MovieChat Forums > Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (2016) Discussion > I believe Leah Remini is sincere in her ...

I believe Leah Remini is sincere in her intentions - anyone agree???


Hello everyone. Unfortunately, probably due to my age, Im quite a bit cynical. I almost always have doubts about someones intentions. Usually, when you get to the bottom of why someone does something like this, it's either A. for the money B. some kind of self promotion or C. They need the attention. I have to say I wasn't getting any of these vibes from Remini. In reality, a lot of what Ive seen in this program corroborates the "Going Clear" documentary that came out last year. I think Leah is passionate and really believes that Scientology is hurting people and wants to educate them. I should say I also believe RInder is sincere about his distaste for Scientology - although I believe he has another motive to be involved in this - that being whatever money he got to do it. Going back to Remini though, I think her intentions are completely sincere. She has a strong desire to announce to people "EITHER STAY OUT OF OR GET OUT OF THIS THING CALLED SCIENTOLOGY!!!". If there are selfish motivations on her part, I cant see them. ANyway, thats my take and Id love to see how other people feel.....

reply

This is my second time watching some of it and I agree that she is sincere but what matters is what they believe, and some things are controversial, like if you listen closely what do you hear... other things not to do it well I don't know if there is a way for there to be organized religion... but it's not going to be as important as their beliefs or you can throw it out and they don't lose all the time and if it's 15% unfair that is more fair for publicity but when she points out that her guests can leave the church and not be harassed, how do they feel?

I'm a hindu and I respect L Ron as a god in some form because he has greatness (but not as much if you make him god, but I'm not going to get into how I define it, rules, just another guy like that, but that's great too) but the difference between him and every other god that I know is that if you pray dumb then he will try to get you but that could speed learning and the other one is space travel can be done religiously but it's just not fashionable in modern times (like would your Christian church tell you but maybe if you were Catholic eventually you could get real answers, like a code how to do it) and no ones else is going to tell us so openly....

giving him a title and changing my religions is a different thing but it's not going to be important as what they believe and it's not all bad...

these auditing courses, you're paying money for them to audit your wrong and their might be parts of relgion we don't like (we do not know if the leaders were UPHOLDING values or not and that's why it doesn't matter JUST what they did) but if someone kept on throwing money for an audit not admitting something, kept on getting punched and paying, what more civilized way to eliminate a problem if they deem it so and get away with it? Cuz if we don't do that to anyone that's blocking progress society will not be well functioning.

But who knows from this documentary? We need to get away from fantasy analysis too and just admit to what we would have to accept with an organized religion of this magnitude and then deem if it is smart enough for the payoff....

but I could go to some hindu source and get some on space travel or something I guess and I'm not getting it directly from them but so could a jew Christian or muslim so something good might come from us a couple hundred years from now, a fashionable cultural shift towards this type of space exploration, and then these guys are great for us getting our rights from our systems.

There's religion and then there's organized religion. And religions like Scientology and Catholicism are among the most organized. So there's a way the hindu guy it's hard to explain but our connections to the system is more subconscious and not as vivid, like something was cut down from the start for our safety. Or catholocism is very confusing and delays development but the way it's organized, there's no way if I really wanted I couldn't get an answer.

But when these get dangerous, is it done randomly or in a civil manner? I would Leah presents the information in a way that many with discernment would think it's civilized... people pay for audits and go to 'over time' levels (is this time they're wasting or to get away?) and then even when it goes worst case scenario, at least it's in a system to go somewhere for apportionment, and it's rare, but the way you're paying for an audit reaching over time levels on a personal disagreement where at every level, the level of risk increases slowly, it's pretty civilized....

But when you get to Protestantism, it could make sense like islam or catholicism or judiasm for example through the ten commandments, and then a 'false god' or a representation of the elohim (the real jews and muslims that convey their god's message or story) or maybe there are other ways for Christianity to make sense that are unknown to me (but at least I understand the masonic judiasm through the ten commandments and the elohim way) but if that was for a protestant to know, who knows if they will ever know?

