Scientology - the pros and the cons

UU

Hi all,
As a Unitarian Universalist, I have diverse beliefs and turn to all different faiths for inspiration and a search for meaning but one faith I recently started to research was Scientology. I know......it sounds absurd.

Scientology actually has some very interesting and nice beliefs in it contrasting the brainwashing influence that is widely known. One such belief I really believe in is The Eight Dynamics Of Existence. A dynamic is an urge, influence. These dynamics are:

1st Dynamic SELF — the individual, including his body, mind and immediate possessions.
2nd Dynamic FAMILY and children and all other creativity.
3rd Dynamic GROUP SURVIVAL whether friends, a club, company, nation or race.
4th Dynamic MANKIND as a species.
5th Dynamic LIFE FORMS including all plant and animal life.
6th Dynamic PHYSICAL UNIVERSE with its four components of matter, energy, space and time.
7th Dynamic SPIRITUAL dynamic — anything spiritual with or without identity, life source.
8th Dynamic INFINITY, also commonly called God, the Supreme Being or Creator.

As you see, they make sense to the stages of existence and life but with sci-fi names. There are other beliefs such as the ARC triangle - affinity, reality and communication - which greatly help one's understanding and assists interpersonal relationships. Another one is The Tone Scale. This is a tool used in everyday life to understand what is occurring with individuals and how best to communicate with them on a scale from 40.0(Serenity of Beingness) through 2.0(Antagonism) to 0.01(Dying) and 0.0(Body Death).

There are also some aspects of Scientology I don't believe such as their belief in alien thetans(souls) and how humans occured as quoted:

Do Scientologists believe in space aliens?

Scientology does teach that many of our problems are caused by the spirits of space aliens that are stuck to our bodies. However, that teaching is considered confidential and is only taught to Scientologists who have reached a certain level, known in Scientology as OT III - so a lot of Scientologists are actually unaware that this is an important Scientology teaching.

What, exactly, does Scientology say about space aliens?

In the materials for OT III (Operating Thetan level 3), L. Ron Hubbard writes that, 75 million years ago, the head of the Galactic Federation, made up of 76 planets, was a being named Xenu. Faced with an overpopulation problem, he brought beings to this planet, blew them up with hydrogen bombs, and packaged them. Their spirits now infest our bodies: he says "One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body." Scientologists at this level try to rid themselves of these thetans (spirits) by helping each one to remember the painful experiences of being blown up like that.

There are other Scientology teachings that relate to space aliens. The book "Have You Lived Before This Life?", described in Scientology advertisements as "a cold-blooded account of your last years", contains dozens of case histories of memories experienced by Scientologists, some of which include adventures in outer space.

Even the glossary in Scientology's What Is Scientology? contains a definition for the phrase "space opera", which, according to Scientology, relates to periods on "the whole track" (that is, our whole history, going back through many lives and millions of years), and it contains "space travel, spaceships, spacemen" and so on.

- by http://www.scientology-lies.com/

Very strange, eh? Many aspects of Scientology seem to work in theory but human nature leads to corruptness and evil(as usual!) There have been many known cases regarding the Church Of Scientology such as these:

Trial pending: USA: Lisa McPherson - Wrongful Death, Practicing Medicine Without a License, Torture, more
The state of Florida has decided not to prosecute the two felony charges of unauthorized practice of medicine and abuse and/or neglect of a disabled adult in the case of Lisa McPherson, who died in Scientology's custody on December 5, 1995. However, a civil suit has been filed by her estate, alleging wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, fraud, battery, negligence, and practicing medicine without a license.

Other people have also reported fraud , the unauthorized practice of medicine , and false imprisonment .

Trial pending: Ireland: Brainwashing
Mary Johnston is suing Scientology, saying she underwent a personality change and her health suffered while she was undergoing Scientology processing. She recently won the right to see her auditing folder (notes kept on her from Scientology processing sessions).

These are some known examples and as you can see one occured over here but it isn't the only religion with a dark past. The Catholic Church, Islam and some cults are a few known ones (and don't say I'm wrong because I am not).

To conclude, Scientology isn't as bad as it's made out to be as it has some meaningful beliefs but don't get me wrong, I wouldn't plan on becoming a Scientologist. Check out http://www.scientology.org/ for more information.

Thank you for reading.

Stark

The so-called "pros" of Scientology are facets that it stole from other, healthy spiritualities in order to lure people in. They take the beauty that can come with following a spiritual path and twist it.

