# What exactly is the problem with Scientology? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001 "2004-01-11T16:33:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/41 "2004-01-11T23:48:05Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by JSPrinceton_ > **Now, how, praytell, are we to decide which motivation is the true one of L. Ron?** How about this: “The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.” [L Ron Hubbard](http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/scientology/start.a.religion.html) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/42 "2004-01-11T23:48:11Z")
Anyway, I kind of lost the plot there. Sorry. :smack: The OTs were posted to ars. Just the text, no pictures. The CoS claimed copyright on _those_. So to say the pictures are the main thing is to ignore the basic facts of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/43 "2004-01-11T23:50:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Blake, read my link about Fair Gaming (the text “They also actively tell people to commit crimes” has it in my first post in this thread). That is official dogma, and it is pretty unique in the world of religion: Pretty unique huh? Sort of like being a little pregnant and other oxymorons. Telling people to commit crimes is not even vaguely unique in the world of religion. The Jehovah’s Witness faith tells people not to perform any type of military service, which is a crime in many nations. They have been imprisoned for it. The Hindu faith told people to commit satee, even when it was made illegal by the British colonial government. They were executed for it. The list of religions that have official dogma that tells people to commit crimes is huge. In fact I could issue you a challenge to find me three religions, aside from Bhuddism, Daoism and other philosophical religions, whose official dogma has never been a crime in any nation at any time. > [@](#): > > While the other faiths focus on peace and love and forgiveness, Scientology has a doctrine of harassing people and disposing of them. So you believe. As I have already said, that is your more-or-less worthless opinion and it has no place in GQ. The fact is that scientology has a stated aim as a religion to ensure that all people willing ti embrace the message experience lasting peace and true love. > [@](#): > > As for the leadership of Scientology: I don’t know what’s in their minds, but look at Narconon. Explain why Narconon is run as it is without assuming the leadership of Scientology wants money more than it wants to spread the faith. I could easily answer that by saying that the leadership believes, as does almost everey other religion, that money is essential for spreading the faith. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/44 "2004-01-11T23:54:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by seaworthy \* > I have heard nothing to suggest that Scientologists are beneficial, or even just harmless. Everything I have heard about them makes me think they are dangerous. 50 years from now they may be an accepted religion. I will still feel the same way. And I don’t like Freemasons either. > 😃 You want to hear good stuff about scientology? Find a scientologist. They’ll talk your ear off. Just as credible as your non-scientologist friends. In fact, they are in some ways more credible because they actually believe in dianetics and probably deal with it considerably more than people who dislike it? As for the woman who died under suspicious circumstances, that’s no reason that there is a problem in-and-of-itself with Scientology. Unless you are of the opinion that, say, the Inquisition is problematic for Catholicism. What if we had started a thread about “What exactly is the problem with Catholicism”? Would you be so quick to disparage? You are free to disagree, dislike, and malign the group. Fine, you don’t like them. I don’t think the case can be made thought that just because you don’t like them they shouldn’t be a religion. And just because you only hear bad things about them from your friends and acquaintances doesn’t mean that they are wholly bad. This is the problem I have with cult-bashing. In the 70s people were litterally kidnapped and tortured for believing in “destructive cults” because they wouldn’t submit willingly to leaving. They are adults and they say they are happy. These deprogramming sessions were supposed to prove that they were being brainwashed? Nonsense. All they proved was that you can break a human soul. There are people happy in scientology. I have met them. They proselytize me, but so do other religions. I am not of the opinion that we can automatically say they are being duped. That no one benefits from this group just because you say so. Hogwash. It’s a religion like any other. If you want to declare scientology unworthy of redemption than cast an eye on other religions similarly. At least Murray-O’Hair was consistent in her condemnations of religions. You are free to not like certain groups, but I do not think that that necessarily means the should automatically be discriminated against. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2004, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/45 "2004-01-11T23:55:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eleusis \* > \*\*How about this: > > “The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.” [L Ron Hubbard](http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/scientology/start.a.religion.html) \*\* Come now, Eleusis, this is complete hearsay. Maybe he said it, maybe he didn’t. The CoS denies it (for good reason, of course), and actually attributes it to George Orwell. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/46 "2004-01-12T00:00:16Z")
