What exactly is the problem with Scientology?

Great Debates
141

If you don’t think it’s necessary, why do you continue to do it?

I’ve seen no indication that you are actually engaged in debate here. You have ignored the opening post, instead buiding strawmen or completely changing the subject. People have stated why Scientology is bad, including numerous cites. Your point by point rebuttals to the many posts here have not cited any evidence that the allegations and stories about the CoS are false, but have instead concentrated on excusing those actions or pointing out that other religions have been guilty of similar actions.

As such, I really wish people would just stop arguing with you, because it is pointless. I am confident that most people reading this thread would see that your only point is that the CoS is not so bad, but that you have no factual reasoning behind that opinion. Being for, against, or neutral towards the CoS based on emotion or some other non-factual reasons are fine, but the people in this thread that dislike the CoS have at least, at times, shown specific instances and reasons why they dislike Scientology.

142

So… what you’re saying is the statement “Organization X not only has members that commit crimes to further the goals of the organization, but it officially supports such crimes being committed,” is similar to argumentation of racists?

How about “Organization X has, repeatedly, and in official capacity, ordered harassment of people it thinks may do things that are not in the best interest of the organization.” Is that similar to the argumentation of racists?

Argumentation is a real word, interestingly enough.

  1. The presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments.
  2. Deductive reasoning in debate.
  3. A debate.

So… what you’re saying is that the structure of the debate, but not the contents, is similar to that of at least one racist? I fail to see the problem here. Even invalid premises can be manipulated in deductive reasoning… they simply won’t lead to valid conclusions.

JS, your interesting form of debate, sound and fury, teetering on the edge of logic and hairsplitting words, seems interesting but useless. Might I suggest you engage instead of spitting out what might be seen by some as flim flam and poppycock?

143

This denomination

Please, demonstrate the “brainwashing” and how it is ontologically different than the indoctrination that occurs in most religions.

Illegal. Should be prosecuted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I really don’t think this is possible.

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.

Dealt with.

Illegal?

If true, then illegal, why is there no court case?

Or protect copyrights, as the case may be.

ala Pat Robertson.

Describe these so-called “attacks” and “supressions”. Were they illegal?

I guess that must be a proven fact?

[quote]
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?

More importantly, how does this prove that Scientology is a dangerous or problematic religion? Do the actions of a few deviant hire-ups necessarily mean the whole religion is awful?

How was it “quasi-legal”?

This one I don’t even think CSICOP blames on the CoS.

In pocket? Eh? I suppose you have evidence to that effect?

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.

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.

It wasn’t justified? Have you read at all about what Keith Henson does wrt Scientology?

Verifiable false claims? I thought that some were actually legit.

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.

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. Saying that the Clearwater police are goons for the CoS is a straight-up lie, as far as I can tell.

More than that, some of the claims you level are simply ridiculous. 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?

I’d like to see you quantify this in some way. I anxiously await it.

144

I appreciate your comments edwino.

I think you hit the nail on the head. You personally think that Scientology is at the bad end of the scale. That may be true, but I think the real measure is, for lack of a better technique, in the courts. It seems to me that this is the test that is used by society to determine the legitimacy of a group. If the religion is problematic and dangerous then shouldn’t it be illegal?

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”.

Okay, you’re consistent. I appreciate that consistency.

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.

I think I disagree with the central dogma claim as I have met many Scientologists who do not act out of this paradigm. We hear a lot about the bungholes, I think, and receive a skewed view of the religion.

My opinion, of course.

Again, thanks for your enlightened comments, edwino. It’s nice to hear from someone who isn’t foaming at the mouth about this discussion.

145

[QUOTE=Dewey Cheatem Undhow]
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.

[/quote[

Well, Dewey, taking that comment completely out of context is ridiculous. I could call you guilty of anything I wanted to, but the evaluative technique of choice for determining guilt or non-guilt in this country is the courts. That’s ALL I have been saying.

My QUESTIONS about the perceived guilt or innocence in question were with regards to courts, to which you responded that, e.g., “OJ was guilty”, to which I respond that the case is the context of courts does not allow for that. If people want to use their own personal judgement, as you wish to do, then they should REALIZE that it is not an objective measure. Are the courts fallible? Of course, but that’s what WE USE AS A SOCIETY to determine guilt or non-guilt. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.

What FACT do you have that shows that Scientology is, for example, guilty of killing Lisa McPherson?

