BS: Scientology revisited.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM

You almost wonder if a guy like Cruise, who seems to have a little something on the ball, doesn't wake up and see the scam, but for pride's sake sticks in it. I wonder what political clout he may have with those powers that be? Gee, if he plays his cards right, he could wind up the Pope of Dianetics!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:50 AM

I find it amazing that people demand forms of open government, access to seeing decision making in action, accountability and freedom.

And then...

Religions claim to wish to have an effect on peoples' lives and influence their well being, just like governments, but at the same time want to remain in a cloak of secrecy?

if you like the air of enigma, if you want to have an inner circle where people get to know more, (freemasonry thrives on this point) and if you want to be revered...

Accept that people will be hostile to you and your intentions if they aren't opened up to scrutiny. and if they are, then criticism at least stands a chance of being objective.

L Ron Hubbard made a decision to avoid tax and make money. In doing so, he inadvertently or purposely screwed up a huge number of lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM

The point is not whether he said it or not.

The question is what he was doing. And what he did.

I'm afraid that that side of the question is a black pit of ignorance as far as this thread is concerned.

In any case, the man's dead and gone. So I don't much mind if he said some oddball things. I think it is silly to conclude from that one remark that he spent fifty-odd years of work to make it happen with no other motivation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:35 PM

Amos, I've read Dianetics. I've read some biographic material on Hubbard.

Check this out

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." There are also variant rumors. For some reason, this is often mentioned on Usenet. Evidence is discussed below, but the short answer is that it's almost certainly true.

The Church of Scientology has actually taken German publishers to court for printing this story. Stern won (see below).

One form of the rumor is that L. Ron Hubbard made a bar bet with Robert A. Heinlein. This is definitely not true. It's uncharacteristic of Heinlein, and there's no supporting evidence. There is, however, inconclusive evidence that Robert Heinlein suggested some parts of the original Dianetics.

Another variant is that Hubbard talked of starting a religion to avoid taxes. Jay Kay Klein reports that Hubbard said this in 1947.

The Church's media guide tells reporters that the rumor is confused, and that it was George Orwell who said it. In 1938, Orwell did write "But I have always thought there might be a lot of cash in starting a new religion...". However, Robert Vaughn Young, who was Scientology's spokesman for 20 years, says that Hubbard learned about the Orwell quote from him. Young further states that he met three people who could remember Hubbard saying more-or-less the famous quote. Nor did Hubbard write a rebuttal of the rumor -- Young claims to have ghost-written the rebuttal in the Rocky Mountain News interview. "

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

Well, thanks, Bill, I certainly did not invent Scientology.

But I do know a bit about it, and I am constantly surprised at the confusions that surface about it. My own opinion is that the organization and its cult-like practices have earned them all the PR misery to which they are heir. But my earlier point about being clear about the difference between the PR claptrap they have generated, and the original materials and efforts on which they were first built is an important one. Judging the works of all Christians by reading media reports about abusive bishops is probably not a good approach to getting the story straight, I am sure, and I think there is a parallel caveat to be taken in trying to know what drives the subjects of Christian Science, Buddhism, Taoism, or Scientology.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:40 AM

Travolta and his wife denied that his son Jett had autism, as $cientology does not recognize autism as a real affliction. Also, Travolta has paid enough money to reach the top level of being "clear", so he is not supposed to have problems like an ill son, according to CoS. It was not until after his son's death that he finally defied the church and acknowledged his son probably had autism (but was not treated for it when he was alive).
Scient. and Autism

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

"John Travolta has always seemed to be a lovable amiable sort of man. "

And don't forget - he's an actor. We only see the side of him that he wants us to see. For all we know he could have the heart of Jack the Ripper. Or Ghandi. How would we know?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:20 AM

How did they manage to hook Tom Cruise and surprisingly John Travolta? Do they tend to attract people who are vulnerable and open to any suggestion more so than strong thinking people? John Travolta has always seemed to be a lovable amiable sort of man.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: olddude
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

Alice my friend
I admit I know nothing about them. About as much as I know about medicine and that is pretty slim. You are right I am sure. There was that phase in the 60's where there was the church of the everything for IRS purposes ... you could pay a small fee and be ordained and get tax free status ... so maybe you are right ... I am clueless. My point was the lady was asking how she could help her with parts and the author turned it into a religion discussion ... that I didn't agree with for she was asking a service question about her company. She shouldn't include their booklets if they still do that, it is not good for her company I am sure.

