This article takes basic insights provided by resource
mobilization theory in order to discuss how Scientology celebrities
used their status to influence the international debate over Scientology
between the United States and Germany. Their ability to have done so
is another indicator of the access to American political elites that
Hollywood cultural elites have gained in recent years, most especially
during the administration of President Bill Clinton (1992-2000). The
shortcomings, however, of some of the celebrities’ efforts reveal the
weaknesses that are associated with cultural elites entering political
debates. As is common in other instances of celebrities’ political involvement,
Scientology’s celebrities have contributed to the trivialization of
serious issues that confront the international community.
[1] As international cultural
elites,[i]
Hollywood celebrities frequently are spokespeople for social and political
causes (see Keller 1983, 5-7; George 2000). In addition to whatever
genuine social concern they may feel, successful celebrities have opportunities
provided them by the nature and rewards that are part and parcel of
their occupations. Often, for example, actors have periods of discretionary
time between work engagements (see McCarthy and Zald 1977, 1236). Moreover,
they have access to globalized media and often possess extraordinary
wealth - two charismatic qualities that elevate their own status (see
Mills 1956, 71-72) at the same time that they bestow a "charisma
through association" to persons (like politicians) with whom they
have personal or professional contact (see Glassman 1984, 219; Keller
1983, 3-4; Mills 1956, 74). Consequently, just as celebrities sometimes
need politicians in order to advance the political stature of their
causes, politicians need celebrities to boost their campaign coffers
and elevate their charismatic appearance in the media (see Mills 1956,
75). With increasing frequency, therefore, celebrities want access to
the corridors of power, and many politicians are more than willing to
let them in.
[2] Certainly since the period of the
Vietnam War (and some would argue, well before), celebrities have attempted
to transform their privileged social position into institutionally based
social power (Brownstein 1990; Meyer and Gamson 1995, 184; see Sherman
1990). Celebrity public advocacy, congressional testimonies, and successful
bids for public office by Hollywood personalities have become commonplace
in American public life.[ii]
These activities have occurred in the current context of America’s debate
with European countries, especially Germany, over religious human rights
issues.
[3] In contrast to the expected pattern,
however, of celebrities avoiding marginal political issues involving
a "stigmatized constituency," especially regarding international
issues (Meyer and Gamson 1995, 189), Scientology celebrities during
the Clinton administration (1992-2000) took their complaints of international
religious persecution to politicians and the media in America and Europe.
American politicians, in turn, paid tribute to these celebrities in
levels that far exceeded the stars’ contributions to public life and
political discourse (see Keller 1986, 152). Of special note is that
perhaps never before the Clinton administration in post-war American
politics had celebrities been official, organizationally-sanctioned
lobbyists for the ‘religious’ ideologies to which they adhere.
[4] This article takes basic insights
provided by resource mobilization theory about the ability of an elite
group to act as "issue entrepreneurs" who define, create,
and manipulate grievances and discontent (McCarthy and Zald 1977, 1215).[iii]
Making use of extensive media and Internet sources about Scientology
and the American government along with many of the organization’s own
publications,[iv]
the article argues that Scientology’s Hollywood celebrities were sufficiently
influential in their federal lobbying during the Clinton administration
that they influenced the American position (although not always in the
direction they desired) on the American-versus-German debate over Scientology
that took place between the two countries. Their ability to do so is
another indicator of the access to American political elites that Hollywood
cultural elites gained in recent years, especially while Clinton was
in office. The shortcomings, however, of some of the celebrities’ efforts
reveal the weaknesses that are associated with cultural elites entering
political debates. As is common in other instances of celebrities’ political
involvement (see Keller 1986, 160, 162-163), Scientology’s celebrities
contributed to the trivialization of serious human rights issues that
confront the international community.
Scientology and Celebrities
[5] Sociologically, a comprehensive perspective
on Scientology is that it is a multifaceted transnational in which (arguably)
religious aspects interweave and often compete with material and activities
related to business management, education, mental health, physical health,
drug rehabilitation, social reform, entertainment, science fiction,
and even intelligence-gathering (see Kent 1999a; 1999b; 2001c, 3). As
a resource mobilization strategy, Scientology demands that most Western
societies call it a religion at the same time that it downplays the
secular nature of many of its activities (see Kent 1990, 397-403). Celebrities
play an important in this strategy.
[6] With considerable insight, Scientology’s
founder, L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986) developed organizational policies
that attempted to recruit celebrities into his group (see, for example,
Hubbard 1971; Sappell and Welkos 1990), and currently a number of high-profile
stars follow Scientology’s teachings (Hausherr 2002). Geographically,
Scientology’s Los Angeles headquarters is only minutes from Hollywood
itself, and the organization runs an exclusive facility (the Celebrity
Center) that caters to members and friends primarily in the entertainment
industry. Realizing the stars’ potential public relations and political
value, Scientology leadership has developed specific assignments through
which these celebrities can further the goals of the organization.
From the standpoint of the Scientology organization, a primary responsibility
for celebrities is for them to "use their power to speed the forward
drive of creating a new civilization" (Lesevre 1988, 1) based upon
Scientology principles, and their lobbying efforts are attempts to eliminate
barriers to the dissemination of the group’s ideology.
[7] In the language of resource mobilization
theory, these celebrities are elites because they have access to sizable
resource pools such as media and wealth [see McCarthy and Zald 1977,
1221]). Moreover, celebrities have high "status honor" because
of the "style of life" that many of them lead, the cultural
impact that they have, and the social "distance and exclusiveness"
that they keep (see Weber 1946, 186-187, 191). Frequently because of
these attributes, celebrities gain entry into political settings, as
politicians defer to their status, enhance their own images by associating
with cultural icons, and often benefit from their campaign-contribution
generosity. Consequently, as the American political antagonism toward
Scientology seemingly diminished during the Clinton years, the organization
was quick to place some of its celebrity members on the political stage.
Scientology’s Lobbying and Public
Relations Campaign in America
[8] Several activities that Scientology
undertook near the beginning of the 1990s had a significant impact later
on upon a few American foreign relations issues. First, it set out
to improve its image with politicians and the population at large by
undertaking a major public relations effort in the nation’s capitol.
As part of this public relations effort, a Scientology affiliate in
Los Angeles was paying "almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm
[Federal Legislative Associates] to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996"
(Dahl 1998a, 14A). These lobbying efforts (many performed by the firm’s
managing partner, David H. Miller) eventually bore fruit during the
battle between Scientology and Germany.
