# 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:** 7
**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 13, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/121 "2004-01-13T20:09:18Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > This is, in a nutshell, a crock of shit. > > OJ Simpson stabbed his ex-wife and her friend, period. Lizzie Borden hacked up her parents, period. Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, period. > > All of those individuals are guilty of their crimes, in spite of the lack of prosecution or of their aquittals for various reasons. Absolutely untrue. Guilty is a legal definition. In this country someone is not guilty until they are proven guilty. That’s the way it works. If you want to redefine guilty that’s up to you. > [@](#): > > Just because a court says it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Um, legally, I’m afraid it does. > [@](#): > > An individual can evaluate the evidence in the MacPherson case, or in any of the other charges leveled at Scientology, and reach their own conclusions independently of any judicial determinations, and can validly use those conclusions in forming an opinion about Scientology. This is correct. Likewise an individual can do that about ANY religion. My point is that there are equally repugnant things perpetrated by other religions that would make them problematic if the same standards were applied. In general, people aren’t saying that Evangelical Christianity is problematic. Nor are they saying that Orthodox Judaism is problematic. I happen to think that the ideal of religious tolerance as outlined by court decisions in the US is an admirable ideal and one I adhere to. As such, I’m not going to make a case that Scientology is any more problematic than any other religion. They have their skeletons in their closets and I think I have demonstrated how they are of the same caliber as Scientology’s. You can argue with this, but it comes down to simple weighing of ethics and morality which isn’t something that can be objectively qualified. He said/she said, you know? As long as we’re talking in circles, the only thing that is fair is to extend the same considerations to Scientology you would to any other religion. That’s the deal and I’m sticking to it. ---
**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 13, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/122 "2004-01-13T20:24:54Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > No, its not as simple as that. Getting into a civil suit over this matter would cost more than it would return, and the CoS would never pay. That’s a lie as demonstrated by a post someone else made showing that they have paid out in lawsuits. > [@](#): > > They would drag things out for years. They love this sort of thing. Um, yeah… your point? Is it illegal? I mean, other Churches have done the same thing. Why aren’t you up in arms over them? > [@](#): > > A criminal case would involve a lot of police work to track down an anonymous paphleteer and phone calls. Sadly, urban police don’t have the time for that sort of thing. That’s no excuse for not even filing a police report. > [@](#): > > You seem to have this stock answer that the courts are some kind of magic bullet that will stop the cults activities cold. Our court system has demonstrated that it has many limitations. This is exactly the rationale that allowed for such horrendous behavior as what led to [the Cult Awareness Network’s Bankruptcy](http://www.rickross.com/reference/newcan/newcan11.html). Total blindsided bigotry, as far as I can tell. It’s sad that you’ve bought into it. > [@](#): > > Yes, your point seem to be one of several apologetics for the cult with a few tu quoque arguements thrown in. I haven’t turned the critique back on the accuser at all. I’m simply saying that if they want to evaluate Scientology in the way they demonstrate, they should be prepared to level the same evaluation against ALL religions. That is not a fallacy, that’s fairness. > [@](#): > > No, their hired goons and followers did it. This is nothing new. This sort of criticism is as old as religions. Try attacking Christianity vocally and see what sort of “hired goons and followers” will begin doing nasty things to you. That’s the way the game works. You can’t say that Scientology is evil just because it behaves the way other religions are, unless you also are willing to call the other religions evil as well. > [@](#): > > Oh yeah, lets do what the CoS want, get into long expensive litigation. That makes sense :rolleyes: As I said, enough of the martyrdom crap. “O woe is me, Scientology is too rich to fight so I must roll over and cry foul on the internet”. That makes sense :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > These hired goons have a few warrents out for their arrest in certain states. Then that’s that, ain’t it? > [@](#): > > Its done no good in the 1/2 dozen years since they were issued. In fact there have been several more such abuses of the legal system by Scientology goons. They have yet to stop because the consuquences are few and far between. Then pressure needs to be applied. Why are you griping about it on a message board? If you think there’s a problem then isn’t it your duty as a citizen to go and stop it? Honestly, I don’t understand this at all. > [@](#): > > Its easy intimidation cost return for them. Whose fault is that? Scientology as a religion? > [@](#): > > Tu Quoque arguement. I’ve been with a few religions in my youth (Quakers, Episopalians, and Presbys) none of them even come remotely close to the activities in the criminal enterprise known as the CoS. Even catholicism, with is various sex scandals and lurid history, does not have