Religion

by Polo Maldonado-Martinez

Created on: March 20, 2010

There is a sense of confusion on the subject of Scientology, which at the same time is passionate and absolute. Apparently, no one is left indifferent; it has been praised as a religion or loathed as a cult some times by the same people who later changed their minds.

Along the years, many things have been told about Scientology; a lot bad, some of them good and some of them extremely good. I am not discussing here whether they are right or wrong, I am just intending to establish the facts. Most of the time, several of those things have been said with no precise inside knowledge of the subject; many of those words have been said in anger and hatred, others in utter misunderstanding; others, full of love and admiration. Some of them have been expressed in fear, others in frank terror. Others want to thank L. Ron Hubbard publicly for what they feel they have obtained.

Many have left Scientology saying that they felt betrayed; others keep going and loving the subject and the Founder. Some love the subject but question the Founder and the Church. Others reject the whole package.

There is a classification we could follow here, in order to understand the advance of this religion (yeah, a religion). To understand why it is a religion you just need to think of this; Christianity was a cult first, and later a "bona fide" religion, separated from Judaism; and something similar happened to Zoroastrianism and Buddhism regarding "Hinduism".

All great religions were cults sometime in the past, until they grew up. Scientology is following the steps of its predecessors. It has been attacked in the same way (Buddhism was practically erased from India by the Hindus, until recently; the same as Zoroastrianism by Muslims) and it is still growing.

The materialistic pseud-religions though could be called cults by the way they deal with their following

We need to start by separating three connected concepts; one is Scientology, the Subject, the other is Scientology the Movement and the third one is Scientology the Church and its related organizations.

Here I am referring to the three aspects of Scientology.

I propose a further classification.

First, there is the Scientologist who wants to improve his life and uses Scientology to do it so. He feels his religion is kind of a "spiritual tool". He continues practicing his earlier beliefs before starting to practice Scientology. He is practical, evaluates whatever he reads and tries to help people by using his knowledge. His communication skills are terrific, and he is willing to sacrifice time and effort for helping others. Respects all religions, is a good citizen. Many times, he praises L. Ron Hubbard for his spiritual advice. He is willing to learn many subjects and is deeply interested in life. These are, lacking a better term, the faithful.

Some Scientologists want to leave or have left the organization they belong to as staff members (Sea Organization, Org or Mission) but still want to continue as members of the Church practicing Scientology. These are also part of the faithful.

Among the Scientologists, we may find those who are loyal to L. Ron Hubbard and his writings. However, there are those loyal to his writings but take from these just whatever they believe will work for them. The word “heretic” does not cover these, though.

Why?

Since Scientology has really no dogma, we could not say that there are heretics in it, really. The subject itself allows thinking by yourself; even though some evidently cannot do it or disagree with doing it. That is why the ones who take the best of the subject for themselves also could be called part of the faithful.

Let’s study now those who have diverse degrees of disagreement.

There are other Scientologists who happen to be discontented, for reasons real or imaginary, and want out entirely from the Church; but they are willing to continue practicing Scientology personally on their own. Some of them believe that the Church is going through the wrong path, and that they must form their own group. These we could call "schismatic". From these, there are those who love the Founder, but there exist those who are more inclined to following his teaching, not to adore him at all.

Some "ex-Scientologists" continue to follow L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings but under protest for true or imaginary abuses from the Church or L. Ron Hubbard. So, some ex-Scientologists ignore that they continue to be Scientologists. These could be called "apparent apostates". Many are schismatic.

Some ex-Scientologists accuse L. Ron Hubbard of a number of abuses. Other Scientologists outside much less inside will never believe such a thing; they think that the Church Management is the culprit of "all the bad things that are happening to Scientology in the world". Also, they are apostates which have different viewpoints on how things should be inside the Church.

We find then a "Scientologist" who is a fanatic, who goes to every event, never studies (outside or inside) and does not reason at all what he is reading or listening to. He may look like being studying the subject, but he has no idea of what the meaning of the most elementary data is. Cannot apply it, cannot use it in his life, he does not want to help people. He might be in a power or ego trip just using Scientology to pose. Some of these guys want to use Scientology for not very holy purposes. Unfortunately, some of them manage to sneak into the personnel of the Church.

Later, we might discover an "ex-Scientologist" who left the Church and decided he must attack the religion to destroy it. These are "apostates", and in many occasions, they are simply renegades. Some of them were never bona fide Scientologists, but fifth columnists.

In addition, we might find the ex-Scientologist who keeps quiet and does not attack the Church, or Scientology at all. He might have decided to follow another religion or church, or none.

There are also fanatic anti-Scientologists who are avowed to the destruction of the subject and its followers. Some of them support psychiatric abuse with no qualms. Others have even taken money to do the attack. Most of them have no idea of the subject, or a very superficial knowledge of some books and ideas. Some are simply traitors paid by enemies of the Church.

However, there are those that really think of Scientology as intrinsecally evil for the data they have at hand. The things are not that simple, I have to say. Most of them are bigots and fanatics who feel they are acting in good faith. Scientology by the way is like any tool that used in certain ways, it might become a weapon the same as an instrument. A scalpel could save a person or kill him. Scientology could be used the same way. It is a very powerful spiritual subject. Also, there are the ones that think that Scientology is absolutely good, and the same example of the scalpel could be applied to them.

The question is, how are we going to use it?

The rest could be classified as "internet researchers" who happen to be "investigating" whatever they encounter and most of what they write comes from hearsay. Fact finding and fact checking are not their strong points. They are neither Scientologists nor ex-Scientologists, nor even researchers, and have a very superficial knowledge of the subject and the situation. They echo opinions, though. They met some Scientology staff member in the street 40 years ago or so, and think they can appraise something that is much more complex than they could ever imagine. They might have a vague idea or so of Scientology and thought it to be a good idea to write about it.

Sorry, it is not that easy.

As in real life, you can think whatever you want, but you cannot do whatever you want. And if you are going to say it, you must be able to prove it.

This was written to clarify why the subject, movement and church have the characteristics of a religion. It will grow, definitely, it will.  You may disagree or agree with its doctrines, its actions, its public relations, but it will grow.  It is too well organized, its members are devoted and it has very precise procedures to deal with its detractors. I am not saying I agree or disagree with those procedures. I am saying that they exist.

Also Scientology spiritual data is unique in more than a way for many people.

It has survived for more than 62 years as a subject (L. Ron Hubbard says 78, but I am counting from the very first thesis); about 60 years as a movement and 58 years as a Church against huge obstacles; the worst being psychiatry, as of this writing.

It deserves much more than just a perfunctory browsing in the Internet and a superficial writing of an article.

Note: None of the above is to be construed as a coming from the Church of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard writing. None of the above means using copyrighted material, trademarks, or service marks, and is not intended as doctrine of standard Scientology. I am speaking about what I have read for many years inside and outside the web, and from my own direct experience. The owners of the brands continue to be the owners of the brands. This is a set of observations, I made about the subject, the movement and the Church with the purpose of clarifying the confusion I have seen for so many years regarding them. I have no representative or any other position at the organization, except as a voluntary for the critical to psychiatric movement in the Facebook, not for Scientology.

Learn more about this author, Polo Maldonado-Martinez.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.