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.

International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 61
of his legendary father has somewhat endeared
him to a population usually averse to tall
poppies. In 2007, Packer married his second
wife, Erica Baxter, in a Scientology ceremony,
and one scholar notes that he converted to the
Church in 2002. The wedding ceremony on the
French Riviera was attended by “premier
celebrity Scientologists Tom Cruise and Katie
Holmes.”63 The conclusion to this scholar’s
piece was that: “Australian women’s magazines
consistently present Baxter’s rise to fame and
success as desirable and positive. … The
profession of faith in Scientology by celebrities
must have a normalizing and familiarizing
effect, rendering the Church of Scientology
mainstream rather than fringe, attractive rather
than unattractive, associated with wealth and
success, and thus desirable rather than
otherwise.”64
With such influential friends in high places65 and
its share of favourable coverage (which might be
further quantified for those who feel the need to
achieve a fulsome assessment), it does seem a
stretch to paint Scientology as a media
underdog. There is always recourse to the
normal complaints procedures against media
outlets, and Scientology has used this avenue,
albeit with little success.66 Even sometimes
salacious gossip, which constitutes the bread and
butter of society magazines, provides to the
group the lifeblood of continuing publicity.67
63 C.M. Cusack, op. cit., p. 403.
64 Ibidem, p. 404–405.
65 Packer and Baxter have since parted. In 2008, an article
appeared with a title indicating Packer had quit the Church, noting
that “closest friends have revealed that he has quietly distanced
himself from Scientology” (A. Hornery, See ya, Tom: Packer quits
Cruise’s church, “The Sydney Morning Herald” 10 May 2008,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/see-ya-tom-packer-quits-
cruises-church/2008/05/09/1210131257772.html). In his recent
book, Australian journalist S. Cannane notes that “according to one
former insider, James was no longer an active Scientologist by the
middle of 2006” (idem, Fair game: the incredible untold story of
Scientology in Australia, HarperCollins Publishers, Sydney, 2016,
p. 310). Despite moving away from Scientology, there is nothing
to indicate that Packer remains anything other than favourably
disposed towards the Church, having stated in 2006 that “it has
been very good for me. It has been helpful” (ibidem).
66 See e.g. B. Doherty, Sensational Scientology!, p. 47 S. Mutch,
“Scientologists in Australia,” p. 563.
67 The saying that “all publicity is good publicity” is probably true
with respect to society magazines. Consumers remember that the
product (in this case Scientology) has been in the society pages in
association with celebrities—they don’t necessarily remember the
Scientology is nevertheless characterized by
some scholars as a convenient whipping dog,
particularly for television journalists anxious to
fulfil the demands of the unremitting news
cycle. The concern is that television journalism
has a disproportionate voice in framing negative
narratives although an alternative view is that
print journalism continues to play the key role in
setting the agenda followed by other journalists.
In any event, there is a difference between the
pressing need for stories and conclusions that
these stories are biased or insubstantial,
particularly when criticisms and conclusions are
arguably based more on journalistic style than
the substance of the allegations.
So despite some tribulations at the hands of the
media, overall one would have expected
Scientology to bask in the reflected glory of
celebrity and reap a handsome dividend in
membership growth. Yet this growth dividend
does not seem to have occurred in Australia. It is
therefore worth pondering whether complaints
about unfair coverage of Scientology are a
convenient excuse, a case of protesting too
much.
Allegations of Antisocial and Internally
Harmful Behaviour
This leads us to further examine reasons for
apparently low membership, and to heretical
thoughts. Might a perceived level of community
aversion to the group be well-founded? Might
the fault lie with Scientology, discoverable in
the litany of complaint and controversy that has
swirled around the organization from inception?
Despite attempts to blame the media and the
messengers, is there substance to the allegations
made against the organization? To re-phrase a
popular maxim, we might ask: “where there is
smoke, is there fire?”
The types of allegation made against
Scientology include two general categories:
aggressive behaviour by the Church against
details of any particular story. Scholars who draw up lists of
favourable and unfavourable reports to discover bias really need to
delve into qualitative questions of marketing nuance before they
come to any firm conclusions. In addition, the political as well as
social influence of so-called “women’s magazines” should not be
underestimated.