Bright's Blog

26 comments from readers

Gulag Archipelago
15 May 2007 at 11:32

The Sunday edition of Panorama focused entirely on the Church of Scientology. The thrust of the argument was: do anything but dare not criticise The Church. Anyone crossing the threshold will find himself subjected to the most brutal form of persecution- have pictures of one's wife/girlfriend underwear published for greater transparency -not necessarily profiteering; especially if the church happens to have a global network of TV, tabloid, broadsheet, weekly and pressure-groups all in one package...

For a mere second you are tempted to give Scientologists the benefit of the doubt- after all it was Panorama investigating the Cult, not the other way around- but then you couldn't help feeling uneasy as you saw Panorama crew being followed, intimidated and verbally attacked by church-zombies...even a poor blogger had his computer subjected to a vicious Trojan+Worm-attack because he apparently put a recent TT study on his daily blog (despite the fact that study carried out by rebellious anti-torture church members..)

The programme can be downloaded here: www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

James Lightfield
15 May 2007 at 15:12

For an accurate expose of what really happened, see the online video at www.FreedomMag.org

GrnApl
15 May 2007 at 16:01

Because you, Martin Bright, became upset at a Muslim stoning a woman does not justify the BBC stoning another Religion. The BBC’s position on truth is one person lying and another swearing to it. Scientology is one of the finest organizations I am aware of and is expanding as fast as it is because it effectively helps people become more able. You have a problem with people helping people?

pilot2867
15 May 2007 at 16:12

I think the British public have a problem with an organisation which is controlling and deceitful. After watching the programme i fully sympathasise with John Sweeny's reaction against the Tom cruise wannabe who constantly provoked and goaded sweeny. I thought the most sickening thing was when scientology tried to blame the holocaust on psychiatry. It was appalling and leads me to believe that this not only a cult but a dangerous organisation. I hope this programme will expose it for what it is.

chewyandbert
15 May 2007 at 16:16

Thanks for being an apologist for Mr. Sweeney, whose behaviour has not justification. All of this "they made me do it" is whining from a supposed journalist who had zero intention of creating a fair investigative piece. How this story actually came about should be viewed objectively at "http://www.freedommag.org/bbc/video_flash.html

penguin island
15 May 2007 at 18:14

Watching the youtube clips of Sweeney, at lunch, i nearly chocked on my cucumber sandwiches - it was so hilarious. This was another sure fire case of a BBC reporter about to pick up his P45 and join Gilligan in the dole cue. But in fact after watching the clip in context, on Panorama, i could completely emphasise with the man blowing a gasket. The shadowy Scientology rottweiler made Campbell look like the Andrex puppy and has destroyed any image i had of Scientology being a benign religion. As for the comments telling me to view the objective and accurate video of the film on the Scientology website for “freedom” magazine, who are you trying to kid?

PS if someone wants to shadow me, i'm the man in trousers, t-shirt, with two arms and brown hair.

slingyerhook
15 May 2007 at 18:54

Does the Church of Scientology (represented on this particular board by James Lightfield, chewyandbert and grnapl) not realise that its preemptive PR assault on the BBC confirms the documentary's primary revelation- that the organisation will stoop to any depths and go to enormous lengths to discredit dissenters?

LermanetDOTcom
15 May 2007 at 21:39

I run an Internet Archive of Scientology related materials, especially those that assist ex-members figuring out how the scientology trick is done. I recieved this comment from a recovering scientologist, which is typical:

Dear god Arnie,

I just watched the Panorama News on the Internet ... I don't think I have words to say or can even sort out all of my feelings at this point. I mean just tracking down Sweeney while he was interviewing Sean and trying to discredit Shawn was beyond sleeze and slime. I can't even think of words for it for now. Geez, when it was your turn not all that long ago, and now Keith's I just feel ashamed I even ever belonged to that organization of thugs.

-----------

Lermanet.com Exposing the CON

jm2007
16 May 2007 at 10:50

This other YouTube take makes me wonder about John Sweeney. He seems like just a fanatic

who happens to have a job at the BBC -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRfMrvpDzj8

mitchy
16 May 2007 at 12:56

Critisise eh? Well I think you Scientologists are a bunch of dangerous, divisive and inflammatory nut-jobs. How you people have gained the power and influence you have I cant understand, since anyone in their right mind would see you lot for what you really are - dangerously deluded.

Stuart
16 May 2007 at 13:27

I watched Panorama and was rightfully amazed and sickened by the behaviour of the rep in the shades.

He was apparently exercising his right to free movement and free speech in the most atrocious fashion. How anyone would wnat this man to be the public face of their organisation is beyond me.

"I'm being as open as I possibly can be" is not a justified assertion when standing 3 inches from someone face wearing shades and wagging a finger at them.

I can only specualte on what revelations of "showbiz behaviour" many of it's celebrity members have hanging over them ready to be divulged if they were to disavow their "beliefs" any time soon.

I do not recognise as religion any organisation that advertises it's literature in the back pages of crappy magazines in the same way thatI don't fill my house with junk crockery from Franklin Mint.

To become a charity in th UK would be such an awful smear on so many actual charitable organisations that I hope the attempt is given up as a bad job.

sonicdeathmonkey
16 May 2007 at 13:53

It seems no media outlet is exempt from the propaganda war of the Scientologists. It seems they have armies of zombies out there posting rebuttal and sympathetic message after message (chewyandbert, grnapl).

To see the flaw in their logic you have to ask yourself if, in humanist terms, whether their ends justify their means? A lot of cults set themselves up as martyrs being pilloried for their righteous beliefs as a defense mechanism but underneath they're prepared to be far nastier than any respectable investigative reporter can be.

tinalouise
16 May 2007 at 14:30

Any natural human response is a delight to see - we are awash with the unreality of manipulated emotions and reactions on 'reality' TV...so a little truthful response is refreshing.

