Katie Holmes, Tom Cruise, and the Cult of Scientology

I'm of the mind that there is no difference between religion and a cult, really. But I would add a number 3 to your list. Cults tend to be centered around one person (the inventor) and their purpose is to enrich the inventor monetarily, or to feed their megalomania. Usually both.

Here's another good read on the subject re: brainwashing...

Social Control In Scientology

A valid point. Now to apply it:

In Catholicism, the case could be made that the Pope would be that one person. He's not the inventor per se but fills the traditional role of leader. He's certainly well-off and has a lot of resources at his disposal. His word is supposedly infallable, which certainly sounds like it would feed anyone's megalomania.

Did Catholicism start out that way? Most would say no. If you base the religion strictly on the words of Jesus (a stand up guy, BTW), one would think Catholicism was the polar opposite of a cult. But, as years went by, and it gained more acceptance, and became a state religion, THAT'S when the inevitable corruption started to take place.

Other religions that are less centrally-organized might fail one aspect of #3's litmus test - a central megalomaniacal figure - but instead have LOTS of megalomaniacal figures making cash off thier followers. (I'm looking at Protestants and Evangelicals here - Jimmy Fallwell, Jimmy Swaggart, et. al. The more extreme versions of Islam in the mideast fall in this category as well, but they get the extra-points bonus of convincing their followers to blow themselves up for Allah.)

So, out of the popular world religions, that's leaving me with Judaism, Buddism and Hinduism that skate past the three points pretty much unscathed. (But wouldn't the Hindu caste system speak to the feelings of superiority evident in #3?)

This is not a sweeping condemnation of any religion. There are perfectly rational and decent people who follow all of these religions - Scientology included. It just seems to me that the more organization there is to a religion (in terms of people in positions of authority over other people), the more potential there is for corruption and abuse of power.

I'm not going to defend Scientology. It seems to me Hubbard took one simple and useful technique (biofeedback) and built a pyramid of hooey on top of it.

But any time someone starts trying to divide religions into "mainstream vs. cult" or any other good/bad dichotomy, I get nervous. There's a preacher in Texas who, shortly after Bush's condemnation of witchcraft in the Army, publically stated that all Wiccans should be napalmed. Somehow that whacko gets the societal seal of approval, and I'm a legitimate target for burning gasoline?

So even though I don't care for Scientology, I do care for religious tolerance. What the critics have to say often does not mesh well with objective reality.

My personal view is that all religions are rather silly. They're all based on some underlying philosophy and morality and that's generally benign and beneficial. Everything else... all the ceremonial trappings piled on top... is just silly to me. If people enjoy it and like to fill their time that way and if it helps them keep a firm hold on the moral underpinnings then that's fine. But when people hold those things up as being "the way" and the cremonial trappings become the important parts, and people lose sight of the fact that a moral foundation in no way depends on any of it, that's when (in my opinion) it becomes a cult. I'll never understand people's need for ritual other than as something to fill some of their time between the forceps and the stones... but that's just me

I get nervous too, when people start jeering and fomenting hatred about ANY religious or ethnic group. Especially when you are talking about my group, and one that many of my good friends belong to.

I'm not going to debate about "brainwashing" or what constitutes a cult. But when people start posting links to hate sites and suggesting that members of my church should be subjected to any form of violence, they are going too far.

Tom & Katie at the Candy Shop

Apologies if you're a Scientologist, Ananda. If it floats your boat, more power to you. That said, I wouldn't call the sites that were linked as hate sites simply because they posit views of Scientology that are contrary or see it in less than complimentary ways. I don't believe anything is "sacred." All are equal in the world of ideas, and no ideas should be protected from critical or rational assessment simply because someone might get offended. Imagine if that were applied to everything. Speaking out unfavorably against Amercian Idol would be considered hate speech.

Thanks, Chip.

I suppose it wouldn't seem like a hate site to you in quite the same way that something like the Aryan Nations or GodHatesFags would be, but the name of the site is "Operation Clambake" which is a pejorative term and a description of the intended purpose of this site, which is to attack and get rid of the Church of Scientology.

Scientology is cool. A religion with some guy who dive into a volcano without dying rocks!

You're right. I wouldn't see them the same way at all. There's a fundamental difference between hating people for things they have no control over and finding fault with things that are completely voluntary and based on ideas... ideas that like any others should be judged on their ability to stand up to critical thinking. If it's any consolation, no religion holds up under rational scrutiny. On the other hand, most religions don't cost you tens of thousands of dollars to find that out. If you believe what you believe out of careful and rational consideration you should be able to read and consider ALL views of Scientology equally and weigh the facts presented accordingly without dismissing them as hate speech. But then again that's one thing that all religions have in common. They condition you to reject anything contrary without actually weighing the ideas and facts on their actual merits.

