Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Don't Ban the Church of Scientology

There have been several, fairly recent attempts by governments to ban the Church of Scientology in their country.

These attempts have, so far, failed or been abandoned.

This is, I believe, good news.

Banning would give the church way too much importance. Why ban something that is very, very, very small, is collapsing, is impotent and is so incredibly silly? As they found in Germany, the Church of Scientology is just too small to bother with.

In my opinion, L. Ron Hubbard relished the importance that banning gave his "religion". I'll bet David Miscavige is likewise very happy with bans and threats of bans.

Banning gives the "look at us, we're victims!" Church of Scientology much more fodder for its martyrdom.

We do not need that. We do not want that.

Do not think that I am advocating leaving the church alone. Far from it!

Everywhere the Church of Scientology tries to insinuate their "solutions" into society, the true information on those "solutions" needs to be there first.

Governments and communities need to know that the church's claims are bogus. In the real world, their "solutions" simply don't measure up. Other solutions from other sources are much more effective -- and don't come with that Scientology you-must-believe-us baggage.

Everywhere the Church of Scientology tries to recruit new members with their "Scientology can handle that" bogus promises, the true information about their results needs to be there first.

People need to know that, despite all their incredible promises of creating fantastic, advanced states of being, the church has yet, in its entire 50+ years, been able to deliver any of these states of being to even one single person! Yet thousands and thousands have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to reach those advanced states.

Everywhere the Church of Scientology tries to cover up its crimes, abuse, fraud and lies, there needs to be people who work to shine the light of truth into all the dark corners the church is trying to hide.

The truth is what is causing the Church of Scientology to collapse. The truth is what will ultimately cause the Church of Scientology to disappear.

Banning is not only unnecessary, it feeds into Scientology's "We're martyrs, we're victims, and that makes us innocent and good!" message.


  1. Interesting point; why give credibility to an organization that only looks to gain credibility. It's a semi-clever PR move, unless you're able to look at the Tone Scale and see where "hiding" and "victim" lie on that track.

    I hope not to derail comments here, and feel free to defer to later, but I'd love to hear your take on the Rathbun situation as of late. He seems to blame all evil on DM, who I regard as a Bad Person, but not publicly acknowledge the abusive practices the LRH outlined in the "official Tech."

    I've seen your references to "DM's church" (paraphrasing here.) Do you buy in that CoS would be truly ethical without DM at the helm? I realize he's made things worse, and has definitely been a major squirrel, but would his replacement truly remove aspects such as disconnection, fair game (by any name,) and indoctrination?

  2. I see your point, but I have a different view.

    Ultimately, the Church of Scientology (or the likes) is a corporate entity, and if it is found that this entity is systematically engaging in fraud, then like any other corporate entity, it should be able to be dissolved if that is the law -- with no regard to our speculations whether or not it serves Scientology. To me, a Scientology corporation should be held to the same rule of law as any other corporation.

    Of course, banning a Church of Scientology corporation is not banning Scientology (which is nonsensical), this is where we kick in, and as you say, "there needs to be people who work to shine the light of truth [about Scientology]."

  3. @R. Hill

    I do not disagree. The Church of Scientology must be held legally accountable for all of its crimes, and the persons responsible must pay the consequences, just like any other corporation or organization.

    But banning the church because it is an objectionable and abusive religion, is, as I said, not the correct action. Corporations are not, to my knowledge, banned, as a matter of course. So let it be with Scientology.

  4. @omnom

    Well, yes, that is a bit of a derail here.

    I am well aware of all the controversy surrounding the "Rathbun situation". He really is just a focus for a long-standing controversy about Hubbard and Scientology -- about the tech.

    First, most Scientologists do try to be ethical, fair and honest, but they are lied to all the time by the church -- so it makes it difficult for them to make good decisions.

    But there are a number of Scientologists in the organization that want control, power and money. Those who aspire to power are much more often those types. So those who would dethrone Miscavige would more likely be the exact type to continue the abuse.

    The entire structure of the church has been warped to continue and feed such abuse. It would be very easy for someone to continue the abuse -- and very difficult, if not impossible, for an ethical person to root it out.

    I sincerely disagree with those who say that Scientology would always be "good" if run strictly according to Hubbard. While Hubbard spoke in nice, high-sounding phrases, the dark abuses that Miscavige practices could be accomplished while following selected Hubbard policies quite closely. Miscavige often quotes and references Hubbard policies while forwarding his abuses.