Faced with an overpopulation problem, he brought beings to this planet, blew them up with hydrogen bombs, and packaged them. Their spirits now infest our bodies:

You know, I consider myself an open minded person, but I knew the ****ing absurd when I see it.

UU wrote:

Check out http://www.scientology.org/ for more information.

Thank you for reading.

No thank you.

Chong

Scientology = the worlds stupidest sort of cult/sect/fake religion.

stevenmu

I'm going to post a link here to the Charter & Rules and in particular point out the bit

The Charter wrote:

respect the beliefs of others

I realise that some people have strong feelings opposing Scientology but some people do choose it as their way of life and it's as valid a choice as any other belief system. While the charter does allow for the questioning of belief systems it doesn't allow for plain insults or ridicule such as

WDK wrote:

Scientology = the worlds stupidest sort of cult/sect/fake religion.

. I'll ask that anybody posting, especially criticizing scientology make themselves familiar with the charter.



(To be fair to WDK I think that post was made while this thread was on another forum before being moved, I'm just highlighting it as an example of what isn't acceptable here)

stevenmu

*removes moderator hat*

UU wrote:

Hi all,
As a Unitarian Universalist, I have diverse beliefs and turn to all different faiths for inspiration and a search for meaning but one faith I recently started to research was Scientology. I know......it sounds absurd.

I have similar beliefs to yourelf. I think that there's is some 'universal truth' (for want of a better phrase) that we're all on some level aware of. I also believe that various peoples understanding and interpretation of this has led to the formation of the various religions and belief systems in existence today, altough along the way many of these insights have been clouded either through innocent misinterpretation or through deliberate misuse for personal gain (among other reasons). A such I think that many, if not all religions and belief systems have something to teach us about the (I really don't like this phrase, but a better one eludes me at the moment) 'Universal Truth'. I have to admit it never really occured to me to look to scientology, the bits I've heard about it have always made it seem like pure invention. I commend your open mindedness.

If as Stark says Scientology has stolen aspects from other beliefs then it could be usefull to at least learn it's basic principles and beliefs. Even if it is just a patchwork of ideas thrown together from other systems. If nothing else, it seems probable L.Ron Hubbard would have selected ideas which people in general would find easy to believe, perhaps they're easy to believe for a reason.

The Eight Dynamics idea seems quite similar to other ideas in other systems, which often reference higher planes, dimensions etc.. altough they would generally condense the lower dynamics into one physical plane/dimension. This probably reflects the fact that some belief systems see the physical as almost a mere stepping stone to the higher planes/dimensions, whereas scientology seems to place a good deal of emphasis on what happens in our physical lives. The Tone Scale seems vaguely similar to the idea of levels of enlightenment, or to raising energy or vibration levels.

Thanks for the links, having pro and anti scientology ones should help get a balanced view of what it's all about.

Excelsior

Are you saying that your charter asserts that all spiritual beliefs are of equal value?

If so, that is a tremondously arrogant and irresponsible thing to claim.

Scientology is not a "spirituality". It is a corporation invented by a bad science fiction writer. It doesn't have religious status in this country. I doubt there is a country in Europe that would furnish it with such tolerance.

Why is this? Because Scientology systematically preys on the weak, utilises very suspect conditioning processes and is clearly a bag of pants.

There are no pros to a cult that peddles niche-of-zeitgeist satisfying answers to people deluded by the idea that there is no such thing as truth.

UU

Thanks to all for posting.
I know Scientology isn't respected much but I think in today's world people should at least be able to have tolerance towards different religions and that includes Scientology. I also don't expect people to accept Scientologists' beliefs but my message is basically that people should try to have an open mind and try to find something good from something that may seem bad.

Originally posted by Excelsior
Why is this? Because Scientology systematically preys on the weak, utilises very suspect conditioning processes and is clearly a bag of pants.

I am saying it isn't the only religion known for preying on the weak. Haven't the Catholic Church preyed on the weak, hense, many nuns beating and raping young girls in the Magdelane laundries and priests seducing young boys and girls behing closed doors. What about many very strict Islamic men holding females as slaves to them, hense, the Taliban regime and the lack of rights for women in these certain Arabic countries. I don't know how I can accept the Church, Islam and other cults sometimes but I remind myself of acceptance and tolerance. As Sean O'Casey once pointed out in Juno And The Paycock that "the weak will always be abused by those who are better off because the latter have the means both intellectual and financial, to manipulate them".

Originally posted by stevenmu
Thanks for the links, having pro and anti scientology ones should help get a balanced view of what it's all about.