[9] Second, Scientology greatly expanded
its access to resources by entering into an agreement (in October 1993)
with the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) that granted the American
organization and its affiliates tax exemption. Receipt of the much-coveted
exemption from tax on charitable grounds gave Scientology a degree of
legitimacy in the United States that it had not had for decades, despite
the fact that the organization received this exemption under most unusual
circumstances.[v]
Regardless of the conditions under which Scientology and the IRS reached
their agreement, the charitable status was a greatly-prized resource
(see Kent 1990, 398) that opened up important possibilities to gain
even more resources and support. Most significantly, after the IRS/Scientology
agreement, the United States Department of State now considered Scientology
to be a tax-exempt religion, so it began criticizing Germany’s actions
against the organization and its members. Indeed, by the time that the
IRS issued its agreement in late 1993, the battle between Germany and
Scientology was growing in intensity.
The German Debate Over Scientology
[10] In a phrase, many Germans (including
regional and federal government officials) see Scientology as a totalitarian,
business-driven organization that is guilty of significant human rights
abuses (see Enquete Commission 1998, 189-192, 230). Prominent German
officials such as Ursula Caberta y Diaz of Hamburg’s Scientology Task
Force, Member of Parliament Renate Rennebach [SPD], and Bavarian Interior
Minister Dr. Günter Beckstein-examined a wide array of primary and secondary
sources, legal documents, and former member testimonies before concluding
that the organization was antithetical to a democratic state. This conclusion
is similar to the position reached by the German Parliament’s Enquete
Commission that studied new religious and psychological groups in the
country. After scrutinizing numerous groups and scrutinizing Scientology’s
doctrines and corporate behavior, the Enquete Commission singled out
Scientology as requiring monitoring by the Federal Office for the Protection
of the Constitution (Equete Commission 1998, 170-173, 291).[vi]
The German government’s position, however, that Scientology was both
non-religious (see Enquete Commission 1998, 268) and a potential threat
to democracy brought it into direct conflict with its American counterpart.
[11] Although Scientology first appeared
in Germany during the early 1970s, the issues leading to the contemporary
human rights allegations of abuse trace back to the late 1980s and early
1990s. Germans became alarmed when it appeared that Scientologists were
operating in the volatile rental and condominium market, and politicians
around the country began receiving complaints about allegedly unscrupulous
behaviour by parties associated with the Scientology organization (Baker
1997, 116; MieterEcho 1997; Walsh 1997, A10; see Hausherr 1997, #12).
In addition to Scientologists’ involvement in the building trades, by
late 1992 prominent German Scientology businesspeople were under financial
pressure to make profits in order to undertake major investments on
behalf of Scientology in the former Communist country of Albania (American
Family Foundation 1994; Haag 1992).[vii]
[12] Probably because so much Scientology
business activity took place in Hamburg around the turn of the 1990s,
the city established a working group "to combat the Scientology
movement" (Whitney 1994). The key person in this group was Ursula
Caberta, and certainly by 1995 (and probably well before) she and other
Germans learned about Scientology’s forced labor and re-indoctrination
programs in which the organization places its upper level members whose
job performance declines or who show signs of ‘deviance’ toward it or
its leaders. Operating in several American locations,[viii]
these programs (called the Rehabilitation Project Force or simply, the
RPF) involve classic brainwashing techniques. These techniques include
(often forcible) confinement and physical coercion in the context of
an intensive re-education program involving social and psychological
degradations, forced confessions, and hard physical labor (Kent 2000;
2001a; 2001b; R. Young 1995, 107). Partly because of Germany’s experience
with forced labor camps during the Second World War, German officials
were particularly concerned to learn about Scientology’s operation of
its own version of such camps in Europe and America. (Indeed, forced
labor is specifically banned in post-war Germany by Article 12 of its
constitution.) Moreover, parliamentary officials remained puzzled at
the fact that American government officials were completely unaware
of them, especially since the RPF has attracted so much American press
(AFP 1998; Behar 1986, 318; Koff 1989; Shelor 1984; Welkos and Sappell
1990).
[13] In 1997, a German state official
raised the issue of the RPF programs on American soil in response to
a harsh "open" letter to Chancellor Helmut Kohl that equated
the German government’s handling of Scientology with Nazis’ persecution
of Jews prior to World War II. Published as a full page ad in the International
Herald Tribune, thirty-four Hollywood personalities signed it, including
actors Dustin Hoffman, Goldie Hawn, director Oliver Stone, writer Mario
Puzo, and CNN talk show host, Larry King (Boyes 1997). (Afterwards,
the film director Constantin Costa-Gavras expressed regret at having
given the letter his signature [Reuters 1997]). It turned out that many
of the signatories had close ties to prominent Scientology actors Tom
Cruise and John Travolta (Whittell 1997). The analogy between the current
plight of Scientology in Germany and the fate of Jews during the early
days of Hitler proved so offensive that the U.S. State Department immediately
denounced it, saying "This is an outrageous charge against the
German government by an American group. It bears no resemblance to the
facts of what is going on [t]here" (quoted in Boyes 1997). Likewise,
German-Jewish leader, Ignatz Bubis, dismissed the accusations as "insulting
to the memory of the [holocaust] victims" (quoted in John 1997).
[14] As a resource mobilization strategy,
therefore, the celebrities’ letter was a failure and almost certainly
hurt the Scientology cause. Their use of an early Nazi image to convey
their message fragmented rather than galvanized both public and American
governmental support for their criticisms of the German government,
and the incident reveals some of the pitfalls involved with entertainment
elites trying to gain entry into an important public debate. They had
enough money to purchase exposure in the media, but they did not have
sufficient grasp of the issues nor the political wisdom to select appropriate
symbols that might have won them support. Indeed, the ill-chosen symbol
of Naziism angered German officials (including Kohl himself), and it
provided an opening for another German official to respond with a press
release that advised, "Instead of sending ‘open letters’ to Germany,
Hollywood VIPS should express their outrage at Scientology’s punitive
camps." The Bavarian State Minister of the Interior, Dr. Günther
Beckstein, went on to refer to the RPF facilities as "penal colonies"
that subjected their inmates to "extreme processes of brainwashing
and punishment." Using information that came directly out of an
American affidavit by former Scientologist, Andre Tabayoyon, Beckstein
mentioned one of the harsh physical punishments that a female inmate
supposedly suffered, and described the security system around one California
facility that involved a "fence, barriers, floodlights, electronic
monitors, hidden microphones, ground sensors, and electronic eyes...."
He also mentioned information about "semi-automatic rifles and
unregistered weapons" in the Southern California RPF facility.
