Leah REMINI (King of Queens): "More to follow me out of Scientology"

[UTUSN]

The jury in my head about her is still out: First of all, choosing Scientology in the first place is nutso judgment. Somebody else remarked about how many years it took her to reach this point. So, is she a loose cannon, which, like the stopped clock, can hit the mark once in awhile?!1 Now, in her latest news is the word "follow" -- hmmmm.

*********QUOTE********

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/leah_more_to_follow_me_out_SpyiFil9t6llIMBcQSlZyH

[font size=5]Leah: More to follow me out of Scientology[/font]


Leah Remini is hoping her brave break from the Church of Scientology will help others who “have waited for fear of retaliation” find the courage to question the practices of its leader, David Miscavige, sources say.

“She believes the people who have waited for fear of retaliation will find comfort as she has,” said a source close to the star. “There is love and support just waiting for them to come forward.” ...



Remini is being supported by former member Paul Haggis, who wrote in an open letter, “When I was ‘declared’ a ‘Suppressive Person’ and shunned, she came to my defense.” ....



A Scientology rep declined to comment on Remini, adding, “Nor do we debate the latest gossip from anonymous sources.”

*************UNQUOTE*************

[Jenoch]

1. Leah Remini did not choose

scientology, her parents did. She was 7 years old when she became a member.

[UTUSN]

2. Ah, thanks!1 In previous news she has been saying her family is being supportive.

I forgot about the hilarious part: a Google search on previous news turned up an item about "celebrities who have left Scientology," and featured FOUR. One of them was a movie director; the other three were ALL ex-wives of Tom CRUISE!1

[Cha]

37. Wow! what a legacy. that would have to be Mimi Rogers,

Nicole Kidman, and, Katie Holmes.

[Cha]

35. yeah, I wondered about that when I read it.. I was

thinking maybe she didn't?

[cleanhippie]

3. Wait, what? "choosing Scientology in the first place is nutso judgment"? Really?

Is it any more "nutso" than choosing any other religion, or having one forced on you as a child?

While I agree with you, I apply that thought to ALL religions. Do you?

[UTUSN]

4. Pretty much. But mental submission seems starker in the "newer" ones. I like Zeus, et al. n/t

[cleanhippie]

5. Perhaps only because it is not so ingrained in our culture.

I would argue that christianity is also "mental submission", for one is required to suspend reality and the natural laws of the universe in order to believe any of that supernatural nonsense. YMMV.

[elehhhhna]

6. forget their doctrine & prophet for a sec --

any relig. that wants all your secrets and will blackmail you with them is not worthy of respect imo

[cleanhippie]

7. On that we are in full agreement.

[kestrel91316]

9. Lots of mainstream Christians don't believe all the supernatural stuff.

You should read some of Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong's books. He is ANYTHING but a biblical literalist, lol.

[cleanhippie]

14. Doesn't one need to believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected days later?

Are you telling me that one need not believe in ANY of the supernatural phenomenon involved in this religion?

[kestrel91316]

18. Lots of Christians read the bible as metaphor and not literal verbatim truth.

They might pay lip service to the concept of the resurrection, but one need not be a complete lunatic to be a Christian. Contrary to what the fundies would like everybody to believe.

My maternal grandparents and parents were nominally Christians but didn't believe in supernatural stuff. They all thought the bible was a source of wise advice but also had lots of nonsense in it.

[nomorenomore08]

22. I think the point is that not all believers follow this completely literal, almost child-like

interpretation of their particular faith. I'm non-practicing myself - though I was raised and educated Catholic - but I don't feel the need to categorically ridicule all spiritual belief. After all, I don't know everything about the universe, and neither does anyone else.

[cleanhippie]

23. While I understand your point, it seems to be mere rationalization to me.

We can wave away the most absurd claims made by religion and claim to only take away a lesson trying to be taught, but doing so is not only dangerous, it is hypocritical.
ALL revealed religions rely on supernatural claims of some sort that can be interpreted in infinite ways, no matter how ridiculous or benevolent. Using the belief in the supernatural of ANY sort disqualifies one from berating another's religion as "nutso", and should also disqualify said religious belief from being the basis of any argument regarding public policy or reality.

[nomorenomore08]

36. I agree that religion and public policy should be strictly separated. Also that all religious belief

is inherently irrational to some extent. Hence why I'm not a believer myself.

