Scientology and "Anonymous"

I got a comment from "Louis" who has a hidden profile. Louis claims to be a member of "Anonymous," a cyber gang whose activities range from puerile pranks to crime and outright terrorism.

Louis said:
We don't want to discuss if scientology is a religion or not. It's not our goal to destroy the practice ... there are wrongs being made, there is a need to right them. We are attempting to right them- we do not intend harm to any person.

Louis, please explain to me how the following activities of "Anonymous" a) are attempting to "right" anything, b) are not trying to destroy the practice and c) don't harm any person:

• Bringing down Scientology related web sites with DDOS attacks.


• Bringing down the Human Rights educational website of a group that was started by some Scientologists


• Bringing down the website of an organization that documents and reports psychiatric abuse.


• Bringing down the website of an anti-drug campaign.


• Bringing down the website of a drug rehab organization.


• Spamming Scientology related web sites with millions of emails.


• Sending envelopes containing white powder (possible anthrax) to Churches and Missions.


• Calling up and threatening receptionists at Churches.


• Making Bomb threats.


• Making arson threats.


• Making death threats.


• Picketing outside Churches whilst wearing intimidating masks.


• Painting graffiti on Church buildings.


• Creating web sites that use long disproven lies to attack Scientology


• Creating web sites that make unsubstantiated and unproven accusations against Church members, leaders and founder.


• Creating obscene videos with the heads of Church members, leaders and its founder superimposed on obscene figures.


• Creating videos that mock Church members, leaders and founder


• Creating videos that spread long disproven lies.


• Creating videos that make unsubstantiated and unproven accusations.


• Urinating on the door of a Church and then posting a video of it.


• Going onto blogs and news sites to post reams of lies, attacks and obscenities against the Church, its members, its leaders and its founder.

I'd really be interested to hear your explanation.

Also Louis, can you tell me what steps you personally have taken to actually engage in dialog with Church members or leaders to address the accusations you have made in your comment?

Myths about L. Ron Hubbard

More answers to Google Ninja's questions:

Lastly, LRH seemed to have been prone to illness, a consumer of both cigarettes and alcohol, and prone to accidents. Aren't all of those things either evidence of being around someone suppressive, or things that should be gone by the time someone is Clear?

it is very difficult to address generalities. You'd have to give me some specifics before I can directly answer the things you bring up. But, I will address them as best I can.

On smoking: I know that LRH smoked up until some time in the seventies. I know that he stopped. I don't know why you would consider smoking to be a sign of connection to a suppressive person. I don't consider it as such. (BTW: I don't smoke.)

On alcohol: what are we talking about here? An occasional beer? Wine with dinner? A six pack a day? A whiskey every half-hour? Just FYI, you can't get auditing within 24 hours of drinking alcohol and on some auditing actions you have to be audited every day. During most of his life after 1950, LRH was either getting auditing or researching it, so when was he supposed to have had time to indulge? Another piece of related data is demographics on Alcohol use by Scientologists. You will notice that we drink very little alcohol. (I don't drink any.) Do you think that would be the case if our founder was a boozer?

On "prone to illness": you'd have to give me specifics. I can't answer a vague generality. As far as I know, L. Ron Hubbard was in good health all his life.

On "prone to accidents": again I can't answer a generality like that. I don't know of any "accidents." As a young man he did stunts in airplanes and gliders and in later life enjoyed riding motorcycles. Someone who was accident prone wouldn't have lasted very long at activities like those.

You also seem to have been given the idea that a Clear would not smoke, drink alcohol or ever get ill. I have never come across such claims in Scientology. I don't smoke but if someone wants to then they can, it is a personal choice. Same applies if someone wants to drink (although I don't mean "to excess"). Do you think a French Scientologist is going to give up wine just because he goes Clear?

As to getting ill. If you live on planet Earth in a human body then I think you are extremely optimistic if you expect to never get ill. It doesn't say anywhere in Scientology that you will never have a physical problem after you go Clear. Actually what LRH says is: "The body is capable of having physical illness, acute (momentary) or chronic (continual). Broken bones, pinched nerves, diseases can any of them occur to a body independent of any mental or spiritual action. ... On a sick or injured person, you can reduce the time of healing or recovery by removing the spiritual or mental upset ... usually after effective physical treatment."

I don't want to offend you, but I think you have been reading too many anti-Scientology web sites. Just because someone makes a claim and puts it onto a web site on the Internet doesn't mean it is true. Go read some of the Holocaust denial sites out there. You'll see just how crazy the lies can get and how logically they can be explained when religious and racial hatred are allowed to run wild.

I am trying to not be offensive or anything, but as I read more about your faith these are some of the bigger logical problems I wonder at.

I appreciate your questions and the fact that you have been as inoffensive as possible. I like to be able to answer questions from people like yourself who are genuinely interested.

