Blogs and Stories

Kim Masters

Scientology's New Face

 Paul Haggis Douglas R. Clifford, St. Petersburg Times / ZUMA In his first detailed interview since walking off Nightline last week, church spokesman Tommy Davis talks to Kim Masters about Monday's startling public defection by Paul Haggis, addresses drug allegations—and explains his relationship with Tom Cruise. Plus, his former colleague speaks out.

Tommy Davis has been busy lately. In the past week, the spokesman for the Church of Scientology tore off his lapel microphone and stormed out of an interview when Nightline correspondent Martin Bashir tried to question him about whether he believed in the intergalactic warlord Xenu—a central figure in the church’s theology. And over the weekend, Paul Haggis, the Oscar-winning director of Crash, made news when his angry resignation from Scientology—addressed to Tommy Davis—became public.

In his letter, Haggis claimed Davis had assured him the church would publicly denounce the organization’s San Diego chapter for supporting Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California. That denunciation never came and Haggis said the church’s refusal to take a stand was “cowardly.” Then he took Davis to task for denying in a CNN interview that the church has a policy of “disconnection”—requiring members to cut off contact with family members who run afoul of Scientology or its policies. Haggis said he knew that statement was false because his wife was ordered to disconnect from her parents after they had committed some “absolutely trivial” offense in the eyes of the church.

“If you work with Tom Cruise for a number of years and Anne Archer is your mother, people might look the other way.”

“To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: What else are you lying about?” Haggis wrote.

In his first extensive interview since the resignation, Davis says Haggis’ letter is based on a series of misunderstandings. The church’s San Diego branch was erroneously named as backing Prop 8, he says. And he argues that his comments on CNN about disconnection have been mischaracterized. He declines to say whether, in light of his explanations, he believes Haggis might become reconciled to the church. Haggis did not respond to a request for comment.

Kim Masters: Travolta’s Scientology Turning Point? For Davis, the 37-year-old son of actress and longtime Scientologist Anne Archer, the Haggis flap isn't the only controversy he's fending off--he's had to answer questions about his own standing in the church, his past use of pot, and his relationship with Tom Cruise. “I guess I’m the most popular boy in school right now,” he says good-naturedly.

Claire Headley, who has known Tommy Davis for many years, grew up in the church, and worked in its internal affairs office until she left the organization five years ago. She says Davis was “a happy-go-lucky” teenager who got into a fair amount of mischief, including some that would violate Scientology codes. That didn’t stop him from eventually becoming Tom Cruise’s “personal, full-time, assigned Scientology handler,” she says, explaining, “He filtered everything, reported on what [Cruise] was doing to [Church of Scientology leader] David Miscavige.” Officially, Davis was assigned to the church’s president’s office in the Celebrity Centre, she continues, but he was essentially with Cruise full-time from the late 1990s until 2005.

Davis was quickly returned to the fold and sent to the church’s offices in Clearwater, Florida, where he was required to clean toilets with a toothbrush for a week.

When Cruise visited Scientology headquarters in Hemet, a desert town about 90 miles from Los Angeles, in 2004 Headley says Cruise and Davis used an office in the Religious Technology Center building that—despite its considerable size—was occupied only by Miscavige and his personal staff. That same year, Miscavige labored to produce a video that was to be played when Cruise received the Freedom Medal of Valor award at an annual gathering in England.

“Tommy Davis was there full-time for that,” she says. “We’re talking 24/7—through the night. Both of them and probably like, 60 other staff, running for them.” (The video was eventually leaked and made quite a sensation on the Internet because of Cruise’s unusual affect.)

Davis denies essentially all of this. He says he worked with Cruise but not full-time. He says he never worked in an office at the Hemet facility. Initially he denies having worked on the video but then acknowledges that he did.

At one time, according to Claire Headley, Davis tried to recruit her into the Scientology management organization called the Sea Org. (Though he did not succeed, she joined some time later.) She recalls that Davis has had some difficult moments within the organization. Years ago, after he had begun to receive Scientology training and counseling, she says, Davis smoked some pot. That put him at odds with the organization’s “executive posting qualifications,” which in theory made him what Scientology calls a “drug revert.”

