Top 10 Problems With Scientology
Published on August 17, 2007 - 206 Comments
The Church of Scientology is a cult created by L Ron Hubbard (Elron) in 1952 as an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system called Dianetics. Unfortunately there are some problems with the organisation and with Hubbard as a person. This is the top 10 problems with Scientology.
1. Hubbard was a drug abuser
L Ron Hubbard was a drug abuser, which is ironic considering the organisation is very anti-drugs and even runs an organisation called Narconon to help people get off drugs. This from the Narconon website: Narconon is a non-profit drug rehab program dedicated to eliminating drug abuse and drug addiction through drug prevention, education and rehabilitation. I am not sure how much you can trust an organisation to help you with the very problem its founder suffered until his death.
Here is a quote from Hubbard’s son Ronald deWolf:
“I have personal knowledge that my father regularly used illegal drugs including amphetamines, barbituates and hallucinogens. He regularly used cocaine, peyote, and mescaline.” — Ronald DeWolf a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. Affadavit in Schaick v. Church of Scientology, US District Court Mass., No. 79-2491
When Hubbard was in Las Palmas during 1967 he wrote a letter to his wife. In it Hubbard tells his wife: “I’m drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.” See the decision by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. in Scientology v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. C 420153.
2. Hubbard was a liar
Mr Hubbard told his followers that he was Nuclear Physicist:
Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, C.E., Ph.D., a nuclear physicist, Scientology has demonstrably achieved this long-sought goal. Doctor Hubbard, educated in advanced physics and higher mathematics and also a student of Sigmund Freud and others, began his present researches thirty years ago at George Washington University.
[Hubbard, “P.E. Handout”, HCO Information Letter of 14 April 1961]
In fact, Hubbard had no scientific degrees. In February 1953 he decided to obtain a “degree” from Sequoia University, a notorious “degree mill” in Los Angeles that was eventually shut down by the Californian state government in 1958. [Quoted in Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah, page 212].
Hubbard also claimed to being a war hero - this was not true. In an eighteen month period, Hubbard was relieved of duty three times.
3. Hubbard was dishonest in his marriage
When Ron’s wife Sara filed for divorce in 1951, she claimed that Ron was married when he married her. You can view the court document here.
That in the early part of 1946, plaintiff, then age 21 and unmarried, resided with her family in Pasadena, and at the University of Southern California, that at said time, defendant L. Ron Hubbard, hereinafter referred to as “Hubbard”, was a married man, age 35, he being then married to Margaret Grubb Hubbard of Bremerton, Washington, they having two children; that said Hubbard represented to plaintiff that he was single and unmarried. [Stamped: FILED Apr 23 1951, Harold Cecily, County Clerk]
4. Hubbard was a criminal
In 1979, whilst not living in France, was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to four years in prison. You can read sections of the court record translated into English here.
“… the french group of scientology was presenting itself falsely, as it sells services … and never its leaders did indicate that there was any possibility of failures…”
Even more telling is this quote from the same court record:
“Whereas it is proven fact that that method’s application was unable , used alone, to ensure the success in trade or in job, that it was in fact a mere hope of chimerical events, fallacious promises, those having done such promises being very aware that they could not be done…”
5. Scientology uses dirty tricks
The worst of these tricks is called Fair Game. The organisation claims to have ceased using fair game but many people have experienced harassment since that claim was made. What is fair game?
“May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Hubbard
As part of this fair game, Scientology members have created and distributed pamphlets full of lies and slander against people who have publicly protested against them.
In the recent panorama documentary you can actually see one of the leaders of the organisation in Florida slandering a man who is speaking to a reporter about the group. You can see part 1 of the documentary here.
6. Scientology has killed
Wikipedia explains this the best: Lisa McPherson (February 10, 1959–December 5, 1995) was a Scientologist who died of a pulmonary embolism while under the care of the Flag Service Organization (FSO), a branch of the Church of Scientology.
Following her death the Church of Scientology was indicted on two felony charges “abuse and/or neglect of a disabled adult and practicing medicine without a license”,[source] putting under trial the nature of Scientology beliefs and practices.[source] The heated controversy included regular pickets outside Scientology offices on or around the anniversary of her death until the year 2000. [source]
The charges against the Church of Scientology were dropped after the state’s medical examiner changed the cause of death from “undetermined” to an “accident” on June 13, 2000. [source]
A civil suit brought by her family against the Church was settled on May 28, 2004. [source]
7. Scientology is a rip off
When you first start out in Scientology, you pay about $15 dollars per course. You get about sixteen hours of “treatment” for that price. It sounds like a bargain. However, this is the last time you will see such a low price at the organisation.
The first series on the Hubbard hierarchy, auditing or processing, consists of several courses or grades, which enable a “preclear” to become a “clear.” If each course is taken separately, it costs approximately (the prices are always changing) $750 just to go from O-IV grade, $500 for the next one, $1,200 for Grade V (”Power Processes”), $775 for Grade VI, $600 for “Solo” (in which you audit yourself) and finally $800 for the final “clear” or a total of approximately $4,625, although package deals bring the price down a bit lower. For an extra $2,850 you can go on to OT level VIII. Interestingly, the group are planning to release a new OT IX very soon, which will no doubt cost a great deal more.
8. Scientology is anti-psychiatry
The Church of Scientology is opposed to psychiatry in a big way. The offer an alternative to psychiatry which has no founding in science whatsoever. The organisation has this to say in its psychiatry FAQ (This is the URL - I do not want to link it so you should copy and paste it if you want to have a look: http://faq.scientology.org/psychtry.htm).
“What the Church opposes are brutal, inhumane psychiatric treatments. It does so for three principal reasons: 1) procedures such as electro-shock, drugs and lobotomy injure, maim and destroy people in the guise of help; 2) psychiatry is not a science and has no proven methods to justify the billions of dollars of government funds that are poured into it; and 3) psychiatric theories that man is a mere animal have been used to rationalize, for example, the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II.
A number of psychiatrists have strongly spoken out against the Church of Scientology. After Hubbard’s book, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health was published, the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard’s techniques with their patients. Hubbard came to believe that psychiatrists were behind a worldwide conspiracy to attack Scientology and create a “world government” run by psychiatrists on behalf of the USSR.
Hubbard also decided that psychiatrists were an ancient evil that had been a problem for billions of years. He cast them in the role of assisting Xenu’s genocide 75 million years ago.
9. Scientology is un-scientific
Scientology is entirely man made. It is the invention of one man: L Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer. It has no basis in reality and teaches such concepts of aliens attaching “thetans” to human bodies by means of nuclear bombs in various mountains around the world.
When questions about Xenu (the evil overlord that comitted this act) Scientologists deny it, but leaked documentation verifies that it is, indeed, a part of their belief system.
Scientology, through its narconon organisation and auditing, tricks people into believing that they are getting help. They instruct people not to take psychiatric medicine (even in the case of sufferers of schizophrenia or other physically based mental disorders).
10. Scientology is a secret organisation
The Church of Scientology closes guards its secrets. On the few occasions that they have managed to leak on to the internet, the organisation quickly follows with lawsuits and threats. If you search for the OT level documents now, you will not find a copy (except for the first two which are available as court records). The swift and calculated responses from the group have managed to do what no other organisation or government has done - censor certain information from the internet. You can find out how to make a bomb on the internet, but you can not find out what you have to do to pass OT level VIII in the Church of Scientology.
Ironically, considering they are so secretive, it does not stop them using information taken from people they audit against them if they turn on the group. This would be the same as a person confessing to a priest, leaving the Church, and having the priest publish their confession on the internet and hand out fliers.
At all costs, avoid the Church of Scientology.
Related ListsTop 8 Levels of ScientologyTop 10 Evils of Scientology Top 10 Tips for Beating Depression Top 10 Boredom-busting Websites |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post
1. Phil - August 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCGP-0545EU
here’s a video that explains alot about fair game and whatever
2. jfrater - August 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Phil: thanks for that - it is very revealing. It does contain some rather nasty graphic images of some of the murders committed by the Church of Scientology. Disgusting.
3. mix2323 - August 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
“He cast them in the role of assisting Xenu’s genocide 75 million years ago”. out of all the things i have heard about Scientology this pissed me off the most.Heaven’s Gate ring a bell to anyone
4. jfrater - August 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
mix2323: I remember heavensgate - I guess Hale Bop wasn’t the answer after all! If I can find the video clips of them saying goodbye to their families while they murder themselves I will post another list of bizarre videos (taking us to 40 bizarre clips!)
