LHIA: Scientology

Alright, alright. You got me. I missed the Sunday deadline on my self-established project. But…perhaps it reveals a valuable lesson: start early. For you see, I drafted on Sunday, stayed up until 2am getting creeped out by various scientology videos (this one’s particularly eerie), went to bed, remained lazy. I’m confident I can stick to the plan from now. This first one is always a test run anyway.

---

Here’s one of the those topics that I hear all about, yet never about. I’ve never had the desire to dwell into this apparently ludicrous topic until now. So while I will do some dwelling, let’s just get me sounding like an asshole out of the way by saying this right off the bat: why in hell would you use the eight-point cross for the ‘i’ in the ‘Scientology’ logo? Any logo designer knows the t was more deserving, you bastards. Phew. Sorry about that. There could be a completely legitimate reason for designing the logo that way…perhaps the symbol represents “I” as an indication of what comprises the self. But that would be crazy talk.

Firstly, I can’t help but feel uneasy researching this topic, and not solely because the site (scientology.org) presents the founder, L. Ron Hubbard, as an undefiable God (damn, this already has the markings of a cult…or perhaps a religion–is Hubbard the Jesus of Scientology?). But I also feel uneasy as the topic has been long drenched with negative undertones by…pretty much everyone. This makes it difficult to study without bias because essentially all sources are littered with subjective ramblings. We can never escape that though, so march on, young grasshopper (wait, ants usually do the marching…).

One thing that bothers me is how vague the promotion for Scientology is. They call themself a practical religion, yet I am lost when it comes to what they actually practice. It is apparent by Tom Cruise’s interview that Scientologists speak in a language I am not yet familiar with:

I don’t even have a problem with Tom Cruise as an actor, or as a couch jumper for that matter, but…what in God’s name is this man talking about? I mean, in Hubbard’s name, Scientology, hire yourself a promotional team. I must say though, the Youth For Human Rights campaign seems to be the best of their forces. Good ads, good purpose (aside from what is probably an underlying determination to grab new, youthful followers). But this worries me. Scientology is broad with twisted underpinnings. It’s perhaps not so much that their beliefs are what’s troubling, more than how they hope to spread their beliefs. I can’t say I agree with their thoughts on drugs in the slightest (I thought we had a human right to do with our lives as we wish, so long that we don’t harm other’s lives in the process?), but I respect people’s decision to support a ban on drugs. The thing is, at least what I grasp from researching their views, they seem to group all drugs in this one nasty category. Do drugs influence everyone? According to them, yes. I don’t believe this to be the case. If I smoked marijuana would that affect some little girl in Ohio? Probably not; unless you believe all actions influence all other actions in some small indirect manner. This could very well be the case, but any direct harm is pure, utter nonsense.

One big fuss that is often associated with Scientology is whether it is a religion. I didn’t have to search far for my answer:

“We are all denominational rather than non-denominational, and so we should be perfectly willing to include in our ranks a Moslem or a Taoist, as well as any Protestant or Catholic” – Hubbard

“Don’t ever miss this in what I teach you – don’t ever miss this: I am telling you how to get there, not what is there…We are studying a way of traveling rather than a series of destinations” – Hubbard

Many Scientologists state that you can be a Christian or Jew and still be a Scientologist. So is it a religion itself or just an aid to religion? It seems to fit more appropriately as an aid, particularly when the founder has been quoted to agree that it is not a religion. The goal to have it recognized religiously is more appropriately identified as a scheme to cash in tax-free.

In the midst of informing myself about the subject I wonder: are those that are diluted by their beliefs harming themselves? Is there underlying harm to falsely believing everything you do exists in a positive light? If so, does it harm others as well? Either way, so long it hurts no one else in the process, persecuting others for their beliefs seems empty in it’s purpose. If an individual scientologist becomes a lover and does more for himself and others as a result, good. The problem comes when he cannot even protect himself from himself, because others are preventing the intervention. I then have to reiterate that it’s really not the beliefs of the system that are problematic, but the methods of employing believers.

While a debate usually has multiple sides, it would have been interesting if I emerged from this conquest of information in support of Scientology. Perhaps this is one area where the negativity surrounding a subject isn’t just a result of skewed intentions from a biased medium. But, alas, you disappoint me, Scientology. I was really rooting for you to surprise me. This quote seems to sum you up best:

“Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion” – Hubbard

(seeing as he’s been convicted for fraud before, I would be shocked if he didn’t mean that quote. whether the religion has helped lives in the present is a whole other story, but the premise for it’s establishment is rather sketchy, no?)

There is one thing I would like to note: I’d love it if people were more open to studying ideas on their own, rather than just following another’s opinion. Scientology is one of those things that a lot of people just think badly about because that’s the thing to do. And perhaps they’re right not to waste their time analyzing a subject that bears few healthy fruit, but it does illustrate that we are too bound by our ears and not by that ‘practicality’ that Scientology allegedly promotes. I admit that I have barely cracked the shell of this extensive topic, but I will still consider indulging myself more; perhaps I can achieve a better understanding of human motives.