Shouldn't he have eaten a placenta by now?

February 11, 2007 4:44 AM

The Beginner's Guide to L Ron Hubbard. A surprisingly sympathetic look at the cultists everyone loves to hate. Or more specifically their slightly less crazy splinter church.
posted by mock (152 comments total)

I found this show offensive. The presenter clearly knows about the batshitinsane alien stuff, since he mentions it in passing towards the end of the show, but he does not begin to pursue it or give the audiences any specifics. Why? Because, it seems, he doesn't want to upset his new Freezone buddies.

Or, because he doesn't want to upset the main church, even though they refused to co-operate in the program. Although, if they'd realised how much of a pushover the presenter was, perhaps they would have done.

I don't care much about Freezoners, but I fear this show will help the main church continue to chew people up and spit them out.
posted by Arcaz Ino at 4:55 AM on February 11, 2007

I found it interesting because it is either a brilliant bit of propaganda, or an interesting take on what these people actually believe. They don't come across as any loonier than most religious people, and perhaps even less loony than some. Admittedly, he's dealing with the hippy-dippy wing of the church, not the mainstream orthodox version, so perhaps this makes them appear more sympathetic than they otherwise would. Either way it's a good look inside their heads that they're usually too paranoid to allow.
posted by mock at 5:07 AM on February 11, 2007

I thought it was great. Hardeep Singh Kohli is a thoughtful comedian not some hard-boiled investigative reporter.

I wouldn't have watched an hour-long documentary that took the usual LOL SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE STOOPID/EVIL tone. Similarly, OMG THE NAZIS DID BAD THINGS documentaries are hardly gripping.

Just because he didn't put on a serious face and say that they're crazy (well, thanks, Captain Obvious!) every five minutes doesn't mean the scientologists come out of it looking any better.

Also, bear in mind that Hardeep is being tongue-in-cheek/'taking the piss' in almost every conversation with them.
posted by matthewr at 5:57 AM on February 11, 2007

The thing I've always found interesting is that most Scientologists I've met don't even acknowledge that Xenu is a part of their belief system... and at first I thought it was because they were lying but later I realized that's not why. I have a few musician friends who are Scientologists... they are stellar people I adore -- as a rule we don't talk about religion to eachother. But the few times Scientology has come up and I've mentioned the whole Xenu thing, they just stared at me blankly as though I'd taken the whole volcano/thetan story out of a National Enquirer. They acted like they had no real idea what I was talking about.

The thing is, since the Xenu incident is supposed to be revealed at a very late stage of Scientology processing (they are told about it when they reach OT Level III), the vast majority of Scientologists don't even know about it. So, many Scientologists aren't even aware until years in that their church even HAS batshitinsane alien stuff. By the time they're told, they're deep in the middle of it & it's too late to turn around.
posted by miss lynnster at 6:00 AM on February 11, 2007 [4 favorites]

since the Xenu incident is supposed to be revealed at a very late stage of Scientology processing

Right before the spin cycle.
posted by three blind mice at 6:32 AM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

So, many Scientologists aren't even aware until years in that their church even HAS batshitinsane alien stuff.

Of course, there's more than enough batshitinsane non-alien stuff to keep the normal sceptical mind boggling right from the very first personality test that they offer to the suckers on the street.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:17 AM on February 11, 2007

Who paid for this? Anyone know? They did a nice job - the photography and the production was excellent, impressive.

I just want to know who paid for the training, how much it cost, and who paid the travel expenses for the production crew.

I'd like to see an objective look at Scientology & Free Zone. I don't understand why its such a big deal at all if people want to do this. I know this well-done piece by a Scottish Indian Comedian isn't supposed to be "journalism" but what's missing is where Kohli tells us that he paid his own way. This had to be expensive to produce, and these trainings cost money.

If someone has an answer, I'll take it.
posted by mad_little_monkey at 7:29 AM on February 11, 2007

madmonkey, it's a Channel 4 program, so C4 or the production company or some combination thereof will have put up the money, I assume. C4 is a publicly-owned, advertising-funded broadcaster; there's no way Scientologists paid for this.

Here is the webpage accompanying the programme. There were two other Beginners' Guide programs (Islam and Hinduism), presented by other pop-culture figures in a semi-journalistic (depends how you define journalism, I guess) style.
posted by matthewr at 7:36 AM on February 11, 2007

Sweet, thanks matthewr!
posted by mad_little_monkey at 8:02 AM on February 11, 2007

Oh, that's just great. Another post poking at the most litigious cult in the Galactic Confederacy. Where do I click to donate to the Metafilter legal defense fund?
posted by breezeway at 8:17 AM on February 11, 2007

There is a Galactic Confederacy? I gotta start paying closer attention.
posted by MapGuy at 8:41 AM on February 11, 2007

Man, haven't seen so much sheer, concentrated crazy since the time I stole that nut truck and crashed it right into the loony bin.
posted by loquacious at 8:42 AM on February 11, 2007

Seriously. What the hell is this? "2D relations for sceintologiests"[sic]!? And this?

Why is Mr. Mentally Unstable Cultist almost always walking hand in hand with Mrs. Hideous Webmaster Gifs?
posted by loquacious at 8:49 AM on February 11, 2007

lol xientologists
posted by sourwookie at 8:57 AM on February 11, 2007

"Cultists" (Xenu.Net) has a link to the South Park episode about Scientology.

Tom Cruise and John Travolta, come out of the closet!
posted by notmtwain at 9:02 AM on February 11, 2007

It's a surprisingly thoughtful and entertaining documentary. Some of you folks who've already commented might consider watching it.
posted by ook at 9:22 AM on February 11, 2007

There's a great fun podcast on Hubbard here.
posted by Artw at 9:30 AM on February 11, 2007

Not to rain on the "LOL SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE DUM!!!111" parade, but a) it really is quite rude to refer to a religion as a cult, and b) objectively speaking its no more foolish than any other religion.

Mainstream Christianity, for example, teaches that humans were spontaniously created from dirt a few thousand years ago, were kicked out of an eternally idellic garden due to the mechanizatons of a talking snake who got a woman to eat a magic fruit, and a few centuries later the big father figure in the sky flooded the planet because people were bad. They believe that if they're good after they die they will go live in a cube made of transparent gold.

