Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Powered by
Scientology: "criminal racketeering"?
Update: I've toned this down and made it as objective as possible, as I felt I was unfair and perhaps intolerant in the original version.
I remember watching a documentary a few years ago on Scientology, where they attempted to show it up as a money-making scam, and made some convincing arguments, backed-up by evidence. I've never been able to understand its popularity, as L. Ron Hubbard (its originator) was a second-rate science fiction writer at best. I remember reading some critique of his ficion (maybe in Trillion Year Spree by Brian Aldiss?) which pointed out that Mr. Hubbard was an old school sf writer, who got paid by the line: therefore he wrote lots of very short sentences. Bad ones, at that. (By the way, I have attempted reading some of his stuff, and it was so truly awful I gave up.)
Today, I was browsing wikipedia to find out about juche, which Nicola mentioned and we'd never heard of (it's not a religion, as such, but the state ideology of North Korea). While I was there, I looked up Scientology, which Nicola also mentioned. I found a few things which further confirmed my views of Scientology:
- An article on Helatrobus, an interplanetary nation at the heart of Scientology.
- A scientific rebuttal of the ideas of Scientology by Peter Forde (an ex-Scientologist who once worked for them).
- A longer article by Peter Forde describing how he got out of Scientology.
- Some audio of L. Ron Hubbard talking about his ideas.
- Some unusual stuff about being Operating Theta.
- More about being an Operating Thetan. Apparently summarised from L. Ron's work in the public interest, as the original is "poorly structured, tedious, repetitive, and generally unpleasant to read".
Looking objectively at it, maybe few of these ideas are any crazier than Christianity, those of Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.. I also feel uncomfortable criticising other people's beliefs: it would be nice to be better informed about Scientology. However, it's difficult to get at the core texts as they are copyrighted and actively protected; to get at the meat of their ideas you have to pay money; and I don't have the time or the inclination to visit one of their churches, as the ideas seem unbelievable to me (in the same way that those of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc., in fact any organised religion, do). As Hubbard himself stated in a 1952 lecture: he's "trying to tell you a fairytale" (5203C04B, 1952 Phoenix lecture 2101).
I should qualify all this by saying that, while I am not religious, I defend the rights of anyone else to practice any religion they choose. The thing I'm struggling with at the moment is how far the rights of any religion should be supported when they start to infringe on the freedom of others. I think there is a strong case, supportable by evidence from ex-Scientologists, to show that Scientology (in general, and at its heart) goes too far in terms of extremism, exploitation and intolerance. (Having said that, see the comments for a response from a practicing Scientologist who is actually fairly reasonable.)
Comments
Thanks for sharing this!
Thanks for sharing this! Identity scam is one of the fastest growing crimes in America that even celebrities may become the suspect. That person can use your Social Security number to get other personal information about you. You might not believe that even celebrities can do that. One great example is Antwon Tanner who is known for his role on One Tree Hill. He has been busted for running a Social Security scam, selling fake social security numbers. Evidently, no installment loans could cover his needs but regardless, he was found out and arrested by Immigrations and Customs officers. He is set to begin trial at a later date, and he is currently free on bond. Antwon Tanner will need some installment loans now to afford a lawyer good enough to keep him out of Federal Prison.
unrealistic
Although I am a big fan of Tom Cruise and his movies, I have some doubts on Scientology. I figure its not a real religion and its ideals are unrealistic either.
There are a lot of religious
There are a lot of religious sects coming out now a days and they are most often more crazier than the last if not just like it. But come to think of it, all of these religious organizations are one in saying that there is only one supreme being however the name varies depending on what organization you are talking with. In my opinion, religious affiliations are the product of man's quest for the meaning of life. Be it Christian, Muslims, Jews, Jehovah's, Mormons (all the others that I couldn't think of at this time) have only one goal and that is to understand the meaning and their purpose in life.