:-)
Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:40 AM

Scientologists MAKE MONEY FOR EVERY NEW RECRUIT they get into the church of $cientology.

It is a multi-level marketing scheme. The person who confronted Deering probably knew this.

No wonder Deering would be including marketing of Scientology in her banjo business - many scientologists earn their entire living off the "downline" of people they have recruited into the cult, getting money off what those people are paying for the expensive scientology "services".

Scientology is often called the "Amway of religions".

Scientology has so many business front groups, I don't think you'd even be able to find a complete list.

$cient targets dentists and other professionals to get high income members to recruit other members in the pyramid. It is common to see the scientology brochures like what Deering sent out in dentist and chiropractor waiting rooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

a bit from that link in my last post

---
Fifteen years later in 1984, the IRS's tax court decided another Scientology case, the Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner (104 S.Ct. 2136,2142 n.4). The case concerned the "new" Scientology mother church for the years 1970 through 1972. Again Scientology was denied tax-exempt status for covertly funneling money to Hubbard and his family, this time through dummy and sham corporations. This more recent asset-skimming during the 1970's involved money laundering through Panama and then through Swiss and other foreign bank accounts. In this decision, the court stated:

"OTC [Operation Transport Corp. Ltd.], was a sham corporation controlled by L Ron Hubbard and petitioner [CST] (p. 399)… Its board of directors lacked bona fides (p. 399)… To disguise these payments as debt repayment and to conceal the OTC sham a cover story was developed (p. 439)… In pursuit of the conspiracy, petitioner filed false tax returns, burglarized IRS offices, stole IRS documents, and harassed, delayed, and obstructed IRS agents. Petitioner gave false information to, and concealed relevant information from, the IRS about its corporate structure and relationship to OTC… CHURCH MEMBERS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE HIERARCHY, NOT JUST ORDINARY CHURCH MEMBERS, PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY (emphasis added, p. 505-506)." [From Church of Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 381 Aff'd, 823 F.2d 9th Cir. (1987) cert. den. 486 U.S. 108 S. Ct. 1752 (1988). Also see Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.]

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:26 AM

I applaud the person who spoke up and challenged Deering.

Freedom of religion was not meant to allow setting up fraudulent organizations just to make money and abuse people. Scientology was deliberately founded to make money.

OPEN MINDED and TOLERANT DOES NOT MEAN being blind to what con- artists do.

Their religious tax status was a con job on the IRS.

----------
"The New York Times reported that in 1993 David Miscavige, Scientology's leader, told a gathering of Scientologists that Scientology's U.S. tax bill could have been as much as one billion dollars. But according to the terms of the secret IRS deal, Scientology did not have to pay one billion dollars, and that was just the beginning of Scientology's tax windfall.

The Wall Street Journal just disclosed the confidential 76-page agreement through which Scientology was given previously unprecedented tax relief...

To understand the unprecedented scope of the this secret IRS deal and the growing allegations of foul play surrounding the means by which this secret deal was extracted from the IRS, one should understand some of the context and history of Scientology's previous dealings with the IRS.

Scientology's history of tax fraud:

Click Here

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: olddude
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:20 AM

Interesting read my friend. I found the author to be pretty confrontational with the owner who simply emailed and I paraphrased "how can we help you get the parts you need" She seems bent on blasting the lady for a belief system that she doesn't agree with.   I personally have no interest in their stance as mine belongs to Christ but I didn't think she needed to try and pick a fight with her. It made the author look far worse than the owner of Deering I thought. As far as those pamphlets, I would just throw them away as I do the stuff other groups put in my mailbox from time to time.