Islam teaches that virtuous men, after they die will go to a paradise filled with women with regenerating hymens.

Hinduism teaches that after death people are reborn according to their behavior in this life, so if someone is low caste its proper to abuse them, after all they deserve it because of what they did in their last life.

How's Xenu more crazy than any of that stuff?
posted by sotonohito at 10:17 AM on February 11, 2007

The Scientologist belief in aliens is completely irrational.

They should calm down and start believing in virgins getting impregnated by a ray of light and then giving birth to a baby who, as an adult, will walk on water, bring people back from the dead, die, resurrect, eat some broiled fish then fly away in front of a lot of people, eventually disappearing into the clouds.

also, the Trinity demonstrates that 1=3

all these, unlike Scientology's, are perfectly rational, respectable beliefs.
posted by matteo at 10:19 AM on February 11, 2007

Forgot to add: As near as I can tell no one on the net really cared about Scientology until the church forced one of the anon servers to disclose. For that, I'm definately not fond of Scientology, but why not focus on that, the part that was actually bad, rather than just going around repeating Xenu jokes?

Anyone wants to bash Scientology for being asshats who broke an anon server, I'm with them all the way. People who want to bash Scientology for having weird beliefs, I'll point you to the beliefs of every other religion on the planet.
posted by sotonohito at 10:20 AM on February 11, 2007

Most religions are irrational. That's why they call it faith, I guess...
posted by miss lynnster at 10:26 AM on February 11, 2007

I watched the whole video. I knew nothing of Scientology going in -- except that it is trendy to make it the butt of jokes.

It looks a lot more like psychology than religion (yes, I realize the two can be related). I am to understand from the comments here that some religious stuff comes later. But based on this, it looks like a strict, well-organized self-help group. They look like AA with a variation of a lie detector test. As strange as what they are doing may seem to me, the contempt and fear that people feel toward them seems to me to be even stranger.
posted by flarbuse at 10:30 AM on February 11, 2007

As far as caring about Scientology, I've known about it for 20 years, long before the internet. I don't even know what you're talking about with the "anon server" thing. They dragged off of Hollywood Boulevard and talked me into watching a movie & filling out a questionaire in 1987. That was when I first started forming opinions & learning about them.
One of my oldest sisters almost joined the moonies (she ended up Fundamentalist Christian) so at a young age I was already able to recognize brainwashing procedures pretty quickly.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:32 AM on February 11, 2007

The Scientologist belief in aliens is completely irrational.

Irrational? Obviously, you've never made it through the whole of Battlefield Earth.
posted by three blind mice at 10:36 AM on February 11, 2007

Oh, and for those who don't know this... Scientology is not an exclusive belief system. You can be Christian or Buddhist or Muslim and still be a Scientologist on top of that. So you can believe in immaculate conception and loaves being turned into fishes... or you can believe that Allah is the only God and Muhammed is his prophet... AS WELL AS believing that giant H bombs fell on volcanoes to free Thetan spirits into clusters in the air that you have to eradicate by going through a progression of costly programs that will probably cost you your life savings as well as much of your future earnings. (That's what it cost someone I know who made it to OT VII. She spent her son's college fund on trying to "become clear.")
posted by miss lynnster at 10:42 AM on February 11, 2007

"Mainstream Christianity, for example, teaches that humans were spontaniously created from dirt a few thousand years ago, were kicked out of an eternally idellic garden due to the mechanizatons of a talking snake who got a woman to eat a magic fruit, and a few centuries later the big father figure in the sky flooded the planet because people were bad. They believe that if they're good after they die they will go live in a cube made of transparent gold."

well all that was from the old testament wasn't it - dumbass.
posted by vronsky at 10:52 AM on February 11, 2007

miss lynnster My comments weren't directed at you specifically, but rather at Metafilter and the world in general.

As for the anon server thing, it refers to the downfall of anon.penet.fi one of the earlier anonymous remailers. The church of Scientology brought its legal muscle to bear against the remailer after a user with the number an144108 posted all the Xenu stuff publically for the first time. The Church of Scientology based its claims on copyright law, specifically that by posting the Xenu stuff to the newsgroups the individual was violating their copyright.

That incident has caused a lingering dislike for Scientology among many net users, and appears to be origin of most of the really mindless Scientology bashing, which is why I mentioned it.

I'm not at all saying that Scientology shouldn't be bashed, just a bit tired of people who believe equally stupid stuff going about doing the "HUR HUR HUR, THEM SCIENTOLOGISTS SURE IS STUPID, AIN'T THEY" routine. You weren't part of that, so I'm not griping at you.

I was annoyed, right from the start of this thread, because mock called Scientology a cult. I'm an athiest, but I think calling a religion a cult is just diving into sheer mindless bashing for the sake of bashing.

vronsky No. Most of it was, but not all. And what's with the "dumbass" bit? In the first place, you are obviously uneducated about Christianity if you didn't recognize which bits were not Old Testamant stuff, and in the second place the Old Testamant is part of the Christian religion, if it wasn't they wouldn't keep it in their Bible. So maybe back off the "exposing my own stupidity and asshatery" casual insults hmmm?
posted by sotonohito at 10:56 AM on February 11, 2007

Huh. I never heard of that.

And here I thought that the big anti-Xenu outrage started when people heard of Scientology being sued for the alleged wrongful death/coverup of Lisa McPherson in 1995.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:07 AM on February 11, 2007

I think you misunderstand the definition of a Cult, sotonohito.

One if the key aspects distinguishing a religion from a cult is the connection of money/donation with revelation. Even strange gnostic offshoots of Christianity don't claim to divulge the secrets of their theology only after a very, very expensive course of "audits" and "training" -- the criteria generally are such things as the completion of meditation and ritual.

Not so with Scientology. They have no program to get a poor person to Operating Thetan level without many years of expensive courses.

Another important distinction between a cult and a religion is the freedom to depart. Christian Cults (such as the International Church of Christ and their related groups) intentionally extract information during their indoctrination sessions that are used later as extortionate means to prevent members from leaving the church -- threats to publicly reveal the most humiliating "sins" of the victim are often effective. When I was a Christian, I left several churches over that time, for various reasons (moving, political issues), and never once was I put under any more pressure than being asked to reconsider my position. I was never told that whatever indiscretions I may have confessed to someone would be aired publicly, I was never threatened with eternal damnation for straying from the One and True Path. And I was never threatened that I would become "Fair Game" for both real and falsified aspersions on my character, never threatened that I would be slandered as a rapist, pedophile, or other deviant for leaving the Church, or divulging its secret theology.

