Karen Bass and Rick Caruso’s contentious Los Angeles mayoral campaign recently made headlines when Caruso’s camp released an ad featuring Bass’ support of Scientology. In the subsequent debate that followed, both candidates appeared to compete to see who could distance themselves furthest from the controversial cult.
Bass’ original speech can be seen here at the 4:27 mark

Brad Pomerance, television host of such programs as Air, Land and Sea, Uncovered in the Archives and Local Edition in Los Angeles, weighed in on Twitter with Stand League’s stamp of support:

Someone tweeted a comment to Pomerance whose response was telling:

First off no one was “spouting religious nonsense” nor was Caruso’s political ad an “attack on any religious group”.
Objections to Bass’ apparent backing of Scientology came not from the ideology or doctrine of the organization but rather the ever growing allegations of egregious crimes and unjustifiable abuse. People rolled their eyes at her comments in the face of Scientology’s malicious public behavior against anyone they consider an enemy.
Consistently the attitude towards her glowing endorsement of a group embroiled in accusations of shaming victims of rape, stalking, the poisoning of family pets, human trafficking, child abuse, lies and more was one of disbelief and disgust.
How could Bass laud Scientology, saying their “goal and commitment is truly to make a difference. It is my belief that if we really want to change this world it is important that we think about how we treat each other” while ignoring policies of Fair Game and Disconnection?
How is Scientology making a difference while in bed with the Nation of Islam? Are they changing the world with their myriad of fake photo ops during natural disasters?
Is the exhortation to “destroy by any means necessary” a religious value?
Members of the FLDS believe that grown men marrying 12 year old girls and raping them is religious yet Warren Jeffs’ incarceration in prison clearly disproves such monstrous ideology. Yet going by Brad Pomerance’s tweet, Jeffs should never have been challenged.
Religion is not exempt from the law nor does the First Amendment protect any religion when crimes are committed.
Is speaking out against crime, abuse and fraud an attack against religion?
Of course not.
Perusing Pomerance’s Twitter also reveals an interesting conundrum.
Brad is vocal about anti-Semitism and the recent antics of Kanye West drew his ire.


Fighting hate such as this only happens when the ugliness is exposed and confronted no matter where it is practiced. However given Brad Pomerance’s theory, Scientology should be excused their embrace and endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, Tony Mohammad and the Nation of Islam.


Tony Mohammad was awarded Scientology’s highest honor for his “humanitarian” works.
It would appear that endorsement for such a notoriously bigoted group cannot be addressed because to do so would be too much of a “slippery slope”.
Pomerance also made this statement concerning a televised political event. (We are not including the photograph because it is not relevant.)

So what of a “religion” using Nazi imagery and comparisons in order to dehumanize their “enemies”?



Is this kind of rhetoric and hate propaganda allowed because the group spewing it claims to be a “religion”? Perhaps this kind of thinking is “religious” in nature and thus untouchable.
Perhaps too, all those who have suffered rape and molestation at the hands of their priests, imams, pastors and rabbis should stay quiet and not challenge the status quo. It is, after all, a slippery slope and who knows what might be exposed next.
On the other hand, Brad Pomerance hypocritically agrees that what is needed to fight such behavior is a loud voice.

Hate, bigotry and crime are not exempt because the organization perpetrating them claims religious or charitable exemption on their tax forms.
We reached out to Pomerance concerning this issue and received this reply:

If someone had taken the risk could all those people who died at Jonestown have been saved?
What if Mike Rinder, Leah Remini, Marc and Claire Headley, Amy Scobee, Mary Kahn and so many others had not taken the risk?
Had Lloyd Evans and other former Jehovah’s Witnesses not climbed that slippery slope, would we know about the two witness rule requirement when children are molested?
Not taking the risk, not being willing to oppose abuse only allows the abuse and victimization to flourish.
Avoiding the confrontation of abuse is cowardly and does a disservice to its victims. It is to stay silent in the face of evil. There are no degrees of acceptability; if anti-Semitism is wrong for Kanye West then it’s equally wrong for Scientology.
They actually awarded it but we shouldn’t speak about that because, you know…religion.
Shhhh…maybe it’ll go away on its own.
It appears that well-meaning religious people are often drawn in by the “slippery slope” argument. In other words, if it’s OK today to “attack” scn abuses or Islamic violence, tomorrow it’ll be Christians, Jews or peaceful Muslims.
What these apologists don’t seem to realize is that scn has about as much to do with religion as a shoplifter does with a shopper. They are simply impostors. This defense of the indefensible inevitably leads to broadsides against religion in general. Consequently, we find people rightfully outraged by scn abuses calling for measures against religions in general. Countless times I’ve seen comments such as “just take away ALL religious exemptions.” Those who defend abuses along with legitimate religions find themselves playing into the hands of those who truly hate religion.
Harboring and enabling abusers may save face in the short run but will predictably end in catastrophe. Just ask the Catholic church!
LikeLiked by 1 person