  5. Very astute, Bill. Basically, you're talking about truth in advertising, and if the CO$ ever were truthful about their practices, claims, and results, they'd go belly up in a matter of months. To paraphrase the great fake, 'never attack, always expose'...

  6. Interesting thoughts on the subject. I do think social change happens through education, not legislation. But I have to admit, there are times I think it would be very nice to live in a country with very little cult activity.

  7. I've seen lots of "the Church is collapsing" commentary from critics. In fact, I've been around since the 70s and I can't think of a time when I haven't read or heard that the Church is collapsing.

    You seem to know a lot Bill. So I want to know when? Give me a date. Either it happens or it doesn't. If it doesn't then, I'd say its basically wishful thinking or something is wrong with the information you're operating on or your simply being dishonest. I'm sorry for being so direct but I'm a practical person and I keep hearing this same refrain and it never comes to pass.

    Is it going to happen this year? Next? Five years? Ten?

  8. Re: Church collapsing prediction

    You do realize you are asking an impossible question. There are millions of factors involved in this, many of them unknown at this time. Don't be silly.

    However, you've missed the point entirely. The Church of Scientology is currently, right now, collapsing. It has gone from an estimated several hundred thousand a few decades ago to a surveyed few ten thousand adherents -- and the number keeps dropping. That is the collapse. It happened.

    If, instead, you are asking, "When will the Church of Scientology disappear?", that's a different question. The answer is that there may be something calling itself the "Church of Scientology" for a long time. It may be a completely different organization, or it may be some kind of a continuation. But, unless the Church of Scientology changes itself and its policies drastically, it will never expand again.

  9. @Angie Jackson

    Yes, I too, would love to live in a world with a lot less cult activity -- but I'm afraid that calls for a change in people that I haven't seen yet.

    Education is the key.

  10. And psychiatry and meds. (I know CoS teaches against meds, and I think that's one of the many harms it does.

    LRH was a narcissist and needed to be on medication, just like my cult leader. I think education and public health insurance would go a long way to combating this insanity.

    On a side note, do you know anybody (hint, hint) who'd be interested in running the Scientology group of a new Ex-Cult social network I'm starting?

  11. Bill, as always spot on.

    I thought this piece was especially important. While I wish to see an end to the Church's practices of fraud and abuse, I don't believe it should be as a result of a government ban.

    The fate of the COS should be up to the public who decides whether or not to support it. As the critics have been more successful in bringing to light some of the Church's more unsavory practices, it seems that public interest has simultaneously declined.

    Expediency shouldn't be chosen over principle in this case. Let the COS stand or fall on their own merits, not because of government intervention.

  12. In my view, JustBill is right bout morally and tactically. Banning the "church" will only drive it underground, give it martyr status and possibly split it up into several smaller groups while it still has money and manpower. This will allow it to live on for a very long time or even rise again (perhaps in Africa as some has suggested). It need to be bled dry first. Right now the management squander their resources on PR, "Ideal orgs", costly legal fees and IAS slush fund. The longer the current command continue to suck the "church" dry, the less will there be to start from when it eventually fall.

  13. This martyrdom complex is by no means restricted to CoS. Mainstream Christian groups are more than happy to bray about how they are so oppressed any more in America, poor darlings. (And that was going on back when BUSH was in the White House.) I recently did a write-up on the Catholic League, whose website says, "Quite simply, Catholic bashing has become a staple of American society."

    Two points: One, they deserve it because they're always butting in their business where it doesn't belong. Two; the more they rant about being oppressed; the more other, more rational people are going to look at them and say, "What are you talking about? Quit your whining, already."

    I set let 'em all rant. The more they complain, the faster they'll be ignored.

    Oh, and yes: hold them accountable all the same.

  14. I agree the general public is going to disregard any claims to martyrdom, but the idea can have strong effects internally. I guess the statements from the Catholic League should be understood in the same light: It's us vs them.

  15. we are still awaiting the IRS getting involved and revoking its non profit religious status. they are a corporate entity which needs to abide by united states law, and needs to be held accountable.
    when is this going to happen already???? it is just a matter of time.

  16. good morn ..
    following the blogs this morn..
    glad to find you...
    nate and mona


Comments will be moderated. Have patience, I get around to it pretty quick. As a rule of thumb, I won't approve spam, off-topic, trolling or abusive stuff. The rest is usually OK. Yes, you can disagree with me.