You are fine to reject that. What I don’t understand is how, in the context of society, you intend to pass judgement on a group.

Yell against Scientology. Call them raving lunatics. Call them bastards. That doesn’t make them any less of a religion or any more problematic. As I’ve said, you have your opinions, I have mine.

And the SAME could be said for Scientology’s official website.

146

What does then? If a church official, acting in their official role, does not represent a religion, what does?

Certainly. Easily done. The Fair Game Policy. I present to you a letter written by the founder of the religion suggesting, even directing, illegal activities.

http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html

For the heck of it, here’s LRH on starting a religion, analyzed and verified.

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/scientology/start.a.religion.html
While the Fair Game policy was later recinded, I believe that there are later references to declaring people Fair Game, as late as 1984.

In fact, here is a reference to Fair Game, as early as March of '68.

http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/hubbard_fair_game.html

Another interesting tradition is the R2-45 Auditing Process. Which seems to be “Shoot Person In Head With Colt .45” There is no proof this process has ever been implemented, but it seems to have been a viable threat.
http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/R2-45.html

147

I have a question for you: how many Scientology members are there worldwide? Is there a higher percentage that are involved in crimes than, say, Southern Baptists? I’d be interested to see the statistics.

What your sites prove is that Scientologists have been convicted of crimes. What they fail to show is how that makes Scientology in and of itself problematic.

148

The question is “What exactly is the problem is Scientology?”

The answer is: people can give you reasons they don’t like it, but a religion in-and-of-itelf is not problematic. Our society is founded on religious freedome precisely because religions are deemed to not be in-and-of-themselves problematic. You can legislate against religions because religions aren’t problematic in the legal sense of the word. Since they aren’t problematic in the legal sense of the word, I’m saying they aren’t problematic.

Some of those instances were specious, some were extremely spin-doctored.

Not that you can’t do that, but I’m claiming that they have nothing to say about Scientology as a religion being problematic.

149

Please go back and read the thread. It would be better had you done this before hand rather than later.

Must we rehash this argument too? At least read the thread before you post.

So, if the Fair Game policy isn’t even part of Scientology, then how does that make the religion problematic, dangerous, or illegal?

In other words, the argument that Scientology is problematic because fo the Fair Game policy doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

[/quote]

Read some of the stuff I wrote about apologetics.

We might compare this kind of doctrinal development to the apologetics the Mormons play with plural marriage. The whole game is that when you fit yourself into society, sometimes you say that your “beliefs” are not for this time and place.

In effect, that’s what Scientology is doing. It’s just as legit when any other religion does it. I fail to see how it makes them problematic – ESPECIALLY if they, like other religions, retract and do apologetics on doctrinal problems that make people uncomfortable or society finds illegal.

150

The religion as a whole. It’s a difficult concept to wrap your head around, but I think it’s the only way we can talk about a religion without falling into inductive fallacies.

I also think you’d be hard-pressed to find a Scientologist Church Official acting in their official role commiting a crime.

For example, when a priest molests a child he is not acting in his official role.

151

This is, in fact, not true. The sites indicate that Scientologists have a predictable pattern, approved and in fact, ordered, by the administration and leaders of the church, of comitting crimes to preserve, protect, defend, and spread Scientology.
Let me restate that in different words.

This is not a random priest.

This is not a errant follower mugging someone.

This is the head of the church, and his direct assistants, or the head of a foreign branch of the church, and his direct assistants, committing crimes, or ordering crimes to be performed.

These crimes are for the apparent benefit of the church.

I fail to see how these three things, the crime, the person ordering or comitting the crime, and the goal of the crime, added together, fail to make Scientology responsible for the crime.
I am waiting for your direct analysis of each incident cited above, and your explanation.

152

I checked up on this. It turns out that the “forgeries” are not exactly “forgeries”, but rather misappropriation of organizational representation.

In other words, the very thing that many in this thread are doing.

153

Read the entire sentence, JS. The Fair Game policy has been shown, despite the '68 recantation, to have been in effect as late as 1984.

http://www.wwwaif.net/scn/scn_stip_index.php

How about the Snow White affair? Pick that. Tell me why that incident is something that was not condoned by the religion. It’s a simple case, isn’t it?

And, actually, Scientology is problematic. It is dangerous. And it is illegal.

It is problematic. It causes problems. An example of this would be the hijacking of Fox’s World Trade Center efforts to hype their Dianetics hotline.

It is dangerous. It puts people in danger. See the previous crimes listing.