Mockingly, Beckstein mused, "Wouldn’t it be great if Mario Puzo
wrote a script to a film directed by Oliver Stone, in which Dustin Hoffman
and Goldie Hawn starred as two inmates in a Scientology penal colony
attempting [t]o escape from their heavily-armed keepers?" (Beckstein
1997; see Tabayoyon 1994). Even though Beckstein gave explicit directions
about the location of an RPF facility only about 100 kilometers from
Hollywood itself, no indication exists that any American officials took
his remarks seriously. Nevertheless, the incident reveals the dangers
of cultural elites wading into complicated, international political
battles.
[15] In summary, as American government
officials seemed to side with Scientology, German officials became convinced
that their counterparts in the United States simply did not understand
the nature of the organization that they were supporting. Most German
officials viewed the organization as a either a psychological group
or a business being run under a totalitarian ideology whose alleged
human rights violations were inimical to the operations of German democracy
(see Enquete Commission 1998, 347; St. Paul Pioneer Press
1995). Along these lines, the Americans did not seem to appreciate the
requirements placed upon German politicians by their country’s constitution
and law, which requires a "militant" protection of "the
‘free democratic basic order’" (Kommers 1997, 217, see 510; also
see Articles 18 and 20 of Germany’s Basic Law). In essence, as one government
(the United States) was providing Scientology with important opportunities
to expand its resource base, another one (Germany) was severely curtailing
the organization’s resource acquisition abilities in ways that might
have significant implications for the organization’s European activities.
Germany’s curtailment of Scientology became the subject of hearings
before the American congressional committee, the Organization [formerly
Conference] on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, also called
the Helsinki Commission), and in these hearings Scientology celebrities
played prominent roles.
Scientologists Present Before
the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
[16] Probably through its lobbying efforts,
Scientology had three of its prominent celebrities-musician Chick Corea,
musician and actor, Isaac Hayes, and actor John Travota-appear before
the CSCE on September 18 1997.[ix]
Chairman of the CSCE, Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R.-N.Y.) who spent much
of the day "showing Travolta around the Senate," quipped,
"‘My staff, for the first time, was in early this morning.... They
all had cameras. I never saw so many cameras.’" The New York
Post printed a picture of D’Amato and Travolta facing each other
with D’Amato’s right hand clenching Travolta’s left bicep, and Travolta’s
left hand under D’Amato’s right arm. Travolta had a noble look on his
face, and the photo caption read, "Sen[ator] Al D’Amato yesterday
embraces John Travolta, who testified about persecution of Scientologists"
(New York Post 1997). Clearly Travolta’s celebrity status carried
weight, and it served the intended point of getting Scientology’s charges
against Germany into the American media. That status suggests that even
some politicians (not to mention their staff) feel the effects of a
"charisma through association." Likewise, it demonstrates
that political committees can attract media attention to their work
by bringing in celebrities into their public hearings.
[17] Taken together, the statements
that Travolta, Hayes, and Corea offered to the Helsinki Commission provide
a comprehensive summary of Scientology’s objections to the treatment
of its organization and members in Germany (see Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe 1997). Never did they question Scientology’s
status as a religion (as did German officials), but instead they presented
a list of religiously based, alleged human rights complaints. As Travolta
summarized in his written statement, "federal and state government
officials have urged the public to blacklist and boycott Scientologists
from every aspect of German life" (Written Statement of John Travolta
in Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1997).
[18] Travolta, Hayes, and Corea provided
additional complaints to the CSCE about (what they considered to be)
discrimination in business affairs. These complaints were against the
requirement that individuals and companies sign documents (called ‘sect
filters’) stating that none of the parties involved followed Scientology
practices. Additional complaints were against government-sanctioned
"Scientology" labels placed on businesses owned or operated
by Scientologists; loss of employment and employment opportunities;
denial of business licences to Scientologists; prohibitions against
Scientologists obtaining bank loans; cancellation of Scientology-related
bank accounts; movie boycotts (specifically against Tom Cruise’s Mission
Impossible and Travolta’s Phenomenon); and boycotts against
patronizing businesses that employ Scientologists. Indeed, the celebrities
even asserted that sometimes these boycotts took place against wrongly
identified people.
[19] In the area of education, the testifying
celebrities highlighted discrimination claims that included the charge
that biased information against Scientology created an oppressive climate
in schools for Scientology children in a manner that violated their
educational rights as well as the rights of parents to provide the religious
training of their choice to their kids. In schools and in German society
at large, the three witnesses claimed, Scientologists were harassed,
threatened, and even assaulted. Scientology children, they asserted,
were expelled from clubs and even schools. Ordinary citizens viewed
their good-will projects (like drug rehabilitation) as recruitment schemes,
and even a foreign soccer team had to pay a fine for displaying a Scientology
ad in view of the playing field (Testimonies and Written Statements
by John Travolta, Isaac Hayes, and Chick Corea in Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe 1997).
[20] Contrasting these extensive allegations
of human rights violations was the German Ambassador’s succinct letter
to the CSCE, which outlined his government’s position toward Scientology
and its members and helped to explain Germany’s reaction to it:
After having conducted thorough studies on the
Scientology organization, the Federal Government has come to the conclusion
that the organization’s pseudo-scientific courses can seriously jeopardize
individuals’ mental and physical health and that it exploits its members.
Expert testimony and credible reports have confirmed that membership
can lead to psychological and physical dependency, to financial ruin,
and even to suicide.
In addition, there are indications that Scientology poses a threat
to Germany’s basic political principles.
Later he added, "[u]p until now,
no court has found that the basic and human rights of Scientology members
have been violated." As was usually the case, the German Ambassador
continued by citing two court cases from the United States that reinforced
his concerns, along with legal decisions from Lyon, France, Italy, Greece,
and Germany (German Ambassador Jürgen Chrobog, in Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe 1997; see Enquete Commission 1998, 227-232).
American congressional leaders had not mentioned any of the court cases
during the hearing, so one is left wondering whether they even knew
about them.
[21] Neither Travolta, nor Corea, nor
Hayes mentioned (probably because they did not yet know) that earlier
(on February 28, 1997) a German Scientologist had "been granted
asylum in the United States after telling a judge she would be subjected
to religious persecution if she went back home" (The Washington
Post 1997). Nearly three years later, however (on June 14, 2000),
another actress and Scientologist, Catherine Bell, did bring up the
asylum issue before the House Committee on International Relations.