That status should have made Davis ineligible to work in a high-level position, according to Headley. “But if you work with Tom Cruise for a number of years and Anne Archer is your mother, people might look the other way,” she says.

Davis denies this account. “I am not a drug revert,” he says, adding that it is “absolutely untrue” that the church gave him special treatment because of his connections. “I’m in the position I’m in because of my accomplishments and my ability to do my job,” he says.

A couple of years ago, Headley says, Davis got into a heated on-camera exchange with BBC journalist John Sweeney, who was doing reporting on Scientology. Apparently the church did not want that footage to air and it dispatched its then-spokesman, Mike Rinder, to England to deal with the situation. Rinder could not dissuade the BBC from broadcasting the interview. According to Headley, and her husband, Marc, who worked in Scientology’s film-production studio from 1989 until 2005, both Rinder and Davis “blew” at that point. (In church parlance, that means they went AWOL.) Rinder has not returned and has since gone on the record with the St. Petersburg Times, accusing church leader Miscavige of physical abuse and other misconduct. (Scientology officials denied the accusations, claiming Miscavige never hit a church staffer.)

Headley says informed former Scientologists told her that Davis was quickly returned to the fold and sent to the church’s offices in Clearwater, Florida, where he was required to clean toilets with a toothbrush for a week. Davis acknowledges that he spent about a year in the Florida offices after the BBC interview but says he never “blew” and was never ordered to clean toilets.

Claire Headley rose relatively high with her church studies, becoming what Scientology calls an “OT 5” (“OT” stands for “operating thetan”). She says she doubts that Davis is nearly as versed in Scientology because his work has been too demanding. “When you’re staff and you never sleep, there’s very little time for that sort of thing,” she explains. (Scientology’s training demands for staff seem lax in some instances; indeed, Marc Headley says, “I was there for 15 years and I never even read Dianetics”—a reference to founder L. Ron Hubbard’s bestseller.)

Headley suspects Tommy Davis has never participated in upper-level training in which the story of Xenu would have actually been revealed. She thinks that may be why he walked out of the Nightline interview when asked about it. “In Scientology, no one can talk about it, whether you’ve done it or not,” she says. “If you talk about it when you’re not up to that level, you can be banned from ever doing it.”

Davis refuses to say exactly how far up Scientology’s “bridge to total freedom” he has gone. “I never discuss my personal progress in the church,” he says.

The Headleys say they believe that Davis may be in somewhat over his head. With the departure of Rinder as spokesman and other key Scientology personnel, Marc Headley says Davis has been thrust into the spotlight without necessarily having undergone sufficient training. “There’s a whole series of courses you have to do,” he says. “It’s very unlikely that he did all that... [But] he’s rich so he can afford to buy himself thousand-dollar suits and he rolls up in his 7 Series BMW—and he doesn’t have any reason not to be there.” (Headley says other low-paid Scientology staff members “could barely afford gas for that BMW.”)

Davis says it’s “crap” that the former church members are attacking him. As for Marc Headley, Davis says, “It’s no mystery why he’s vicious about the church and the church spokesman when he’s somebody who sells stories to the media and is currently suing the church.” Marc Headley admits he has written some stories for Life & Style magazine and acknowledges that he is suing the church. For the record, he has never attempted to sell a story to The Daily Beast.

Plus: Check out more of the latest entertainment, fashion, and culture coverage on Sexy Beast—photos, videos, features, and Tweets.

Kim Masters covers the entertainment business for The Daily Beast. She is also the host of The Business, public radio's weekly program about the business of show business. She is also the author of The Keys to the Kingdom: The Rise of Michael Eisner and the Fall of Everybody Else.

For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.