That's what I like to hear. Educating yourself and having self-awareness helps to combat ignorance which leads to discrimination and prejudice.
and here's the fatal combination:
Prejudice + Ignorance = Discrimination

I'm not telling anyone to do anything but I'm just helping people to become aware. Scientology is a "spirituality" as it explores the thetan(soul), the dynamics of life, after-life, etc. Spiritualism is defined as "a belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living". Also, what IF I was to say that Christianity was an abusive, fake, stupid religion? I'd get dramatically insulted and abuse would be thrown at me from all directions but I like Christianity.

So what's the moral of what what I've said? Try to look at something from all directions (i.e the pros and the cons) to become AWARE.

stevenmu

Excelsior wrote:

Are you saying that your charter asserts that all spiritual beliefs are of equal value?

That's not really the point of it, the general gist of the charter is that people should be freely able to discuss any spirituality/religion/belief system etc they choose. It doesn't assert that beliefs are of any value or lack of value, but it asserts that discussing them is. Part of being freely able to discuss something, sometimes means that random off-topic criticism of a belief would be conter productive which is why it's forbidden by the charter.

Excelsior wrote:

Scientology is not a "spirituality". It is a corporation invented by a bad science fiction writer. It doesn't have religious status in this country. I doubt there is a country in Europe that would furnish it with such tolerance.

Why is this? Because Scientology systematically preys on the weak, utilises very suspect conditioning processes and is clearly a bag of pants.

That's an opinion and while it's not one I would nessecarily disagree with, similar things could be said about the formation and formalisation of other more main stream churches and yet I would consider them to be of value. The fact that it does not have religious status is to me irrelevant. I'm sure you'll agree that the government does not, and should not, have the right (either morally or legally) to determine what beliefs are legitimate or not. Government recognition of a religion is merely a tax issue. To me the legitimacy of a belief is determined by the people who believe it.

Excelsior wrote:

There are no pros to a cult that peddles niche-of-zeitgeist satisfying answers to people deluded by the idea that there is no such thing as truth.

While I don't know enough about scientology yet to know if thre are pros to it or not, I would disagree with the principle of that point. As a crude example, the Nazis (and I'm not comparing scientologists or anyone else to Nazis here) were possibly the worst examples of mankind ever, yet much of the technology in use today is the result of research and work carried out by Nazi scientists. he point I'm getting at here, is that just because what scientologists believe may seem crazy to you, there's no reason they could not have some interesting thoughts and ideas.

Excelsior

UU wrote:

I also don't expect people to accept Scientologists' beliefs but my message is basically that people should try to have an open mind and try to find something good from something that may seem bad.

What kind of morality doesn't even have the guts to call evil things evil, nevermind act on them? I am not speaking here specifically of Scientology, as you are addressing a general principle. This is completly irrational and regardless of your worldview, appeasing something so obviously malicious and cynical as Scientology is appalling.

Let me sum up my response for you: When you fail to address clear issues of conflict and insist they are not there you are not being tolerant, you are being hypocritical.

stevenmu wrote:

That's not really the point of it, the general gist of the charter is that people should be freely able to discuss any spirituality/religion/belief system etc they choose. It doesn't assert that beliefs are of any value or lack of value, but it asserts that discussing them is. Part of being freely able to discuss something, sometimes means that random off-topic criticism of a belief would be conter productive which is why it's forbidden by the charter.

Then that sounds admirable. I hope you understand that I am not trying to insult scientologists and I am happy to back up my assertions.

stevenmu wrote:

That's an opinion

No. Not at all. Calling it an opinion may well be an opinion but it is documented fact that Scientology is a self-admitted fabrication based on pulp fiction sci-fi, that they are not a religion but a cynical self-help corporation and that their methods of "self-help" do not help.

stevenmu wrote:

similar things could be said about the formation and formalisation of other more main stream churches

I can't think of one that would compare. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. None of these belief systems have similar origins nor similar practices and motivations. Why don't you support your opinion?

(As an aside, Scientology doesn't qualify for use of the word church.)

Stevenmu wrote:

Government recognition of a religion is merely a tax issue.

Not at all. To benefit from charitable status, one has to demonstrate a positive benefit to society. Scientology systematically fails to demonstrate this.

Stevenmu wrote:

To me the legitimacy of a belief is determined by the people who believe it.

To me, its legitimised by the tenets of the belief.

Stevenmu wrote:

As a crude example, the Nazis (and I'm not comparing scientologists or anyone else to Nazis here) were possibly the worst examples of mankind ever, yet much of the technology in use today is the result of research and work carried out by Nazi scientists.

