Steven Spielberg has no problem inviting volunteer Scientology ministers onto the set of his “War Of The Worlds” remake, starring Tom Cruise, to tend to the quasi-religious needs of the crew and extras. Of course it’s merely a coincidence that Cruise is one of the most outspoken and recognizable Scientologists. This and other details are available in this Spiegel interview with Cruise and Spielberg. Cruise proves that he drinks the church’s Kool-Aid a little too frequently in this exchange:
Cruise: I’m a helper. For instance, I myself have helped hundreds of people get off drugs. In Scientology, we have the only successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. It’s called Narconon.
SPIEGEL: That’s not correct. Yours is never mentioned among the recognized detox programs. Independent experts warn against it because it is rooted in pseudo science.
Cruise: You don’t understand what I am saying. It’s a statistically proven fact that there is only one successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. Period.
SPIEGEL: With all due respect, we doubt that. Mr. Cruise, you made studio executives, for example from Paramount, tour Scientology’s “Celebrity Center” in Hollywood. Are you trying to extend Scientology’s influence in Hollywood?
Cruise: I just want to help people. I want everyone to do well.This whole “values” meme is now completely out of hand when Hollywood stars get into the act – bringing their own uniquely myopic spin to the party. I wonder if Scientology has some L. Ron Hubbard-inspired cure for herpetic sores that have suddenly appeared on the face of Cruise’s new ‘girlfriend,’ Katie Holmes…
Gee, Greg, resorting to “shooting the messenger?”
I guess it’s easier to discredit the critic than the criticism…
So, how high on the Enemies of Scientology List is Rufus, anyway? How thick is the “Church’s” dossier on him? And has the “Church” copyrighted “scientolophobe,” like they have their most secret texts, to keep the “unworthy” from knowing the truth?
I’ll say this for the scam that is Scientology: you asshats got some GREAT lawyers. Between the rampant abuse of copyright/trademark laws and ruthless exploitation of the “church” status, you’ve managed to silence a LOT of critics.
J.
It is not surprising to see Mr. Churilov citing no information that comes from his heart except for win stories, happy times or gossip about activists, merely passed along Scientology lines to prevent him from looking at opinion. More than defending his religion, he is treading in so-called Scientology enemy territory, and it’s a matter of habit to reinforce his OWN loyalty. He is a good little Scientology vessel, blowing steam as he has been taught.
This is a very insidious thing that Scientology teaches and reinforces members to do – not look. They must constantly read this and cite these empty pages but won’t discuss any feelings at all, except as they pertain to Scientolgy helping them. The empty pages are all they have, a sure sign of Hubbard’s empty verbosity. Like a talking billboard.
I encourage Mr Churilov to take a good look in the mirror and ask himself what he looks and sound like.
He forgets that there was once somebody home.
When people become members, whatever they perceive as making them feel better gets attached on an emotional level to Scientology. They begin speaking from the Scientology first person, which attaches and gives the person and others a positive emotional reinforcement to Scientology.
What happens to negative emotions? Scientology teaches intolerance very well, to let members know how to identify and deal with suppressive people. Learning this puts members in that first person position again, a place where harsh judgement will befall the individual for even thinking of crossing Scientology. But it’s also the way they approach anyone and everyone with other opinions or criticism of Scientology. “Those people are bad” and our religion and programs are superior.
So you can see a duality that alters the members view of who they are, and who they are really talking about. When you see Mr Cruise and Mr Churilov both talking about intolerance, you can see that they are coming from the same mold. There can be uttlerly no doubt in those minds that all of the programs work, and any questions are diverted to a form of first person, emotional anger projected outward, and the cause for Scientology not succeeding is because of other, suppressive people. Intolerance is a loaded word here, that will gather a concensus with other well-intentioned people.
Hitler and Hubbard were both sociopaths. They had little or no emotion, except for the fervor of forwarding their own goals. They had hatred for enemies and had access to many ritualistic teachings they used to influence the masses into compliance. A very serious matter.
You can see why Germany has serious issues with Scientology, as the familiarity of anti-Democratic goals is very seriously and strikingly familiar.
“Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach themselves by “clusters” to individuals in the contemporary world, causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their hosts.
“USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC vs Lerma
Scientology members were once informed to handle the internet, here is how suppressive people have to be handled:
“We want to make these messages “high ground”. In other words, don’t get tempted into a two way comm with some l.1 jerk on the Internet. Ack him and continue to post POSITIVE and HIGH TONED messages that really explain what Scientology IS doing, how it helped you or a friend, community activities of the Church, Church expansion. It is easy to get into an opp term situation with the detractors over this system, but this doesn’t necessarily communicate very well to the broad public who may read this.
There is an excellent issue by LRH which is PR Series 27, THE ENEMY LINE. In here, LRH says that you never forward an enemy line, nor do you get into just attacking. YOU COME UP WITH A BETTER CAMPAIGN OF YOUR OWN”
Ex-member Tory Christman also talks about how she was instructed to open up internet accounts to spam the internet. She also explains how it could possibly be, that Mr. Churilov (WHO IS THE REAL MIKE SMITH?) may in fact be many other people who use the same internet “handle” name.
