The Ugly Truth About Scientology.

[Archbob]

Actually, its was because the founder stated that it was a scheme to make money from the very begginning and nothing else.

When everyone started to hail him as supreme leader, he somehow convinced himself it was real. Its pretty well documented.

And no, collection plates are never mandatory.
The scripture and doctrine of all major religions are freely available for all to read. You actually have to pay $10,000 before your allowed into the inner circles of scientology.

 

[Thequeenisgay]

in judasim you have to give 10% of your wealth but it can only be given to charity

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Azash: Would the Necronomicon (pdf) be considered a religious document? It seems to me like you're watering down "religion" by making it so expansive.

For the record, this, like all the other necronomica on the market, is a hoax of a sort. Lovecraft made up the book whole cloth, but, for some reason, certain people, like "Simon", have felt a compulsion to write a "real" Necronomicon and claim it was used by Lovecraft for his tales.



As for the notion of a "cult", the word has a number of different meanings; the most basic is simply "worship". Saying that Scientology is or is not a cult has little meaning unless one makes clear which definition one is using.

As to the relative stupidity of Scientologist beliefs, there's little utility in arguing whether they're more or less preposterous than Christian ones (particularly since Christianity display a wide variety of beliefs on many issues). It can hardly be disputed, however, that most Christian groups don't share the anti-democratic and anti-social aims of Scientology.

 

[Xenocrates]

Am I the only one to see a similarity between Scientology and Falun Gong?

Falun Gong is on the half of the Internet which disapears when you cross into China, but from what I remember Li Hong Zhi (the founder) holds similar alien-inspired beliefs to LRon and the 'religion' has been accused of brain washing and criminality. A mother once set herself on fire in Tianamen square in one protest, killing herself and her daughter.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Can't say I know much more of Falun Gong than that the Chinese regime hates them.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

For the record, this, like all the other necronomica on the market, is a hoax of a sort. Lovecraft made up the book whole cloth, but, for some reason, certain people, like "Simon", have felt a compulsion to write a "real" Necronomicon and claim it was used by Lovecraft for his tales.

The "Simon" in the one I references is probably Lovecraft's fictional character, because I got that copy off The Complete Works of HP Lovecraft.
Anyway, I was asking Azash whether it could be considered a religious work under his expanded definition of "religion", because it's just as provably fictional as most of what L Ron Hubbard wrote about aliens, hydrogen bombs dropped on Earth, volcanos that never existed, and pulp science otherwise contravening the laws of fiction. It never says anything to the tune of "And a miracle occurred" either, iirc.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The "Simon" in the one I references is probably Lovecraft's fictional character, because I got that copy off The Complete Works of HP Lovecraft.

I don't know why it occurs in what claims to be the "The Complete Works of HP Lovecraft", but it's certainly not written by him.

Wikipedia on the "Simon Necronomicon".

 

[Azash]

Erik: People believe in it, it's a religion to me. The worshippers make it one.

 

[The Last Conformist]

People believe in Friday the 13th being cursed. Is that too a religion?

I'm not disputing that Scientology is a religion, but I don't think "people believe in it" is sufficient cause for calling it one.

 

[Azash]

Shrug. They don't worship friday the 13th. I guess I could've added the part about a divine or infernal entity playing a significant role in the development of our world, but I didn't think you'd be so picky

 

[The Last Conformist]

I don't think Scientology's ghosts or aliens can be justly characterized as "divine" or "infernal". Or are we to consider UFOlogy and ghost-belief religious?

 

[.Shane.]

I'm not disputing that Scientology is a religion, but I don't think "people believe in it" is sufficient cause for calling it one.

I dispute it.

Hubbard's intent all along was to get tax-free status for what originally was nothing more than bunk science.

While the often-cited rumor that Hubbard made a bar bet with Robert A. Heinlein that he could start a cult is almost certainly false, others have claimed direct knowledge that during 1949 Hubbard did make statements to other people that starting a religion would be a good way to make money.

Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, for example, reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

According to The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. Brian Ash, Harmony Books, 1977:

" . . .[Hubbard] began making statements to the effect that any writer who really wished to make money should stop writing and develop [a] religion, or devise a new psychiatric method. Harlan Ellison's version (Time Out, UK, No 332) is that Hubbard is reputed to have told [John W.] Campbell, "I'm going to invent a religion that's going to make me a fortune. I'm tired of writing for a penny a word." Sam Moskowitz, a chronicler of science fiction, has reported that he himself heard Hubbard make a similar statement, but there is no first-hand evidence."