And then everything the Catholic and Scientology church publishes about their dangerous, who knows if Protestants could ever say?

But the way Christianity is organized it could be dangerous, but the trade is all askew with Protestantism... it's workable to many but TOO MANY will never get to a reasonable level and think in a way that makes too much knowledge go away.

Cuz Catholocism was originally designed to be confusing but too many answers given to too many people for them ALL to lie to a reasonable person forever... but when that's the fundamental design, there needs to be extra control if you're going to take advantage of the extra services.

I would say the real collectively bad religions are forms of Protestanism because they are harmful to the overall human evolutionary development. When it gets to Catholocism, it could be collectively bad (unknown territory) but for an individual he could use it to evolve in a way that it reasonably helps the collective evolution. If it's too organized there are already muslims and jews who pray to the same god so there are already two reasonable options and then beyond that the way it's dangerous we know in the old testament when the population grows and there are too many people on the earth to get in the under religion systems like satanism in Christiany which becomes direct worship of Brahma in hinduism (more rare).... there are too many people and this type of god, Beezlebub or Balaal to a Christian or Brahma to a Hindu (extremely rare to pray too) needs less people to pray to him directly because he is more prone to have followers in law enforcement and if too many people pray to him directly, it might get child molestery, so he needs help in not becoming a child molester and for people to see him through another diety, and then he still sees himself as god, but maybe he would rather see someone else personally.... but some people just have a relationship with god that even if they don't pray to Brahma or Balaal directly they frame their prayers in a wasteful manner that it has some of the same effect... so you can't accept it completely. So if you accept the other two in the old testament there is a false idol idea (which is still god as a representation of the Elohim like a real jew or muslim, really trying to understand stuff) and there will always be sinners but the jews and masonic jews (really jews but comparing ten commandments to somewhat false practices) round them up with this false idol (or real as a representation of the elohim) to contain their damage as best they can, but then according to the old testament they are already worse, but at least identifying, vs someone in another religion not identifying the potential to be the secret jew or babysitter....

That one I understand... and I know we have to accept Catholics because of that old testament reasoning if we want to accept muslims and jews... but now there are three choices and Protestantism, if Scientology was replaced with that one, it just got stupid. Now I can make reasoned points and stuff at least.

Catholocism because of the old testament and the flood of people yadda yadda yadda even if it is questioned is a team player. Like the south park characters, not everyone is Kenny McCormick or even Butters, or even Stan but he is too confused to lead on his own, but Cartman and Kyle are heroes in a way or villians in another way, but to study the effect, it's better to look at the team effect... and then I can't say cuz it's arguably mandatory if we accept Jews or 10 commandment based Islam (cuz the problem would spread more without it). Protestantism, someone might never tell a reasonable seeker reasonable things and it is based on a religion that is innately confusing and that takes time to understand... without a strong centralized authority, it could get super dooper molestery with no advantage such as go to another Catholic church.

if the Pope just made a simple move like change the name to "the Church of masonic Judaism through the pope and the cross of Jesus Christ" or something like that Protestantism would die, but a Christian of any sort could at least get a percentage of counseling one what is really somewhat reasonable to believe at a Catholic programming facility.

What is unjustifiable about Catholicism is the strong ties to Protestantism when simple moves could be done within to cut down on these misunderstandings... Whatever it is we need to hold Catholics accountable to make more INTERNAL moves to destroy the idiocy and propagation of Protestantism where now it is clearly not up to a reasonable specification when we are wallowing in the evolutionary retardation effect and it is no longer sustainable, and it never was acceptable, let alone for over a thousand years standing....

I'm editing this post without reading the top to explain a point about the ten commandments to understand why this could be the easiest path to Judaism and Jesus was a real Jew that did not believe that other conventional practices were that important as long as he used the ten commandments as a representation of the Elohim concept, he would be safe, just gaining understanding from upholding the ten commandments...