Scientology members were once informed to handle the internet, here is how suppressive people have to be handled:
“We want to make these messages “high ground”. In other words, don’t get tempted into a two way comm with some l.1 jerk on the Internet. Ack him and continue to post POSITIVE and HIGH TONED messages that really explain what Scientology IS doing, how it helped you or a friend, community activities of the Church, Church expansion. It is easy to get into an opp term situation with the detractors over this system, but this doesn’t necessarily communicate very well to the broad public who may read this.
There is an excellent issue by LRH which is PR Series 27, THE ENEMY LINE. In here, LRH says that you never forward an enemy line, nor do you get into just attacking. YOU COME UP WITH A BETTER CAMPAIGN OF YOUR OWN”
Ex-member Tory Christman also talks about how she was instructed to open up internet accounts to spam the internet. She also explains how it could possibly be, that Mr. Churilov (WHO IS THE REAL MIKE SMITH?) may in fact be many other people who use the same internet “handle” name.
I am sorry for the double posts. I got an error message when posting, and thought it did not go through.
RTF
Greg,
You only half answered my question. I asked whether Scientology was a religion, secular, or both. You replied that Scientology is a religious philosophy while CoS is a religion. I find this distinction to be fairly meaningless. It’s a bit like saying Christianity is a religious philosophy while Catholicism is a religion. Of course, Christianity is a religion but is also composed of a religious philosophy. That scientology isn’t theistically-based is irrelevant. Why do you make the distinction?
The second part of the question that you haven’t yet answered is on what basis do you say it’s a religion? A religion is something more than just being a guiding philosophy or a collection of scientific and psychological (I would honestly put ‘pseduo-‘ before those in the case of Scientology, but will grant you the terms and omit it for the sake of argument) principles. A religion typically has an important metaphysical story to tell, often with supernatural and mystical experiences. Even the “philosophic relgions” you mentioned have this. What is it about scientology (or CoS, if you prefer) that qualifies it as a religion?
-Dangerous Dan
Hi Dan;
My primary point, which seems to have been missed, is that there is a religion, and there are organizations which are secular in nature that use Hubbard’s principles separately from the religion.
I expect a more accurate response would come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled years ago that Scientology is a bonafide religion.
But my own understanding is that a religion is a path by which Man can improve himself spiritually, a way to better understand the Universe and one’s role in it, and a way to come to be in better harmony with one’s surroundings and fellow beings. I have found in my personal experience this is the case for Scientology.
Dan, I hope that you will have the grace to grant me that I am fairly outnumbered in this debate. And we have been graced with the presence of Arnie Lerma, aka Rufus whatever, who has spent about a decade attacking Scientology in the media. This makes it difficult to carry a sensible debate.
Given the choice of continuing this fairly unpleasant conversation or playing with my kid, I ‘m choosing the latter. Make of that what you will.
To Jay: Arnie Lerma was a Church executive at one time. He did unethical things and got thrown out. Then he started telling his sad, sad story all over the Internet. He’s been trying to harm Scientology’s image for about 10 years or so. A sad waste of someone’s life on this Earth! I wouldn’t call him anyone’s enemy – he’s just another loudmouth dedicating his life at barking at a fire engine.
Greg,
Well, continue if you would, I find this interesting.
I did some googling and I am unable to find a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court approved of Scientology as a religion. Which case is this? Regardless, even if they did, a legal definition is not necessarily a correct, philosophical definition.
I think your description of religion is incomplete. What you’ve said can encompass Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, communism, hippie environmentalism, or any number of other guiding philosophies. A religion has a special aspect to it that involves, like I said, a metaphysical story with supernatural elements and mystical experiences. There’s something beyond normal empirical experience. What is it about scientology that makes it a religion and not just a guiding philosophy?
One last point: ad hominem attacks on Lerma or anybody else carry no weight. Even people with axes to grind may be telling the truth, it’s just that they’re especially motivated to tell it. If you think he’s lying, then it’s incumbant upon you to attack his arguments, not his person.
-Dangerous Dan
So, Greg, let me see if I can recap this properly:
1) “Rufus” says some bad things about Scientology.
2) You attack Rufus.
3) I ask you why you don’t address his points, instead preferring to throw mud at him personally.
4) You throw more mud at Rufus.
Seems to me you’re trying to make the argument about Rufus, and in the process evade whether or not there is any substance to his comments. To me, and a lot of others, that’s usually a hefty indicator that there is, indeed, something to the allegations, if all your energy is being focused on discrediting the messenger.
I’d challenge you to present evidence that “Rufus” is indeed Mr. Lerma and to substantiate your allegations, but I won’t for two simple reasons:
1) It plays into your game of making the argument about him, not his statements, and 2) the “Church” has a history of assembling extensive dossiers on its members, and it’s my understanding that once people leave the “Church” those are plumbed for embarassing information and distributed to those who defend the “Church.
Now, if you’d like to start slinging around the dirt on me, I’ll give you a head start: I have at least one unpaid parking ticket from Massachusetts and I cheated on a Latin test in high school. Oh, and I have visited strip clubs.
Oh, the eternal shame…
J.