[Major Nikon]

41. Russell's teapot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[nomorenomore08]

60. I've heard of that proposition before, and I agree. The unprovability is partly why I have no real

spiritual beliefs of my own. But I don't presume to judge others' beliefs, unless they're fundie idiots who hate science.

[Major Nikon]

61. I could care less what someone believes so long as they aren't impacting me

...or the people I care about. This isn't the case. When people use religion to force their dogma on others, it affects everyone. This has been the case for as long as organized religion has been around.

[nomorenomore08]

63. Agreed. Religious institutions, in my mind, are certainly a net negative.

But I was distinguishing between that, and individual spirituality.

[Major Nikon]

64. I believe the same thing you do

The problems I have are with those aspects of net negativity. I have no doubt religion is a net positive for the vast majority of believers on an individual basis. The problem I have are with the religion panderers who sell influence and those who seek to force religious dogma on all of society.

[iemitsu]

33. Lots of Americans are incredibly gullible and superstitious.

Willing to accept just about anything that someone they consider an authority might say. Or sometimes, they accept anything someone, who is anti-authority says. Apparently it does not matter if what they chose to believe is discredited by something else they believe, they don't make the connections.
One in three Americans believe in ghosts.
One in three Texans believe Christ rode a dinosaur.
Half of Americans believe the moon landing was faked.
And more than half believe in creationism.
http://www.funnyordie.com/lists/1750272a44/ridiculous-things-americans-believe
So if one does not believe in virgin birth, making Christ a human and not a demigod, but does believe a human can become a god (apotheosis) are they only part superstitious? Less superstitious than others?
Is having a belief system based on faith anything but superstition?
God, by definition, is supernatural. IMO, one cannot be among the faithful and not believe in the supernatural.
How one expresses their belief in supernatural things does differ (probably dictated by family, education and class) and some expressions may seem less odd than others (to those outside the system) but regardless belief in the supernatural is that, belief in the supernatural.
There are many ways people come to possess belief in the supernatural, not all silly or bad, but reason or science are not among the explanations.

[Initech]

10. Scientology has a lot of pure evil associated with it.

Just look up Sea Org - it's essentially an organized slave labor camp that they send their underperforming members to. And their leader David Miscavige has a lot of secrecy surrounding the way he runs things. Just do a Google search on him - it's worse than you think.

[cleanhippie]

15. The same kind of examples can be found for any other religion.

While they may differ in their severity, they all encompass many of the same traits we can label as "evil."

[kestrel91316]

19. I don't think mainstream Christian denominations run slave labor camps.

Really.

I think you need to get out a little more and stop believing everything the fundies say. They are not the be all and end all of Christianity by a long shot.

[Initech]

20. I don't think any other religions run slave labor camps.

I was wrong though - it wasn't Sea Org, that's for their wealthiest members. This is what I am talking about:

The Rehabilitation Project Force, or RPF, is a controversial program set up by the Church of Scientology Sea Organization, intended to rehabilitate members of the Sea Organization (not everyday parishioners) who have not lived up to the Church expectations or have violated certain policies. As part of this program, and in addition to the application of Scientology procedures, members do manual labor tasks around Sea Org bases. There have been some reports of overwork and mistreatment at RPF facilities,[1] and the program can take years to complete.[2][3][4]

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

[kestrel91316]

21. Scientology is right up there with the Rajeeshnees, the Moonies,

and the early Mormon church for threats, intimidation, and downright criminal activities.

[Major Nikon]

42. Moonies are Christians

Just sayin'

[kestrel91316]

57. Some might beg to differ on that point, lol. They say Rev. Moon is God (or was, IIRC he died).

[Major Nikon]

58. Yes, Jesus in particular

You can't get any more Christian than that.

[cleanhippie]

25. You can reduce reduce this to the absurd if it makes you feel better.

But it does nothing to detract from the point I was making in response to you.

If you are unable to understand the point, I guess we're done here.

[kestrel91316]

27. Your point seems to be that you take everyone else's spiritual beliefs as a

personal affront. I don't think you'll be happy until all spiritual thought, let alone practice, is outlawed globally.

As for me, I may not agree with most people's religious beliefs, but I will defend to the death their right to hold them, so long as they remember that their religious rights end where anyone else's person or property begins.

