Brace yourselves for Scientology TV

[Odysseus]

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/scientologists-plan-hollywood-tv-studio-211242182.html

Scientologists plan Hollywood TV studio

(Reuters) - The Church of Scientology, the religion whose followers include actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, plans to start a religious broadcasting centre to promote its teachings over TV, radio and the Internet.
The centre, located near the church's West Coast headquarters in Hollywood, would occupy the nearly five-acre studio property the church bought last year from Los Angeles public TV station KCET for $42 million. The station would elevate the public profile of a religion that has mostly relied on pamphlets and books by its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, to proselytize for new members.
"The church plans to establish a central media hub for our growing world network of churches and to move into the production of religious television and radio broadcasting," said Karin Pouw, a spokeswoman for Church of Scientology International, in an email.
She said there is no timetable for when operations would begin.
Scientology TV could be similar to Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network or the Trinity Broadcast Network. Trinity creates Christian programming at a production centre in Irving, Texas, and airs it on TV stations and cable channels, said Rick Ross, whose non-profit Rick A. Ross Institute in Trenton, New Jersey, maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements.
"Hollywood is a major hub for creative talent and some of them are Scientologists," said Ross. "They'd have a lot of talented folks who could produce shows and stars like Tom Cruise who would appear on them."
Elayne Rapping, a pop-culture expert and professor of American studies at the University of Buffalo, told Reuters she is not surprised by the church's move.
"Having their own TV is a good idea since they can spin things their way," she said. "They are after good PR which they can control to offset the bad publicity surrounding them in other media."
Former members of the 60-year-old church accuse it of being a cult and have alleged that it abuses members and separates parents from children, among other things. The church denies such accusations.
The celebrity of controversial members like Cruise and Travolta is a double-edged sword for the church, Rapping said.
Cruise is one of the world's biggest movie stars, but his divorce from actress Katie Holmes has fuelled speculation that the couple disagreed on raising their 6-year-old daughter, Suri, as a Scientologist and sparked a flurry of news coverage about the church.
John Travolta was recently sued for libel by a Los Angeles man who wrote a book about his alleged homosexual encounters with the "Saturday Night Fever" and "Pulp Fiction" star.
The Hollywood studio would complement the church's existing production facility, Golden Era Productions, near Hemet, California, which produces DVDs and "other audiovisual materials that comprise a large part of the Church's religious and educational materials," Pouw said.
Scientologists are likely to buy time on local TV stations to air shows as other religions do, said Bill Carroll, vice-president of Katz Television Group, which advises TV stations on programming.
They could create their own cable channel, he said, but could also get a license from the Federal Communications Commission to operate a broadcast channel by adhering to FCC rules on children's programming, news and other regulations.
The church took physical control of the broadcast centre, located on Sunset Boulevard near Hollywood, in April when KCET employees moved TV station operations to a rented facility.

Just when you thought the bullshit on TV couldn't get any worse.... 

[El Barto]

To be honest, I thought they were already broadcasting their stuff.  They've got modern production facilities at Gold Base, and that's what I assumed they were for. 

Hollywood's a perfect outlet for them.  There's a reason why other cults have started in Cali.  The level of disillusionment out there is probably astonishing, and a perfect breeding ground for the emotional suckers they're looking to reach. 

[snapple]

To be honest, I thought they were already broadcasting their stuff.  They've got modern production facilities at Gold Base, and that's what I assumed they were for. 

Hollywood's a perfect outlet for them.  There's a reason why other cults have started in Cali.  The level of disillusionment out there is probably astonishing, and a perfect breeding ground for the emotional suckers they're looking to reach.

I agree. I had a friend, who is a total snob, move to Hollywood. He moved back because "I couldn't stand how snobby people were".

[rumborak]

I am looking for many hilarious YouTube snippets from this channel. I really hope they go all balls out.

rumborak

[theseoafs]

Unfortunately, scientologists don't really put their craziest foot forward.  They don't start with Xenu (in fact, you have to have paid tens of thousands of dollars already to hear about that fellow).  So I wouldn't cross your fingers if you're hoping for a laugh.  Expect lots of talk about L. Ron Hubbard and E-Meters.

[El Barto]

Unfortunately, scientologists don't really put their craziest foot forward.  They don't start with Xenu (in fact, you have to have paid tens of thousands of dollars already to hear about that fellow).  So I wouldn't cross your fingers if you're hoping for a laugh.  Expect lots of talk about L. Ron Hubbard and E-Meters.