**Blake** , are you actually going to post some evidence? Like another religion that has anything comparable to Fair Gaming as an official dogma. Civil disobedience does not come close to “disposing of someone quietly and without remorse.” ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/47 "2004-01-12T00:01:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JS Princeton \* > \*\*Come now, Eleusis, this is complete hearsay. Maybe he said it, maybe he didn’t. The CoS denies it (for good reason, of course), and actually attributes it to George Orwell. \*\* Well, the essay I cited lists NINE WITNESSES. > [@](#): > > To summarize: we have nine witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, Harlan Ellison, and the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and doubt about one of them (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his autobiography; one reported in an affidavit; and one reported to me in person. The reports describe different events, meaning that Hubbard said it perhaps six times, in six different venues - definitely not just once Maybe not good enough Scientology apologists, but more than enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/48 "2004-01-12T00:09:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Shouting “straw man” doesn’t make you look smart. The CoS DOES hold copyrights on their core dogma, and they have sued websites for publishing such - without any photos. Yes but we aren’t discussing that. We are discussing the ‘bullying’ tactics of the CoS in asking Google no to post copyrighted photographs. That is why it is a Strawman. It is unrelated to the issue being discussed. \*\* Eleusis\*\*Not understanding what is under discussion does not make you look smart. > [@](#): > > It’s a relevant question about "What exactly is the problem with $cientology. It’s totally irrelevant in Derleth’s defence of his charge that the CoS and presumably the Chicago Reader are bullies for enforcing copyright of photographs. > [@](#): > > Blake, those aren’t straw men. Those are the main points in contention here. But they don’t support your accusation of bullying for not allowing a random stranger to publish copyrighted material on a website. You posted that comment in defence of that charge. They may be relevant to the greater issue, but your charge of bullying in the example you referenced is hypocritical and ignorant if you do not also criticise the SDMB for not allowing copyright infringement. To try to defend that accusation by pointing to other, unrelated, examples of bullying is a strawman. I never argued that the CoS wasn’t averse to negative publicity. My sole point was that the example you gave is not evidence of bullying, it is evidence of the same stringent protection of copyrighted photographs that the Chicago Reader demands of you right here. For you to label such action bullying when carried out by the CoS but not when it is carried out by the Chicago Reader is hypocritical and ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/49 "2004-01-12T00:10:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > **JS Princeton** : I agree with innocent until proven guilty. I agree that until he actually does something illegal, even the most odious man has the full protection of the law. But I don’t agree that Scientology is a religous belief system as far as those in power are concerned. I think they know it’s a moneymaking scam, and they run it as such to the detriment of those they’ve bilked. They even commit crimes to further their business goals. In that way, it’s exactly like the Mafia. Derleth: How is a religion LEGALLY defined? I challenge you to offer a counter to Scientology being a legal religion. The CoS won its case and was determined to fit the IRS’s legal definition of a religion (which is, by the way, the only “power that be” in the federal government that has a regulation on the subject that I know of) and so a real religion. The mafia is a crime syndicate. It makes no claims at being a religion, nor does it fit the legal definition of one. I’m afraid you are out-of-luck in this argument. > [@](#): > > And when did Mother Teresa or the Salvation Army _ever once_ try to deny their origins, leadership, or true reason for being? Huh? You’re changing argument on me. The issue was “false pretenses”. The Salvation Army offers economic support to those in need, actively supporting the evangelization of those it helps. That’s the old “bait-and-switch”. People don’t come to get help so they can be told the gospel. They don’t come to an addiction program to learn about dianetics. Nevertheless, it is a matter of the free exercise of religion that when a religious group sets up a charity they can run it how they please. You may find that problematic, but try to understand that others find ALL groups with religious agendas problematic in that regard. Your argument fails to recognize that other religions engage in similar behavior. > [@](#): > > When did they try to lure people in with a name so similar to the name of an