Patterico's Pontifications

3/20/2006

Watch the South Park Scientology Episode

Filed under: Humor — Patterico @ 6:00 am



So, you missed the rerun of the South Park episode about Scientology, because Tom Cruise threw a hissy fit and said he wouldn’t promote his latest movie if they showed it? Never fear. You can watch it here. (Via Lindgren at Volokh.)

UPDATE: Via Xrlq in the comments comes this link questioning whether Issac Hayes actually quit the show.

13 Responses to “Watch the South Park Scientology Episode”

  1. On a related note, this article suggests that Isaac Hayes may not have quit the show after all, at least, not voluntarily.

    Xrlq (6c14f9)

  2. Wherever L. Ron Hubbard is, he must be laughing his head off. He made a bet that he could create a religion with Joe Haldeman(?). Who compared him to P.T. Barnum? (“A fool and his money are soon parted.” I understand that converting to Scientology means forking over tens of thousands of dollars for “auditing” sessions.) I read Dianetics. It’s a joke. Who on earth would take something like that seriously? On the other hand, Battlefield Earth was the acme of space opera. Johnny Goodboy Tyler is one of the great heroes of second-rate pop literature alongside Hopalong Cassidy and The Cisco Kid.

    nk (5e5670)

  3. nk,

    From what I read of ‘auditing’, it seems attractive because –

    1. it enables one to go through all the emotional blocks that are detected when hooked up to this auditing machine. What is the process, I have no idea. It is stated that these blocks could be from traumatic events this life and past lifes.

    2. While this audit sessions are purported to give spiritual or emtional relief, they are not considered mental health treatment and thus not scrutinised by the state, that is not licensed by the state, unlike other mental health practitioners like psychologists and psychiatrists. Neither is confession to a RC priest under state scruting.

    3. As to donations of such amounts you speak of, in some religions there is tithing of 10% income. While not legal, it is spiritual or moral to support the organisation. Thus the question of some itself does not suggest any adverse inference except as to the manner of the financial support from members for the organisation.

    4. My open question is, are confidential information obtained during those audit sessions and if yes, how are these private and confidential information secured to protect the person who has undergone these auditing sesssions. Is there avenue for abuse of these private information? If yes, what precautions are in place to reduce or limit abuse?

    Yi-Ling (519cc9)

  4. Hey,

    Lay off the Cisco Kid, Poncho too. Say what you will about the Lone Ranger, but not one discourgin’ word about Lash LaRue, or Randolph Scott. An that’s my final word on it.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  5. Now wait just one minute, Jack (or can I call you Black). I did not call the heroes second-rate. I called the literature second-rate. The heroes were great.

    nk (54c569)

  6. Randolph Scott, Duncan Renaldo (loved him in “The Gay Amigo”) and former hairdresser Lash LaRue made for some raw hide.

    steve (56739f)

  7. Yi Ling,

    On your question, I looked up the clergy-penitent privilege and it is only an evidentiary rule — a clergyman cannot be compelled to testify about a conversation with a worshipper had in the course of the clergyman’s pastoral duties. About half the states do not allow the privilege in cases of child abuse and about five states mandate disclosure in cases of child about.

    In contrast, medical confidentiality, and especially mental health and substance abuse treatment, are given much stronger protection. In some states, they cannot be used for any purpose not even by the government in a criminal or civil commitment proceeding. There are also very strong penalties imposed for the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable medical (including mental health/substance abuse) information.
    Botom line: If confidentiality is an issue, choose a licensed physician or therapist over a pastor.

    nk (5e5670)

  8. nk,

    There are 2 separate issues here. I was concerned of scientologist’s method of auditing, not in terms of the spiritual upliftment it provides but in terms of whether there are confidential private information elicited and whether these p&c information could be used unfairly against the ‘treated scientologist’.

    The proof is in the pudding. I guess if ‘treated scientologist’ still seek auditing, they must have found some relief, whether spiritual or emotional or whatever. That’s fine, to each his own. We scratch where we itch and if someone itches that way and wants to be scratched that way, that’s the choice and liberty , and may they enjoy it and grow and develop from it.
    What concerns me, is because of the lack of information about auditing, the secrecy surrounding it, and lack of information on how it is actually done, what kind of information [ if any ] are recorded [ whether written by a note taker at hand or taped or videoed or whatever ] . And if so recorded [ however] whether they are stored . If they are stored, how are they stored. If they are not stored, there is less to be concerned about. It is just then any p&c information that is heard by the scientologist who administered the auditing, and given human memory it can fade with time. Its also your word against my word, if the p&c information is not recorded as proof of what that was said during auditing [ if said ] . It is this BIG questions that raises and piques my abstract and in vacuum concern. It indirectly suggests possibilities of abuse via blackmail of whatever sort. This is one kind of abuse I am abstractly concerned of.