Scientology also fits this criterion of a cult.

I think it would be very fruitful to understand that the distinction between a Cult and a Religion, sotonohito, lies in the details of tactics and membership strategies and not in whatever purported theology.
posted by chimaera at 11:19 AM on February 11, 2007 [4 favorites]

On a happier note... everyone mark March 10th in your calendar! IT'S XENU DAY INTERNATIONAL!!! Wooooo hooooooooo!
posted by miss lynnster at 11:20 AM on February 11, 2007

When I die, I expect to join Crom in a place dark and cold as clay, with no succour or reward for the feats of my lifetime; perhaps this is why I cling so much more tenaciously to the vibrant riches of this life than you Scientologists. The legal muscle I lack to make my cult a federally acknlowedged religion I make up for in brawn and steel. I'll steal the eyes of your Xenian princes and laugh as I dispatch your Thetan celebrities to the hell they tithe their fortunes to avoid.

Rude? By Crom, I'm a conqueror and a reaver; set aside your fat-land politesse and face my might!
posted by breezeway at 11:25 AM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

posted by flarbuse I knew nothing of Scientology going in -- except that it is trendy to make it the butt of jokes.

That's because they should be mocked and made the butt of jokes, as often and as freely as possible.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:28 AM on February 11, 2007

There are lots of reasons people don't like Scientology, I'm sure. But I noticed a definate upswing in anti-Scientology rants following the shutdown of anon.penet.fi. I can't say that the stuff today is directly related, but the net is a great place to keep grudges going, and a lot of today's geeks got started on uunet back when it and emal were essentially all there was to the net.

All this is purely my POV of course, but prior to the anon.penet.fi thing I didn't see anything resembling the broad spectrum Scientology bashing we see today. Heck, even other religions routinely labeled as "cults" (the Mormons, the Unification Church, etc) don't get the same sort of bashing that Scientology gets. Mind you, Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah didn't help 'em much, but still...

chimaera I think you are using a personal definition of "cult" and making the assumption that its universal. Outside the historic usage (ie: references to the "Imperial Cult" when describing ancient Rome or Japan) there isn't a solid distinction between "cult" and "religion" except that cult is derogitory. Check Meriam-Webster's definition and you'll note that its almost exactly the same as the definition of religion.

In practice, I find that the definition most people use for "cult" is "any religion without a broad enough base of popular support to keep me from calling it a cult".

breezeway If Metafilter had mod points, you'd get one, that was funny.
posted by sotonohito at 11:31 AM on February 11, 2007

To tack onto chimaera's point -- what about the freedom of association? In Scientology, if there is somebody in your life who is critical of Scientology, you have to "disconnect" from them completely. There is no room for questioning the teachings, or talking to somebody who has an alternate point of view who might make you see things a different way than exactly how Co$ wants you to see them. Even if you were a true believer, it's absolutely taboo in Scientology to deeply investigate and test the claims of L.Ron, in the talmudic sense of inquiry and understanding. Now, why would that be? If it's true, it should stand up to scrutiny, and scrutiny should be welcomed. So, what does it say about a "religion" where you can't do that?

Also, Scientology is notorious for playing a serious shell game with a lot of their recruits. They show the bridge as being this straight path, with a start and an ending in the finite future, but then sell you a bunch of tangential courses and books and other materials along the way, stalling progress and making heaps of money off you. That's why even if I think Scientology is 15% obvious self-help and 85% utter crap, I would never criticize the freezone because at least they're not profiting off the whole thing. The Co$, on the other hand, has taken in so much but seems to use their war chest primarily for lawsuits and devising yet more ways to fleece their followers.
posted by brain cloud at 11:33 AM on February 11, 2007

Well, I'm no scientologist, but in re: the whole Xenu thing -
Could it be that they don't literally believe any of that stuff? That it's just a teaching device? I know much of the Masonic ritual is based on storytelling and theater-like plays, and the lessons are more effective in that format. I don't know many (well, any that I know of) people who literally believe the stories, though. Plenty of things to dislike scientology for, but embarrasing stories taken out of context by lay people doesn't necessarily mean anything in my book.
posted by ctmf at 11:46 AM on February 11, 2007

brain cloud So you don't like Scientology, that's fine. I don't particularly like it myself. However, I will note that many Christian sects tell their followers not to have friends critical of the sect as well. When I was younger two of my friends broke off contact with me because their (Christian) religious leaders told them to. Its nasty, but its hardly specific to Scientology.

As for taking money, show me a religion that doesn't. Scientology is more upfront about it, and honetly I see that as a good thing. Most other religions make a big deal of pretending that they don't want your money, but grub for it all the same. A bit of financial honesty is refreshing.

Lets' take a non-Western example. At any Shinto shrine in Japan you can buy the protection of the gods in the form of talismans, its quite straightforward. You give them cash, they give you religion. Would you therefore define Shintoism as a cult?

Let's just admit facts here. Cult vs. religion is not a distinction based in reality, but based purely on acceptability. Using the word is not an effort to make any particular distinction, just a gratuitious slur.
posted by sotonohito at 11:53 AM on February 11, 2007

ctmf: keep in mind the Xenu stuff is revealed at a very late stage in a person's Scientology experience, after having spent many, many years and untold sums of money to be given that particular revelation. In short, they've already drunk the kool-aid by the time they hear about the space aliens. Combine that with the fact that they are not allowed to discuss the contents of that level outside of the course-room, with anybody, not even those who are OT-3 and beyond, and it's difficult to say how many swallow it whole, and how many take it figuratively. Also, everything that follows OT-3 is just an expansion of the space opera story (not that you'd be told that beforehand by anybody in the "church"), so if you don't go along with it, you're going to have to ask yourself why you would bother progressing any further. Apparently it's not uncommon for people to ditch the whole thing after OT-3. For a lot of followers, that's their rude awakening.
posted by brain cloud at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2007

To answer you ctmf. Oh no... I assure you they really think Xenu blew up a volcano with H bombs 75 million or so years ago. Because that's WHY the Body Thetans are swirling around and people need to get rid of them. If it weren't for that whole volcano thing happening, the e-meters and most of their auditing wouldn't be necessary. Everyone would be totally clear.