5. mix2323 - August 17th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
cool
6. Stephen11 - August 17th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I couldn’t agree more. Scientology makes absolutely no sense. I’m glad I don’t know any personally because I question the sanity and the I.Q. level of anyone who truly believes this crap.
7. jfrater - August 17th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Stephen - that makes two of us!
8. Fe - August 17th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Not to be difficult, but with minor changes, this list could be about any organized religion. Oh, wait, that’s why I don’t like organized religion! Never mind and keep up the good work.
9. jfrater - August 17th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Fe - I can think of a large number that don’t hate psychiatry.
10. shan - August 17th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Very informative. I can’t understand why anyone actually believes in this sort of thing. Anyone ever see the South Park episode trapped in the closet? Pretty Good episode.
11. mix2323 - August 17th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
yea r-kelly comes out in that one
12. Philliam - August 18th, 2007 at 5:41 am
That Xenu SOB scared the shit out of me when I scrolled down!
13. Fe - August 18th, 2007 at 6:33 am
jfrater, the fact that most religions will tell people with mental illnesses to ‘trust in the lord’ and downgrade the viability of therapy or a drug regimen to try and control mental illness is along the same lines as scientologies hatred of psychiatry.
Sorry, but confessing your sins to a priest isn’t the same as getting help from a professional, not everyone can meditate to relieve inner turmoil and being possessed by the holy spirit does nothing for me.
There are too many cases of people being left to flounder in their own minds, instead of being helped, because of some notion that god and the church will miraculously heal them.
14. jfrater - August 18th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Fe: I think that scientology is almost totally unique in its hatred of psychiatry. Confession to a priest has nothing to do with your mind - it is to do with sins.
15. Fe - August 18th, 2007 at 8:55 am
jfrater: A person who has sinned, or who percieves that they have transgressed against another feels guilt, yes? For a person who is already mentally unbalanced, that guilt can send them over the edge. Confessing to a priest and being absolved is nice, but it does nothing for the root problem - a mental illness that is being untreated and with time will become worse.
Scientology is unique in the extent of it’s prejudice against psychiatry, but I can’t think of a religion off the top of my head that embraces the mind in the same way it embraces the soul. One’s soul might be pure, but the mind is a messy place and since most religions are based around absolutes, messy is pretty much anathema to them.
16. jfrater - August 18th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Fe - confession is not meant to solve psychological problems - it is meant to sacramentally forgive a person of their sins. If the guilt of a sin makes you mentally unstable, you need to see a therapist - not just the priest. Confession has only ever been about forgiveness - not psychological healing. The fact remains, Scientology is the only religion that spews such vitriol against psychiatry.
17. Fe - August 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am
jfrater, I’m aware of the reasoning behind confession. My point is, people are told that confessing ones sins to a priest will solve their problems. They are not encouraged to go to therapy because their god is supposed to cure them, their faith is supposed to support them. By going to therapy they are no longer putting their faith in god and that in itself is a sin.
I agree, Scientology is the only religion that is so overtly anti-psychiatry. I’m also saying that while most religions are not so hateful about it, none of them are real supportive of it, either.
Which is ironic, because what else is religion but the psychological need to understand the universe?
18. jfrater - August 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Fe: people are not told that confession will solve their problems - they are told that confession will remove their sins. They are not discouraged from going to therapy because confession doesn’t fix mental illness. You have a big misconception about the theology of confession and are arguing against something that is just not true.
I recommend you read this - it will help you understand what the actual teachings are on confession.
19. Fe - August 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
jfrater, there is the actual teaching of confession and then there is how people percieve it. My mom’s family is Catholic and whether or not that is how it is taught doesn’t really matter when compared to how people view it.
I admit, I am prejudiced against it, especially after my aunt was confined to a sanitarium. Her priest had told her repeatedly that if she just trusted in her lord, all her problems would be solved. She did and her problems went away, all right, into the ER for wounds afflicted by their mother.
I don’t like organized religion, I think it’s a willful delusion. Scientology is really no better or worse than any other religion, from my point of view. Religion is a sad game, played by people who really should know better.
20. jfrater - August 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Fe - okay. It is not worth continuing to argue the matter. I have no problem with your beliefs. We just have to make sure we are arguing from facts not fiction. I am sorry to hear about your aunt.
21. Crimanon - August 18th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Fe: One religion that takes into account the Connection to the Mind and Soul. Buddism. Transendence is the epitome of embracing the mind. There would be nothing I would like more than to become so “clear” in my thoughts that my body no longer mattered. In my Opinion, Scintology is nothing short of, as Mix put it, Cult. The last thing I would want in my religion is a blatent similarity to known organizations like Heavens Gate…
…Iv’e read these postings four times and Im not quite sure what the argument is…
22. jfrater - August 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Crimanon: thanks for the comments - I must confess to be a little confused myself
23. max - August 18th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Nearly 4 decades ago I met up with a gal who had recently left the Church of Scientology. She’d been declared and expelled from Scientology for something she had done. She talked with me at length about it and how she had found peace through Scientology auditing. I loved the clean, easy way she had learned to communicate. Her beef was with the people who had been running the church where she had been taking services. It seemed to me like she had given up a very good thing because she was unwilling to take responsibility for what she’d done. She could have cleared it up if she’d put a minor amount of effort into it.
She warned me away from Scientology several times, saying it was a cult and I’d be sorry. But I could see what it had done for her and I wanted that. So I started taking courses and getting auditing myself, despite her dire warnings. Now, all these years later, I’m very glad I did. I stuck with Scientology through some rocky years, and it has indeed made me a better person in my own estimation. If I hadn’t, I would be dead of drug abuse by now. If not, and I had turned out anything like the rest of my family I would be a neurotic alcoholic. Now I own my own business, I’m not hooked on drugs, and I’m happy. You do the math.
Max
Scientologist and proud of it.
24. brennan - August 18th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
somehow i doubt that Scientology deserves the credit for your success, Max. i think YOU were the determining factor, so give yourself a pat on the back.
i’ll never forget something Ravi Zacharias said in one of his radio broadcasts (it was the “Let My People Think” series), he said, “Never judge a philosophy by its abuse.” He had said that in response to atheist criticism of Christianity on the grounds that the Crusades had caused a lot of unwaranted bloodshed. I think that this maxim, “never judge a philosophy by its abuse” should not be forgotten.
some people in Scientology have used their authority to distort a good idea of helping people take control of there lives- this much is obvious. everything i hear about scientology involves claims of how they are all wackos. i personally don’t know what the overall character of the Church is like, but maybe Max is not the only person using the philosophy for good.
of course, there is always the possibility that Max is a propagandist working for the Church. how can we tell if he is sincere? i don’t know. everyone in america is so cynical and we don’t know who to trust or how far the tenticles of organisations’ powers extend.
philosophies are like samurai swords combined with the skill to use it. historically there were both beneficent samurai and vile, plundering samurai who victimized farming villages.
what determines how you use the sword is not who forged it or who trained you to use it. it is your OWN conscience.
maybe i am just an obsolete, old school humanist, but i believe that individuals are not corrupted/debilitated by a religious institution unwillingly.
a lot of people, maybe because of the growth of sociology, think that individuals are totally controlled by propaganda and cannot think for themselves.
the true answer- they are fooled not because they are unable to think for themselves but because they are naturally (sometimes genetically) unintelligent and inarticulate and naturally would believe a dumb idea.
not everyone is created equal.
so let’s all go to the Smart People party!!!!
WHEEEEEEE-YEAH!
25. Crimanon - August 18th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
A bit of an Ego, Eh Brennen. And thinking back On my rants, I remember there are actually Two main “Forms” of Scientology. Basic research and you’ll see that there are some people who have accepted the Scientology Doctrine without encumbrences of “The Church of”. Freezone Scientology has far more benifits. They arnt as likely to look down on you for seeking help from a psycologist, keep in mind they still don’t really approve. I still have my problems with some of the teachings, but hey, I still don’t like Catholisism either. Tom Cruse can kiss my *******************. John Q. from up the street, from Freezone Chapter Whatever is more than welcome at my parties.