Pointing out the former German resident in the hearing room, Bell told
that committee that she was "Ms. Antje Victore, who in 1997 became
the first German Scientologist to be granted asylum by a U.S. immigration
court on the grounds that she faced ruinous persecution if she had to
return to Germany" (Bell. 2000, [3-4]). Bell could not have realized
that the circumstances under which Victore sought asylum were fraudulent,
having been contrived by the Scientology organization itself ostensibly
to embarrass the Germans. German media exposed the fraud just two weeks
after Bell’s introduction of her to the American congressional members
(Kruttschnitt, Nuebel, and Schweitzer 2000; see Billerbeck 2000; Kent
2001c, 3).
John Travolta and President Clinton
[22] Evidence of Scientology’s high
level State Department contacts came to light in a widely-discussed
article about Travolta in George magazine. Travolta attended an April
1997 summit on volunteerism in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in order "to
present educational materials created by Scientology founder L. Ron
Hubbard." The next day, Travolta met President Clinton who told
him, "Your program sounds great.... More than that..., I’d really
love to help you with your issue over in Germany with Scientology"
(Travolta quoting Clinton in J. Young 1998, 106). Clinton informed
Travolta that "he had a roommate years ago who was a Scientologist
and had really liked him, and respected his views on it. He said he
felt we were given an unfair hand in [Germany] and that he wanted to
fix it" (Ressner 1997). Clinton followed up on this conversation
by going "to the extraordinary length of assigning his national
security advisor, Sandy Berger, to be the administration’s Scientology
point person" (J. Young 1998, 138). In September 1997, when Travolta
and Chick Corea were in Washington (presumably for their testimony before
the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe), Clinton "had
White House political affairs director, Craig Smith, arrange a meeting
between Berger, Travolta, and jazzman Chick Corea, also an avid Scientologist.
According to a senior administration official, the straight-shooting
Berger briefed Travolta on the administration’s efforts in the same
manner he would a senior senator. ‘Sandy was just great to us,’ Travolta
notes" (J. Young 1998, 138).
[23] The State Department received some
criticism for this high-level meeting, in no small part because people
wondered whether Clinton was doing a favour for Travolta in return for
the actor providing a favorable interpretation of the presidential character
(based upon Clinton) in his current movie, Primary Colors. Senator
Lauch Faircloth (R.-N.C.), for example, wanted "‘to haul John Travolta
before Congress’ to find out whether the actor toned down his portrayal
of a philandering, Clintonlike presidential candidate . . . in exchange
for Mr. Clinton’s promise to help the Church of Scientology fight with
the German government" (Pierce [comp.] 1998). Apparently this
effort went nowhere, but the possibility that Clinton was adjusting
foreign policy for his movie image came up in both The White House Press
Briefing on February 12, 1998, and on the NBC news interview program,
Meet The Press, on which Berger was the guest. The White House
Press Secretary, Mike McCurry, tried to minimize the discussion that
Clinton and Travolta had in Philadelphia, and suggested that Berger
only explained to Travolta (and presumably, Corea) "what we had
been doing to raise our concerns pursuant to work that we had already
done diplomatically" (The White House 1998, 6). When an interviewer
on Meet The Press asked Berger whether he or the President were
trying to influence Travolta’s portrayal in Primary Colors, he
replied that the only ulterior motive he had for the meeting was "to
get an autograph" for one of his kids (excerpt from Meet The
Press in O’Connor 1998; The Washington Post 1998).
[24] An op-ed piece in The New York
Times, written by Frank Rich, reproduced Berger’s claim that his
reason for holding the briefing was to get an autograph. As an explanation,
however, for "why he had wasted his time and taxpayers’ money to
brief a movie star’s delegation," columnist Rich judged it to be
"as revealing as it is pitiful" (Rich 1998). Europeans, however,
likely saw the Clinton-arranged meeting in the context of other actions
the American president had taken on behalf of Scientology. For example,
the section of the State Department’s 1996 human rights report that
was harshly critical of Germany’s actions towards Scientology "was
written by the White House...." Its condemnation was so strong
that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apologized to the German
government because of it (American Spectator 1997). French and
German authorities also were aware that the December 1996 issue of Scientology’s
French language publication, Éthique & Liberté, published
what it called an "Interview exclusive" against drug-use,
written by Clinton himself (Clinton 1996). They also took note when
Clinton sent Scientology congratulatory greetings on its 50th
anniversary (on December 28, 1999), in which he "thanked the church
for its work to promote religious tolerance and to ‘build just communities’"
(Gerstein 2000). In short, it appears to the Europeans that Clinton
was working actively on behalf of the Scientology organization, and
that his assistance to the Hollywood Scientology lobbyists was indicative
of his general support for the group.
Lobbying in the House of Representatives
for a Bill Condemning Germany
[25] While in Washington meeting with
Berger and presenting before the CSCE, Travolta also spent time lobbying
on behalf of a House of Representatives motion that (had it passed)
would have put on record its "concern that performers, entertainers,
and other artists from the United States who are members of minority
religious groups such as Scientology continue to experience discrimination
by the German Government" (House of Representatives 1997). Almost
certainly introduced after lobbying efforts by Scientology’s paid lobbyist,
David H. Miller, the resolution gained "support from leaders of
House caucuses who advocate on behalf of arts, Hispanics[,] and African
Americans" (Dahl 1998a, 14A). Although the resolution cleared the
House International Relations Committee, it failed to pass the full
House when it went to vote in November. One Representative (Doug Bereuter,
R-Neb.) complained, "‘I think it is important we not have Tom Cruise
or John Travolta setting foreign policy in this country and [I] think
that is a driving factor behind this legislation" (Dahl 1998a,
14A). The bill suffered defeat at 101 in favor and 318 against (Anonymous
1997), with Amo Houghtin (R-N.Y.) apparently expressing the majority’s
opinion by concluding, "the issue was ‘whether we do not look just
a bit pompous sitting back here with all our many moral problems in
this country, to pass judgment on a nation, our friend, which is wrestling
with something which we ourselves and other nations are wrestling with’"
(quoted in The Virginian-Pilot 1997).
[26] Travolta and lobbyist Miller saw
"a victory in the defeat. Miller claimed, ‘The important thing
was to make a point here’" (quoted in Dahl 1998a, 14A), while Travolta
proclaimed, "‘there were at least 300 people in the House and the
Senate who agreed with our plight and, at minimum, 100 who went 100
percent to bat for it.’" He added, "‘I think a lot of it had
to do with Clinton backing it up because it was for all minority religions,
not just ours, which I liked’" (quoted in J. Young 1998, 138).
Moreover, Miller saw the failed resolution as only a first attempt.
He revealed that he was "in regular contact with the National Security
Council and the State Department and is counting heads on Capitol Hill
to see if his group could persuade the Scientology-sponsored resolution.