And on the positive side, if it weren't for Xenu, I wouldn't be able to link to this delicious carrot cake recipe!
posted by miss lynnster at 11:59 AM on February 11, 2007

ctmf Its possible. Personally, I think the whole thing is a sham, same as all the rest. Asking what they *really* believe is always problematical. Do Catholics, to choose an example, *really* believe that they're eating the actual muscle tissue and drinking the actual blood of Jesus? Do Sikhs *really* believe that their holy book is a guru in the same sense that Nanak or the other human gurus were?

The continued existence of Scientology, as well as the newcomers such as Wicca and the like, show the inevitable strain on the major world religions. They're all around 2,000 years old (give or take a few centuries) and their teachings no longer match the world we live in, so people are abandoning them. But many people are uncomfortable being without religion, so they go for new religions which make a bit more sense to the modern mind.

Give it a bit and we'll see some real problems as the major world religions truly enter a colapse phase. I think that Japan is largely sidestepping that by keeping the comforting rituals, but largely ignoring the actual religious substance. In times of strife new religions crop up like weeds. Scientology is one, the resurgence of astrology is another, the birth of Wicca in 1954 is another, etc, etc, etc. Many get their start as scams by con men and later grow to become something else.
posted by sotonohito at 12:07 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

sotonohito: I think you're missing my point. The money aspect of Scientology is notable not because they collect money, per se, but because nothing is revealed to you in Scientology unless you cough up the dough first. And not just a token donation - it's quite a lot of money, thousands of dollars, and for what? You're not paying for anybody's time or attention, and you're likely paying many times the going rate for a book or a tape. Nobody who does any of the footwork in Scientolgy is paid, or if they are paid (Sea Org) it's on the order of slave wages, literally. And before you can make the point that they chose to do that -- one that I would not argue -- a sane, rational person would have to question not "why give money?" but, "why give such HUGE SUMS of money?" Who does it go to? What is it for? These are questions a Scientologist cannot ask without serious consequences. One's spiritual progression is directly tied to ever increasingly expensive courses, rundowns, lectures, "voluntary" donations to different sub-groups of Scientolgy. Really, I would encourage you to look into it yourself, and not take my word for it. At least if you give most other churches a donation, you know what it's going to, and there's a chance it will benefit somebody who really needs it more than you do. In Scientology it's all about enriching David Miscavage and his inner circle.
posted by brain cloud at 12:10 PM on February 11, 2007

I was speaking of the term of cult in what I understand to be the common cultural usage. Roman Catholic theology has portions of its dogma called the Cult of Mary and the like, but in modern terms, people generally reserve "Cult" to be pejorative rather than descriptive.

Generally, an offshoot that may have strange beliefs are generally not applied the term "cult," rather "sect" or "branch," and though I agree that the term "cult" has a much wider range of definitions than I am using, I was intending to elucidate the usage as applied to Scientology, which is, in my opinion unambiguously harmful and manipulative, with its limited redeeming aspects so thoroughly overwhelmed by its negative impacts as to be irredeemable as a "Religion."
posted by chimaera at 12:11 PM on February 11, 2007

To think Scientology is a religion, one would have to be (a) uninformed or (b) mentally retarded.

Scientology is a cult by every respected metric.

Scientology also has a history of violence against its members.

Of infiltrating government agencies to protect itself from prosecution.

Of no-holds-barred destruction of its vocal ex-members.

Of threats of violence against anyone involved in lawsuits against the cult, including violence against judges' property and person.

It is the height of stupidity to casually dismiss Scientology as a harmless organization that should be treated as a legitimate religion.

I usually don't suspect people on MeFi of being retarded, so I'll have to assume several of you are woefully uninformed.

Please read A Piece of Blue Sky for a primer on the cult of Scientology and the clear and present danger it presents to its members and to the security of national governments.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:14 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

posted by five fresh fish the clear and present danger [Scientology] presents to its members and to the security of national governments.

Scientologists are the new terrorists.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:22 PM on February 11, 2007

Scientologists are the new black.
posted by miss lynnster at 12:33 PM on February 11, 2007

fff "legitimate religion", there's a null symbol. A religion is what people say a religion is. If someone wants to worship is toster and call that a religion, it is. Here's Merriam-Webster on the subject:

Religion: "1 a: the state of a religious [a nun in her 20th year of religion] b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Religious: "1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity [a religious person] [religious attitudes]2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances [joined a religious order]"

Nothing in there about being nice, rules about charging money for religious teachings, etc.

For that matter, try applying a bit of historic thought to your usage. Would you define the Roman Catholic Church during the period of the Inquisition as a cult instead of a religion?

You are drawing a distinction that simply does not exist. The distinction between "legitimate religion" vs. "illigitimate religion" is false.

Religion is religion. Scientology is just as much a religion as Southern Baptism, Buddhism, or Jainism. If you wish to say "I do not like Scientology, and I think its dangerous" that's fine. As I mentioned earlier, I really don't much like Scientology myself. But I won't use the term "cult" to refer to any religion, its just gratuitously rude. As an atheist I'm actually a bit more concerned about being gratuitously rude regarding religion than you might think. For non-atheists use of the word cult is simply another varient on the "my religion is better than yours" posturing.

brain cloud From my POV religious donations of any sort are all equally pointless. They do nothing but allow a parasite class to continue existing. That Scientology demands greater financial commitment from its adherents than other religions do is quite irrelivant to me. Again, at least they are upfront about it instead of putting on a public face of pretending that they don't care about money.

As for knowing where your money goes, I have yet to see any major religion open its financial records to either the public, or to generic donors.

If you'd like to see an example of a religion that no one will dare call a cult, look into the finances of the Catholic Church, specifically the financial activities of Mother Theresa's order. Virtually none of the funds given to the Missionaries of Charity were used to benefit the people they worked with, almost all were simply given to the Church and, presumably, used to buy yet more solid gold decorations for the Vatican.

This is, naturally, speculative, because the Missionaries of Charity don't open their records.

chimaera you wrote "but in modern terms, people generally reserve "Cult" to be pejorative rather than descriptive."