I hope I've answered everything. If I missed anything or if my answers bring up more questions, then please feel free to post some more comments.

Scientology and Critics

More answers to Google Ninja's questions:

Thirdly, the world has been hearing more and more from longtime ex-scientologists who are telling us incredible stories of abuse at IntBase, and in the SeaOrg. I realize that you believe this is just slander, but it is happening more and more. The sheer number of people who used to be scientologists in good standing who are now talking about this are getting harder and harder to dismiss.

I can only answer this from my own personal experience. I was in the Sea Org. I enjoyed my time there. There were no "abuses." My two kids were both in the Sea Org for several years. They enjoyed it and they saw no "abuses."

I have many friends who are currently in the Sea Org and so do my kids. These friends are happy and they are aware of no "abuses." My kids know people who used to be in the Sea Org and those people were happy with their time there and saw no "abuses".

So my opinion is based on my own experiences and those of people I personally know and have spoken to. I don't want this next sentence to sound harsh, if is merely a statement of fact: My opinion is not based on reading things on the Internet written by people I don't know and have never met.

I think if you examine the people complaining carefully you will find that the term "sheer numbers" does not actually apply. Like any other organization there is a turnover. People come and people go. If you count the number of complainers and count the number of people who are currently in the Sea Org or who have left and are not complaining, you will find that the proportion of complainers is very small. (This is also what sociologists have found - see the links below.) Trouble is you don't hear from the people who are not complaining because ... they are not complaining.

If you compare the number complaining to the total number of happy and satisfied Church of Scientology members, you will find the proportion of complainers is tiny.

The false impression of "sheer numbers" comes from the fact that if you come up with a good "atrocity" story then you get attention. So when an obscure actor wants some attention, perhaps to help his failing career, he comes out with an attack on his former religion. A girl who has some familial tie to a top Scientologists wants some attention, so she comes up with an atrocity story. (BTW, my son knows this girl from his time in the Sea Org and he knows her stories are not true.)

Where is the proof that any of these "abuse" stories are true? Did these people go to the police? No. Did they file charges? No. Did they report the abuses to Church authorities? No. They left and went straight to the Internet and began making accusations that cannot be substantiated.

I knew a person who is now a very loud critic. When she was a Scientologist I never heard one complaint from her. Not one. And I was a friend of hers, I spent time with her. If she had been dissatisfied she could have easily told me or other friends. But all I ever heard from her was that everything was great. Then one day she disappeared and next thing I know she's out there yelling about how bad it all is.

Firstly, I know for a fact that the things she yells about aren't true. I knew her. Secondly, if any of these claims were true then why didn't she report them to the correct authorities in the Church? The Church has many self-correcting mechanisms set up to fix things when they go wrong. These mechanisms handled such things as the Guardian's Office going off the rails in the late 1970's. She didn't use these mechanisms because the abuses didn't exist, but she saw a chance to make some big bucks. In the late 90's an ex-banker was trying to extort money from the Church. This woman ran off to join him and his crew. A simple, if debased, motivation.

If you read (and I do mean actually read) what sociologists have to say about such people, after extensive research, you will see that these atrocity stories are not reliable and you will also begin to understand the motives these people have for saying the things they say.

- The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements
- Apostates and New Religious Movements.)

If you are truly interested in this topic and in understanding it then I urge you to read these two articles. They are by highly respected sociologists who are also religious scholars.

I'll answer the rest of your questions tomorrow.

Scientology and Results

Google Ninja asked several questions. I'll answer them in several posts. Here is the first:

I find Scientology fascinating, and have been reading quite a bit about it recently.

That's cool. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

I have a few questions. First of all, since we are talking about scientific technology, why is the results so varied? I mean, some people will say they LOVED OT3, and that it completely changed their lives, but others will say they didn't get much from it? By definition, a science has reproducible, provable results.

Although Scientology is a religion and not a science, its principles and how to use them are very exact. Like any other technology its results depend upon it being applied correctly. As a software developer you will understand that two people can write a program using the same language and one program can run great and the other can be a piece of @#$#$%. Does that mean the language is invalid? No. It means that one of the developers didn't apply it correctly.

Same goes for Scientology. When I did OT3, I applied the technology correctly and I got a fantastic result. The Church does everything possible to make sure the technology is correctly applied. We call it "Keeping Scientology Working" and it gets a tremendous amount of attention. But in the end it comes down to the individual.

When you complete a course of study in Scientology you get tested to make sure you got it. This is objective: you answered the questions right or you didn't. When you complete Scientology Auditing (counseling) it is a more personal and subjective thing. So the end product is named very clearly and the individual is asked to sign a statement that he or she has achieved that end product to his or her satisfaction. We call this attesting.

