4 ms·

This was a much more telling article than the culties would ever want to admit. Read it. Carefully. Notice how they ever talk about buildings, and never people.

This was a much more telling article than the culties would ever want to admit. Read it. Carefully. Notice how they ever talk about buildings, and never people. Were this legitimate growth, we'd see much more information on the numbers, and of the people, filling these rooms. We'd see them announcing from the rooftops the number of "clears" they've made over the past five years. Instead, it's the same old story, of hollow husks of buildings constructed. of Miscavige in photo after photo looking exactly the same. The deletion of critical comments was equally telling of how desperate The Atlantic was in making sure the church got their squeaky image. From the story being told, giving the sales department editorial control over these comments is just wrong headed and asinine. Which leads to the scarier question -- exactly how high up the chain was this decision made? Forcing community content moderators to eschew their standards in order to make a few bucks makes me question any desire to read the Atlantic in the future, regardless of if they pulled the content or not.

tptacek 14y ago
Um, yes, this was definitely not an attempt to do an evenhanded or professional job of reporting on the Church of Scientology. You are right.
ekianjo 14y ago
Well, at least it was clearly mentioned that it was a sponsored article. There are so many times that articles are "bought" by advertisers or other parties while the contents pretend to be legit (not specific to The Atlantic, I am talking about the press in general).
- Peroni 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial
temphn 14y ago
What is bizarre is this: how are they getting the money to build all these huge, fancy buildings and hold these kinds of ceremonies? This must be hundreds of millions of dollars. And they aren't all in podunk towns; one was even in Israel. Are they that good at wringing money out of people? Wow.
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure the whole "religion" is designed as a machine to extract the maximum possible amount of money from psychologically vulnerable people. Basically it's like an RPG - you level up slowly, paying gradually more as you move up the stages. The level of craziness starts off low then climbs in step as you effectively prove at each step that you are credulous enough to swallow the next stage up. So they don't tell you about the alien spirits reborn in volcanoes until they are well and truly sure you will fall for it (and the accompanying multi-thousand dollar tomes of gold-lettered L. Ron Hubbard-penned secret ultimate final truth (oops - ultimate until the next stage!)) And there are all sorts of ways in which doing the right thing and supporting your new friends involves parting with lots of money - for doing so of course you are congratulated and told you are wonderful by your new best friends.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    > I'm pretty sure the whole "religion" is designed as a machine to extract the maximum possible amount of money from psychologically vulnerable people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ro...
    - jwdunne 14y ago
      I know the BBC have had some bad press lately with the child sex abuse scandal, making them not-so-angelic, but I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe the BBC would organise a protest anywhere. It'd probably illegal for them to do do, but I'm not 100% on that. The BBC is funded by us, UK residents, and if we own a television that allows us to watch TV as its aired then we are forced to pay a fee by law. I would find it a total misappropriation of funds if they were to organise any kind of protest and I would insulted if they were to assume my allegiance like that - I'm sure MANY would feel the same. Don't get me wrong, I do not support Scientology and I think they're a very shady organisation but I pay the BBC for television, not to organise protests.
      - 14y ago
brown9-2 14y ago
1) it wasn't an article 2) why do you assume that the Church of Scientology feels bound to be honest about how many members they've gained in a Church of Scientology advertisement?

tptacek 14y ago

Um, yes, this was definitely not an attempt to do an evenhanded or professional job of reporting on the Church of Scientology. You are right.

ekianjo 14y ago

Well, at least it was clearly mentioned that it was a sponsored article. There are so many times that articles are "bought" by advertisers or other parties while the contents pretend to be legit (not specific to The Atlantic, I am talking about the press in general).

Peroni 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial

temphn 14y ago

What is bizarre is this: how are they getting the money to build all these huge, fancy buildings and hold these kinds of ceremonies? This must be hundreds of millions of dollars. And they aren't all in podunk towns; one was even in Israel. Are they that good at wringing money out of people? Wow.

corporalagumbo 14y ago
I'm pretty sure the whole "religion" is designed as a machine to extract the maximum possible amount of money from psychologically vulnerable people. Basically it's like an RPG - you level up slowly, paying gradually more as you move up the stages. The level of craziness starts off low then climbs in step as you effectively prove at each step that you are credulous enough to swallow the next stage up. So they don't tell you about the alien spirits reborn in volcanoes until they are well and truly sure you will fall for it (and the accompanying multi-thousand dollar tomes of gold-lettered L. Ron Hubbard-penned secret ultimate final truth (oops - ultimate until the next stage!)) And there are all sorts of ways in which doing the right thing and supporting your new friends involves parting with lots of money - for doing so of course you are congratulated and told you are wonderful by your new best friends.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > I'm pretty sure the whole "religion" is designed as a machine to extract the maximum possible amount of money from psychologically vulnerable people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ro...
  - jwdunne 14y ago
    I know the BBC have had some bad press lately with the child sex abuse scandal, making them not-so-angelic, but I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe the BBC would organise a protest anywhere. It'd probably illegal for them to do do, but I'm not 100% on that. The BBC is funded by us, UK residents, and if we own a television that allows us to watch TV as its aired then we are forced to pay a fee by law. I would find it a total misappropriation of funds if they were to organise any kind of protest and I would insulted if they were to assume my allegiance like that - I'm sure MANY would feel the same. Don't get me wrong, I do not support Scientology and I think they're a very shady organisation but I pay the BBC for television, not to organise protests.
    - 14y ago

brown9-2 14y ago

1) it wasn't an article 2) why do you assume that the Church of Scientology feels bound to be honest about how many members they've gained in a Church of Scientology advertisement?