As for the “they are naturally (sometimes genetically) unintelligent and inarticulate”. That was Uncalled for and Shows Yourself to be one of the Uneducated. Genetic deficientcies are not an excuse. Poor raising of children, lack of focus on the public education of said children, and people, call me a cynic, being crude and unjust. I don’t like pointing fingers but it’s that type of attitude that only furthers the Idealisms you where bashing.
26. Crimanon - August 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
JF: odd thing about the time stamp on your pages, I’m posting this at 6:25pm.
27. brennan - August 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
i take pleasure stating things eloquently even when they are uncalled for. stiring people to thought is more important to me than being uncontroversial. i am also a lighthearted jackass generally. nice to meet you.
28. Crimanon - August 18th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
There is stirring thought and then there’s lack of tact. I tend to sway more to the thets discuss this over a beer. I’m a professional Asshole, like wise.
29. brennan - August 18th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
both “poor raising of children” and “lack of focus on the public education” are excuses that reflect the extent to which Sociology has invaded the consciousness of Americans.
it has not always been the case that these parenting/education-excuses were widespread. children have not always been idealized as perfect tabula rasas fundamentally different from adults. universal public education is relatively new in history. parents used to treat their children like mini-adults and send them to work at a young age. then there came to be a so-to-speak Cult of the Child in industrial nations were children were thought to be fundamentally different like friggin’ pixies or faerie creatures.
my point: every excuse/explaination reflects a historical bias. every concept/prinicple which seems common sense to us is ultimately only common to the historical/national epoch that we were born into.
this is why i find it impossible to take refutations of my airy assertions or appeals to objectivity seriously.
30. Crimanon - August 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Bren: Because people are “Born to be Stupid”?
31. brennan - August 19th, 2007 at 1:08 am
is it true that the nature vs. nurture debate ends in a standstill?
32. brennan - August 19th, 2007 at 1:13 am
there are other ways to naturally be unintelligent and inarticulate besides the genetic route (if you’re in the market i can tell you a good dealer).
33. Crimanon - August 19th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Bren:to me there is no debate, definately not one against the other. Nature is only a step, lack of mental conditions helps a great deal with this. But no matter how much “good nature” a person has, you can still Screw them mentally. Conversly, Nurturing some one who is “Deficient”, can have possitives (ie; teaching good manners and how to act, with in there abilities, to be Atleast respectful in their manners.
I’m good, Pablo and I had a pretty bad falling out.
34. brennan - August 19th, 2007 at 2:39 am
my father’s name is Pablo.
35. Crimanon - August 19th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Um… About that…
36. jfrater - August 19th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Crimanon: the timestamp thing - I hadn’t noticed that - I will look into it - I suspect it is using the server time to determine the timestamp.
Great comments from you all btw, I enjoyed reading them.
37. Crimanon - August 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Duh, time zones I get it. Nevermind. In my haste I forgot that even though I’m American, it doesn’t mean the world revloves around me.
38. Crimanon - August 19th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
After Random searches online, I find that my User name is also used as a rehabilitative organization, by The Church of Scientology. On that note:
Disclaimer: This user name is in no way affiliated with The Church of Scientology. Any Similiarities to this or any other Organization is completely coincedental. Please forward any comments to Yo Mama.
Have a nice day and Get Stuffed.
39. heheh - August 20th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Christianity has killed A LOT more people than Scientology…..
40. kevin - August 20th, 2007 at 5:08 am
As far as I can tell, Christianity has never killed anyone. The abuse of Christianity has killed, though. It was skewed beliefs and biased interpretation of religion that led to atrocities like the Crusades and the Inquisition.
41. Monkey - August 20th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Brennan,
The nature vs. nurture debate is pretty outdated. Most psychologists and psychiatrists have come to the realization that nature and nurture work together. Both a person’s genetics and the way they are raised have an impact on how they develop.
A random comment… I thought it was interesting that L. Ron Hubbard regularly used cocaine. So did Freud.
42. jfrater - August 20th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Crimanon: I did wonder about your nickname but figured it was a coincidence because of your comments which were clearly not pro-scientology
43. Crimanon - August 20th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Unfortunate really. My memory is so bad I forgot that I had gone out and wrote a few rants on the “New Cult Mentality” and “Tommy and the Watergun”. Anti-Scientology doesn’t have quite the Contempt that I feel is necissary. It helps to spit while you say it.
44. jfrater - August 20th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Crimanon: haha - I was spitting the whole time I wrote the article
45. anesb - August 21st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Great list! I would love to see one about the Top 10 Problems with Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). I do not believe Scientology, but come on, you can’t just pick on one religion and not the others. When you strip it down all religions seem crazy.
46. jfrater - August 22nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
anesb: I did a top 10 wicked Popes one and was hoping to eventually do a top 10 relating to all the major religions. It is just that Scientology was one I had recently been reading about so it made sense to go with that first
47. JAMIE - August 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Check your grammar and spelling. A few mistakes distracts the impact of your statements.
48. Mary McConnell - August 26th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
This is a terrific compiliation of the factual problems with Scientology. I wish I’d read this before I lost almost 3 decades to the church’s mental mindset of indoctrinated propaganda that made it so difficult to see the forest from the trees. Of those 3 decades, only 2 were actually spent as a member, the 3rd spent trying to reconcile myself back to the real world without thinking about scientology . It really took me 10 years to garner the courage to finally search the word Scientology on internet in order to get the facts about these very problems you listed here. And I am not one who scares easily.
There are some essential truths taught in scientology which Hubbard plagerized by calling them his own. Giving bits of truthful information with lots of misleading data is what trips up young curious minds in joining. The problem is that once you are in, to leave is like a death sentence. Friends and family must disconnect from you if they too are members and visa versa. The church’s Fair Game policy is real. Read about it over at wiki.
Lies are Scientology’s only commodity, fear is it’s trade. Money and free labor are the the main objectives and global power is the ultimate goal. Don’t believe otherwise.
49. jfrater - August 27th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Mary: thanks for your comments - I am glad you finally found your way out and in to real life!
50. Crimanon - August 27th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Mary: Welcome back, Great site but the font is messing with me. I wish I could read it all in one sitting.
51. James Smith - August 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Scientology is not worse or more false that any other religion. Most of the problems of the world are and always have been caused by religion. While Scientology is working hard to catch up, its disgraceful actions have a long way to go to catch up with Christianity, Islam, and other older religions.
52. Mary McConnell - August 27th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
49. jfrater, thanks! Great site, by the way
50. Crimanon, thanks and I do understand about my blog layout being difficult because of the fonts and background. My hope is to redo it once and get it right without losing anything. I am very slow at html and graphics but I’m hopeful I can find another layout that is easier on the eyes. Just have to do it without my kids around distracting me
51.James Smith, sorry you see things that way but you’re entitled to your opinion and I never allow myself to get caught up in disagreements about religion. Scientology is really a business masquerading as a church. It was set up as a church so as to get tax-exempt status. I was around during the days whenno one thought or considered it a church or a religion. It was a religious philosophy back then. It’s also a cult and far more dangerous than any other religion with the exception of the extremist of Islamics.
Read this policy letter and plan and you’ll see what I mean.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1969
Issue IV
REISSUED 24 SEPTEMBER 1987
Reissued with updated distribution.)
Confidential
TARGETS, DEFENSE
[…]
“Experience has shown that defense is only effective when one sorties or attacks. ”
http://www.suppressiveperson.o.....e-txt.html
Some religion, heh?
53. James Smith - August 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
“Scientology is really a business masquerading as a church.” Exactly how does that make it different from any other religion? If you think it is more dangerous than other religions, perhaps you might consider abortion clinic bombings, protests against gay rights, and preaching hate and intolerance. All of those things have been going on for hundreds of years in Christianity.
Other religions have their distasteful aspects, too. Right now, Islam and the Christian Reich are just getting the most press.
Only when people learn to think for themselves will they be free of the yoke of religion.
54. Amy - August 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
This was great, you should do one about Mormonism, too. It’s VERY similar.
55. James Smith - August 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Amy is right. I would like to see that, too. Keep up the good work, please.
56. jfrater - August 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Amy and James: I plan to do that, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses too.