the density of nefarious activities as the CoS. Would you like to hold that up to academic scrutiny? I have gone through point-by-point how other religions behave in similar ways to Scientology, but because you are FAMILIAR with the other religions of your youth you don’t find those practices unseemly. That’s fine. However, I submit that if the same scrutiny with which you claim that there is a density of nefarious activies in Scientology were applied to any of the religions you mentioned, you’d find out they were remotely closer than you think. ---
**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 13, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/123 "2004-01-13T20:31:39Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > My main criticism of $cientology: it has never PROVEN its claims about : > =Auditing: auditing is supposed to raise your IQ and improve your mind…judging from Tom Cruise and John Travolta, I’d take these claims with a grain of salt. > -“ENGRAMS” as the source of human ills…let’s SEE some proof! > -this “Xenu” chap" where’s the proof of his existance? Every religion makes unprovable claims. By your logic, then, you should be criticizing every religion. There’s no proof that praying to God will give you a better life. There’s no proof that if you die when “saved” you’ll go to some “heaven”. There’s no proof that Christianity makes people better. Are those legit criticisms? I don’t think so, because the whole POINT of a religion is that it is based on faith, not on “proof”. > [@](#): > > Finally, the COS hands out booklets about how psychiatry harms young people…before they make these claims, let’s see some evidence please! Psychiatry has harmed people, it has helped people. The general scientific consensus is that it has helped more people than it has harmed, but religions aren’t bound to scientific consensus. They make their own judgements like you or I. > [@](#): > > Finally, the late L. Ron Hubbard was a liar, a swindler, and a con man…yet the COS insists that he was a humanitarian genius…where’s the truth? Well, I could claim that Jesus was a liar (saying he was the Son of God), a swindler (he made people leave their families for a better life), and a con-man (he led people to believe he was the Messiah – which was a political figure according to Jewish consensus). Christianity insists that he was a humanitarian genius… where’s the truth? Don’t you see that the “truth” is dependent upon your faith. That’s all. Hubbard is just as much a humanitarian as Jesus. There are plenty of people that will testify to that fact. You may think they’re brainwashed, but then why aren’t Christians likewise brainwashed? > [@](#): > > So, those of you who defend $cientology, please back up your claims! 😃 Done and done. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/124 "2004-01-13T20:47:05Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > Absolutely untrue. Guilty is a legal definition. In this country someone is not guilty until they are proven guilty. That’s the way it works. If you want to redefine guilty that’s up to you. Ahem. [Guilty](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guilty) – 1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: _guilty of cheating; the guilty party._ 2. _Law_. Adjudged to have committed a crime. 3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: _a guilty conscience._ 4. Hinting at or entailing guilt:\* a guilty smirk; a guilty secret.\* See Synonyms at _blameworthy._ So tell me again that I’m redefining words, smart guy. In the specific context of a court case, guilty has a narrow meaning. In its ordinary, day-to-day usage, its meaning is broader. > [@](#): > > Um, legally, I’m afraid it does. Courts do not define objective truth. Just because OJ was deemed “not guilty” by a Los Angeles jury does not mean he did not murder his wife. Similarly, just because the Church of Scientology has not been legally adjudged responsible for the death of Lisa McPherson does not mean they are factually innocent. > [@](#): > > This is correct. Likewise an individual can do that about ANY religion. Yes, and it’s called “moral equivelance,” and it is as repugnant here as it was when hard-leftists made similar comparisons between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. > [@](#): > > You can argue with this, but it comes down to simple weighing of ethics and morality which isn’t something that can be objectively qualified. And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hey, it’s all just the weighing of ethics and morality which can’t be objectively qualified, right? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/125 "2004-01-13T22:08:21Z")
You have made some strange statements. L.R. Hubbard was no humanitarian…abundant evidence exists that he was nothing short of a monster. The fact that you are willing to make light of many year’s testimony (of his numerous victims) means that you have chosen to ignore the truth. Of course, you could argue that some people have been helped by $cientology, just like some people have been helped by taking arsenic. I repeat, in all I have read about this preposterous “church”, I have never seen any evidence that any of Scientology’s claims are true. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/126 "2004-01-13T22:24:22Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > You have made some strange statements. L.R. Hubbard was no humanitarian…abundant evidence exists that he was nothing short of a monster. The fact that you are willing to make light of many year’s testimony (of his numerous victims) means that you have chosen to ignore the truth. **Ralph** , Where do you get that **Princeton** is claiming LRH was any kind of Humanitarian? The point is that even if LRH _was_ a monster, that does not inherently make the CoS evil or dangerous. > [@](#): > > I repeat, in all I have read about this preposterous “church”, I have never seen any evidence that any of Scientology’s claims are true. Unless you have evidence that the claims of other “mainstream” religions are true, you are only adding to **Princeton** ’s case of religious bigotry. Pash ---