So what does that mean? If someone had qualms with being gay and wanted to switch to the eastern philosophy, really think about this one.... the first level is could someone be a homosexual that way and what does that mean if it is even possible? And then there is a way it is or not but the more important point as someone downplays one of the commandments, could anything else good come from it? Could it prevent adultery? Could it prevent stealing if prostitution was involved? Could it prevent murder for control? Or could nothing be upheld in a practical way from those actions? Well if it's the last one you know it's wrong, but if you break one then get cake off the others, layers of protection... it would help someone understand thinking and help him control himself from upset emotional states.... then someone could engage in any religious practice even as a farce because there would be a distinction, but people could still sincerely be gaining understanding from those practices...

It would help save on the nature of the wrong, and every point counts... it's an easy way to try and Jesus was a real Jew that way, through the ten commandments, not favoring so much most of the other practices. Maybe that highlights itself as the easiest way to do it, or among them, but at the same time any Catholic that would be a reasonable seeker of the information would 'get it' or 'get it the right way' but a Protestant may not even hear that much with a solid understanding, and many religious authorities may not have that level of understanding or the means to ask the right person to get it for the next guy.

But even the way it's divided up hints at the ten commandments in a way, but then they would change the 'false god' (and my god isn't a name I can say without fear and someone has to to glorify it so I know I'm safe with the Jews and Muslims on that point) or something... this Jesus archetype delays understanding so the system has to be highly organized and we have to accept the trade for that level of bureaucracy. The Muslims did it with another so why would Jesus even be used in protest? Protest it with another figure. In the past it may have rested on an exercise or something of that nature (you can go to a boxing gym to learn it) but not in modern times because the information cannot be saved without the organization and it was inherently designed to be initially confusing, because maybe slowing stuff down could save the next guy for example.

But that's what the ten commandments means. It could save a lot, make the world better, alleviate fears, but in a practical way for that reason... doesn't mean no mistake was ever made but if we learn from it we reap well from what was sown.

I have not read the Koran but I think the Islamic system and this is just a guess pretty much or how it appears on the surface but now with doubt is that Allah is 'all law' because there is a way you have to let everything in because there is a way that any or everything could be god or a part of it's being but we need codes that help us prosper but adding to the good for all.... and too many people are being misled. But if you let in all law whatever the Egyptian Warlord (among other things) didn't catch that god could probably catch it but with some implosion from the thought of all the other laws imploding in.... So that's how Mohammed I think do it but with doubt unlike Jesus who is force fed to me in my society but it's not the same as making this guy or that guy god.... And I'm not going to get into it for me personally because most guys and gals attacking Scientology should probably at least be told about the ten commandments and what means first.... but the "Allah is all law" I have heard before but cannot directly say I have read from the knowledge of the Koran.... but that's their replacement for Jesus and a lot easier for many to digest, and they could secretly be real Jews that way, but if they were not it wouldn't be so confusing among so many, how it throws off the collective genome of humanity, that confusion....

Because with Protestantism you cannot guarantee that in every town reasonable things could ever be told (what if there was only one church) so the way the decentralization is off, it has no advantages to Catholicism that wouldn't be suited to Judaism, Christianity, or you could let the ten commandments invade any religion, or any philosophy and figure it out that way, but in some manner of speaking, as a farce to understand the 10 commandments as a Masonic Jew.

reply

I'm leaning toward sincerity, but sometimes I'm suspicious of their vague descriptions. I want specifics. The stories from the escapees are pretty believable, though. Admittedly, I haven't watched each episode from beginning to end, but I wonder how these escapees seem financially successful after being locked up for so long. Also, what do they actually do in Hemet?

reply

I definitely find her sincere

reply

I've watched every episode and most of the escapees have called friends or family members who were no longer or never in the cult. They get on a bus, plane, etc. and join that family elsewhere and start over. The one woman (can't remember her name right now) made an eye appointment at WalMart and snuck out the back. When she got to the bus station, the CoS goons were right behind and tried to physically remove her. She managed to get away and join her husband who had escaped weeks before.