‘We’re going to come back at it again. Let me tell you, it’s well in
the works, he said’" (quoted in Dahl 1998a, 14A).
[27] As promised, Representative Matt
Salmon (R-Ariz.), whose Mormon faith a Scientology publication thought
was significant (Church of Scientology International 1998, 24), introduced
another resolution that called on the President "‘to assert the
concern’ of the United States about religious discrimination in Germany"
(quoted in Dahl 1998b). In late June 1998, Travolta was back on Capitol
Hill, lobbying for Salmon’s bill. Again he attracted a flurry of attention,
but not just from the media. The Washington Post carried a small
article with a picture of Travolta, stating:
In case you needed reminding that congressmen are
shameless groupies, consider the small mob of House members that formed
around John Travolta yesterday in the Rayburn Room of the Capitol,
just off the House floor. There was jostling, There was staring.
There was lining up for photos with the movie star who was on the
Hill to meet with lawmakers, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
on behalf of the Church of Scientology, of which he is a member (Gerhart
and Groer 1998, B3).
Perhaps the blurring boundary in Washington
between politics and entertainment helps to explain why Gingrich, who
at the time was the most powerful figure in Congress, met with him (see
Marshall,997, 204-205; Seib 1999). The bill apparently died in committee.
[28] The following year, 1999, Scientology
continued its lobbying efforts. When Salmon, along with Representatives
Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY), Mark Foley (R-FL), and Senator Mike Enzi
(R-WY), (and others) introduced House and Senate bills calling for the
German government "to enter into constructive dialogue with minority
groups subject to government discrimination based upon religion or belief,"
Scientologist Anne Archer was at the press conference (News From the
House International Relations Committee 1999, 2). In 2000, Salmon,
Gilman, and Donald Payne (D.-N.J.) Introduced another bill that identified
Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany as countries where religious intolerance
persists (House of Representatives 2000). Although none of these bills
have passed, they revealed differences in understanding that persisted
between members of the American and German governments on the sensitive
issues of religious freedom, transnational conglomerates, and the protection
of democracy within autonomous states (see Kent 2001c).
Conclusion
[29] While reflecting on the relationship
between celebrities and politics, sociologists David S. Meyer and Joshua
Gamson concluded, "[t]he resources that celebrities bring to bear
in social movement struggles do not generally include citizen education
or detailed political analysis" (Meyer and Gamson 1995, 202). In
essence, few celebrities have the educational and political skills that
would allow them to do sustained, in-depth and nuanced presentations.
Certainly this conclusion gains support from reading a CSCE transcript
in which the Scientology celebrities floundered for answers to members
of Congress about why Germany appeared to be so hostile to that particular
group (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1997, 16-17).[x]
[30] If we can overlook these floundering
responses, and if we put aside the unsuccessful campaign that attempted
to link the condition of contemporary German Scientologists with pre-war
German Jews, then observers of Washington politics must give credit
to the partial effectiveness of Scientology’s negotiation and celebrity
lobbying efforts. Its negotiation of an IRS settlement has proven enormously
valuable to the organization’s image, and it is doubtful that Scientology’s
stars would have gained access to governmental elites without it. With
that charitable status in place, Scientology and its celebrities apparently
applied pressure on the Department of State, gained access to key State
Department officials, motivated the U.S. Trade Representative (with
Sonny Bono’s assistance) to undertake a key copyright issue with Sweden
(Bardach 1999, 91; Heintz 1997), won key congressional members to its
causes, and even gained entry into the Clinton White House. Taken together,
these achievements bespeak an organization that had learned how to make
Washington listen.
[31] While some Hollywood celebrities
gain political access through their financial contributions, only a
few prominent Scientologists show up on politicians’ lists as major
contributors. For example, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman-perhaps Hollywood’s
highest-profile Scientology couple until their recent divorce proceedings
cast her commitment in doubt-contributed $58,000 to various Democratic
causes, including $14,000 to Hilary Clinton’s successful Senatorial
campaign (von Rimscha 2000). Scientologist Mimi Rogers attended a $5,000-a-person
dinner/fund-raiser for Clinton in September 1998 (Weinraub 1998), and
Travolta introduced President Clinton at a $25,000-a-plate fundraiser
in August 2000 (Kennedy 2000:2). An inside-the-beltway Washington lawyer
and Scientologist, John Coale, donated at least $30,000 to various Democratic
causes, "including the Democratic National Committee and Vice President
Al Gore’s political action committee" (Jacoby 1998:5; Hess 1999,
74). He and his wife (CNN legal commentator, lawyer, and Scientologist
Greta Van Susteren) attended a state dinner for the Italian Prime Minister,
and Van Susteren sat next to First Lady Hilary Clinton (Jacoby 1998,
5). No evidence, exists, however, that Cruise, Rogers, Coale, or Van
Susteren have tried to transform their financial clout and contacts
into Scientology lobbying opportunities. More interesting is that fact
that, all on the same day (July 2, 1998), ten prominent Scientologists
donated a total of $7,400 to Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman’s coffer-three
months before he signed on as a co-sponsor to Matt Salmon’s House of
Representatives bill that was critical of Germany’s protection of religious
freedom (see The Center for Responsive Politics 1999). Financial interests,
however, may be a factor that helps to explain the Scientology celebrities’
access.
[32] Not only does the Department of
State have a mandate to monitor human rights (including religious human
rights) issues in countries around the world, it also seeks to protect
American financial interests abroad. Seen in this context, Germany’s
firm stand against Scientology combined religious human rights concerns
with financial protection of America’s major export-entertainment. Corea
caught the ear of politicians and State Department officials with his
claims of financial loss due to the cancellation of German shows, and
Travolta (along with fellow Scientologist Cruise) had been the subject
of a movie boycott. Hayes had not ‘suffered’ at the hands of German
officials, but perhaps Scientology officials thought that his status
as a visible minority (an African-American) gave him a platform to discuss
alleged discrimination. In any case, the withdrawal of state funding
for Corea and the (albeit failed) boycott of a Travolta movie gave the
stars issues in which they could "legitimately claim standing or
stake" (Meyer and Gamson 1995, 201).