It is as bad as it sounds
Scientology is one of those things that continuously baffles me. How something so absurd and blatantly scammish can exist in modern day is beyond me. I spent some time a women's sober house with an ex-scientologist and heard some crazy things about the inner workings of the organization. Apparently they extract money out of you at every opportunity.
Scam Religion
What i think Scientology is not a religion, its a scam and the person who invented it went to prison and that's true.
You think?
I think I have read somewhere that Tom Cruise is a scientologist? That's wierd
scientology is a scam
its a scam and the person who invented it went to prison and was a thief and killer
Not a Religion
In my opinion Scientology is not a religion. It's strictly a belief.
I also agree that Scientology has many believers that are extremists. Just look at Tom Cruise. He sure toned down his outbursts after his beliefs hit him in the wallet hard!
the founder was crook
the founder of scientology was on the fbi most wanted list. he was a fraudsterwho set up a scam. its all evil from what i gather. on top of it all, they give ufo buffs a bad name too.
I do not know what i liked
I do not know what i liked more: the article itself or the insightful comments
Christopher Reeves and Scientology
When Christopher Reeves was on his death bed, he decided to turn to religion. I have no Idea why he looked into scientology, but thats what he turned to. Later, he wrote that it was one big giant scam, and that the only reason so many celebrities are still in it is that they are so rich that they don't even realize that it is a scam. I don't believe it is a scam per se, but Scientology may very well be a waste of money. Either way, I think that everyone should choose for themselves what religion they want.
Well i am not religious
Well i am not religious nether, but i respect people's choices and beliefs. This is what makes me sad, i see every day conflicts in the world and it seems to me that people are fighting because they don't have better things to do. Perhaps if we were a little more careful we could see every day people suffer in drug treatment centers, hospitals, poverty and so on.
Why We Fight?
I remember the 80's when there was some sort of speech about Africa's poverty and hunger. It looks like the case was closed. It's like nobody is dying from starvation in Africa anymore. I blame media for the most part of world's bad things. They are used to treat information like some sort of fashion. "If you're not talking about terrorists and Middle East policy these days you're "frelled", you can't get higher in your reporter career. The starving African children topic is so yesterday." I'm "frelling" sick of it. Media will eventually drive us all insane and addicted to prescription drugs for social migraines.
What a thought provoking
What a thought provoking post, thank you.
You're welcome. Are you the
You're welcome. Are you the same person that commented on the Animals poem?
OVER 450 JEHOVAH'S WITNESS LAWSUITS, COURT CASES, ETC. SUMMARIZE
OVER 450 JEHOVAH'S WITNESS LAWSUITS, COURT CASES, ETC. SUMMARIZED
This website summarizes 300 United States court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witnesses, including dozens of cases where the Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/
This website summarizes 160 United States court cases and lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against Employers:
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES
http://jwemployees.bravehost.com
Erm, yes, and your point is?
Erm, yes, and your point is? Is this just spam? If you choose not to defend your posting of this comment, I can't see any reason to leave it here, and will remove it in a few days time.
Stable Datum
Isn't it odd how some people will bend over backwards to be skeptical of Scientology, and yet will accept anything negative about it they read on the internet at face value? And from Wikipedia, of all places especially? What kind of skeptic cites a Wikipedia article in this day and age?
As is so often the case, the skeptic's arguments are circular, because they boil off to one distinct point:
"I read some website that was critical of Scientology, I believe it, that settles it."
This same sort of thing is hashed over on a daily basis for all other religions of the world as well. In any important religion (especially one involving human beings!) you will find disgruntled ex-members and crank websites spouting unverifiable conspiracy theories against said church. So what? It proves nothing.... except that Scientology must be doing something right.
I'd like to point out that I
I'd like to point out that I only used Wikipedia as a source of general information about Scientology, and only referenced it for background material on scientology and Helatrobus, which I found intriguing. Perhaps if Scientology made its core religious texts freely available, and encouraged open debate around its central tenets, I would be able to use original sources more easily. And anyway, I think given the amount of contributors to Wikipedia there are, a large proportion of it, at least concerning important topics, can be believed.