If your CHURCH holds you like a prisoner, you are a prisoner, not a parishioner. If you have to make secret plans to get out and fear being apprehended, how is that not holding someone against their will? And why can't they be sued for that? I want to see them go down in flames, particularly Miscavage. Or as someone on another board called him, Miss Cabbage. He's a psychopath.

reply

If your CHURCH holds you like a prisoner, you are a prisoner, not a parishioner. If you have to make secret plans to get out and fear being apprehended, how is that not holding someone against their will?
It is holding some against their will, but seems the Church has figured out what they can legally do on the front and not. Not illegal to put up barbered wire fences, insist on monitoring calls on their phones, requiring people to not talk to people who leave the church to themselves stay in, or even hiring private investigators to follow people.

Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make it criminal either.

reply

requiring people to not talk to people who leave the church to themselves stay in


Actually, that is NOT legal. Even Cloistered nuns can have visits from loved ones and can leave the order should they choose to.

reply

They can't require people not to talk to certain folks, but they can tell people they will be kicked out if they do. Just like the KKK can say have dinner with a black person and we will revoke your membership.

That is legal. If it is not, you will have to point out what law it goes against.

reply

Just like the KKK can say have dinner with a black person and we will revoke your membership.




Well, I'm not a member of the kkk, so I'll have to take your word for it.


reply

Just pointing out another odious private organization that could do the same. Horrendous and criminal actions are just not one and the same, even if they can be.

reply

No, you are just pulling things out of your azz is what you are doing.

In the 1990's, the Clinton administration had a federal case against some kkk group somewhere demanding them turn over their list of members.

60 Minutes or some other news show interviewed the guy who was being sued, and his lawyer was a black man from the ACLU.

Unless you are privy to the rules from the kkk and are willing to post them then it is stupid to say that they'll kick you out for having dinner with a black person. Seriously. Most members want their anonymity so they can keep up their stupidity without facing any back-lash. What do you think is going to happen when someone gets kicked out? Why wouldn't they go to the media and list names as revenge?

And, it is illegal to keep the members from speaking to outsiders.

reply

And, it is illegal to keep the members from speaking to outsiders.
Again what law does that violate if the only stick on it is loss of "membership."

Again, don't like Scientology one bit. Just looking at it from a legal perspective. And that "azz" I pull things out of is one that sat in a lot of law school seats.

reply

Again what law does that violate if the only stick on it is loss of "membership."


Kidnapping/keeping someone under duress. It is why OJ is in jail.

And that "azz" I pull things out of is one that sat in a lot of law school seats.


You obviously just sat in on them and didn't pay attention.

reply

Kidnapping requires a threat of physical force (and the crew OJ was with pulled a gun). Other laws like false imprisonment, extortion, blackmail and such could also apply but like I said there would have to be something more.

reply

Under
Duress

reply

Quite familiar what duress means in a legal sense....it mainly means the threat of physical force against you or another (say your spouse, child, etc.).

"We will kick you out of Scientology and threaten to do the same to your family if they keep talking to you after we do" does not qualify.

reply

"We will kick you out of Scientology and threaten to do the same to your family if they keep talking to you after we do" does not qualify.


So when did you become their spokesman? I mean, that sounds EXACTLY like someone from the COS would say - as opposed to what they REALLY say to the people.

Did you not see the interview with people who had to escape? Did you not hear them talking about what happens to people who try to leave?

You are being intellectually dishonest because "kicking them out" doesn't cover what they would do. It is "kicking you out with nothing since you gave up your money and possessions and you won't be able to communicate with any members of your family who stay behind."

reply

It is "kicking you out with nothing since you gave up your money and possessions and you won't be able to communicate with any members of your family who stay behind."
I know that is what it means....and it is disgusting.

Just talking what the law is. Not like I wrote it.

reply

They use the isolation and fear of abandonment as a way to control the members. That is a no-no under the law.

reply

They use the isolation and fear of abandonment as a way to control the members. That is a no-no under the law.
Again...what law?

I get you don't like Scientology (neither do I). Also know you don't think I paid enough attention in law school (and you may be right). Clearly you have a point here, but just wish you could express it more clearly than "no-no under the law" so I can at least get your point in a rational way.