[33] Finally, worth remembering is that
members of Congress and the State Department grew up with these Hollywood
personalities. Travolta has been a presence in the American pop culture
scene since the 1970s, starring in numerous television and movie roles
with a rejuvenated career in the 1990s. Hayes’s major musical hit, "Shaft,"
is instantly recognizable and still receives occasional radio airtime,
and Corea has been making music for decades. For a generation of Americans
who have grown up with television and radio, these three celebrities
are familiar figures who, in various ways, have been in people’s lives
for a long time. Indeed, some baby-boomers associate them with crucial
moments in their own young adult lives. Because of this pop-culture,
media-generated notoriety, it is not surprising that Americans-specifically
American politicians and government officials-would give them special
access. Indeed, Scientology officials count on them doing so, and thus
far the actions of D.C. decision-makers have proven them right.
[34] On a practical level, perhaps the
most significant question that this article generates is whether the
influence of Scientology’s celebrities was indeed part of a larger pattern
of accessibility that Hollywood experienced because of systemic predilections
involving media, money, and political power in the American political
system, or instead was a temporary window of opportunity fostered by
the social climate of the Clinton administration. Cultural studies theorists
who view celebrities and politicians as constructing "public subjectivities
to house the popular will" (Marshall 1997, 204) undoubtedly see
the infusion of celebrities into politics as a reality of post-modern
life. In, however, the post-9/11 realities of a nervous America led
by George W. Bush, one cultural commentator reflects, "[t]he whole
fusion thing [between Hollywood and Washington] seems dated suddenly....
[W]hat the public wants now are supercompetent technocrats with no discernible
private lives who sublimate their libidos by plotting strategy instead
of parading them on cable [television]" [Kirn 2002, 12]). For many
people, world events may have become more gripping than entertainment,
so celebrities may find fewer politicians and smaller audiences for
their opinions on pressing issues of the day.
Notes
[i]
By "cultural elites" I mean people whose relationships to
various media give them significant impact upon societies and/or cultures,
especially in areas involving styles, tastes, and entertainment.
[ii]
The best known celebrity among American federal politicians was Ronald
Reagan, and a celebrity-turned-politician who had taken Scientology
courses and remained a supporter of some of its causes was the late
Congressman Sonny Bono [Bardach 1999, 90-92])
[iii]
Resource mobilization theory identifies the ways in which organizations
acquire and utilize a wide variety of assets (such as time, wealth,
talent, labour etc.) in efforts to reach their goals while depriving
their opponents of them. By the late 1970s it has usurped relative deprivation
as the dominant paradigm for interpreting social movements. In recent
years, new social movement theory has been among its most vocal challengers,
yet some researchers have moved resource mobilization theory into areas
such as Internet battles (Peckham 1998)and globalization (Kent 1999a;
2001c).
[iv]
Most of this material is housed in a research collection that I oversee,
although a great deal of it is available on the Internet.
[v]
In secret committee negotiations that transpired over two years and
that operated "outside of normal agency procedures," Scientologists
and IRS officials reached an agreement that granted the organization
tax-exempt status after the organization agreed to pay $12.5 million
for unspecified reasons to the federal government, and Scientology agreed
to drop 2300 lawsuits that its members had launched against the revenue
department (International Association of Scientologists, [1994?]). These
and other aspects of the agreement, which undermined a string of court
decisions against Scientology’s tax exemption efforts, remained confidential
until The Wall Street Journal posted a leaked version of the
document on the Internet (Franz 1997; MacDonald 1997).
[vi]
Some North American scholars see Germany’s position differently. Two
Canadian authors explain German hostility toward Scientology as the
result of a "lack of empirical research coupled with hasty theological
judgements based on limited texts" interpreted by church-affiliated
anti-cultists who often enjoy special relationships with the state (Hexham
and Poewe,1999, 210, 222). Taking a different approach, an American
law student argued, "the majority of Germans perceive Scientology
as not fitting traditional religious norms and as perhaps unworthy of
protection" (Moseley 1997, 1169).
[vii]
It is difficult to obtain information about the results of Scientology’s
Albanian efforts, although one source indicates that Albania banned
Scientology "in the wake of a corruption scandal" (Morvant
1996).
[viii]
RPFs operate in and on Scientology property in at least three California
locations, plus at locations in Clearwater (Florida), Copenhagen, East
Grinstead (West Sussex, England), and Australia.
[ix]
Important to note is that, within Scientology, all three entertainers
are "Honorary LRH [L. Ron Hubbard] Public Relations Officers"
whose goals involve the propagation of Scientology information and image.
(See the list attached to Anderson 1980, 1, 3; Church of Scientology
International 1994).
[x]
When, for example, Corea responded to a question about apparent German
hostility to Scientology, his interpretation of its cause was, "We’re
dealing with incredible, weird, wild emotions" (Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe 1997, 17).
Works Cited
AFP. 1998. "Enquete Commission Solicits Understanding
for the Perspective Towards Scientology-Bonn Delegation Struggles Against
Prejudice in the USA." Downloaded from <alt.religion.scientology>
on March 3, 1998; Translated by Joe Cisar.
American Family Foundation. 1994. "Hubbard ‘Tech’
From Germany to Albania." The Cult Observer 11, 4, 8.
American Spectator 1997. "She Blinded
Them With Science." (April), 15; Downloaded From an <alt.religion.scientology>
posting by Felix Tilley entitled, "Halfbright, the Whitehouse,
$CN, and the Germans-from TAS," on March 18, 1997.
Anderson, Sue. 1980. "Honorary LRH PROs Around
the World." LRH Personal PRO International (July 28), 1pp.
+ 7pp.
Anonymous. 1997. "*Flash* Scientology Bill Torpedoed!!"
(November 10); Downloaded from Anonymous (<nobody@REPLAY.COM>)
at <alt.religion.scientology> on November 10, 1997).
Baker, Russ. 1997. "Clash of the Titans."
George (April), 95ff.
Bardach, Ann Louise. 1999. "Proud Mary."
George (August), 76ff.
Beckstein, Dr. Günther. 1997. "Measures Undertaken
by the Government of the State of Bavaria." Press Release (January
15); downloaded from <http://www.bayern.de/STMI/Scientology/e2197.htm>
on February 1, 1997.
Behar, Richard. 1986. "The prophet and profits
of Scientology." Forbes (October 27), 314-322.
Bell, Catherine. 2000. "The Treatment of Religious
Minorities in Western Europe." Testimony Before the House Committee
on International Relations (June 14), 7pp.
Billerbeck, Jens. 2000. "The Sworn Affirmation."
Unofficial Translation by Joe Cisar. (June 22); Downloaded from, <
alt.religion.scientology > on July 13, 2000, 2pp.
Boyes, Roger. 1997. "Stars accuse Germany of
persecuting Scientologists." The Times (London), (January
10), 13.
Brownstein, Ronald. 1990. The Power and the Glitter:
The Hollywood-Washington Connection. New York: Pantheon Books.