SOURCE

 

[Azash]

They're supernatural.

 

[silver 2039]

Hubbard's intent all along was to get tax-free status for what originally was nothing more than bunk science.

A smart man that....religon is such a useful tool....

 

[Azash]

It is. Was that supposed to be an ironic statement?

 

[Sidhe]

I suggest people look up the definition of cult, it is an organisation that is controversial and generally considered to be false, I find little controversy in the central messages of the main faiths and also there messages aren't held to be false. But scientology now that is a repulsive pseudo-religion if ever I saw one, if you don't believe me you have a search engine, find out why it is condemened so readily before you seek to defend it. A philosophy made religion for tax purposes, a "religion" with one principle the acquisition of wealth at the expense of it's delusional followers, I see very little reson to defend it's religous status because it just doesn't fit into what I percieve a religion is and it's status is a lie.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I dispute it.

I'm fully aware of Hubbard's motives*, but that hardly precludes Scientology from being a religion. If Jesus's diary, in which he admits to it all being a publicity stunt for his carpentry, were to surface tomorrow, you wouldn't say Christianity isn't a religion, would you?

* Well, initial motives. It seems he eventually came to believe his own lies.

 

[VoidEvils]

Some people here are clearly skirting the issue here. Whether or not Scientology is a religion or a cult, or whether its beliefs are any more silly than a mainstream religion is not the point. The point is that the Church of Scientology steals from its members and kills them. I do not care about the religion itself - the question here is whether the Church's status as a religious institute exempts it from lawful conduct. That is not a, how Azash put it, "an opinion." Hubbard was convicted in a court of law of massive fraud, and there are plenty of deaths that are, at the absolute least, highly suspicious. The absolute best you could say is that members of Scientology have the impeccable bad luck to not be able to take necessary seizure medication or to suffer from the Church accidentally engaging in "preemptive donations" or to be boiled alive.

Lisa McPherson is by far and away the best documented case, and seems to indicate carelessness by the Church. According to the original coroner's reports, she died of dehydration and was covered in roach bites. According the coroners employed by the Church, she died of a blood clot in her left lung that she suffered during the car accident. In either event, she showed signs of physical abuse, and was dead well before she entered the hospital. In the case that the state coroner is right, the Church maliciously and cruelly murdered a member of the Church who had at this point become of no use (she was broke by then). If the Church's coroners are right, she was the victim of negligent homicide at the absolute least (usually this would still be a murder, since the Church actively sought to deny her needed medical assistance), which is still a very serious matter, and she was then dead for atleast 16 days, and was clearly neglected by the Church, noting, once again, that her corpse was covered in roach bites.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm afraid it's just more inherently interesting to debate whether Scientology is, technically, a religion than whether a bunch of homicidal thugs are bad people.

 

[Azash]

Some people here are clearly skirting the issue here. Whether or not Scientology is a religion or a cult, or whether its beliefs are any more silly than a mainstream religion is not the point. The point is that the Church of Scientology steals from its members and kills them. I do not care about the religion itself - the question here is whether the Church's status as a religious institute exempts it from lawful conduct. That is not a, how Azash put it, "an opinion." Hubbard was convicted in a court of law of massive fraud, and there are plenty of deaths that are, at the absolute least, highly suspicious. The absolute best you could say is that members of Scientology have the impeccable bad luck to not be able to take necessary seizure medication or to suffer from the Church accidentally engaging in "preemptive donations" or to be boiled alive.

Lisa McPherson is by far and away the best documented case, and seems to indicate carelessness by the Church. According to the original coroner's reports, she died of dehydration and was covered in roach bites. According the coroners employed by the Church, she died of a blood clot in her left lung that she suffered during the car accident. In either event, she showed signs of physical abuse, and was dead well before she entered the hospital. In the case that the state coroner is right, the Church maliciously and cruelly murdered a member of the Church who had at this point become of no use (she was broke by then). If the Church's coroners are right, she was the victim of negligent homicide at the absolute least (usually this would still be a murder, since the Church actively sought to deny her needed medical assistance), which is still a very serious matter, and she was then dead for atleast 16 days, and was clearly neglected by the Church, noting, once again, that her corpse was covered in roach bites.

Fine. It was not an opinion, it was a belief. Once this has been proven in a court, come say this again.