When you attest, you state very clearly that you got the result from the action and that you are very happy with it. If someone says "it was okay" or "it sucked" then actions are taken to correct whatever went wrong so that the person is "over the moon" about the action. No one is allowed to complete a major auditing action unless they are "over the moon" about it. What this means is that anyone who says they "didn't get much from it" was either lying at the time they attested or is lying now. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but that is the logical conclusion. (See this article: Any Reasons For Difficulties And Their Correction.)

Secondly, why has nobody been able to pass OT8 in over 13 years? Is it another "Wall of Fire" like OT3? Because by all accounts, it is pretty much the same kind of thing as most of the other levels.

I don't know where you got that data from, but Scientologists have been completing OT8 since it was released in 1988. In fact several of my friends have finished it in the last few months. They all rave about how great it is and how much of an impact it has had on their lives. I guess the place you read that was not a reliable source of information.

I'll answer more of your questions tomorrow.

What do Scientologists Believe?

Odin's Servant asked:

Hi grahame, I would like to start by letting you know that I am not being sarcastic or malicious in any way with my question. I do not know a lot about scientology, so my little knowledge may even be incorrect. But from my understanding, scientology believes that everyone is controlled by the spirits of dead aliens. and that when you die you will be rejoined with a mother ship or something like that.

Now i have to ask, how does one actually come to believe in this? Now I am no stranger to criticism for my beliefs. I am Asatru, that is, i believe in the old pagan gods of the norse tribes of scandinavia. Odin, Thor, Freya, etc... So I am not some self righteous dumba** who wants to badmouth someone.

But i would like to note that my beliefs have been grounded in my heritage for thousands of years. Scientology however seems to have been dreamed up by a science fiction writer. The stories behind scientology are quite interesting but i'm not sure i could believe in them. Could you inform me about how you came to this religion and what your actual beliefs are if my knowledge is incorrect. Thank you!

Hey Odin's Servant, thanks for your question and thanks for not assuming that what you have heard about our beliefs is correct. The beliefs you describe are not Scientology. You ask "How does one actually come to believe in this?" Simple answer is that one doesn't.

So, what do we believe? Let me start by saying that Scientology is also grounded in a heritage that goes back thousands of years. We look at our roots as being in Buddhism and the Veda (the basis for the Hindu religion). Religious scholars have also compared Scientology to eastern religions: Scientology And Its Interrelation With Other Religions, Scientology: A Comparison with Religions of The East and West.

The most basic belief of Scientology is that man is a spiritual being. But what does that mean? You can watch this video to get a good idea of it: Scientology Beliefs: The Parts of Man. I could start trying to explain it all in this blog but I think the video does a much better job.

The Scientology home page also puts it very well:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by personally applying its principles and observing or experiencing results.

Scientology is actually an extremely practical religion. Belief plays a very small part in it. Application of the principles and observation of how they work plays a huge part in it.

Here are some more sources of accurate information on what our beliefs are:
- Introduction to Scientology
- Scientology Video Channel
- The Creed of the Church of Scientology
- What is Scientology?
- Dianetics Video Channel
For some of the actual practical principles that can be applied to everyday life:
- The Scientology Handbook

Please tell me if that answers your questions and if not then please post more.

Scientology and Weird Stuff

Julia just wrote an interesting post about a piece of nonsense a dentist told her co-worker: Scientology and... Mint?.

It reminded me of a story I was told a few years ago. A friend of mine who was a musician, and consequently had long hair, got into a conversation with a guy on a plane and the subject of Scientology came up. The man said, "But you can't be a Scientologist. You have hair." When my friend asked him what he meant the man told him that he'd been told Scientologists had to shave their heads.

The epidemic of mis-information about Scientology is easily remedied. Just check out some actual sources such as the Scientology Video Channel or the Dianetics Video Channel.

Scientology and Disconnection

Brazen Laird brought up the issue of "The 'disconnection' from family members". I thought the subject deserved its own article (especially on Mother's Day), so here it is:

The "disconnection policy" that anti-religious extremists claim the Church of Scientology follows does not exist. It is a lie made up by people who don't like Scientology.

Examples of the truth: I am the only member of my family who is a Scientologist. Have I disconnected from them? No. I'm in touch with my family every week even though I live in a different country. My wife is the only Scientologist in her family. Has she "disconnected" from them? No. In fact her family are some of the friendliest people I've ever met. We hang with them all the time.

The bottom line is that the "disconnection from family members" story is just another lie.

