Seeing as everyone and their dog is getting in on this on the internet, now seems as good a time as any for a discussion about Scientology, the actions of its Church, and the logistics and politics of fighting against it.
A number of arguments are raised against campaigning against Scientology, some of which are summed up here (found through Digg).
One common argument against anti-Scientology campaigning is "freedom of belief." Under this argument, to campaign against any one religion is de facto bigotry and should be rejected. This analysis, however, is extremely superficial. Those Scientologists who do not work within the Church - the Free Zoners, in other words - have not been the target of nearly the same amount of attention, in spite of holding nearly identical beliefs. Why? They do not behave in the same way.
The infamous South Park episode targetting Scientology was both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it exposed the core Scientology beliefs for what they are - poorly written science fiction with a bit of pseudopsychology thrown in for good measure. It may be possible that some people who would otherwise have joined the Church will have seen this and become skeptical in general. On the other hand, however, it reduced the problems with Scientology down to it being a scam to make money by selling people religion - putting things in much more favourable terms for the church, in that the complaint becomes about what they believe, rather than what the church has done and continues to do.
This is not an issue of belief, it is an issue of action. The Church's history in this regard is well known, but just as a summary:
- Operation Freakout, an escalating plan of harassment against a woman who wrote a book critical of the church intended to result in her being sectioned.
- Operation Snow White, an attempt by Church of Scientology officials to have negative records about individuals and the organisation as a whole purged from government records.
- Extremely aggressive attack techniques against enemies and heretics, including regular harassment.
- Abuse of the law to attack splinter groups and suppress dissent and criticism, especially over the Internet.
The wikipedia article on Scientology controversies gives a fairly good introduction; sadly it doesn't even begin to cover the problems caused by this organisation.
On the realm of actions, another regular complaint against taking action against the Church is that it is only one such organisation among many. This does bear noting - pretty much any religious (or non-religious) organisation of appropriate size or age is going to have its problems. Why, then, "single out" Scientology?
The first is, quite simply, that it's easier. Scientology, while it has a worryingly high profile, has a relatively low number of members. It's a young movement that has yet to take serious root. Taking on an organisation of this type has certain advantages over an older, larger institution tied in with history and politics and all the complications they bring.
Secondly, I would argue that the Church of Scientology is, if not "worse" in some objective sense, markedly different from other institutions such as the Vatican. While no-one can deny the bloody legacy of Christendom, it is largely a concept of the past. The more recent history of the Catholic Church has seen its share of scandal (such as the child sex abuse controversy) and been rightly met with condemnation. The greatest condemnation in this was not simply that the abuse was happening in individual cases (which could, if not be excused, at least not be used to tar the entirety of the church), but that church officials higher up were aware of the situation and actively trying to cover it up. It is this that marks the difference between the odd "bad apple" and a rotten barrel.
With the Church of Scientology, most, if not all, of the controversies associated with it have occured on an official level, and thus cannnot be dismissed as simply a few individual churches here and there going wrong. Orders for harassment, orders singling out targets, Freakout, Snow White, the lawsuits that have bankrupted people time and again - all of these were planned and carries out at the highest levels with involvement down the chain as appropriate.
Another complaint against targetting the CoS is that by using certain tactics the attacker is "no better than them." This is reductionist idiocy that analyses actions only in terms of the action itself and not its outcome and should be ignored.
Why, then, should we fight it? There are a few reasons.
Free expression. Much of the information we have about the Church of Scientology, its beliefs, practices, and internal memoranda (including the Fair Game policy) comes from documents released anonmyously via the Internet. Some of its members left the church as a result of websites such as Operation Clambake. In response, the Church of Scientology has repeatedly attempted to censor the Internet - from an attempt to have a Scientology discussion group removed from Usenet to their intimidation of Google to have Operation Clambake removed from results, to the multiple lawsuits against websites hosting anti-Scientology materials (see www.chillingeffects.org - search for Scientology). For every step forward the CoS makes in its attempts at intimidation and censorship, a precedent is set for the rest of us.
Protection for the vulnerable. Some of the Church's actions are directly aimed at people who are vulnerable, specifically Narconon (drug counselling) and Criminon (criminal rehabilitation). The methods they use are based on Hubbard's writings and both organisations are staffed by Scientologists. Their treatment, however, has no history of effectiveness and is believed by many to do more harm than good, as well as acting as a front for recruitment to the church.
