Print

[ethercat]

From pages 14 and 15 of the Coroner's Inquest into the death of Edward McBride (discussed here: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,1477.0.html )

Dr Richard Hutch, an associate professor in religious studies at the University of Queensland, was approached early in the investigation by police to advise on the Church of Scientology. He later provided a statement clarifying a number of matters which were reported as having been said by him to police investigators. He describes that not unlike other modern religions, Scientology is a system of self actualisation and personal growth. He stated that the Church facilitates an inner journey through the study of a structured set of beliefs, to explore and find meaning and purpose in life. He stated that it was for that reason that he had described it as psychotherapeutic in nature. As in any other Church he would expect there to exist a nurturing relationship and process to exist between persons more learned in their beliefs and teachings and the student. All religions have spiritual mentors who are sought out by participants for guidance. A strict bond of confidentiality and trusted must exist for self guidance to be effective in a person's journey of self actualisation.

I understand that these professors of religious studies must be objective in their statements about various religions, but do they not have access to the other indisputable information that the rest of us do??? 

Surely they're not all compensated apologists, but it seems to be very difficult to find one of these professors who is willing to even mention the controversial aspects of scientology.  This is a disservice to those who go to them for opinions and quotes.  How can we change that?

Or is it we who are not objective enough?

[Alp]

From pages 14 and 15 of the Coroner's Inquest into the death of Edward McBride (discussed here: http://forum.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/index.php/topic,1477.0.html )

Dr Richard Hutch, an associate professor in religious studies at the University of Queensland, was approached early in the investigation by police to advise on the Church of Scientology. He later provided a statement clarifying a number of matters which were reported as having been said by him to police investigators. He describes that not unlike other modern religions, Scientology is a system of self actualisation and personal growth. He stated that the Church facilitates an inner journey through the study of a structured set of beliefs, to explore and find meaning and purpose in life. He stated that it was for that reason that he had described it as psychotherapeutic in nature. As in any other Church he would expect there to exist a nurturing relationship and process to exist between persons more learned in their beliefs and teachings and the student. All religions have spiritual mentors who are sought out by participants for guidance. A strict bond of confidentiality and trusted must exist for self guidance to be effective in a person's journey of self actualisation.

I understand that these professors of religious studies must be objective in their statements about various religions, but do they not have access to the other indisputable information that the rest of us do??? 

Surely they're not all compensated apologists, but it seems to be very difficult to find one of these professors who is willing to even mention the controversial aspects of scientology.  This is a disservice to those who go to them for opinions and quotes.  How can we change that?

Or is it we who are not objective enough?

Maybe they have too much to lose from being "smeared" by COS so they try to stay as neutral as possible? Or maybe someone just needs to send a message to Dr. Hutch and get in touch with the guy?

[Lorelei]

One thing I note here is that Hutch is paraphrased, not quoted.

[Raven]

I noticed that too. I'd like to read the whole statement.  I also agree with alp about fair game possibly coming into play.

[ethercat]

Dr. Hutch's actual statement is available as Exhibit F9.  I will leave it as an exercise for interested readers to obtain a copy to read and examine.

[Elizabeth]

I may be able to answer this question.

After leaving Scientology, I took some religious studies classes at College. The first thing they teach about on this subject is- what is the "academic" study of religion? It's a unique and specific approach to studying religion and it means that you do not get into the controversial aspects, because all religions have their controversies for one thing, and you can get so embroiled in that, endlessly debating the controversial aspects that you lose sight of what the essence of that religion is. This means that they steer clear of what is right/wrong, good/bad about each religion. Instead you stick to it's substance as a religion. Does it fit the definition of religion (albeit a broad definition), what does it have in common with other religions? what are the differences and similarities between it and other religions? You pretty much stick to it's basic doctrines. All true academics will stay within these parameters and stay out of the controversy- they leave that to the news, entertainment, tabloids and general public, all who seem to have that covered pretty well.

So, they do an overall study to see if it passes the "religion test". They study its basic tenets and determine if it is/isn't a religion. Secular Humanism, Atheism, Satanism, Wicca, Church of Virus, all go through the same test. There are something like 300 new religions springing up each year. Each one clamoring to be considered legitimate, get tax exempt status, etc. They classify it as a new religion, if they find it to be- and they move on.

