by Charles
Rolling Stone has a lengthy and interesting piece on Scientology. It took the writer, Janet Reitman, nine months to do her investigation and she appears fair-minded yet skeptical, covering some of the theology, the history, the practices, the facilities and the people. If you challenge certain tenets, you may be viewed as "counterintentioned". If you work against church goals, you are committing "suppressive acts". If you become an apostate, then you are ex-communicated and all ties with family and friends are severed. Doesn’t sound very enlightened to me, but to each his own.
Critics include Kristi Wachter and Operation Clambake, and Scott Burgess put together a three-part series, starting here. Creepy stuff. University of Alberta professor Stephen Kent has a series of articles on Scientology.
“Rolling Stone has a lengthy and interesting piece on Scientology.”
Nothing in it that hasn’t been reported endlessly, at exhaustive length, for years. Actually, in this quite mediocre story, there’s nothing important that wasn’t written up at exhaustive length by circa 1972. Might want to read one of the various good expose books done on Scientology over the past few decades, if you’re interested.
You can check my blog for some of the few stories in the last few years that had something vaguely new on Scientology, if you’d like, of course. But there have been endless better intro articles on Scientology over the years, even if you’re starting from knowing nothing whatever about the topic; hundreds and hundreds. Try here, since you’re obviously unfamiliar with the site, or any of the books, or the subject. Sorry.
Ah, I see you cited xenu.net; dunno why you think there’s anything new or interesting in the RS piece, then.
What I thought was pretty interesting about the RS piece was that Scientology reps actually participated, for once, and that the journalist wasn’t *simply* trying to discredit Scientology.
A great deal of the anti-Scientology writing I’ve seen on the web makes me very uncomfortable, as a still-nominal member of a religion that once was largely considered a pernicious cult. New religious movements often have “cult”-like beginnings, whether or not the movement is legitimate, sane, or beneficial to its members.
One academic book on this subject I enjoyed is Philip Jenkin’s “Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and Religions in American History” (Oxford UP, 2000). It’s really good at tracing historical similarities in anti-“cult” persecution campaigns.
Gary: Ah, I see you cited xenu.net; dunno why you think there’s anything new or interesting in the RS piece, then.
Perhaps the RS piece led him directly or indirectly to the xenu site, and FWIW I don’t think he claimed the RS piece presented new information. If Charles found the piece interesting then he is entitled to the claim. Give him a break.
One academic book on this subject I enjoyed is Philip Jenkin’s “Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and Religions in American History”
Hey, I took a class from him in college! I haven’t read any of his books, but based on the course I was in I’m not surprised you liked it.
Back in the early 1970s I once listened to the Scientology pitch — this was in NYC, near the NYU campus at Washington Square. It struck me as a cult. I’m suprised Gary hasn’t pointed to L. Ron Hubbard’s rumored statement, “the way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.”
Steve Martin’s movie Bowfinger features an organization that I imagine is a parody of Scientology. Seeing it brought back this memory.
“‘m suprised Gary hasn’t pointed to L. Ron Hubbard’s rumored statement, “the way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.”
I’ve written about Scientology since ~1972. I hung out with plenty of people who knew Hubbard, knew Campbell, and heard Elron utter all this stuff about how he was going to make tons of money, and then later how founding a religion was the way to do that. So I’m not apt to be repeating myself for the zillionth time (I spared y’all ven linking to the smattering of posts on my blog about it).
I was quite familiar in detail with the ins and outs of Dianetics and then Scientology, by the early Seventies, let alone by the time books such as Bareface Messiah came out over twenty years ago. So: not apt to have much new to say by now, save when there’s an occasional bit of actual news, and not apt to repeat myself for said zillionth time.
But, yeah, hey, if Charles helps bring some of this as news to folks unfamiliar with the evil scammers, that’s a good thing.
And Jackmormon, I’m not going to say anything about Mormonism, or otherwise generalize, but the fact is that Hubbard created Dianetics and then Scientology purely as a scam, and the people he hired to run it for him, who still run it, threaten people, kidnap them, and have caused the deaths of a few. These are facts. I’m not going to not say these things out of respect for religious freedom. A con isn’t a religion. What someone did when I don’t have personal testimony about them, on the other hand, that resulted in some other religious belief, I couldn’t possibly say. All I could say is that clearly just about all Mormons are sincere in their beliefs, at whatever level of intensity. (I still have a couple of Scientologist friends, mind.)
My point is more that Scientology could evolve quite a bit from what Hubbard had in mind.
you gotta read Scientology’s take on evolution.
*low whistle* – them boys is fncked up.
If you challenge certain tenets, you may be viewed as “counterintentioned”. If you work against church goals, you are committing “suppressive acts”. If you become an apostate, then you are ex-communicated and all ties with family and friends are severed.
Mm. Tell us again about John Dilulio, Paul O’Neill, Colin Powell, and that loser-defeatist Bill Buckley.