Yup.  And also lots of talk about depression, anxiety, and Prozac. 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Unfortunately, scientologists don't really put their craziest foot forward.  They don't start with Xenu (in fact, you have to have paid tens of thousands of dollars already to hear about that fellow).  So I wouldn't cross your fingers if you're hoping for a laugh.  Expect lots of talk about L. Ron Hubbard and E-Meters.

Just read a little about Xenu......what a freaking awesome sc-fi movie that would be!

I vote Cruise for the lead, he would do it for free! 

 

[Adami]

Unfortunately, scientologists don't really put their craziest foot forward.  They don't start with Xenu (in fact, you have to have paid tens of thousands of dollars already to hear about that fellow).  So I wouldn't cross your fingers if you're hoping for a laugh.  Expect lots of talk about L. Ron Hubbard and E-Meters.

Just read a little about Xenu......what a freaking awesome sc-fi movie that would be!

I vote Cruise for the lead, he would do it for free! 

 

Free? They'd charge him!

[chrisbDTM]

Unfortunately, scientologists don't really put their craziest foot forward.  They don't start with Xenu (in fact, you have to have paid tens of thousands of dollars already to hear about that fellow).  So I wouldn't cross your fingers if you're hoping for a laugh.  Expect lots of talk about L. Ron Hubbard and E-Meters.

Just read a little about Xenu......what a freaking awesome sc-fi movie that would be!

I vote Cruise for the lead, he would do it for free! 

 

wow just started reading this.

"Within the Church of Scientology, the Xenu story is part of the church's secret "Advanced Technology", considered a sacred and esoteric teaching"

[theseoafs]

Unfortunately, scientologists don't really put their craziest foot forward.  They don't start with Xenu (in fact, you have to have paid tens of thousands of dollars already to hear about that fellow).  So I wouldn't cross your fingers if you're hoping for a laugh.  Expect lots of talk about L. Ron Hubbard and E-Meters.

Just read a little about Xenu......what a freaking awesome sc-fi movie that would be!

I vote Cruise for the lead, he would do it for free! 

 

Free? They'd charge him!

Actually, I believe it would be illegal for Cruise to do it for free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Exchange   

[chrisbDTM]

"Scientologists warn that reading the Xenu story without proper authorization could cause pneumonia"

hahahah

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Unfortunately, scientologists don't really put their craziest foot forward.  They don't start with Xenu (in fact, you have to have paid tens of thousands of dollars already to hear about that fellow).  So I wouldn't cross your fingers if you're hoping for a laugh.  Expect lots of talk about L. Ron Hubbard and E-Meters.

Just read a little about Xenu......what a freaking awesome sc-fi movie that would be!

I vote Cruise for the lead, he would do it for free! 

 

Free? They'd charge him!

Actually, I believe it would be illegal for Cruise to do it for free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Exchange   

OK that plan didn't work!

[El Barto]

"Scientologists warn that reading the Xenu story without proper authorization could cause pneumonia"

hahahah

Yeah, Scientology is full of funny stuff like that.  When I get bored at work I'll occasionally spend a couple of hours reading up on it.  Try reading the WikiP entry on LRH.  It's something straight out of Arrested Development.  You can read nearly every third paragraph in Ron Howard's voice, "The United States Navy says their records do not reflect those accounts." 

Something that really fascinates me is pondering how many people really believe in that nonsense.  You figure the highest ranking guys, DM, Cruise, and the like, know it's a racket.  The lowest people on the totem pole don't know anything about it at all.  It's just self-help and expensive books on Dianetics to them.  It's the six thousand or so Sea Org members that are the spooky ones.  Those guys have to be the true believers. 

[chrisbDTM]

its amazing how you can effectively 'control' for lack of a better word, that many people with a story. i read quite alot about it on wiki yesterday (at work  ) id love to know what goes on on that cruise ship 'freewinds'. the only place where the highest level of scientology can be taught

[El Barto]

There's trouble brewing in the church.  They've got another questionable death, and this one the son of a former leader (who's now permanently RPF'ed).  This kid was a 16 year member of Sea Org from his 8th birthday.  His mom is raising a pretty big stink about it (she was deemed a suppressive member and not allowed any contact with him).

Another interesting aspect is that Tom Cruise's visitation rights with his daughter is going to ruffle a whole lot of feathers.  Technically, he's supposed to disavow here, just like all of the lesser members have been doing all this time.  Something you really can't get away with in a cult is different rules for different members. 

