60 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
Scientology from this public policy victory.
Scientology certainly parades its “remorseless
work to uncover the truth” about Chelmsford,57
and uses the campaign as a handy rebuttal to
media reports critical of the organization’s
unorthodox views on mental health.58
The “Melbourne Truth” Capitulation
In another example, illustrative of the broader
social and political importance of its campaign
for legal recognition, Scientology was able to
leverage its new found legal status as a religion
to extract a volte face from a newspaper which
had once been critical of the organization, and
had shown great verve in its use of ridicule.59 In
the early 1960s, with Scientology attempting to
establish a foothold in the state of Victoria, it
had come under attack from the Australian
Medical Association which was concerned about
its allegedly psychological services, and from
the Vice-Chancellor of the University of
Melbourne who expressed concern about its
overtures to students. In the media, the
“Melbourne Truth” enlivened the controversy
with articles exposing the “crank cult to end all
cults,” and coined the memorable word
“bunkumology.” The “Truth” alleged that
Scientology used IQ tests to encourage
susceptible young people to pay for expensive
courses to cure alleged homosexual tendencies
or to pass matriculation (a high school
graduation qualification). It was claimed that
Chandler, J. Macdonald, “Scientology’s ‘degraded beings,’” The
Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April 1991, p. 3) M. Knox reports
“for a brief moment, Scientology was seen as a white knight for
psychiatric patients. Another side soon emerged. An alleged
proponent of DST, Dr Alex Sinclair, had been targeted by the CHR
for his role in the 1965 banning of Scientology in Victoria” (idem,
“Only itself to blame: the Church of Scientology,” The Monthly,
September 2009, p. 34–43).
57 Church of Scientology International, What Is Scientology?, p.
294.
58 J. Conley, a Scientologist, responds in some detail to featured
extracts from R. Miller’s Bare-faced Messiah and cites the
“enormous social reform work” of the Church through the CCHR
exposing Chelmsford in particular (idem, “Scientology: the other
side,” The Weekend Australian, 16–17 January 1988, p. 22) M.
Hanna, another Scientologist, explains the opposition of the
Church to various psychiatric practices and cites the success of the
CCHR Chelmsford campaign (idem, “Scientology on Psychiatry,”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-20/37422 [29 September
2010]).
59 A secular observer might applaud ridicule or satire as an
effective use of free speech to deflate the fanciful claims of any
religion, but some scholars don’t appreciate the humour.
one student had been persuaded to discontinue
asthma treatment and that Scientology used
aggressive tactics to intimidate its critics.60
But by 1980, things had changed with respect to
the status of Scientology, if not its behaviour.
The change in status from “cult” to “religion”
led to a demeaning public retraction from the
editor of the “Truth.” It read: “The publishers of
the Truth wish to apologise to past and present
affiliates of the religion of Scientology if any
embarrassment has been caused to them. [‘The
Truth’] now accepts the integrity, and the
religious nature of Scientology [which was]
finally recognized as a religion by the Australian
Government in 1973.”61
So the 1973 ministerial proclamation authorizing
Scientology to conduct official marriage
ceremonies had paid dividends for the
organization. Indeed, Scientology had always
been fully cognizant of the advantage bestowed
by the 1973 fiat, which at the time was greeted
with jubilation by Scientologists. L. Ron
Hubbard himself was moved to declare, “there’s
no reason not to create a wildfire expansion in
Australia now. Disseminate more, train more,
audit more.” A number of “Liberal members of
Parliament in WA” (Western Australia)
reportedly “said that they would never have
banned Scientology if it had been a religion”62 to
which one might now add, particularly a religion
endorsed by Hollywood celebrities.
Movie Stars and Gaming Tsars
Scientology has long sought to be associated
with celebrity mates with media benefits,
particularly movie and popular music stars. The
organization has also cultivated the mega-rich
and therefore famous. In Australia, an
adornment for Scientology for a period was
James Packer (former media mogul turned
gaming Tsar). In the Australian vernacular
Packer is widely regarded as a “good bloke,”
whose life story and emergence from the shadow
60 Cited in S. Mutch, Cults, Religion, and Public Policy, p. 45
idem, “Scientologists in Australia,” p. 562.
61 Idem, Cults, Religion, and Public Policy, p. 168–169.
62 Scientology plans a big comeback, “The Melbourne Observer”
15 April 1973, p. 3 Religious status for Scientology, “The West
Australian,” 13 February 1973, p. 3.