View as Multiple Pages
Back to Top
October 27, 2009 | 1:30am
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

GravitysRainbow

This "religion" is nothing more than an big cash cow.

|
|
Reply
|
6:37 am, Oct 27, 2009

DocHumboldt

Yea, it's kind of like the Mormons with less money and bad LSD flash backs.

|
|
Reply
|
9:00 am, Oct 27, 2009

OKDale

Like the Mormons? Why that example? Why not the Christians? Or, more specifically, the Catholics, who are against homosexuals, yet are perfectly fine with their seminaries being 1/3rd openly gay (as long as they're celibate).
Why celibacy in the Catholic Church? To prevent children being born who might turn out not to follow the church, and, therefore, would take their land holdings elsewhere. It's a historical fact.
Now the Catholics are going to welcome the Episcopalians, even if they are married. Odd that these Episcopalians, unhappy with their church's ordination of a gay bishop, would join a church with 1/3rd of their "priests-to-be" being openly gay.
Religion used to be a way to get people to hold to certain social standards by threatening them with a shitty afterlife so they didn't blame those in power for these restrictions. Now it's all about the money.

|
2:03 pm, Oct 27, 2009

Brendino

OKDale - Can you cite the 1/3 stat?

|
12:13 am, Oct 28, 2009

crngndmhm

Sounds like most "religions" to me.

|
|
Reply
|
9:46 am, Oct 27, 2009

aluxeterna

except this one actually charges you for church services. Can you imagine swiping an ATM card before stepping into the confessional?

|
3:51 pm, Oct 27, 2009

ThinkAgain

A cash cow? Sounds like the Federal Gov doesn't it? Give me all your money and I'll make your life all better for you.

|
|
Reply
|
11:44 am, Oct 27, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--Cori24
|
3:39 pm, Oct 27, 2009

eroteme

Enough. This is not newsworthy. Scientology is a secretive and frankly quite ridiculous, money making cult masquerading as a church to get tax benefits. Let it fester away in its weirdness. There is no doubt that its current leader has a monstrous ego, and is a control freak but then thats what cults are all about.

|
|
Reply
|
6:41 am, Oct 27, 2009

Caradog

The hell it ain't news - the only reason this historic sham was declared a 'religion' for tax purposes was that they were clogging the courts with counter-lawsuits as they are trained, and the Government threw in the towel.

If you'd ever known a person or family financially and emotionally trashed by this group of charlatans, you would think differently. Let a light shine - this 'faith' is incredibly dishonest, deceitful and destructive.

|
|
Reply
8:11 am, Oct 27, 2009

sophia5

All "Organized" Religions are "Cults." All about signing up new "contributors."
Are things written in the Bible any more provable than what's written in L. Ron Hubbard's book ?

|
|
Reply
|
11:39 am, Oct 27, 2009

Swamprat

*stands and applaudes you*

|
12:01 pm, Oct 27, 2009

jds8181

My sentiments exactly. The Bible was written thousands of years ago by men who claimed to be divinely inspired. If they were alive today they'd look a lot of David Koresh, and would likely be branded heretics and committed to asylums. There is absolutely no discernible difference between those people and people like L. Ron Hubbard.

|
12:09 pm, Oct 27, 2009

NATRDAVIS

Amen. Every religion is a cult. Some organized religions are more dangerous than others. Scientology, I suspect, is one of the most dangerous of the lot, but one could argue that all the others have their dangers too. Inquisition and Crusades and DOMA and DADT and Prop 8, anyone?.

|
2:33 pm, Oct 27, 2009

Brendino

sophia5 - a resounding YES!

Historical events cannot be proven scientifically - scientific evidence requires repeatability under controlled circumstances, so you can't scientifically prove that you ate breakfast this morning. But what you can do is examine the circumstantial evidence, testimony of others, exhibits involved, etc. If we hold the Bible and anything that L. Ron Hubbard put out, the Bible stands firm and Scientology withers away.

