You know, Mr. Cline, you really walk a very shaky line representing Scientology with only detractor's viewpoints. Having used the philosophy in my own life for a number of years, I find your assertions about this group and it's purposes to be not only offensive, but out and out lies in many cases.

When it comes to Scientology, critics walk a “shaky line” only because the Church of Scientology has such a long track record of suing critics with the apparent intention of silencing them. I’ve even received phone calls from Scientology leaders who didn’t approve of what I am doing — and just about all I have here are links to sites critical of Scientology.

It’s curious, but Sue here never bothered to explain to me what the “out and out lies” were that I link to. I can’t deny that some critics of Scientology can seem rather shrill and desperate at times and I have to wonder about how accurate some claims are. Of course, when I see the Church of Scientology in action, many of those doubts are quickly dispelled. Still, I can’t dismiss the possibility that Sue’s claim here might have had some merit — but, if that were the case, why did she not support it? Like I said, seeing Scientology supporters in action tends to do the group more damage than the criticisms.

A group that works tirelessly to free people from the horrendous effects of drugs is a bad group? A group that had hundreds of volunteers at Ground Zero, for weeks on end, to tend to the wounded and distressed is a bad group? A group working to reverse the hideous statistics of illiteracy in this country is a bad group?

Well, Sue, I have to say that yes, such a group may be a bad group depending upon how they go about their actions. For example, the Church of Scientology was involved in telling volunteers at Ground Zero in New York City that special sauna treatments could eliminate toxins from their bodies, toxins acquired through working in all that rubble. Unfortunately for them, there is no scientific evidence to support such claims.

Similar errors can be identified in Naconon, the Scientology program for drug addiction. It is claimed that the drugs are stored in the body’s fats for a long time, years even. That, too, is just ridiculous. Trying to free people of drug addiction or illiteracy is fine, but not when pseudoscientific nonsense is used in the process. Such methods can, in the long run, cause more harm than good.

Why don't you provide a link to the Scientology site so people can get both sides of the picture? People should think for themselves on this and not be dictated to by you or anyone else as to the efficacy of Hubbard's technologies.

Actually, I do provide a few links to pro-Scientology sites, including the Church of Scientology’s official site. It is not my job, however, to provide an equal number of links to both critics and supporters. This isn’t a Scientology operation and Scientologists who think that there is something wrong with all my links to critics are just being absurd. If they don’t like others seeing all of the critical information out there, then they should stop providing so much easy fodder for critics in the first place.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...