It is illegal. In Germany, the religion is outlawed.

154

There you go again. The cites are not of Scientologists knocking over liquor stores, (which would be irrelevant) but of crimes specifically in support of Scientology. Any cites on high level Baptist officials doing anything similar? If not, your analogy is bogus.

And what is Scientology? Proven science? Not hardly. Divine revelation? Never heard of any. Scientology is just a business running under the flag of a religion. Sometimes living under the Constitution means you have to swallow the bad with the good.

155

In point of fact it is true.

The sites indicate a history of individuals connected to Scientology. Whether it is a “predictable pattern” is a matter for quantifiable review. Make a prediction and we’ll see if it comes true.

If the church orders crimes, that is illegal and should be prosecuted.

How is it not a random person, though? Even if it is a person in the high echelons, how can you say it is systemic evil that is causing it? Did the Roman Catholic Church cause dioceses to cover-up sex scandals? Same difference.

First of all, that is not the only documentation your site provides. If you’d like to edit your post with just those crimes then that would be more honest.

Secondly, the character or behavior of the heads of churches are not indicative of the value of the religion.

As an organization or as a religion?

Because Scientology is a religion that is not based around crime. It’s as simple as that. You may have people that use crime, but as far as being doctrine or dogma, you can go look into Scientology’s doctrine (available at your local CoS outlet) and see what it says about crime.

You’ve COMPLETELY missed the point.

It’s not about whether people have committed crimes. It’s about whether Scientology caused them to do it. I say “no”. You say that the leaders of the church acting in official capacity committed crimes. I say that’s simply not true. The convictions of members of the church are, in fact, not grounds for ruling that the religion is problematic.

The same thing happened with Joseph Smith and his doomed run for presidency. It didn’t make Mormonism problematic NOR does it make Scientology problematic.

Do you honestly believe it is impossible that people can be involved in Scientology without being under the influence of nefarious forces? If it’s true, then Scientology in-and-of-itself is not problematic or evil.

156

That was 20 years ago. Honestly, what is that supposed to show?

Because there are those who are in the religion who do not condone the actions of those who were convicted.

This is not ontologically different from what other religions do, let me assure you. Robertson and Falwell on the 9/11 tragedy a prime example.

Scientology is not what puts the people in danger. I’m sorry, but this is plain inductive fallacy.

Well, at least you admit it’s a religion. In Germany, freedom of religion is not a guaranteed right. Maybe you should move there if you think it’s better.

157

For example, people have accused Southern Baptists (and their leaders) of promoting hate crimes in the name of their religion/

That’s right. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You may think Scientology is bad, but you have to swallow the bad with the good. In other words, in the eyes of the Constitution and the law, Scientology is not problematic as a religion.

158

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.

Fair Game suggests that any means necessary, including illegal actions, such as Snow White, shall be taken on behalf of the church.

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.

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.

159

Just want to offer some encouragement to JS Princeton. Keep fighting the good fight.

I have very little to add to this debate that you have not already said. I certainly don’t have the patience to keep it up as longas you have. Kudos to that man.

It seems apparent to me that most of the detractors of scientology are basing their opinion on a totally baseless assumption that the Church incites people to commit crime. I can say clearly that that is baseless because if it had any basis that would convince 12 reasonable men there would be a conviction.

160

Please explain how I took that comment “out of context,” or how it means something other than what it plainly says (indeed, how it means something other than what you wrote above). You apparently think that no one can legitimately be labeled “guilty” of something unless a court has thusly ruled. That’s ridiculous. Pete Rose could legitimately be called guilty of betting on baseball even before his recent public confession. Lee Harvey Oswald can legitimately be called guilty of the Kennedy assasination.

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. Thus, OJ Simpson can quite appropriately be called guilty of murder by the average man on the street in spite of his acquittal at a criminal trial. In the specific context of legal sanctions, that word is inappropriate, but outside of that context that description of OJ is quite apt (so much so that I frankly question the sanity of anyone claiming otherwise).

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. Should that day come, they will be able to put their accusers to the same standard of proof as anyone else. 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.

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.

Simple question: do you believe a rational person can believe OJ is innocent?

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.

The facts in the McPhereson case have been well-reported here. I need not reinvent the wheel.

How? In the same way that xenu.net does. By shedding light on what they actually do.

My “yelling” (I wasn’t aware I had raised my voice) doesn’t make them problematic. Their own actions do. The facts speak for themselves.

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.