"More than a Carpenter" is a splendid little book that tries to examine the evidence for the legitimacy of Christ and the Bible. Check it out sometime!

|
12:00 am, Oct 28, 2009

AlwaysOptimistic

Religion.......Opium for the masses........

|
6:24 am, Oct 29, 2009

jomama

The freedom of information made available by the internet could very well be tearing Scientology apart piece by piece. A lot of ex-members were able to validate their mutual problems with each other via e-mail, and by viewing renegade websites and postings by other ex-members, shedding a great deal of light on subjects which were kept in total darkness previously. I hope it comes down.

|
|
Reply
|
7:03 am, Oct 27, 2009

amorton

While that's true, and the benefits thereof have been immense particularly to those who have left or are seeking to leave Scientology, it seems that Scientology as an organization continues to possess enough resources and political clout to shield itself from any real external intervention. In spite of considerable negative publicity and, as of late, some pretty devastating investigative journalism pieces (there was one in the St. Petersburg Times a little while ago, maybe that was follow the Rinder thing?), there has been very little follow up in terms of political or legal repercussions.

The continued piling on of journalism pieces investigating and discussing the implications of policies like "disconnection," as well as the many allegations of physical and mental abuse within Scientology, particularly among its staff, lends credibility to those accounts. Nevertheless, Scientology as an organization remains very adept at denying everything and putting as good a face forward as possible, which seems to be enough to placate many (not all!) journalists and appears to keep other external organizations out of their very lucrative business. Beyond just shielding their organization, their repeated attempts to deny discredit the accounts of former insiders, in conjunction with some cultural momentum, seems to be enough to convince a significant number of people that they're nothing more than another kooky California religion even though that's a rather naive overly relativistic simplification. The cultivation of that widespread attitude severely undercuts and public or political momentum with respect to seriously inquiring into Scientology's business and practices.

All that to say, you're probably right that the internet represents a significant threat to Scientology. But that's only to the extent that it limits new membership and facilitates the exodus of those members and staffers from Scientology. The latter is something that is notoriously difficult to do, so even if Scientology rots from within and sloughs off members to the point that it collapses (at least as an organization -- there are, and will, doubtless be a number who carry on its "belief" structure), it will take a very, very long time in my view.

|
|
Reply
10:53 am, Oct 27, 2009

DakLak

'Church' of Scientology has just been convicted of fraud, in France.

At least the French are realists.

|
|
Reply
|
8:29 am, Oct 27, 2009

Swamprat

I suppose even the French must have one virtue.

|
|
Reply
|
12:02 pm, Oct 27, 2009

NATRDAVIS

I love the French, and tis is one more reason. If only the US were as smart. How could these jokers get a tax exemption in the first place?

|
2:34 pm, Oct 27, 2009

arb30324

I think Tom Cruise and Tommy Davis were lovers.

|
|
Reply
|
8:50 am, Oct 27, 2009

Speagle

Duh, I know, it seems so obvious. Middle America is so fucking stupid.

When he starred in "Risky Business" it was widely assumed that he was Jeffrey Katzenberg's boy toy; that, in fact, that's why he was cast in "Risky Business".

|
|
Reply
|
10:58 am, Oct 27, 2009

andrewjlederer

Is Jeffrey Katzenberg gay? What has Katzenberg to do with Risky Business?

|
11:19 am, Nov 18, 2009

roger37

Never trust a grown man who still calls himself "Tommy."

|
|
Reply
2:58 pm, Oct 27, 2009

dc1967

Scientology is a joke! A friend of mine who joined them in the late 90's was, they totally screwed his head up. He thought they had done such a great job on John Travolta ( Ha!) that maybe they could help him too...well he got out after 3 yrs and he's still in therapy. They are a cult and and they should not be tax excempt!!

|
|
Reply
9:08 am, Oct 27, 2009

kentfx

Why are you giving all this space to these creepy nothings? More and more things are popping up in Daily Beast that aren't worth anyone's time, and raise real questions about the judgment of the editors.

|
|
Reply
|
9:21 am, Oct 27, 2009

wilbur

You're here...reading and commenting...I'm just saying..