established group as to cause honest confusion? You want to know about religions that do that? I’ll tell you what: research churches that support anti-abortion health clinics. See how they advertise. They DELIBERATELY mislead in order to try to get their message across. Check out [www.planningparenthood.com](http://www.planningparenthood.com) and try to tell me that the people (who happen to be connected with religious groups, btw) at [adoption.com](http://adoption.com) aren’t attempting to do EXACTLY what you are describing. > [@](#): > > Real religions are very forthright about their mission work, as they wish to be known to be doing the work of God as they see fit. I disagree. For example, ever heard of “Preach the Gospel, if necessary, use words”? > [@](#): > > Criminals, on the other hand, want the cover of darkness for their deeds. Which does Scientology most resemble? I get it already, Derleth, you don’t like the Scientologists. What you fail to realize is that for the very reasons you don’t like them, there are other people out there who do very similar things that, quite frankly, don’t get called out like the Scientologists do. That’s just plain bigotry, as far as I’m concerned. You are allowed to dislike a group, but to go on tirades such as yours seems to me to be based more in a personal vendetta than actually fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/50 "2004-01-12T00:16:19Z")
> [@](#): > > what religion copyrights its core dogma? Scientology. Next question please! > [@](#): > > Why would a religion need lawyers to prevent people from learning what it’s really about? Huh-uh. You don’t get to apply laws to some people and not to others. Just because you don’t like it that Scientology copyrights things doesn’t mean you can flaunt the law and demand to know why. All that matters is that that’s what they choose to do. Is it for nefarious reasons? Maybe, maybe not. You aren’t in Scientology, therefore, you have no say about what the reasons they have are. Seems to me, what you’re upset about is that Scientology is just a modern religion that uses the modern world cleverly to help support itself. Do you think that some of these evangelical preachers would stand for someone taking their book that sells for $19.95 at Christian Bookstores and distributing free copies of it? Huh-uh. As far as I’m concerned, copyright law is such a pathetic reason to call a religion dangerous. It’s almost laughable. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/51 "2004-01-12T00:19:31Z")
> [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Why would a religion need lawyers to prevent people from learning what it’s really about? > > ## Straw man. > > Again, NO. It’s a relevant question about "What exactly is the problem with $cientology. Explain. How is it relevant at all? I mean, how is copyrighting your core dogmas a problem? It’s just different from religions you’re used to, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/52 "2004-01-12T00:20:39Z")
> [@](#): > > RCs not so long ago, and possibly still today, were made to feel obliged to make a donation when they attended confession and communion, and they were made to feel a spiritual dire need for communion and confession. Sorry. This statement is wholly false, either now or in the past. Indulgences sold in the late 15th and early 16th century were clearly scams (as well as being violations of church law–though tolerated by too many of the hierarchy), but there has never been a fee for receiving Communion or going to Confession. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/53 "2004-01-12T00:23:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Blake, are you actually going to post some evidence? Like another religion that has anything comparable to Fair Gaming as an official dogma. Another blatant straw men. I never said that any religion has something “comparable to Fair Gaming as an official dogma”. I was pointing out the obvious ignorance involved in your wild and baseless assertion that most religions do not endorse illegal acts in official dogma. That was your claim, and it displays the grossest ignorance of both religion and history ignorant. I demonstrated that it is in fact almost impossible to find a religion that _doesn’t_ endorse illegal acts in official dogma. So rather than arguing against what I actually posted you are now arguing equivalence of the illegal acts mandated. I never mentioned equivalence. I never needed to. Your overly broad erroneous statement never mentioned equivalence. You just said that most religions do not mandate illegal acts. Period. You are wrong when you say that. That was my point. iI has been proven. Attempting to argue equivalence of the illegal acts betrays that you were wrong when you said the illegal acts didn’t exist in most religions. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/54 "2004-01-12T00:33:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Blake, read my link about Fair Gaming (the text “They also actively tell people to commit crimes” has it in my first post in this thread). That is official dogma, and it is pretty unique in the world of religion: While the other faiths focus on peace and love and forgiveness, Scientology has a doctrine of harassing people and disposing of them. Now, the “official dogma” of this is in question, including whether “Fair Game” really incites church members to crime. That’s totally a matter for the court to decide, and decide they have: in favor of the Scientologists. So I fail to see how it can be that the organizatino is a crime syndicate as you seem to be saying. At best, it’s a case of he-said she-said, I’d say. Interesting story, but not nearly the open-and-shut case you make it out to be. In fact, this kind of stuff is also seen in other religions. MLK used Christian principles to justify his violation of the law. Does that mean that the Baptist Church is dangerous? > [@](#): > > Explain why Narconon is run as it is without assuming the leadership of Scientology wants money more than it wants to spread the faith. You need to be more specific. What part of the way it is run lends you to believe this to be so, other than the spelling of its name? I think that’s about all the evidence you have offered up until now, and that’s hardly a smoking gun. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/55 "2004-01-12T00:35:52Z")
> [@](#): > > there has never been a fee for receiving Communion or going to Confession. I never said there was \*\* tomndebb\*\*. I said that “RCs not so long ago, and possibly still today, were made to _feel obliged to make a donation_”. That is not a fee. Or are you suggesting that all the stories I have been told of the 1960s and the collection plate being handed ‘round and the pointed looks for those not giving enough were all made up? There is a difference between a fee and a feeling of obligation. ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/56 "2004-01-12T00:42:18Z")
> [@](#): > > * * * > > Why would a religion need lawyers to prevent people from learning what it’s really about? > > ## Straw man. > > ## Again, NO. It’s a relevant question about "What exactly is the problem with $cientology. > > Explain. How is it relevant at all? I mean, how is copyrighting your core dogmas a problem? It’s just different from religions you’re used to, that’s all. It’s CORE to the question asked in the OP. It’s different from religions I’m used to, and _that is a problem_. CoS charges in excess of $300,000 to go through their “program”. That is a problem. They SUE PEOPLE who quote their “intellectual property” for the purpose of _criticizing_ it. That is a problem. They _brainwash people_ and _take their money_. That is two problems. If they were a real religion, with only the best interests of the people in mind, NONE of this would happen. Heck Gideon’s gives away free Bibles every minute of every day. Simply put, the CoS exists expressly for the purpose of making money. Hiding behind their copyright to avoid criticism is CORE. The Chicago Reader does not claim to an altruistic religion IMHO any comparisons are moot. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/57 "2004-01-12T00:43:09Z")
Off to Great Debates. **DrMatrix** - GQ Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/58 "2004-01-12T00:44:38Z")
That last sentence should read, “The Chicago Reader does not claim to be an altruistic religion, and therefore IMHO any comparisons are moot.” ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/59 "2004-01-12T00:48:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eleusis \* > \*\*Well, the essay I cited lists NINE WITNESSES. > > Maybe not good enough Scientology apologists, but more than enough for me. \*\* Maybe you should [read up](http://www.urbanlegends.com/religion/hubbard_heinlein_bet.html) a bit more about this. What’s funny is that portions of the essay you quoted are being rewritten, regrabbed, reeditted and reposted all over the internet with varying degrees of certainty about whether L. Ron Hubbard said the thing. It’s not at all clear what’s going on, other than there are a number of different sources that indicate that Hubbard said such a thing. It’s by no mean a proven fact in my book, and didn’t seem to stand up in court, for one. However, even if he did say such a thing, that does not make the religion a problem or dangerous. As I pointed out, there are other religions that the same complaint could be leveled against. We don’t single out the religions as being problematic just because they had unscrupulous people in charge. We might take the case of Joseph Smith who clearly had a “colorful” past, to say the least. Does this automatically mean that Mormonism is problematic and shouldn’t be labelled a religion? Absolutely not. In terms of the legal definition of a religion, the LDS Church is a religion. Likewise for Scientology. I don’t care if Hubbard had ten wives and was a cocaine addict with gingivitis, he still founded a religion of which people who are members find speaks to part of their spiritual life. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/60 "2004-01-12T00:51:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Blake, are you actually going to post some evidence? Like another religion that has anything comparable to Fair Gaming as an official dogma. Civil disobedience does not come close to “disposing of someone quietly and without remorse.” Actually, in the eyes of the law, civil disobedience is worse. One could conceivably dispose of someone quitely and without remorse perfectly within the bounds of the law. Shall we look into what other religions say about unbelievers and those who “fall away”? I tell you, it ain’t pretty, for the most part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001.md?page=4)