And that's why I was annoyed by its use here.
posted by sotonohito at 12:37 PM on February 11, 2007

Sounds like you have it all figured out sotonohito. Good for you. If only there were a cult you could join to help you spell even the simplest of words correctly.

And the next time you form an argument that insults oh maybe a billion people, you could make an effort to get your facts straight. But I realize every group needs their whipping boys, dumbass internet poseurs usually choose religion.
posted by vronsky at 12:44 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

posted by sotonohito But I won't use the term "cult" to refer to any religion, its just gratuitously rude.

You clearly do not undertstand the defintions of the words "cult" and "religion".
posted by fandango_matt at 12:46 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

vronsky ???

I'll freely admit that I can't spell worth crap. Is that what this has become? A spelling flame?

As for insult, you started by calling me a dumbass, I've yet to say anything insulting to you. I've stated, factually, that you are obviously grossly ignorant of Christianity both in your (false) assumption that I cited purely Old Testamant beliefs, and in the (false) assumption that the OT is somehow irrelivant to Christianity. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, everyone is ignorant regarding the vast majority of human knowledge (inevitable, human knowledge is too vast at this point for anyone to be anything but ignorant of the vast majority of it).

I objected to the tiresome insults to Scientology based on its absurd beliefs, and I did so by pointing out the absurdity contained in several religions. You chose particularly to take offense that I cited absurd Christian beliefs, despite the fact that your own words demonstrated that you don't know anything about Christianity.

What facts do you think I didn't get straight? Everything I cited is directly out of the Bible, shall I give you chapter and verse?

Christianity, for example, teaches that humans were spontaniously created from dirt a few thousand years ago Genesis 2:7, were kicked out of an eternally idellic garden due to the mechanizatons of a talking snake Genesis 3:1 who got a woman to eat a magic fruit Genesis 3:6, and a few centuries later the big father figure in the sky flooded the planet because people were bad Genesis 7 & 8. They believe that if they're good after they die they will go live in a cube made of transparent gold. Revelation 21:10-18

The last bit, regarding heaven, is from the New Testement, and that's why I noted that you are greatly ignorant of Christianity when you claimed all my citations were OT.

fandango_matt Er, have you read the rather long rambling posts I've made on those two words? Especially the part where I actually quoted a dictionary?

In its current usage, certaily in the usage in the lead for this thread, cult is simply a derigotory word for religions which are unpopular or small. Historically there have been distinctions, which I pointed out, but they don't apply to the usage here. Here the word was simply used to mean "religion I don't like".
posted by sotonohito at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2007

The word cult has a variety of definitions. Sotonohito is insisting on using the most general, despite the fact that the rest of us are obviously using the more specific.. It is like arguing intelligent design with someone who says "but evolution is just a theory!".
posted by Manjusri at 1:07 PM on February 11, 2007

Manjusri: bingo.
posted by brain cloud at 1:13 PM on February 11, 2007

What's evolution? Are there Thetans involved?
posted by miss lynnster at 1:17 PM on February 11, 2007

very well made documentary - thanks for sharing.

I was disappointed that there was no critical look at hubbard himself, however.

For example

A sordid existence - a man who intentionally misled people, physically abused them, and ended up as a paranoid drug addict.
posted by spacediver at 1:19 PM on February 11, 2007

Now that's low. I don't think I've ever been compared to a creationist before. Ick.

Look, I'm not trying to pull semantic games here. I'm just pointing out that in the context it was used here the term cult was obviously used purely for insult value, not to produce any meaningful distinction.

I will argue that in general there aren't any widely accepted definitions of cult, as evidenced by the fact that every dictionary I've checked has a definition which is virtually identical to the definition of "religion". Here's Merriam-Webster: cult and religion

Note that the two are basically the same.

In general usage people say cult when they want to insult a religion.

We can pull out checklists from various sources, but in the end it means "religion I don't like and/or consider dangerous" with the exception that no one [1] uses the word to describe large, powerful, religions. I prefer to be direct, if I don't like a religion I call it a religion and add that I don't like it. If I consider a religion to be dangerous I call it a religion and add that I consider it to be dangerous.

[1] Except Jack Chick
posted by sotonohito at 1:20 PM on February 11, 2007

I think you're being willfully obtuse, sotonohito, as over the course of much of this thread, several people have made a good faith effort to establish the terms of the discussion to eliminate ambiguity. But go right on ahead ignoring the fact that we are speaking of a very specific and accepted use of the term cult.

Most of the ire, here and on the internet, toward Scientology have nothing to do with the widely-regarded "silly" aspects of their theology. If they were simply a weird sci-fi sect with DC-8 rocketships, sure there'd be plenty of LOLXIENTOLOGIST threads -- but the Church of Scientology isn't just some cheerfully nutty and benign sect that believes in DC-8 rocketships. Just ask the people who have gotten on the wrong side of their mission for (apparent) legitimacy, the people whose lives were ruined or the people with family members who were killed by their overt actions.

Then come back and tell me that calling Scientology a cult is "rude." I'll be rude and right any day about an organization that has that much blood on its hands. They are not a "religion I don't like," they're not even a religion -- they are a business, and their stock in trade is not enlightenment, but oppression-for-profit.
posted by chimaera at 1:20 PM on February 11, 2007 [5 favorites]

The South Park episode pretty much give a good idea. Course you don't have to believe it, but it makes a lot of sense.
posted by elpapacito at 1:39 PM on February 11, 2007

Furthermore, I think it is misleading to imply that people use the term "cult" to describe any religion that people don't like or think is dangerous.

I haven't heard people call fundies cultists.

I haven't heard people call radical muslims cultists.

I haven't heard people call Catholics cultists. Or Baptists, or Lutherans. Or Shi'a or Sunni or Jainists or Zoroastrians.

But I have heard offshoots and subsets of many of those groups cults. And why is that? Generally, it is because those subgroups fit the definition we are using, right here in this thread: extortion to those who wish to leave, financial commitment as explicit obligation for advancement, explicit alienation of members from their family or friends who are non-members, lack of personal privacy (or the "all your sins must be confessed to us"), threats against ex-members or members considering leaving, front groups (such as Narconon) who hide their affiliation, total domination of daily activities (heard of the Sea Org? How does a billion-year contract for servitude sound?).