|
|
Reply
9:16 am, Oct 28, 2009

tumbleweed

Most religions are ridiculous Scientology is no worse than the rest of them. When you start splitting church dogma you wind up with which is more unbelievable Scientology or Christianity. Christianity asks you to have blind faith in their version of the truth and financially support their spreading lies, poverty and hatred around the world. So where is one worse than the rest???????

|
|
Reply
|
9:23 am, Oct 27, 2009

NATRDAVIS

Excellent point!

|
|
Reply
2:34 pm, Oct 27, 2009

Brendino

tumbleweed - Christianity doesn't ask for blind faith. Any step of faith is rooted in some revealed truth. See if you can find any example in the Bible where a person was told to do something with no reassurance of any kind. It's an interesting study!

|
|
Reply
|
12:03 am, Oct 28, 2009

BipartisanCurious

Job

|
7:24 am, Oct 28, 2009

Brendino

Job. Interesting. There's a lot we don't know about Job. Was he part of the oldest book in the Bible or did his story come later? Did he have an established relationship with the Lord? When Job said "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord," was that based on prior experience, on established precedent?

You could probably brush this off as sidestepping the point, and I'd understand that. But if Job knew of the existence and goodness of God, then that could have provided the faith needed to weather this tough time.

|
9:28 am, Oct 28, 2009

patriotchick

That BBC report is fascinating, I think he held on to his sanity for a good long time -- being followed, that Davis guy showing up at this hotel and at other interviews and then getting in his face and not allowing the reporter to get a word in edgewise. Challenging him that the interview was one-sided and when the interviewer says, "i'd love to talk to you, let's set up an interview" Davids storms off saying that he won't be interviewed because he knows the reporter has a preconceived bias. A brilliant Catch-22.

Same as the nightline interview. It seems that Miscavaige and Davis have a lot in common with Charles Manson, David Koresh, and Jim Jones in their operational style.

Isolating people from family and friends, demanding money and allegiance to the "church," secrecy regarding beliefs, confessionals of personal secrets (that they then can use against you under "Fair Game"), salvation, deception -- these are all signs of a cult.

How do people fall prey to this sort of thing? I suppose there are many parallels to other religions, but they somehow cross the line, and maybe that is the issue -- the blurring of that line.

|
|
Reply
|
9:59 am, Oct 27, 2009

Swamprat

Line? Everything you said describes every other religion. They're all cults.

|
|
Reply
|
12:05 pm, Oct 27, 2009

patriotchick

I've never heard of a priest using someone's confessions against a lapsed Catholic. But under the fair game policy, Scientology blackmails adherents with their own confessions, which they keep meticulous records of. That seems to cross a line (just by way of an example).

I'm neither scientologist nor catholic, just saying from a lay observer's viewpoint, this group does seem more like dangerous cult than a benign faith.

|
1:48 pm, Oct 27, 2009

franjen

Manson converted to Scientology during an early prison stint and claims to have reached the state of theta clear. Later he used many techniques he learned from this to influence and control his followers. There is rich amount of history concering L. Ron that shows he simply started his church for tax evasion. To quote my 90 year old mother in law: "the more I learn about actors, the dumber them seem."

|
|
Reply
9:59 am, Oct 28, 2009

periscope

Scientology is cult crap like most religion. People have subordinated themselves to such an organizations for centuries. I can only conclude that these people have so little self-esteem and so little self-control that they cede everything to some religious charlatan who promises them bliss or some other unachievable end.
People never learn and get involved with dangerous religious megalomaniacs all the time like Jim Jones in Guyana or Koresh in Waco, TX or the recent screwball who suffocated people in a tent while "purifying them."

|
|
Reply
|
10:37 am, Oct 27, 2009

ThinkAgain

How is this different than you liberals wanting to subordinate yourselves to the Federal Government? You have "so little self-esteem and so little self-control" that you want to cede everyting to politicians who promise to smooth out all the little bumbs of life at no cost but your right to determine your own destiny.

