Open main menu

Comments:Exclusive: 'The Scientology Reformation' author examines Tom Cruise and David Miscavige

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Okay, I am a Catholic and a Native American...

I am not a Scientologist nor am I in any way associated with them, but I must protest... this isn't journalism. This is a highly negative opinion piece, also known as a hatchet job, masquerading itself as journalism. Frankly, both the author and the editor are both guilty of the same lame tactics the Sea Org people are known for. Place this one under "Opinion Piece" and quit labeling these attack articles as "news," please. Thank you.

99.196.87.66 (talk)19:16, 4 December 2012

"I am not a Scientologist BUT ..."

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=25293

https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/im-not-a-scientologist-but.47607/

This is a common refrain from members of the Office of Special Affairs before they then comment in comment threads about material they find distasteful.

-- Cirt (talk)06:48, 5 December 2012
 

Related discussion at Rathbun blog

There's a related discussion at Moving On Up a Little Higher blog by Mark Rathbun, at link above.

-- Cirt (talk)03:49, 22 October 2012

Now they're up to 95 total comments about the article and interview. :)

I really liked these comments over there:

  1. "WikiNews definitley did their homework before the interview. Very inteligent questions."
  2. "Great group of questions (the interviewer[s] clearly did their homework), and excellent succinct answers Marty. Thanks for pointing to it."
-- Cirt (talk)02:32, 23 October 2012
 

Fairly short and unilluminating answers

Fairly short and unilluminating answers...

"covered in my book" "see my blog" "nothing further to add"

Marty missed a chance to add some depth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.14.186.211 (talkcontribs)


The above comment was posted by IP 76.14.186.211 to the talk page, I've moved it here.

-- Cirt (talk)22:30, 22 October 2012

Comments from feedback form - "You miss the fact that Miscavi..."

You miss the fact that Miscavige controls the S.O. to the extinct that he can and does successfully forbid S.O. members and heavily influences Scientology public from reading blogs and books of Marty --- they are actually forbidden from doing so. Those with brothers, sisters and/or children in the S.O. are caught in a trap in that if they ever want to see and talk to them again, they have to follow Miscavige's orders. Miscavige has morphed into a true Sociopath.

76.121.211.12 (talk)12:10, 22 October 2012

Thanks very much for your insight, we really appreciate it!

-- Cirt (talk)22:21, 22 October 2012
 

Comments from feedback form - "Mr. Rathbun is running a propa..."

Mr. Rathbun is running a propaganda war, as evidenced by his blog that is a 3 year running obsession of attacking David Miscavige. Rtahbun was not a trained counselor for most of his 3 decade tenure as Miscavige's go-to guy and "brains". This is obvious. he is not a neutral authority on Scientology, he is the flip side of the coin David Miscavige and Scientology Inc. Same coin. You're being used.

24.227.155.194 (talk)02:56, 22 October 2012

We're neutral. It's interesting that he said these things, hence newsworthy. If Miscavige had responded, we'd have published that too, as that too would have been interesting, hence newsworthy. There's no "being used" involved.

Pi zero (talk)03:18, 22 October 2012
 

Comments from feedback form - "There are many others (ex SO) ..."

There are many others (ex SO) that can substantiate first hand, but there is likely no one more qualified than Marty Rathbun to answer these questions. He lived and breathed it from the bottom up within and was finally able to step back enough to really see what was going on. Ronn S.

96.238.220.195 (talk)19:08, 19 October 2012

Hey, thanks very much for your comment!

-- Cirt (talk)19:43, 19 October 2012
 

Mark Rathbun was # 2 in charge of the destruction of Scientology. Meaning, he was # 2 criminal. His opinions about the future of Scientology are as skewed as his history with the organization - twisted, bent and always angled. You'll notice he is anxious to promote his # 2 status when it comes to selling his book, but always deflects responsibility for crimes committed in that capacity onto David Miscavige. (see Youtube recent admission of ordering the destruction of documents in the death of Lisa McPherson)

Where else would you find former executives, guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice, assault, blatant lies and a host of other violations against the core tenets of their organization not to mention human decency, emerge to promote themselves as leaders of an "independent" version of the subject or organization? Only in Scientology today apparently.

The majority of Scientologists (90% worldwide) do not support or respect Mark Rathbun. He is one of many criminals and cowards who were too weak to stand up to Miscavige and were themselves too corrupt to do so when they had the chance.

96.24.241.46 (talk)01:32, 20 October 2012

Very interesting analysis, for more on this type of viewpoint, please read articles "cognitive dissonance", "disconfirmed expectancy", and "confirmation bias". That sheds a lot of light on what's at work here.

-- Cirt (talk)02:56, 20 October 2012
 

I do agree about the independent versions of Scientology. I mean, why bother? Once you see that the Church of Scientology is a scam, once you see that Hubbard was a bullshit artist, why bother with the rest of the beliefs? The Church may be depraved, but Scientology is idiotic as a belief system too.

The idea that all our traumatic experiences are engrams caused by foetal trauma, attempted abortions and the like is schlock psychotherapy. E-meters are bullshit pseudo-science. There's no evidence that e-meters work, or that thetans exist, or that Scientologists can do any of their supernatural magic, or that Scientology can treat mental health issues. Hubbard was a racist and homophobic buffoon.

Scientology's doctrines don't need to be "saved" from the Church; the world needs freedom from both the Church and the idiotic, unscientific and discriminatory bullshit it believes.

Tom Morris (talk)13:12, 21 October 2012

Yes, but at least Independent Scientologists are a little bit more free to research those controversies, on their own, with a little less fear of repercussions from doing so.

-- Cirt (talk)23:53, 21 October 2012