In one class I took, scientology was not even worth mentioning in the textbook- and it was a very comprehensive course. That solidified my view of just how small and insignificant scientology really is. If you look at a pie chart of the religions of the people of the world, you can really get a feel for the insignificance of scientology. When it seems like no one cares- it is because they don't! See this chart:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Somewhere in that 3% "other" category you have thousands of small religions, of which scientology is only one. Not even a drop in the bucket. Its celebrities and its controversy make it seem bigger than it is. For all the Exes it seems huge because it had such a big impact on their life. But to an Academic, why would they waste their time going further into it than a basic look-see and a stamp of "it fits the definition"?

My professor in one class had us cover scientology, along with other small and controversial religions. He gave us pro and con links to websites to study, the pro site was the church's own and the con site was Xenu.net. I thought that was cool. But you know what? Most of the 30 people in my class were turned off by the critics. They felt that they were over the top and mean spirited. That was an eye opener for me because I was one of those critics. But it's true. It seems like its impossible not to pendulum swing into extreme criticism once you get out. But there comes a point where you really do need to get some perspective on the subject. I'm still working on that.





 

[wynot]

We do get a little mean sometimes, and that is a shame. But Scientology is such an awful pile of shit, and it seems so important to do something about it, even if that something is just bitching at the top of your lungs (or fingertips here on the interweb-tubes). I hope we can be forgiven if we occasionally go a little overboard  .

Besides, everybody knows there is only one true religion - the Buddha said it, I find it plausible, and that settles it!

'til next time;
wynot

[Hartley]

I may be able to answer this question.

After leaving Scientology, I took some religious studies classes at College.

And they don't seem to have taught logic. This is going to sound rude I'm afraid.

Religions: Christianity, Judaism, Scientology

Religions: Lutheran Church, United Reform Synagogues, Church of Scientology.

There is a class difference here. Unfortunately with regard to Scientology 99% of people have this weird mental block which causes them to think the organisation and the beliefs are identical, and even more weirdly academics have it too as the 'expert' quoted well illustrates.
This is a DEEP block. Even when people are persuaded it exists, they often can't overcome it and continue to confuse the two when writing about them.

The expert burbles on about what he thinks are Scientology teachings, whereas he is actually describing Church of Scientology propaganda. Sadly we've had half a century of academia refusing to accept that Scientology is an exception to their nice categories. That should have made Scientology an especially interesting subject, but instead its uniqueness was ignored.

[Raven]

In my opinion

Religions: Christianity, Judaism, Muslim,

Denominations: Lutheran Church, United Reform Synagogues, Baptist, Methodist


Cult: scientology

Its always interesting to see what is taught VS what is actually put into play with scientology.  Not everyone is given the same scientology version.  Obviously assuming will smith hasn't heard all the racism hubbard spewed and tom cruise was never prmosied for sex before marriage

[ethercat]

I may be able to answer this question.

After leaving Scientology, I took some religious studies classes at College. The first thing they teach about on this subject is- what is the "academic" study of religion? It's a unique and specific approach to studying religion and it means that you do not get into the controversial aspects, because all religions have their controversies for one thing, and you can get so embroiled in that, endlessly debating the controversial aspects that you lose sight of what the essence of that religion is. This means that they steer clear of what is right/wrong, good/bad about each religion. Instead you stick to it's substance as a religion. Does it fit the definition of religion (albeit a broad definition), what does it have in common with other religions? what are the differences and similarities between it and other religions? You pretty much stick to it's basic doctrines. All true academics will stay within these parameters and stay out of the controversy- they leave that to the news, entertainment, tabloids and general public, all who seem to have that covered pretty well.

Elizabeth, what would you say is the scientology's substance as a religion?  I'm just curious how a student of religion sees scientology as fitting in with other ideas that people call religion.

So, they do an overall study to see if it passes the "religion test". They study its basic tenets and determine if it is/isn't a religion. Secular Humanism, Atheism, Satanism, Wicca, Church of Virus, all go through the same test. There are something like 300 new religions springing up each year. Each one clamoring to be considered legitimate, get tax exempt status, etc. They classify it as a new religion, if they find it to be- and they move on.

In one class I took, scientology was not even worth mentioning in the textbook- and it was a very comprehensive course. That solidified my view of just how small and insignificant scientology really is. If you look at a pie chart of the religions of the people of the world, you can really get a feel for the insignificance of scientology. When it seems like no one cares- it is because they don't! See this chart:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Somewhere in that 3% "other" category you have thousands of small religions, of which scientology is only one. Not even a drop in the bucket. Its celebrities and its controversy make it seem bigger than it is. For all the Exes it seems huge because it had such a big impact on their life. But to an Academic, why would they waste their time going further into it than a basic look-see and a stamp of "it fits the definition"?

I do realize that scientology has fewer adherents than a lot of small religions (and I am giving the benefit of my doubt as to it being a religion for the sake of discussion), but it is pretty well known despite having such a small following.  It has an impact on day-to-day living for some who aren't members and would never consider joining (Clearwater, LA), and it even has impact some places where people don't realize it (CCHR, Narconon, Taxes).  Does this impact not warrant a closer inspection?  What about the goal of "clearing the planet" and the way they attempt to do that?  I do realize that most religions want to spread and become the one true way, but most do not attempt to "sneak in" under different guises.  To me, it seems that the way scientology goes about things is one of the first things to disqualify it as a religion.  Well, that, and the fact that it was devised as a scam from the get-go.

My professor in one class had us cover scientology, along with other small and controversial religions. He gave us pro and con links to websites to study, the pro site was the church's own and the con site was Xenu.net. I thought that was cool. But you know what? Most of the 30 people in my class were turned off by the critics. They felt that they were over the top and mean spirited. That was an eye opener for me because I was one of those critics. But it's true. It seems like its impossible not to pendulum swing into extreme criticism once you get out. But there comes a point where you really do need to get some perspective on the subject. I'm still working on that.

I know what you mean by the critics turning people off, and I'm not referring to anyone specifically, but scientology does seem to attract nasty reactions to it.  I understand this coming from the exes, but not so much from the never-member critics.  I used to be more angry, perhaps meaner, but in the past several years (5-10) I've made it one of my goals to try to take an even handed approach, since I recognize how it looks to the uninformed.  But it's almost like a contagion among critics - do you think it's because people get angry about the things scientology does, or that the nature of it (potential harassment, etc.) frightens away most people except those who have a proclivity to be mean, or is it something else?

There used to be people who said, "Both sides are crazy; I don't want anything to do with either one."  In the past, that was good enough for me, because at least they wouldn't be joining scientology.  That was when the critics were few.  Now that the critics are more numerous, I think more about how to win the general public over, not necessarily to being hard core critics, but at least to finding out more and taking some sort of active role, even if it's just telling their friends and neighbors what they've learned.

One religious studies professor who doesn't seem to have on kid gloves is Hugh Urban, who was brought to my attention by Chef Xenu.  I've noticed several statements he has made in the last year or so that tell it like it is, without being nasty, with the detachment of academia, but with truth not often seen in other statements by profs.

[ethercat]

First:
Welcome, Hartley - I'm glad you're here.

There is a class difference here. Unfortunately with regard to Scientology 99% of people have this weird mental block which causes them to think the organisation and the beliefs are identical, and even more weirdly academics have it too as the 'expert' quoted well illustrates.
This is a DEEP block. Even when people are persuaded it exists, they often can't overcome it and continue to confuse the two when writing about them.

Uh, oh, you must be talking about scientology the philosophy and the Church of Scientology the organization.   

Speaking for myself, and probably for most of the people I know, we do realize there is a difference in the two, but 1) I get tired of typing out the full organization name (I admit, I'm lazy about it), 2) I gag when I have to call it a "church," 3) according to Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, scientology can't exist outside the "church."  In anything official (not forum posts, but letters and such) I do take the time to spell it all out correctly, so the experts should be able to do that also.  (Does it bother you tremendously in casual writing, Hartley?)

The expert burbles on about what he thinks are Scientology teachings, whereas he is actually describing Church of Scientology propaganda. Sadly we've had half a century of academia refusing to accept that Scientology is an exception to their nice categories. That should have made Scientology an especially interesting subject, but instead its uniqueness was ignored.

I wonder how many other religions (using the term loosely again) there are that maintain two sets of "beliefs" - one for public consumption and PR purposes, and another for internal use.  This is why I wondered if most experts (obviously using the term loosely) ever look beyond the propaganda.  Are they afraid?  This serves the Church of Scientology's needs too well for my comfort. 

