New Statesman hawking Scientology pseudoscience

[Big Les]

This (http://www.newstatesman.com/200802190002) is the second column extolling the virtues of Scientology in as many weeks from this Eckersley guy. He comes across as sincere and full of the joys of spring, toeing the party line that Scientology is just another fluffy-bunny hugging lovefest neo-religion. But come on - what other religion would openly claim in a newspaper piece that:

For example, in his twenties, my brother was able to rid himself of 19 years of asthma through Dianetics procedures. My first wife, after several years of non-conception, was diagnosed as totally incapable of bearing children, yet later gave birth to our two beautiful girls as a direct result of Scientology spiritual counselling.

As well as the usual support for the pseudo-scientific and anti-psychiatry, psychology and medication front groups of Narconon, Crimonon, CCHR etc.

[blauregen]

On account of not wishing to be labeled a suppresive person: I am happy that the gentleman found some comfort and peace in his religion. ;)

[Susan Gerbic]

Yeah but...can Scientology grow back a lost leg? I am waiting for THAT religion. Not that I don't have all my legs but....

Susan

[cresur]

Yeah but...can Scientology grow back a lost leg? I am waiting for THAT religion.

I used to swear by that argument too, until I saw that a man who lost a piece of its finger saw it grow back (http://www.livescience.com/health/070219_regrow_fingers.html).

Granted, it was because of the "mysterious" effects of "pig extract" on the human (or his) body, but if that man had religious convictions, it'd be a nuisance.

[krelnik]

Did you notice that Randi himself posted a comment at the bottom of the article linked in the OP?

[AgeGap]

Kenneth Eckersley (http://www.newstatesman.com/200802180003) says:- "In later posts I shall discuss..... why Scientology has been attacked."
That sounds fun. (Unless by discuss he means shill for.)

[Big Les]

That does read like Randi himself - I hope it is. I know he hasn't shied away from calling the Rondroids out on their more testable BS (like the e-meter).

As for this +PR drive, it's all very Fred Carr, isn't it? I suppose it's a step up from "always attack, never defend".

[Thing]

Would that be the same Kenneth Eckersleye who in 1994 falsely "said to the Reverend Michael John Ovey that [John Atack] had raped someone and tried to murder someone else, and that he was continually taking drugs"?

http://www.religio.de/atack/hh402401.html

[Susan Gerbic]

I used to swear by that argument too, until I saw that a man who lost a piece of its finger saw it grow back (http://www.livescience.com/health/070219_regrow_fingers.html).

Granted, it was because of the "mysterious" effects of "pig extract" on the human (or his) body, but if that man had religious convictions, it'd be a nuisance.

So the best God can do is grow a piece of finger back, with the help of science?


Susan

[Big Les]

Would that be the same Kenneth Eckersleye who in 1994 falsely "said to the Reverend Michael John Ovey that [John Atack] had raped someone and tried to murder someone else, and that he was continually taking drugs"?

http://www.religio.de/atack/hh402401.html

That'll be the one. Well done sir!

[cresur]

So the best God can do is grow a piece of finger back, with the help of science?

Oh, for a believer that is a day in the park.

[Olowkow]

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scngen.htm

Very interesting missive by Jonathan Caven-Atack.

[Whiplash]

So the best God can do is grow a piece of finger back, with the help of science?


Susan


But if there really was a "God", he wouldn't ever want to do anything so obvious and dramatic which could be seen as proof of his existence, as that would destroy the entire notion of faith. If there is proof of "God", people don't have the freedom to choose to believe or disbelieve. It would just be a given fact. He wants people to accept him without the proof, that is said the be the entire point.

I realize the entire notion of faith without proof is just a rationalization by those who continue to believe despite the fact that there has never been any solid, tangible proof of the existence of a God.

And I'm not arguing it's a solid and reasonable foundation for their beliefs. I'm just saying that considering what they do believe, asking them why God doesn't do solid, tangible things that would prove his existence makes absolutley no sense to them. They are going to just go "Duh?" in response.

It's not a good argument to convince them. It actually plays into their hands, and in fact, I have seen many relgious types who become smug as they handwave away such arguments. It leaves them feeling vindicated in their belief because the person attacking their belief just "doesn't get it", and therefore they "win" that debate. I don't understand why people think it's a good argument.

[rjh01]

At least most of the comments in the link in the OP are critical of Scientology.

[AgeGap]

Still a mystery why the NewStatesman is giving space to any religious opinion never mind racist, pro apartheid LRons cult.

[B3LYP/CEP-31G(d)]

That does read like Randi himself - I hope it is. I know he hasn't shied away from calling the Rondroids out on their more testable BS (like the e-meter).

As for this +PR drive, it's all very Fred Carr, isn't it? I suppose it's a step up from "always attack, never defend".

Must you bring Ron Paul into this?

[Big Les]

For the love of Hubbard:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200802200001

He's at it again. Are they *paying* for this advertising space or what?

[AgeGap]

I know I am not the man for the job but if anyone can string a few sentences together can't they do a counter piece? NewStatesman has contact details on its website. They may be willing to give a bit of space to the SPs. Hasn't Kenny got nice hair? Is that mandatory in the C0$?

[Czarcasm]

I love all the anonymous COSers that are complaining about anonymous people telling the truth about Scientology. Hypocrisy in its purest form.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That'll be the one. Well done sir!

Did this get to court? What was the ruling? I can't find the answer myself after a bit of Googling. If the ruling was against the $cientologists involved, possiblely someone could let the New Statesman know.

[Czarcasm]

Did this get to court? What was the ruling? I can't find the answer myself after a bit of Googling. If the ruling was against the $cientologists involved, possiblely someone could let the New Statesman know.I haven't found anything on that case yet, either. I noticed the cheesy attempts by the COSers to change the subject to psychiatry, btw. I try to call them on it whenever possible.

[Big Les]

Interesting that back in '97, Eckersley denied links to Scientology:

'We are all so relieved. People objected to the prospect of having former drug addicts in the village and reacted with a positive demonstration.' Despite bowing out, Mr Eckersley said: 'We've even been accused of belonging to the Church of Scientology. It's just not true.'
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/sources/media/dm010397.htm

(A Daily Mail quote, so bear in mind he might have been misquoted. Then again, CoS did used to deny it.)

[Czarcasm]

Would you believe four in a row? http://www.newstatesman.com/200802220008
Of course, like all Scientology writers, he continues on without answering any of the questions asked.

[KarlG]

Must be a Friday thing, i read the OP expecting to read that Stephen Hawking had become a scientologist, i need to get out more :)

KarlG

[Jackalgirl]

Must be a Friday thing, i read the OP expecting to read that Stephen Hawking had become a scientologist, i need to get out more :)

KarlG

Me too! Man, it must definitely be time to go to bed. ; )

[Big Les]

Would you believe four in a row? http://www.newstatesman.com/200802220008
Of course, like all Scientology writers, he continues on without answering any of the questions asked.

Unbelievable. When they said "every week", I assumed they meant one article. Looks like it's the whole column, for a whole week. I assume this is his "attacks on Scientology" opus we were promised.

His claim that;
It is now common knowledge that the mass killings in American schools are uniformly carried out by youth on prescribed mind-altering psychiatric drugs who did not engage in violence prior to such drugging.

...is pretty disingenuous (if not outright untrue), as is much of the rest of it.

Time for email number three I think.

[Czarcasm]

I've got a few for every week, myself.

[Czarcasm]

I'm trying to figure out if it's different Scientologists posting in a set pattern, or the same dude doing a name change-up every day or so. I suspect the latter.