They are trying to gain influence. The Church has been trying to get close to police in London, through giving gifts of large amounts of money to individual cops and other activities. Similarly they have attempted to get their materials taught in school, and in some cases succeeded. Their activities in Clearwater, Florida, known as Project Normandy, read as the plan of an organisation seeking to completely take over a town. Their aims, however, are much wider.
They are a sinister destructive cult. This, more than anything else, needs to be kept clear. The activities of the Church of Scientology from its inception to the present day have been calculated to sap money and energy from those who put their faith in it.
This is not a matter of freedom of religion. It is a matter of freedom.
Demonstration 10th February 2008, London.
One common argument against anti-Scientology campaigning is "freedom of belief." Under this argument, to campaign against any one religion is de facto bigotry and should be rejected. This analysis, however, is extremely superficial. Those Scientologists who do not work within the Church - the Free Zoners, in other words - have not been the target of nearly the same amount of attention, in spite of holding nearly identical beliefs. Why? They do not behave in the same way.
The infamous South Park episode targetting Scientology was both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it exposed the core Scientology beliefs for what they are - poorly written science fiction with a bit of pseudopsychology thrown in for good measure. It may be possible that some people who would otherwise have joined the Church will have seen this and become skeptical in general. On the other hand, however, it reduced the problems with Scientology down to it being a scam to make money by selling people religion - putting things in much more favourable terms for the church, in that the complaint becomes about what they believe, rather than what the church has done and continues to do.
This is not an issue of belief, it is an issue of action. The Church's history in this regard is well known, but just as a summary:
- Operation Freakout, an escalating plan of harassment against a woman who wrote a book critical of the church intended to result in her being sectioned.
- Operation Snow White, an attempt by Church of Scientology officials to have negative records about individuals and the organisation as a whole purged from government records.
- Extremely aggressive attack techniques against enemies and heretics, including regular harassment.
- Abuse of the law to attack splinter groups and suppress dissent and criticism, especially over the Internet.
The wikipedia article on Scientology controversies gives a fairly good introduction; sadly it doesn't even begin to cover the problems caused by this organisation.
On the realm of actions, another regular complaint against taking action against the Church is that it is only one such organisation among many. This does bear noting - pretty much any religious (or non-religious) organisation of appropriate size or age is going to have its problems. Why, then, "single out" Scientology?
The first is, quite simply, that it's easier. Scientology, while it has a worryingly high profile, has a relatively low number of members. It's a young movement that has yet to take serious root. Taking on an organisation of this type has certain advantages over an older, larger institution tied in with history and politics and all the complications they bring.
Secondly, I would argue that the Church of Scientology is, if not "worse" in some objective sense, markedly different from other institutions such as the Vatican. While no-one can deny the bloody legacy of Christendom, it is largely a concept of the past. The more recent history of the Catholic Church has seen its share of scandal (such as the child sex abuse controversy) and been rightly met with condemnation. The greatest condemnation in this was not simply that the abuse was happening in individual cases (which could, if not be excused, at least not be used to tar the entirety of the church), but that church officials higher up were aware of the situation and actively trying to cover it up. It is this that marks the difference between the odd "bad apple" and a rotten barrel.
With the Church of Scientology, most, if not all, of the controversies associated with it have occured on an official level, and thus cannnot be dismissed as simply a few individual churches here and there going wrong. Orders for harassment, orders singling out targets, Freakout, Snow White, the lawsuits that have bankrupted people time and again - all of these were planned and carries out at the highest levels with involvement down the chain as appropriate.
Another complaint against targetting the CoS is that by using certain tactics the attacker is "no better than them." This is reductionist idiocy that analyses actions only in terms of the action itself and not its outcome and should be ignored.
Why, then, should we fight it? There are a few reasons.
Free expression. Much of the information we have about the Church of Scientology, its beliefs, practices, and internal memoranda (including the Fair Game policy) comes from documents released anonmyously via the Internet. Some of its members left the church as a result of websites such as Operation Clambake. In response, the Church of Scientology has repeatedly attempted to censor the Internet - from an attempt to have a Scientology discussion group removed from Usenet to their intimidation of Google to have Operation Clambake removed from results, to the multiple lawsuits against websites hosting anti-Scientology materials (see www.chillingeffects.org - search for Scientology). For every step forward the CoS makes in its attempts at intimidation and censorship, a precedent is set for the rest of us.