[cleanhippie]

32. It seems that the point really did fly over your head.

Or you are being intentionally obtuse.

Either way, you entirely mischaracterized everything I said, so...


Have a nice day.

[Major Nikon]

44. They demonize the LGBT community by spewing pure unadulterated bigotry straight from the pulpit.

They convince old people with dementia to donate their life's savings.

They cover up pederasty by ostracizing church members who expose it, shield offending priests from law enforcement, and shield church money from civil settlements.

They preach that women should be subservient and are essentially 2nd class citizens whose own biological functions should be controlled by dogma and the state.

And that's just the current mainstream Christianity evil. Then you throw in assorted individual evil Christians like Pat Robertson, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, Fred Phelps, Warren Jeffs, et al.

[LeftyMom]

67. The Catholic Church did in Ireland into the nineties.

It doesn't get any more mainstream than that.

[XemaSab]

68. I thought we were talking about Christians here

[LeftyMom]

69. I know you're joking, but some idiot won't and they're probably typing up a howler.

I'll make popcorn.

[XemaSab]

71. Want a Cuba Libre?

This might require booze too.

[LeftyMom]

72. Rum! Romanism! Ruin is sure to follow.

[XemaSab]

73. AKA "Monday" in your house

[Dr. Strange]

12. It really is.

Scientology has a whole extra layer of nutso.

[cleanhippie]

16. And that makes it more nutso?

From an outside POV, they are all "nutso", some more than others. That's why I find folks calling one religion "nutso" while ignoring the same "nutso" stuff in their own religion and others to be total hypocrites.

[bettyellen]

17. the volcano stuff, the blackmailing, and believing you yourself have superpowers.....

balanced against never doing any good or charitable works anywhere give it an extra layer of nuttiness in my book. Not that I don't agree with your point. But they kill people's pets and enslave young children! That's pretty crazy.

[cleanhippie]

26. To be fair, the abrahamic religions all did those things too.

The killing of animals, children, oppression, genocide...

And now you claim that because they have outgrown that (in some repect) they are somehow better than a religion that is doing those things?

Come on, you're just messing with me, right?

[DirkGently]

30. Eh. Scientology reads like a cynical farce of the WORST of religion though

You're right that you can draw a lot of parallels and aim a lot of darts at any religion. They're power structures, of one form or another.

There's that story about LRH sitting in a bar, pondering that religion is a great money making scheme. There's the fact he was a pulp science fiction writer, and the entire orthodoxy of Scientology is basically a "space opera," as he used to call his own writings.

And you can also make qualitative distinctions. COS feels like a predatory money making scheme utilizing only the nastiest bits of religious organizations. Fanaticism, secrecy, brainwashing. It seems to lack even the smallest kernel of a functional ideology of any kind.

And internally, they really still claim it's not a religion at all, but "tech," which anyone of any religion can use. So it's questionable whether Scientology deserves to be regarded as a "religion" at all. That designation became important to them mainly for tax purposes.

The orthodoxy brooks not some dissent, not a bit of dissent, but zero. There is no question they're employing mind control tactics. Isolation, badgering, collecting intense personal information for future use, the threat of ostracism. Stories abound of the "exercises" where people are ordered to stare at each other for hours. Perform harsh physical labor for years. All the "sec check" babble where people are cornered and interrogated about their possible "suppressive" activities.

There is the "fair game" doctrine, supposedly abandoned, which is strange, because it was Hubbard's policy, and his word is supposedly infallible within COS. Enemies could 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."

Nice.

Their money collection tactics are extreme. Catholics tithe, Mormons REALLY tithe. These guys present people with "bills" for tens of thousands of dollars, and hound them endlessly to pay. Doesn't matter if they can.

Their pseudo-science is truly dangerous, and they are truly trying to employ it. All that 9/11 "therapy" bullshit with aromas and vitamins or whatever? Same with the many-headed front entities that pretend to help addicts. Same thing. Vitamins and exercise. Psychology, in particular, is the enemy, either because L.Ron saw it as competition (the 'e-reader' is just an old school lie detector) or because the guy had been diagnosed himself and was pissed about it. Remember Cruise screaming about Brooke Shields' career being terrible when she dared to claim she'd had post-partem depression.

