Thank you aenea!
Are you saying everyone who reads posts like I have described are going to suspect right off that bat that yes, the person writing really is a scientologist, and also suspect that being sent to see the scientolgy people to find out about scientology isn’t just a clever ruse to bring in a few new potential recruits? Maybe I am more ignorant than most people, but these things take me a little time so I get very excited when I figure these things out. I admit, I am only guessing, but don’t you think it is almost suspicious that no one in this thread has come out and actually said, “yes, I’m a scientologist”? Perhaps not admitting to being one online is one of their beliefs 
I want to make sure that I’m understanding what you are asking here, so I’ll seperate your post and answer it one at a time, ok?
No, I am not saying that people will read the previous posts to this thread and suspect that an unconfessed Scientologists is trying to recruit them. No one in this conversation so far is a Scientologists. We are of many faiths, or non-faiths in my case. ONE of the points that Lance and I were trying to make is that Scientology teachings are actually available to anyone curious about them.
Make an informed decision for yourself in things that matter to you, don’t rely on second-hand info, read and investigate for yourself. I am not advocating Scientology, just informed opinions.
The word “cult” provokes a knee-jerk reaction from too many people. They have no actual experience with them, just rely on things thay they have heard, or flashy news reports.
Go back through this thread and see where we are just getting to the discussion of “what actually is a cult”. OK?
We are here to fight ignorance man. Our own and, if you want, yours too. As I said earlier, people of many faiths are represented here, but so far no Scientologists. I only know one personally, of all the people I have met so far in the city I have just moved to. He’s my chiropractor, as I mentioned earlier.
So don’t get all excited, just go ahead and join in. Ask what questions you have, tell us of any experience you might feel relevant to this subject.
Wait a second! Is the Straight Dope a cult?
Cecil, little Ed.
Yep, that’s unca Cecil alright.
Sure, first you just read the column in the weekly. Then, at some point you check out the website. You post on the message board. Just once or twice a month, maybe. Then someone calls you a knee jerk reactionary and your are suddenly locked in a flame war. You lose weight, your friends wonder where you are but the modem ties up the phone… and it is all downhill from there
Teeming Millions versus non-Teemers. God Teem me!
maybe anti straight dope posts mysteriously disappear from the boards? We’ll see…
Claims to deliver “the Straight Dope”
Fighting Ignorance since 1972, it is taking longer than we thought.
Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share. Must you??
Unca Cece knows all, sees all.
Well, what does ‘dope’ mean to you?
Sounds like the mailbag to me
those still living in the “ignorance” the dope is “fighting” against
I think that sums up my position on why The Straight Dope is a destructive cult.
:rolleyes:
Shouldn’t a wasted my pixels on you I guess.
From Merriam-Webster Online
Look, my problems with this are not that difficult to grasp:
-
I do not give a rat’s ass whether Scientology meets your, my, or anyone’s definition of a “cult.” That’s not why I don’t like them.
-
I don’t like them because you cannot find out much of anything about the tenets of their “faith” without paying for the privilege. Lance Turbo’s experience with them hardly dispels this impression. He says:
This, in my mind is the problem. Why should I have to pay anyone to learn about the belief system that they feel would benefit me? The very idea that I can get the course description “for free” but have to pay for the course bothers me. How much good is it to read the course description for a college course, as opposed to taking the course. If the Scientologists feel they have some “good news” (to borrow a Christian term) that they feel others could benefit from, I think it’s immoral that they charge for it. If they are really selling a self-improvement service, fine – but the sale of a service is not a religion.
The “free introductory course” followed by other, further courses for a fee – which you are determined to be in need of – is the classic hallmark of a fraudulent money-making scheme. The very idea of offering such “services” in the name of religion offends me.
- If the tenets of Scientology are available to the general public at no cost, could someone please point me to a web site that provides answers to the obvious questions at no cost? For example: What is an “engram”? What is a “thetan”? Where do they both come from? What are they supposed to do? How can a person – independently and FOR FREE – deal with them? Any website will do. I do not have to contact a Catholic to determine what Catholicism is. I do not have to contact a Mormon to find out what Mormonism is. I do not believe I should have to contact a Scientologist to find out what Scientology is. I suspect that the demand that I do so is a set up for an attempt to part me from some of my money – which they attempted to do to Lance as well. True, he refused the “offer,” but the offer was made. I am perfectly willing to look at NON-BIASED information about Scientology – or even information biased in their favor. The fact that I can’t really FIND any out there – for free – makes me deeply suspicious.