Hi Dan;
Well, following your definition, then, Scientology is simply a guiding philosophy. (So would be Buddhism, though, I think.)
I have to admit you’re right on the Ad Hominem on Lerma. What can I say. My emotions got the best of me. But if we’re going to pick on fallacies, then I believe it’s only fair to point out that many – Rufus/Lerma especially – have engaged in a number of them on this board, such as burden of proof, appeal to belief, appeal to ridicule and appeal to authority and widespread use of hasty generalization, to name a few.
-S-, it’s a real shame that you choose to accept the information Rufus/Lerma is providing you as Gospel Truth. Just like anything I say/link on this board is questionable due to motive, anything he posts is obviously questionable for the same reasons.
If Scientology was one-tenth as sinister and evil as these people portray it, then it would have been closed down decades ago. The IRS engaged in a 3-yr investigation of Scientology, the longest investigation in its history, and found NO WRONGDOING whatsoever. Seven years of government surveillance in Germany yielded NO WRONGDOING. 12 years of scrutiny in Spain were eventually dismissed by the Court as a frivolous lawsuit due to NO PROOF OF WRONGDOING. (Neither the defendants individually, nor collectively, nor through the Church of Scientology, nor through Narconon [drug rehabilitation program] … have committed any type of illicit act, and therefore they are acquitted of all charges brought by the public prosecutor.” )
Here is some unbiased, objective information on Scientology:
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/se_scientology.htm
Scientology and Anti-Scientology, by an ex-member
Is Scientology a religion? – University of Calgary
Here is a report on some of the discrimination we’ve been subjected to:
Discrimination in Germany – Americans targeted
I couldn’t find the proof of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Scientology, but if we’re going to play the fallacies game, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it. I know for a fact that in 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court found Scientology “a bonafide religion, to be treated as any other religion, Jewish, Catholic or other”.
Scientology is also accepted as a bonafide religion by the Supreme Court of Australia, Italy, South Africa, Sweden and many other countries.
—
… and, Jay, I could give a rat’s ass that you’ve been to strip clubs (TMI, dude!) A bit off-topic, don’t you think?
Greg,
Buddhism is indeed a guiding philosophy, but it is also a religion with a metaphysical story and mystical experiences.
If you agree with me that Scientology is a guiding philosopy and not a religion, then why call it a religion, why demand it have a standing equal to that of religions, and why think it should be recognized as a religion?
Now I doubt you’ll surrender the point to me so easily that Scientology is not a religion. Perhaps you don’t like my religion qualifications. If that’s the case, though, you need to tell me what conditions something must meet to be a religion and how these qualifications differentiate religions from mere guiding philosophies. Next, you’ll need to tell me how Scientology qualifies as a religion under these qualifications. Given my definition, though, which I think is correct, Scientology would not be a religion. That is unless you think there’s something about it that would qualify as a religion under the definition. Otherwise, I reiterate the beginning questions about why call it a religion, etc., if it’s not?
The others may have engaged in unfair argumentation, e.g. ad hominem, but that’s their matter, not mine. If you think somebody engages in such things, my advice would be to either ignore it or demand they debate on the merits, which, of course, means that you must do the same.
Regarding the Supreme Court case, the burden of proof is in no way mine and it is entirely yours. I’m not trying to be confrontational, but it doesn’t make much sense to say that the burden is on me to disprove something you’re asserting but for which you have provided no proof or evidence. It would be like me asserting there’s an elephant in the room and demanding you disprove it. If you say that the Supreme Court has indeed ruled that Scientology is a religion, it’s up to you to provide more evidence of it than your good word. I would imagine that with the amount of info you’ve already provided that you should be able to identify the case.
-Dangerous Dan
Well, I’m a Scientologist- albeit an ex member of CofS and I do think that some of the employers who are church members do not understand boundaries at all, as Nathan said. I don’t see that Scn could be construed as Christian- but point is, it isn’t secular, either.
Most church members are evangelistic. They like to make converts. That particular bug never bit me, but it’s bitten at least two thirds of the church members I’ve known. And if it doesn’t, then the person has CofS staff asking them why they aren’t doing it or it comes up in a televised Flag event. I saw one with Miscavige’s father where he was telling people to go out and disseminate. (proselytize).
Back to the employment thing- I see nothing wrong in using certain ideas and methods in that company, but when you’ve got links to Narconon, Criminon, other Able groups- that’s different. Those are CofS groups. CofS is not secular. I think that’s problematic.
Of course Scientology isn’t scientific. But Hubbard excelled at trying to have things both ways. It’s a religion, it’s scientific, it’s pan denominational but we don’t allow other practices…
Eventually I just said faggedabouddit and just started treating it as ideas, etc, rather than going around telling people it’s scientific. That cannot be proven and it should not be claimed.
Quote :
“Der Spiegel has been a vehicle of government propaganda in Germany for all of its history. It was notoriously anti-Jew in the 30s, majorly pro-Nazi as well.”
Unquote
Actually Der Spiegel was fonded in 1946. Check you facts.
see http://library.nyu.edu/research/westeurope/ unionlist/titleindex/spiegel.htm