Did anyone see the Panorama programme about Scientology?

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
14,303
Did anyone see the Panorama programme about Scientology?
Was it any good?
 
Re: Panorama

Purple said:
Did anyone see the Panorama programme about Scientology?
Was it any good?
Click to expand...

'twas entertaining stuff, those scientologists are a freaky bunch[*], at one point the reporter is driven to screaming at one of the cult[*] leaders. More here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2078503,00.html Plenty of clips on YouTube too.



[*] Just in case any devotees of Xenu are reading I think Scientologists are actually really really nice, OK?
 
Re: Panorama

Purple said:
Did anyone see the Panorama programme about Scientology?
Was it any good?
Click to expand...

If you missed it, you can watch it online.

Any organised religion has it's devils, be it Scientology, Catholicism, Protestants or others.

I found this show very interesting and informative. However I have to see a Scientology rebuttel to make up my mind.

Certainly I won't think less of a person just because his religion is strange to me. Religious freedom is essentional.
 
Re: Panorama


Check out www.xenu.net for more info on Scientology, this is a money making cult operation, not a religion in any reasonable sense of the word. I would certainly think less of someone who has paid out 100s of 1000s of Euro to believe in a science fiction writer's fairy story.
 
I saw it and thought it ran like a spoof show. It never got to grips with the actual subject. One bit that did not ring through when he turned up at hotel with the cameras running and lo and behold a guy from the cult was waiting for him in the foyer!! Come on. Again at otherstages this guy from the cult turned up and said his piece. I was not convinced.

One good thing it highlighted how dubious scientology is.

noah
 
One thing that stuck out for me was the celebrities

[Anne Archer
Juliet Lewis
Lisa Remi(? from King of Queens)
Kirsty Alley]

who agreed to be interviewed then withdrew their consent to show the footage (but the program showed a clip of each of them sitting down for the interview) and when asked about the "alien" aspect of their belief, Xenu, or whatever, they all denied that it has anything to do with their religion, well to be more accurate they all gave a look that suggested the interviewer was nuts to even suggest it.

Anne Archer is a Thetan 7 (? apparently thats very high) so according to the interview she would know about the aliens but apparently not. Are they downplaying this aspect of their teachings to make it more palatable? Or has the general public got scientology all wrong??
 

I don't think it would be good for an actor's public personality (and as a result their pay package) to admit to believing in the alien aspect of Scientology.
 
I watched the panorama link from this thread and found it very interesting from a behavioural perspective to watch the interactions and I also found it very entertaining .
The world is a diverse place and this makes it an interesting place. I'm totally anti all religions (they are all scams and man made in my view) but in fairness to the Scientologists why should the journalist have a problem with the Scientologists following him and making news stories about him? He apparently could dish it out but couldnt accept the same treatment for himsef. I didnt see the scene being as sinister as the journalist tried to make out. It seems to be a pretty standard way of finding out about someone as comprehensively as possible and I doubt that Scientologists are militant . They just seem to be information junkies exactly as journalists are apparently. Journalists hound and investigate people in this way all the time. Thats how they make their money. And this is called press freedom. Something non existent in countries like Zimbabwe and North Korea for example and we should be glad we have it and preserve it .

The way I see it, the true test of this is not to judge the Scientologist who was angry at being told his personal religion was a cult and a waste of time.
lets not forget that the show was filmed in the USA where it is definitely legally recognised as a religion. The journalist knew he would get that reaction so why should he act surprised like this is news the same way any true believer of any religion woud in all likelihood be upset by definition at having their personal beliefs ridiculed.
I was actually quite surprised to see how this journalist lost his temper (which added to the entertainment). He lost it far more than any of the people (misguided or otherwise) whos whole belief system and way of life he ridiculed and denigrated.
Would he go publicly on the BBC calling Islam (for example) a cult ? (remember the whole cartoons representing the image Allah problem in Denmark and the Uk) He would crap himself first and being followed by a pacifist Scientology camera crew would be the last of his problems. Personally I find tabloid piousness and lack of humility irritating and hunger to see a balanced unemotional view of the subject complete with rebuttal.

Whether religions are good or bad for society is a completely different issue.

This in my opinion is the other side of the story. Maybe Im playing devils advocate and should be condemning them because I dont believe in their line of BS and because they are 'different' but being unable to establish any facts about the belief system I really didnt care as much as the journalist about this story as long as it was entertaining. It was entertaining but I didnt really learn anything about what it means to be a Scientologist and if the desired result to be entertaining then I give it a B+
 
It wasn't a very good programme and didn't really achieve anything. He allowed himself get wound up in the end, and it would have been intersting to see all the footage from the last scene, to see what had been going on before the argument.

In terms of scientology being a money making organisation, aren't most organised religions? The position of Pope used to go to the person with the most money and/or the biggest army and even today the Vatican city is hardly shabby.
 
Re: Panorama

ClubMan said:
Why not? No religion that I know of is compatible with reason.
Click to expand...

Christianity is what we are used to and what we grew up with. We are so used to it that many of us dont even bother to question the core features behind it all or understand what we think we believe.
There are plenty of though provoking, fact based (as far as I can make out) websites like this one http://www.evilbible.com


Fintan said:
In terms of scientology being a money making organisation, aren't most organised religions? The position of Pope used to go to the person with the most money and/or the biggest army and even today the Vatican city is hardly shabby.
Click to expand...

Exactly but this doesnt mean any other faith should get a free ride either. Everything needs to be questioned. A flaw in one doesnt make a diamond of the other.
 
Re: Panorama

ClubMan said:
Why not? No religion that I know of is compatible with reason. Do you consider this religion any less reasonable than others for example and if so why?
Click to expand...

I have yet to be touched by his noodly tendrils.

I guess you are right, it is perhaps only the weight of years that separates Christianity from Scientology, they are certainly both open to similar philosophical criticisms. One difference might be that a recent convert to (for example) catholicism is unlikely to be asked to part with very large sums of money and to refuse contact with their family.
 
Re: Panorama

bankrupt said:
One difference might be that a recent convert to (for example) catholicism is unlikely to be asked ... to refuse contact with their family.
Click to expand...
You mean like This post will be deleted if not edited immediately encouraged his followers to do - e.g. Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30 and Luke 18:29-30?
 
Re: Panorama

ClubMan said:
You mean like This post will be deleted if not edited immediately encouraged his followers to do - e.g. Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30 and Luke 18:29-30?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. Are recently converted catholics still obliged to do this? Perhaps Scientology will become similarly tolerant given another 2000 years.
 
Re: Panorama

What happenes in Scientology if you have no money ? Are they not interested in you if you are poor ?
 
I find the use of the word 'oxford' to attach mainstream credibility to the test interesting. Unless theres actually a connection with a university in Oxford ?
 
No - none. Like most things with Scientology (or any religion for that matter) it's just made up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register