Now, what if your Aunt Ethel decides that your choice of religions is wrong and every time you talk to her she tells you how bad it is. You speak to her and ask her to respect your choices in life and she won't. She continues to berate you about your religious choices. What are you going to do? Let's say you've tried reasoning, you've tried having Uncle Sam talk to her, you've tried everything you can think of, so what do you do now? Well, you have the right to stop communicating with her. That is your right. People do it all the time in life. Someone is nasty, so you avoid them. At family get togethers you don't talk to cousin Joe because he's the biggest jerk you've ever met. However, if you are a Scientologist and you do this, suddenly you are "disconnecting" and anti-religious extremists make propaganda out of it.

That's the truth about Scientology and Disconnection.

Scientology - More Questions and Answers

On another blog I contribute to, Brazen Laird asked about the following issues:

- John Sweeny's accusations: There are two sides to every story. Please investigate the other side, BL, before passing judgement. The other side of the story is presented here; BBC reporter John Sweeney.

- The real story of Lisa McPherson is a tragic one, but it is not the story you have been told, BL. Please read this: Lisa McPherson and the articles it links to.

- You feel psychiatry is of "proven good" and you feel that Scientologist's opposition to it is somehow a black mark against the religion. You are entitled to your opinion. Scientologists, however, are interested in the facts about psychiatry and not opinions. However, just to clarify one point: we are not opposed to psychiatry as such, we are opposed psychiatric abuse. There is plenty of factual data on the large number of abuses in that field. Here are some links for you to check out: International Coalition for Drug Awareness, SSRI Stories, The Antipsychiatry Coalition, Stop Shrinks, ADHD Fraud, Mind Freedom International (I specifically didn't link to Citizens Commission on Human Rights or any other site connected to the Church of Scientology just to show you that the opposition to psychiatry is widespread.)


- Disconnection from family members. I'll post about this tomorrow.

Scientology and Brainwashing

I got a comment regarding my article Is Scientology A Cult?. The comment said a lot and you can read it here, but the main thing in it that I want to address is the author's depiction of "brainwashing". This term gets thrown around a great deal and it seems to have whatever definition the person using it wants it to have. Someone buys a used car that turns out to be a lemon and they accuse the salesman of "brainwashing" them. A family member joins a new religious movement and their relatives claim they have been "brainwashed". We see it used in movies and mentioned in books, so I thought this a good opportunity to address what it really is.

The term "brainwashing" (sometimes relabeled "mind control", "mental manipulation" or mental destabilization") is a term that is used by anti-religious extremists and self-appointed anti-religious experts as a tool of discrimination against new religious movements. The term was originally dreamed up by a CIA agent to describe the phenomenon of Americans in Korean POW camps making anti-American statements and in some cases even remaining in Korea after being released. The fact that only 21 out of 20,000 refused to return home was not given much publicity and the impression was created that "brainwashing" was an effective technique that threatened the very foundations of democracy. [1]

In the 1970's the "anti-cult movement" (ACM) hijacked the term and changed the definition so it included almost any human activity that involved changing somebody's mind. It could be applied to the entire spectrum from salesmen to torturers. It thus became a tool for the ACM in its quest to legitimize its activities and make money. [2]

The idea that the ACM created, was that people were forced into "cults" by the use of "brainwashing" and that once in they would robotically follow whatever orders the cult leader gave them and that they could never leave. Religious scholars who actually did research into the phenomenon of people joining new religious movements and then leaving them observed that the most controversial groups criticized as "cults" (including Scientology, the Hare Krishna Movement, and Reverend Moon's Unification Church) had a high turnover rate, a fact hardly compatible with their possession of "magical" techniques for keeping members within the fold. [2]

In the United States the theories the ACM had used to validate their abusive practices, such as kidnapping and coercion, suffered a death blow in 1987 when the report from the "APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control" (DIMPAC) was rejected by the American Psychological Association. The report had been prepared by some of the leading lights in the ACM and it heavily promoted the "brainwashing" theories. The reviewers from the APA threw it out, stating, "it (the report) lacked scientific rigor and an evenhanded critical approach to carry the imprimatur of the APA".

In his comments on the report an external advisor to the APA, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi of the University of Haifa, stated that "lacking psychological theory, the report resorts to sensationalism in the style of certain tabloids" and that "the term 'brainwashing' is not a recognized theoretical concept, and is just a sensationalist 'explanation' more suitable to 'cultists' and revival preachers. It should not be used by psychologists, since it does not explain anything". [3], [4]

One of the DIMPAC authors, Margaret Singer and an associate, sociologist Richard Ofshe, subsequently took the novel approach of suing the APA and the ASA (American Sociological Association) for having rejected their theories. The suit included respected scientists who had criticized the shoddy research methods of the two. Singer and Ofshe complained that the defendants had conspired to deny them employment as paid expert witnesses in the anti-religious community. The judge dismissed their complaint as "absurd".

