S Is For Scientology, and Stupidity
The right to protest is one of the best things about being an American. At any time—for any reason—you can air your grievances publicly. But sometimes we are deeply confused by what Americans choose to protest. Sure, a demonstration against the war makes sense. But parading around in Guy Fawkes masks to call for the end of Scientology doesn’t seem to follow any logic.
Yesterday morning, more than 50 protesters gathered outside the Boston headquarters of the Church of Scientology to protest the religion. Most of the crowd wore Guy Fawkes masks like the ones in V for Vendetta. The movement was started by some faceless group or person called Anonymous.
Why? Anonymous was creeped out by the Tom Cruise video, did some research, and didn’t like what the religion was all about. Yes, the Cruise video is disturbing. But our reaction to it was, “Gee. Looks like Scientology isn’t for us. And who knew that cute kid in Risky Business would turn into such a whackjob?”
We’re equally disturbed by the demonstrators who would get up early on a Sunday to drive into the city to protest a quasi-religious movement, even though the Guy Fawkes masks in V for Vendetta were worn to protest an all-powerful government.
The confusion doesn’t end with the masks.
“But I can say the image of people marching towards Parliament in the spirit of protest, that wall of masks, had a certain resonance amongst those who held negative feelings about organizations such as Scientology but also towards the government.”
In just 40 years we’ve gone from the Civil Rights marches and Vietnam War protests to people who don’t know if they’re against L. Ron Hubbard or the United States government (or both). And that’s far more alarming than any video on YouTube.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Perhaps their ire toward the government was based on the fact that the IRS cut a backroom agreement with the CoS to grant them (dubious) tax-exempt status?
A bit of research would help you write more accurate and informed blog posts. Just a hint.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Honestly, Get your facts straight before you jump on the bandwagon and start running articles about things you know nothing about!
February 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I always wondered what would come of the “video game” culture. Apparently like their video games the young heads of mush have no attachment to reality. In fact the common denominator seems to be that all activity must be void of reality. The worst that can be found wrong with Scientology is that Fred said, Sue said, Joe said, someone said… Like video games, the kkk, or the nazi’s it is hard to find any redeeming quality with anonymous or those who would support them.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
What a wonderful world we live in, where any fool can write a column without doing the slightest drop of research.
Congrats on spelling Scientology correctly.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
One need to research everything first before they open their mouth and insert their foot.
click here
February 11th, 2008 at 10:58 am
You got paid off, didn’t you?
February 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Stupidity is a nice way to put children being sheep to a small group of vested interests who use the internet to hide behind. I suggest they find a real cause and leave religion out of it.
Find something useful to do with your life Travis!
click here
February 11th, 2008 at 11:06 am
it’s not about religion, it’s about the organization’s abuses of people and the law; lack of informed consent; written policies to destroy critics…I could go on, but hopefully the author is embarrased enough to go do some actual research.
Honestly, a leadlerless collective of people who have never met in person is able to pull off coordinated worldwide events peacefully and with NO budget, because they perceive a corrupt organization and the problems it has caused for 50 years is not being addressed by our elected officials, and all you can write about is this?
February 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
The only one confused here in this artocle is the author. Boston Mag, get yourself an informed journalist the next time you want the facts about people protesting Scientology.
50 + people came out in the ice cold weather with masks on to protest scientology because scientology would harrass them personally if they didn’t wear masks. That’s the history of scietology. When it comes to it’s critics, scientology will lie, trick sue or do whatever it takes to silence and even destroy it’s enemies. Any wise journalist would know this. Ask Richard Behar, Richard Leiby, ask Joe Mallia. The late Charles Stafford and Bette Orsini knew all about this cult back in the 1970’s and won a Pulitizer award for reporting on it.
Get your facts straight. Thousands battered the hostile climates, including Scientology’s, all over the world and risked to being a target of this cult yesterday to take a stand to defend the essential human rights of th public, the mind controlled scientologists and their disconnected families. This article is an embarrassment to fine journalism and a slap in the face to the people of Boston who the church preys upon.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
What is more alarming than any video on YouTube is an article from the Boston Daily that has all the journalistic merit OF any video on YouTube.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The reason why Anonymous wore masks at nearly 100 protests across the world yesterday is because the Church of Scientology is known to retaliate against its critics through both litigation and a policy called “fair game”. Educate yourself by googling the phrase “scientology and fair game” and then perhaps it will make sense to you, Mr. Flannery.