I’m regret, Gary, that you are so unimpressed. The Rolling Stone piece was new and a bit unique because of the writer’s access to Scientology facilities and people. I’ve had Operation Clambake and Burgess’s in my bookmarks for a while.
It’s good to have the Clams exposed every now and then, particularly since they are promoting very harmful dogmas about psychopharmacology. They are actively hurting people. Religious tolerance need not imply treating everyone’s faith as equally valid. When people make statements based on faith and which are at odds with observed facts, they should be challenged, whether the claims are about psychiatry, ancient American civilizations, faith healing, weeping statues, or grilled cheese sandwiches.
I’m glad we’ve got Gary to remind us one shouldn’t bother making available information which has previously become available elsewhere.
By all means, let’s focus on harms–and crimes, where relevant.
Statements of faith, however, are often not going to be “valid,” per se, and it’s usually the minoritarian religions whose statements of faith are most easily challenged.
But then I also sympathized with the Heaven’s Gate suicides, so take what I write here with that in mind.
Scientology kicked me into making my own homepage so to speak 🙂
I was much more a usenet person, but in the 90’s scientology was prosecuting (Dutch) friends of mine and I started a homepage to print some stuff to support them.
The tactic of going to court to bankrupt people and declaring bankrupcy on your local filial if you lost was quite common with Scientology at the time. The court case I mentioned has actually just been decided (finally, after 10 years) in their favour.
“I’m glad we’ve got Gary to remind us one shouldn’t bother making available information which has previously become available elsewhere.”
Of course, I said no such thing, and actively said the opposite.
I wrote: “But, yeah, hey, if Charles helps bring some of this as news to folks unfamiliar with the evil scammers, that’s a good thing.”
My personal favorite Scientology parody: the book “Diuretics” in Repo Man.
Heh heh. “Diuretics.” I am twelve.
Of course, I said no such thing, and actively said the opposite.
Gary, can you really not see how someone might interpret your first two comments to mean precisely what Iron Lungfish said?
3GB, *chuckle*. I have to go rent that movie now.
My point is more that Scientology could evolve quite a bit from what Hubbard had in mind.
Good heavens . . . you mean it could become even more harmful?
I’m glad we’ve got Gary to remind us one shouldn’t bother making available information which has previously become available elsewhere.
Good thing Jesus didn’t hear what Gary said after He delivered the Sermon on the Mount. —Or DID He?…
“Gary, can you really not see how someone might interpret your first two comments to mean precisely what Iron Lungfish said?”
I can see it. They’d have to take a statement indicating the thought “this is not new and therefore I don’t find it interesting” as equivalent to “one shouldn’t bother making available information which has previously [been] available elsewhere.”
Lots of people (most people) read carelessly, so I certainly understanding people making the mistake of taking the one thought to indicate the other thought, even though they are in fact very different indeed. If I’d written “and therefore you shouldn’t have found it interesting, Charles,” or “and therefore you shouldn’t have posted about it, Charles,” that would be entirely different. As it turns out, I’m as entitled to have personal opinions about what I find interesting as Charles is about what he finds interesting. And we’re both entitled to disagree, and to say so to each other, without anyone taking either observation as meaning the radically different “and therefore you shouldn’t have said that.”
“Good thing Jesus didn’t hear what Gary said after He delivered the Sermon on the Mount. —Or DID He?…”
My sermon on the mount wasn’t that interesting. (Fun with antecedents!) But, really, you don’t have to capitalize references to me.
This sort of debate is exactly why I hesitate entering the public high school system. I have an MPhil, I’m dubious about my ability to weather the tenure system, but who wants to be accountable to ideological activist parents of any stripe?
“I have an MPhil, I’m dubious about my ability to weather the tenure system, but who wants to be accountable to ideological activist parents of any stripe?”
Am I being dense, or is this comment in the right blog post thread?
My sermon on the mount wasn’t that interesting. (Fun with antecedents!) But, really, you don’t have to capitalize references to me.
Internet anthropologists have discovered a cult of “Amygdalites” whose creed is simply “Farber said it first.”
They commune with the object of their veneration via the Internet, tirelessly demonstrating that any utterance one cares to name was, in fact, anticipated by same. Many scientists believe that they post under their deity’s name, a view supported by the theory that no one person could possibly spend that much time on the Web.
Amygdalites are said to be divided roughly into two sects, High and Low Prescients, depending on whether they believe that Farber was able to anticipate statements made *before* some event (his birth, the first time he browsed the internet, the founding of his blog, etc.); disagreements as to the exact nature of which has led to sub-sects.
Other figures in their religion are difficult to pin down, but seem to include the prophet Anderson and an adversarial figure with a bird totem, who “sucks and is ruining this blog,” as their litany has it.
“Other figures in their religion are difficult to pin down, but seem to include the prophet Anderson and an adversarial figure with a bird totem, who ‘sucks and is ruining this blog,’ as their litany has it.”
Images of thy Lord are, of course, profane and forbidden, at least if they make him appear fat, but acolytes may wish to know: is it forbidden to portray His Prophet with an image?
Worshippers are reminded of their duty to tithe to the Church.
Hmmm, something about killing your god, eating his flesh and drinking his blood comes to mind here. Just saying.
Hmmm, something about killing your god, eating his flesh and drinking his blood comes to mind here. Just saying.
Wow, Scientology really has progressed.
“Hmmm, something about killing your god, eating his flesh and drinking his blood comes to mind here. Just saying.”
Some other religion, clearly. Mine is closer to that of this fellow.
I, too, have followed the CoS fight against Usenet in the 90’s. (just google for ‘otmar’ in the a.r.s archives)
And dutchmarbel, give my greetings to Karin the next time you meet her.
Ah, Scientology was one of the reasons I became an active (lurking) member of the internet in the mid/late 90s. I loved to read a.r.s. and then tell my roomate “Man, those Scientology folks are MESSED up.” Thanks, Saint Ron!
Gary,
Unfortunately, even Dionysus can’t get out of it. From the link
In another version of the same story, Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Persephone, the queen of the underworld. A jealous Hera again attempted to kill the child, this time by sending Titans to rip Dionysus to pieces after luring the baby with toys. Zeus drove the Titans away with his thunderbolts, but only after the Titans ate everything but the heart, which was saved, variously, by Athena, Rhea, or Demeter. Zeus used the heart to recreate him in the womb of Semele, hence he was again “the twice-born”. Sometimes people said that he gave Semele the heart to eat to impregnate her. The rebirth in both versions of the story is the primary reason he was worshipped in mystery religions, as his death and rebirth were events of mystical reverence. This narrative was apparently used in certain Greek and Roman mystery religions. Variants of it are found in Callimachus and Nonnus, who refer to this Dionysus under the title Zagreus, and also in several fragmentary poems attributed to Orpheus.
The link also points out that some suggest a link between D and J
It is possible that Dionysian mythology would later find its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were said to have been born from a mortal woman but fathered by a god, to have returned from the dead, and to have transformed water into wine. The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking “the flesh” and “blood” of Jesus was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino (however, one must note that Dionysian cannibalism has no correlation with self-sacrifice as a means of propitiation).
However, I think this should cheer you up
Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers.
Sorry to say, but I think this getting eaten pretty much comes with the whole Western godhood shtick. Again, just saying.
One of my faves, although I haven’t seen it in years. I’ve been trying to move my car out of this bad area, you see.
Dianetics is sufficiently bizarre a notion (connections with Scientology aside) so as to make Est appear mainstream. I tried reading the book once, but it was so littered with completely unfounded assertions of the Ask Dr. Science variety that I couldn’t make it past the first couple of chapters. I guess my disbelief was much too heavy.
His fiction doesn’t do anything for me, either. Sucked, I thought, but I’ve known people who thought it was good.
“His fiction doesn’t do anything for me, either. Sucked, I thought, but I’ve known people who thought it was good.”
Typewriter In The Sky wasn’t too bad. Ditto Final Blackout.
The post-Dianetics/Scientology stuff was some of the worst stuff you’d ever see outside of a slush pile. But back in the Forties, when he had to sell to eat, he had a certain verve.
is it forbidden to portray His Prophet with an image?
The Prophet is properly portrayed in intimate proximity to Scarlett Johansson.
“The Prophet is properly portrayed in intimate proximity to Scarlett Johansson.”
The Lord thy God approves. Johansson must also propitiate the Lord.
If you become an apostate, then you are ex-communicated and all ties with family and friends are severed. Doesn’t sound very enlightened to me, but to each his own
Heh! Sounds kind of like your own organisation, does it not?
Should have gone with something from a different era. Falstaff has the advantage of common starting letters.
I thought L Ron had a great sense of the ridiculous, judging from his alien, um, heroes ? I theorised maybe he was carried away on a wave of adulation that he didn’t fight hard enough.
Wouldn’t mind direction on where to find the info on setting up “muscle” for the revelation : that does sound nasty. I have to admit I’ve avoided scientology for years because of a “puh-leeze” reaction ( sorry guys, also thought the first Book of Mormon should have been Moron ) and didn’t pay attention to the organization.
People are getting WAY too caught up in the wierdness of scientology’s beliefs. Sure, the whole xenu story is a really fucked up idea. But, to an unbiased outsider, so is the whole Moroni Gold Plates story. One religion’s wacky beliefs hold as much water as any other’s.
The real issue is not, and should not be, what the scientologists believe. It should always be about how they BEHAVE. If you give away copies of the Book of Mormon FOR FREE, the Mormons don’t try to harrass, bankrupt, or murder you (or your pets). If you try doing the same thing with scientology’s operating thetan levels, the scientoliogists will (and have).