This is the most peculiar utilisation of Godwin's Principle I've seen in a long time.

Stevenmu wrote:

The point I'm getting at here, is that just because what scientologists believe may seem crazy to you, there's no reason they could not have some interesting thoughts and ideas.

What? This is baffling nonsense! Do you register that there are some things in the world that are negative, there are some organisations that are lying to people. It doesn't matter how intruiging their methods of lying and defrauding are.

UU wrote:

I am saying it isn't the only religion known for preying on the weak. Haven't the Catholic Church preyed on the weak

Oh come on! There are bad people in the Catholic Church. There are bad people in any organisation. The Catholic Church however can only be compared to The Church of Scientology on the basis that they both have "church" in their title. (And one isn't a church!) This is a preposterously flimsy argument.

While your formula for world peace is a lovely idea, I suspect your opinion expressed here on scientology has a lot more to do with ignorance than wisdom or principle. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the very strong sense that you just believe all belief-systems must be approaching equality.

Scientology would be a spirituality as you lay it out UU if the thetan existed, if their ideas about the "dynamics of life" mapped onto reality or if their ideas about after life were anything more than an obvious (and historically well documented) fabrication.

UU wrote:

but I like Christianity.

What?!? So you won't ever argue or discuss Christianity because you somehow have a soft emotional reaction to it?

If you were to call Christianity an "abusive, fake, stupid religion" I would expect you to support your argument and then I would engage that. You have never been met with insults on the Christianity forum here on Boards.ie so where do you get this idea? The difference between Scientology and Christianity is that I can argue with some legitimacy that the tenets of Christianity are true. Scientology was made up on the back of a fictional novel. It isn't just that I don't like it.

Capitalising and embolding the word AWARE doesn't actually make an argument.

DublinWriter

stevenmu wrote:

I realise that some people have strong feelings opposing Scientology but some people do choose it as their way of life and it's as valid a choice as any other belief system.

You are kidding, aren't you?

Scientology uses mind-control to prey on some pretty vulnerable people. Fact.

Now you could say the same about most religions, but Scientology is particularly insidious because it's arranged on the precepts of a pyramid-selling scheme and makes some pretty bold scientific and medical claims without the benefit of empirical evidence.

There are many people, and a lot in Ireland, who have nearly lost all their money and family-ties to this evil organisation that masquerade as a legitimate religion.

You could be sure that any thread on boards.ie would be closed down PDQ if the OP advocated an ‘Ireland for whites only’ or came out with any other insane right-wing statement.

I’m all for freedom of speech, but in an environment where you are going to police discussions on an arbitrary notion of ‘what’s acceptable’ then I would encourage any threads advocating Scientology to be immediately deleted.

stevenmu

DublinWriter wrote:

You could be sure that any thread on boards.ie would be closed down PDQ if the OP advocated an ‘Ireland for whites only’ or came out with any other insane right-wing statement.

I’m all for freedom of speech, but in an environment where you are going to police discussions on an arbitrary notion of ‘what’s acceptable’ then I would encourage any threads advocating Scientology to be immediately deleted.

If you look carefully you will see that no one is advocating scientology and if you looked in the charter you would see

The Charter wrote:

No proselytising. Anyone trying to convert anyone to anything will be immediately banned.

(it's even in bold in the charter)

What is happening is that aspects of scientology are being discussed (or at least that was the idea, I might have to make a seperate thread for this kind of thing and move some posts there). Surely it's better that scientology be discussed so that people can judge it for themselves, if it is as bad as you say it is, then people can see that and make an informed choice to avoid it. I'm under the impression that many people who choose to convert to scientology don't know much about it, and when someone (a scientologist) starts telling them about it, it sounds great. Ignorance helps no one.

stevenmu

Excelsior wrote:

Then that sounds admirable. I hope you understand that I am not trying to insult scientologists and I am happy to back up my assertions.

Yep, seeing as this thread is about the cons of scientology aswell, and you're backing up your criticisms as opposed to just silly name calling it's perfectly all right in my view.

Excelsior wrote:

No. Not at all. Calling it an opinion may well be an opinion but it is documented fact that Scientology is a self-admitted fabrication based on pulp fiction sci-fi, that they are not a religion but a cynical self-help corporation and that their methods of "self-help" do not help.

I think that's still an opinion, I don't think we're at a stage yet where we can trust 'documented fact' when it comes to may matters of religion, too many of the doumenters would have prejudices of there own. And just because we know who and how (and pretty surely why) scientology was formed, and becuase it bears a remarkable resemblence to works of sci-fi, doesn't mean we can concluisvely say it's a fabrication. When you say self-admitted do you mean that L.Ron Hubbard or leading scientologists have publicly admitted to it all being b.s. ?