Although you may be dismissive of scientology and decide correctly its “not for you” that does not at all imply that it is merely a harmless “quasi-religion”.
Before your next editiorial perhaps you will visit xenu.net or enturbulation.org for more information. The next global protest will likely be on March 15, 2008. Hope to see you there.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Perhaps the biggest problem with a vast majority of those demonstrating is that they are no better off than a great deal of the rank and file Scientologists. They do not fully understand the tactics that the Church of Scientology uses, ranging from Brain Washing to Bribery, and instead focus on the less important details such as ‘Freedom of Speech’ violations.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
It is woefully obvious that you failed to conduct any research before you wrote this article. What an embarrassment.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
GrnApl - hmmm… you’re comparing Anonymous to the KKK and Nazis are you? Who else is currently doing that? Oh thats right: OFFICIAL SCIENTOLOGY PRESS RELEASES! What are you afraid of GrnApl? What are you hiding GrnApl? What are you crimes GrnApl?
We dont need any he said she said he said she said, we can go straight to L. Ron Hubbard and get things like “A Suppressive Person or Group becomes fair game. By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist. […] The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to: suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty … this Policy Letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends. […] If the Internal Revenue Service (off-policy in refusing the FCDC [Founding Church of Scientology, Washington DC] non-profit status though it qualifies) continues to act up or if the FDA does sue we can of course Comm Ev [Committee of Evidence] them and if found guilty, label and publish them as a Suppressive Group and fair game … [N]one is fair game until he or she declares against us. […] Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”
February 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I is for ignorance.
So sad to see someone calling themselves a journalist these days who does none of the research and all of the mudslinging.
Your rhetoric is obtuse and not worthy of a Boston newspaper.
S is for suggesting that you get SMART and do your due diligence before you write another piece like this one.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am
BostonMagazine is one of few who address the confusions the protesters have brought to the street. One anonymous source says “an objection about free speech”, the next says, “we plan to destroy the organization”, another accepts responsibility for DDoS attacks, yet source sent anthrax (probably fake) in the mail. It presents a picture of people objecting (to something) for (some reason) in uncertain ways.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
If you want to get an idea of why masks were required read Paulette Cooper’s story. The story she published the day after the protests.
click here
February 11th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I am amazed that someone could have a news blog without doing any research at all. This is pathetic, and the writer should be embarrassed of themselves. If you spent money on a journalism degree you were ripped off.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
were you too lazy to spend 3 minutes researching to inform yourself on this topic. poorly guided article.
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I think you have a fair point.
Protesting for the right to broadcast stolen materials (and making good advertising money in the process, let’s not forget that part).
Attacking and trying to shut down the Church’s websites in the name of freedom of speech.
And then picketing Church buildings to denounce a religion most of them hardly know anything about.
Logic definitely isn’t Anonymous’ strong suit.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I though journalists knew how to research articles?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
While you seem to have the alphabet and movie references down pat, next time you decide to try your hand at typing out a piece of journalism try doing the part where you research the issue.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
This article is terrible. For the sake of journalistic integrity (and because you reflect *very* poorly on your fellow colleagues), please do your research before you publish this trash.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Word of advice: when you publish the city mag for the world’s biggest college town, you might want to brush up on issues pertaining to large, controversial organizations that actively seek membership from that demographic. I don’t know if they are a cult or not but some people sure seem to have perceived grievances. (Same could be said about many mainstream religions, BTW).
February 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I’m not a Scientologist but at least Scientology does’nt seem to have front groups
and shills going and commenting on every blog
like this Anonymous group does. I have some nice friends who are Scientologists and they tell me that anyone who is suppresive had either gotten false datum about or can be found to have a criminal background.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Way to do no research at all.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
The right to publish is one of the best things about being an American. At any time—for any reason—you can air your grievances publicly. But sometimes we are deeply confused by what Americans choose to publish. Sure, an article against the war makes sense. But writing one about Anti-Scientologists in Guy Fawkes masks to call for the end of Anti-Scientology doesn’t seem to follow any logic.