And so the "brainwashing" theory died in the United States. In Europe however, which does not have a history of religious tolerance, the "brainwashing" theory is still bandied about by anti-religious groups, however, religious scholars do not support the theory. [2], [4]

So, according to experts, including the American Psychological Association and most religious scholars, "brainwashing" is a myth created to excuse attacks upon groups with different ideas to those of the attacker.

References:
- [1] Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory
- [2] "Brainwashing": Career of a Myth in the United States and Europe
- [3] APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures
- [4] Documents on Brainwashing Controversies and the APA

Is Scientology A Cult?

I had an interesting comment from Lawtears which I would have published if it hadn't linked to his profile and his anti-Scientology blog. (See my rules about what I publish).

What he said was this: At the anonymous demos, there's guys there that will say scientology is a cult because X,Y,Z happened. What I'd love to know is what your X,Y,Z is, that makes scientology NOT a cult. What are these 3 things (or give me more or less) that make you sure that, yes, scientology is the way for humanity and not a cult?

First of all let me say that Scientology is the way for people who want it. Religion is not something you can force on people. It's been tried in the past and it has brought only misery and suffering. Just look at the last 2,000 years of history alone for many horrible demonstrations of that.

Now we come to the "C" word, "Cult". If we are going to discuss that word then we should define it so we know what we are talking about. Until not very long ago, the mid-1970's in fact, the word "cult" meant: 1. Attentive care; homage; worship. and 2. A system of religious belief and worship. (See Webster's 1913 dictionary: Cult.) In the late 1970s the word was changed to have a sinister meaning. I recommend you read this article on how that happened, it is extremely enlightening: The Lies Behind Bigotry (Chapter 1).

After its redefinition, the word "cult" didn't have a clear cut definition but it had very clear cut connotations. A "cult" was a bad thing, a nasty thing, an evil and destructive thing. It was something to run away from screaming. You may think I'm being funny, but actually those are the concepts that have become associated with the word.

So for the purposes of this discussion let's use the definition given by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: Cult (you'll have to scroll down to almost the bottom of the page to find it).
The definition I'll use for this discussion is the one they say is used by the "anti-cult movement", which is: a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, who engage in deceptive recruiting, brainwashing and other mind control techniques

So let's break that down.
small - Scientology is not small. The number of Scientologists around the world is a disputed figure, the Church estimates it at 10 million , anti-Scientology elements say it is much less. However, if you take a look at two things: a) the number of Scientology Churches, Missions and Groups (7,500) and b) the amount of press on the subject. You'll have to admit that it isn't "small".

evil - that is such a difficult word to deal with, isn't it? One man's meat is another man's poison. I can only refer you to what is in Scientology books and what is on the Church's website. Take an unbiased look and decide for yourself. I'd suggest you start with the Scientology Video Channel and then move to Scientology Basic Books.

often with a single charismatic leader - L. Ron Hubbard was our "single charismatic leader" for many years. I personally don't know why having a "single charismatic leader" is a problem. Didn't Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and many other religions have the same? Don't musical groups, corporations (e.g., Apple) and other groups have "single charismatic leaders"? If you want make that something bad then go ahead.

who engage in deceptive recruiting - If you want to know what Scientology is all about then go to the Scientology Home Page or buy a Basic Book or watch the videos on the Video Channel. It's all there. I'm sure that anyone with the ability to read can figure out if Scientology is something they want to be "recruited" into at that point. There is no deception. What we believe is all out there.

In fact no one is allowed to take Scientology services unless they themselves have made the decision to. For example, if a child is being pressured by parents to take a course in Scientology and the child isn't interested then the kid will not be allowed to take the course. It is against the rules of the Church for a person to take services unless they have chosen for themselves.

Before you can take any major service in a Scientology Church you will be asked if you are there on your own determinism. If you are not then you won't be allowed onto the service.

who engage in ... brainwashing and other mind control techniques - this whole idea of "brainwashing and other mind control techniques" has been completely debunked in the USA. The use of such terms as "Magnetic attraction, compulsion, captivity, enslavement, kidnapping" first began in the 19th century when the Mormons were attacked by mainstream Christian bigots. This vile tradition has continued and was given a fresh coat of "scientific" paint in the 1970's by such disgraced "experts" as Margaret Singer and the old "Cult Awareness Network". You can read a very thorough academic analysis of this in the article: "Brainwashing": Career of a Myth in the United States and Europe

Another article which examines these ideas is: Conversion and "Brainwashing" in New Religious Movements. It's a long article so you have to be seriously interested in the truth to spend the time to read it.

Another article which sums up and links to a huge amount of evidence is: "Liar, Liar": Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA

So according to the experts there is no "brainwashing and other mind control techniques".

Finally, the "cult" word also has the connotation that the target of the word is not a religion. There are innumerable religions experts who have written papers on the religious nature of Scientology: More Research on Scientology.