I know very little about their belief system. For me it is wrong thinking but America has Freedom of Religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM

What I mean is, Hubbard's Dianetics book does not show what the deeds of Scientology became. People can read Dianetics and still not see the picture of how controlling and abusive CoS is. It certainly plants the seeds of his science fiction "church", but it's not the whole picture. Also, reading the book is not the same as going through the indoctrination of paying the high charges to be personally indoctrinated in the Dianetics Course. But I get your point, Slag. It was part of founding the cult and luring in members.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM

No, it's their Bible, written by their founder. It is the seminal inspiration for the cult.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

Dianetics is not the same as the Church of Scientology. You have to look at the deeds of the organization to see the abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

Alas, "...it is appointed unto Man, once to die..." Denial won't change that fact. Everybody whom Jesus healed, eventually died of something. It is just that, through stupidity some of die sooner than the actuarial tables say we should - much sooner.

And gee, Sieggy was on to something. He got the science of medicine looking in another direction for answers. It was not a closed system as is Scientology or Christian Science. The proof of the validity of Freud's theory (theories) is that it is open for discussion and modification, growth and multi-directional propagation. Cults are cutoff from those things and brook no descent!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: LadyJean
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:54 PM

I've read Dianetics. It makes about as much sense as Freud, and I suspect has done a little less harm.

I think it's 500 Christian Scientists die every year because they decided to rely on prayer instead of medicine.

Of course, if you're uninsured, prayer is a whole lot cheaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:49 PM

He "invented" a crude psychogalvanometer with which to read "engrams". These were little more than soup cans with copper wires attache to a voltmeter which read in microvolts. I understand things have become a little more sophisticated since then but the concept is the same. The respondent would grasp the cans and answer those probing questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: ragdall
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 10:03 PM

I found this bit about the Deering banjo connection on a blog when I googled: Deering banjos Scientology

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM

Yeah, Xena is definitely better looking than Xenu.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM

I liked Xena better - she was cute and sexy ... ooops - did I say that out loud?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM

Mind Control Made Easy video explanation from Xenu TV

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:05 PM

That's XENU (not Xena)
http://xenu.net/ exposing Scientology

and
xenutv.com ...videos of those who have left the cult.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:33 PM

A little history about the cult of Scientology is in order. It was literally invented by L. Ron Hubbard in a book called "Dianetics" in which he claims that every event in one's life is recorded cellularly and that the way to remove life's obstacles is to travel back to the unpleasant events in life called "engrams". With a guiding therapist, the "traveler" relives the events that caused the "engrams" and when it is played over and over, the "engram" loses its potency. When all "engrams" are lessened in power, the person is said to be a "clear". Not implausible, perhaps but "out there".

So, L. Ron (who by the way was pretty aggressive and packed heat) decided that one's own life wasn't enough so hence "past life regression". Now you have Scientology as an outgrowth of Dianetics. Now he invents a new god (Xena) and makes up some peculiar machines such as "e-meters" to monitor the regressive "travel". So this borders on a variation of "reincarnation". So L. Ron true to form of every cult leader goes nuts. He's a power broker.

Scientology reinforces the cultish quality of some religious convictions.

The "Cult" is always defined as an organization that when a member leaves, there are always reprisals. Often, communication with that member is no longer honored
by the cult membership. It's a form of "shunning" which is an old religious practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:37 PM

Being in the US, I could not open the BBC link to watch this new documentary, but on You Tube, there is an interview of John Sweeney regarding this revisiting of what happened now that Rinder is out of CoS.

Sweeney interview, Secrets of Scientology

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM

Thanks, Alice...

This has been completly off my radar screen...

I meant no offense my good friend, Amos...

My bad...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM

Bobert, if you don't think it is evil, then you have not had much experience with it and the many people who have died or had their health and lives damaged by it.

Lisa McPherson memorial page

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:42 PM

Hey, Bill... It was right here on Mudcat!!! I mean, that makes it true, don't it???

Awwww, he knows I was funnin' with him...

But what if he did??? Is it evil??? I don't think so...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:53 PM

"..our very own Amos invented Scientology."

Aw, 'cmon Bobert...that's not a nice thing to even joke about. He most certainly did NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:42 PM

Hey, I weren't all the good at science so I figurated that I din't need to join in any church where ya' gotta know that kinda stuff but then I learned ritght here at Mudburg that out very own Amos invented Scientology... I mean, I was amazed... Yeah, I know thgat Amos is a purdy amazing person but to have invented scientology is just astoundin'...