Protection for the vulnerable. Some of the Church's actions are directly aimed at people who are vulnerable, specifically Narconon (drug counselling) and Criminon (criminal rehabilitation). The methods they use are based on Hubbard's writings and both organisations are staffed by Scientologists. Their treatment, however, has no history of effectiveness and is believed by many to do more harm than good, as well as acting as a front for recruitment to the church.
They are trying to gain influence. The Church has been trying to get close to police in London, through giving gifts of large amounts of money to individual cops and other activities. Similarly they have attempted to get their materials taught in school, and in some cases succeeded. Their activities in Clearwater, Florida, known as Project Normandy, read as the plan of an organisation seeking to completely take over a town. Their aims, however, are much wider.
They are a sinister destructive cult. This, more than anything else, needs to be kept clear. The activities of the Church of Scientology from its inception to the present day have been calculated to sap money and energy from those who put their faith in it.
This is not a matter of freedom of religion. It is a matter of freedom.
Demonstration 10th February 2008, London.
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
Links
28.01.2008 18:07
- Arguments against campaigning against Scientology:
- Free Zone Scientologists:
- Scientology Controversies:
- Operation Clambake:
- Scientologist influence on police in Clearwater, Florida:
Temple of Xenu
Keep an open mind!
29.01.2008 00:06
Operation Clambake and other anti-Scientology site need to offer proof that what they are claiming is true.
For the record I’m not a Scientologist but a member of my family is. So I have researched this issue looking at both Scientology and anti-Scientology material. I have even been to the UK HQ in East Grinstead and had a look around. If any of you want to you can as well. Keep an open mind, don’t believe everything you read in the mainstream press or on the web.
Freedom
the law is not the issue...
29.01.2008 11:42
Much in the same way as the Pope had no - *official* - knowledge of the sex abuse coverup scandal? plausible deniability and all that. and to be honest, if the majority of a board of directors is up to something dodgy I don't really care if the CEO is in on it or not.
"Nowadays however I challenge anyone to prove that the Scientology organisation (not individual members but the organisation) is engaged in any serious criminality."
The law is not my concern. If anything it seems odd that you're using breaking the law - the same law that locked up Jeff Luers for over two decades for burning a car, the same law that brutalised the miners and print workers in the eighties, the same law that makes it illegal to share software with your mates - as some kind of ethical argument.
The Church of Scientology has repeatedly attempted to bully its critics into submission by driving them to bankruptcy through the courts. It has, since 2000 alone, issued nearly 60 cease and desist orders against websites, overwhelmingly in a bid to prevent discussion of Scientology doctrines (i.e. OT 3). Scientology teachings forbidding the use of psychiatric drugs, and the Church's method of taking people off them and and alternative approaches towards psychiatric problems, have caused untold misery - Lisa McPherson is only the tip of the iceberg, the recent Australian case of a girl who killed her family in a psychotic reaction to being removed from her medication on the advice of the CoS is another, albeit more brutal.
"Operation Clambake and other anti-Scientology site need to offer proof that what they are claiming is true."
A large amount of the information on Operation Clambake and other sites is taken from documents submitted by the church itself during court hearings and/or seized by the authorities during raids. It also bears noting that when - as they frequently do - the church goes after these websites it is very rarely for libel or slander, but instead for copyright violation (amusingly, the CoS simultaenously claims that the Xenu story is fabricated on the one hand, while on the other aggressively pursuing anyone who reprints the relevant material - which they claim to have no knowledge of).
Given the army of lawyers the Church has at its disposal, if the material not taken from court or state sources - e.g. personal testimonies - could be proven to be false, do you not think the Church would have gone for it by now?
"For the record I’m not a Scientologist but a member of my family is. So I have researched this issue looking at both Scientology and anti-Scientology material. I have even been to the UK HQ in East Grinstead and had a look around. If any of you want to you can as well. Keep an open mind, don’t believe everything you read in the mainstream press or on the web."
Keeping an open mind is always good, and I would encourage people to look at all sources of information. In particular, however, note that verifying some of this information can be difficult due to the practices of the CoS in silencing its critics.
I would also like to reinforce the fact that my objection is not to individual Scientologists. People are free to believe whatever they want, including Scientology, and when - as with the Free Zoners - this is free from the levels of corruption and control present in the church, I for one have no problem with it, or at least no more than the myriad other belief systems in the world. The Church, on the other hand, does:
Temple of Xenu
All religion follows the same path
29.01.2008 13:08
Choose deity
Choose messenger to come among the people
Proscribe rules and regulations
Threaten retribution if rules not followed
Secure financing by getting converts to pay
Expand
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Baptists, you name it (you think the Dali Lama has a job ?) all following the same path. L Ron Hubberd was clever enough to realise that there was money to be made in religion so he started one.