Heck, even the IRS has recognized Scientology as a religion. You may not like the IRS, but one thing you can't fault them on is sticking to the rules they create. They make a rule, they enforce it. They examined the Church of Scientology and they gave it a clean bill of health.

Also, governments and courts of law all over the world have recognized the religious nature of Scientology: Governments and courts of countries worldwide recognize the religious character of the Church of Scientology

So, that's my answer. What do you think?

Scientology - Ex-Members

If someone leaves a religion and then bad mouths it they are called an "Apostate". How reliable are their stories about the religion they are leaving? It's an important question because in order to accurately evaluate information you need to have a measure of the reliability of the source. Can you trust the source or is the source suspect?

When it comes to ex-members of religions, and especially new religions, religious scholars have come to very definite conclusions. You can read two papers by religious scholars here:

"In short, on the face of things, apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses."
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements (pdf)
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements - New Religion website
The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements - Religious Freedom Watch
By Lonnie D. Kliever, Dr. Phil., Professor of Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.

"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth."
Apostates and New Religious Movements (pdf)
Apostates and New Religious Movements - New Religion website
Apostates and New Religious Movements - Religious Freedom Watch
By Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D., University of Oxford, England

Reply to a Comment from "Titch"

Here is my reply to a comment from Titch. He had the goodness to actually include his name and location in the post, which I appreciate because it says to me that here is someone who is willing to engage in a real dialog and not cower behind anonymity.

Titch: im 18years old and happy to say ive read everything i can get my hands on to do with scientology. Could you tell me which Scientology books you've read?

Titch: i believe we all look for answers to do with the universe and the meaning of life and so forth. but i cant help but think scientology isnt the answer. i do not wish to harm your faith or your beliefs but a man has a right to free speech in this world.

grahame: I have no problem with that. The right to believe as one decides for himself is a basic human right. (Human Right #18: Freedom of thought)

Titch then went on to relate a story that anti-Scientologists claim is the basis of Scientology.

grahame: That is not the basis of Scientology. Actual Scientology is what you read in the Basic Scientology Books. But even if that story were the basis of Scientology then we are just as entitled to believe it as you are to disbelieve it. Human Rights are a two way street. If you allow a right to others then you also get that right yourself. Take a right away from others and you lose it too.

Titch: i do not wish to harm your faith, or your beliefs. but i do not agree with your "religion" forcing scientology on everyone else. a man must make up his own mind about how he lives, and he must change in ways himself, not be indoctrinated into doing something because one of your fellow scientologist says so.

grahame: At this point I would make a guess that when you said "everything i can get my hands on to do with scientology", you didn't mean actual data on Scientology or what Scientologists do in the world (e.g., human rights, drug abuse, illiteracy, disaster relief) but that you have been reading anti-Scientology propaganda that accuses the Church and its members of all sorts of outrageous things. If you had read actual Scientology, then you'd know that it is not something you can "force" onto anyone and I personally don't know any Scientologist who would ever think of doing such a thing. Look at the bloodshed and suffering caused in the last couple of thousand years by people trying to force their beliefs onto others. Every person must make up his or her own mind when it comes to religion. There is a quote in this blog post, Scientology - What got me interested, from L. Ron Hubbard which says what the Scientology attitude is about forcing beliefs onto someone. Please take a look at it.

Titch: i also dont agree with the fact that as a religion you make people spend money to help themselves and become part of your community

grahame: Once again Titch, you have not been reading facts about Scientology. Please look at the posts on my site relating to the cost of Scientology. This should cover them: Scientology Donations, Why do you have to pay for Scientology?, Question about cost of Advanced Levels in Scientology, Questions regarding the cost of Scientology. And just to address what you said specifically: no one is "made" to spend money to help themselves or become Scientologists. If anyone told you this then you have been misinformed.

Titch: i will understand if you do not wish to approve my comment, but i wish people to know that all things in life has a choice and that covering up peoples right to free speech and indoctrinating them into your society is wrong, if people wish to join you, i say let them, but not by cohertion but by choice, and let it be free.

grahame: I absolutely agree with you. Something you have probably not read about Scientology in the places you've been looking, is that a person is not allowed to take part in Scientology services unless they are doing it under their own determinism. It's something that gets checked every time you start any course or counseling in Scientology. If you are there because someone made you then you can't do the service. You have to make up your own mind and decide you want to do it yourself.

Free speech is also looked upon as very important in Scientology. The right to free speech is actually part of the Creed of the Church of Scientology. If you have been told that Scientologists are somehow against free speech then you have been misinformed.

Thanks a lot for your questions. I do appreciate them. If you (or anyone else) have more questions then feel free to post them. See the link at the top of this page.

Scientology and Aliens

leith asked the question what have aliens got to do with scientology?

Hey leith, thanks for your question.