[Alex]

In my opinion

Religions: Christianity, Judaism, Muslim,

Denominations: Lutheran Church, United Reform Synagogues, Baptist, Methodist


Cult: scientology

Its always interesting to see what is taught VS what is actually put into play with scientology.  Not everyone is given the same scientology version.  Obviously assuming will smith hasn't heard all the racism hubbard spewed and tom cruise was never prmosied for sex before marriage

Interesting that you only included monotheistic religions and left out Hinduism which is polytheistic, and Buddhism with is non-theistic.

This would indicate to me some predjugdice or limited understanding of religion....

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

I would say that scientology does fall within the definition above.

And yes certainly with regards to the church is also a cult, by definition.

 

But Catholicism has a bigger cult in a subset of its follower in Opus Dei, as do other of the religions you agree fit the label....

[mefree]

I agree that Opus Dei seems cult-like and even more than I had first thought after reading this:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/articles/martin-opusdei.cfm.
This article is a bit old and the membership numbers are probably not up to date. It might be a stretch to say they are bigger than Scientology, however.

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"

Scientology certainly seems to have its ritual observances but what are its devotional observances?

[ethercat]

Interesting that you only included monotheistic religions and left out Hinduism which is polytheistic, and Buddhism with is non-theistic.

This would indicate to me some predjugdice or limited understanding of religion....

Raven can speak for herself on this. 

I readily admit that my understanding of religion in a general sense is limited.     Despite that, I do have more to respond to below.

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

I would say that scientology does fall within the definition above.

And yes certainly with regards to the church is also a cult, by definition.

 

I have to agree that scientology and what it's become today meets the above definition, but I also have to think that Hubbard originally said that scientology was a science, or an applied philosophy, and originally said specifically that it wasn't a religion. 

"Society, thirsting for more control of more people substitutes religion for the spirit, the body for the soul, an identity for the individual and science and data for truth. In this direction lies insanity, increasing slavery, less knowingness, greater scarcity
and less society.

Scientology has opened the gates to a better world. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual." --The Creation of Human Ability Los Angeles A.S.H.O. 1971, page 251

Disclaimer: I don't have the original at my disposal to check for myself, so have relied on the web.

I have to wonder if something qualifies as a religion in the true sense of the word when it was started as something else, and then was redefined as a religion.  But considering that anyone can proclaim anything to be their religion, I guess anyone who wants to can proclaim scientology to be their religion.  I wonder, and I don't know or know how to find out, how other more established religions originally started out, with regard to when they came to be called religions, and I wonder if that even matters...

But Catholicism has a bigger cult in a subset of its follower in Opus Dei, as do other of the religions you agree fit the label....

You know, I have seen all kinds of things called cults, from almost all religions, to Alcoholics Anonymous, to the collection of people who attend showings of the Rocky Horror Picture Show in costume and armed with props to throw at the screen when the right time comes.  The Apple Cult, the Corporate Cult, the Biker Cult, etc.  The distinction I try to make is a "destructive cult" or not?

[SocialTransparency]

But Catholicism has a bigger cult in a subset of its follower in Opus Dei, as do other of the religions you agree fit the label....

I readily admit there are over the top zealots within my church (Catholicism). Had it not been for some book of fiction ( The Da Vinci Code) I would have never heard of them. They are but one of many oddities within my church. Yet we catholics do talk about them. We do not fear any form of reprisals from the church in Rome. We are allowed to question issues within our faith. Can the same be said of scientology? If so, please explain.

[Lorelei]

I'm currently reading Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman.

Some interesting things in it so far:

They do not shy away from labeling some Bible-based groups as cults. Personality change is not limited to groups that are not based in Christianity. Many of the Bible-based groups / sects / cults practiced "though stopping" techniques (speaking in tongues, etc.); the defining line seems to be the amount of damage an adherent's mind sustains as a member of a particular group--how much cognitive dissonance they must tolerate. Whether or not criticism of the group is tolerated. Whether or not you are coerced to give up something as "proof" of your devotion, be it money, or ties to family and friends, or free labor, or free time (IOW, the group may insist that you spend a lot of time "witnessing" or passing out tracts, or trying to in any way route new people into the group; this outreach is not done spontaneously / organically by the adherent, but is tracked and observed and overseen by the group, and adherents that bring more people to the group are rewarded, while those that don't are urged to do better or punished in some way).