Mine encourages me to question, analyze and create.

While I understand the rejection of organized religion, it seems to me that rejecting religion altogether may be an overreaction. Finding a faith that supports and nurtures you spiritually can be a great comfort when confronting questions to which science has no answers (and don't get me wrong - I'm a HUGE fan of science).

On the other hand, if your religion is telling you something that you feel is wrong, it's your duty to go to the source and form your own interpretations without regard to doctrine. If the core tenants are at odds with your fundmental beliefs, it may be time to consider other faiths.

Everybody has their own path to spiritual growth, and anybody who tells you that their path is the only true path is a pitiable huckster.

Aww, poor me.

I recall being taught to accept facts without analysis repeatedly in public school. As the whole point of Scientology philosophy is personal spiritual advancement by actually confronting and looking at the facts of existence and not letting someone else tell you what is, just accepting dogma would be silly and get you nowhere.

As for examining the true merits of something, nothing beats personal experience. I've examined auditing and training (works) and examined the organization (overzealous) and examined a great many critical sites like this one quite thoroughly - and then dismissed them as hate speech.

That's good then, and puts you ahead of most religious people in my experience. I'm all for personal growth, nurturing, and finding ways to be the best person you can be. For me personally I don't find that mythology aids that process, and in fact completely obfuscates and detracts from it. I can't accept that someone rose from the dead and went up to heaven to stand in judgement any more than I can accept that my body is infested by disembodied space aliens To each their own.

I have kind of a simple view on matters of faith and spirituality.

------
As a human , we are too small in scope to understand an omnipotent force.

Religeon is an attempt to get us to cope with that.
-----

Think about it , what would the scale of something that created the universe be in intellect and power?

Maybe the Bible is the word of God, at least parts of it .. wisdom passed down in moments to help people cope. Maybe God did cuase a child to be born as "his" son.

Maybe the same could be said for the Koran, The beliefs of Bhuddists, Pagans

Maybe God didnt pass down any of it either. what would the musings of a force so powerful be? Is really hard to fathom.

Like Chip said , Religeon helps people with basic moral concepts - most go to far of course.

Basic respect for Life is necessary. Respect for Other's right to thought and comfort also.

From a purely Scientific standpoint Scientology is no more or less believeable then Christianity.

The actions of its missionaries and beleivers of course - can totally be called in question.

They arent as bad as the Inquisition was - so the fact that members act in such a way doesnt invalidate their religeon any more then the Catholic church is invalidated by its checkered past.

A friend of mine got involved in this cult...and yes it is a cult...very expensive one. He even became one of the elite Sea Org peoples....does this look like a religion? After about $100,000 spent he attained higher learning about xenu and finally realised it was all about the money and left....but not before they harassed him into signing non disclosure documents....yeah religion my ass.

Fritz Leiber has a fantastic sad satire of his former friend, L. Ron Hubbard, around the time the latter was forming Scientology: Poor Superman.

My own experience of Scientology (mostly literature/paraphernalia and stories from my friend's brother, a believer) is that it fuses sales-training style self-improvement with a sci-fi backstory and a network-marketing structure. The result is a surprisingly functional lifestyle/belief system that's a lot less dangerous than evangelical Jesusism. What's more, it scratches an itch on the belief spectrum that neither Fundamentalist Rationalism nor the supernaturally-focused traditional religions can reach.

You've gotta give L. Ron props; most people say they're going to start a religion, and it's like someone building a robot in their garage: they throw a lot of circuitry and gears into a man-shaped box, but when they hook it up to the car battery it either flails around or blows up in their face. His robot stood up, saluted, and kept on about its business well after its maker's death, with no sign of slowing down.

The comparison between Scientology and Judaism is fairly amusing and fairly self-serving.

Judaism is a religiously-based international culture that is several thousand years old, and has contributed as much to world art, science, philosophy, and general thought as any other system of belief in history. However you feel about religion, Judaism gave humanity the idea of a personal relationship between the individual and his/her creator, and the idea of a coequal contract between the ruler (God) and the ruled (Jews), two concepts that led directly to classical liberalism, democracy, political, social, and economic rights, and all kinds of other good things.

Scientology was invented by L. Ron Hubbard on a bet with SF author and editor Poul Anderson in a bar of a hotel during a convention in the late forties. It was popularized by John Campbell, editor of Astounding/Analog SF magazine, who later said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. Hubbard's facile religious doctrine was based on two SF novellas, one written by Stanley Weintraub in the thirties, the other by Sam Moskowitz in the forties. His methods of "getting clear" were a partially digested, partially misunderstood mish-mash of Fruedianism and Jungianism, and his introduction of fraudulent technology (e-meters, crude galvinometers) into the process was done on the suggestion of John Campbell, who got the idea from Robert Heinlein. (Heinlein, who was familiar with lie detector technologies, thought the whole thing was a great practical joke.)