Excelsior wrote:

I can't think of one that would compare. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. None of these belief systems have similar origins nor similar practices and motivations. Why don't you support your opinion?

It could be said that the Roman Catholic church (the organisation itself, not the beliefs) was formed when Emperor Theodosius I was baptised a Christian and declares Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. If I remember rightly (altough I could easily be mistaken) there was a serious internal threat to the empire at the time from the growing numbers of Christians within it. It could be percieved that the move by Theodosius was a move by a dictator to prop up his regime and maintain control over the people. It's not a perception I'd share but it is something I've seen put forward before.

Excelsior wrote:

Not at all. To benefit from charitable status, one has to demonstrate a positive benefit to society. Scientology systematically fails to demonstrate this.

I'm being a bit pedantic here but charitable status is a tax issue. I also don't believe I've ever heard of Scientologists (as an organisation) getting involved in charitable work, and certainly not to the same levels as the various Christian churches. I guess they need all their money for spaceships and the like.

Bluehair

While i'm too tired to be quite as eloquant as some of the above may I point out that given the facts (freely available if one simply googles Scientology) any discussions of the 'pros' of Scientology are at best naive, at worst dangerous.

Seriously, it's barely even appropriate for a 'spirituality' forum. Just because it calls itself a religion doesn't make it so.

For as balanced a history as I've seen see here. Please don't drag down whats normally an interesting and provocative forum to giving serious discussion to patent nonsense (not an opinion, fact).

Excelsior

stevenmu wrote:

I think that's still an opinion, I don't think we're at a stage yet where we can trust 'documented fact' when it comes to may matters of religion, too many of the doumenters would have prejudices of there own. And just because we know who and how (and pretty surely why) scientology was formed, and becuase it bears a remarkable resemblence to works of sci-fi, doesn't mean we can concluisvely say it's a fabrication.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me as if you don't know anything about the ongoing legal battles Scientology is embroiled in wherever it goes. If we know who, how and why scientology was created in the middle part of the 20th Century (from adaptation of fictional sci-fi, by L. Ron Hubbard, for profit) then I am reconclied with the fact that this is not another benign religion.

Stevenmu wrote:

When you say self-admitted do you mean that L.Ron Hubbard or leading scientologists have publicly admitted to it all being b.s. ?

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion

Stevenmu wrote:

It could be said that the Roman Catholic church (the organisation itself, not the beliefs) was formed when Emperor Theodosius I was baptised a Christian and declares Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.

It could be put forward but it wouldn't be true. Early Christianity is an issue I'm pretty fascinated by and we discuss it often around at the Christianity forum. As complex an issue as the co-opting of Christianity by the Empire was, there is no reasonable historical support for the interpretation you presented.

This is entirely different to Scientology where we have the luxury of 1st hand sources and no need for contextualisation because it was in our era. I don't have much patience for religions and for "spiritualities" generally and that is why I don't hang around the Spirituality forum much. But Scientology isn't some otherwise innocuous Wicca style modern movement that connects people to a sense of mystery or wonder in Creation. It is a malignant power and money hungry cult. Edit this if they come looking to sue Boards.ie but well, they'd be proving my point.

Asiaprod

Scientology dangerous. I have neither time nor respect for any of it.
Peter Kearney :mad:

DublinWriter

Excelsior wrote:

This is entirely different to Scientology where we have the luxury of 1st hand sources and no need for contextualisation because it was in our era.

Yes and no.

The entire cannon of the COS isn't officially in the public domain. The top high-level rantings of L.Ron are only shown to those who have spent years and ten's of thousands of Euro doing the Scientology courses to work their way up the ranks.

The reason for this is, they say, that the 'truths' contained in them would drive an unindoctrinated person insane upon reading them.

Back in the early '90's a very high-ranking member of the COS defected and released these high-level documents on the Net. The COS tried to sue every ISP it could get it's hands on, but eventually failed.

I've read these documents and haven't gone insane *twitch*.

Google it for yourself and you'll see what a dangerous load of crankology the COS is. They are a religion in the same way that Hilter was a politician.

UU

I have a headache from this forum...I think I'll retire back to some other thread as talking about Scientology proved to a bad idea as people only seem to want look at the negative side of it. Ah well, humans will be humans. Thanks stevenmu for being witty enough to understand where I was coming from. Later!

Excelsior

How very tolerant of you to disparage people who are informed on the issue.