I'm not just talking about dangerous religions. Fundamental Christianity is dangerous, as is fundamentalist Islam. As are dogmatic and absolutist versions of every religion, political affiliation, economic system, or for that matter any ideology.

But they are not cults, as applies to this discussion, until they undertake very specific and definable actions, such as those I outlined in the last paragraph.

So, allow me to reiterate: Scientology is a cult. I am not calling it a cult because I don't like it (though I don't), or because I believe they are dangerous (though they are). I call them a cult for the reasons outlined above.
posted by chimaera at 1:40 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Brian B. is that you? You do realize that the constituency of this board is largely secular don't you? Assuming we are all trying to mount some defense of mainstream religion is as misguided as insisting we are all using your definition, when we tell you repeatedly we are not. You are using the different definitions of cult in exactly the same way a creationist uses the different definitions of theory to make an intellectually dishonest argument. If cult simply meant religion then you would have no basis for objecting to use of the term.

I am no fan of organized religion, and, like Dawkins think of it as analogous to a virus. When speaking of the same properties people use to gauge the cultish properties of a religion, I favor the term virulence. Scientology is an ebola among religions. It is nasty, it suckers people in when they are vulnerable, uses them up and either turns them into automatons, or spits out the empty shell.
posted by Manjusri at 1:47 PM on February 11, 2007

"Oh, and for those who don't know this... Scientology is not an exclusive belief system. You can be Christian or Buddhist or Muslim and still be a Scientologist on top of that."

If you do you won't progress very far in your Co$ training, so you'll be wasting your money.

To quote from an essay on the subject , in the OT 3 level that "The concept of religion, including God, Christ, Mohammed, Moses etc., were all an implanted false reality that to this very minute are used to control WOGS on Earth."

Furthermore, to quote Minton quoting an "ex-Scientology auditor and Case Supervisor named Caroline Letkeman, who was highly trained (Class IX) to administer the Scientology 'technology' on the Upper Levels of Scientology's Bridge, including OT3":

"In order for scn (Scientology) to 'work' at the upper levels, the person must accept the OT 3 incident as a literal and factual matter. If the person does not experience the fragmented condition as a 'conscious and literal fact', or if he cannot accept Hubbard's interpretation of the psychological phenomena expected at this level, the person is labeled a 'bypassed case' and is sent back to redo his lower levels. I.e., his psychological state must be such that he can see his psychological complexes as external autonomous entities, and he must be able to literally address these entities with the exact volcano story as given by Hubbard.

There is no getting around this point technically--either the incident is real and 'processible' or the person has not validly made his lower grades. According to the technical materials of Scientology, there is no one on this earth who has escaped the incident or who is immune to its effects. That is why Hubbard labeled it as the '4th dynamic engram.'"

(Don't forget that $cientology training costs serious money, so "redoing your lower levels" means spending more money going back over the previous silly shit.)

For further information see the Operation Clambake site.

And by the way, I agree that "mainstream religions" are also cults. This includes the Presbyterians, Shi'ites, Tibetan Buddhists, etc. etc. etc.
posted by davy at 1:51 PM on February 11, 2007

Mainstream Christianity, for example, teaches that humans were spontaniously created from dirt a few thousand years ago, were kicked out of an eternally idellic garden due to the mechanizatons of a talking snake who got a woman to eat a magic fruit, and a few centuries later the big father figure in the sky flooded the planet because people were bad. They believe that if they're good after they die they will go live in a cube made of transparent gold.

spoken like a truly ignorant douchebag! but funny, yes.
posted by quonsar at 1:59 PM on February 11, 2007

chimaera Naturally, I think the obtuseness goes the other way, and that you and the others are simply unwilling to admit that the word is nothing but a derogitory term. In fact, the Wikipedia article linked by Manjusri puts at least one academic in my corner. "If the term does not enable us to distinguish between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no real value. It is the religious equivalent of the racial term for african americans—it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content." Which is supposed to be a quote from Dr. Timothy Miller at University of Kansas. I think that he's perfectly correct.

If you want to say "I think Scientology deserves to be referred to with a derogitory term, and here's why" that's fine too. But don't claim that you are using a word that produces a valid distinction.

If I can return Manjusri's rudeness, its a bit like a Creationist insisting that there really is a diffrence between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". The distinction simply does not exist, there's simply evolution. Similarly, there is no real distinction between "religion" and "cult", there is simply religion.

To take an example, is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a cult? By your definition it very well could be considered so. It too has blood on its hands, is often accused of either commiting crimes or being complacient in the commission of crimes, etc. It is accused of using force, threats, etc, to keep people from leaving. For that matter, is Christianity in general a cult? I note that some murderers and terrorists have the explicit backing of some Christian sects, and that Christians do quite vocally tell people that they will face unimaginable consiquences if they leave. The Catholic Church, until quite recently insisted on full confession of sins, etc.

As far as money goes, I would argue that all religion is a business, and their stock in trade is not enlightenment, but oppression-for-profit. How many people have achieved enlightenment by means of any religion? Now, how many have been oppressed? See where I'm going here?

Like many broad terms, religion includes both good and bad things. It can refer to both Thuggees and St. Francis of Assisi.

I will agree that in casual usage the word "cult" tends to refer to isolationist, thuggish movements. The problem is that the word is a) derogitory, and b) fuzzy. Attempts to produce an objective definition are either so specific that they define essentially just one religion, or so broad that they include religions generally recognized as non-cults.

That's why I'm objecting to your own checklist, it can quite easily apply to a number of religions considered to be mainstream.

You want religion to mean good theism, and cult to mean bad theism. That's understandable. But its awfully hard to come up with a workable definition. If the people who professionally study religion can't make an objective distinction between "cult" and "religion" I suspect that the distinction simply doesn't exist.

As far as your non-Xenu based objections to Scientology go, they are indeed troubling. But that's not why people are so anti-Scientologist, if it was we'd hear about that instead of yet-another-Xenu-joke.

quonsar wrote "spoken like a truly ignorant douchebag! but funny, yes."

How, exactly, is that ignorant? Its all in the Bible, I just stripped away the mystic terminology.

Manjusri Can we stop with the comparisons to Creationists please? I really do find that to be personally insulting.

