Is Scientology a cult?

Is it dangerous and/or a fraud? Should it be shut down for being dangerous? I am watching a special on CNN (I know, consider the messenger).

Does anyone here have any experience with Scientology? Not judging, just curious.

psychiatric drugs.

He has a point.

Scientology is very anti-psychiatric medication, but not for the reasons a sane person would think (negative effects outweighing positive, risk of dependency, overmedication, etc.) but because Scientology believes all mental illness is the result of negative energy stored up in human beings by malevolent space alien spirits that inhabit every one of us. The only way to rid ourselves of these unwanted stowaways, of course, is to become a Scientologist and tithe away much of our income to the "church."

Most big cons sit on a foundation of plausibility. Scientology is no different.

what the above poster wrote plus... they are against ALL use of psychiatric drugs. Thats leaps and bounds from thinking some things are over-prescribed (true).

Mormonism, and EST...

:yoiks:

You keep telling us you are leaving, but you always come back.

You stomp off in righteous indignation to pout by yourself. But then it seems that you just aren't happy anywhere but here.

Welcome back. Sit and stay a while. Some of us find you amusing.

I don't consider either to be "a cult" though.

I mean I'm as atheistic as anyone but there is certainly a qualitative difference between most of the "major" religions and such oddities as Scientology. Yes Christianity and Hinduism etc have their absurdities and required suspensions of critical thinking too, but what they don't have is a founder who, in living memory, said "I'm going to make a fortune by coming up with a fake religion" and then did so. What they don't have is an itemized price list for salvation - heck even the Papists stopped it with the indulgences, albeit embarrassingly recently. To me there are a few clear distinctions, at least in western societies. It's a subjective list true but it works for me. I don't try to make the distinction on doctrinal grounds because often the only difference in the level of nonsense between established religion and weird cult is how long the apologetists have had to make it sound reasonable and hone their debating skills.

1. Cults have some form of physical or discretely mental program of duress in order to retain potential apostates. Religions may have peer pressure, and hard sell tactics, and guilt, but no heavies or explicit brainwashing.
2. Cults tend to have leaders who are autocratic, self-enriching and megalomaniacal. While the Catholics among major religions could be accused of the same, note that most of their clergy are far from wealthy or self-aggrandizing, and even the papacy claims only titular autocracy, not personal. Ratzinger is an autocrat because he is Pope, not because he is Ratzinger. The Moonies etc have this authority vested in a man because of who he is, not what his job is.
3. Cults operate in either secrecy or in self-imposed separation in some way or another. Yes some Christian sects have this trait too - but then some Christian sects are cults. When you start hearing about the secret bits of a religion that are open only to special folks, start thinking cult. I'm not necessarily thinking of inner sancta here, although that starts getting a bit too close IMO, but actual dogma and "theology" that are only revealed to a select few are definite gimmes.

1. Cults have some form of physical or discretely mental program of duress in order to retain potential apostates. Religions may have peer pressure, and hard sell tactics, and guilt, but no heavies or explicit brainwashing.
Does damnation to eternal hellfire count?

2. Cults tend to have leaders who are autocratic, self-enriching and megalomaniacal. While the Catholics among major religions could be accused of the same, note that most of their clergy are far from wealthy or self-aggrandizing, and even the papacy claims only titular autocracy, not personal. Ratzinger is an autocrat because he is Pope, not because he is Ratzinger. The Moonies etc have this authority vested in a man because of who he is, not what his job is.
Hmmm. Robertson, Falwell, Haggard, Dobson, etc., are not "autocratic, self-enriching and megalomaniacal?"

3. Cults operate in either secrecy or in self-imposed separation in some way or another. Yes some Christian sects have this trait too - but then some Christian sects are cults. When you start hearing about the secret bits of a religion that are open only to special folks, start thinking cult. I'm not necessarily thinking of inner sancta here, although that starts getting a bit too close IMO, but actual dogma and "theology" that are only revealed to a select few are definite gimmes.
This is hard to know, because they are secret! But opus dei comes to mind.

I think I disagree.

--IMM

Does eternal damnation count? No not as brainwashing. As mental cruelty yes, as credulous nonsense yes, but as brainwashing no. I'm talking about intentional systematic tactics here like the Moonies use.


Roberston et al even in their wildest moments do not set themselves up as the central figure of the faith. None of them have asked to be worshipped as renicarnations of the Messiah or otherwise superhuman. They have bilked their followers aplenty and are doubtless venal buggers to a man, but they do not claim to be the second coming or even major prophets.

Opus dei is not all that secret surely? They are merely an ultra-orthodox Catholic group. There is less secercy about Opus Dei than there is about the Masons.