Their bad acts are concerted schemes to damage people and come from the top of the organization. The plot to frame a critic for terrorism that almost worked. Infiltrating the IRS. All the smears and lies and harassment of critics. Having people followed. Suing them into oblivion. Crushing the Cult Awareness Network in court to creepily take over the name and staff the phone lines with their own people, who believe the term "cult" is a nonsense word unfairly applied to them?

Does it stack up in terms of pure evil with the Crusades or the Catholic Church shuffling child predators around the world? Maybe. But there is a sense of malice of purpose I think stands out. These were blatant plots to destroy and control.

I don't know. Maybe anyone can call anything a religion, and certainly the mere fact that it appears to outsiders to be utter nonsense is not the issue.

But it's fair to question practices. It's fair to note results like suicides and people dead after Scientology "treatment." It's fair to listen to the crazed rants of people like Tom Cruise and consider whether that's comparable to the way typical adherents of "normal" religions think and behave.

[iemitsu]

38. Excellent post with thoughtful and informative comments.

Thank you for your considered opinions and explanations. I think you are right in your assessment of the individual events you describe and the topic of religion in general.
Again, thank you.

[Dr. Strange]

31. It does for me, in the following sense:

To me, it's fundamentally about the "truth". If you ask a Christian what their religion is about, they'll probably tell you. And ultimately, they'll point you (probably) to the Bible. And if you ask them if you can read their Bible, they'll say, "Sure!" Heck, they'll probably even give you your own copy. If you talk to a Jew, they might point you to the Torah, and tell you to read it. Talk to a Muslim, they'll suggest reading the Koran. Moving away from religion, if you talk to a mathematician about, say, calculus, they'll tell you all about it. They might suggest a specific calc text. They probably won't give you a copy, but they might let you borrow theirs. But ultimately, no mathematician is going to say you can't read a calc book, much less say that you're "not allowed" to read about calculus. Same thing with a physicist. No physicist is going to tell you that you shouldn't read, say, Feynman's Lecture on Physics.

Fundamentally, anyone who has what they consider to be "the truth" is going to want to spread that truth. At the very least, they aren't going to stand in the way of spreading that truth.

Except for the Scientologists. They are absolutely opposed to having some of their "truth" get out there; for example, the Operating Theta stuff. They'll go so far as to sue to prevent people from reading about their truth. I find that downright bonkers. What does Xenu have to hide?

[iemitsu]

39. The roman Catholic Church did not allow the Bible to be produced

(or by default, read) in the vernacular until 1962. The priest was supposed to be an intermediary between the supplicant and the God. This was one of the complaints that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and other Protestant reformers leveled against the church.
Despite today's trend by "mainstream" messianic and polytheistic world religions, to promote the reading of their sacred texts, those texts are not really open to interpretation by the uninitiated. All employ the same tactic toward those, who do not embrace what they read in the texts. The faithful will accuse the outsider, who questions dogma found in sacred manuscripts, of misinterpretation or of having misread the text. Or they might even accuse the questioning reader of malicious attitude and or intent. The misguided reader will be marginalized, discredited, and shunned if he/she tries to vocalize their findings.
While all organizations, including churches, try to defend themselves from their critics, there are powerful forces that make it tough to leave an organization, of which you have been an active member.
Ridicule, harassment, shunning, and our innate cognitive dissonance are major dynamics that work to strengthen one's affiliation with their church.
So, while it seems odd that the Scientologist's don't want outsiders reading their sacred texts, really no group wants that kind of openness.
Our government does not want us to know what kinds of information they associate with our names, or about other bits of information, that they fear would lessen their control over us. In other words, we cannot know what happens behind the curtains or we won't be fooled by the game.
IMO, this rule holds true for politics, for religion, for the economy, in society, and in the way we defend ourselves. One must be a good sport and play by the rules.

[bettyellen]

48. Meh, people have been able to read and study different scholars interpretations

of the Bible through both Talmudic scholars and Christian ones for centuries. There has been open debate within believers for hundreds of years.

[iemitsu]

50. Yes but that debate is between believers,

not between believers and non-believers.

[bettyellen]

54. non-believers have added to the debate too. and many of the believers do not believe or

interpet the writings the same. I couldn't say it's been comparable to what Scientology has done at all. Suing people for revealing their volcano secrets and what not. The weird magical stuff in Christianity, conversely- is some of the most well known stuff. I'm going to argue that at least people know what they are buying onto early on.