**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 13, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/127 "2004-01-13T22:34:27Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Ahem. > > So tell me again that I’m redefining words, smart guy. > > In the specific context of a court case, guilty has a narrow meaning. In its ordinary, day-to-day usage, its meaning is broader. The context was courts. _You_ decided you wanted to talk about day-to-day usage, not me. So if you aren’t redefining words you’re redefining contexts. > [@](#): > > Courts do not define objective truth. Just because OJ was deemed “not guilty” by a Los Angeles jury does not mean he did not murder his wife. Similarly, just because the Church of Scientology has not been legally adjudged responsible for the death of Lisa McPherson does not mean they are factually innocent. Who, praytell, does define objective truth? You? Me? The Pope? Come now, reasonable people disagree on the culpability of the CoS in Lisa McPherson case. You have your opinions, other people have theirs. > [@](#): > > Yes, and it’s called “moral equivelance,” and it is as repugnant here as it was when hard-leftists made similar comparisons between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Actually, it’s called fair play, and your moral higher ground may or may not be justified. I’m just saying that what’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander. > [@](#): > > And Mussolini made the trains run on time. [Lies](http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm). > [@](#): > > Hey, it’s all just the weighing of ethics and morality which can’t be objectively qualified, right? Morality and ethics cannot be objectively qualified, right. You can, however come to a societal consensus about things. Generally, that’s done in the courts. Do you have a different venue to propose we evaluate the claims of those disliking Scientology? ---
**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 13, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/128 "2004-01-13T22:39:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course, you could argue that some people have been helped by $cientology, just like some people have been helped by taking arsenic. Any way you cut it, far more people have died of arsenic poisoning than have died from Scientology. Is using the dollar sign supposed to be somehow persuasive? Because I don’t see how it is. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/129 "2004-01-14T00:47:38Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > Would you like to hold that up to academic scrutiny? I have gone through point-by-point how other religions behave in similar ways to Scientology, but because you are FAMILIAR with the other religions of your youth you don’t find those practices unseemly. That’s fine. However, I submit that if the same scrutiny with which you claim that there is a density of nefarious activies in Scientology were applied to any of the religions you mentioned, you’d find out they were remotely closer than you think. Had a longer reply but it was lost to the new world gophers. OK, since you threw down the gauntlet, find anything that Quakers, as a religion have done in the 20th an 21st centuries, that is comparable to the reprehensible antics of Scientology. Your point-by-point has failed because your best examples have come from the middle ages. Furthermore, your entire complaint against the Vaugns seems to be that he reported the incident to the internet. You seem to feel this is improper somehow. You also seem to feel that it is wrong for me to point out he bad behavior of the CoS on this board. Sorry, but that just doesn’t hold water. Essentially what you are saying is “Shut up and sue”. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/130 "2004-01-14T00:51:17Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > Is using the dollar sign supposed to be somehow persuasive? Because I don’t see how it is. No, its merely indicitive of the way the CoS operates. You are measured by how much money you spend on the cult taking classes, you are also measured in worthiness by how much you earn. Not the deeds you perform. Its also shorter that writing “money grubbing cult”. Like it or not, this is the reality of the CoS. ---
**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 14, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/131 "2004-01-14T02:00:33Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > OK, since you threw down the gauntlet, find anything that Quakers, as a religion have done in the 20th an 21st centuries, that is comparable to the reprehensible antics of Scientology. I knew a gay couple that was nastily given notice that they weren’t welcome (what they considered bordering on abuse) by a Meeting associated with the Friends Evangelical Church. They’re a bit more forgiving than some notable ex-Scientologists and so don’t go publicizing their case, but since there were no other Quaker Churches in the area, they quietly had to convert to a different denomination. > [@](#): > > Your point-by-point has failed because your best examples have come from the middle ages. Actually, the majority of my points came from present-day. And, to boot, one of the things I’m claiming is that Scientology, as a young religion, is