On another subject and while I'm here have I told you about my new understanding of the Universe. For only £99.99 + P&P I will send you the secret to enternal happiness, wealth, ..... etc etc
Jerry McGuire
The law...
29.01.2008 16:49
As for the copyright lawsuits used against OT material being leaked, such material is considered confidential and private for members of Scientology who have completed certain stages within the organisation. Would you want something private of yours post on the Internet?
It is true that Scientology is against psychiatric drugs. Children with behavioural issues are often put on drugs like Prozac and the behaviour and personal issues are not addressed. I do not feel psychiatric drugs can solve anything apart from calming down people (affecting their character and slowing their minds). Psychiatric drugs, of course have a place were all other options have been tried. I don’t know much about this issue, but this is what I feel from what I have heard.
My Scientologist family member has told me that they do send people with problems to Psychiatrists if the problem continues. This is not something they want to do, but she says they will do it. Of course, breaches of policy happen in all large organisations.
Freedom
Scientology invasive tactics
29.01.2008 17:13
I felt they went out of their way to ingratiate themselves to me and push for friendship with me, Even to the point where to very slick suited American men strongly insisted on escorting me to new street station despite asking them not to. Manny of the people who were on this course appeared to be at low points in their lives ant at some kind of crisis point and lacking in confidence. The scientologist motives appeared to take advantage of this.
As soon as i arrived home i received a call from them inviting me to a week-long seminar at the national headquarters. At the end of the 3 days i decided not to pursue Scientology any further but they continued to phone me for several months making attempts to change my mind. I told them to stop contacting me or i would seek legal advice...that was the last time i had contact with them. Obviously someone some where is making huge profits in the Scientology racket. I did read the main Scientology theory book but can't for the life of me remember any of it!
Not Tom Cruise
e-mail:
Not Tom Cruise
re: the law
29.01.2008 18:43
fair enough.
"As for the copyright lawsuits used against OT material being leaked, such material is considered confidential and private for members of Scientology who have completed certain stages within the organisation. Would you want something private of yours post on the Internet?"
The CoS has used its copyright status over these materials to bully critics out of publishing their opinions, to shut down groups who want to practice Scientology outside of the church's grip, and to prevent any meaningful public discussion of their beliefs between members and the general public. Their copyright pursuit is one part of a much wider doctrine of control, but one which has potential repercussions elsewhere (e.g. the legality of linking to illegal material).
"It is true that Scientology is against psychiatric drugs. Children with behavioural issues are often put on drugs like Prozac and the behaviour and personal issues are not addressed. I do not feel psychiatric drugs can solve anything apart from calming down people (affecting their character and slowing their minds). Psychiatric drugs, of course have a place were all other options have been tried. I don’t know much about this issue, but this is what I feel from what I have heard."
The issue is not only that Scientology is opposed to psychiatric drugs, but that their approach to those already on them is harmful (primarily due to immediate withdrawal) and their alternative methods are, in themselves, damaging.
Temple of Xenu
blah
30.01.2008 09:22
It knows no ethics. Therefore two things
1. No ethical bullshit. Have you *seen* the stuff on /b/? Racism, nazism, giant naked hitlers raping grannies etc. If it's funny, it's OK. If it's funny because it's offensive, better. No getting hamstrung by shitty guilt ridden arguments about, say, animal rights.. cats are cute, OK.. but what is done, is done for immanent freedom, and otherwise, each to their own.
2. No guilt, therefore no tired left wing ideologies based on guilt and intellectual chauvinism.
Making the cultural association of freedom, desire, anonymity, alienation, the internet and web 2.0 / new media aesthetics is it. This is obviously the future of whatever the fuck this movement is.
Scientology is weird. Yes, it's ultimately a side issue, but it is interestingly symbolic.
Anon seems a bit infatuated with the ironic cool of the 50s sci fi UFO cult stuff - it's interesting. A cult of anonymity takes on a cult that steals identities. All a big joke.
Yet deadly serious. And beautiful....
No one needs the approval of left wing cult franchise holders, but if you wanted to, you could make the argument that this is really a veiled attack on capitalism.
anonymous
Radio talkshow host Eric Von Wad hounded by scientology
30.01.2008 13:29
Lisa Davis
e-mail:
lisadavis2@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.ericvonwade.com