Scientology: What is it good for?
This post has been in the works for a while. As usual, my mantra is "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." For that reason I decided to do some research into Scientology, the religion that’s all the rage in celebrity circles and the hilarious target of shows like South Park. I admit to being suspicious of Scientology from the outset, but hopefully what I have to say here remains academic and doesn’t condescend into an insulting rant. Most of this information has been obtained either from Janet Reitman’s article "Inside Scientology" (Rolling Stone 995) or Scientology: Theology & Practice of a Contemporary Religion, published by the Church of Scientology in 1988 (yes I know, two sources do not make me an expert, but I think I’ve gotten to learn a bit about both sides of the issue).
Scientology was created by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Many of his ideas were formulated in his New Age psychiatry book Dianetics. The religion is claimed to be scientifically-based, in that each person learns to know what is true through personal observation. Each person must also reach their own conclusions. Scientologists believe that the source of major frustration and sorrow in our lives is the corruption of the thetan, which is basically the soul. The thetan must be returned to a naive state (called Total Freedom) in order to be at peace. Followers must undergo auditing sessions with a electropsychometer that help find the corruptions. Each auditing sessions brings you closer to Total Freedom and increases your status within the church. Followers also must refrain from deviant behaviour (homosexuality and masturbation are considered ‘deviant behaviour’ by the church). Membership in the church is quite exclusive, and people who leave the church must cease all contact with any church members, including their families. For a more complete and surprisingly detailed summary of Scientology, see the Wikipedia entry.
I have some critical remarks about the Church’s own publication. First, at least half this book is spent trying to justify their existence as a bona fide religion. There are 9 appendices that deal specifically with that issue, including 6 essays by experts on religion. I suppose this makes sense in light of the long-standing stubbornness of authorities to accept their claim, but part of me wonders "does thou protest too much"? Second, Scientology claims that it has no dogma, and that followers are not "expected to take anything on faith or on the basis of arbitrary authority" (C of S 1988:xii). Yet all their works are written by one man, and no one else is allowed to write anything more. No other interpretations other than the original scripture are accepted. Children attend special Scientology schools instead of regular schools, in which they read Hubbard’s work and supposedly come to their own conclusions about it -- conclusions that coincidently fit the standard party line. My third criticism is in regards to auditing: followers are shown the way through auditing sessions with ministers, in which the follower locates and addresses personal traumas. The minister "cannot offer any advice" about how to locate or confront traumas (C of S 1988:34). Could it really be possible that people advance without any assistance from the minister? Also, once you’ve reached the advanced levels, members use "a special auditing procedure which the individual conducts alone; the person acts as his own auditor, alternately posing precise questions and then seeking their answers" (C of S 1988:37). Doesn’t self-auditing leave the door open to less-than-honest persons advancing through the ranks? Fourth, Scientology is the only religion in the world that withholds dogma from its followers. In an age of extremely high literacy, most religions have their complete dogmas in texts available to everyone. But as shown in their own "Bridge to Total Freedom" chart (C of S 1988:56), the end result of each auditor’s class is freely known -- until you’ve reached CLEAR, that is. CLEAR means you have confronted all your traumas and are ready for additional training. Above that, up to OT XV (Tom Cruise is OT VII), the phrase "As given in the materials of OT #" is simply repeated. What are these materials? The legend of Xenu, so eloquently lambasted on South Park, is part of these secret materials. For those who care OT XV is the highest you can go, but no one is there yet. The highest people now are at OT VII. Tom Cruise is one of them.
One of my biggest problems with the church’s dogma is their flippant use of ‘scientific investigation.’ The Church claims that founder L. Ron Hubbard’s career as a science fiction writer was only a means of continuing his Scientology research, and that he conducted research "concerning cellular memory retention and memory transmission to later generations, concluding that some unknown factor was capable of recording and transmitting the memory of a single event from one cellular generation to the next" (C of S 1988:90). They have supposedly proven scientifically the existence of theta, which is the life force of the universe. Theta has "no mass, no wavelength, no location in space or in time" (C of S 1988:18). What were these experiments, and how did he come to these conclusions? The religion claims to be based on science, but like any good scientist, I’m skeptical of someone who refuses to show their work. How else can it be duplicated and verified? If their work has been proven scientifically, then shouldn’t other scientists be able to copy and prove their results? If that happened, it would completely legitimize their religion. However, secrecy continues to be policy.