|
|
Reply
|
11:42 am, Oct 27, 2009

Swamprat

Well let's see;
1st, we pay the politicians as professional administrators not as people 'called' to the faith.
2nd, we don't worship the government, we scrutinise them.
3rd, we at least get to vote for them.
There y'are at least 3 good ways it's different from religion.

|
12:09 pm, Oct 27, 2009

ThinkAgain

Well let's see...
1- The head of these churches are paid by the followers
2- People who 'scrutinize' Obama are called racist haters
3- You can walk away from religion. If you don't like what they believe or how they operate, find one you do like or none at all. Vote with your feet silly.

|
1:06 pm, Oct 27, 2009

periscope

StinkAgain: You really are a moron. Liberals don't subordinate themselves to the Federal Government. That's what right-wingers do whenever one of their fascist despots usurps the WH, as in the recent case of the depraved Bushboy, who violated the first and fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution with impunity, while fools like you applauded and genuflected.
Considering you're congenital mental condition, it's not surprising you can't tell the difference between politics and religion.

|
2:19 pm, Oct 27, 2009

Stewcifer

Way to stay on topic.

|
3:20 pm, Oct 27, 2009

ThinkAgain

lol the only difference is that with your nanny state religion you can force your beliefs on others. Force them to pay taxes that you believe in but they don't. Force them to pay for a healthcare system that you believe in but they don't. You not only have more faith in a big corrupt government than you do yourself, you feel so strongly about your belief in it that you want to impose it on non-believers..... for their own good of course.

|
5:59 pm, Oct 27, 2009

BipartisanCurious

Yes yes thinkagain, you keep trying to push your weak point. We heard you the first time and no one cares.

|
7:26 am, Oct 28, 2009

PinkoLefty

I've always been fascinated by Scientology, or rather, by Scientologists, but I've never realized until this morning what it is that so many of them have in common that would lead them down this path. Looking back, I should have been able to put the pieces together much sooner.

Take a look at the list of famous Scientologists on Wikipedia. What do most of them have in common that might lead them to be vulnerable to this patent bullcrap? How many of them possess a post-secondary degree in a rigorous discipline? Many have not even completed high school. The only counterexample that I was able to find was the guy who attended MIT (Philip Gale). He committed suicide.

Scientology may have tapped into the largest pool of wealth ever controlled by such an army of ignoramuses outside of the middle east. They have no critical thinking skills and no defenses whatsoever to counter the teachings of their "church".

These are not, in general, truly stupid people. They seem to be people of above average intelligence who simply fell through the cracks of their respective systems and succeeded despite their lack of education. Imagine then the lure of a group of people that introduce themselves by administering supposed I.Q. tests and telling the subject that they are special and worthy and that their group can help to make the new convert even more special. The fact that moving to higher levels of enlightenment within Scientology involves more money than effort also plays directly to their available resources and desperate need for positive reinforcement.

It's quite the scam. I only wish that I had thought of it first. ;)

|
|
Reply
|
12:21 pm, Oct 27, 2009

NATRDAVIS

"They seem to be people of above average intelligence who simply fell through the cracks of their respective systems and succeeded despite their lack of education."

Sounds like much of Hollywood... Those not of above average intelligence tend to be blessed with above average looks. And they tend to be in need of attention and filled with insecurities (not surprising when looks are one's livelihood). No wonder they are roped in by this.

I visited the Scientology Center in Washington, DC, out of curiosity. Filled out the psychological test they give, which left me with the impression that everyone will get the same result: A statement from the counselor-auditor-welcomer-whatever that "you need Scientology and we can show you the way to happiness. Let's get you signed up for an introductory course. It will cost only..." Yeah, what a scam!!!

|
|
Reply
2:41 pm, Oct 27, 2009

zippy77

Well it would appear there is no moral code regarding sex in Scientology---and Hollywood people are not going to deny themselves sex whenever and however they want it, are they? Heck, how could they work--90% of entertainment promotes or shows gratuitous sex. Thats why you see so many of them involved in Scientololgy or Buddism, or Kabballah--no teaching about sexuality being something that should be reserved for marriage or of pandering to ones sexual urges as having destructive consequences or a downside. If youre a Christian in Hollywood, you are seen as a Pollyanna. Reminds me of the attitudes one encounters in Jr High--ohh youre not 'cool' if you arent having sex with every Tom Dick or Harry.