They argue that whereas Jonestown was a cult, there was no real evidence of binding people to the group with thought-stopping per se; the coersion was more physical in nature, backed up with armed guards and isolation. Jonestown residnts were made to work hard, were separated from friends and spouses, were urged to sign over all their goods and money and property to the group, subject to all kinds of tortures (children were not exempt, and torture could be psychological, sexual, or physical) and deprived of adequate medications (Jones confiscated those and took whatever he wanted himself), rest and nutrition. There were enforced prayer / lecture sessions, Jones kept up a nearly non-stop paranoid ramble over the loudspeakers around the clock, and there were "tests of loyalty" such as fake suicide drills (prior to the real one). This is not to say that NO "mind control" occurred, just that it was not the primary method by which Jones bound people to him.

They were originally going to give TM a pass, because its initial effects appear to be beneficial. Prolonged "thought stopping" techniques, however, have seriously negative repercussions. First to be affected is your ability to think rationally, make decisions, process what you read, make choices, etc. "The brain's information processing capacities may be disrupted or enter a state of complete suspension, producing states of mind that incorporate many symptoms of informational stress and disease: disorientation, detachment, ongoing altered states, hallucinations, delusions, and, in extreme instances, total withdrawal."

 
(ETA: I removed the "Snapping" page screenshots I posted here earlier; online image editor made them too small to read easily. See below for better versions of same page images.)


P.S. I have some Opus Dei and Aum Shinrikyo books on my Amazon wishlist; will let folks know if there's anything good in them after I get 'em and read 'em. Also, I should admit that "Snapping" is NOT a "light bedtime read." (You can kind of tell from the excerpts above; and those were the "lighter" bits, with purty tables and stuff.) If you are not fascinated by this sort of thing, or if you aren't a geeky grad student type who just LOVES reading nigh-impenetrable scholarly texts full of ten dollar words and footnotes for funsies, you may find it a bit of a hard slog. There's some good info in there, though. So, unlike some of the other texts I've read and recommended here enthusiastically, I'm giving this one a qualified thumbs up.

[SocialTransparency]

 If I start reading some of this stuff, my nightmares will have nightmares. .

[Lorelei]

If nothing else, read the italicized portion of text on the second image. It is pertinent to your interests, methinks.


ETA: Hmm. Just checked to see if clicking on them would enlarge them, and the images look like they are teeny weeny. Let me do something about that.


First, you can use the "Look Inside!" feature and search for "Scientology" (or whatever):http://www.amazon.com/Snapping-Americas-Epidemic-Sudden-Personality/dp/0964765004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267659816&sr=8-1


Second, here are some cropped screenshots that may be larger. Used a different online image editor.


page 192

Professors in religious studies - why don't they mention the negative?

Re: Professors in religious studies - why don't they mention the negative?



page 195

Professors in religious studies - why don't they mention the negative?

Re: Professors in religious studies - why don't they mention the negative?



page 196 

Professors in religious studies - why don't they mention the negative?

Re: Professors in religious studies - why don't they mention the negative?

[ethercat]

Screenshots are much better this time.  Thanks, Lorelei!

[mn]

Well, I teach at a university and also am in grad school for the second time.  I think Elizabeth is right, and I'd also add a few things.  Universities have very serious policies about diversity, and instructors have to be very careful not to create a "hostile atmosphere" in the classroom.  For all a professor of religion knows, he could have a few Scientologists in the classroom listening as he explains their beliefs.  Being accused of discrimination is not good for one's tenure case.  Also, maybe this is less and less true lately, but I think once you learn about Scientology it's easy to forget how many people have never heard of it or have only a vague "that's wacky" impression.  Professors included.  Finally, there's a lot of emphasis at universities on documenting and validating assertions.  The idea of a "cult" may be seen by many academics as subjective and therefore not up to standard.  Many of the stories about Scientology haven't been proven, so they wouldn't meet these academics' standards.  That is not to say they aren't true.  It's just that most professors try to document/prove/validate their assertions.  That's how they think, and they'd lose the respect of their peers if they didn't think that way.  I do think that academics in certain disciplines (such as political science, social justice, women's studies, etc.) might be more likely than others to take a position on the human rights abuses--but again, the information would have to be well documented.