Another major criticism of mine is the issue of money. The Church of Scientology is very rich. They have just completed construction of a $50 million complex in Clearwater, Florida, that is the headquarters of the religion. The charge for 12.5 hour blocks of auditing time range from $750 for introductory sessions and $9000 for advanced sessions. The road to Total Freedom may take hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some people have been known to mortgage their homes and liquify their investments in order to continue sessions. There is clearly a lot of money being passed around. Church leaders say that there’s no other way for it to be done. Time and equipment is expensive. They don’t have 2000 years of wealth to rely on (a nice jab at Christianity). They hide behind the fact that other religions are doing it, so why single them out? The act of tithing is pointed out as an example. One leader, Rinder (in Rolling Stone) said, "do you want to know the real answer? If we could offer everything for free, we would do it."
But the simple fact is, they could offer everything for free, if they wanted to. In 1955, the church began setting up Celebrity Centres, where famous people could receive free sessions and information. The idea was to create advertising by having famous persons involved in the church. It worked extremely well. The Celebrity Centres are still in use today, and the world’s most famous Scientologist is Tom Cruise. Celebrities do not pay for their auditing sessions. Tom Cruise may have given some money to Scientology, but I doubt it was used to help needy families get auditing sessions. Now, if I were a Scientologist and I was more interested in helping people than acquiring vast fortunes, I would consider the idea of having celebrities pay. Why not the tithe system that they so graciously pointed out? If every follower had to put 10% of their income into the Church, the person making 10 grand a year would not have to choose between auditing sessions and food. And the tithe coming from celebrities would more than make up the cash flow missing from the poor followers. Doesn’t that sound like peace and harmony?
Unfortunately, I don’t think the leaders of Scientology work that way. I get the feeling that the higher up the ladder you go, the more you feel you are entitled to your riches because you are CLEARED and others are not. It is humorous to actually see a parallel with Christianity here: Some Christians believe that they are rich (or in the White House) because that’s how God wants it. Therefore, rich people are obviously the most pious and the most capable leaders in society. I can hear all of you groaning at that one.
I can understand how the basic tenets of Scientology can be appealing. Everyone wants to be able to follow certain processes that allow your soul to cleansed. Nobody likes dirt on their conscience. And I completely agree with some of the positions that Scientology takes, like how children are over-medicated for the smallest things, and that perscription drugs are not the answer to many of our social woes. I think a lot of people agree with that. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Church of Scientology takes advantage of those beliefs in the attempt to make a profit.
This is just a short essay on a subject that I could probably write a book about. There are plenty of other things I could comment on, but I just wanted to get out my biggest thoughts on the subject. I hope Tom Cruise doesn’t sue me.
Find a Scientology Church in Canada, if you want. I swear last year I found a centre here in Saskatoon on their official website, but it isn't there anymore. Too bad.
Scientology was created by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Many of his ideas were formulated in his New Age psychiatry book Dianetics. The religion is claimed to be scientifically-based, in that each person learns to know what is true through personal observation. Each person must also reach their own conclusions. Scientologists believe that the source of major frustration and sorrow in our lives is the corruption of the thetan, which is basically the soul. The thetan must be returned to a naive state (called Total Freedom) in order to be at peace. Followers must undergo auditing sessions with a electropsychometer that help find the corruptions. Each auditing sessions brings you closer to Total Freedom and increases your status within the church. Followers also must refrain from deviant behaviour (homosexuality and masturbation are considered ‘deviant behaviour’ by the church). Membership in the church is quite exclusive, and people who leave the church must cease all contact with any church members, including their families. For a more complete and surprisingly detailed summary of Scientology, see the Wikipedia entry.
I have some critical remarks about the Church’s own publication. First, at least half this book is spent trying to justify their existence as a bona fide religion. There are 9 appendices that deal specifically with that issue, including 6 essays by experts on religion. I suppose this makes sense in light of the long-standing stubbornness of authorities to accept their claim, but part of me wonders "does thou protest too much"? Second, Scientology claims that it has no dogma, and that followers are not "expected to take anything on faith or on the basis of arbitrary authority" (C of S 1988:xii). Yet all their works are written by one man, and no one else is allowed to write anything more. No other interpretations other than the original scripture are accepted. Children attend special Scientology schools instead of regular schools, in which they read Hubbard’s work and supposedly come to their own conclusions about it -- conclusions that coincidently fit the standard party line. My third criticism is in regards to auditing: followers are shown the way through auditing sessions with ministers, in which the follower locates and addresses personal traumas. The minister "cannot offer any advice" about how to locate or confront traumas (C of S 1988:34). Could it really be possible that people advance without any assistance from the minister? Also, once you’ve reached the advanced levels, members use "a special auditing procedure which the individual conducts alone; the person acts as his own auditor, alternately posing precise questions and then seeking their answers" (C of S 1988:37). Doesn’t self-auditing leave the door open to less-than-honest persons advancing through the ranks? Fourth, Scientology is the only religion in the world that withholds dogma from its followers. In an age of extremely high literacy, most religions have their complete dogmas in texts available to everyone. But as shown in their own "Bridge to Total Freedom" chart (C of S 1988:56), the end result of each auditor’s class is freely known -- until you’ve reached CLEAR, that is. CLEAR means you have confronted all your traumas and are ready for additional training. Above that, up to OT XV (Tom Cruise is OT VII), the phrase "As given in the materials of OT #" is simply repeated. What are these materials? The legend of Xenu, so eloquently lambasted on South Park, is part of these secret materials. For those who care OT XV is the highest you can go, but no one is there yet. The highest people now are at OT VII. Tom Cruise is one of them.