Why? Amy Derjue was creeped out by the protests, did some research, and didn’t like what the protest was all about. Yes, the protest are odd. But our reaction to it was, “Gee. Looks like it isn’t for us. And who knew that cute kid in Risky Business would turn into such a whackjob?”
February 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
@29- are you insane? Scientology now owns the CULT AWARENESS NETWORK and has transformed it into a pro-Scientology org. They also have their own private navy (google “sea org”).
If you think that Scientology doesn’t routinely and primarily use covert tactics, front groups, and terroristic activities to protect itself, you’re sadly uninformed.
Of course active Scientologists will say that SPs are all a bunch of child molesting criminals. That’s what brainwashing does to perfectly nice people.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@25, rather.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
S is for simpleton. Do you research on the topic before you write an article. Your intellectual laziness has done nothing to inform your readers.
I would start by watching the hours of video available on youtube & google. Do a search on Panorama & scientology.
Are you a scientologist?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Stupid journalist that does no research whatsoever and spends less than 7 minutes writing their article is stupid. Go out and look at all the people that are actively trying to take down the Cult of $cientology. Ask them why they’re attacking the BUSINESS of $cientology, even. THEN you can go out and write your trash, and give us more lulz.
d-o_o-b
February 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
“Gee. Looks like Scientology isn’t for us. And who knew that cute kid in Risky Business would turn into such a whackjob?”
L. Ron Hubbard started the policy of attracting celebrities to scientology purely because of the power they have in the media. Whilst you may think he turned into a whackjob, others may be attracted to scientology due to “project celebrity”, get entangled in the scientology web and end up literally paying for it for the rest of their lives.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Yes, you are correct in saying that those Anonymous who weren’t already well aware of the abuses and crimes of this cult did their research upon the Tom Cruise youtube fiasco.
Clearly, they are one step ahead of the author of this article. Even half an hour of research would have been sufficient to come across the documented, verifiable, NON-LIBELLOUS crimes this cult has been and is responsible for.
Are protestors really more disturbing than the inexplicable defense of a cult known to use brainwashing techniques, operate labor camps for the purposes of re-educating the fallen faithful and suppress criticism by any means necessary?
Not to mention that Scientology enjoys a unique tax exempt status due to extortion of the IRS.
A little more research (Just Google their names, even) would confirm that Terryeo and GrnApl are familiar names, tasked with spamming denials and misdirections all over anything on the web critical of Scientology. Perfectly legitimate unbiased concerned citizens, I’m sure!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Poor, poor article. People who protest Scientology are subject to being photographed, filmed and in some cases, followed home. Why these young people chose to wore masks? To prevent this. They’re neither stupid or cowards which your article was trying to imply.
Creeped out by the Tom Cruise video? Do you honestly believe that a worldwide protest would be organized over a video? It runs deeper than that - Why couldn’t the “Church” save Lisa McPherson? Locked in a room for 17 days eating nothing but bits of banana and drinking protein shakes. Is that how to treat/cure a woman whose suffering from a mental breakdown? Not only that, but what about the cockroach bites and bruises all over her body? That’s flat out neglect. Did they stop there? No. They went to take her to a hospital when they realised they were killing her from their fraudulent “tech”, but did they go to the nearest one? No. Did they go for any of the hospitals in the vicinity? No. They drove for 45 minutes to one which had a Scientologist doctor on staff. Lisa died.
That’s *one* true story about the danger of Scientology. You can not get psychiatric help if you’re “in” the cult, purely because of L. Ron Hubbard’s fear of them. Check it out. There’s tonnes of valid, authentic documents on the net which show Hubbard as paranoid and delusional. Because of one con man’s (yes, Hubbard was a criminal too, confessing to petty theft in August 1948) personal fear, people have died. People like Ellie Perkins; another victim. Her son’s schizophrenia, “treatable” by Scientologists (their cure for insanity is to give them vitamins and ‘audit’ them) got the better of him when he stabbed his mother 77 times. Why did this tragedy happen? Because Scientology hates psychiatry.