If it is only that Scientology is disgusting, then I agree.


reply

Again...what law?


Under duress.

You are forced to do or not do something based upon the fear you have been given by someone who wishes to manipulate you.

reply

"Under duress" is not a law and even a component of a criminal statute only includes the threat of actual physical force.....not sure how else to explain it.

I know you thought I was making things up, but at this point have to ask where your knowledge on such comes from? Do you have any kind of experience in such?

Not to be harsh, but even if crim law was not my area....what you say does not make sense to me.

reply

Ugh. 

reply

Completely agree. Props to you for letting it go. And right with you on COS being scum.

reply

Yeah, I got tired of dealing with turds you are dropping every where.

reply

A smart move.

Clearly you can't back up from a factual/legal standpoint. You've left me with why you chose to attack when that was politely pointed, but I'll live with that question unresolved.

Hope today is a good one for you.

reply

Here is a DIRECT quote from you.

They can't require people not to talk to certain folks, but they can tell people they will be kicked out if they do. Just like the KKK can say have dinner with a black person and we will revoke your membership.




reply

Yes it is a direct quote....exactly what about that did you have a problem with? Already explained that think both the KKK and CO$ are odious.

So once more, unsure of your point.

reply

Yes it is a direct quote....exactly what about that did you have a problem with?


You equated something idiotic like the kkk "kicking someone out" for having dinner with a black man to the way the COS puts up fences and barbed-wire to keep their members in. Or how they don't allow them unsupervised contact with their family. Or how they threaten to kick people to the curb with no money or possessions or contact with whatever family members are still in the church.

Kick out a member of the kkk and he finds a new group to get involved in. He doesn't lose his home, money, family members. Heck, if he wants to simply quit or decides to move he can.


reply

Maybe you aren't old enough to know that the KKK used to hang people from trees.

So not a fan of that org (then or now) or Scientology (then or now). Still not sure why you are so wound up by what was brought up purely to illustrate how the law works (or may not) in terms of going after Scientology.

reply

Maybe you aren't old enough to know that the KKK used to hang people from trees.


I know all about them.

Still not sure why you are so wound up by what was brought up purely how to illustrate how the law works in terms of going after Scientology.


Because your illustration shows how ignorant you are. kkk members are free to leave when they want. They can move or simply quit. If, for some reason, they are kicked out, it has little bearing on their lives. They don't lose their home, possessions, money, ability to earn a living, kept from contacting family and friends still in the kkk, etc.

COS people are NOT free to quit. The CANNOT move when they want. If they get kicked out, they have NOTHING. They have NO MONEY. NO POSSESSIONS. May have no skills which would allow them to provide for themselves and their family in the real world. Are not allowed contact with family members who are still in the cos.

Yet, somehow you "think" that they are the same, and since it isn't an issue to kick someone out of the kkk, it isn't an issue to keep people IN the cos under duress.

Lower level member are NOT allowed to quit or to come and go as they please because of the threats, intimidation and "brainwashing" done to them.

reply

Because your illustration shows how ignorant you are.
Given that I agree with all you wrote about how horrific what Scientology does, agree what an evil organization it is, and knew all you wrote before you put it out....how does that make me ignorant?

Again, you were putting out legal conclusions, and I just used the KKK as an example of how the law works to make a point about what legally can and cannot be done. But you are fixated on the KKK as a hypothetical example to explain.

Know you think I am not a good lawyer, but at least was good enough to retire in my forties and at one point was entrusted by a top-tier law school to teach their students. So at least think might have some legal expertise to offer, but every time I try you just get angry. So am left adrift in even figuring out what your point is.

If you simply don't like me, am fine with that....but would be curious since we agree that Scientology is a most detestable thing.

reply

I'm not angry. I'm just amazed that you are so ignorant.

Your comparison is idiotic, and yet you use that to support your belief that the COS isn't doing anything wrong by keeping their members isolated and against their will.



reply

yet you use that to support your belief that the COS isn't doing anything wrong by keeping their members isolated and against their will.
But yet I do believe that is absolutely wrong.