The Center for Responsive Politics. 1999. "Individual
Donations to a Candidate." List for Benjamin A. Gilman; Downloaded
from:
<http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/cgi-win/
indivsprofile.exe?H6NY26016> on April 19, 2000.
Church of Scientology International. 1994. "Honorary
PROs in Action." Hotline [The Newsletter of L. Ron Hubbard’s
Personal Public Relations Office International] 6 Issue 3: 6.
------. 1998. "German intolerance condemned."
Freedom 30,1, 22-26.
Clinton, Bill. 1996. "Ce que nous pouvons faire
au sujet des drougues." Éthique & Liberté 8 (Décembre),
17.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
1997. "Religious Intolerance in Europe Today." Hearing (September
18); Downloaded from the World Wide Web at <http://www.house.gov/csce/hearing.htm>
on September 6, 1999.
Dahl, David. 1998a. "Scientology’s influence
grows in Washington." St. Petersburg Times (March 29), 1A,
14A.
------. 1998b. "In Congress, Travolta lobbies
for Scientology." St. Petersburg Times (June 26); Downloaded
from posting by Rod Keller in <alt.religion.scientology> on June
30, 1998).
Enquete Commission. 1998. Final Report of the Enquete
Commission on ‘So-Called Sects and Psychogroups. New Religious and Ideological
Communities and Psychogroups in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Translated by Wolfgang Fehlberg and Monica Ulloa-Fehlberg. Bonn: Deutscher
Bundestag.
Frantz, Douglas. 1997. "Scientology’s puzzling
journey from tax rebel to tax exempt." The New York Times
(March 9), 1, 30.
Gerhart, Ann and Annie Groer. 1998. "The Reliable
Source: Now You Know." The Washington Post (June 26), B3.
Gerstein, Josh. 2000. "Here’s to Scientology!"
(January 7); Downloaded from: <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/
WhitehouseWag/wag000107.html> on April 19, 2000.
George. 2000. "Special Report: Celebrity
Activism." (April), 48-69.
Glassman, Ronald. M. 1984. "Manufacture Charisma
and Legitimacy." In Max Weber’s Political Sociology. Edited
by Ronald M. Glassman and Vatro Murvar. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood
Press: 217-235.
Haag, Gerhard. 1992. "BULGRAVIA" and "Project
A." (4.Dezember), 11pp; Unofficial Translation by Joe Cisar Dowloaded
from <alt.religion.scientology> on August 28, 1997.
Hausherr, Tilman. 1997. "FAQ: Scientology in
Germany." Downloaded from <alt.religion.scientology> on May
31, 1997.
------. 2002. "scientology/celebrities."
Available at: <http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/celeb.txt>
on May 29, 2002.
Heintz, Jim. 1997. "Sweden Agrees to Block Access
to Scientology Training Manual." The Washington Post (October
19), A24.
Hess, Pamela. 1999. "The Secret Trials of Greta
Van Susteren." George (November), 70-75.
Hexham, Irving and Karla Poewe. 1999. "‘Verfassungsfeindlich’:
Church, State, and New Religions in Germany." Nova Religio
2,2 (April), 208-227.
House of Representatives. 1997. "Expressing the
Sense of the Congress with respect to the discrimination by the German
Government against members of minority religious groups, particularly
the continued and increasing discrimination by the German Government
against performers, entertainers, and other artists form the United
States associated with Scientology." 105th Congress,
1st Session, H. Con. Res. 22 (February 13); Downloaded from
Jon Noring (reposting from Mike O’Connor) in <alt.religion.scientology>
on February 14, 1997.
------. 2000. "Expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives with respect to violations in Western Europe of provisions
of the Helsinki Final Act and other international agreements relating
to the freedom of individuals to profess and practice religion or belief."
H. RES. 588. (September 21).
Hubbard, L. Ron. 1971. "Opinion Leaders."
Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter (May 11); in L. Ron
Hubbard, The Organization Executive Course, Distribution Division
6. Copenhagen: AOSH DK Publications Department A/S, 1972, 405-410.
International Association of Scientologists. 1994?
"Ensuring the Future of Scientology Throughout the World."
[Magazine]. No Place or Date, 1.
Jacoby, Mary. 1998. "High Profile Couple Never
Pairs Church and State." St. Petersburg Times (December
13); 7pp; Downloaded from:
<http://www.sptimes.com/Floridian/121398/
High_profile_couple_n.html> on October 4, 1999.
John, Mark. 1997. "German Jewish Leader Slams
Scientology Letter." Reuters (January 13); Downloaded from
the World Wide Web at:
<http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/970113/
entertainment/stories/people_scientology_3.html> on January 16, 1997.
Keller, Suzanne. 1983. "Celebrities as a National
Elite." In Political Elites and Social Change. Edited by
Moshe M. Czudnowski. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University
Press, 3-14.
------. 1986. "Celebrities and Politics: A New
Alliance." Research in Political Sociology 2. Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press, 145-169.
Kennedy, J. Michael. 2000. "Raising Funds to
House Memories of Way They Were." Los Angeles Times (August 14);
Downloaded from: <http://www.latimes.com/news/20000814/t000076320.html>
on August 15, 2000, 3pp.
Kent, Stephen A. 1990. "Deviance Labelling and
Normative Strategies in the Canadian ‘New Religions/Coutercult’ Debate."
Canadian Journal of Sociology 15, 4, 393-416.
------. 1999a. "The Globalization of Scientology:
Influence, Control and Opposition in Transnational Markets." Religion
29, 147-169.
------. 1999b. "Scientology-s This a Religion?"
Marburg Journal of Religion 4 1 (July):11pp.;Downloaded through:
<http:www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/
reigionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/> on July 8, 1999, 29pp.
------. 2000. Brainwashing in Scientology’s Rehabilitation
Project Force (RPF). Behörde für Inneres-Arbeitsgruppe Scientology
und Landeszentrale für politische Bildung.(October 2000), 63 pp; Available
on the World Wide Web at: <http://www.hamburg.de/Behoerden/ags/brain.pdf>.
------. 2001a. "Brainwashing Programs in The
Family/Children of God and Scientology." In Benjamin Zablocki and
Thomas Robbins (Eds). Misunderstanding Cults. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 349-378.
------. 2001b. "Compelling Evidence: A Rejoinder
to Lorne Dawson’s Chapter." In Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins
(Eds). Misunderstanding Cults. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 401-411.
------. 2001c. "The French and German Versus
American Debate Over ‘New Religions,’ Scientology, and Human Rights."