57. James Smith - August 30th, 2007 at 4:11 am
I like your approach. No “evangelizing” just put forth facts and allow them to speak for themselves. No wonder no one of any religion is disputing you. They can have nothing to say. But then, theists cannot stand facts. They disrupt everything they purport to believe. LMAO
58. jfrater - August 30th, 2007 at 6:12 am
James: I was pretty surprised not to be attacked by Scientologists after this and the other post
59. wil thompson - August 30th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Great article. There would be a number 11 I would add to the list: (11) Scientology runs labor camps. Out in the desert of California is piece of land called Gold Base. On Gold Base the barbed wire surrounding the land faces inwards!, not to stop outsiders getting in but preventing their followers from leaving. There are similar camps in England and Copenhagen (Denmark). Scientology is a dangerous cult.
60. spninja - August 30th, 2007 at 9:47 am
The biggest mistake we as a free people can make about Scientology is to say that it is “no worse than any other religion.” This is absolutely untrue. No other ‘religion’ engages in systematic thought-reform programs like Scientology does. No other religion has a business plan like Scientology does. No other religion bullies its members the way Scientology does. No other religion is as controlling of its members, is as litigious, is as decpetive, is as anti-democratic, is as emotionally and psychologically abusive to its own members, or is as brutal to members that wish to leave as Scientology is. This controlling, greedy cult is trying to become mainstream, and we can NOT let their actions and tactics be thought of as OK for even a second.
I’d like to point out though, that those perpetrating the crimes of Scientology are also its victims. Falling prey to it has little to do with one’s intelligence or stupidity, it has to do with being wise to their deceptive practices.
61. James Smith - August 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“The biggest mistake we as a free people can make about Scientology is to say that it is “no worse than any other religion.”
No, then you think the Catholic church, for example, does not work to instill guilt, bullies its adherents through fear and brain-washing, is anti democratic or any of those other things? They are not usually as violent these days, but physical violence is not the only abuse one can hand out or even the worst.
This is certainly not a defense of scientology, which is definitely a cult and a very bad one, but an indictment of all organized religions. They are universally opponents of truth, freedom of thought, speech, and action. As far as being brutal, is not repression through fear and threats of eternal damnation brutal enough?
62. spninja - August 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Point taken, but I think there is a large difference in the degree to which Scientology does these things, compared with say the Catholic church. Scientology has a carefully mapped out, systematic thought reform program at work. They use hypnosis, FORCED confession (adult Catholics are encouraged, but never _required_ to confess, nor are confessions kept on record), group bullying, sometimes physical bullying, sleep and food deprivation, loaded language, information control to an extent that ‘normal’ religions DON’T engage in. Yes, Catholic Guilt is legendary. Yes, Catholics are encouraged to confess their sins. Yes, they use loaded language. I do not at all disagree that many organized religions engage in some (sometimes many) of these practices, but never as severely or deliberately as Scientology does. Never have I heard of an ex-Catholic being physically pursued or harassed by his or church in order to bring him or her back. Nor is a senior Catholic taught different things from a junior Catholic. The Catholic church isn’t deceptive about the time or financial commitment expected of its members. It is the severity of Scientology’s thought-reform programs, combined with with their deceptive tactics and money-bleeding that really set them on an entirely different level from, say, Catholicism.
By saying that “Scientology is no different from any other religion”, you seem to be inherently including the thought that “All organized religion is bad.” If that’s your opinion, you are certainly welcome to it. I only partially agree with that, but it’s an entirely separate discussion. What I worry about is that the general populace, not yet wise to Scientology’s tactics, will only hear that “Scientology is no different”, thus putting them into a category of acceptable things, the mainstream. This is what Scientology wants. They want to be a household name, with neutral, if not good, connotation associated with it. People need to be warned about the dangers of Scientology, and that they AREN’T the same as other religions.
63. James Smith - August 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Yes, I feel that ALL organized religion is bad. Most of the problems of the world have been and are caused by organized religion.
I would agree that Scientology is among the worst and I also partially agree about the physical harassment not being present in today’s Catholic church. But one only has to look back a little way to the Inquisition, for example, to see that has not always been true and may become true again.
I also agree with you that Scientology’s stance that they are not different from any other religion is a calculated deception. I do not agree that senior catholics are not taught differently from lay people.
The general populance are mostly sheep and not very intelligent sheep at that. Most sheep will run from wolves, while most people seem to welcome them even as they are being eaten.
64. Thaddeus Gadfly - August 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Would Jesus deny a believer entrance to heaven because a sibling, whose acts are beyond the believer’s control and responsibility, spoke ill of the Lord?
That is what Scientology is doing to my sister, i.e., excommunicating her because of my publicly expressed disagreements with Scientology. See my blog at http://thaddeusgadfly.com/tag/religion/scientology for more details.
65. jfrater - August 30th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
James: technically the Inquisition never went away - it just has a new name now: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of it (currently Cardinal Levada is the head). The thing to remember though is that the Inquisition’s worst moments were at a time when the Church and the Kings were heavily interwoven. With democratized governments, the likelihood of a repeat is very small I think.
66. Mary McConnell - August 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
James Smith, I think we got the point that you are anti organized religion. ;)Can we now move on back to the topic of the article? Thanks.
#64. Hi Thaddeus Gadfly, so sorry to hear that your sister disconnected from you because you have come out as against scientology. Have faith that in time this will change because when I was a member, I disconnected from family. 20 yrs later, I’m still reconnecting with some of them. I made terrible choices when I was in. Almost automatic responses without even considering the hurt I caused. All for the cause of the cult. I never gave up on reconnecting and you shouldn’t either. I’ll keep you and your sister in my prayers.
67. James Smith - August 31st, 2007 at 3:43 am
jfrater: Thanks for that information. I hope you are correct about the church and government being disconnected. But it seems to be going the other way in the USA. You will notice that very few politicians dare to state they are non-believers even though their actions and lives say differently.
Mary, we have never left the topic. I suspect you are a member of some organized religion and do not want to hear anything negative about it. Suppression of dissent and free speech is a cornerstone of all religion, be it scientology, islam, christianity, or any other religion.
68. jfrater - August 31st, 2007 at 3:49 am
James: oh - I was talking specifically about the Roman Catholic Church - I think the US system is more likely a joining of the Southern Baptist sect and US government if recent years are anything to go on!
69. Wardrich - August 31st, 2007 at 3:54 am
Hey, jfrater… me again
Loved that link you had there to the BBC story. I can’t believe how ridiculously childish Tommy Davis is. How can you be at the head of a “religion” and be so immature? He basically makes a laughing stock of his own belief system and proves that the reporter was 100% correct in everything he had to say.
Also, I’ve just lost all the respect that I had for Beck.
70. James Smith - August 31st, 2007 at 3:59 am
jfrater: I have to agree with you on both points. Sadly, it seems you are correct about the USA. It’s one more reason why I do not live there any more.
71. jfrater - August 31st, 2007 at 4:05 am
Wardrich: yeah - it is pretty embarrassing to watch!
James: Who knows what may happen in the future - good things hopefully. If Ron Paul were to become president there would be a lot of changes for the good I suspect.
72. L. Ron-Ray - September 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
James Smith… You are like the person that brings the tomatoes to the theater before they’ve even seen the show. You do nothing but criticize the ones that ARE doing something… like the author of this web page. (What’s the matter? … Couldn’t throw ‘all’ your tomatoes?)
It is likely that you have had a bad experience with religion… Well, get in line and shut up! Actual, Christian ‘religion’ has never harmed anyone. (Mis-guided religious zealots have harmed countless millions!)
One the other hand, … Scientology has harmed and killed MANY people and will continue to harm and kill many more, I’m afraid.
Please, James, … see the difference between Christianity and Scientology.
This is not a Christian-bashing forum!
This is (I hope), an effort to try to eliminate a dangerous CULT!
THANK YOU, JFRATER!
73. jfrater - September 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 am
L. Ron-Ray: It is not a Christian bashing forum, correct, but it is not an anything-bashing forum. I don’t want my lists to appear like I am bashing any group - I am pointing out problems with the origins, but have pity for the people that have been tricked by this organization. Let’s all get along - debate is good but name calling isn’t. We don’t want people to shut up - we want to hear their views
74. James Smith - September 2nd, 2007 at 4:16 am
L. Ron-Ray I have NEVER criticized the author of this page and have nothing but respect and praise for his efforts.
You think that “zealots” should be separate from the religion? By that logic, you could say that Scientology is mostly harmless. After all, the majority of its members are simply misguided sheep. But, like almost all other religions, its underlying purpose is control, suppression of dissent and free thought, and the extraction of money and services from its followers.
Christianity is as bad as scientology in that respect. So open your mind and see the facts.
