As to the general population, it hasn’t been just the CO$ that’s been “pick[ed] on,” or whatever the loaded term may be. That’s a logical fallacy & appeal to emotion that does nothing to further an argument. Even if people have that perception, it shouldn’t lessen the magnitude of what the CO$ does. Further, one group or organization cannot take on all religions that have done wrong. Time/resources/efficiency all weigh in. Pick your battles, right?

Most people who stand up and fight against the CO$ have either escaped its clutches and/or know close friends or family members who have been bankrupted, RPF’d, or worse by this cult. And, yes, it is a cult. Just go google “what is Scientology?” and you’ll see.

However, I can’t imagine anyone being silly enough to believe Wikipedia is “neutral”.

People posting on it all have an agenda, and Wiki “editors” either agree with what’s posted and promote it or they do all they can to censor it. In this case, Wiki doesn’t like Scientology, we get it. So they’re censoring those who have a pro-Scientology agenda, as well as though who might have a pro-unbiased opinion forum agenda.

(my question would be–why just pick on Scientology? Each of the “major” religions are guilty of far more human rights abuses and violations, but everyone’s somehow more comfortable with that).

I’ve heard that David Miscavage has gone into Napoleonic mode and has been yanking all sorts of middle management out of the orgs that aren’t pulling their sales quotas. Sending them straight to RPF to examine their lack of faith. It would be rather hilarious if it weren’t so bloody disturbing.

Bless them internets.

Cockroaches scurry when you snap on the light.