Disagreement is fine of course - and is perhaps either because I don't explain what I mean particularly well here, or because you see cultlike behavior where I merely see gullible followers and selfish leaders.

I think one distinction is in how easy it is for a normally strong willed person to leave any given faith. Fundy families whether Catholic or evangelical Protestant or Jewish may spurn their apostate kin, but the churches by and large don't send out people in unmarked vans to bring them back and "reeducate" them as the Moonies or western Hare Krishna types do. Mormons used to have a strong arm division to fear and the more meideval Muslim societies do to this day (more a sociological issue than a theological one though IMO) but I don't know of any even nominally Christian sect that does this.

Again - I don't have much respect or liking for fundy Christians, and it could very well merely be an accident of historical maturity and social influence that makes the difference, but I still can't see them as cults.

Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism etc

over prescription of drugs, I don't really know much about their position.

I know that anti-depressants probably saved my life about 10 years ago. I was on them for 3 1/2 years. Without them, I don't want to think what my life would've been like.

Anyone in a *cult* would never define it as such. When it sets up hierarchies, exclusion, works in secret and their beliefs run counter to accepted realties--they could be called a cult.

I think they're a cult. Like the christians and muslims.

aren't they all though?

Scientology is a cult and a menace to society.

But only from one person. :shrug:

OTOH, I can't say I feel threatened by people who believe there are alien ghosts in volcanoes. :rofl:

...whether religious or political.

Mormonism has a strong emphasis on "tithing" — giving 10% of pre-tax income. I suppose that some Mormon groups might pressure their members over this, but I've never heard about that (I'm no expert on Mormonism). Mormonism is also somewhat insular; non-Mormons are not permitted inside Mormon temples. Insular groups often react badly to members who leave; there's an element of betrayal, regardless of how amicably the member departs.

In general something can be considered a cult if it meets a couple of criteria. The first is that members are compelled to focus on the group and its leaders to the exclusion of other things. Second is the abandonment of any identity other than the cult membership. Mormonism meets these criteria enough to be called a cult in a technical sense, but I don't personally use that term as it carries with it negative connotations that go beyond its dry, academic use.

I mean, we can complain about Harry Reid's recent political decisions, but they have nothing to do with him being a member of the Mormon church — whether or not you consider it a "cult."

They just have better PR.

If you believe that, you have been in a cave all of your life. As for scientology, sure it's a cult. They believe a spaceship is coming to take them to some greater planet. By the way if you ever read any of L Ron Hubbard's books, you would understand that it is not only a cult, but one based on really bad books.

I sometimes get out of my cave and go to church, where I am neither compelled to pay anything nor forced to remain a member.

My wife is clergy. I wish she'd find a way to force believers to give her money, but she insists that it would be unethical.

The Church I was raised in said if you didn't tithe, you were not a Christian...

Some churches make a bigger deal over giving to them than others. There is nothing in Christian theology that justifies demanding money. Charging money for "pastoral services" is, however, a central feature of Scientology. The two are no comparable.

There's a difference between practice and policy. As a policy, Christianity is not after your money. In practice, some churches are. As a policy, Scientology is after your money.

If your church said you had to pay them to be Christian, I would have asked to see the verse that said that. You might want to check out the story of Simon (in Acts) who tries to buy "the gift of God." Peter tells him "may you die with your money." I don't think it could be clearer that anyone who tells you that you can buy the stairway to heaven hasn't read the fucking New Testament.

at the end of the service. All organized religions are money-making organizations - all of them...

I don't understand why people have difficulty understanding the difference between a church asking for donations and Scientology billing its members.

If you want to go through the course of Scientology auditing ("pastoral" counseling), there is a price attached — period. If you need "pastoral" care from a pastor, priest, rabbi, guru, imam, dervish, or witch, he or she will generally not have a "rate card" for this service.

Consider a church-run suicide hotline. The Christian and Jewish hotlines have 800 numbers. The Scientologist hotline has a 900 number.

I don't know if I can make this any clearer. :eyes:

is different, though. In my church, many people don't give money. They are not thrown out or denied church attendance. They are also not denied admittance to any after church activities, including pot luck luncheons. And they are definitely not excluded from services that our church provides, including the soup kitchen that they operate twice a week and the clothing drive that they hold twice a year. They are allowed to attend confession or counselling sessions with the priest, despite not adding change to the collection.

We are encouraged to give money not compelled to do so. It is different.

There are no plates, there is a bill. It is pretty explicit. And I don't see anything wrong with it. How can our community survive and provide the services that we expect to receive if we can't pay our staff and we don't have funds to maintain our building?