But here' my question fir Amos... I thought all them church inventors were kinda on the right side of the politcial divide... Okay, maybe not the ol' ones but the newer ones... You know, like Sun Moon... Man, he makes David Duke look like a flamin' liberal... BTW, Amos... How can anyone be Sun Moon... I mean, don'tcha have to pick one 'er the other??? Man, this religion stuff put hurt on my head...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:23 AM

The closest we have come to anything like that was with the once sports presenter David Icke who founded a new cult. He set up home in Ryde on the Isle of Wight of all places. I don't know all the details about him but he had/has some pretty bizarre beliefs and there were a few who followed it. His claim to fame was wearing a turquoise track-suit not sure what that was to signify. If you look for him on the website it will make fasinating reading. Fortunately people haven't gone for it in their thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Lox
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:45 AM

I too have had experience of people whose lives have been damaged by Scientology.

For example a woman who was an alcoholic, but had managed to overcome her addiction and had left drink behind.

As with most alcoholics, she went on to say the usual "I am an alcoholic and I haven't had a drink since ... x ... "

Great - positive!

Then she got involved with scientology...

They "cured" her of her alcoholism and told her it was ok to start drinking again and that she'd be fine to enjoy it without risk of her addiction taking over her life again.


Any real scientist knows that addiction is not a state of mind but a chemical fact.


So Guess what happened ...



... no ... Guess ....



Ok - I'll tell you ... she redeveloped her drink problem.




The fact is that these guys are crackpot loonies with far too much money who present themselves as scientific in their methodology and FILL PEOPLES HEADS WITH LIES.


Amos - however you look at it, if a guy says that the best way to make a million is to start a religion, then starts a religion and makes a million from it, that it consistent with the idea of wanting to start a religion to make a million.

I think that logic is fairly clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:53 PM

There is no question that the superheated obsessive group commonly known as "Scientology" is a cult in the most rigorous sense of Alice's criteria.

Not to confuse anyone, I have actually helped rehabilitate people whose lives were seriously dented by that organization.

My argument about the distinction between what the group is, and the subject itself, is simply to guard against lazy thinking of the kind that puts people in simplistic categoies without understanding.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:39 PM

Correct Amos. Having been an avid Sci-fi reader most of my life, I encountered L. Ron early on. He was a so-so writer and I always say to myself, "Surely he couldn't have REALLY started believing his own fiction." But I've heard the spin around on that too, genetic memory and all. If he did believe it then, man without a country he became, he became his own Messiah too.

Excellent piece Alice. It pretty much agrees with most of what I have learned about cults, harmful and otherwise. There is almost always a re-defining of terms or "new" terminology that is exclusive to the group. Isolation is also a key element which is almost always associated with some form of abuse. This is especially true of wife-beaters and child abuse. Confession is tricky because it is thereapeutic when 1) made to yourself alone 2)made between you and your God alone 3) made within a sealed confessional, that is, one that is legally kept silent. Anything beyond better be between you and your attorney.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:59 PM

I am sorry, Lox, but the fact that (if it is a fact) he said that at a party of science fiction writers back in the Thirties does not in any way whatsoever support your contention that it was the basis of his work. In fact his first three books were published before the word Scientology was coined and the notion of making it into a church got started.

The basis of his work was pretty straghtforwardly covered in those books. I am not inclined to quibble with ignorance, generally speaking, but in your case I'll make an exception.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:58 PM

I read that article you linked Ed, and I found it to be lacking in what studies have told us about the term cult in today's society.

I think a much better understanding of what people term a destructive cult (rather than the old dictionary definition of cult) is the research in sociology and psychology that has gone on for decades since the time of the POW's who came back from North Korea and the mass murder at Jonestown by Jim Jones.

Because destructive cults are not just based on religion but can be formed around other ideologies, political, financial, self-help, psychological, etc. One of the best academic researches on cults was Robert J. Lifton who defined cult well in his criteria of Totalism.