75. spninja - September 4th, 2007 at 10:34 am
That’s completely incorrect. The misdeeds of Scientology are written into its ‘liturgy’–if you can call its library of training manuals that–as law, and are NOT subject to interpretation or discussion. Any deviation from the published word is taken as an Ethics violation, and is thus subject to punishment. Christianity as a religion does NOT engage in this kind of command-control. There is obviously plenty of material in Christian liturgy for zealots to use, like anti-homosexuality bits in Leviticus, but not all of the Bible is enforced by everyone. Not every church is a gay-bashing institution. NUMEROUS parts of Leviticus, like the instruction for parents to stone children that disobey them, are obviously ignored for the most part. Dissent and discussion is not forbidden from the religion (as a whole). Its necessary to qualify these with “as a whole” because command-control comes from the power of an individual church over its followers. Though they are all similar, no two Christian churches are run identically. Scientology churches/missions, however, ARE run identically. Any deviation from their voluminous edicts result in punishment, excommunication, and fair game policy.
76. jfrater - September 4th, 2007 at 10:41 am
spninja: well put.
77. James Smith - September 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course you are completely correct in everything you say. Christian churches have never hurt anyone nor engaged in intolerant behavior nor encouraged anyone to do so.
I do agree with your words on scientology, though. It is clearly an evil scam.
The most powerful force in the universe is that of self-deception. That would explain almost all religions, scientology in particular, and your beliefs, too.
78. spninja - September 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Awww, don’t be like that. I’m not at all saying that various, even numerous, Christian churches aren’t engaging in wrongdoings. Just that it is those churches’ interpretations of their liturgy and those in power in those churches that are the source of wrongdoings, rather than the liturgy itself or any kind of across-the-board policy. I agree that at the heart of any church of any religion, regardless of whether it’s conscious or not, is an issue of a desire to control and a desire to be controlled. But to say that Christianity is just as bad as Scientology is plain ignorant of the depths of the evils of Scientology. Some Christian churches brainwash their followers, extract money from them, abuse them or curtail their civil liberties, yes. But nowhere in the Bible does it say “hold up a spinning black and white spiral to hypnotize your followers”, “charge an exorbitant amount of money for services”, or “plaster dissidents’ neighborhoods with fliers spouting lies”, which it essentially does (not in those exact words of course) in Scientology.
79. James Smith - September 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Other churches may not say those things “in those exact words” either. But it does not change the fact that they do those very things. Yes, scientology is the worst in that it specifically states that intimidation, aggression, and falsehoods are advocated against “fair game”. Kind of an ironic phrase when you consider that there is nothing fair in the intentions or actions of scientology.
80. Webbie - September 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Love all of your pages.
I was recently sent this….
The pope dies and goes to heaven…
St. Peter..You are?
Pope..The pope, the head of Christ’s church on earth.
St. Peter..Nope you ain’t on the list
Pope.. but I must be because I am the head of Christ’s church on earth.
St. Peter.. Hold on I’ll ask him
St Peter tells Christ who bursts out laughing
St. Peter.. whats so funny
Christ.. Well you remember me,you and the guys started a fishing club……it now takes its self seriously.
81. joe - September 5th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
haha, did no one mention that christianity killed a whole bunch of people in the middle ages?
82. Pat - September 5th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Whilst I agree that confession is not the total answer to any mental/emotional health issue perhaps it is a good first step. Guilt and his older sister shame thrive on lack of disclosure - being able to ‘confess’ our short comings, fears or mistakes might sometimes enable us to consider ourselves in a more balanced and compassionate light. Maybe for those who take this step the sense of being unburdened is enough, for others it may reduce the fear of talking to another person about our ‘darker’selves (remember there is a priest there too), thus paving the way for some form of ‘professional’ or interpersonal treatment or growth…just a thought.
83. jfrater - September 6th, 2007 at 12:54 am
webbie: great joke - thanks
Thanks for all the comments guys. It is nice to see that we can all debate these issues without flame wars
84. James Smith - September 6th, 2007 at 3:33 am
One thing I failed to mention was my personal experience with scientology. Some years ago in Tucson, Arizona, I amswered an ad for a free “personality test”. This turned out to be at the scientology center there. The “test” was rather ludicrous, but the “results” were worse. It wasn’t even an original score sheet but one that had obviously been photocopied several times.
They didn’t have enough respect for anyone to give them an original score sheet. To me, this said they were really looking for people that were so desperate or even stupid that they would believe anything. When I pointed out to them this incredible blunder, they could not answer. I suspect their training at that level had not prepared them for someone who could think for himself.
85. jfrater - September 6th, 2007 at 4:48 am
James: that is interesting - thanks for sharing. They use those tests to trick many people in to the cult.
86. lysander - September 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that Hubbard was also a racist.
“You shouldn’t be scrubbing the floor on your hands and knees. Get yourself a nigger; that’s what they’re born for.”
-Hubbard in a letter to his first wife
“The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here.”
-Journal entry from 1928
While I suppose it doesn’t present a “problem” with Scientology per se, I think it further destroys Hubbard’s credibility as a spiritual leader.
87. jfrater - September 8th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
lysander: very good point - thanks for adding.
88. WeaseL - September 10th, 2007 at 5:43 am
BBC Panorama investigate Scientology
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dwTDvfjcUJU
Scary stuff
89. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 6:06 am
WeaseL: that is a very good documentary. Thanks for posting.
90. Richard Davis - September 11th, 2007 at 7:39 am
I just don’t understand what their beef with psychiatry is. It’s meant to help the insane, so why the hell do they think it drives people insane?
91. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Richard: trying to find logic in Scientology is just not possible!
92. spninja - September 11th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Scientologists are taught that psychiatry is basically the root of all evil in this world. Here is the Church’s official stance on psychiatry: http://faq.scientology.org/psychtry.htm
Obviously, WWI and WWII were due to psychiatry. Obviously. ::smacks forehead::
As always, it’s important differentiate what an individual Scientologist believes from the agenda of the Scientology organization / Hubbard himself. Scientology is essentially a business in the mental health industry. Psychiatry poses a huge threat to them. They’re like Coke and Pepsi, except that Coke doesn’t try to bully or threaten you if you choose to stop drinking is, and Pepsi isn’t actually responsible for the Holocaust.
Fun game: try to spot all the glaring lies on that page!
93. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 10:45 am
spinja: we could be here all night trying to do that!
94. Che - September 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Pepsi Co. isn’t responsible for the Holocaust ?
Damn, I’m going to have to rethink my understanding of 20th Century history.
Seriously, though, IBM has a fair share of responsibility.
And that’s no joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....e_Holocaus
95. wardrich - September 11th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
from that site spninja posted:
“1) procedures such as electro-shock, drugs and lobotomy injure, maim and destroy people in the guise of help; 2) psychiatry is not a science and has no proven methods to justify the billions of dollars of government funds that are poured into it; and 3) psychiatric theories that man is a mere animal have been used to rationalize, for example, the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II.”
Are lobotomies or electro-shock even used anymore? It sounds like they’re against procedures that have been abolished for years.
96. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
wardrich: I think lobotomy has virtually vanished now because of drugs, but electro-shock treatment is still widely (and very successfully) used. Wikipedia says this:
I personally know a woman who underwent the therapy a few years ago - she was a changed (in a very good way) after it. It is not the brutal thing that the Scientologists think it is, though it is still quite controversial.
97. TOM - September 13th, 2007 at 5:09 am
All posters will be sued. Please post your names and addresses below. We’ll get back to you.
98. jfrater - September 13th, 2007 at 5:37 am
Tom: Hey - how are Katey and the baby? Caught up with Xenu lately?
99. Xenu - September 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
TOM: Sue them in my name, for I give ye power
EVERYONE BUY INTO MY RELIGION FOR I AM XENU
(side effects may include: depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, a mysterious murder, poverty, brainwashing and or the loss of all the mental foundations in your life)
100. wardrich - September 14th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Xenu:
haveeat my babies!!!!1!1111!!!101. Chad - September 17th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Eh. I’ve been reading the assorted comments to this article and I have a few things to say (go figure, right?)
First, jfrater: Very interesting information, I’ve actually spent close to an hour hitting assorted links and information about the subject matter. Since I can rarely stay focused on one thing for more than a matter of minutes, I applaud you.
James Smith: I’ve read several arguments by you basically condemning organized religion; but the only examples I’ve seen from you pertaining to this have been based upon Christianity. Your argument that you can’t so easily separate religions from their fanatics is valid, but then again, religious groups aren’t the only ones that should be held to this standard. Purely historically, the Nazi party in the early 1930’s were the progressives; a man changed the course of the organization to infamy.
Whether it’s the Crusades, the Inquisition in the past, and more recently seen in Rwanda during the massacres (one of millions of examples that anyone could pull out of a hat), people fuel the problems and twist the principles towards their own gains much more often than the pure religious or organizational doctrine tell anyone to do so. Not agreeing in a religion is fine; blatantly condemning them for the evils of the world is entirely different.
Whether you believe in something larger than yourself; not just religion, but any group; you are responsible for your actions. I’d be hard pressed I’m sure to find any of the current presidential candidates that believed in every single one of their parties platforms.
Sorry for the rant, but the point is this: no matter how “shaped” the individual is, it’s a person that makes the final decision, or a person that persuades another to do something. The organization itself; Scientology in this case, may be perfectly valid or the crock I’ve been reading about here and in other places. It was refined into it’s present form though, just like all groups are, by a small group of people that choose according to their beliefs and desires. Nothing is inherently evil or faulty… except maybe us.
102. Robert C. Lewis - September 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“If you search for the OT level documents now, you will not find a copy.”
I wonder if you could find them on torrent sites.
103. James Smith - September 17th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Chad: Yes, I have come down on Christianity quite a bit. For one thing, it is the one with which I am most familiar. For another, it and Islam are currently the two that are gathering the most press. But, to be fair, I am against ALL religions. I have said before, most of the world’s problems are and have been caused by religion. I agree it is because of the people involved. They invent a system that allows them to control the thoughts and actions of others. That they do it through lies and tricks only means they are evil themselves; much as you said.
Any religion is necessarily based on falsehoods. There is more evidence for the existence of fire-breathing dragons than there is got any god of any description. The fact that so many people subscribe to some religion or another is simply proof of my belief that the greatest power in the universe is that of self-deception.
104. jfrater - September 17th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Robert: great idea - I will see if I can find them tomorrow.
105. Chad - September 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 am
James:
106. James Smith - September 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 am
Chad, you have missed the point. Most likely that is my fault for not being more explicit. The fact is, there is no god or gods that is aware of and intercedes on the affairs of men. To subscribe to a belief in that is self-delusion.
I have never said that religious groups do no good at all. The would be patently ridiculous. What I am saying is that what little good that has been done in the name of religion is far, far outweighed by the harm it has done. The hate, violence, and intolerance practiced in the name of religions is but a small part of the harm. The wasted resources of time, effort and money expended in the glorification of “god” is an excellent example. When you see a great cathedral or monument to religion ask yourself, “who occupies these piles of stone? God or self-appointed ‘representatives’ of some god?”
How much more good would have been accomplished if these same resources were expended on education (NOT religious brainwashing) and improving the lot of people be providing medical care and programs to improve their lives? Religions prefer most people to be poor and uneducated. They are much easier to control then. Also, uneducated people are far less likely to start thinking for themselves. That is always bad for any religion.
As far as a “wildly off kilter” creature, where is the least shred of evidence for any highly advanced being? Even if there were, it would not be the “god” so many worship. All of the religious practice there has ever been would not be at all significant to it.
Yes, I do condemn all organized religion. If there were a hell, it would certainly be filled with religious “leaders” and most of their hypocritical followers.
107. amanda - September 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
James, I think the main difference between Scientology and Christianity is that the term ‘Christianity’ is an umbrella term. There are many different forms of Christianity, from Catholics, to the Southern Baptists, Protestants, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc. All of these forms of Christianity have different beliefs and traditions. For example, I was raised as a Southern Baptist. Once I reached high school, I was constantly told that I was going to hell because I questioned some of the Bible, saying that I believed it was mostly metaphorical and not literal. This did not go over well. I now attend (a few times a year…) a Presbyterian church, where questions and different opinions are welcomed, and even the minister shares my beliefs. I am a Christian, but I am a pro-choice, evolution believing, gay marriage supporting Christian. I believe that God gave us free will to make our own decisions.( the bible also says that god created the earth, but it doesn’t say exactly how. I believe he started the wheels and let evolution take it’s course) I prefer to use the Bible as a guide, and actually READ it. If anyone would read it, they would see that Jesus and the Bible encourage love and acceptance, even if you have differing opinions. It is people that distort Christian beliefs, it is not Christianity its self. There are churches full of people who share my beliefs, and there are churches full of people like my father who twist the scripture into something horrible to be used against others. It all comes down to the individual person, not the religion. I love all of the comments on this page, everyone is articulate and intelligent!
108. James Smith - September 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Amanda, I was raised as a Presbyterian until I began to think for myself at about age 12. So I am quite familiar with it. Perhaps you can ask your minister this: Show one single proof of the existence of any god at all. Something that can be verified by independent, even hostile observers. After all, If I had claimed I invented an anti-gravity machine, everyone would want me to prove it and not “take it on faith.”
I agree that Scientology is one of the worst examples of religion one could find. But that does not mean that Christianity is not a scam, too. The basis of all organized religion is to permit a small group of people to control the thoughts and actions of a large group of people. I have to admit, it does it very well; much to the benefit of the small group of people.
109. jfrater - September 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
amanda: I agree with you - the people posting here are really doing so in a very level-headed way - while we don’t all agree, at least we are not fighting. I am quite proud of everyone here
110. amanda - September 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Well James, different people see ‘proof’ differently. I also for a period of time thought that there was no God, until I had my son. Then it changed for me. Personally, the proof that there is a God is shown in my child’s eyes, in the ocean, in the trees. It’s everywhere to me. I don’t ‘take it on faith’. I understand that you may see it differently, and I’m not trying to change your perception, but to millions of people these things that may seem small to you are irrefutible proof in God. I am going to assume that you are an athiest, judging by your postings. I have a question about that. Do you believe in Hell or in the Devil? It is a serious question, I’m just curious because someone told me that many Athiests believe in the Devil, but not God. I would like to get it from the source if that’s true or not, simply because I like having correct info in my head! And about Christianity being a scam. We may very well find out that it is. In the meantime, I don’t see the harm if it helps someone to get off drugs, or gives them a feeling of purpose. I do see the problem with people using it to belittle others, but if it makes someone feel whole then more power to them.
111. James Smith - September 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I have named myself an “Evangelical Atheist” LOL No, I do not believe in any god nor in the devil, hell, or any type of afterlife that could have any meaning here. As far as seeing god in nature, or my children, no, not there, either. I could as easily say I see god in a Pepsi bottle (2-liter size, of course) and it would make as much sense as be as effective.
Religion may be a crutch for some people to get off drugs or whatever, but that certainly does not prove the existence of any deity. All it shows is that the power of self-deception is working in different ways. If that is all that religion did, there would be no problem with it. But far too often, it is used to teach guilt, hate, and intolerance. You know that from your own experience. The fact that the “moderate” theists do not take strong measures to stop this shows that, on at least some level, they approve.
A good example of this would be the “moderate Muslims”. What steps have any of them taken to stop or even to condemn the extremists who are practicing terrorism all over the world today? If you do not combat evil, you are giving tacit approval. Who was it that said, “all that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”?
For that matter, what have the ordinary scientologists done to stop the “fair game” practices of their own cult?
As for the harmless aspect of religion. It is not. As I mentioned above, it uses resources that would be better spent on improving the human condition.
Yes, there are religion-sponsored programs to assist people in underdeveloped countries. But I suspect they make the participants feel better than the recipients. They are also thinly-disguised recruitment campaigns. I have relatives that have been on these in Central America and I have seen how they actually work. Not well, at all.
112. Carl - September 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Of all the religions and cults that have ever existed, this one seems to cause little Harm.
Mankind will not be free from religion until it has an answer to all questions! This will never happen. I have no belief in a god, but this does not mean there is one… Following a religion that has unanswred questions is pretty stupid, following a religion which has unanswred questions that never needed asking is mindblowing. This religion has it’s use, it keeps all the idiots in one place so we know where they are!
113. Barb - October 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 am
I had a boyfriend many years ago who begged me to let him move in with me, so the the “Church” of Scientology couldn’t find him. Proof enough for me that is is an organisation to steer well clear of.
114. James Smith - October 3rd, 2007 at 7:04 am
Barb, you have a very good point here. But I have to suspect he may have had other reasons, too. Like perhaps he really liked you? But I doubt that moving in with you would have concealed him from the Scientology Gestapo for long.
I wonder that they are not hunting down people on here. I, of course, am safe in Brazil where they are not permitted. LOL
115. jfrater - October 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 am
James: I keep waiting for the knock at the door
116. spninja - October 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 am
I’ll be honest with you, I am kind of afraid of them. They’re ruthless and mean when they get pissed off. I just wish maybe I could talk to ONE, and when they start reacting the predictably crazy way they will, just point it out to them: SEE, SEE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO YOU, THAT IS NOT THE REACTION OF A NORMAL PERSON. YOU’VE BEEN CONDITIONED INTO BEING PART OF THEIR GESTAPO!
And I live in an area where they are not too strange a sight to see. meep!
117. jfrater - October 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 am
spninja: I guess that is the same for all people who are brainwashed - it doesn’t matter whether you point it out to them - they are oblivious to it.
118. David - October 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I have personally used Dianetics and Scientological methods for a very long time. Dianetics is a PROVEN SCIENCE, which works 100% of the time if applied as per the literature. The author of the Web site http://listverse.com/bizarre/t.....ientology/
is entirely mistaken (or is lying) because what he posts here is entirely fabricated. Scientology has historically uncovered the abuses of psychiatry where local police were helpless to investigate. I have PERSONALLY used my knowledge of Dianetics to uncover several such scams myself (Google “2001-HL-0066″ to see results of ONE such investigation).
The Church of Scientology published free literature which educates the public about psychiatric fraud. I have collected a bunch of it which you can download free on www.Net4TruthUSA.com/cchrlinks.htm
Before you believe the LIES propogated about Dianetics, Scientology, and L Ron Hubbard, you should check out the information for yourself first-hand. It costs you NOTHING, and it will prevent you from believing the LIES that keep you from discovering one of the truly remarkable sciences of modern times.
119. James Smith - October 9th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
David, FYI, I HAVE personally checked out Scientology and Diantetics. They are both as bogus as the one million dollar bill a guy tried to cash this week. Maybe he was trying to make enough to pay his scientology fees? LOL
They are there to take your money and that is all. They are also a violent, dangerous group that is not to be trusted. If you believe their arrant nonsense, their brainwashing must have really gotten to you.
Yes, it is true that if you live well, eat right, exercise, and take care of yourself mentally and physically, things will be better for you. No one needs L Ron Hubbard’s lies to know that.
It has been proven so many times that scientology is a total scam I am always amazed that anyone can fall for it. But then, people fall for things just as stupid, so why not?
120. spninja - October 9th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Ahhh, it’s about time the drones came out!
@ “David”: if Dianetics is a “PROVEN SCIENCE”, then I think we’d all absolutely love to see the studies that were conducted. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I pretty sure that there has been only ONE study ever conducted (http://xenu.net/archive/fischer/), and it concluded that :
“(1) dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon intellectual functioning;
(2) dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon mathematical ability; and
(3) dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon the degree of personality conflicts.”
Are the “studies” that Hubbard himself conducted even part of Scientology or Dianetic literature? Or merely the repeated claim that Dianetics works “100% of the time”?
121. Ben - October 13th, 2007 at 4:58 am
It failed to mention Hubbard was once an understudy to Alister Crowley and one of his famous quotes that is something along the lines of “You can’t get rich writing science fiction, If you want to make money create a religion”
122. James Smith - October 13th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Ben: Bulls eye! I wonder why none of the rest of us had remembered that? It is, after all, a well-known statement. Thanks for putting that up for everyone.
123. Callam - October 24th, 2007 at 7:23 am
LOL, did enyone else watch the program on BBC about scientology, they are trying to blame world war 2 on psychiatry as theyr attempt of world domination
i think L Ron Hubbard stuck to writing science fiction, this would hav made a great book, lol ALIENS who would have thought aliens would be in this.
124. jfrater - October 24th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Callam: I have seen it - they are totally nuts!
125. Mr. Mojo - November 6th, 2007 at 5:42 am
Let me start off by saying I am an atheist. I am not playing favorites, because I dislike organized religion in all its forms.
With that out of the way, I personally feel that Scientology is one of the more dangerous religions out there. I hesitate to even call it a religion because it has almost nothing in common with any of the more popular ones.
One of my main complaints about organized religion is that the leaders convince the followers to do things they normally wouldn’t. Psychotherapy has been scientifically proven to be effective…religion has not. Some religions are against blood transfusions, some are against medicine, but Scientology takes it to a whole new absurd level.
I believe that Scientology is right up there with the Peoples Temple cult (Jonestown), the main difference is that Hubbard was smooth enough to amass a relatively large following, and they haven’t committed mass suicide or murdered a congressman yet. I’m waiting for the explosion when one of the leaders decides it’s time to “clean house”.
126. jfrater - November 6th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Mr Mojo: I am with you on that completely.
127. dvhann - November 7th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
another problem, L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. i mean, if people are to believe about the whole story with Zenu, they must be mental.
128. spninja - November 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rD9bCdHqU3s
This is a good piece of investigative reporting that I hadn’t seen before, and addresses some of the problems that I hadn’t seen addressed elsewhere, like the psychologically damaging aspects of Scientology.
Their belief in space aliens is by far the most innocuous aspect of them, except for the fact that one needs to pay at least $300,000 to hear the Xenu story. Most Scientologists DON’T believe that, not because they disbelieve it, but rather because they have not been taught that story YET. Don’t judge them by that belief. Anyone is allowed to believe anything they choose. However, a group should NOT be allowed to engage in thought reforming tactics, emotional abuse, and extortion.
129. Xay Xay - November 12th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Wow, we have quite a bit of hatred for theology. I’ve notice with a lot of ppl who enjoy bashing Christianity…their “logical” explanations as to why it is inherently bad comes after they have had a bad or emotional problematic experience with religon.
Their cynical attitude comes after, by an experience but usually not specifically due to the religon.
I think a telling difference between scientology and legitimate religon is the use of money. Though it is a part of religon Christianity only asks for tithes. It is not the Bible’s fault if a corrupt priest and preacher sends around the second offering plate.
Scientology cannot vouch for that. And Hubbard just sounds like an overall asshole.
Just like Ayn Rand who wrote Anthem and made the philosophy Objectivism…both her and Hubbard made their philosophy and Hubbard, later, this religon based on nothing but the fact that….they could
“I’m a writer…I have ppl who like my writing..I think I’m the shit…I’m going to make a religon.”
That would be somewhat badass if it was anyone but him or they were sexy…I’d follow a religon if it was made by Angelina Jolie or Beyonce.lol
130. James Smith - November 12th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Xay Xay, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I did have a “bad emotional experience” with religion. It happened when I was about 12 and started thinking for myself. I was very upset when I realized that everyone had been lying to me all my life.
I also realized that nothing in any religion matched observable facts. I also realized the observed behavior of people was far from their professed beliefs and that the reported behavior of “god” was not that of the supposed “loving father”, either.
In short, is is all a scam and deep inside, most people know it. That’s why they give lip service to a religion for social, political, and business reasons. Hypocrites, all of them.
131. Dre - November 25th, 2007 at 5:30 am
After reading the list, I’d say the problem with Scientology numero uno should be: IT EXISTS!
132. FeepingCreature - December 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
“[…] If you search for the OT level documents now, you will not find a copy […]”
Hah. Try Freenet. (http://freenetproject.org/ )
133. Bob - December 9th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Anyone else think that L.Ron lokks like NHL coach Mike Kennan? Just an observation…
Interesting posts everyone. Almost as good as the dreams list. It’s nice to see intelligence instead of just plain stupidity.
134. jfrater - December 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Bob: that is one of the things that makes me keep writing lists every day - the comments are all intelligent and thoughtful
Well - mostly 
135. James - December 20th, 2007 at 5:15 am
“This would be the same as a person confessing to a priest, leaving the Church, and having the priest publish their confession on the internet and hand out fliers.”
Incidentally, a priest who makes any leak of confession will get excommunicated. (”The more you know!”)
136. Slammerworm - December 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Hey, whaddya gonna do. People can believe in whatever they like, even a completely fabricated ‘religion’ which many of us see as essentially comedic. If that’s what you want, then go for it. Just keep in mind that by the same token I have the right to laugh at you for believing in Xenu. Oh, and for the posters who say it did them some good, well I’m sure we could find some people for whom the Nazi regime were the good old days. Heh-heh-heh. ‘Xenu’.
137. James Smith - December 30th, 2007 at 5:28 am
Slammerworm, you make some good points. Although “Completely fabricated religion” seems to be a redundancy. Heh Heh
I agree that people should be free to believe what they choose. They are going to do that anyway. It’s when they are trying to impose those views on me either through violence, threat of violence, or rule of law (another kind of implied violence) that I strongly object.
138. Crimanon - December 30th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Ahhh!!!! My memory hurts!!! forgot until just recently, about a hour ago, Marilyn Vos Savant, currently the worlds “Smartest Person” is a Scientologist. check out the comments section in the “Top 10 Geniuses”. It’ll make you think twice about Intelligence.
139. James Smith - December 30th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Is Marilyn still listed as “smartest person”? That was quite a while ago she had that, decades I think.
At any rate, intelligence test mostly measure how well you agree with the opinions of the people that wrote the test.
It also shows that even very smart people do not always think for themselves. Perhaps as a result of spending too much time in academia, where original thinking is discouraged.
140. Crimanon - December 30th, 2007 at 6:46 am
since when has scientology been “Running with the Crowd”?
141. spninja - December 30th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Wouldn’t it be even worse if a group covertly tries to impose its belief structure, rather than being straightforward about it? I think thats the big difference between cults and non-cults, regardless of whether they are religious in nature or not. Scientology preys on people in a way that most other groups don’t. Forget about their being a ‘church’; there are plenty of other cults that are not religious in nature that do VERY similar things. Most scientologists don’t even know the Xenu stuff, because they aren’t taught that until they are deep into the cult.
Nobody should criticise their beliefs, but everyone should criticise their deceptive recruiting practices and mistreatment of their members.
Also that’s a very interesting point about a test measuring how much you agree with its author. Those personality and stress tests they give were ripped off from another test, but the “correct” answers were all determined by Hubbard himself. HMMMMM
142. James Smith - December 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I think a lot of religious organization do try to impose their beliefs covertly in the guise of it being “For your own good” or “to protect the children”, etc.
Why should we not criticize beliefs? Believers never hesitate to criticize other’s beliefs or lack of them. They often do so most stridently with name-calling and even threats.
It’s been said on here before, but one can question, criticize, or demand proof of anything except religion. That, we are supposed to accept without question or doubt, no matter how ridiculous.
143. spninja - December 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
We shouldn’t criticize someone’s personal beliefs because we live (or at least some of us do) in a country where the freedom to believe whatever you want is highly valued. “But they do it!” is a pretty immature attitude to take if you ask me, but you can argue that it’s within your rights to criticize, and you’d be right, so I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t think that’s covert at all. Presenting a why for a belief is not at all like conditioning or manipulating a person into obedience without their knowledge. You might argue that religions manipulate people, but they really do not do it the way Scn does. Scn has precise, formulated tactics to evoke thought reform. Most churches (the majority that are not cult-like in nature) do NOT. Guilt bodies fear of eternal damnation are manipulative themes, but Scn goes well beyond mere themes. They SYSTEMATICALLY break down your concepts of identity and replace them with their own. I’m sorry, but most churches simply do not do that.
144. James Smith - December 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I have to disagree. Most churches do systematically brainwash their belief systems into people. What else would you call forcing children to attend special schools every week and made to memorize and repeat things they don’t really understand?
Even as they grow up, they are not permitted to question or examine these things but are expected to accept them without thinking, without examining the facts. The pressure exerted on them by parents, teachers, and “authorities” (most self-appointed) is tremendous.
Those methods are precise and have been honed over centuries to produce the unthinking robots that most theists become.
Do you think Ron Hubbard came up with all those techniques by himself? He was not that smart. Anyone that has read his books could see that he was not.
145. spninja - December 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Sunday school hardly qualifies as systematic brainwashing. Children aren’t put in a hypnotic trance, or deprived of sleep, or made to become utterly dependent on the group at Sunday school. They aren’t subjected to having their personalities broken down and rebuilt. And not only is Sunday school voluntary on the part of the parent, it is straightforward in what it is teaching. Arguing that the child has no say is moot because children in general have little say in most of their life until they’re old enough to make their own decisions.
In most churches of course you’re allowed to ask questions. Are you implying that there has never been any theological debate? Sure, maybe one is taught that the Bible is the ultimate authority on whatever, but there is no unilateral interpretation of the Bible, and I doubt that anyone in a non-cult church has been punished for looking for their own answers in the Bible. Compare with Scientolgy, where literally zero interpretation is tolerated. If you don’t understand something in church, or at Sunday school, you can ask and you’ll receive an explanation. It might be an answer in the context of the liturgy or within a specific interpretation of the liturgy, but there WILL be some bidirectional communication. Ask at a Scn class, and you’ll be told that you misunderstood a word, and to go look it up in the dictionary. Communication is completely one-sided.
And no, he didn’t invent the techniques, he consolidated techniques that have been employed by many a gulag.
ALSO he totally does look like Mike Keenan! If he could lead the Rangers to another cup, i’d consider following him too. Maybe he could postulate some offense.
146. James Smith - December 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Apparently, you were never forced to go to Sunday School or Vacation Bible school. It IS brainwashing. And no, you may not question anything.
If you do not understand something, you may ask for an explanation, but you are required to accept whatever explanation is given without questioning the legitimacy of either then answer or the person giving the answer. This is hardly two-way communication.
Who is Mike Keenan? (I know nothing about Hockey)
147. spninja - December 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Some two way communication is infinitely more than zero two way communication.
I did go to Sunday school, and it was nothing like that. I’m sorry you had to go through something like that, that was obviously at least a little traumatic for you. Not every Sunday school is like that, though. Be glad you didn’t go to the same camp as in the documentary “Jesus Camp,” which in a related note is airing on A&E tonight. I’m tivo’ing it!
Google mike keenan to see what he looks like. Sorta like Hubbard but not as fat. He coached the NY Rangers to their Stanley Cup in 1994.
148. DiscHuker - December 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
james: when was the last time you were in a “sunday school”? alot of what you are saying is nothing like what i have known or experienced. you say “What else would you call forcing children to attend special schools every week and made to memorize and repeat things they don’t really understand?”
understanding is the goal of every theology based class i have ever been in. any sunday school teacher worth their salt would not be happy with a person who gives the right answers but lives in contradiction to that.
also if your quote above is true, then just about every class you ever attended is brainwashing you into a cult. i sat in many science/math/history classes from 1st grade through post-graduate work where i was made to go up to 5 times a week and memorize and repeat things i didn’t understand.
you also said “Even as they grow up, they are not permitted to question or examine these things but are expected to accept them without thinking, without examining the facts. The pressure exerted on them by parents, teachers, and “authorities” (most self-appointed) is tremendous.”
the size of this stereotype is amazing. it sounds like you are making decisions without examining the facts. who are these “self-appointed” authorities you speak of? specifically, what is the “tremendous” pressure that they exert?
i would love to have a discussion about particulars but all of these generalizations keep the truth from surfacing and keep you from understanding a beautiful part of humanity.
149. James Smith - December 30th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
IT sounds to me as though you are a “true believer” in some religion. If so, there is no point in discussion it with you as facts, logic, and observable truths will have no effect on you. Religion is a matter of conditioning and emotion. No amount of truth will affect what people want to believe.
I was forced to attend religious instruction every week of my life until I was 13. I stopped believing any of or when I was 12 and started thinking for myself. Blame that on my parents. They always told me to “think for yourself.” I doubt they ever considered what might happen if I actually did it, though.
I never make decisions without examining the facts. The facts are, there is more evidence for the existence of unicorns than there is of any god or religion based upon one.
What is beautiful about religion? It is based upon lies that are designed to permit a small group of people to control the thoughts and actions of a larger group.
We can discuss it off line as much as you like. No one has lasted more than a few exchanges with these discussions because I don’t play fair. I insist upon provable facts.
slrman@terra.com.br
150. DiscHuker - December 30th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
we are all “true believers” in something, either a religion or our own ability to find truth.
i noticed you didn’t answer most of the questions i asked.
is normal schooling a brainwashing method?
do you think an average sunday