I don't know anything about Scientology, much less what happens to the money that their churches receive from their followers, so I am not going to judge.

But in the case of my Jewish congregation, for example, without congregant families paying their fair share there is no synagogue to attend, since there is no money to pay the mortgage, no money to maintain the building, to provide security, to hire a staff (rabbi, cantor, office workers, educators, etc.), to pay for special events, etc. I pay my share and choose to affiliate because I value the services my congregation provides. I don't pay for it because I fear punishment.

People who can't pay are not turned down and can get full membership benefits but the families that can pay are expected to contribute toward the survival of the community otherwise they are allowed to attend services and all but they don't get all the services provided. It's kind of like DU. In order to be able to pay for the ISP and the amount of bandwidth required to run the site, they must get money from somewhere therefore they rely on donations. So people make at least the minimum donation in order to have "all access" but the people who don't make donation can still participate in the forums. And there are always the people who donate on behalf of those who cannot pay so they can enjoy "all access".

Places of worship are all different. I got something in the mail today from the Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens asking me for a donation for their annual appeal. And then I put in money weekly into our collection. But we're never compelled to do so, and we're never denied any services. I like our system, though my poor church depends on the largesse of wealthier donors in our diocese.

For example, there is the fact that the church is considered the "House of God" where people must attend but a synagogue is more of a community center that is not really all that necessary since anybody can have a minyan in their own house.

But it is always nice to have a house of assembly for the community, a house of prayer, and house of study with a trained staff so the communities usually build their synagogues from the ground up and for that they need the money to get the proper place and if they decide they need a rabbi, and a cantor, they have to have the funds in order to be able to hire them.

So the families that join in on the deal are expected to pay their share, and if they cannot pay, the wealthy members usually come to the rescue. But even with a due system, these communities struggle to survive so they are also dependent on donations from wealthy members (if you do have them around) in order to operate and subsidize the dues for the rest of the congregants.

A great many Christian churches, small and mega, would meet most definitions of "cult." Just because its doctrines are not mainstream does not make them a cult.

And yes, Scientology is most definitely a cult, no different from the LDS, the Moonies and many Christian churches.

1. Depends on how you define "charge you money for its services" and
2. Some do. Others just condemn you to an eternity in hell and shun you.

catholicism can charge less because of its endowment - it used to charge a lot, and now it lives off the interest.

Evangelists ask for the tithe and then extra donations on top of that.

and many are harmful

Not personal (thank Jeebus), but I have a good friend who was involved in the early 70's and have met some other ex-Scientologists.

In general, the initial level of Scientology (up to where you are initially "clear") has a practical and sometimes desirable outcome: it trains you not to react emotionally to things. I think we all know at least one person who could use such training, although preferably not from a dangerous cult.

After that, the real gibberish starts. Of course, the path to becoming "clear" involves "auditing" which involves series of personal questions. If you're a Hollywood star who would be ruined by your confessions of homosexuality, then Scientology has got you for life (*cough* Tom Cruise *cough* John Travolta *cough*).

My good friend joined when it was hip and trendy in the 70's. After becoming "clear" he announced that he thought the rest of Scientology was utter bullshit. This was difficult for the Church officials to deal with, because as a "clear" he should have been free of the mentally-debilitating "engrams" that cause people to do crazy and self-destructive things like denouncing Scientology. Finally, they determined that he had been so damaged that he had no conscious mind to save and they stopped pestering him. He was lucky, though, a lot of people have suffered — some even being killed — for their attempts to break away from Scientology.

The Church of Scientology — unlike any mainstream religion — explicitly charges for their "pastoral" services. Some churches make a big deal of asking their members for money (particularly "mega-churches"), but only a small fringe will actually demand money; in Scientology, there is no such thing as a free ride.

Scientology also hides behind front groups. Catholic Charities doesn't have to pretend it isn't Catholic. In fact, after the Cult Awareness Network focused a lot of attention on Scientology, the CoS sued it into bankruptcy and then bought it out. The Cult Awareness Network — once an valuable resource for information on cults — is now owned and operated by the Church of Scientology. The Cult Awareness Network had actually put the Boston Church of Christ on its watch list, but that church never sued the CAN and certainly wouldn't have taken it over as a "cover group."

On the CofC: I had some dealings with the Boston Church of Christ in the 80's and it was creepy — certainly worthy of its "cult" label; I don't know what it's like now. Church of Christ is a highly localized denomination so your local CofC may be very mainstream and benign. Also it should not be confused with the United Church of Christ (UCC), which is Obama's church; that is a liberal branch of mainstream Christianity.