And, Lance, your saying I am incorrect based on your own anecdotal experience is not, in this case, sufficient. Anecdotal evidence is worth something, true, but not much in a case, like this one, where your anecdotal evidence is combatted by more anecdotal evidence from the opposing side. So, yes, I’d like a cite – a legitimate one. Can anyone help me out here?
Lance Turbo says: «That brings us to xenu.net. As I stated earlier, the FAQ of that site admits that it is biased. I’m not going to say that there isn’t any good information there. I will say, as I have said earlier, that this should not be your one and only source of information on the Church of Scientology. If I posted information on any other thread on this board that came from one biased site, you guys would rip me a new one.»
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I have often posted links to sites such as “The Skeptic’s Dictionary”, which has an obvious bias, and no one “ripped me a new one.” But if you do have any links to any unbiased sites re: The Church of Scientology, please post them. I duly note the bias of the Xenu site, but I give them credit for freely admitting to that bias, and posting a link to the Scientology official web site. That makes the site creator pretty honest in my book. Of course, as the Xenu site says, “Please Note: If you are trying, unsuccessfully, to access the above official Scientology webpages from this list, try just typing the URL into your web browser directly. Scientology refuses connections from many critical websites.” I thought he was kidding, but my experience showed that he was correct. I had to open a new window to go to the Scientology website.
Lance Turbo also says: «Finally, space aliens. Every site that mentions aliens and Scientology seems to be directly quoting The Road to Xenu by Margery Wakefield.»
OK, I’ll quote another book then. From A Piece Of Blue Sky, by Jon Atack.
Lance Turbo also mentions information suggesting that «* “Margery” is a fictionalized character whose story combines Wakefield’s own experiences with those of other Scientologists. Margery wrote the first part of the book, and I wrote the second part. We decided that the two parts complemented each other, so we published them together in one volume which we first released at the 1991 Cult Awareness Network conference in Oklahoma City.*»
and
«Another site, that contains the full text of Margery Wakefield’s autobiography, Testimony, reveals that Margery was diagnosed a schizophrenic and bullimic before she ever heard of Scientology. It details the many bouts of dementia and hallucinations she had before she set foot in the Church of Scientology.»
I have to admit that your two quotes, when put in conjunction, puzzle me. The first quote claims that Margey Wakefield is a fictionalized character, and the second one shows an autobiography by this fictionalized character claiming that she was mentally ill. Is the autobiography also fictionalized then?
Disregrading that issue, since Margery Wakefield admits to her mental problems in her own autobiography, that shows to me honesty on her part. As far as the book being unreliable because of her mental problems, I will only point out that your own quote shows that she was not the sole author. Her experiences were combined with those of other Scientologists, and another person wrote part of the book.
Lance Turbo says: «One more thing, in every other thread in this forum, posters demand other posters to back up their claims. Citing a biased source is like hanging a sign on yourself that says flame me.»
As I have said before, I would be glad to see any unbiased links. If you have any to provide, please do so.
Lance Turbo: «My whole point of posting to this thread in the first place was to state that if you want to know what Scientology teaches, ask a Scientologist. I used and anecdote myself (about myself) to back up the fact that this was not a dangerous course of action.»
From my reading, it seems that the advanced courses of scientology are considered confidential and are not to be revealted to the public, so asking a scientologist will not be of much use. To give you an analogy, suppose I were an author (in the 1960’s) trying to investigate the claims of Solzhenitsyn, who write about the Soviet prison camp system under Stalin. From whom do you think I would get more reliable information, the Soviet ambassador in the USA or another Russian dissident? I will also point out that its well known that critics of scientology are known to be harassed by the church (see the Time Magazine article reprinted at the Xenu site, and the Los Angeles Times printed a series of articles around 1986 discussing scientology, in which the author also reported attempts by the church to intimidate and/or discredit him.) This might explain in large part the confrontational tone taken by many of the “anti-scientology” websites.
The church of Scientology is also known to take legal action against people that post their “confidential” materials on the internet. In my mind, that shows a passion for secrecy that is not practiced by, say, the Catholic church, whom you quote in your example above as fitting the definition of a cult.
