Zalkind misrepresented Scientology


I am writing in response to Ben Zalkind’s “Battlefield Scientology” column, Oct. 12. Wow! There were so many journalistic errors that I did not even bother signing up so I could read the rest of the article.

First, it’s pretty shameful to attribute a quote to someone who is not alive to defend it and, on top of that, when you do not give the source. You could literally state that he is quoted as saying anything you want!

The fact is L. Ron Hubbard financed all of his research with his own money.

Another fact is that the Internal Revenue Service did a searching review of the church’s finances and awarded tax-exempt status as the church is non-profit.

I don’t follow the connection between whether you like Tom Cruise or John Travolta’s acting and the Scientology religion. One could argue that Travolta changed pop culture several times in his career, that Tom Cruise is one of the biggest box office names in history, or could bring up other Scientologists who are successful in the arts: Mark Isham (multiple awards for his soundtracks and other recording work), Chick Correa (one of the greatest pianists ever), Isaac Hayes (another musical legend), Erika Christensen (“Traffic”), etc., but what is the point?

The real story is that there is a new religion in the last 100 years, and it contains many answers for living in today’s world. The church also has many secular programs, which effectively address illiteracy, drug abuse and other social issues.

That’s the real story, but I guess it doesn’t contain enough “controversy” for you to give it attention.

Dan Jones

Toronto, Canada