necessarily more dogmatic (and therefore more offensive to free-thinking post-modern society) than other mainstreamed religions. I think its okay to look at the history of religions because it informs us as to what they were like before they became mainstreamed. It is interesting that the parallels can be seen for religions that are of the same age. Actually, Scientology is much MORE tolerant than many denominations in the Middle Ages, you have to agree. No, we’re not living in the Middle Ages, but if Scientology had been somehow founded at that time and managed to survive I seriously doubt that this discussion would be happening at all. Can you imagine someone asking “What exactly is the problem with the Amish?” and getting the response this thread has generated? > [@](#): > > Furthermore, your entire complaint against the Vaugns seems to be that he reported the incident to the internet. You seem to feel this is improper somehow. You also seem to feel that it is wrong for me to point out he bad behavior of the CoS on this board. Sorry, but that just doesn’t hold water. Essentially what you are saying is “Shut up and sue”. No, they are free to go ahead and point out bad behavior. I don’t think they nor you should shut up. I do find their choice for voicing their opinions odd, but it’s a free country and they can do what they want. I just don’t think their complaints prove much by way of saying Scientology is problematic or dangerous. I only hope you realize that similar types of criticisms that you’re using to point out the “bad behavior” of CoS can be leveled against other religions too. That’s all I’m doing, pointing out that Scientology may not be as “bad” as you paint it because if we honestly compare it to other churches it is difficult for me to see exactly how it is so problematic. People are free to disagree with me. It may be a self-evident fact to you. I welcome you to show me how I’m being obtuse in this regard. ---
**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 14, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/132 "2004-01-14T02:07:03Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > No, its merely indicitive of the way the CoS operates. You are measured by how much money you spend on the cult taking classes, you are also measured in worthiness by how much you earn. Not the deeds you perform. Actually, you aren’t measured by the money, but by levels of awareness. It’s all in dianetics which you can read. Your spin is supportable, but any Scientologist could easily tell you ten ways in which that was wrong and support their side equally well. Who’s right? > [@](#): > > Its also shorter that writing “money grubbing cult”. This is very similar to the same tactics used by racists when using racial slurs. > [@](#): > > Like it or not, this is the reality of the CoS. This is like arguing with a KKK member as to whether blacks are not problematic people. They have their beliefs and stick to it. They present their evidence and balk at any attempts at deconstruction. A KKK member is bigotted, and it seems to me, so are you. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/133 "2004-01-14T03:48:39Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > This is very similar to the same tactics used by racists when using racial slurs. Are you denying that Scientology is a money grubbing cult? Because you better have one heckuva cite lined up if so. Also, I’d like to commend you for remaining so civil throughout this discourse. I personally believe you are comitting crimes against critical thought with your never prosecuted == never happened line of reasoning, but respect your ability to remain cool under pressure. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/134 "2004-01-14T03:53:59Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > This is like arguing with a KKK member as to whether blacks are not problematic people. They have their beliefs and stick to it. They present their evidence and balk at any attempts at deconstruction. A KKK member is bigotted, and it seems to me, so are you. Damn. Should have read this before my previous post. Wanna tip for future debates? You should respond to someone’s points with a counterpoint which contradicts their point. Here, for instance, you didn’t even try the “It’s never been shown in court that they’re evil” defence any more. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/135 "2004-01-14T04:45:33Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > I knew a gay couple that was nastily given notice that they weren’t welcome (what they considered bordering on abuse) by a Meeting associated with the Friends Evangelical Church. They’re a bit more forgiving than some notable ex-Scientologists and so don’t go publicizing their case, but since there were no other Quaker Churches in the area, they quietly had to convert to a different denomination. Its funny, I cannot for the life of me find this “friends Evangelical Church” listed amonst the Society of Friends at [quaker.org](http://quaker.org). Are you certain these are quakers? Either way, rejecting gays is bad behavior. But nothing compared to brainwashing, attmepts to frame people, and a whole litany of actual crimes that members have gone to jail for, plus a host of other nafarious deeds that they have gotten away with. That’s a level far and above being treated rudely. > [@](#): > > Actually, the majority of my points came from present-day. > > And, to boot, one of the things I’m claiming is that Scientology, as a young religion, is necessarily more dogmatic (and therefore more offensive to free-thinking post-modern society) than other mainstreamed religions. I think its okay to look at the history of religions because it informs