Why does it hate psychiatry? Because Hubbard’s Dianetics did not work, had no valid scientific merit and was a fraud. Who saw this? Psychiatrists. To stop their members from finding this out, they paint the psychiatrists as the bad guys, claiming they were responsible for World War 2, the Holocaust, 9/11…
I’m sorry about the length of this post, but this article is so devoid of fact its almost unbelievable that it was ever written and posted. Two tragedies that leave blood on the Church of Scientology’s hands. Two preventable tragedies, I must add. Have they changed their “tech” to prevent a similar incident as the Perkins Tragedy? No. How do I know this? Because another mentally unstable individual stabbed and killed her sister, father and wounded her mother last year in Australia. Have they changed their “tech” after that? No.
This article is appalling for labelling those who would dare stand up and question Scientology as “stupid.” It’s not about Tom Cruise being a nutjob. It’s about the death, greed and lies that the Church of Scientology has, is and will continue to carry out, and I hope that the author of the article understands just why people don’t “like what the religion is all about.”
February 11th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
P is for poor journalism which is what this article represents. Trying doing a little research on your topic before you post up the first thing that comes to mind.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Boston magazine fails hard, seriously get your act together
February 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
@35 *try
February 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Oh, and I do hope you go away and research a bit more, since I only mentioned three of the horrible cases of death on the Church’s hands. There’s a lot, lot more out there. And that’s only the death! What about the harrasment of critics? If you think a world wide protest of Scientology is “stupid”, check out Mark Bunker’s website XenuTV.com. See how his house gets picketed *by* the Scientologists. He’s got a video of it and everything. If holding signs doesn’t sound ominous and threatening, what about Operation: Freakout? Trying to frame Paulette Cooper, drive her insane, or worse…suicide. Read the planning documents for it on the Internet, where every last detail is planned to the fullest. What about any of the number of critics who dare stand up to the Church? Leaflets spreading lies about critics are dropped in their neighbourhoods. Websites set up defaming them. When the truth is told about the Scientologists, what do they do? Call the truth-tellers “religious bigots”, or worse.
And I’m just getting started. There’s the fraud, the nature of auditing (which is more or less a form of brainwashing), the costs, the forced abortions on its female SeaOrg members, the SeaOrg itself…
February 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Anonymous doesn’t really care about Scientology as a religion, per se. What has Anon riled up is the “Church” of Scientology, the business that has used the cloak of religion to get tax-exempt status, to play the persecution charge, and to give the weak of will a pay-per-pray cult based on bad sci-fi.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Yes, maybe doing some research before posting an article like this would be useful.
Perhaps the fact that they were protesting specifically on the 10th of February because it was the birthday of a woman who died after the Scientologists removed her from hospital care and locked her in a hotel room for 17 days.
Perhaps the well-known fact of Scientology’s history of criminal activities against both its own members and the government. The highest-ranking officials in the organization have gone to prison before for these very actions, and yet somehow they still have tax-exempt status.
There are many more facts that might be useful for your article.
Maybe you should take a look at yourself and wonder why *you* would rather just sit back and be weirded out by some video on YouTube rather than doing that little extra bit of research and going out and taking action.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I didn’t pass out fliers, or attend the protests. I am not really ‘anonimous’ but this article bothers me a bit. How can you question the subject of any Americans protest? They seem to have real grievances, and they supply websites to do further research while the Scientologists only provide their own websites to counter the claims. Seems a bit odd.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
So what, you just walked by the protests, took a quick look, went home and wrote in your blog about it? You didn’t bother to read any of the fliers, talk to the protesters, who are very well versed in the evils of scientology? You want to talk about how protesting has fallen since Vietnam, I want to talk about how people like you drag journalism through the mud.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
@11 *Apologies to Mr. Flannery as the author of this editorial was in fact, Amy Derjue.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I’ve tried to stop myself from commenting a third time here, but once you know about the Church of Scientology (I’m talking about the *real* side of the Church of Scientology here, not the smiling-faces sales video they put on for the public) it’s hard to shut up.