One of my biggest problems with the church’s dogma is their flippant use of ‘scientific investigation.’ The Church claims that founder L. Ron Hubbard’s career as a science fiction writer was only a means of continuing his Scientology research, and that he conducted research "concerning cellular memory retention and memory transmission to later generations, concluding that some unknown factor was capable of recording and transmitting the memory of a single event from one cellular generation to the next" (C of S 1988:90). They have supposedly proven scientifically the existence of theta, which is the life force of the universe. Theta has "no mass, no wavelength, no location in space or in time" (C of S 1988:18). What were these experiments, and how did he come to these conclusions? The religion claims to be based on science, but like any good scientist, I’m skeptical of someone who refuses to show their work. How else can it be duplicated and verified? If their work has been proven scientifically, then shouldn’t other scientists be able to copy and prove their results? If that happened, it would completely legitimize their religion. However, secrecy continues to be policy.
Another major criticism of mine is the issue of money. The Church of Scientology is very rich. They have just completed construction of a $50 million complex in Clearwater, Florida, that is the headquarters of the religion. The charge for 12.5 hour blocks of auditing time range from $750 for introductory sessions and $9000 for advanced sessions. The road to Total Freedom may take hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some people have been known to mortgage their homes and liquify their investments in order to continue sessions. There is clearly a lot of money being passed around. Church leaders say that there’s no other way for it to be done. Time and equipment is expensive. They don’t have 2000 years of wealth to rely on (a nice jab at Christianity). They hide behind the fact that other religions are doing it, so why single them out? The act of tithing is pointed out as an example. One leader, Rinder (in Rolling Stone) said, "do you want to know the real answer? If we could offer everything for free, we would do it."
But the simple fact is, they could offer everything for free, if they wanted to. In 1955, the church began setting up Celebrity Centres, where famous people could receive free sessions and information. The idea was to create advertising by having famous persons involved in the church. It worked extremely well. The Celebrity Centres are still in use today, and the world’s most famous Scientologist is Tom Cruise. Celebrities do not pay for their auditing sessions. Tom Cruise may have given some money to Scientology, but I doubt it was used to help needy families get auditing sessions. Now, if I were a Scientologist and I was more interested in helping people than acquiring vast fortunes, I would consider the idea of having celebrities pay. Why not the tithe system that they so graciously pointed out? If every follower had to put 10% of their income into the Church, the person making 10 grand a year would not have to choose between auditing sessions and food. And the tithe coming from celebrities would more than make up the cash flow missing from the poor followers. Doesn’t that sound like peace and harmony?
Unfortunately, I don’t think the leaders of Scientology work that way. I get the feeling that the higher up the ladder you go, the more you feel you are entitled to your riches because you are CLEARED and others are not. It is humorous to actually see a parallel with Christianity here: Some Christians believe that they are rich (or in the White House) because that’s how God wants it. Therefore, rich people are obviously the most pious and the most capable leaders in society. I can hear all of you groaning at that one.
I can understand how the basic tenets of Scientology can be appealing. Everyone wants to be able to follow certain processes that allow your soul to cleansed. Nobody likes dirt on their conscience. And I completely agree with some of the positions that Scientology takes, like how children are over-medicated for the smallest things, and that perscription drugs are not the answer to many of our social woes. I think a lot of people agree with that. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Church of Scientology takes advantage of those beliefs in the attempt to make a profit.
This is just a short essay on a subject that I could probably write a book about. There are plenty of other things I could comment on, but I just wanted to get out my biggest thoughts on the subject. I hope Tom Cruise doesn’t sue me.
Find a Scientology Church in Canada, if you want. I swear last year I found a centre here in Saskatoon on their official website, but it isn't there anymore. Too bad.
posted by Kris at 2:22 PM
2 Comments:
Be careful bad-mouthing Scientology. They could declare you "Fair Game." I swear, the more I know, the more afraid I get.
Hay Germany considers them a cult, that's a good enough title as any. Frankly though they're just a business in the end, they make money and have proprietary information (sued over it in fact). A very scary business I will be the first to admit but one none the less.
Frankly though I oppose them for their suppression of data and opinions against them. As well as being tax free because they proclaim themselves a "religions organization". Anyone remember Jim Jones? They're about on the same level.
Post a Comment
<< Home