Well anyway its not an matter of intellect-- which shows you many smart people are in fact stupid about many things--or are blinded by their carnal nature. This church charges for everything big time--it costs thousands of dollars to go through their program of having your deficencies removed (can't remember what thats called) so you can progress up the OT ladder. And they have a special center for celebrities--you know, the 'superior' people.

|
|
Reply
4:40 pm, Oct 27, 2009

DBFan2009

pinkolefty - brilliant!

|
|
Reply
2:39 am, Oct 28, 2009

jhub32

Addictive personalities drawn to an addiction. If it weren't Scientology, it would be drugs, alcohol or shopping.

|
|
Reply
12:29 am, Oct 29, 2009

TrueRed

People join churches, cults - whatever - for one major reason: They want a sense of belonging. This is especially true for the megachurches.

|
|
Reply
|
12:33 pm, Oct 27, 2009

Brendino

There is some truth to this. People are born with an innate desire for fellowship and will look for belonging in a lot of places. But going to church to find friends does not make a Christian.

|
|
Reply
12:06 am, Oct 28, 2009

democracyforall

Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, the book "Dianetics"....
it truly is a scam.

|
|
Reply
|
12:35 pm, Oct 27, 2009

ThinkAgain

Who are we to judge? If people believe their lives are better because of something/anything, isn't it? Worst case it's a placebo.

|
|
Reply
|
1:19 pm, Oct 27, 2009

PinkoLefty

Drivel.

Your worst case needs a bit of work. Consider a hypothetical people who believe that they are a part of a master race and, therefore, free to liquidate others as they see fit. That would be pretty horrible, wouldn't it? Admittedly this approaches reductio ad absurdum, but there are plenty of undesirable and unproductive middle cases.

As for, "Who are we to judge," the answer is that we are the only judges available. Not all ideas are created equal and not all practices can, or should, be tolerated. Your postmodernist, everyone-gets-a-trophy philosophy can't be allowed as a basis for running the only world we've got at the moment. Maybe someday you and the rest of the Golgafrinchans can have a planet of your own. Don't worry, we'll join you directly.

|
2:21 pm, Oct 27, 2009

NATRDAVIS

No. Worse case, people are cut off from family and friends. Worst case, someone dies. Look up the evidence.

|
2:42 pm, Oct 27, 2009

Tucson138

For all your empty headed sqealing about liberals, you're taking a very liberal stance with that statement.

|
3:10 pm, Oct 27, 2009

ThinkAgain

For all your empty headed squeeling about conservatives your self righteousness about just about anything that's not liberal makes you a total hypocrit everytime one of you posts.

|
6:02 pm, Oct 27, 2009

DBFan2009

pinkolefty - once again brilliant retort. i'm glad you're here. thinkagain's head is about to explode. notice the misspellings and illiterate remarks. i think your letter about scientology attracting the undereducated may have just outed thinkagain.

|
2:44 am, Oct 28, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--Xertruk
|
|
Reply
1:10 pm, Oct 27, 2009

gpapazian

Scientology and other "religious" oprganization should pay taxes. Aren't they selling eternal salvation?

|
|
Reply
|
1:49 pm, Oct 27, 2009

NATRDAVIS

Absolutely! Scientologists... Catholics... Mormons... Jews... Southern Baptists... Mennonites... Assemblies of God... Anglicans... all of the churches should pay their fair share. Why do they deserve tax exemptions? They are private clubs and many of them cause harm to the nation and to human beings!

|
|
Reply
2:44 pm, Oct 27, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

Scientology's New Face

by Kim Masters

Info
RSS
Kim Masters
Emails
|
print
Multiple Pages
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |