# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 9
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/161 "2004-01-14T23:33:46Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > [This denomination](http://www.evangelical-friends.org/) > Please, demonstrate the “brainwashing” and how it is ontologically different than the indoctrination that occurs in most religions. Since you are so fond of court cases: [http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Mary\_Johnson.html](http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Mary_Johnson.html) > [@](#): > > Illegal. Should be prosecuted. Yes it is. They still do it. Sometimes they get caught. More often they get away with it. Since they are just trying to harass they win. Look at the Jesse Prince assualt case. The jurors said it was a frame-up. Yet those invovled run free. > [@](#): > > The couple received repeated harassment and actually a few comments that they perceived as death threats. They left and tried to keep a low-profile. Interesting behavior for a pacifist church. This is no Society of Friends I am familiar with. The fact that it puts “friends” in its name doesnot make it part of the SoF. > [@](#): > > I think the justification is simple: members or even church officials do NOT represent the religion as a whole. Since there are good things that Quakers do and there are Quakers who are wholly happy with their religion, why should the religion itself deserve bashing? The answer is, it shouldn’t. Yet overall Scientology has a massive record of criminal activities at a density that pales by comparison. E-Sabbath post a tiny fraction, I’ve posted others. > [@](#): > > Scientology is not its members. It is not, really, even about Church hierarcy inasmuch as religions are sets-of-beliefs. The organization may be flawed or problematic, but then that’s a matter, IMHO, for the courts to decide. If you have a different way you wish to handle it, that’s your business. If people want to use the tenets of LRon, that’s their business. But the CoS has harassed the so-called “freezoners”. I could ignore the freezoners since they don’t have a record like the CoS. Yet technically they use the same tenets. > [@](#): > > Scientology deserves the same respect we would extend any other religion. Religions, in general, have things that people outside of the religion find problematic – pretty much across the board. In and of itself, I could care less about the working of Scientology. However, the CoS is a criminal enterprise hiding behind the skirts of religion. > [@](#): > > How is Scientology _as a religion_ acting as a criminal enterprise. Refer to the _specific_ beliefs of the religion that can ONLY be construed as being criminal. E-Sabbath covered this one. > [@](#): > > I think you missed my point entirely. The Amish are incidental to the whole argument. I’m just saying older and more established religions are more palatable to most people. > > There are people who are extremely angry at the way the Amish behave and write just as vitriolically against them as you are writing against scientologists (including insinuations of criminal activity). Does that mean that the Amish are problematic/dangerous? I’d say not. The Amish are not acting as a criminal enterprise. > [@](#): > > - Lisa McPherson\* > Dealt with. You wish > [@](#): > > _Snow White_ > Illegal? That would explain why CoS members went to jail. And why LRon went into hiding. > [@](#): > > If true, then illegal, why is there no court case? Isufficient proof, and a lack of jurisdiction by Finland. > [@](#): > > _Censoring the Internet_ > Or protect copyrights, as the case may be. Wrong. That was their excuse, and a lame one at that. It also brings the question of why a tax-free religion has copyrights to protect. > [@](#): > > ala Pat Robertson. I loathe PR, but at his worst he was a piker compared to the CoS. > [@](#): > > _Suppression and attack on FreeZoners_ > Describe these so-called “attacks” and “supressions”. Were they illegal? Attempts to seize materials, and other activities much like what happened to Vaughn. [QUOTE] I guess that must be a proven fact? > [@](#): > > the whole fiasco of Sea Org (with its billion year contract),[/qute] > > Which part of this fiasco are you referring to in particular? The billion-year contract? The criminal investigation? The mistreatment of people within that org. Many folks have gone to jail. But many more have gotten away with criminal abuse. > [@](#): > > _THe Seizing of Erlich’s computer_ > How was it “quasi-legal”? Warrant served under false pretenses. Computer damaged when they had no right to do so. Private correspondance from computer used in Dead agenting. > [@](#): > > This one I don’t even think CSICOP blames on the CoS. "In 1977, a government raid on the offices of the Church of Scientology uncovered considerable evidence of the organization’s misdeeds, including a plot by Scientology to discredit CSICOP by forging CIA documents. The documents seized by the FBI described a plan to spread rumors that CSICOP was actually a front group for the CIA. (Source: Toronto Globe and Mail, January 25, 1980.) " > [@](#): > > In pocket? Eh? I suppose you have evidence to that effect? The raid was brought on by a CoS Private Investigator who made several false allegations about Prince. Anywhere else in the USA the police and courts would have at least looked for more before raiding. > [@](#): > > See what you do when someone protests outside facilities of your religion. Justified? Not in my book, but simply human nature: NOT an endemic problem of the religion. Its epidemic at all such events, despite the bad publicity it garners. The CoS has not learned. Protests outside Catholic churchs (albeit mostly by Catholics) did not recieve this constant harassment TTBOMK. > [@](#): > > They _paid_ him! What more do you want? I think you want Scientology to roll-over and be happy about the fact it was sued. People and organizations that are sued for a lot of money rarely are cooperative about it. Name a counterexample to show that the CoS was somehow different in kind. They hid the money, claimed they were bankrupt, yet hired tons of lawyers and PI’s to harass Wollersheim. They used tactics that the court determined were illicit. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t justified? Have you read at all about what Keith Henson does wrt Scientology? Yeah, he stood outside one of their facilities with a sign. Oh, and was critical about the CoS. You got another story? > [@](#): > > _Keith Henson again_ > Verifiable false claims? I thought that some were actually legit. Nope. Read Hensons’ account: [http://www.operatingthetan.com/oakville-mall.txt](http://www.operatingthetan.com/oakville-mall.txt) They lied to the police and said he was a “dangerous fugitive” this was simply not true. The Toronto police got lied to, and have been pulling CYA since. > [@](#): > > We’ve dealt with this before. You just don’t want to deal with the substance of the issues I’m talking about: religious tolerance. Again, I could care less about the religion. ITs the criminal activities of the church that are a problem. They’ve gone well beyond any other church in that respect. In other words: Freezoners I don’t care about, the CoS is worrisome criminal enterprise. > [@](#): > > Snow job _par excellance_. Not only are these a hodge-podge of claims that are simply listed without careful evaluation (a number have been dealt with, but a number are simply wild accusations), they are simply outside the point I listed earlier about the _religion_ itself. > > Saying that members of Scientology or members in the hierarchy of Scientology acted illegally or abusively does not a problematic or dangerous religion make. The fact demonstrate otherwise. The CoS as its stands is a danger. > [@](#): > > Saying that the Clearwater police are goons for the CoS is a straight-up lie, as far as I can tell. As far as you can tell is not very far. Most Clearwater police are not goons for the Cos, but some have taken steps that make one question who is pulling their strings. > [@](#): > > More than that, some of the claims you level are simply ridiculous. You have yet to demonstrate that > [@](#): > > If you don’t want to pay a person as an organization and you state that, but then you pay him when the courts decide you must, is that acting dangerously or problematically? If so, why? Because the courts said they must pay him several dozen times before they actually paid. The CoS played 3 card monte with the cash. > [@](#): > > I’d like to see you quantify this in some way. I anxiously await it. You first. Link have been provided for you in many occasions. You have chosen to ignore them or dismiss them. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to unplug my computer, as I am moving. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/162 "2004-01-15T08:27:25Z")
> [@JS Princeton](#): > > That’s the question I think we can ask, “Should Scientology be outlawed?” I’m sure there are a few people in this thread that would say, “yes”. > > Here’s my question: do you think Scientology should be legally made to reform? Should it be illegal to recruit untastefully? > > If not, then I must extend my defense of them as a religion. In other words, I may not agree with them, but I don’t think that I have a right to, for example, automatically lambaste the member \*simply because[/r] they’re a member. Oooh these are good questions and worthy of another thread beyond this train wreck. The Establishment Clause is a big sticky issue, and it gets even stickier if we start to dissect the philosophy behind it. In short, I don’t know. In fairness, if they convince the IRS that they are a religion, they are a religion in my book. I suppose it should be strongly considered that they were unable to convince the tax guys in other countries that they are a religion, but in the USA they must be afforded any luxuries we give to other religions. One of these luxuries is that the government doesn’t meddle too much. We saw the ugliness in the recent Catholic Church scandals. Scientology should thus be offered the same. Law breakers must be prosecuted, if the religion is encouraging breaking the law, then there needs to be intervention, etc. In medicine, we can effectively remove a minor from a religion, at least temporarily, if it is in a child’s medical interests. For instance, we can give Jehovah’s Witness children blood transfusions by making them a temporary ward of the state. Our entire system of government is based on the fact that most people of legal age can make these decisions for themselves. In practice, we know that this is not the case – competency to make a decision is a big continuum from the well informed to the totally clueless. My future sister-in-law (well towards the clueless end of things) was approached by Scientologists and asked me for advice. I told her to stay away. If a truly informed person were approached by them, I would let them make their own decisions (and they probably wouldn’t be coming to me for advice anyway). It is like playing with fire. We don’t let kids play with matches, but adults can do whatever they like. We all know that there are plenty of adults who should be staying away from the lighter fluid though, and we all take actions to prevent tragedy. ---
**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 15, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/163 "2004-01-15T21:46:25Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Fair Game was initiated in 1967. > A document stating it was canceled was issued 1968. > It has been indicated that it was official policy of the church as late as 1984. > Sixteen years after the only cancellation order shown. > > There is no reason to believe it is not currently policy of the church. Yes there is, they _say_ it’s not. Whether people act out of the paradigm or not, the Scientologists say that it was not doctrine. This is outlandish posturing on your part. If you think it’s still part of their doctrine _ask a Scientologist_. Seriously. > [@](#): > > Note: Pat Robertson said many things after 9/11. He did not go down to Ground Zero, and make life more difficult for those attempting search and rescue, to the point where they infiltrated police lines. He did not attempt to profess his religion to firefighters while they were working. He did not present his church’s phone number to a major news bureau by pretending it was a psychatric help line. No, but Scientology didn’t blame feminists and homosexuals for the planes crashing into the WTC. Pick your favorite unethical movement. > [@](#): > > Why was Snow White not indicative of the organization, JS? I’m still waiting for specifics, not frantic handwaving. You certainly like to assert things without basis. Snow White is not indicative of the organization because there are Scientologists who do not believe it was correct. End of story. As I said, you’re simply acting on inductive fallacy impulses rather than addressing the issues I bring up. ---
**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 15, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/164 "2004-01-15T22:22:39Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > And courts are often victims of their own caution. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is an incredibly high standard of proof – appropriate, perhaps, for imposing upon a defendant the loss of his freedom or even his life, but not appropriate for more mundane, day-in, day-out evaluations. I happen to be of the opinion that passing judgement on an entire religion is not a mundane, day-in, day-out evaluation. > [@](#): > > No one here has suggested that Scientology should have lesser legal rights when and if they are ever haled into court over their many misdeeds. Not true. People have said Scientology shouldn’t be considered a religion. In that way, the CoS would not have the legal rights an organized religion should have. > [@](#): > > But we’re not in a courtroom, and the OP does not ask a legal question. The OP asks why people have a problem with Scientology. And members of this fora have, quite rightly, pointed out the many reasons why Scientology is considered a disreputable organization. They have, in short, been answering the OP’s question, no more and no less. I have been extremely clear about my position. The fact is that the “problems” outlined I don’t find to be any more problematic than the “problems” outlined for other religions. I am inclined to say that if other religions have problems, then Scientology with its problems isn’t really ontologically problematic. It’s not that I’m making excuses for Scientology, it’s that I don’t see how the ethical problems surrounding the religion of Scientology are any greater than the ethical problems of other religions, they’re just different. > [@](#): > > The responses here have been every bit as appropriate as the responses to threads asking whether Pete Rose should be reinstated into baseball, or to threads inquiring about Oswald’s role in the Kennedy assasination. Your attempt to cloud the issue at hand by demanding judicial proceedings as the only appropriate measure of Scientology’s propriety is simply absurd. I’d say that Scientology is a religion that is adhered to by hundreds of thousands of peope at least, if not millions. Oswald and Rose are individuals. > [@](#): > > Simple question: do you believe a rational person can believe OJ is innocent? Is this supposed to be a religious question? 😛 > [@](#): > > Surely at some point we can point to the absurdly high mountain of evidence and say, as a matter of objective truth, this guy did it, courtroom antics notwithstanding. Maybe you’d like to descrive objective truth in terms of religious groups and religious beliefs. I mean, one can declare that they have a monopoly on objective truth – like yourself – and then pontificate about the problematic nature of specific groups. Or one can say that there are courts that decide the legal rights for religions, people, organizations, etc. > [@](#): > > The facts in the McPhereson case have been well-reported here. I need not reinvent the wheel. No, all you need to do is demonstrate how a death by a religious adherent makes a religion inherently problematic. See edwino’s next post for more on this. I think edwino does a pretty good job dealing with this. > [@](#): > > How? In the same way that [xenu.net](http://xenu.net) does. By shedding light on what they actually do. With appropriate spin, of course 🙂 > [@](#): > > The facts speak for themselves. If you can dispute whether you were “yelling”, I can dispute whether facts “speak”. > [@](#): > > Yeah, right. Next you’ll be saying that the same can be said of the National Alliance’s website as compared to the Wiesenthal Center or [Nikzor.org](http://Nikzor.org). I bet you get really pissed off by the ACLU, don’t you? ---
**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 15, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001/165 "2004-01-15T22:53:05Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > Since you are so fond of court cases: > > [http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Mary\_Johnson.html](http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Mary_Johnson.html) Not fond of court cases at all. As you have demonstrated, though, when one takes someone to court, even in Ireland, “brainwashing” is not a legally termed crime. It is a > [@](#): > > Yes it is. They still do it. Sometimes they get caught. More often they get away with it. Since they are just trying to harass they win. Look at the Jesse Prince assualt case. The jurors said it was a frame-up. Yet those invovled run free. Jesse Prince was hardly a martyr. He would intentionally go and follow Scientologists and CoS establishments ala anti-abortion activists. The legal mess he got himself is basically a result of his inability to behave like a calm and rational human being. For an example of an anti-scientologist who is calm and rational check out [Don Lindsay](http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/). He hasn’t been taken to court by Scientology. He doesn’t claim to be harassed. He’s still critical of the religion. Interesting, huh? > [@](#): > > This is no Society of Friends I am familiar with. The fact that it puts “friends” in its name doesnot make it part of the SoF. They’re still quakers. Just becaue they aren’t in your denomination doesn’t mean they aren’t quakers. > [@](#): > > Yet overall Scientology has a massive record of criminal activities at a density that pales by comparison. E-Sabbath post a tiny fraction, I’ve posted others. Scientology has a record, or people? Are you beginning to get my drift? > [@](#): > > If people want to use the tenets of LRon, that’s their business. But the CoS has harassed the so-called “freezoners”. I could ignore the freezoners since they don’t have a record like the CoS. Yet technically they use the same tenets. Well, the “freezoner” controversy is extremely similar to the spats that have occurred between Catholics and Protestants, for example. > [@](#): > > In and of itself, I could care less about the working of Scientology. However, the CoS is a criminal enterprise hiding behind the skirts of religion. CoS may or may not be a criminal enterprise, but I think that’s a matter for the courts. > [@](#): > > The Amish are not acting as a criminal enterprise. Says you. There are those who think they’re collective scheming in some rural communities have driven up property values illegally. > [@](#): > > Wrong. That was their excuse, and a lame one at that. It also brings the question of why a tax-free religion has copyrights to protect. Why is it lame, first of all? And tax-free religions copyright lots of things. Any publication of the Catholic Church, for example, is protected by copyright laws. Please, apply your standards equally. > [@](#): > > I loathe PR, but at his worst he was a piker compared to the CoS. Explain how, exactly? > [@](#): > > Warrant served under false pretenses. Computer damaged when they had no right to do so. Private correspondance from computer used in Dead agenting. I disagree. The facts of the case as presented in court-documents seem to indicate that the warrant was served legally. > [@](#): > > "In 1977, a government raid on the offices of the Church of Scientology uncovered considerable evidence of the organization’s misdeeds, including a plot by Scientology to discredit CSICOP by forging CIA documents. The documents seized by the FBI described a plan to spread rumors that CSICOP was actually a front group for the CIA. (Source: Toronto Globe and Mail, January 25, 1980.) " See my post later. It turns out that the “plot” was never carried out at all. > [@](#): > > The raid was brought on by a CoS Private Investigator who made several false allegations about Prince. Anywhere else in the USA the police and courts would have at least looked for more before raiding. You have proof for that? I highly doubt it. > [@](#): > > Its epidemic at all such events, despite the bad publicity it garners. The CoS has not learned. Protests outside Catholic churchs (albeit mostly by Catholics) did not recieve this constant harassment TTBOMK. Um, care to quantify this? > [@](#): > > They hid the money, claimed they were bankrupt, yet hired tons of lawyers and PI’s to harass Wollersheim. They used tactics that the court determined were illicit. They PAID. What more do you want? The story is over. > [@](#): > > Yeah, he stood outside one of their facilities with a sign. Oh, and was critical about the CoS. You got another story? See above. > [@](#): > > Nope. Read Hensons’ account: [http://www.operatingthetan.com/oakville-mall.txt](http://www.operatingthetan.com/oakville-mall.txt) I have read so many stories like this that had nothing to with Scientology. How can you say the tactics of the police have _anything_ to do with Scientology? That’s completely specious, as far as I’m concerned. > [@](#): > > They lied to the police and said he was a “dangerous fugitive” this was simply not true. The Toronto police got lied to, and have been pulling CYA since. Correct me if I’m wrong, but he _was_ a fugitive. In any case, who is this “they”? > [@](#): > > Again, I could care less about the religion. I don’t think it’s possible. You seem to be really non-plussed by Scientology and therefore couldn’t care less. But it’s nice that you do care something for them, in any case. > [@](#): > > ITs the criminal activities of the church that are a problem. I agree completely. > [@](#): > > They’ve gone well beyond any other church in that respect. I disagree completely. > [@](#): > > In other words: Freezoners I don’t care about, the CoS is worrisome criminal enterprise. Then, if they are worrying you as a citizen you have a right to seek legal action. > [@](#): > > As far as you can tell is not very far. Most Clearwater police are not goons for the Cos, but some have taken steps that make one question who is pulling their strings. This is also highly specious. One can make up conspiracy stories and wear tinfoil hats… or… > [@](#): > > Because the courts said they must pay him several dozen times before they actually paid. The CoS played 3 card monte with the cash. Believe me, if more people would simply work through the courts, the problematic parts of the organization would reform. > [@](#): > > You first. Link have been provided for you in many occasions. You have chosen to ignore them or dismiss them. Actually, I challenged you to quantify your claim. How do my claims require quantification? I’m simply saying that there are simple matter of problems existing everywhere in all religions. Since that is the case, then you treat them equally. That’s all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-the-problem-with-scientology/224001.md?page=8)