us as to what they were like before they became mainstreamed. It is interesting that the parallels can be seen for religions that are of the same age. Actually, Scientology is much MORE tolerant than many denominations in the Middle Ages, you have to agree. No, we’re not living in the Middle Ages, but if Scientology had been somehow founded at that time and managed to survive I seriously doubt that this discussion would be happening at all. I’m sorry, but you want to give them points for being better than religions in the middle age? Thanks like saying someone is “less prone to rape and pillage than Atilla the Hun”. Talk about backhanded compliments. Furthermore, being new is no excuse. Scientology is not the only religion founded in this age. I have yet to see wicca act as a criminal enterprise. > [@](#): > > Can you imagine someone asking “What exactly is the problem with the Amish?” and getting the response this thread has generated? 1. The Amish are pacifists. 2. The Amish don’t try to trick you into their religion with 'personality tests" that disguise the fact that they are Amish recruiters 3. The Amish don’t have a whole system of paid classes designed to indoctrinate you into their system. 4. The Amish have not made several attempts to restrict free speech on the internet. 5. If someone leaves the Amish, that’s pretty much it. They don’t send private investigators if they are critical of the Amish Heirarchy. 6. If someone leaves the Amish, their family might not speak to them again, but that is the familiy’s choice, they are not ardered to do so by the Amish heirarchy. Not to say that the Amish are without their foibles (above and beyond the buggies and clothes) but nothing compared to the activities of the CoS. > [@](#): > > No, they are free to go ahead and point out bad behavior. I don’t think they nor you should shut up. I do find their choice for voicing their opinions odd, but it’s a free country and they can do what they want. I just don’t think their complaints prove much by way of saying Scientology is problematic or dangerous. Your opinion. > [@](#): > > I only hope you realize that similar types of criticisms that you’re using to point out the “bad behavior” of CoS can be leveled against other religions too. That’s all I’m doing, pointing out that Scientology may not be as “bad” as you paint it because if we honestly compare it to other churches it is difficult for me to see exactly how it is so problematic. Actually, I think you have failed utterly to do so. My opinion only of course. > [@](#): > > People are free to disagree with me. It may be a self-evident fact to you. I welcome you to show me how I’m being obtuse in this regard. Lisa McPherson, Operation Snow White, The framing and Raid on [anon.penet.fi](http://anon.penet.fi), The attempts to censor the internet, the continual harassment of critics, the attacks and supression of “Free Zoners”, oh, and the brainwashing, the whole fiasco of Sea Org (with its billion year contract), the quasi legal siezing and destruction of Dennis Erlich’s Computer, the attempts to frame CSICOP with forged letters, the SWAT raid by the ‘in pocket’ Clearwater police on Jesse Prince, the intimidation and threats made on protesters at CoS facilities, the failure to pay Wollershiem his owed money (The ‘not one thin dime’ declaration) until the court was so fed up with them that they were going to seize documents, the 'it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren’t-true conviction of Keith Henson for “terroristic threats against Scientology”, the further arrest (and embarassed release) of Henson in Canada by SWAT teams brought about by Scientology making false claims to the police. Let’s also not forget the behavior of LRon himself. Oh, and for the critics we get some of the most [abhorrent attacks on critics on this webpage.](http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/index.html) That’s just for starters. And they are way ahead of the pack. Nobody other mainstream religion is even coming close to this. ---
**Author:** ![AveDementia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@AveDementia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AveDementia)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/136 "2004-01-14T06:49:27Z")
::wading in:: If I might offer a suggestion? I have found the Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame to be very useful in discussing (or more to the point- pinning down) what to look for in groups that may be harmful. You can’t just go by names, beliefs, or even reputations, you’ve really got look closer at the structure of a group to comprehend what they’re about, becuse that’s where the danger may be. The first half of the page explains the background of it, and the second part is the Frame itself. I hope it can perhaps be useful to the discussion. [http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html](http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html) ::wading out:: ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/137 "2004-01-14T15:30:40Z")