[oberliner]

43. Scientologists push their literature all the time

They very much go out of their way to encourage people to read Dianetics. They used to have commercials on TV about it.

[bettyellen]

46. They hide the really weird stuff, till you have spent

a great deal of time and money - on their "courses". By then, your have suffered years of mental abuse, are usually very deep in debt and have cut off all ties to friends and family. And these people blackmail you with their recordings of your darkest secrets.
And they have sued people over revealing their higher level course work- the parts with the aliens in volcanos - the higher level stuff that would scare most away.

[oberliner]

47. Interesting

Thanks for that info.

[bettyellen]

49. between the black mail (L Ron used to play the tapes for his own amusement)

which happens very early, and the isolation via poverty and loss of any social connections they do a number on people. They offer them "work" which is below min wage and goes for 7 days a week 10 hours a day and housing so they get every penny back and you are surrounded by them 24/7. They have thousands of lawyers who squash lawsuits, and enforcers who intimidate those who want to leave. One woman who spoke out came home to find her dog brutally murdered after suffering years of harassment for trying to leave.
Starting in the late 70's, they made a huge effort to popularize themselves by gaining celebrities (who -in contrast- they treat like royalty) by going after the Hollywood community. Actors are encouraged to aim high and latch on to biggest celebrities they can convert. Travolta and Cruise came in via their partners. Elvis's daughter latched on to Michael Jackson in an attempt to bring him into Scientology.

[oberliner]

51. You know a lot about this topic.

I am still learning. Can you recommend a book on the subject?

[bettyellen]

52. Because I have a friend who lost a best friend to it, and he tried really hard to help him out of it

the guy lives in a building they own in Manhattan and yet he is completely isolated from his former life and - if he is like most- forever in debt to them for the tens of thousands of dollars worth or course work they pushed on him.
I am actually looking for a book myself- much of what I learned was from articles and this site: http://www.xenu.net
I think it's finally hosted on a USA based isp- they were suing them for a long time and used to be hosted on a European addy because of that. Some very chilling stories there.

[CanSocDem]

65. Pssst...

Here's the secret: Your mind controls everything and their bio-feedback machine shows you how to make it work for you.

I'll let you know when the lawsuits start.


.

[Dr. Strange]

66. Xenu is displeased.

Xenu will hurt you. Xenu will put legos on the floor by your bed while you sleep. Xenu is giving your cell phone number to telemarketers.

[XemaSab]

70. .

[iemitsu]

40. Your argument in this thread is clear and sound.

Thank you for your insight. Your comments are easily understood and shed light on how hard it is to be unbiased and analytical toward groups, when you are a member.
It is difficult to step outside your own world and see yourself as others might see you. The same for your affiliations and behaviors.
You have expressed this well.

[Scurrilous]

8. Thanks.

K & R

[mzmolly]

11. I've always liked Leah Remini.

Good for her!

[TxDemChem]

13. I've known about Scientology's existence for only about a decade,

and always thought it was a bit off, but last week I happened upon an Irreligiosophy podcast covering it (the 2 hosts actually visited a site for info) and learned just how wacky it is. The biography Scientology presents for L. Ron Hubbard is hilarious. Unofficial biographers tell a COMPLETELY different story. Check it out if you get a chance.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Xenu is not amused.

[Logical]

28. Watch the Southpark episode about Scientology, it is a classic! n-t

[Codeine]

29. She's an idiot.

One moment of clarity after being in that dumbshit cult for so long doesn't mean all that much.

[Avalux]

59. She was indoctrinated by her parents, she didn't choose it.

At the very young age of 7....brainwashed. I think she's very brave for having the strength to get free and speak out.

Maybe you should consider editing your post?

[Cha]

34. That is the weirdest shit.. it's hard to wrap my head

around anyone being in an org/religion or whatev it is. But, I'm not one for dogma of any kind.

[B Calm]

45. I heard she votes republican

[tabbycat31]

53. I just finished reading this book

And for anyone who is curious about Scientology, I would recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307700666/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375716984&sr=8-1&keywords=going+clear

[UTUSN]

55. Sounds good!1 Here's an article about weirdness involving the Jet Propulsion Lab & Aleister CROWLEY

and HUBBARD:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022942583

[olddots]

56. I've seen Scientology as a mafia in the arts .

you get " made" and career goals become easier ( so they say)

[brooklynite]

62. And how, exactly, did she get in?