Dublin Writer, I have massive respect for your patience if you were able to battle through the turgid nonsense that is Dianetics. If for nothing else, Scientology should be roundly condemned for the crimes against literature it has committed. Give me the Old Testament any day!

Asiaprod

a bad idea as people only seem to want look at the negative side of it

I don`t think I would call this a bad idea, that is sentiment that that I find unworthy of people who post here. At least to me, it sounds like you expected to receive this type of reply and I could also infer that you expected replies to the post to be in someway biased.

I am not biased at all, I am totally against the COS, period.

Nor would I say people just want to see the negative when it comes to COS. We equally debate the negative and the positive, with all trying to learn from the experience.

Based on what you have written, I think you really need to study COS a lot more. COS doctrine has been very well documented in the news. There are hundreds of web sites devoted to the issues of COS, and I have yet to come across one that is positive. There must be a reason for this, and there is. COS is a cult religion. It feeds off the week and ignorant, and its interests do not lie in making members happy, but in brainwashing them, taking their money and bloating the egos of those that happen to be at the top of the pyramid. Come on, this doctrine was put together by a third rate Sci-Fi author. How credible is that. There is no historical evidence, no history, no proof and very little spirituality to be found in the COS and their higher doctrines are all private [secret]. We had this stuff over here in Japan with the AUM cult and the Tokyo Subway gassings. Don`t expect to receive to many positive posts, I think the general consensus is that COS have absolutely nothing to offer. By all means be tolerant and all embracing if you feel inclined, but use common sense when evaluating this cult, or any cult. No matter what they write or say, IMHO, they are nothing but trouble :mad: .

Starlight610

Hmmm Scientology,
They seem to have some very interesting beliefs and some plainright stupid ones. I'd have no problem with Scientologists as long as they don't try to brainwash people and steal their money as anyone is free to believe what they want just as long as they respect other people's beliefs and opinions as well as visa versa.

Originally posted by Asiaprod
COS is a cult religion. It feeds off the week and ignorant, and its interests do not lie in making members happy, but in brainwashing them, taking their money and bloating the egos of those that happen to be at the top of the pyramid.

I can see your point of view but I personally really can't see much difference between most "cult" religions and some organised faiths. Islam seems to fit in quite well to your description of cults as does Catholicism, especially years ago in Ireland. In tenament Dublin for example, people were incredibly poor and couldn't hardly afford to feed themselves and yet the Church would demand that they pay their "dues" and if they didn't the priest would intimidate them by calling their names out in front of the whole congregation and call to their doors looking for money. Also, people were brainwashed by fearing God.
In the Middle Ages weren't people brainwashed into paying indulgences to the Church so that they would spend less time in purgatory. Priests and other clerics also bloat their egos so that lay people look upon them as a higher authority which isn't so much the case in most Protestant faiths.
I'm not disagreeing that Scientology is what you mentioned above but it's not the only religion with abuses as the reason behind this is man craves power, wealth and fame and often go through many extremes in order to achieve this. I am not anti-Islam and anti-Catholic but I'm just stating the facts.
I think that Scientology needs to be monitered and reformed so to rid these abuses but still retain its beliefs. I can see both sides to your arguement UU but you must realise that people won't always agree with your views as we are all very complex! Perhaps you may need to do a bit more research on the organisation. My religion is Reform Judaism and we're very liberal like Unitarian Universalism too. Thanks all the same for your article as it was very thought provoking!

Asiaprod

I'd have no problem with Scientologists as long as they don't try to brainwash people .............................respect other people's beliefs and opinions as well as visa versa.

I understand, and agree with your your sentiment, but I have honestly never connected the word respect with the COS. It is my understanding that they openly disparage other systems of belief.

Islam seems to fit in quite well to your description of cults as does Catholicism,

Not really my description. I use the term cult in a more general fashion here to describe a belief system that puts the needs and well being of its executives above the needs and well being of its parishioners, this unfortunatley does appear to cover a wide range of religons, but my beef here is with just the one, the Church of Scientology.

In relation to past histories it is indeed a sad fact that that the people of Dublin, and of the Middle Ages, were very badly treated, and all that you mentioned did really take place, (As a side line, one of my passions is the history and people of Dublin). The only thing we can hope for is that these religons grew with time to understand what they did and how they were misguided, and that they dropped their craving for power, wealth and fame, and made a genuine effort to correct their attitudes. Yes I know, very wishfull thinking, but you have to have hope:) .