I have posted this on previous threads here that discuss cults.

quote-----------------------

" DR. ROBERT J. LIFTON'S CRITERIA FOR THOUGHT REFORM
THOUGHT REFORM: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TOTALISM (New York 1987)

Any ideology -- that is, any set of emotionally-charged convictions
about men and his relationship to the natural or supernatural world
-- may be carried by its adherents in a totalistic direction. But
this is most likely to occur with those ideologies which are most
sweeping in their content and most ambitious or messianic in
their claim, whether a religious or political organization. And
where totalism exists, a religion, or a political movement becomes
little more than an exclusive cult.

Here you will find a set of criteria, eight psychological themes against
which any environment may be judged. In combination, they create an
atmosphere which may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which at the
same time pose the gravest of human threats."CLICK HERE to read the list of 8 psychological criteria

-----------end quote

Not all of the 8 are required for a group to be a totalistic cult.

Regarding Scientology, I can point out what fits -

Milieu control - Scientologists are not supposed to talk to critics, read the internet without the net nanny Scientology filter, or be in touch with former members or "suppressive persons". This keeps them in a closed "bubble" of info controlled by Scientology.

Mystical manipulation - This is obvious in the claims that the levels one can progress to will provide superhuman abilities like perfect health, etc.

Demand for purity - The constant self-checking is there to induce one to avoid reading banned info or being around "suppressive people".

Confession - "Auditing" is the kind of confession that in Scientology can be turned back against a member if they leave the cult. Members don't realize their records are not private. Many ex-members have exposed how their auditing records were used against them especially after they left.

You can go through the list of 8 and see how they fit a cult group.

Many cults I've seen use the ones I listed. Often the confessions can be used to blackmail the member to keep them in the cult.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM

If you find a giant seed pod in your basement, attic or garage, do not go to sleep! I repeat: DO NOT GO TO SLEEP!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Lox
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:45 PM

Interesting question Ed.

In a philosophical sense I would not like to be the one to answer it.

However I can tell you that in the UK, scientology is not recognized as a religion in Law, but as a cult (a dangerous one to be precise).

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM

What is the difference between a religion and a cult? How does a new one get qualified as a religion? Some interesting perspectives.

religion or cult?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Lox
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:08 PM

Amos,

The founding principle of Hubbards religion was that it was a good way for him to get rich.

Thats quite an important bit of "data" I would say.

The rest of it is just the product being peddled.

I'm not buying, because, in spiritual terms, I could produce a better product after having my head shrunk.



By the way, you may also be intrgued to know that Scientology blames modern psychiatry for the worlds evils.

In particular, they blame the Holocaust on a conspiracy of the psychiatric fraternity.



I wonder if that could be because Hubbard was diagnosed as a paranoid scizophrenic?


... probably just a coincidence ...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 04:36 PM

Gnu, it's completely blocked here.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 04:29 PM

Lox:

Well, suit yourself. You are basing your view on two data out of an available data set of several million, so I would guess it is probably an inaccurate one.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 04:23 PM

Can youse in the US get the link? It's blocked here due to CW.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 04:14 PM

I always wanted there to be a religion based on "Stranger in a Strange Land". I don't remember why, though, since I've forgotten most of that book. Maybe it's due for a re-read.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Lox
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 03:46 PM

PS - Amos, I find it hard to have patience for a religion that was created by a man who had prevously published the view that the best way to get rich was to start a religion, and then went on to build one based on the idea that we are all inhabited by the ghosts of dead aliens whose spaceship crashlanded on earth.

He proved his point (about starting religions) and laughed all the way to the bank.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 03:27 PM

I think that if you install a program called "Fairuse4WMV" (or something very like that) before you install the BBC I-Player it will let you rip an BBC I-Player download. I haven't got it installed at the moment and have only ever used it for audio.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Lox
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 02:57 PM

Sorry Richard - I thought that was the entire video.

I deliberately tried to find it on youtube as BBCi can only be watched from within the UK and I wanted Americans to be able to watch it too.

For the brits in the house here is the full film.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00v1ykr/Panorama_The_Secrets_of_Scientology/

Panorama

Perhaps somebody else can locate a version that can be watched outside the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM

If a banjo player suggest I brush his teeth I reckon I'd be glad to-- with their banjo. :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Scientology revisited.
From: Midchuck
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM

They were asking banjo players to brush their teeth?

I think the actual advice was "Brush your tooth."

Peter