I will counter your anecdotal example with another one. My fiancée, when she was younger (19) and in a difficult time of her life, received a scientology “personality test” (I’m not sure by what means) and after having filled it out was invited to go to a local Scientology centre to discuss the results. Her first visit lasted several hours, and the “counselor’s” (whom she now describes as being as pushy as the most egregious used car salesman) first order of business in that session was to get her to sign up for (expensive) courses to help her with her “problems.” Granted, my fiancée was young and impressionable, so you could say she can’t blame anyone else for her problems. Nevertheless, she charged more than a thousand dollars on her credit card, and when the next day she tried to cancel the charge, it took her several more hours to convince the “counselor” to do so. I personally have never had this experience with any church that I have visited. For example, one of my ex-girlfriends was a christian (I personally am an atheist), and I accompanied her several times to her Baptist church. Not once was I asked for money. Another of my ex-girlfriends was a Quaker, I went with her to several Quaker meetings and potlucks. Again, not once was I ever asked for money.
Another anecdote: a friend of mine in Switzerland joined the church of Scientology. He went through a full regimen of classes (sold his car to pay for some of them), and when I asked him several times what he was learning in those classes, he would give me introductory books but say that the advanced classes were confidential and that revealing them to an untrained mind could cause mental problems and/or insanity. I eventually lost contact with him (he disassociated himself from his friends and in a large part from his family.)
Granted, those are two anecdotes, but given what I’ve read about the Church and what has happened to people I know, I consider them to be much worse than other mainstream organized churches.
From Merriam-Webster Online
**
[/QUOTE]
You mean They’ve gotten to Merriam Webster too!!
o my god
We’re through the looking glass people…
AENEA says:
Not to beat a dead horse, but WHERE? I am dead serious. If anyone has any links to help me here, please post them. I do not have to talk to a Frenchman to learn the basics about France. I do not have to talk to a doctor to learn the basics of medicine. I do not have to talk to a Buddhist to learn the basics of Buddhism? So why the secrecy where Scientology is concerned?
The problem, again – and a major source of my own suspicion and skepticism – is that it is very difficult to “read and investigate” Scientology “for yourself,” because a lot of what they do and believe is “secret” and can only be discovered by taking classes for which you have to pay. That’s what bugs me about the whole thing.
so I’ll check on the Scientology Thread.
Jodih,
I post this at risk of being branded an undercover operative of the CoS.
Yeah, no one would have ever thought of that URL.
deep, deep undercover! job’s so secret, don’t even know what it is!
Wait, the link shows a book…
It’s called “What is Scientology”
It says HTML FORMAT and a link…
OK I’m clicking it…
it is loading this is so exciting i’m going to finally learn what scientology is…
Gee, and it is only $20.66. Well, shucks, that is almost free right?
Can I borrow your copy Jodih when you are done 
?
**
Sorry, but you’ve already make 2 comments on the violent history of relgion to make a flawed defense of the CoS, and tossing that Inquisition comment last time really shows you mean it, with or without some silly disclaimer because you really know that you’re wrong.
Fine, if you don’t like the word cult then you give me a word describing an overly defensive, litigious, violent, and secretivie money making organization. (as considered in Greece and Germany and by many informed people) I don’t think the term religion, as practiced by the majority of the planet, really covers such an unethical and secritive organization.
If they’re so open about their teachings, as you claim, why the lawsuits and orders to pull Operating Thetan literature from the net? How many Muslim or Christian organizations call for the removing of their sacred text from the net?
Time magazine considers them a cult and did a revealing write-up about them:
*May 6, 1991 cover story of Time magazine, "The Cult of Greed," described Scientology as "a hugely profitable, global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner.… Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious, and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen" (pp. 32–33).*
Vicki Aznaran, formerly “one of Scientology’s six key leaders,” is quoted saying “This is a criminal organization day in and day out” (p. 33)
They were unsuccessfully sued by the CoS for this article. In the end, any small religious organzation that is known primarily for socially destructive activities to both the public and its members will be a cult for most people, not to mention their ‘ends justify the means’ philosophy they use in dealing with dissdents and critics. Add the obligatory 500 year old atrocity to remain a cult-denier.
Scientology was so unnerved by its cult status that it recently bought the Cult Awarenes Network, so when you call there asking whether so and so is a cult you’re probably talking to a Scientologist.
**
A lot of people see her as the typical “screwed up person” the CoS is constantly aiming for with their pseudo-scientific therapy-cult activities. She along with John Atack, both longtime members, are the only source for Hubbard sci-fi cosmology. What bullemia has to do with credibility I’ll never understand, and John Nash, a known schizophrenic happens to be a Nobel Prize winner. Maybe Wakefield isn’t completely disfunctional. You can choose to disbelieve her, but carrying on like the CoS isn’t a destructive cult and being a cult-denier isn’t at all convincing.