Then again, my brother is involved with a radical Christian group in So California, so much so that I am now considered a heathen for not being "born again" and we have been estranged for 8 years.

My brother never knew of my affiliation, so that has nothing to do with our estrangement, it does however have everything to do with his affiliation with his "Christian" Church.

Scientology is not only a cult, it's a dangerous cult and a flat out menace to society. Don't believe me? Check out the website Xenu.net. Peruse that site for a few days and you will discover all you need to know about the so called Church of Scientology. To say it's no different than any other church only shows ignorance.

I took their introductory "Communications" course many years ago. Contrary to what some have said here, it has no positive benefits. Beginning Scientology courses use techniques, specifically designed to put a person in a more suggestible psychological state? Why? To lure you into their cult. That is their sole purpose.

My religion has no central authority, does not demand money and does not seek to control the lives or behavior of others (unless it is causing harm).

The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame was designed by Isaac Bonewits, a prominent leader of the Neo-Pagan and Druid movements in the United States and the only person to receive an accredited degree in Magic (UC Berkeley, 1970. Because of him, Berkeley discontinued the program that allowed students to create their own degree.)

Basically, the Framework has an evaluator grade 18 points by how much control an organization has on individual members, with 1 being very low control and 10 being very high control. Using this, the Church of Scientology would get a very high score, indicating that it does meet the primary qualifications of being a cult.

http://www.cafepress.com/ibonewits.17054253


For the pagan in the forum: There is some great Pagan and Liberal stuff there

Funny how a lot of Christian churches show up as cults if you use the ABCDEF on them. They just have better PR, I guess.

Yes it is a cult. It may appear borderline because they have done a very good job dressing it up, but it is definitely a cult.

The below link is hardly unbiased but it has some interesting things to look at and links to or copies some original Scientology documents.
http://www.xenu.net/

To me, that is what it seems to boil down to. All religions started as cults, and eventually became "respectable" more or less. Judging by how Mormonism is perceived, I will say that the age of maturity for a cult to become a religion is roughly 150 years. That's earth years, for all the Scientologists out there.

Sorry if this is offensive, but that's just how I see it, and just my opinion. The fact that Hubbard said he was going to start a fake religion should have given this one away anyway.

Ron Hubbard when he was a science fiction writer who had to sponge of friends and acquaintences that kept him from living on the street. At some point he became convinced, and told many people, that he was sure that he could make more money in religion. The rest is history.


It fits the classical definition of a cult as does Mormonism. In my mind a cult is something that uses the superficial aspects of religion for the selfish interests of the founder and those that comprise the inner circle. They share certain key points;

1) Central control and authoritarian teachings

2) Financial Reward

3) Frequently includes but not always sexual exploitation.

4) Secrecy

5) Paranoia that can compel them to conduct criminal enterprises to 'defend' their interests.


Most people are well informed of the first 3 items for both Scientology and Mormons but not the others including #5.

Most people are unaware, for example of Joseph Smith conducting a raid on the printing press of the "Navoo Expositor" or the Meadow Mountain Massacre that resulted in the murder of over 100 woman and children. Key operatives of the "Church of Scientology" were convicted and have served time for conspiring to enter federal service and gain information on what information the government had.

What were his crimes? Project much? :eyes:

say the same thing as the girl in the second video, over and over again. I thought that that was a little creepy.

Why that wording? Why choose to repeat it over and over? Did they really think someone would recite his list of "crimes" to them right there with no relationship, no reason, no nothing? That's just bizarre.

One of the $cieno techniques as taught by L. Con Hubbard to deal with critics is to attack the messenger. Because SPs ("Suppressive Persons" aka people with brains who dare to question the cult) are all criminal scumbags. They are brainwashed to dodge any criticism by saying "what are your crimes".

Anyone who says Co$ is not a cult or tries to play the "they are harmless kooks, they're not any nuttier than any other religion" card is either a) woefully ignorant of the cult and its practices or b) a plant.

It is a business started over a one dollar bet.A dangerous one,in my opinion,due to the way they attack people who leave or try to expose their shenanigans.

By the way,my path,Falun Da fa,is considered a cult by the Chinese government.They did not like the idea of 100 million enlightened practitioners upsetting the apple cart so they labeled it as a dangerous cult and have brutally suppressed the movement in China.
The leader,Li Honghzi,shares the distinction with the Dalai Lama of having a death warrant on his head.

you just admitted it was dangerous and yes of course we know it is out to make money. But that doesn't disqualify it from being a cult. On what grounds would you say it is not a cult. What would need to change for it to be a cult.

Sid