Is it that you don't understand what I write to you or simply are having fun with this?

reply

Another direct quote from you.

Not illegal to put up barbered wire fences, insist on monitoring calls on their phones, requiring people to not talk to people who leave the church to themselves stay in, or even hiring private investigators to follow people.

reply

Yes it is what I said and it is correct as far as the law goes. Again, do you know what law those violate?

Maybe an easier way to go is just to ask what your purpose is. Clearly you don't want to talk logically. Are you just doing your own version of fair game for whatever reason.

reply

Yes it is what I said and it is correct as far as the law goes. Again, do you know what law those violate?


So you "think" that if you come over to my house and I put up barbed wire fence, take all of your money and possessions, not allow you any contact with other people outside of my house, and convince you that you will be abandoned and without means to survive if you try to leave that it is legal?

Dude, you are majorly effed up. 

reply

At this point am at least hoping for your sake that you are just having fun for whatever reason instead of simply being incapable of understanding. And we all effed up in our own way.

Do you have personal experience with Scientology in some way?

reply

None of which addressed your stupidity about thinking keeping people in the COS under duress is legal.

reply

Get that you think I am stupid and didn't pay attention in law school.

"And none addressed"....which of these did you not understand?

Kidnapping requires a threat of physical force (and the crew OJ was with pulled a gun). Other laws like false imprisonment, extortion, blackmail and such could also apply but like I said there would have to be something more.
Quite familiar what duress means in a legal sense....it mainly means the threat of physical force against you or another (say your spouse, child, etc.).

"We will kick you out of Scientology and threaten to do the same to your family if they keep talking to you after we do" does not qualify.
"Under duress" is not a law and even a component of a criminal statute only includes the threat of actual physical force.....not sure how else to explain it.

I know you thought I was making things up, but at this point have to ask where your knowledge on such comes from? Do you have any kind of experience in such?

Not to be harsh, but even if crim law was not my area....what you say does not make sense to me.


reply



reply

Cool enough. So you attack for not answering something, but then are bored by the facts on it already presented.

You are an interesting fellow.

reply

I'm bored with you. You still don't get it that people are being held against their will because they are being threatened and basically brainwashed.

Yet, you don't think that is illegal.

What else is there to talk about?

reply

And for about the fourth time agree that people are being held against their will by Scientology and think it horrible.

Like I said a number of times, didn't write the law.....was just telling you what it is. I just can't change what the law says for you, and seems you are blaming the messenger.

reply

So, brainwashing a person and threatening them if they leave a guarded compound is legal.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. You can stop posting now.

reply

So, brainwashing a person and threatening them if they leave a guarded compound is legal.
Once more depends on what is threatened.

reply

Loss of home, possession, ability to feed oneself, contact with family members being held under duress....

reply

"Loss of home" and "possession" -- if the people own those and CoS takes them, that would break the law. Threatening to do it by force would be extortion.

"Ability to feed oneself" -- how legally different from many bosses threatening to fire someone?

"Contact with family members being held under duress" -- back to what law on that? Given that the family members can choose to leave too....saw a lot who did in the show.

The cult is absolutely disgusting...but we have been talking about the law. I didn't write it.

reply

I believe her intent is noble because she in no way needs whatever money she is getting from this show... it would be a microfraction of what shes worth.

All this being said... i wonder why no one has tried to prosecute David Miscavige for assault. The guy has allegedly beat the holy hell out of a bunch of people which is a felony..... why not get some people together and prosecute the guy. If the drones of Scientology saw their lord and savior in a court room maybe it would open some more eyes.

I do think her primary intent is for the the church to let family members communicate with each other and not have to be totally cut off.