I think that Scientology needs to be monitered and reformed so to rid these abuses but still retain its beliefs

Well, there lies my problem with the COS, what exactly are their beliefs . Damned if I can understand their views. I may not agree with all the other posters here on their beliefs, but I can understand where they are coming from and debate with them. I cannot say the same for the COS.

I have never heard of Reform Judaism, do tell us more.:)

Excelsior

The thing about say, Catholic abuse of power in Dublin in the early 1900's is that it isn't the initial state of the religion that needs to reform over time but a warping of an initial belief totally oppossed to that way of living.

stevenmu

UU wrote:

I have a headache from this forum...I think I'll retire back to some other thread as talking about Scientology proved to a bad idea as people only seem to want look at the negative side of it. Ah well, humans will be humans. Thanks stevenmu for being witty enough to understand where I was coming from. Later!

It is kind of a pity how the discussion turned out. I'm not sure if as a mod of this forum there was anything I could do to have improved it but given the nature of scientology I think the way the thread has gone was always a foregone conclusion. Then again, I'm not entirely sure I'd have liked the thread to turn out any differently either, I think there's been some good information posted both against and for scientology (well not really for scientology, but in favour of learning more about it), I think it's provoked some thought and can be left up to people to track down whatever more information they feel they want.

Bluehair wrote:

While i'm too tired to be quite as eloquant as some of the above may I point out that given the facts (freely available if one simply googles Scientology) any discussions of the 'pros' of Scientology are at best naive, at worst dangerous.

I really dislike this mentality, ignorance is always more dangerous than an open discussion and sharing of information. Burying their heads in sand doesn't work very well for ostriches, I know, I've eaten one, I don't see why it would work any better for us.

Excelsior wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me as if you don't know anything about the ongoing legal battles Scientology is embroiled in wherever it goes. If we know who, how and why scientology was created in the middle part of the 20th Century (from adaptation of fictional sci-fi, by L. Ron Hubbard, for profit) then I am reconclied with the fact that this is not another benign religion.

You're correct, I know very little about the legal battles involving Scientology, altough I personally think that legal status is pretty irrelevant. While I largely agree with your general views about the authenticity of Scientologists beliefs, I still believe this is opinion, if it was such a self-obvious fact that Scientology is completely made up, then surely they'd have trouble ever attracting new members and even more trouble keeping them, altough I think they do lose quite a few members every year. I'm not sure what would actually constitute proof of Scientology's complete illegitimacy in my mind, if Hubbard definitly did say "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion", that'd probably do it. After a quick read of the link you provided the evidence seems circumstantial, I'll go through it some more and see what I think then.

Starlight610

I honestly think the best solution for all of us is to agree to disagree. We all view Scientology differently but I think respecting each others views is very important but we don't nessessarily have to accept them. We are all diverse and one person can't be everything like divinding themselves up like a cake (not literally, gorey!) as contradition and hypocrisy would occur and it seems like that's what UU was trying to do but he/she should know that he/she can't always please everyone and likewise for anyone else.

Originally posted by Asiaprod
I have never heard of Reform Judaism, do tell us more.

Well, currently I live such a busy life I rarely ever practise it so I'd be called a lax-Jew. Reform Judaism is the liberal branch of Judaism that is associated mainly with America unlike Rabbanic or Orthodox Judaism which is mainly in the Holy Lands (Israel-Palestine). It would be like the Protestant of Christianity but in Jewish context. We allow homosexual equality, gender equality and the whole identity such as the wearing of the kippah(skullcap) 24-7, long sideburns and beards is very rare. Nearly all of the kosher food laws except for pork is gone. Other things such as circumcision is optional and marrying a gentille is permitted. Check out and http://www.rac.org/ for more infomation.

Excelsior

What does reform Judaism stand for? You have spoken mostly of what you are against.

solas

asiaprod wrote:

Well, there lies my problem with the COS, what exactly are their beliefs

from here

Scientologists follow Mr. Hubbard's belief that a person is neither mind nor body, but a spiritual being - a soul. However, the word "soul" is an ambiguous term, which had been given many meanings by many religions. In order to avoid confusion, Mr. Hubbard selected the word "thetan" from the Greek letter "theta" which has traditionally meant "thought" or "life". A Thetan is the essence of a person, One does not have a Thetan, one is a Thetan. The brain, and the rest of the body, is looked upon as a mechanism, a communication center for the Thetan. The mind is perceived as a collection of pictures.

Scientology recognizes "Eight Dynamics." A "dynamic" is an urge, drive or impulse. Understanding these dynamics help a person gain insight and harmonize all their life activities. The first four dynamics were initially described by Mr. Hubbard in Dianetics; the remaining four were added with the creation of Scientology:

1. The First Dynamic is the urge to survive as oneself.
2. The second the urge to survive through family and sex.
3. The third is to survive in various groups such as a company or with a group of friends.]
4. The fourth is to survive as mankind.
5. The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth are the urge to survive through other life forms such as animals, the physical universe, the spiritual universe and Infinity or God respectively.

The human mind is divided into two components: the analytical mind and the reactive mind. The former resembles Freud's concept of the conscious mind; it senses, remembers, reasons and recalls. The reactive mind is somewhat similar to Freud's unconscious. It records physically and psychologically disturbing events in this life and prior lives. These include perceived assaults in the womb, the birth process, assaults, injuries etc. They are recorded as engrams which are a form of psychic scar. These engrams are considered "the single source of all man's insanities, psychosomatic illnesses and neuroses.". They are not sensed by the analytical mind directly. However, they will degrade a person's life and keep an individual from reaching their full potential. By removing the engrams, one can progress from being "preclear" (PC) to "clear;" i.e. totally free of engrams.

A person can progress beyond "clear" to becoming a "OT" or "Operating Thetan." Scientologists believe that an OT is able to leave their body and mind. They can see, hear and feel without access to their normal senses.

Great religious leaders like Buddha and Jesus Christ are regarded as being slightly above "clear".

Scientologists reject the concept of eternal life in hell and heaven. They believe in reincarnation in which a person passes through a number of lifetimes. "....personal salvation in one lifetime [is] freedom from the cycle of birth and death".

They believe that God exists, but do not have a specific belief about the nature of that deity.

Their goal is to help sufficient numbers of people to become "clear" so that a significant impact can be felt in areas of crime, mental illness, warfare, drug addiction, physical illnesses etc.

The concept of clearing the soul (or thetan as hubbard describes it) is not dissimilar to tribal shamanism, which is not surprising considering he spent time among native tribes learning about the process. The rest seems to be a conglomeration of religions, from christianity to buddhism.

I do see flaws with any religion which is created soley to imbue control of any measure (upon the soul) and as the COS clearly states in its symbolic directive :An upper triangle whose sides represent three closely interrelated factors: knowledge, responsibility and control.

Unfortunately I see this same mentality in many religions, while automatically people will jump on christianity bandwagon as being one of the major guilty parties, initially and historically christianity arose from a desire for freedom. It wasn't intended to be a tool for control, scientology on the other hand was designed specifically for that purpose.

Asiaprod

Thanks for the post Solas, it does help me to put COS in perspective. For me the problem is as you stated

The rest seems to be a conglomeration of religions, from christianity to buddhism.

COS seems to have taken bits from every religon and stiched it into a belief system that still has control as its focus.

Starlight610

Excelsior wrote:

What does reform Judaism stand for? You have spoken mostly of what you are against.

Shalom,
Ah, good question, I'm glad you asked me that. Reform Judaism stands for very much the same as Orthodox Judaism. We stand for the six vital factors: Peace, Freedom, Monotheism, Family, Education, Charity. We also stand for other things like homosexual equality, women's rights and anti-sectarianism. Reform Judaism is the Judaism found mainly in the USA, UK and Germany. Many R.Jews opppose Jewish nationalism, the ill-treatment of Palestinians as second-class citizens in the Holy Land and the extreme Zionism but many Reform leaders are hypocrites on this as they are now becoming staunchly Zionist as are many Reform Jewish congregations.

Myself? I stand for the rights of individuals to have a religion and beliefs without being discriminated against. I believe that everyone should be treated equally as individuals regardless of religion, race, sexuality, gender, age, etc. I don't agree entirely on Zionism and believe that them Nationist Jews especially the Ultra-Orthodox ones in Israel/Palestine are disgrace and ought to be ashamed of themselves as they go totally against the ten commandments especially "Thou shall not kill" and many aspects of their religion (although Judaism really contridicts itself!). They're the very ones who contribute to today's increasing rise Anti-Judaism (I don't use anti-semetism as not all Jews are semites and semites include certain Arabs also).

About Scientology? I said that everyone has the right to a religion and that includes Scientologists. Although I don't agree totally with their practises and some of their beliefs, I remain tolerant towards them as with most religions. And I emphasise upon "to agree to agree or to agree to disagree".

Excelsior

Starlight610 wrote:

Shalom,
Ah, good question

Yeah. I think I could make it as an Orthodox Rabbi if only I didn't like bacon so much and was so attached to my George Clooney hair.