Marburg Journal of Religion 6, 1 (January): 11 Web Pages (27,825
words). Electronic journal located at:
<http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/
religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/kent2.html>.
Kirn, Walter. 2002. "The End of The Affair."
New York Times Magazine (May 26), 11-12.
Koff, Stephen. 1989. "Scientology Faces New Charges
of Harassment." The Newkirk Herald Journal (July 6), 5-7;
Reprinted from The St. Petersburg Times (December 22, 1988),
!a, 6A-7A.
Kommers, Donald P. 1997. The Constitutional Jurisprudence
of the Federal Republic of Germany. Second Edition. Durham, North
Carolina: Duke University Press, 1997.
Kruttschnitt, Christine; Rainer Nuebel; and Jeannette
Schweitzer. 2000. "The Big Bluff." Stern (June 29);
Downloaded from: <http://www.lisatrust.org/Stern.htm> on August
11, 2000, 3pp.
Lesevre, Captain Guillaume. 1988. "Lines to Scientology
Celebrities." (Authorized by AVC International for Church of Scientology
International). (December 14), 2pp.
MacDonald, Elizabeth. 1997. "Scientologists and
IRS Settled For $12.5 Million." The Wall Street Journal (December
30), A12.
Marshall, P. David. 1997. Celebrity and Power:
Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
McCarthy, John D.; and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. "Resource
Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory." American
Journal of Sociology 82, 6 (May), 1212-1241.
Meyer, David S.; and Joshua Gamson. 1995. "The
Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements."
Sociological Inquiry 65,2 (May), 181-206.
MieterEcho [Renter Echo]. 1997. "How Scientology
Buys our Houses and loses its Investment." Newspaper for the Rental
Community of Berlin, Nr. 262 (May/June): 4pp; downloaded on September
9, 1999 from <http://cisar.org/trn0222.htm>, Informal Translation
by Joe Cisar.
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Morvant, Penny. 1996. "Sects Prompt Protests
in Eastern Europe." Open Media Research Institute 1, 211
(July 2); Downloaded from the <Hungarian American List: Jul 1996HAL:***O...>
on October 21, 1998.
Moseley, Emily A. 1997. "Defining Religious Tolerance:
German Policy Toward the Church of Scientology." Vanderbilt
Journal of Transnational Law 30, 5, 1129-1171.
New York Post. 1997. "Travolta Brings
Sect’s Appeal." (September 19), 23.
News From the House International Relations Committee.
1999. "Gilman Cosponsors Resolution on Religious Discrimination
in Germany[.] ‘Germany is a country that Should to [sic] be a Leader
in Tolerance,’ Says Gilman." Press Release. (October 21), 2pp.;
Downloaded from:
<http://www.house.gov/international_relations/
press/6pr102199.htm> on October 22, 1999.
O’Connor, Mike. 1998. "Meet The Press-CO$ Topic
Arises." February 15); Downloaded from <alt.religion.scientology>
on February 15, 1998.
Peckham, Michael. 1998. "New Dimensions of Social
Movement/Countermovement Interaction: The Case of Scientology and Its
Internet Critics." Canadian Journal of Sociology 23, 4,
317-345; Available at: <http://www.ualberta.ca/~cjscopy/articles/peckham.html>
on May 29, 2002.
Pierce, Greg [Compiler]. 1998. "Inside politics:
hauling in Travolta." The Washington Times (March 6), A6.
Ressner, Jeffrey. 1997. "For Bill, Another Satisfied
Customer." Time (September 22), 20.
Reuters. 1997. "Director Retracts Nazi
Claim." (January 16); Downloaded from <deja.com> on September
19, 1999.
Rich, Frank. 1998. "Clinton’s Travolta fever."
The New York Times (February 18), A21.
Sappell, Joel and Robert W. Welkos. 1990. "The
courting of celebrities." Los Angeles Times (June 25), A18.
St. Paul Pioneer Press. [St. Paul, Minnesota].
1995. "German Labor Court Rules Scientology os a Business Enterprise,
Not a Church." (March 23), 6C; also posted on: <alt.religion.scientology>.
Seib, Gerald. 1999. "Government by celebrity?"
The Globe and Mail [Canada] (September 18), C1, C4; Reprinted
from The Wall Street Journal.
Shelor, George-Wayne. 1984. "Ex-Members denounce
sect rehab program." Clearwater Sun (August 28), 1B, 2B.
Sherman, Len. 1990. The Good, the Bad[,] and the
Famous: Celebrities Playing Politics. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Tabayoyon, Andre. 1994. "Declaration of Andre
Tabayoyon," in Church of Scientology International vs. Steven
Fishman and Uwe Geertz. United States District Court, Central District
of California, Case No.CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx), (April 4), 64pp. (Plus Attachments).
The Virginian-Pilot. 1997. "Scientology."
(November 16).
von Rimscha, Robert. 2000. "Scientology debate:
Does Hollywood pay critics of Germany?" Der Tagesspiegel
(June 16); Unofficial Translation by Joe Cisar Downloaded from: <alt.religion.scientology>
on June 16, 2000, 2pp.
Walsh, Mary Williams. 1997. "Celebrity group
takes on germany over Scientology." Los Angeles Times (January
11), A1, A10.
The Washington Post. 1997. "Scientologist
from Dermany granted asylum." (November 9), A18.
------. 1998. "Movie Lobby?" (February 16),
D3.
The Washington Times. 1993. "Stuttgart
snub leaves pianist still smarting." (October 22), C15.
Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.
Edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Weinraub, Bernard. 1998. "Among Hollywood Democrats,
President is supported as one of their own." The New York Times
(September 29), A19.
Welkos, Robert W. and Joel Sappell. 1985. "Scientologists
Win major court victory over defectors, documents." Los Angeles
Times. Los Angeles, California: Part II:1, 3.
------. 1990. "Defectors recount lives of hard
work, punishment." Los Angeles Times (June 26), [24-25].
The White House. 1998. "Press Briefing by Mike
McCurry." (February 12), 11pp,; Downloaded from the World Wide
Web at:
<http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res
/12R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1998/2/13/11.text.1> on September 15,
1999.
Whitney, Craig R. 1994. "Scientology and its
german foes: a bitter conflict." The New York Times (November
7), A12.
Whittell, Giles. 1997. "Coup for church as studios
fear box-office boycott." The Times (London), (January 10),
13.
Young, Josh. 1998, "Bill Clinton’s grand seduction."
George (March), 106ff.
Young, Robert Vaughn. 1995. "Reich des Bosen."
Der Spiegel 39, 105, 107, 110-111, 114.