As I noted above, your own Wikipedia cite included a quote from a professor of religious history who made essentially the same argument I made.

If cult simply meant religion then you would have no basis for objecting to use of the term.

Nonsense. I object to the term because it is a slur. Slurs refer to the same group as the non-slur term does, that's why they're offensive. Take Dr. Miller's example, the common American slur for black people means the same thing as the term "black people", it refers to exactly the same group. But it is offensive because it has no purpose but to be offensive. Same with cult, it isn't marking any legitimate distinction, its just a rude term.
posted by sotonohito at 2:07 PM on February 11, 2007

We're going in circles, here. One way to get out of the circle would be whether, the question of "derogatory" or "pejorative" aside, you consider "cult" to be effectively equivalent to "religion." Is that the case?
posted by chimaera at 2:28 PM on February 11, 2007

The problem, as I see it, is that, using the WP checklist (instead of the one chimaeara made up specifically to apply to Scientologists), it really doesn't seem like Scientology classifies as a cult. Some of the characteristics apply, some don't, and some you'd really have to stretch to say they apply. To take them in order:

1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially

Nope.

2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality

I'd say yes.

3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others

Yep.

4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion

A bit of a stretch.

5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers

Nope

6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal

Nope, unless getting rich is the kind of goal we're talking about.

The average Catholic monastery has more of those characteristics than Scientologists and nobody would describe them as cults.

Further, when you compare Scientology to obvious cults like the Manson Gang, Branch Davidians, Peoples' Temple, Heaven's Gate, et al, Scientology is a pale imitation even in the attributes it supposedly has. There's a clear difference in personal control between, 'buy our books and take our courses' and 'Go invade a house and kill all its inhabitants.' While it can be frustrating figuring out how to describe a group that melds the worst aspects of religion, Amway and the Trial Lawyers Association, 'cult' isn't really that word.
posted by boaz at 2:36 PM on February 11, 2007

chimaera wrote We're going in circles, here. One way to get out of the circle would be whether, the question of "derogatory" or "pejorative" aside, you consider "cult" to be effectively equivalent to "religion." Is that the case?

Yes. Functionally they are identical terms. My objection was purely on the basis that the term cult is exclusively used in a pejorative manner.

That's why I linked to the MW definitions of both words and pointed out that the definitions are all but the same.
posted by sotonohito at 2:46 PM on February 11, 2007

posted by sotonohito That's why I linked to the MW definitions of both words and pointed out that the definitions are all but the same.

And that is where you make your bloomer. You've succeeded in convincing yourself the criticial distinctions between the two terms are insignificant enough to be dismissed, so you continue to disfigure this thread with your convoluted logic, pomposity, and befuddlement, the sound of which is indistinguishable from the braying honk of a retarded jackass.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:05 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

The Scientologist belief in aliens is completely irrational.
They should calm down and start believing in virgins getting impregnated by a ray of light and then giving birth to a baby who, as an adult, will walk on water, bring people back from the dead, die, resurrect, eat some broiled fish then fly away in front of a lot of people, eventually disappearing into the clouds.

This is the same problem I have with a great deal of the mainstream criticism directed at The Da Vinci Code - not the repudiation of the novel's ham-handed, formulaic prose or the film's wooden acting and overall banality (all of which are valid points IMO) but the sneering dismissal/sputtering outrage at Brown's thesis itself....as if the sheer possibility that Jesus may or may not have knocked up some prostitute who subsequently may or may not have bore him a child is in any way more "preposterous" than having a virgin mother, walking on water, healing the blind, resurrecting the dead, or you know, just generally being the freaking son of God. Now that's brainwashing.
posted by Sullenshady at 3:20 PM on February 11, 2007

The Business of Scientology is a dangerous organization that successfully infiltrated and disrupted an IRS investigation into its finances. It is a dangerous organization that has killed people. It is a dangerous organization that harasses its critics employers into firing them; pamphleteers neighbourhoods to call them pedophiles; calls cops to falsely arrest them; and digs up dirt on judges so as to influence the organization's criminal cases.

Whether one wants to call that business a "cult" or "religion" is about as relevant as whether to put a cherry or hot fudge on one's shit sundae.

Regardless what you call it, Scientology is bad.

Read A Piece of Blue Sky. It's on the net for free, and you may have a published copy in your local library.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:22 PM on February 11, 2007

fandango_matt Pissy much? I've been pretty much unfailingly polite here, and gotten little but petty insults for my troubles.

If you had read the linked MW definitions, you would discover that the only reason I had to say "all but the same" is because they did not use exactly the same words in both definitions. There were no "critical distinctions" that I'm busy ignoring. Read the definitions I linked to for yourself, because I'm sure you won't believe me.

Then appologize please.

five fresh fish And that's fine. Say its a bad religion, or even say its a cult and be honest and admit that you are using the word specifically to be insulting because you think Scientology deserves the insult.

As an atheist I try to avoid using derogitory terms for any religion because I've already got people pissed enough just by being an atheist. I also think its a bad idea to use such terms in a FPP. I'm also tired of all the Xenu jokes from people with equally silly religious beliefs.

You have actual, substantial, problems with the CoS, that's a different issue. But, I'll observe that no one here bothered mentioning the big scary problems with the CoS until after someone called BS on all the infantile Xenu jokes. Kinda indicates the problem most people have with the CoS isn't the big scary things you cite.
posted by sotonohito at 3:36 PM on February 11, 2007

Most who know don't say, tap their nose, you know? Nudge, nudge? It's a dangerous world out there, some things you gotta mock obliquely, knowhattamean? Look around, be careful. Don't make a big stink when you know they're here, just act like you're listening, pick up that newspaper like nothing's wrong, got it?

Old mother Hubbard's got eyes in the cupboard.
posted by breezeway at 3:46 PM on February 11, 2007

You have actual, substantial, problems with the CoS, that's a different issue. But, I'll observe that no one here bothered mentioning the big scary problems with the CoS until after someone called BS on all the infantile Xenu jokes. Kinda indicates the problem most people have with the CoS isn't the big scary things you cite.

Perhaps that's because you don't know enough about the subject. alt.religion.scientology existed *prior* to the business with anon.penet.fi, and prior to the revelations about Xenu and was full of critics back in those days. Those criticisms didn't often make it into print, because Scientology has a history of harrassing and intimidating it's critics -- both by using it's money to harrass them in the courts, and by using its adherents to harrass and intimidate them in person.