The programme was interesting and (in my opinion) Sweeney's temper was as controlled as could be expected...he outlasted mine by a mile!

Namaste,

Tina Louise

www.armsagainstwar.info

Meister
17 May 2007 at 04:30

Simply just another attempt to discredit, backed by pharmaceutical or other vested interest money. Scientology works..simple! The old alyways scream at the new...so what...keep howling as you die and new hope dawns on earth!

Mister9
17 May 2007 at 05:48

Bright is a stranger to the truth. Sacranie said no such thing. You can listen to the Sacranie Vs Bright exchange here for yourself here: http://www.thecitycircle.com/events_full_text2.php?id=404

And as for treating with extremists, what cheek! Bright has previously spoke highly of the Bangladesh Awami League. This outfit, in January, entered into an electoral alliance with a hardline Islamic party that actually called for the laws that he now falsely accuses Sacranie of, see: http://disha-bangladesh.blogspot.com/

ted harvey
17 May 2007 at 11:35

The BBC Panorama team, and Sweeney, have handled this commendably well. They broadcast Sweeney's momentary loss of control and professionalism and he apologised for it. But the context in which it was shown would persuade any rational person that Scientology is a dangerous cult of delusion. As for the sad cases hwo have come onto this blog and others to bleet about 'the other side of the story' and provided a link... that was already touched upon in the original programme. Moreover, will we see any honest exposure of their secret conspiring as to why and how to hound Sweeney or force their media celeb champions to withdraw their innocuous input? - fat chance!

The more we can see public examples of the behaviour of this cult the more alert to it and protected from it we will be.

Well done again BBC Panorama.

Lronhubbard
17 May 2007 at 13:22

The scientologists were asking for it.

clevername
17 May 2007 at 16:56

I love how there are Scientologist-bots commenting on this blog. They genuinely do not realize (due, presumably, to having been brainwashed) how every pro-Scientology message from a supposedly disinterested observer just increases the impression that they are a sinister cult. Which they are.

jacare
17 May 2007 at 18:28

I was always a bit dubious about Scientology and this proramme prompted me to read up on them. I am absolutely amazed that they are still going, but perhaps the internet will spread the word a bit better and pull the plug. I just wish I could believe that they are harmless nutters.

jacare
17 May 2007 at 18:31

Since watching the programme I was prompted to read up about Scientology. I am absolutely amazed that it still exists, but then I guess we're all amazed that the Nazi party every got off the ground or that slavery ever happened (OK- I know- it still does). I just hope that the internet will sprtead the word and stop the spread of this not-so-harmless nuttiness.

RichardCharles
17 May 2007 at 21:11

Judging by the pro Scientology commentators who have posted articles here, they seem to me to be illiterate, impressionable simpletons who can’t string a sentence together, which says something about this sinister organisation. I hesitate to put this in print in case of some sort of blowback but my plea to them is please - open your minds & get out fast!

taghioff.info
18 May 2007 at 04:28

There is a simple test of the value of ideas: do they encourage the people who hold them towards some form of sanity or happiness: A way of seeing this is by asking if these people, when holding these ideas, tend towards being strong enough, and thus open enough, to engage with criticism and thus benefit from it.

The scientologists' responses, seen even here, demonstrate that their ideas do not give them this basic strength. It follows that this is not an approach to life that is healthy, and thus that it should not be recognized as a religion in the UK.

weird monkey
18 May 2007 at 11:20

i watched the panorama ep and that it was damn fantastic!!! if only if it was on for longer then my mum could have seen a bit (she was at her yoga club). if i had a tom cruise lookalike screaming at my face and telling me how to do my job i would have burst into tears, esp as it was the third time!!! the scientologists are complete idiots!! and please dont follow me coz i'm only at college!! one day i hope i can have to opportunity to question these people who wish to became a respected religion and charity....but then again it reminds me of the olden times....when any religion apart from christianity was thought of as a lie and as a danger to the church...i hope that we have moved on from that time...but then again you dont see the taliban, radical hindus or satanic cults following people.....but then again...you never know.

Nick
21 May 2007 at 21:15

I do not support Scientology and agree Panorama often gives cause for thought. However, I do not trust the BBC. It it clear to me that they are little more than a mouth piece for vested interest groups. In particular I draw attention to the housing "market"; why did the BBC not alert the public to the low interest rate con? Why do they continually quote Estate Agents, Money Lenders and others rather than offer critical analysis?

A state funded media that is believed to balanced but that is not is more dangerous than overt censorship.

GreyMatter
22 May 2007 at 13:03

I think the Scientologists actions are revealing of many dogmantic thinkers from across the religions, who will not tolerate debate or criticism.

Fundamental Islam is far from tolerant of doubters and Christianity never had a problem with crushing opposition, until relatively recently in its history.

What makes the Scientology case more stark is that, as a recently-founded religion, it's beliefs and practises have not taken on the patina and 'respectability' of age-old use as other faiths have - it reveals far more easily the beliefs and prejudices of its founder.

Is it a cult? Yes. Are other faiths different? Only by degree.

gnuneo
22 May 2007 at 20:54

i agree with GreyMatter. For centuries Christianity did not just "follow people around and harras them" for being critical of it - it murdered them. Today in the US we have the spectacle of Christians murdering doctors who do not agree with them.

As far as i am aware, there are no 'Scientologist Chaplains' who motivate troops to murder "In Hubbard's Name" before a battle.

is it a cult? Oh my yes. Should it be investigated and constantly questioned and checked? Oh my double yes.

Is it the most evil religious organisation on Earth? Hardly.

(btw people should watch the South Park episode that deals with Scientology, its hilarious. ;))