Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Replies: 1 (Who?), Viewed: 1010 times. | Locked by: jhd1189 Reason: Thread closed -- See inside for details.
Quick Reply
Search this Thread
Sisaly
Scholar
Original Poster
#1 Old 6th Aug 2009 at 4:04 AM
Default Scientology, the Bad, the Worse the...Will Smith?
I believe that Will Smith and his wife Jada are secret Scientologists. Last year they opened a private school that employs several Scientologists.

New Village Academy

Anonymous met with Will and was assured that he NOT a Scientologist. We all know that he and Tom Cruise have become best buds.

Now, Will and his wife have fired the Head of New Village Academy.

Exclusive: Will and Jada Fire Head of School

They have replaced her with Piano Foster. Yes, that's her name. She has taken Scientology courses.
Scientology Completion Services=Piano Foster

Now if you read the article I linked you will see that Will and Jada had a problem with Dr. Oliver speaking out against Study Tech.

Quote: Originally posted by Wikipedia
Study technology, or study tech, is a methodology for learning developed by L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology. Hubbard's "Study Tech" is used by Church of Scientology members as part of their training, and is also promoted outside the church by a church-affiliated corporation known as Applied Scholastics, which presents study tech as a universally applicable method to enhance the comprehension of any student, studying any topic.

In study tech, it is said that there are three "barriers" which can prevent students from learning: misunderstood words, lack of a physical presence of a subject, and proceeding through course materials too quickly (without fully understanding previous concepts).

Though both Applied Scholastics and the Church of Scientology say that Hubbard's study tech is tremendously effective, no supporting evidence has appeared in educational journals or other third-party publications. The study tech materials have gained little acceptance among public school administrators or scholars of educational theory.

It was publicly stated by Hubbard that study tech is directly affiliated with Scientology. He wrote in a policy letter that "Study Tech is our primary bridge to Society."


So they get rid of the person that has decided that Study Tech isn't beneficial and replace her with someone that is at the very least exceptionally receptive to Scientology methods, if not the religion itself.

So, I think we need a good ole debate about Scientology. I'm for religious freedom but what really defines religion? Government endorsement? Number of followers? Number of celebrity followers? Money brought in?

And is the Church targeting celebrities? It appears so.

Quote: Originally posted by Wikipedia
Critics of Scientology point to the fact that Hubbard launched "Project Celebrity" in 1955 to recruit celebrities into the church and say that the centres were established for this purpose, because celebrity members give Scientology the publicity it needs to achieve further expansion. According to former publicity officer Robert Vaughn Young, "One of my jobs was to get celebrities active, to convince them to hustle and promote Scientology". The head of the Los Angeles Celebrity Centre is Tom Davis, the son of actress and Scientologist Anne Archer.


I would link to Why We Protest, but I believe it's against the forum rules. Plenty more there about the Smiths, plus Anonymous' ongoing campaign to have the COS tax exempt status revoked in the countries it receives it.

Due to the 'religious' aspect of my post I'm putting it in Debate and not Off Topic.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." ~Albert Einstein
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.~F.D.R.
Advertisement
jhd1189
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#2 Old 6th Aug 2009 at 5:15 AM Last edited by jhd1189 : 6th Aug 2009 at 6:20 AM. Reason: Sorry... I meant "general", not "legal"...
I'm not really sure that this constitutes as a debate... speculating about someone's religious beliefs is mostly just gossip, and debating whether or not Scientology counts as a religion is sort of a moot point, since it fits the general definition of one. However, if you would still like to discuss this topic in a broader sense, I think you could probably bring it up in the Religion Debate, since it seems relevant.
There's always money in the banana stand.
 
Back to top