The answer is zip, nothing, nada. In Scientology we believe that man is a spiritual being (See the video "Scientology Beliefs: The Parts of Man"

You can see a list of other videos about what we believe here: Scientology Videos

Here is more on how come the subject of aliens ever go brought up: Do Scientologist believe in aliens?

Lisa McPherson and False Reports

chakurakid15 asked about Lisa McPherson. (Lisa was a Scientologist whose death has been used by anti-religious bigots to attack her religion.)

My Answer:
My own knowledge of this is that Lisa died from a Pulmonary Embolism (PE), which is "a sudden blockage in a lung artery, usually due to a blood clot that traveled to the lung from a vein in the leg."

That is what happened to Lisa. She had a minor car accident in which she injured her leg. She was staying at a religious retreat when the blood clot reached her lungs and she died very shortly afterwards.

According to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, "At least 100,000 cases of PE occur each year in the United States. PE is the third most common cause of death in hospitalized patients. If left untreated, about 30 percent of patients with PE will die. Most of those who die do so within the first few hours of the event."

So it is not an unusual occurrence. Unfortunately, anti-religious bigots have taken a terrible accident and twisted it into a campaign of lies and abhorrent accusations. People who hate Scientologists, and therefore hated Lisa when she was alive, are using her to attack her religion. Pretty sick if you ask me.

Here is the truth about some lies I have seen on the Internet regarding her death:
-- The religious retreat she was staying at is a luxury hotel. I know this because I've stayed there several times myself. The rooms are much nicer than those of the numerous hotels I've stayed in when I've traveled for work and the service is second to none. I've never been taken care of like I am at the Fort Harrison. You can take an online tour of the Fort Harrison Hotel.

-- Other cases by Medical Examiner Joan Wood were found to have put innocent people behind bars: Medical examiner's apparent mistakes put man in jail, Another man jailed because of medical examiner's mistake

-- Lisa's final death certificate quite clearly states that her death was accidental: Lisa McPherson death certificate.

-- She did not lose any weight while at the religious retreat and she was not dehydrated - see the death certificate and: Press Release about the dismissal of charges.

I think it is pretty clear from the facts that some sickos have taken a tragedy and tried to twist it to their bigoted advantage.

Scientology Donations

Burkhard asked where the money paid for donations goes.

My answer:
-- It goes to paying for the Church you are at to be there - mortgage, utilities, etc.
-- It goes to paying the people who work at your local Church.
-- It goes to disseminating Scientology.
-- It goes to printing and publishing Scientology books.
-- It goes to managing Scientology Churches world wide.
-- It goes to expanding Scientology.

I think that about covers it.

More information:
How are Churches of Scientology Supported?
How are Churches of Scientology supported financially?

Anonymous - Scientologists Answer

A friend just directed me to this video. I think it is important for people to realize the cost of religious hatred. Excuses, lies and false rumors get used to justify the encouragement of violence, but the truth is that only criminals and terrorists act as the members of "Anonymous" have acted.

(March 22nd, 2008) The video was removed from YouTube, but there is now a whole website for it: Anonymous Exposed. Here is the video from a different site:

Scientology and Open Heart Surgery

Burkhart asked about getting Scientology auditing from the FreeZone because it is "cheaper".

My answer:
Simple answer is that you can't get Scientology auditing from the FreeZone because the FreeZone isn't Scientology. It's like going to your buddy Joe for some open heart surgery because he watched an episode of ER. You just aren't going to get proper open heart surgery, but it's a lot cheaper.

Answer to Comment on Fair Game

Flowers accused me of lying about "Fair Game":

"Fair Game, may have been canceled, however this does not apply to enemies of the Church, or SPs as you like to label anyone that is critical of the practices of the Cult of Scientology."

How do you answer someone who is a fanatic? No matter what you say they aren't going to believe you. However, for the benefit of anyone who is reading this to find data, here is a personal story for you about "Fair Game".

In the early 1980s I was expelled from the Church of Scientology. Yup, that's right, poor little, innocent me, in whose mouth butter wouldn't melt. I messed up big time and did something that, when I look back upon it, makes me cringe, and quite rightly I was expelled and "declared" a suppressive person. So, if "Fair Game" existed, according to the fanatics I should have been attacked, spat upon, harassed, etc., etc. So what really happened? Absolutely nothing, zip, zilch, nada. Kinda boring, but that's what happened.

It took me some time, but I handled it and did the necessary steps (there are only 5 of them) to get back in good standing with the Church.

Anyone can screw up so there needs to be a way to make up for the damage and get back in good standing with your community. In the world outside Scientology you get thrown in jail and you do your time and then you are allowed back into society. In Scientology if you screw up you get tons of chances to make good the damage and change your ways, and if you don't you will eventually (after lots of chances) be kicked out. If you do get kicked out then there are ways to get back in and it isn't hard. But that is all there is to it.