**JS Princeton** I admire the work you have been doing in this thread, especially since you seem to have no real horse in the race. I won’t disagree with you about the illegitimacy of using the word “cult” or that Scientology is a religion. It just seems like this thread is missing the forest for the trees. I won’t say Scientology doesn’t have its merits. Plenty of people seem to have been helped by its teachings. But looking at history, we can pick out the bad things religions have done and attempt to trace their root causes. Many of these bad aspects of religion – insularity, elitism, violence, extreme prosetylization – can now be used to describe Scientology. Probably the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that Scientology doesn’t have is fatalism. Yeah, all religions have their bad points. Yeah, it is a total judgement call. Yeah, all religions have their merits. But Scientology really seems to be at the bad end of the scale. OTOH, Scientology as a modern religion using modern tools only may only seem worse because it is more efficient than other organized religions. My particular beef is the untastefulness by which Scientology recruits. And yes, I will gladly lump this in with all of the Christian and other groups who recruit by deceit – Messianic Jews, anti-abortion groups masquerading as family planning outfits, even creation scientists. Scientology claims to be a religion based in science (despite that there is an obvious conflict within that definition). From [http://www.scientology.org](http://www.scientology.org): > [@](#): > > Scientology constitutes man’s first real application of scientific methodology to spiritual questions. But they don’t do science in the traditional sense, they have never done science, and their techniques are not scientific. At least from what I understand. They actively use deceit (Narconon is just one, they pulled a [similar stunt on 9/11](http://www.solitarytrees.net/cowen/misc/ground0.htm)) to get people away from science and into their non-scientific programs. They have “declared war” on psychotherapy and psychiatry, aiming to replace them with what is essentially a treatment based on faith. Yes, there are problems with modern psychotherapy and psychiatry, but they are improving fields which rest on scientific methods and subjected to scientific scrutiny. The same cannot be said of E-Meters. I feel the exact same way about this (which perhaps is the central dogma of Scientology) than I do about churches which preach sexual orientation conversion therapy or Christian Science or faith healing of any sort. If another religious group moved in on legitimate therapy groups set up to help 9/11 survivors, I would have the exact same fury. The only break Christianity or another “established” religion would get that they are older, larger, and more fragmented. We can dismiss the actions of a few bungholes without dismissing the religion at large. Scientology is new, smaller, and strictly regimented. I must, therefore, assume that this isn’t the action of a renegade group but is central dogma. And that is a Bad Thing. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/138 "2004-01-14T16:12:55Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > The context was courts. _You_ decided you wanted to talk about day-to-day usage, not me. So if you aren’t redefining words you’re redefining contexts. Bullshit. You are the one that brought up courts. No one else in this thread has made their case based on the presence or absence of courtroom proceedings. You said, and I quote, that “You cannot, in this country, call someone guilty without proving it in a court of law.” Which is patently false. To sum up this part of the discussion to date: 1. Everyone else: Scientology is guilty of heinous things! 2. You: You can’t call anyone “guilty” without a court proceeding. 3. Me: Bullshit. Oswald is guilty even absent judicial proceedings. 4. You: “Guilty” is a legal term, and cannot be used otherwise. 5. Me: (provides definition of “guilty,” calls bullshit, points out context issue). 6. You: Well, we’re talking about a legal context. To which, again, I reply “bullshit.” You’re bootstrapping – claiming your earlier (and erroneous) statements about judicial proceedings have changed the context of the discussion to that of courts of law. And that is simply not so. > [@](#): > > Who, praytell, does define objective truth? You? Me? The Pope? Come now, reasonable people disagree on the culpability of the CoS in Lisa McPherson case. You have your opinions, other people have theirs. I have more than my opinions. I have facts. And while others can cleave to their own opinions in the face of those facts – much like the OJ Simpson jury – that does not make them right. > [@](#): > > Actually, it’s called fair play, and your moral higher ground may or may not be justified. I’m just saying that what’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander. So you consider, say, comparisons between the Soviet gulags and the American prison system to be just “fair play”? > [@](#): > > Morality and ethics cannot be objectively qualified, right. You can, however come to a societal consensus about things. Generally, that’s done in the courts. Do you have a different venue to propose we evaluate the claims of those disliking Scientology? I categorically reject the notion that we cannot call a given set of behavior “immoral” or “unethical” unless there are judicial proceedings involved. And yes, there is another venue – the hearts and minds of individuals everywhere. By informing others of Scientology’s excesses, sites like [xenu.net](http://xenu.net) do the general public a great service. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/139 "2004-01-14T16:21:40Z")
Crimes committed by Scientologists or Scientology in general, a selected list from one site. [http://www.scientology-lies.com/crimesindex.html](http://www.scientology-lies.com/crimesindex.html) > [@](#): > > 1999: Greece: Scientologists found guilty > 15 Scientologists were accused of systematically keeping files on politicians, journalists, judges, clergymen and other Greek leading personalities > 1996: France: Scientology executive found guilty of involuntary homicide > > 1996: France: Scientologists guilty of interfering with a witness > > 1995: Canada: Scientology pays the largest libel award in Canadian history > > 1984: USA: Clearwater Police Investigator Recommends RICO Charges > > 1980: USA: Top-ranking Scientologists guilty of burglary, forgery, infiltration, and obstruction of justice > Eleven Scientology executives, including L. Ron Hubbard’s wife, pled guilty to a number of serious crimes. The stipulation of evidence included the following statement: “At all times material to the indictment, L. Ron Hubbard was, by virtue of his role as the founder and leader or Scientology, overall supervisor of the Guardian’s Office.” More fun facts about Scientology, including someone’s ISP being raided! [http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Scientology.html](http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Scientology.html) > [@](#): > > In 1995, a Scientologist was convicted of sexually molesting his young stepdaughters. His wife stated, under oath, that the “Church” of Scientology ordered her not to report it [http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/strawn/uscode.html](http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/strawn/uscode.html) A history of high crimes _against_ Scientology… > [@](#): > > An open letter to all Scientologists: Issue II > > Greetings and by way of introduction, I am a Class 8, OT 8, who has been in the Church for many decades and I am in good standing with the Church. I am a lover of LRH’s technology and that is my motivation in writing you and in doing what I am now doing. > > It came to my attention, sometime in the not too distant past, that the current top management of the Church, particularly David Miscavige, is off source. One of the ways he is off-source is that he has made the same mistake as the old Guardian’s Office staff made, engaging in criminal activities to solve problems. > > Furthermore, he and RTC have betrayed Ron’s trust to keep the technology true to source. Along this line he has allowed thousands of alterations to LRH issues in books, HCOBs, and tapes. The attached time track gives some of the details. > > I am not alone in this observation, there are hundreds upon hundreds of other Scientologists who also know this to be true and efforts to apply KSW within the Church have not yielded any positive results. Miscavige, being at the top in command, ousts anyone who tries to correct his squirreling of the technology by internal methods. > > The Creed of the Church provides an answer: We of the Church believe that all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments. > > In keeping with that, a new group has been formed, an association of on-source auditors, loyal to LRH and his technology. We reject any and all alterations of LRH’s technology by Miscavige, or anyone else, for that matter. The only technology we agree to practice is that which comes from LRH himself. Since this is unavailable to us at the formal Churches at this time, we are starting our own group to make this a reality. > > Our first project is to get KSW point 1 in: having the correct technology. We are currently working at assembling a complete, on-source, LRH library of the entire bridge. > > When that is done, we will engage in the paramount - producing theta clears and beyond. > > You will hear from us again in the near future. In the meantime, you can educate yourself by reading the attached time track. [http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/crimtime.htm](http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/crimtime.htm) There. Now you have some specifics. JS, we eagerly await your responses in detail. ---
**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 14, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/140 "2004-01-14T16:44:48Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Are you denying that Scientology is a money grubbing cult? Because you better have one heckuva cite lined up if so. If you think Scientology is a money-grubbing cult, then you are entitled to your opinion. I happen to think it’s no more money-grubbing than many other religions I’ve come across. Some religions really push to get money. Others don’t have that as part of their organizational set-up. In this country, if it’s legal than it’s allowed. You may disagree with it, but then that’s your issue and you may find that you’ll have to fight quite a few other religious groups that behave in similar fashion. The essence of religious tolerance is that you DON’T tell people in other religions how to run their religions unless it is illegal. That is all. > [@](#): > > I personally believe you are comitting crimes against critical thought with your never prosecuted == never happened line of reasoning, but respect your ability to remain cool under pressure. I’m not saying never prosecuted = never happened at all. I’m simply saying that the venue which we decide whether a person or organization is culpable is in the courts. There is an enormous difference between those two statements. > [@](#): > > Wanna tip for future debates? You should respond to someone’s points with a counterpoint which contradicts their point. Here, for instance, you didn’t even try the “It’s never been shown in court that they’re evil” defence any more. I’ve responded plenty of times before to ad hominem attacks against Scientology as a religion. I don’t think that it’s that important that I continue like a broken phonograph to repeat myself. I was just pointing out the obvious similarities between the argumentation of the anti-scientologists and racists, for example. My position is well-documented in this thread and even you seemed to have a good handle on what my responses are (though I think your interpretation of my defense isn’t exactly what I think I believe in). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001.md?page=8)