**
The word bias does not necessarily mean prejudiced (as I’ve told you before), its impossible to have a strong opinion on a matter without being biased in some way. Bias is a fun word because it can mean both an outlook or a prejudice. Judge sites by their content not by necesarily by their authors.
and it get’s better! I ordered the free email information pack on the site, fully certain it would answer my questions… after a brief song and dance from Mr. Hubbard himself
(actual quote)
“… nuclear physics, whatever crime it does against man, may yet be redeemed by having been of aid in finding for man the soul of which science had all but deprived him.”
(wow physics can do that?)
It says (my parens):
You deserve to know the truth.
(I do, don’t I…)
But don’t just take our word for it.
{OK)
Find out for yourself.
(but, how, oh free info kit?)
Order the book “What Is Scientology?”
(didn’t see that coming)
Well, Lance, thanks for the link. If you can find any concrete information on what Scientologists believe at that site, or why, you’ve done far better than I. What I found was a lot of meaningless mouth-noises like this (bolded comments mine):
The bottom line is that the site tells me NOTHING about the vague “principles” and “truths” it repeatedly references. If I want to know, apparently I can buy the book. No, thanks.
[OT, but at least I’m stomping out ignorance, right?]
Needs2Know, you’re smoking something.
-
LDS pay tithing as “10% of increase” – it is up to the individual to determine what that means.
-
Tithing is not electronically deducted from your account. Sheesh, where do you come up with this stuff.
If you’re genuinely interested about the truth about LDS, hang around in soc.religion.mormon (moderated newsgroup) and ask some polite questions. There’ll be no shortage of people willing to answer your questions.
If y’all want to argue about whether Scientology is good or evil or right or wrong, we have an entire forum dedicated to Debates as Great as that (hint).
The question on the table is “What are the core beliefs of Scientology?” Answer the question, or don’t, but please do not debate religious issues in this forum.
Jeez, you want something done around here, you have to do it yourself. All of the following is from What Is Scientology?, available at your (or at least my) local library. Material from the book is in “quote” format; other comments are my own. I apologize in advance for the length.
Page 3, italics in original. Scientology’s problem with other organized religions, to the extent that it has one, is that they do not provide any method for obtaining these goals.
Page 7. From a history of religious/philosophic developments:
Page 19. Scientology really does not like psychiatry and psychology, because it asserts that such disciplines reject the idea of a spiritual person (a “thetan”) and instead holds that men are only flesh and blood and chemical reactions – ie, no soul. Scientology believes better mental health is obtained through treating the spiritual person (the soul or thetan), not by ignoring it and seeking physical (drug-related) cures for spiritual problems. Scientology also believes that a person is made up of three components: the mind, the body, and the thetan. From a history of L. Ron Hubbard’s life and accomplishments:
Page 46. The paranoia of this passage is found throughout the book; anyone who doesn’t agree with Scientology is an enemy to it, working for his or her own nefarious ends. Not surprisingly, this is especially true of the section dealing with “Those Who Oppose Scientology.” Okay, back to what they believe:
Page 61, italics in original. This appears to say that “mental image pictures” are different than “memories” in that they have some sort of coporeal existence (mass and “existence in space”). This existence, however, would explain why they can register on an “e-meter” (about which more later).
Page 63, italics in original. The reactive mind continues to record engrams regardless of whether a person is conscious or not. (How it functions when the person is unconscious is not explained.)
In other words, you can, by utilizing Scientology techniques, “erase” your “reactive mind” (ie, eliminate it) so that you are only functioning with your “analytical mind.” A person who is using only his or her “analytical mind” is called a “Clear”:
Page 64. Scientology also holds that it is not enough to know the ends that may be achieved; it is necessary to know how to achieve those ends, and that can only be done through precise “technologies” he pioneered:
Page 79. And how are those technologies applied? Through “auditing” and through study.
Page 80. Auditing involves the use of an “e-meter” or “Electo-psychometer,” which "measures the mental state or change of state of a person and thus is of enormous benefit to the auditor in helping the preclear locate areas to be handled. (Page 81.) But auditing is not enough; it must be augmented by “training”:
Page 88. “Training” is provided by an almost infinite serious of course, seminars, and lectures, including books and tapes. None of which, so far as I can tell is free.
There’s lots more, but this might set a record for length as is. I don’t find any of the “beliefs” to be any more outrageous than beliefs held by other religions. However, I continue to be very bothered by the fact that “total freedom,” as defined by Scientology, is reached by a combination of auditing and training, which you are expected to pay for. I personally don’t think there’s a tollbooth on the road to Nirvana, but that’s just me.