[chrisbDTM]

the whole thing is very interesting. i mean there's alot of 'tales' in other religions that are a little hard to believe, but Xenu H-bombing a volcano trillions of years ago? and this religion started by a sci-fi writer, somehow grew to be a huge entity with dozens of organizations branching off of it. incredible

[eric42434224]

I don't see much of a distinction between religions and Scientology.  Both are stories that make extraordianary claims of knowledge that are not able to be validated.  When I look at them from a distance, being impartial, I dont see the difference between the believability of the stories.  Obviously from different era's, but I dont see one as any more credible than the other.
Both are stories that make claims that just can't be verified.
Thetans in meat bodies/Souls in earthly bodies.
Auditing and paying for levels/Praying and paying offerings.
Tomato/Tomahto.
 

[Adami]

I don't see much of a distinction between religions and Scientology.  Both are stories that make extraordianary claims of knowledge that are not able to be validated.  When I look at them from a distance, being impartial, I dont see the difference between the believability of the stories.  Obviously from different era's, but I dont see one as any more credible than the other.
Both are stories that make claims that just can't be verified.
Thetans in meat bodies/Souls in earthly bodies.
Auditing and paying for levels/Praying and paying offerings.
Tomato/Tomahto.

From a completely secular/agnostic perspective I can see a major difference. The difference being the authors of these religious texts. In most religion's cases, the authors are unknown and their motives are also unknown. Meanwhile in scientology we know exactly who the author is and we know he was a sci-fi writer. That alone paints a very different picture.

Obviously there are other major differences as well, but that's the one that popped into my head.

[El Barto]

The distinction is that the major Abrahamic religions have their stories handed down for millennia without any real starting point or authorship.  They evolved naturally.  Scientology started in 1953 after a pulp author adapted one of his novels into a system of beliefs which he could sell to people.  While the actual stories are similarly silly, their origins lend themselves to different levels of credibility.  One is a myth and the other is a scam. 

Or, what Adami said. 

[eric42434224]

Actually, from my reading, LRH's motives are not known, but can only truly be guessed at.  I am sure that the motives of many writes in the bible have been questioned....even the motives for the choices and assembly of the individual gospels themselves.  My point wasnt about the small details, motives, or even known accurate events written about.
More like the extraordinary claims that require huge leaps of faith, and that cant be verified, seem to be just as far fetched in both scenarios, with each reflecting the speficic times of writing.
JMO

[theseoafs]

Actually, from my reading, LRH's motives are not known, but can only truly be guessed at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

[Adami]

LRHs claims are actually less likely because of their context. For instance, if Tim Cook (he's the new apple CEO, right?) said that God is actually a giant Ipod in the heavens.....well that will be taken less seriously than a claim for an ancient concept of god.

[eric42434224]

LRHs claims are actually less likely because of their context. For instance, if Tim Cook (he's the new apple CEO, right?) said that God is actually a giant Ipod in the heavens.....well that will be taken less seriously than a claim for an ancient concept of god.

Dont see how one is less likely than the other.  It may seem that way to you and most everybody else because the story is so old, and that the majority of humans have bought into it forever.
I dont see any evidence for either equally.

Actually, from my reading, LRH's motives are not known, but can only truly be guessed at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

Couldnt a similar response be something like this?

Actually, from my reading, The bibles authors motives are not known, but can only truly be guessed at.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/control

[Adami]

Like I said, the source counts. If 2 random people proposed different gods, then they have equal chances. But when a sci-fi writer proposes a sci-fi story as truth.....then that is different.

[eric42434224]

Like I said, the source counts. If 2 random people proposed different gods, then they have equal chances. But when a sci-fi writer proposes a sci-fi story as truth.....then that is different.

How? 

[Adami]

Like I said, the source counts. If 2 random people proposed different gods, then they have equal chances. But when a sci-fi writer proposes a sci-fi story as truth.....then that is different.

How?

Because the motive changes. We don't know why the writers of the bible or other religious texts wrote what they did, because of that we can't come to any answers about them. But we know that LRH wrote a religion which was very similar to what he was selling as fiction at the same time. If you seriously can't see any difference in there what so ever, then I have no idea how to convey this to you. I know to you all religions are exactly as plausible (and therefore wrong) as one another, but taking into account psychology, history, sociology etc, they can't all be seen as exactly as crazy, even if they are all wrong.