Some questions:
What about the grueling conditions in the RPF, more akin to gulags than anything else? The piss-poor low wages for staff members? Why does the Church charge thousands upon thousands of dollars/pounds/whatever for its courses? Why does this ‘non-profit’ religion bring in millions (if not billion) of dollars each year? Why does it cost you so much for salvation and your faith? Why is the Freewinds (Scientology owned vessel and training centre for OTVIIIs) dumping raw sewage onto the islands of Bonaire? Why did the Church claim it had affiliates to major companies like Coca Cola and Dell when they did not (Google it. You’ll find properly written news articles about it) ? Why does the Freewinds still have blue asbestos (the most dangerous kind), despite it being discovered by renovators on the ship?
I’m asking a few of a long, endless list of questions not only to the blog writer and the public, but also to the Scientologists who may be reading. I ask of you to answer these questions, or confront me on them being lies or myths. If you do, please provide proof to back-up your claims. I’ll glady apologise and retract any mistruths I’ve presented if proven wrong. That’s a promise.
I’m not some “cyber-terrorist” or “criminal.” I’m not Anonymous. I’m a citizen who has learned the truth about the Church, and if that makes me an “SP”…well…I’m proud to be one.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Way to do your research. I guess S can also stand for Amy.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
go die faggot
February 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Wow. Massive failiure.
This thing reads like a bad LiveJournal entry.
You should be ashamed to call this an article.
That being said, we’re not protesting the government, Sure the government does things we don’t like, but this protest was 100% about scientology.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.”
Abraham Lincoln
February 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
What a truly despicable piece of journalism.
Amy, do some actual research before you accuse people of “not following any logic.”
February 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
you are not a journalst. you merely share with us your ignorant opinion. thanks.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Wow, I have to say that of all the reports I’ve read, A.J. Daulerio proves to be the most ignorant “reporter” of them all. God, even the crap journalists here in Houston did a better job than this!
A.J. Daulerio must be a scientologist tool.
Congrats A.J. You are the first one I have found so appalling that I had to comment!
February 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Let’s hope that you don’t write any blogs or articles covering the 2008 Election, because with your ability to do research, Paul Flannery, you wouldn’t know who the candidates were until someone told you.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
*-Paul Flannery, +Amy Derjue, but frankly, both, if this piece/blog has any oversite.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Its fine to disagree with what Anon. is doing, but at least get the facts straight about it. Masks were worn for personal safety, as the Church of Scientology has been known to harass its critics. The Cruise video wasn’t the reason behind the protest, more like a catalyst that set people into motion over deep concerns that were already well established.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:14 am
There’s no point in repeating the better responses on why this article is nothing more than a lazy, sloppy, poorly-planned hack job.
So let me just go ahead and congratulate you, Amy: you now have less journalistic integrity than Jayson Blair. Way to go!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I think many posting comments are missing the point of the article. She is saying that the protesters seem to be searching for a cause to protest and vent frustration, and seem to be unsure about what what is the source of all the evil in the world, but hey, Scientology is pretty bad, so let’s go after them because of a video they pulled. They remind me of Ron Paul supporters who think V for Vendetta is a documentary, and demonize every group in existence that doesn’t fit their world view. And no, I am not a fan of Scientology at all. Amy, you are very observant and very correct in your article.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Are YOU a Scientologist, Paul Flannery, or just a shill for the dangerous cult?
You’re either a propangandist and liar or a VERY poor excuse for a journalist.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Teeeeerrryoooooooo… we see you! Glad to see you can play again.
If you do your research you will find that this article cost the pats the super bowl true story hey
(I completely made that up, do I get a blog too?)
February 12th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
News flash guys: after a bit of research it is possible for a reasonable person to conclude that the Church of Scientology is worth protesting against.
Just because there may be a few greater evils in the world doesn’t mean that NO ONE should be looking into the many, many spurious activities of the CoS as well as it’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard.
I’m glad Anonymous exists. It’s about time more people knew and were more active about the real Scientology - not simply dismissing it as ‘oh, it’s just that wacky new age thing that kid from Risky Business is in.’
It is so much more than that to so many people around the world - particularly the families who have lost loved ones due to the practices of the ‘Church’.
In short, this was a pretty poorly thought out blog post. Then again, I guess I should be thankful it’s only four paragraphs long.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Yeah, even a few days later, and you’re still a hack.
Get bent, you no-talent hack.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:57 am
This is an embarrasment to journalism.
Go and read the BBC or Guardian websites and dont post another article until you have learnt about investigative journalism.