion that there are indicators that Scientology is pursuing anticonstitutional activities. As of April 2007 the case was pending in appeal.[134][135] In Berlin, the court prohibited the use of paid undercover agents.[136] In Saarland, surveillance was stopped by the court as inappropriate because there is no local branch of Scientology and few members.[137]
May 20th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Paul:
So as you said if Scientology is not recognised as a church, why are there nearly five centres located around the UK and called Church of Scientology?
http://www.scientology.org.uk
May 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Ermiyas, you are asking the wrong question.
Why does the UK government not recognize it as a religion–and the French government treat it as a cult–even though it calls itself a “church”?
Also, ask yourself also how it has managed to amass so much money to be able to afford all those buildings in just 50 years?
Believe me, Ermiyas, although the Panorama documentary was hopelessly one-sided and took some pretty cheap shots, Scientology is about making money from vulnerable people, not about healing their souls.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? I think all religions are cults, and I also think most political thoughts are cults, especially socialism which has really become radicalized since 9/11. All these people do is come up with different gods and devils. For socialists, god is Karl Marx and the devil is the United States. Their pope is Noam Chomskey. Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Jews, Bhuddists, Socialists, Marxists, Communists—they are all whacked out collectivists devoid of rational thought. But I support their First Amendment rights to assemble and speak their “minds,” as self destructive as it may be.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
The nasty piece of work who was taunting Mr Sweeney was using a written training routine called REPORTER TRS.
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/john-sweeney.htm
Everything they do is to contain, surround, erect totems to warn people off, and lie to prevent public understanding that it is a naziesque moneygrubbing scam that chews up innocents and spits out dead bodies, lawsuits,psychopaths and criminals.
Regards,
An Ex-member of ten years
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Bruce, the definition of a cult can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/392396.stm
June 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
pdberger you said, “Can I just point out that in many countries, including the UK and the US, Scientology is NOT accepted as a religion.”
Scientology is recognized in the US as a religion and is entitled to tax exemtpion as such. Perhaps your Wikipedia link dissagrees, but then it’s just wikipedia. You can’t seriously trust wikipedia for anything can you?
What I find fascinating about the attacks and slander against COS is the same questions, and attacks could be used against any religion or group for that matter. Anyone and everyone who believes in something, can be counted out as “cults.” It’s a dangerous thing. As dangerous as the salem witch hunts. No one likes a “cult” member. So label people “cult members” and then no one cares about their harassment.
When a person attacks Hubbard’s teachings they are also inadvertently attacking every other belief system it pulls from – mainly Mahayana Buddhism, in the case of Scientology.
To be honest, as a Scientologist I feel persecuted. Wherever I go, people (from my employer to my co-workers) ridicule, razz and harass me when they find out my beliefs are in line with Hubbard and Scientology. I have to hide my books written by Hubbard. I’m not a paranoid. I’ve just been hit with a lot of abuse, when I don’t even speak up or preach Scientology. All i do is try to live my life. I’ve been asked things like “You’re a scientologist?? OMG, you believe in a system where you buy your salvation??” Not only is that a wrong assessment, it’s harassment. If we substituted “jew” or “catholic” for Scientology in that statement, we would all agree that the statement is inappropriate… But even my bosses feel they can say slanderous things to ridicule my beliefs. Just last friday my bosses boss told a group of us “I hate that [explative] Scientology [expletive]“. He has no experience. No personal interaction. He’s a bandwaggoner. Wants to get his “hate-on” and jumps on the easy target.
When I read Dianetics for the first time, i was stunned. It’s the only example of Mahamudra put to practice that i know of (to discover the emptiness of one’s reactive thoughts.) To attack that book, is to attack Buddhism.
If you believe in anything, you’d prob come across the idea to stay positive. There is nothing to be gained with negativity. All you’ll do is attract more of what you don’t want in your life.
June 10th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Brian, if Scientology’s tax exempt status is your proof that it is a religion, then Wikipedia must be a religious sect. From the Wikipedia article on Scientology:
I don’t trust Wikipedia for anything or even everything, but I do trust it for many things and in this case I am sticking with Wikipedia.
in fact, the details of how Scientology got its tax exempt status in 1993 make interesting reading. According to a 1997 New York Times article:
In other words, COS members were trying to blackmail higher-ups at the IRS into granting them tax-exempt status, which has since been used as evidence that COS is a religion.
What kind of a religion needs to do that?
June 17th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I am truly astounded at these arguments forwarded against Scientology – generalities and false information mostly.
If an applied religious philosophy which requires the services of a highly trained and skilled counsellor to deliver ( all expenses of training provided by the Church and not the government ) and this type of counselling has been shown to help people, why should it be TAXED???
As for information about Scientology using authoritative hypnosis, that is so erroneous it is quite incredible. I have studied extensively both mainstream psychology, counselling, as well as Dianetics and Scientology and I can assure you that the latter is not hypnosis and more than asking a question and waiting for an appropriate answer is in life.
I also agree with the comments above re other religions or political philosophies being a “cult” Has anyone stopped to think about how the word “culture” was derived?? it is a new way of thinking that influences the way of life. It seems that the status quo dictate and hold a lot of power at defining a “cult” . I see it can be anything that threatens the powers that be.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Mumbo jumbo Janbo
I’ve stopped for one of Scientology’s famous free “Stress Tests” in New York and it was about as scientific as a Ouija board. Just a scarily serene-looking person asking vague questions and twiddling a dial.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Are you sure that wasn’t a psychiatrist Paul?
June 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Definitely not.
I’ve seen enough episodes of the Sopranos to know what a psychiatrist looks like, and there was definitely no sexual chemistry with this Scientolochiatrist.