    The 2nd issue, is as you have raised, of priests doctors who are governed by mandatory state laws to disclose p&c information, even where it seems to clash with the Romand Catholic [RC] Confessional Seal, on pain of the RC priest who breaches the confidence of the RC Church goer penitent, being ex-communicated. RC priest being ex-communicated, would be a big deal for the RC priest. He is a RC and he is ex-communicated from the RC Church plus, he is de-frocked , ceases to be a priest. That is real heavy penalty. Further since the confession is a sacrament, for the RC, breach of the sacrament could have big implications of the RC church goers trust and confidence in the RC Church and the Confessional Seal. It would erode institutional trust.

    Given the conflict between the Confessional Seal [ absolute confidentiality by far and large with few exceptions ] and the mandatory state laws, it raises 2 issues.

    i) Is it constitutional? The mandatory state laws on reporting outlined crimes . There is some idea tossed around that US Supreme Ct case of Wisconsin v Yoder 1973 could possibly be used, that is the Free Exercise Clause could be used to strike down the mandatory state laws you mentioned.

    ii) Whether the state legislature will back down in event a RC priest refuses on pain of being jailed in state prison, to breach his Confessional Seal. Thrown around also is the Mellish case, where …. >

    On the third point, as to your distinction between priest and doctors, is the distinction only applicable for child abuse case ? In other words, in other cases, the mandatory state laws, do not, single out other crimes and thus no distinction needs to be drawn between priest and doctors, as none of them [ neither priest nor doctor] are legally obliged to report to the authorities. In other words, is this distinction only drawn, for only ONE limited instance, that of CHILD ABUSE? That in all other crimes [ except for this specially singled out child abuse crime] , there is no state mandatory laws requiring the priest or doctor to disclose to the authorities?

    Yi-Ling (58b21b)

  9. nk,

    cont/=

    Thrown around also is the Mellish case, where

    In 1984, John Mellish, pastor of the Margate Church of the Nazarene, was sentenced to 60 days in a Florida jail for refusing to reveal the substance of a penitential conversation with a parishioner who had admitted to sexual abuse of a child. After a night in jail, he was released on bail pending appeal. Some time later, Florida law changed and his sentence was overturned.

    Yi-Ling (58b21b)

  10. On a side note – I’m glad to see more bloggers actively (even is unspokenly) agreeing with my conclusion that fair use protections against copyright should vastly increase when previously made creative works are held back and suppressed by distributors (especially when the reasons for it being suppressed are for ideological reasons).

    Happy for you all to join the den of ‘theives’ stealing the valued property of Comedy Central/Viacom/Paramount. Thank God for Youtube!

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  11. nk,

    Why is Texas law on this, different in conceptualization on your distinction between priest and doctor? Is Texas state one of the five states you indicated or outside the five states you mentioned ? Is section 34.07 Texas Family Code, or its equivalent in other states, one of the mandatory reporting state laws you have in mind?

    Chapter 34 of the Texas Family Code requires any person “having cause to believe that a child’s physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect” must report the case. Section 34.07 provides that all reports of child abuse are confidential. Failure to report a case of child abuse or neglect is a class B misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment of up to 180 days and/or a fine of up to $1,000. However, a person who makes a false report or one which lacks a factual foundation, is also guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

    “A person commits an offense,” the code reads, “if the person has cause to believe that a child’s welfare has been or may be further adversely affected by abuse or neglect and knowingly fails to report in accordance with Section 34.02 of this Code” (Section 34.04)

    This is augmented by another section that describes who is exempt from the provisions:
    In any proceeding regarding the abuse or neglect of a child or the cause of any abuse or neglect, evidence may not be excluded on the ground of privileged communication except in the case of communications between attorney and client [Sec. 34.07].

    It appears here that priests and doctors are painted with the same brush here, as far as child abuse or child neglect is concerned.

    It also appears that good old lawyers are the ‘chosen ones’ exempted from this mandatory state law, on mandatory reporting child abuse or child neglect ? No? >

    Yi-Ling (58b21b)

  12. Sorry, Yi-Ling, in this forum I can only comment in the broadest terms. I do not know the intricacies of Texas law. As for lawyers, we 1) have our own very rigorous code of client confidence and communications privilege and then 2) there is that pesky Sixth Amendment. When our client tells us of past wrongdoing — the key word is “past” — we are obligated to defend him, not turn him in. If he tells us of intended future wrongdoing, we are permitted and in extreme cases obligated to turn him in.

    BTW: In your analysis of the Texas law do not confuse “confession” with “observation”. It may be that a priest learns that a child has been abused because the criminal told him in order to lighten his soul, But a doctor is likely to see the child in the ER and ask “How did this happen?” If the answer is free and voluntary, “I hit him”, why should it be privileged?

    nk (77d95e)

  13. nk,

    BTW: I think I am going to fall off my chair

    Time Magazine May 6, 1991 page 50.
    Special Report (cover story)
    Copyright © 1991 Time Magazine
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

    if this is what I am reading.

    Yi-Ling (726202)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0777 secs.