As for the other articles I cited, they were either written by independent journalists, or references to actual speeches by L. Ron Hubbard. I made some efforts to find worthy sources, but as with all religion, both sides have faith in their own perspective. I merely put forward a few references which I found interesting. I am not claiming to be an expert on Scientology, but an observer, someone interested in unusual belief systems which to me bear no relation to the truth. But as I've stated in other comments, I respect your right to your beliefs: it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
reply
Thanks for posting my reply. I used to think as you did, that Science would answer all my questions.
Part of the problem Scientologists have with psychiatry (other than their arrogance and hubris) is that psychiatry is not actually a science, but a pseudo-science. Do medical doctors vote by show of hands on whether something is a disease or not. Of course not! They are required by peer review to demonstrate that they've used the scientific method to isolate and come up with a new disease before they can publish it in their journals.
On the other hand, psychiatrists vote for a disease -- or un-vote it (homosexuality was un-voted not too long ago). The main purpose of all those hundreds of classifications in the DSM IV is for billing purposes.
I can't cover it all here, but the abuses of the scientific method with which psychiatry is fraught are so huge and glaring that any thinking person who hasn't swallwed the whole psychobabble religion himself can see them.
Here's a rant on the subject worth reading from my friend Dean Blehert - http://www.blehert.com/essays/cute_psych_word_games.htm Scientologists are guilty of showing that the Psychiatrist emperor has no clothes, and we take a lot of flak for it.
For every apostate there are a thousand active Scientologists using their tools to make a better world. Try an unbiased approach to the subject and you'd find that out.
I don't expect you to believe as I do about the nature of the human spirit -- it's taken me a long time to work it out for myself. It IS my religion, however, and as such deserves the same respect you'd give to the religious views of a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. I don't think that's too much to expect, that we "Respect the religious beliefs of others." You believe in science -- I hope it brings you happiness. But don't expect the pseudo-science of psychiatry to help you achieve it with their weird brain chemistry imbalance mumbo jumbo. I think the average psychiatrist has trouble balancing his checkbook, much less brain chemistry. They do what big pharma recommends -- and wouldn't you if your education was paid for by them?
You want to stop a religion from damaging people, you could start by helping us cut government funding for psych programs like teenscreen, so they can't drug every last child in America, right down to infants in the cradle.
Jay, I'd like to point out
Jay, I'd like to point out that I find your characterisation of homosexuality as a disease (which is implicit in the above) highly offensive, before I continue.
I'd also like to say I don't think science will answer all my questions. I think some questions can't be answered, and it's arrogant to believe they can be. I do believe in the human spirit: in fact, it's the only thing I believe in. I just don't think it's some ineffable unknowable thing, like a soul. Merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. That, to me, doesn't diminish its glory or mystery. On the contrary, knowing just how complex and beautiful it is increases my astonishment.
Also, I don't personally hold with psychiatry for myself. But I know, for example, that friends of mine have found it invaluable in helping them understand and come to terms with their grief when a loved one has died. They didn't have demons (literally) trapped inside them: they just needed to talk about stuff with someone.
I respect your right to believe in Scientology. However, I feel some religions are less respectable than others. Particularly ones which financially and intellectually burden their followers, or which express views at odds with my personal beliefs. I still think people have a right to believe in them; but that's not the same as saying I agree or respect the doctrines of their religion.
Think for yourself?
Freedom of speech - a great concept that I'm hoping you'll apply here, by letting an actual Scientologist answer your rant.
Yes, Hubbard was a best-selling SF writer who also wrote westerns, crime/mystery, and some great horror. Pick up "Fear" some time from the library. Stephen King called it "a masterpiece," but what does he know? Read it yourself and see what you think.
And Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" is not Charles Stross or Iain Banks or Alastair Reynolds, but it is a fine read that was made into a very disappointing movie - much like "Starship Troopers" was for Heinlein fans.
Yes, Scientologists like me do subscribe to some ideas like "People are basically good" that you might think wacky. Another piece of perhaps misguided advice we try to teach is "think for yourself". We also teach that you can improve your own life using some of the many tools we have available. But it's your call. You don't want 'em, don't study them out, don't use them. It's your life, and good luck to you! Most Scientologists use the tools it provides because they've used them and see them working. (How wacky!)
Our churches run social outreach programs that have put tens of thousands of people through drug rehabilitation programs like Narconon. How wacky is it to try to get people off drugs? Ask these guys: http://www.stopaddiction.com/download-introvid.html
We've volunteered countless hours teaching people of all ages how to study, so they retain and can use what they are studying.
We have distributed (free of charge) millions of little booklets that teach a common sense moral code to anybody who can read and understand it, trying to make an impact on the violence and hatred in the world.
Wouldn't "looking objectively" at anything actually entail a look at both sides of it? Instead of getting all your info about Scientology from apostates with an axe to grind, try actually going into a Scientology church and talking with some of the friendly people there. They aren't as weird as you make them out to be.
Is it a religion? Absolutely. Does it tell you what to think? No, it expects you to work things out for yourself. Are we expected to believe everything Hubbard ever said? Hell, no, and he'd be the first person to tell you that if he were still around.
But, hey, you go right ahead and think what you want! And say it, too - regardless of how offensive or uninformed it is. Freedom of speech is truly a wonderful thing.
Jay, thank you for taking
Jay, thank you for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply. I appreciate your opinions, and hopefully didn't give you the impression that you didn't have the right to express them. We are all entitled to freedom of speech, as you say.
Also, I don't disagree with some of the sentiments you express: I believe that everyone is basically good, the people should think for themselves, and that we should look at things objectively. At heart, I am a scientist. My issue is that religions are by their nature indisputable, regardless of things like scientific objectivity. There is no argument I can make against a religious person with faith which will dissuade them about their religion.
I have met Scientologists recruiting in the street in Birmingham, and rather than being friendly people ready to leave me alone when I said I didn't have time to talk to them, they often turn quite huffy, affronted and rude. This could just be individuals, or maybe it's me, but my impression is not of a friendly, welcoming environment; more of a "we know we are right and you are missing out" attitude. I'm not missing out: I have my beliefs, and I don't want to be harassed in the street about them.
I would attempt to see both sides of the coin, if I could afford to. One of my other "axes to grind" is that Scientology is secretive, with its holy books copyrighted. Also, one is expected to pay to go through the clearing process. Any other religion doesn't make these demands on me: Christianity doesn't expect me to pay to go to church, and doesn't jealously guard its intellectual property. To me, these two facets of Scientology alone mean it isn't a viable religion, if I was looking for one. This is largely why my opinions are uninformed. On the other hand, I tried as hard as possible not to be offensive, but apologise if you found what I said so. I honestly find the central tenets of Scientology very difficult to take seriously, rooted as they are in myths which supposedly occurred before the beginning of the universe. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Maybe I'm just blinded by science: but to my mind, science offers far more useful and convincing explanations than all religions, Scientology included.
I am not saying that Scientology is alone in damaging people, and I'm sure there are many happy followers. My problem is again the secrecy, the mistrust of psychology and psychiatry (which helps many people), and the hypocrisy and flakiness of L. Ron Hubbard himself. These to me undermine the foundations of its belief system.
Drug Test All Scientologists!
Cause something ain't right.
I however do believe scientology is a religon. Christianity and Judaism teach that it is possible to lift money to God status, thereby making the worship of money a religon. Scientologists seek secrets held by their higher ups. They pay out the butt for these secrets, but their passion constitutes defining Scientology as a religon in my book.