Monday, May 14, 2007

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

1. Just watched a very good internet movie about Scientology. Gives a remarkable insight as it is based around the stories of ex-members.

   The Bridge

   Posted by  on May 15, 2007 @ 01:44 PM

2. Fraggle - yup, apologies. Careless reading.

   Pleb, I take your point, but it’s a sociological one. I’m more concerned with, dare I say it, the epistemological. Just because the ‘accepted’ religious structures are better behaved (and the historical good behavious of Islam and Christianity, for example, are very much up for discussion) the entities and cosmological facts they claim to believe in are, as far as I can see, just as bonkers as anything L Ron scribbled.

   And respect for our fellow human beings doesn’t require that we suspend judgement on one another’s claims about the world.

   Posted by  on May 15, 2007 @ 02:40 PM

3. Harry,

   There is something in what you say. Stepping aside from the fact that in liberal democracy you expect the media to be founded on liberal principles, the problem I have with the approach taken on this occasion is that it involved using manipulative journalistic techniques to ‘out’ what clearly is a manipulative organisation.

   I just wish journalists would have the confidence to tell a straight story and allow the rest of us to make our own minds up. As I’ve said on the CIF thread journalists (and bloggers for that matter) who allow them selves to become tied by the umbilicus to a single political interest or idea, are also the ones who most often have to coast in the face of embarrassing counter revelations.

   A half hour slot, short production period and a tiny budget were the so far unspoken about constraints that helped turn this from what was potentially good journalism, into a ‘reality tv’ spectacle.

   Posted by  on May 15, 2007 @ 02:40 PM

4. Is there a serious argument being made here that neither the BBC nor Panorama have ever tackled militant violent Islamicists (as distinct from the persistent and unchallenged assertion that the entirety of Islam is to be identified with suicide bombers)?

   If so, it is empirically falsifiable as there have been numerous documentaries and indeed, series on this subject. These studied the militant violent Islamicist equivalent of the Scientologists, and who, like them, cut off young men from their families and girlfriends and indoctrinated so that they ended up believing they should kill themselves and in so doing destroy the lives of others. Scientology destroys lives as well.

   Mick
   There is indeed “something in what was said”. It’s naked anti-Muslim prejudice.

   Posted by  on May 15, 2007 @ 02:52 PM

5. I wonder. Forget the Muslim basher. He is not worth it.

   I watched the documentary and Scientology’s reply which is also on youtube. I also watched http://www.xenutv.com/originals/index.htm via youtube.

   Scientology’s bullying tactics are scary. Doing a documentary on them is like doing one on the Provos. What is particularly scary is the cops and others giving them the green light. They are not a religion but a straightforward scam. The best scams get the mugs to play along. And before piping in with “all religions blah blah”, the nearest Irish equivalent are soft focus Provos.

   If the BBC are cash strapped, they should have ocncentrated on England and not flown across the pond. The last Panorama thing I watched was on the football bungs. All smoke.

   Posted by  on May 15, 2007 @ 03:07 PM

6. correct, al-quaida is a cult.
   Islam is a religion, people seem to forget that, purposefully.

   Posted by  on May 15, 2007 @ 04:10 PM

7. a bloke calling himself Stalin thinks the BBC are an unimpeachable neutral news source, there’s a surprise eh?

   Would you like to provide a link to the comment where I said that ?

   I have on the other hand pointed out that almost all of your contributions invariably include a dig at the BBC. It’s not your criticism I’m observing, but your obsession with that organization. For christ’s sake, it’s not like it’s Pravda or Iskra back in the good old days.

   Mick, I actually think the Panorama programme was dead on. Sweeney obviously lost control in a bad way at the end, but that is because he fell victim to the very mind manipulation techniques he was investigating. It’s pretty much impossible to do a balanced and impartial bit of reporting on that organization - they just won’t let you.

   Posted by  on May 15, 2007 @ 10:34 PM

8. **Parcifal and I wonder**, I do not doubt that the BBC have done many critical exposes of Al-Queda, but this is not what Sweeney did here, he did not have a go at some rogue elements of the Scientologists he attacked the very essence of their religion. When I see a BBC reporter prepared to tell an Imam outside a mosque after Friday prayers in Meccah that his religion is a cult and scream abusively at him then I will accept the courage of that journalist.

   I’m not a Muslim basher, I love my Muslim wife, friends and neighbours very dearly, but I am not convinced by their religion - as I am not convinced by the Catholic church my mother belongs to but that doesn’t make me a Catholic basher - and I am not convinced by the soft soaping that Islam receives from the BBC and the Guardian (who granted precious column inches today to an out and out Islamic fascist, would they do that for the BNP?).

   **Comrade Stalin** for the second time you have misquoted what you originally alleged about me, you can’t even quote yourself correctly so don’t bother asking me for my sources.

   You originally asked me why I mention “liberals” in every post (now this is the first time I have used that word in all my many posts since long before you asked your question).

   When challenged by me as to why you ask such a fatuous question you said you asked me why I blamed liberals for everything, wrong that is not what you asked and you know it.

   Now you state incorrectly that you merely pointed out was that almost all my posts have a dig at the BBC, again not what you originally alleged. True I like to have a go at the sacred cows of the mainstream media, it’s a little bit of fun I like to indulge in but they are not remotely the subject of a majority of my posts unlike your obsessive stalking of my posts which is getting a little creepy, like our Scientology friends.

   Stalin old buddy, if you want to criticise me, please do, I’m fair game, but do try to remember the allegations you make against me otherwise you just end up looking a bit silly.

   Posted by  on May 16, 2007 @ 12:14 AM

9. a dig at the BBC

   Pot is cherno
   Kettle is schwarz

   is very funny

   Posted by  on May 16, 2007 @ 08:16 AM

10. As Sweeney said:” Its hard to imagine the Church of England behaving like the Scientologists.”

    I think a large part of it was frustration on his part: he persistently tried to make his point in the face of a man who was hectoring, lecturing and yeah, bullying him less than 18 inches from his face.

    He never got a chance to make his point. That frustration I can identify with. Blogging is sometimes not dissimilar. When a valid point is made, instead of being addressed, the response can often as not, be to attack the writer.

    Familiar, non? ;)

    Harry
    I understand the points you make. Thanks.

    Posted by  on May 16, 2007 @ 09:58 AM

11. Hail to Xenu!!!

    Posted by Sammy Morse on May 16, 2007 @ 01:16 PM
Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.