There is no "Fair Game", Flowers. I know you aren't going to believe me but that's your problem not mine.

Scientology versus the world - Part 2

DocORock said: I've only been looking at the Scientology site for a day or so now and I've tried to stay away from the one-sided views (although many Internet roads lead to Lisa McPherson). If I were to consider becoming a part of that institution, my first apprehension would be the statements the organization makes with an undertone of "anyone who opposes our religion (and practices their own?) is a suppressor and therefore an enemy of the church. Wow - even the rightest winged Christians don't damn other religions that way!

Once more, I have to say you've been reading too many anti-Scientology sites. Your statement "the statements the organization makes with an undertone of ..." is a generality. I need specifics. Why don't you post another question/comment with links to the specific pages you are referring to and how come you get this impression from them? That way I can address specifics.

To answer the rest of what you say, let's go over this "enemy of the church" thing logically: The word "enemy" means "somebody who hates or seeks to harm somebody or something". If someone decides to "hate or seek to harm" my Church or my religion then they are an enemy by the very definition of the word and please note that they have elected themselves as an enemy, we didn't.

If someone has a disagreement, upset or grievance with my religion or my Church then there are plenty of ways to handle grievances without resorting to "hating" or "seeking to harm". The Church is always trying to improve and do better so if someone finds something wrong we have lots of ways of correcting it. For example there is an online report form to make the reporting of problems very easy.

If someone has no interest in Scientology then that's not a problem. Your religion (or lack thereof) is your own choice. The Creed of the Church of Scientology says: that "all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance."

In his article, Religious Influence in Society, L. Ron Hubbard stated how important religion is to mankind. He said: "When religion is not influential in a society or has ceased to be, the state inherits the entire burden of public morality, crime and intolerance. It then must use punishment and police. Yet this is unsuccessful as morality, integrity and self-respect not already inherent in the individual, cannot be enforced with any great success. Only by a spiritual awareness and inculcation of the spiritual value of these attributes can they come about. There must be more reason and more emotional motivation to be moral, etc., than threat of human discipline." You will notice that he is not saying "Scientology" he is saying "religion." In other words he's covering all religions here. They are all important to the future of mankind.

My personal viewpoint mirrors this. When I meet a person who has a different religious belief than mine, I don't mind at all. I have no problem with it. The right to believe as you see fit is a basic human right. It is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "ARTICLE 18... Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

I have friends who are Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Hindu, new-age spiritual and atheist as well as Scientologists. I don't have a problem with them and they don't have a problem with me. Why should we? All religions have the same basic goals of peace and salvation. We all have the same basic idea that man is a spiritual being. So why should we be in conflict?

Other references:
What does Scientology have to say about other religions?

Scientology versus the world - Part 1

DocORock asked a couple of questions buried in a comment. I'll answer the first one here and the other one tomorrow. If I missed any then, DocORock, you'll just have to post an actual question rather than a comment.

DocORock said: I think the problem most people have with Scientology is that it comes across as warring the world.

Grahame answered:
You could only get that impression if you read anti-Scientology web sites. The anti-religious extremists (aka "critics") want to create that impression. In fact that is not the way it is at all. If you could give me some specific examples (just post another comment) then I can address them.

The way your statement is worded is rather general and makes answering it difficult. But I'll do my best. Here are some examples of how the world really views Scientology and what the views of Scientologists really are:

- Scientology Founder Awarded
- For tsunami survivors, a touch of Scientology
- Who is Scientology Open to?
- The Scientology Blogosphere (blogs by Scientologists)
- Yalama Scientology! Thank you! - One Volunteer's Story
- Scientology Volunteer Ministers Join Grassroots Initiative to Tackle Illiteracy, Conflict and Substance Abuse in the Northern Territory of Australia
- Scientology Volunteers Help in One of Southern California's Worst Fires Seasons-
- Scientology in Society

Actually this site, Scientology Today, contains tons of articles on how Scientologists are helping others all over the world.

Here are a few of the other things we do to help mankind:
- The largest volunteer organization in the world
- The largest human rights educational program in the world
- The largest drug educational program in the world
- The largest and most effective drug rehabilitation network in the world
- A grass-roots literacy movement helping kids from deprived areas learn how to read and write

Here are statistics of Scientology, Scientology Statistics. I don't think you'd be getting expansion like this if you were in constant conflict with the rest of the world.

The only time we (Scientologists) get into conflicts is when we step on the toes of a vested interest. We help someone or expose some activity that is damaging people and this takes money from the pocket of some greedy person who cares only for his own bank account and doesn't give a damn about other people. In such a case we are tenacious in getting blocks to helping others handled. Luckily the vast majority of people in the world are good hearted and welcome all the help they can get.