Scientology from this public policy victory.
Scientology certainly parades its “remorseless
work to uncover the truth” about Chelmsford,57
and uses the campaign as a handy rebuttal to
media reports critical of the organization’s
unorthodox views on mental health.58
The “Melbourne Truth” Capitulation
In another example, illustrative of the broader
social and political importance of its campaign
for legal recognition, Scientology was able to
leverage its new found legal status as a religion
to extract a volte face from a newspaper which
had once been critical of the organization, and
had shown great verve in its use of ridicule.59 In
the early 1960s, with Scientology attempting to
establish a foothold in the state of Victoria, it
had come under attack from the Australian
Medical Association which was concerned about
its allegedly psychological services, and from
the Vice-Chancellor of the University of
Melbourne who expressed concern about its
overtures to students. In the media, the
“Melbourne Truth” enlivened the controversy
with articles exposing the “crank cult to end all
cults,” and coined the memorable word
“bunkumology.” The “Truth” alleged that
Scientology used IQ tests to encourage
susceptible young people to pay for expensive
courses to cure alleged homosexual tendencies
or to pass matriculation (a high school
graduation qualification). It was claimed that
Chandler, J. Macdonald, “Scientology’s ‘degraded beings,’” The
Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April 1991, p. 3) M. Knox reports
“for a brief moment, Scientology was seen as a white knight for
psychiatric patients. Another side soon emerged. An alleged
proponent of DST, Dr Alex Sinclair, had been targeted by the CHR
for his role in the 1965 banning of Scientology in Victoria” (idem,
“Only itself to blame: the Church of Scientology,” The Monthly,
September 2009, p. 34–43).
57 Church of Scientology International, What Is Scientology?, p.
294.
58 J. Conley, a Scientologist, responds in some detail to featured
extracts from R. Miller’s Bare-faced Messiah and cites the
“enormous social reform work” of the Church through the CCHR
exposing Chelmsford in particular (idem, “Scientology: the other
side,” The Weekend Australian, 16–17 January 1988, p. 22) M.
Hanna, another Scientologist, explains the opposition of the
Church to various psychiatric practices and cites the success of the
CCHR Chelmsford campaign (idem, “Scientology on Psychiatry,”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-20/37422 [29 September
2010]).
59 A secular observer might applaud ridicule or satire as an
effective use of free speech to deflate the fanciful claims of any
religion, but some scholars don’t appreciate the humour.
one student had been persuaded to discontinue
asthma treatment and that Scientology used
aggressive tactics to intimidate its critics.60
But by 1980, things had changed with respect to
the status of Scientology, if not its behaviour.
The change in status from “cult” to “religion”
led to a demeaning public retraction from the
editor of the “Truth.” It read: “The publishers of
the Truth wish to apologise to past and present
affiliates of the religion of Scientology if any
embarrassment has been caused to them. [‘The
Truth’] now accepts the integrity, and the
religious nature of Scientology [which was]
finally recognized as a religion by the Australian
Government in 1973.”61
So the 1973 ministerial proclamation authorizing
Scientology to conduct official marriage
ceremonies had paid dividends for the
organization. Indeed, Scientology had always
been fully cognizant of the advantage bestowed
by the 1973 fiat, which at the time was greeted
with jubilation by Scientologists. L. Ron
Hubbard himself was moved to declare, “there’s
no reason not to create a wildfire expansion in
Australia now. Disseminate more, train more,
audit more.” A number of “Liberal members of
Parliament in WA” (Western Australia)
reportedly “said that they would never have
banned Scientology if it had been a religion”62 to
which one might now add, particularly a religion
endorsed by Hollywood celebrities.
Movie Stars and Gaming Tsars
Scientology has long sought to be associated
with celebrity mates with media benefits,
particularly movie and popular music stars. The
organization has also cultivated the mega-rich
and therefore famous. In Australia, an
adornment for Scientology for a period was
James Packer (former media mogul turned
gaming Tsar). In the Australian vernacular
Packer is widely regarded as a “good bloke,”
whose life story and emergence from the shadow
60 Cited in S. Mutch, Cults, Religion, and Public Policy, p. 45
idem, “Scientologists in Australia,” p. 562.
61 Idem, Cults, Religion, and Public Policy, p. 168–169.
62 Scientology plans a big comeback, “The Melbourne Observer”
15 April 1973, p. 3 Religious status for Scientology, “The West
Australian,” 13 February 1973, p. 3.