OHHH GOOOD FOR YOU!!

reply

agree. she seems very genuine to me

reply

While I agree with everyine she is sincere, I do wish for the sake of being fair there was some argument or some sort of input for the other side. I think Scientology is a whacked out religion, but all we are seeing is the crazy horrible stuff. There has to be something good they are doing or no one would join and stay. We got a few seconds of "it's ok early on" but we get nothing to explain why people stay, other than they constantly drill it in their heads. Its an extremely one sided show, and it's not that I feel bad for Scientology, but I think showing some of the good or the reasons people stay would help explain things better, rather than a constant bash fest on why they are pure evil. From what they have shown, I have seen nothing that would keep a sane person in there, and it actually is making me not feel sorry for these people by not showing anything good about the church. I realize there is a difference between those who join as adults and those who were raised in the church. I do feel sorry for the kids brought up in the church. But I feel she has only given a little lip service to showing anything positive about the church, and it's having the opposite effect than what she intended. If these people are this stupid for staying, it's getting harder for me to feel any empathy for them. Aside from being raised in it and the family aspect, I just don't get it still. But maybe it's me.

reply

When you ask someone a simple, direct question and they go out of their way to avoid giving a simple, direct answer, it is always proof that the person knows they cannot support their beliefs. The answer they want to give will prove that they are wrong.

They were given the chance to respond, but refused. That is quite telling right there.

Now, knowing it might be a hatchet job, I can understand their hesitation. Where I used to live, 60 Minutes came in to interview the police chief about charges of racism and harassment. Knowing it would be a hatchet job, he had his own film crew come in and record every last minute of the interview. Then, he made copies and gave it to the public library for everyone to view.

The whole interview showed the bias against the police and the chief.

COS could do the same thing, but then they'd look bad when they refused to answer the hard questions.

but we get nothing to explain why people stay,


They explained that the people were usually down on their luck people who saw the church as being able and willing to provide for them instead of having to do it themselves.

Think of it this way. We all know how bad it is in N. Korea, but if you live there and have food on your table, a roof over your head and are married with children, how bad do you have it? Compared to the freedom of other countries, it sucks. But, if your basic needs are met, then you don't mind singing songs and repeating the lies of little Kimmy.

reply



Now, knowing it might be a hatchet job, I can understand their hesitation. Where I used to live, 60 Minutes came in to interview the police chief about charges of racism and harassment. Knowing it would be a hatchet job, he had his own film crew come in and record every last minute of the interview. Then, he made copies and gave it to the public library for everyone to view.

The whole interview showed the bias against the police and the chief.

COS could do the same thing, but then they'd look bad when they refused to answer the hard questions.


I agree with you, and maybe bc of things like Katie Couric editing tapes of answers like she recently did(and not trying to make this political, both sides do it to a degree), I can also see why they would not want to be on the show. It's clearly going to paint them bad. Of course they do a good enough job on their own of making themsleves look bad lol. I sometimes am cynical of documentary shows when there is clearly an agenda. However, I do believe what Leah is saying, and they do need to be exposed.
I don't blame them for not cooperating, and rereading my post I probably came across as harsher on the members than I meant. I was just curious what about it makes people join and stay in the first place. Leah does touch on it and explain it, but when you then talk about all the bad stuff the church does, someone who is not caught up in it starts to ask why stay? But I think I need to look at like a domestic violence situation. I can not stand any man who does that, and wish we could castrate wife beaters. I know some situations, and I know why the women won't leave, no matter how often it happens. I guess these members are kind of like that, and are also blind to a lot of what is going on. What I didn't notice enough of, was that this show was for them just as much or if not more, than for the general public. When you look at it like that, the way it's made makes more sense to me.

reply

You're skepticism is justifiable. I try to look at what is said on the whole about a subject. As in, the "super-size me" cr*p documentary. No one from McDonald's has ever said that people should eat every last meal at McD's, super-size every meal, and stop doing exercise. So, when the guy does the documentary, you know it is for his agenda. (For the record, I hate McDonalds.)

With regards to COS, I've not heard anything good from anyone involved in the COS. I'm talking celebrities on down to ex-members who were just low-level.

The fact that Remini is willing to admit to her own stupidity, most everyone who has gotten out has had the same story, and the church treating their members like the Russian's did the people of E. Berlin tell me her agenda's one to help people rather than make a name for herself/money/simple revenge.

reply