Believe what you like, respect others and treat them well, even if you disagree. But "respect" includes refraining from comparing something like Scientology to Judaism, Buddhism, or other religions that have made serious contributions to the human experience.

I agree completely with the spirit of that, but have to disagree in practical application. It lacks any objectivity. Longevity doesn't necessitate merit. I mean that in the broad sense. Ideas are ideas. Philosophy is philosophy. You either hold all ideas up to equal critical scrutiny or you don't. None of them should get a special pass no matter how long they've been around or how many adherants have done great things. If you take any religion and dissect it and seperate out the philosophy from the underpinnings they hold up as fact or "truth," they all collapse under the weight of their own absurdity. Respect means you have the ability to love and appreciate people no matter what they believe. It doesn't mean you have to turn a blind eye to their ideas.. I have friends who are Christians of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, people who love Amercian idol, people who think they've been abducted by aliens, and people who think lima beans are delicions. I think they're all nuts, but I love 'em anyway.

My own experience representing a client trying to break away from the church of Scientology lead me on an interesting voyage of discovery. The level of individual harassment expereienceed by my clinet, and my self was astounding. Furthermore the cost of the process is in the $100,000 + range, or more. And there is always are ason to spend more money.

Say what you will about the ultimate truth of any religion (the cosmic overlord Xenu being basd science fiction IMHO) but this organization is dangerous. In spite of the way people take your money in real religions, there is no cost to being a christian, a moslem, a buddhist, a taoist or any other real religion. Scientology is based entirely that spiritual advancement in predicated on financial investment. I enocurage anyone in scientology, or interested in scientology, to read the Road to Xenu, and look seriously at the other side. The devastation the Scientologists create in thier followers is vast.

Judaism led directly to democracy and human rights? I could have sworn that the Pagans of classic Greece had a crude democracy, the Pagans of Babylon codified rights into law, and archaological evidence suggests that the pre-literate Pagans of Europe practiced gender equality.

Not to knock Judaism, but... credit where credit is due.

Arcadia - yes, I've read that, too. How does what I said contradict what you said? Both points are valid.

Chip - I think one can form an opinion about a religion based on accomplishment. That's not a pass, that's a system of merit: generally recognized contributions to world culture. When alien abductees give to the world what Jews, Buddhists, Confucianists, and Lutherans have given, then I'll cheer their accomplishment.

Tell you what, let's make a wager just like Hubbard and Anderson did in that bar, more than fifty years ago. Let's you and me come back to Earth in 2500 years and see what the Scientologists have achieved. Then we'll have more to go on.

Seth if you can arrange that, count me in!!! In fact, wake me up every 500 years so I can see how everything pans out.

Ananda,

I don't wish hate on any $cientology member, only de-brainwashing. I might wish the same for some extremist members of mainstream religions like Islam, Christianity, etc. However, even at the non-extreme state, $cientology is simply a sham invented by a science fiction author.

Did they tell you how a billion years ago Lord Xenu put in millions of beings in all the volcanos of earth, and blew them up with hydrogen bombs? That these beings' spirits are now the reason why you spend tens of thousands to be "clear"?

No, they wait til you're Operating Thetan IV to tell you this. You have to be up there with Kate and Tom's status, and they have sure given plenty of money.

Religions ask you to donate money, they don't force you. Religions are concerned about saving people, whereas $cientology requires its members to spend ridiculous amount of moneys to recite the same lies over and over until they are true.

Religions, whether you believe they are lies or not, at least don't charge you money for them.

Hubbard lied about his military record, and he lied about this made-up religion.

Ironically, Stephenson was making fun of Hubbard in Snow Crash with the villian "L Bob Rife". I am totally shocked any longtime member in Second Life could still fall for $cientology's crap.

What religion uses 800 pound gorilla tactics with lawyers against any of its critics? It's well documented in reputable journalistic publications (like Time) that $cientology relies on character assasination and blackmail to keep its critics down.

I've read and heard countless stories of people lured in by what seems to be a simple rehabilitation program, and then strong-armed and pressured into spending money on courses that systematically disconnect the person from the outside world, from family and friends.

And from whatever hype you've heard, Xenu.net offers real evidence presented in a level-headed tone. It offers real documents, real testimony, and has been the victim of extreme bullying by the cult's lawyers.

I recommend these links:

One woman's report about her experience in the RPF (Scientology internment camp):
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/mpoulter/sods/rosenblu.html

A review of the result of a personality test (including instructions for the Scientology staff who is told how to manipulate the subject so he/she will eventually sign up for courses):
http://www.scientology-lies.com/fraud/oca_sf_results.html