English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How can it be unprofessional behaviour by a BBC reporter when the Scientology people are doing the same thing to him with a video response? Doesn't that make the scientologists hypocrites? I mean, for example, i can say that the Hindu religion is a cult because they worship a fat cow, i can investigate that view and I can not get followed, or get a response by the religion in the form of a video response on you tube.

The time that these scientologists waste with trying to protect their "faith" through this "fair game" they could have used in trying to make their "religion" more accessible to other people. I mean, you don't see Hindu's making a video response blaming the investigative journalist, and trying to make him look bad. They just get on with it and not care, they just open their arms and say “If you want to know more we will tell you EVERYTHING”

2007-05-15 12:47:27 · 17 answers · asked by wondering viewer 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

You see it is always the way that whenever something dodgy or strange is going on, that whenever someone investigates it, that the person being investigated becomes defensive because they have something to hide. Isn't it funny how when critics of Scientology express their views, they are investigated and are shamed, whereas on the other hand, when people investigate scientology, they hide and block the investigator? Hypocritical?

2007-05-15 12:48:08 · update #1

And why is it that a "religion" that tries to be independent takes things from other religions? I mean, why is there a cross on the scientology logo? Who said that Jesus was involved? And a church?! Now, if you ask people what are churches associated with, I’m sure 9/10 will say Christianity and Jesus... doesn't all of Scientology just stink of contradictions, hypocrisy, and greed from money? I understand that many religions have interlinking beliefs or traditions, but that takes many hundreds of years to develop and to mature. Whereas when I see the “Church of Scientology” with a cross on the front, I can’t help but notice where that is from, and I’m sure that Scientologists didn’t exist over 100 years ago.

2007-05-15 12:48:36 · update #2

I mean, I don't get my local church demanding me for money whenever I ask the priest a question about life, or when I question my faith, nor do i get followed, shamed or attacked if i leave my church. On the basis of those facts, tell me this, does scientology sound more like a religion or a classic multinational corporation. Any responses from you scientologist know it alls?

2007-05-15 12:48:51 · update #3

Here are the Scientology video responses:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag

2007-05-15 13:08:24 · update #4

17 answers

Mmm. Guess that would be a "no comment", mate!

2007-05-15 12:52:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

I'm not a Scientologist, but a nonpracticing Roman Catholic.

I think you should provide a link of the video responses you are talking about.

I am studying journalism and one of the major things we talk about in class is how a reporter covers something and to what truth they report on. I think if the reporter was stating unbiased facts and also providing two sides, then it is a good story. But when it becomes something of a one sided thing and an attack to the ones being investigated that's another story.

In journalism, libel and slander are BAD news for a journalist they can ultimately lose their job for this. The BBC reporter should make sure he isn't trying to make the religion sound bad because of his bias.

If people who are being investigated don't fight for their right to "protect" themselves from media onslaught, especially bad media attention, that can affect them as a religion, then who's to say it won't happen to anyone else.

In the end though, it boils down to money for both parties.

2007-05-15 13:00:40 · answer #2 · answered by kiki 1 · 1 0

Obtaining money is nothing new. Mormons have been doing it for years.

There's something very creepy about scientologists. How on earth were they able to obtain the criminal record of a mans past? And why was it their business to do so anyway? Sound similar to the the Freemasons to me?

Personally I can't blame the BBC reporter for blowing his top towards that smarmy 'Tom Cruise' look-alike' fella?

Still, I'd be very interested to view the whole video of the Scientologists point of view. Just out of curiosity.

2007-05-15 13:01:11 · answer #3 · answered by Jason J 2 · 1 0

Most if not all religion is based on faith. That is to say it cannot be proven. I think the journalist made a mistake in losing his temper, he is a professional and should have held his resolve whatever the bait, however, any sect, cult or religion that is actively recruiting should be open to and accept any critisism. Here at the BBC this is what we do.

2007-05-15 13:01:23 · answer #4 · answered by jimbo_thedude 4 · 1 0

I am not a Scientologist, but the things I have heard are frightening. It sounds like a form of elite atheism...pretending to be some sort of religion. Satan was a Scientologist...he believed he should have been in charge of everything, and anyone that opposed him was attacked.

2007-05-23 08:30:40 · answer #5 · answered by Jalapinomex 5 · 0 0

<<"l'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." -L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd Eshbach, in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in Over My Shoulder.

In several conversations in the late 1940s, Hubbard had assured listeners that the best way to get rich was to start a religion. By the time of his death, in 1986, it is alleged that Hubbard had amassed a personal fortune of over $640 million through Scientology (despite claims that he didn't even take a royalty from his books).

In April 1953, Hubbard wrote to one of his deputies asking what she thought of "the religion angle". Later that year, he incorporated the Church of Scientology, which was licensed by his Church of American Science. The incorporation was kept secret, so that Hubbard could distance himself from it.

It was only in the late 1960s, with increasing criticism of its methods by western governments, that Scientology retreated behind the trappings of religion. Scientology "ministers" take a course in comparative religion based upon a single book, and read the few ceremonies written by Hubbard. Their training takes a few days. They dress in imitation of Christian ministers, including a dog collar and a Christian-seeming cross. In fact, the cross is a Scientology cross, which clearly imitates that of Hubbard's role model, magician Aleister Crowley.>>

Oops, sorry, I'm not a scientologist.

2007-05-15 13:12:00 · answer #6 · answered by RE 7 · 3 2

How funny it is to read one person from one gang, sorry religion, trying to get one up on a rival.

Yet none of you can see beyond all that father xmas style supernatural nonsense you cling to, like a child with a security blanket.

2007-05-20 11:36:34 · answer #7 · answered by Gnaw Folt 1 · 0 0

Hindus don't worship cows. They worship GOD just like everyone else. The idea that hindus worship cows is one of the biggest misconceptions because the cows is sacred due to it's symbolic value. That doesn't mean we regard the cow as a deity. I can assure you out of all the hundreds of worship hymns, prayers and mantras there are NONE that are directed at cows.

2007-05-15 19:53:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Hindus don't worship a cow. They respect the cow. BIG difference. Amazingly hypocritical that you call the Hindu religion a "cult" and you mention your church...which Christian cult do you belong to?

2007-05-15 12:53:27 · answer #9 · answered by Jade 4 · 3 2

I think i agree with...i don't get why they have to hide things if they are a religion..and also when you leave their religion..how the hell do they have access to your whole entire personal life..and whats with all these celebrities joining?

2007-05-15 13:03:23 · answer #10 · answered by dimplez P 3 · 2 1

Gimme a break....
There's a huge difference between a factual report and an outright prejudiced intention to attack, harm and destroy.

Oh and "fair game" was cancelled .... oh about 40 odd years ago because it was never official church policy in the first place.

I seem to be the only actual Scientologist bothering to respond to you. (Silly me, I definitely have better ways to occupy my time)

2007-05-15 16:33:39 · answer #11 · answered by thetaalways 6 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers