Scientology has every right to be considered a legitimate religion

[BeBMan]

I think you need to join CoS and tell us what it really is like, as we have no representatives here

Seconded

[MOBIUS]

If I did that I'd be a hypocrite. What we need is someone who believes in religion but doesn't think that Scientology has as much right to exist as, say, the Christian Orthodox church. He could then go in and blow the whole place wide open and prove to the rest of us why he thinks Scientology is a sham.

Someone like Elok.

[Elok]

"Hi, I hear you folks will basically rape my brain, but some folks on the internet don't believe me, so to prove them wrong I'm volunteering. Pass me the tin cans, would you?"

No thanks. But thanks for remembering that I'm not Catholic!

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay so I admit to not having read this whole thread.

Asher-

Scientology is different from Christianity. Seeing that you're gay, I am not surprised about your distaste for christianity, and I'm sure you'll bring up some story about a gay kid committing suicide because of christians if you haven't already, but that is absolutely different from Scientology.

Fact is, Scientology is and is run like a business. What do I mean by this? They take people in, brainwash them--they really do--I know someone who was brainwashed by the moonies, I will respect her privacy and not share more details, but believe me there are ways of brainwashing vulnerable people. There's also the way Scientology markets itself. Scientology markets itself with big-name Hollywood actors. It takes influential people and uses them to spread itself among the gullible.

Who founds a chapter of scientology? When you want to start a Christian church, you just start a church. I'm sure there is some red tape involved with Catholic churches but generally it's not top-down. Scientology markets itself like a business and spreads itself like a business. It's not like the Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons either, they are interested in helping you. This is more like a Wal-Mart expanding into a commuter town strip mall, not a group of believers forming a church and getting it approved by an organization.

Of course you can make the logically consistent case that "scientology is no more ridiculous than any other religion". But would you claim the Branch Davidians were legitimate? I'm not going to get into some pedantic discussion about the definition of religion, as it's much easier to point to the results. We can talk philosophically for hours about what is a religion or look out the window and see the effect it has on people. Again you're going to bring up the ridiculous canards of "the poor gay people who commit suicide" and other things that you find personally moving, but I'm sure most people can see as easily as I can (Elok for instance) the fact that Scientology exists not for its members but for itself, and the way it harms them.


As a policy matter, I think that the government should treat the scientology movement the same way it treats Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc.

[DanS]

Re the OP, I agree that Scientology obviously is a religion. The religion seems strange to me, but whatever floats their boat...

Catholics are less extreme but the guilt mechanic and the suggested tithings are just a thinly veiled way to get control and money.

I have never heard the 10% figure suggested by the church. And even if it were suggested, it would be 10% to all charity, not necessarily having anything to do with the church.

[Nikolai]

10% of your income to the Church/God's work in the world(like missions, work among the poor, sick etc) is a part of the Christian belief, but not as something you have to do. There are clear promises of blessings by giving part of your income to God, but it's in no way reqired and you don't have to give any set amount per se. And while it's normal to give to your own church, there is no policy in the bible for this.

[-Jrabbit]

L. Ron Hubbard has been pretty well documented stating that Scientology is not a religion, but rather a business.

Is Scientology a religion? Hubbard says "No".

Mini-FAQ Ver. 1 September 29. 1997

Compiled by William C Barwell

Abstract:
While L. Ron Hubbard (and Scientology organizations) make numerous claims to be a bona-fide religion, it can be shown that the claim is really being made for business purposes. Religious status affords many advantages, among them being a positive public perception, a legal shield for Hubbard's shabby science and false medical claims, and most importantly in the United States, tax-free status and Constitutional protection from Government scrutiny. Hubbard redefined the business of Scientology to be the religion of Scientology, cynically wrapping a cloak of subterfuge around a set of procedures that were originally sold as an alternative mental healing therapy. Unfortunately for Hubbard, he failed to amend previous claims regarding the efficacy of Scientology processing, it's "scientific" underpinnings, or that Scientology is not based on religious principles. Scientologists are bound by Hubbard's instructions to not alter his previous statements. Therefore there are some rather glaring inconsistencies between the present religious claims and Hubbard's earlier statements.
...
Hubbard consistently positioned Dianetics during the 1950s as a "Science of Mind" with absolutely no mention of religion. Hubbard also rules out any relationship between Dianetics and superstition, mysticism, or spiritualism - all which are more associated with religion than with science.
...
"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a
psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which, when
properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual."
(from The Creation of Human Ability, L. Ron Hubbard, 1953.
Note: this passage was removed in 1971 and later editions.)
...
Hubbard cynically calls this subterfuge "the religion angle". Hubbard feels that public opinion of Scientology is poor, so wrapping Scientology in the cloak of religion will add credibility. The clause "with what we've got to sell" again indicates that Hubbard considers Scientology to be a business that sells a product. (1953 letter)
...
Hubbard defines Scientology as the study of knowing. While Hubbard has a chance to define Scientology in religious terms, Hubbard instead claims that Scientology is an EXACT SCIENCE. This is at odds with a religious definition which would involve faith, beliefs, and elements of the supernatural.

Also note the barrage of medical claims made by Hubbard - in the United States, a religion can claim that dubious medical practices are rituals of faith, thereby avoiding government scrutiny.
...
"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis
throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual
activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants
and solicitors."
Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter (HCOPL) 29 Oct. 1962, "Religion"

http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/barwell2.htm

I take Mr. Hubbard at his word. Scientology is not a religion.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think that pretty much damns scientology on the spot.

[-Jrabbit]

Another infamous Hubbard quote, noted by several of his contemporaries who wrote sci-fi, was along the lines of, "I should start a religion; that's where the real money is."

[Elok]

Another infamous Hubbard quote, noted by several of his contemporaries who wrote sci-fi, was along the lines of, "I should start a religion; that's where the real money is."

I was under the impression that said quote was apocryphal, cited only in an old Reader's Digest. It wouldn't actually make sense, because as you noted, he didn't start a religion; he started a pseudoscience. He only called it a religion to dodge the Feds.

[DanS]

Even if it started as a cynical attempt by Hubbard and Co. to dodge the Feds, I still think it's a religion.

[-Jrabbit]

I was under the impression that said quote was apocryphal, cited only in an old Reader's Digest. It wouldn't actually make sense, because as you noted, he didn't start a religion; he started a pseudoscience. He only called it a religion to dodge the Feds.

It may well be apocryphal; others have attributed it to George Orwell (Eric Blair). Interestingly, Orwell and Hubbard are documented as having met (in 1948 IIRC).

Still, there are numerous independent references from various writers stating that Hubbard's interest was strictly in money. Here's a YouTube (4:00) someone put together with a series of LRH quotes that seem fairly well documented...



Here's Harlan Ellison (in a 7:02 rant full of digressions) with his take on the writers group he and LRH belonged to, and the origins of dianetics/scientology.



FWIW...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Good stuff this Harlan Ellison interview... where are other parts

the story is a proper American one - I have no money, what do I do - start a religion, worked out great, but he should have been a bit less agressive with promotion techniques

[MOBIUS]

the story is a proper American one - I have no money, what do I do - start a religion, worked out great, but he should have been a bit less agressive with promotion techniques

I reckon that's exactly how Christianity started out...

[DanS]

the story is a proper American one - I have no money, what do I do - start a religion, worked out great, but he should have been a bit less agressive with promotion techniques

Hubbard was a successful author. Had plenty of money. I have read several of his books and it seems like my IQ was less after reading each one.