[eric42434224]

If you dont know the real motives of the bible authors, Im not sure how you can think that its claims are any more plausible.
They very well could have had ulterior motives.  You cant say one is more credible based on motive, when you really dont know the motives.  I see both as stories that make extraordinary claims that cant be verified.  One story may have a more palatable history and acceptance....doesnt mean it is any more likely to be correct.  If one feels that they need to believe in one of the many stories out there, then they can play the game of which one seems more credible.  I personally dont feel that need, and look at all of them essentially the same.  Some people have nicer clothes, more friends, more education, etc....but in the end they are all people.  Again, just my opinion.

[Adami]

If you dont know the real motives of the bible authors, Im not sure how you can think that its claims are any more plausible.
They very well could have had ulterior motives.  You cant say one is more credible based on motive, when you really dont know the motives.  I see both as stories that make extraordinary claims that cant be verified.  One story may have a more palatable history and acceptance....doesnt mean it is any more likely to be correct.  If one feels that they need to believe in one of the many stories out there, then they can play the game of which one seems more credible.  I personally dont feel that need, and look at all of them essentially the same.  Some people have nicer clothes, more friends, more education, etc....but in the end they are all people.  Again, just my opinion.

I don't make any claims about the bible, just that we can't judge them, yet we can judge LRH. That exactly is the difference. There is a major possibility that the bible authors are insane, or nuts or driven by power or whatever, we just don't know a single thing about them. We know a lot about LRH including a lot of really.....questionable things behind the founding of his religion, which makes his claims slightly more questionable. If we knew more about the bible authors, we could then be more speculative of them.

[eric42434224]

If you dont know the real motives of the bible authors, Im not sure how you can think that its claims are any more plausible.
They very well could have had ulterior motives.  You cant say one is more credible based on motive, when you really dont know the motives.  I see both as stories that make extraordinary claims that cant be verified.  One story may have a more palatable history and acceptance....doesnt mean it is any more likely to be correct.  If one feels that they need to believe in one of the many stories out there, then they can play the game of which one seems more credible.  I personally dont feel that need, and look at all of them essentially the same.  Some people have nicer clothes, more friends, more education, etc....but in the end they are all people.  Again, just my opinion.

I don't make any claims about the bible, just that we can't judge them, yet we can judge LRH. That exactly is the difference. There is a major possibility that the bible authors are insane, or nuts or driven by power or whatever, we just don't know a single thing about them. We know a lot about LRH including a lot of really.....questionable things behind the founding of his religion, which makes his claims slightly more questionable. If we knew more about the bible authors, we could then be more speculative of them.

That is a judgement, and I dont see how it changes the likelyhood of a claim that cant be verified.
Sister Theresa says that god is a grilled cheese sandwich.
Charles Manson says god is a booger.
I dont see how the character of an author is relevant....ones character is obviously thought of as better.
The only way one would ever subscribe to either belief is because they feel they need to, and the subjective influences of their own experiences and culture.

[Scheavo]

If you dont know the real motives of the bible authors, Im not sure how you can think that its claims are any more plausible.
They very well could have had ulterior motives.  You cant say one is more credible based on motive, when you really dont know the motives.  I see both as stories that make extraordinary claims that cant be verified.  One story may have a more palatable history and acceptance....doesnt mean it is any more likely to be correct.  If one feels that they need to believe in one of the many stories out there, then they can play the game of which one seems more credible.  I personally dont feel that need, and look at all of them essentially the same.  Some people have nicer clothes, more friends, more education, etc....but in the end they are all people.  Again, just my opinion.

I don't make any claims about the bible, just that we can't judge them, yet we can judge LRH. That exactly is the difference. There is a major possibility that the bible authors are insane, or nuts or driven by power or whatever, we just don't know a single thing about them. We know a lot about LRH including a lot of really.....questionable things behind the founding of his religion, which makes his claims slightly more questionable. If we knew more about the bible authors, we could then be more speculative of them.

Why not use them as comparative examples? Seems to me, that if we take this approach, and toss out all the unprovable assumptions (like one of them being a work of God, God existing, etc), we can notice the massive similarities between the actual work themselves. All told, it seems to me that people who write Bibles and similar works are similar, now as they were 2000 years ago. We can also look at Joseph Smith. Or any other person who tries to start a religion ("Cult"). 

We shouldn't act as if 2000, or even 4000, years ago was somehow a different time, with different rules. Humans were still humans, the universe was still the universe. Given all the numerous examples we have regarding the formation of religions and belief structures, I see no reason to assume that LRH was really any different than the people who wrote the Bible, or the Torah, Koran, or Book of Latter Day Saints.