If anyone has any further questions, I’d be happy to try to find an answer in this big ol’ book, so long as you all realize that I personally know Jack about Scientology beyond what I’ve read in this book.
[serious hijack]
OK, suppose I want to start a new religion for other reasons, such as “I really kinda think I got the answers”.
In a world amply filled with nuts and fruitcakes who are at least that earnest, plus an even more ample collection of folks who will try anything if it looks like it might concentrate a collection of greenbacks into their personally controlled space, how would such a person proceed?
On the one hand…
a) If the idealistic person isn’t a nut or a fruitcake and
actually is on to something, wouldn’t the power of the
good idea in a “free marketplace of ideas” ensure that
eventually these ideas will draw meaningful attention
and be recognized as “the answers” to whatever extent
they are indeed the answers?
b) If the answers known to the person who is neither a
cynic nor a nut are somehow too esoteric or difficult
to grasp for the average person, then perhaps these are
“truths” that are only meant for those who are fully
determined to reach for them…perhaps even only for
those who are capable of arriving at them independently
and with no “clues” from modern-day prophet wannabes?
On the other hand…
a) Theories of Special and General Relativity. True but
not easy to grasp, and you’d dismiss it if you heard it
for the first time from an uncredentialed person. What
if the “truths” in question were like that? If you held
such a truth would you not feel the need to establish it
among a community capable of comprehending it first?
b) “People truths”. Politics, social “science”, psychology
and psychiatry, religion, all that stuff. Hasn’t been
a venue marked by crisp equations, clear-cut theories
that made good explanatory sense, and so on. What if
this is because these areas, rather than not being
describable by compelling equationlike postulates and
theorems, are simply more complicated? Does there exist
a place you could go if you thought you had the answers
in a meaningful sense which is genuinely, strenuously
dedicated to looking at possible answers and considering
them?
[/serious hijack]
I actually have a copy of Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard. [Say title in a portentious, booming voice, just like in the commercials.] I just noticed tonight the disclaimer at the beginning:
*"This book is part if the works of L. Ron Hubbard, who developed DIANETICS (c) spirtual healing technology. It is presented as a record of observations and research into the human mind and spirit, and not as a statement of claims made by the author. […]
The HUBBARD (c) Electro-Meter, or E-METER ™, is a device sometimes used in Dianetics technology. In itself, the E-Meter does nothing. It is not intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease, or for the improvement of health or any bodily function."*
Anyhow, re engrams. You get engrams when your suffer any pain and hear any words, so overhearing “You’re a pig” when you stub your toe gives you an engram. Therefore, when someone is sick or hurt, you should not say anything to them–particularly women, who might be pregnant! Hubbard is very concerned with pre-natal engrams, and apparently believes that the vast majority of women attempt multiple unsuccessful abortions, which is the cause of most people’s problems by causing them to be loaded up with engrams.
An account of pre-natal engrams that Hubbard considers “the usual ones found”:
"[misc. instances of mother’s constipation, flu, coitus w/ husband, coitus w/ lover, douches, mother’s injuries, all of which create engrams in the fetus]
Attempted abortion, surgical: first instance, fetus. Twenty-one successive instances.
Attempted abortion, douche: first instance, fetus. Two incidents, once using paste, one using Lysol, very strong.
Attempted abortion, pressure: first instance, fetus. Three incidents. One father sitting on mother. Two mother jumping off of boxes.
[hiccups, accidents]
Masturbation chain: first incident, embryo. Eighty succeeding incidents. Mother masturbating with fingers, jolting child and injuring child with orgasm.
[Doctor’s exams, labor, birth]" p. 397-398
No mention of aliens in Dianetics, I believe. It struck me mostly as gawdawful specious pop-psych/spirituality, and Hubbard’s belief that it is nearly inevitable for women to self-administer multiple abortion attempts seems truly bizarre. (“20 or 30 abortion attempts are not uncommon in the aberee and in every attempt the child could have been pierced through the body or brain.” p. 214 [all not-clears are “aberees”–i.e. all of us] Oh, and “the child needs no eardrums to record an engram”, they are “not memories but cellular level recordings” p. 215) And how the hey would a doctor manage 21 unsuccessful abortion attempts? Hubbard’s gots problems of his own, is my humble opinion; on the other hand, maybe if I wasn’t burdened with my engrams I could start my own religion too. 
'Nother good quote: “The sexual pervert (and by this term, Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in the dynamic two, such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebbing) is actually quite ill physically. […] He is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that the tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for it.” p. 140