Mailbag: Scientology and Freethought
Subject: Why I'm A Scientologist ...
I know of no Scientologist who would find [the principles of freethought to be] at variance with their view of themselves and their religion of choice.
It is absolutely true that neither religion nor theism are inherently incompatible with freethought. The principle of freethought is about the methods one uses to arrive at particular beliefs, not the conclusions one ultimately has. Thus, it is entirely possible for someone to be a theist, be religious, and also justifiably describe themselves as a freethinker.
At the same time, though, not everyone — theist or atheist — who does describe themselves as a freethinker is being accurate. Because of the nature of religion, it might also be fair to be more suspicious of a religious person describing themselves as a freethinker than an irreligious person. Most religions, after all, don’t exactly promote skepticism and value doubt.
Thus, even if it is true that most Scientologists would find the principles of freethought compatible with their religion, this doesn’t mean that they are compatible. Joseph, unfortunately, didn’t bother to try and explain how Scientology is a religion that one might arrive at while using the principles of freethought and skepticism.
In the interest of our shared ideals, I ask that you remove that which denigrates the beliefs, the founder and organization of my church.
Whether Joseph and I share any ideas is open to question — and even if we did, that alone isn’t a good reason to remove material critical of L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology. I have written material critical of other atheists as well... should I remove that simply because we have atheism in common? This very request is, I think, good grounds to doubt that Joseph and I do share any freethought ideals or that Joseph knows much about freethought in the first place.
I did, however, offer to review any material of mine which is inaccurate if he could find any. Funny, but I never heard back from him. Why do you suppose that is?
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
I know of no Scientologist who would find [the principles of freethought to be] at variance with their view of themselves and their religion of choice.
In the interest of our shared ideals, I ask that you remove that which denigrates the beliefs, the founder and organization of my church.
Wow.
Someone interested in free thought might have taken notice of the glaring contradiction between these two statements. But someone acting on blind faith and unquestioning devotion would have no problem with a self-contradictory arguments, so long as the self-contradictory argument supports their object of devotion.
Methinks this guy might be one of the latter.
dude you better watch your back, the scientologists are after you.
that would be funny if it weren’t true.
(Note, I’m not the Joseph from this mail)
$cientology has a long history of attacking critics. They’ve sued, stalked, harassed, and threatened those who would dare question their “religion”. They are not unlike fundamentalists Muslims who demand the heads of those who blaspheme against their faith. Only instead of blatant violence, they use the legal system, especially copyright law, to silence critics. Though, there have been several cases where $cientologists have been violent. A murder attempt on Paulette Cooper, for example. Google “Operation: Freakout” for more information on that.
The tide is turning though. The internet group Anonymous has declared war on the cult. world-wide protests in the thousands are happening every month, with smaller protests happening at random dates and places. The “church’s” long history of attacking critics is faltering. Before, critics of the Co$ were few, and they disclosed their identities. That made them easy targets for the OSA, the Co$’s special branch of making people shut up. Now, their enemies are numerous, and they protect themselves with anonymity. Sure, a few get found out. OSA goons are at every protest, taking pictures in hopes of catching someone who took off their mask to scratch their nose, following people to their cars to get their plate numbers, an in some cases assaulting protestors to forcibly remove their masks. However, for every one “outed” there are a thousand who remain beyond the Co$’s reach.
The media is waking up. For decades, they were too afraid of litigation. If anyone says something about $cientology they don’t like, they sue. Sure for slander/libel, sue for copyright infringement, sue for the sake of suing. Just so long as they force their critics to have to keep up their legal fees until they’re forced to give up. But every day more and more stores are making it out. Just the other night, Nightline ran a story on Gene Miscavage Hill (niece of Co$ leader David Miscavage) and how she escaped the cult and, along with two other young women, started a website telling their stories about the dangers of $cientology.
boring
all the time the same tiring spurious arguments used by all churches
what´s really bad is the aggressiveness as described by joseph(II;) - i think that will last as long as the concerned “church” will not be part of the power.system similar to the traditional religious enterprises
Nobody goes after the modern rackets for fear of offending the ancient rackets. Scientology, Zionism, Mormonism, etc. are modern rackets from the 1800’s. The are con jobs that have caused untold misery. You might as well add Bolshevism, Nazism, and Crookism (Capitalism) as well.
Did any of you see the Panorama episode about scientology? BBC journalist John Sweeney was carrying out an investigation into whether scientology deserved its reputation as a sinister cult. Through the course of the programme, he interviewed several critics of scientology, including ex-members of the Church, and was spied on, followed around on the road when driving, and had several confrontations with star scientologist Tom Davis. During the last of these confrontations, when Mr Sweeney was invited to the Church’s exhibit about psychiatry, titled ‘Psychiatry: an industry of death’, Sweeney went completely off the deep end and began screaming at utmost volume at the scientology spokesman. This somewhat ignominiuous moment on the part of the journalist was recorded all over the web, and Sweeney was portrayed by scientologists and outsiders as an utter psychopath.
The programme showed that being a member of the Church of Scientology and being a freethinker seemed totally incompatible. Since when were the principles of freethought compatible with treating critics of your beliefs and practices the way the Church of Scientology does? As for Joseph, the scientologist who emailed Mr Cline, I think he does an utterly laughable job of trying to reconcile scientology and freethought. He is obviously ignorant of the behaviour of the Church of Scientology towards its critics, and, for that matter, probably ignorant of what the concept of freethought actually means. I believe that where Joseph completely ruins it all is where he requests that Mr Cline ‘remove(s) that which denigrates the beliefs, the founder and organization of (his) church’. An integral part of freethought is being able to handle criticism of your beliefs. You must then evaluate this criticism using reason, logic and empirical means.