The combination of the Xenu revelations at the moment when the internet was just at the point of exploding meant that their secrets were no longer possible to keep quiet any longer, and so today all right thinking people subject the organization and it's beliefs to the justifiable ridicule that it so thoroughly deserves.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:56 PM on February 11, 2007

Yes. Functionally they are identical terms. My objection was purely on the basis that the term cult is exclusively used in a pejorative manner.

Fair enough, sotonohito. I'll have to say that there's probably no further useful debate from here. I disagree with your assessment, but anything more will just be at cross-purposes.
posted by chimaera at 4:08 PM on February 11, 2007

Before this goes too far - though I suppose it's too late for that - I want to thank mock for the post. The video was really interesting, and definitely showed a side to the Scientology story that I'd never seen before.
posted by brain cloud at 5:13 PM on February 11, 2007

Interesting video of L. Ron- "The Shrinking World of Scientology" from 1968. According to the site, this is the only video interview of Hubbard by an outside reporter.
posted by notmtwain at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2007

"If I can return Manjusri's rudeness, its a bit like a Creationist insisting that there really is a diffrence between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". The distinction simply does not exist, there's simply evolution. Similarly, there is no real distinction between "religion" and "cult", there is simply religion."

Yet the Websters you place so much faith in has differing definitions for macroevolution and microevolution. Like cult versus religion they are amorphous terms, with no sharp line delineating the two. Also like cult and religion it is possible to cite specific examples that clearly belong to one or the other. In the latter case, a key indicator is the level of coercion it's members are subjected to.

"My objection was purely on the basis that the term cult is exclusively used in a pejorative manner."

Then your objection is null and void. The two primary definitions of cult in Webster's make no reference to negative connotation, unlike the slur you think it is comparable to. Glad I could settle that issue for you, it was starting to get tiresome.
posted by Manjusri at 5:21 PM on February 11, 2007

Wow. I sure am glad that so many "right thinking" MeFite cultists took the time to point out that sotonohito was a dumbass, uninformed, mentally retarded, a poseur, willfully obtuse, an ignorant douchebag, pompous, befuddled, and a retarded jackass.

I guess all of these right-thinking vronskies (a term I have just coined denoting "assholes") can't handle it when their favorite whipping boy (AKA Scientologists, in this case) aren't properly castigated.
posted by Chasuk at 5:24 PM on February 11, 2007

As the original poster let me clarify something about the whole cult/religion thing. I used the word "cultists" because they are obviously nutters.

Scientology as an organization has a giant stick up its ass in regards to being seen as a "legitimate" religion. Refusing to give them that legitimacy seems to me to be the easiest way to make it clear to everyone that I'm not buying into any of the crazy they're selling. If I were posting a surprisingly sympathetic documentary about what pentecostals or the LDS believe, I'd be using much the same words. If I was posting about the CoE or the Catholics, I'd probably pick some other way of being derogatory and insulting.
posted by mock at 5:50 PM on February 11, 2007

mock Still seems infantile and pointlessly provocative to me. A bit like writing a post on Catholics and calling them Papists or something similar.

And, I emphisize, that to an outsider there is nothing in Scientological dogma that is particularly more nuts than in the dogma of any other religion. So they think Xenu killed a bunch of people with nukes a long time back, that's more nuts than believing that a guy in a funny hat can turn a cracker into the flesh of your god?

For the record, I'd also object to the LDS or pentecostals being described as cultists.

Manjusri If the term "cult" isn't insulting, I assume that you'd have no objection to refering to your own religion and religious activity (assuming that you have a religion, if you don't then obviously this won't apply) as a cult for the next year or so, yes?

As for MW, I used it as a reference, the fact that they list definitions for null terms such as micro-evolution doesn't invalidate it as a source for other words. I picked it because it was the second dictionary that came to mind (the first, the OED is subscription only, and one day I'll buy a subscription because I lust after the OED). I'm confident that other dictionaries will offer definitions for "cult" and "religion" which are essentially the same as the same.

Again, I'll observe that your own Wikipedia cite included a mention from a bloody Ph.D in religious history to the effect that the term "cult" is essentially a non-term and is used for no purpose other than insult.

As I said, over and over, if you want to insult the CoS that's your business, but let's not pretend that you're using a proper term that I'm just objecting to because I'm a loon. No one calls their own religion a cult, no one ever says "oh, I joined a new cult today, we're having tea and biscuts this coming Wednesday". They don't do that because cult is nothing but a term that means "religion I don't like".

I could compare the "cult" vs. "religion" distinction you are trying to make to the "pornography" vs. "erotica" distinction some people try to make. In both cases a false distinction is drawn, as illustrated by the fact that in both cases it all comes down to a purely subjective judgement on the part of the speaker, coupled with a desire to use the first term to indicate things they disapprove of.
posted by sotonohito at 6:31 PM on February 11, 2007

You're a fucking Scientologist, aren't you?

IT'S A TRAP!
posted by breezeway at 6:43 PM on February 11, 2007

I'm not sure the term papist really twists the knife in the way I'd like. Presumably catholics are cool with having a pope (plus his hat is possibly the best hat EVAR). I prefer the term "God Botherer" when I'm making reference to the group psychosis that is christianity. If you think papist would work, I'm happy to switch.

Which brings me to my point. Some groups of people are bothered by being called cultists, others are not. This is a very objective test for determining who is or is not a cultist.
posted by mock at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2007

Sotonohito is clearly a Scientologist; otherwise he wouldn't be on his daft mission to have the word "cult" stricken from the book on the grounds he finds it offensive--by removing the stigma of "cult" and insisting we refer to Scientology as a "religion," we've given Scientology a de facto legitimacy. More to the point, why does sotonohito give a damn what we call Scientology?

Just out of curiousity, sotonohito, if "cult" is too offensive, what shall we call the People's Temple (Jonestown), the Branch Davidians, the Solar Temple, and Heaven's Gate, all of which have been labeled as cults?
posted by fandango_matt at 6:54 PM on February 11, 2007

chimaera Naturally, I think the obtuseness goes the other way, and that you and the others are simply unwilling to admit that the word is nothing but a derogitory term.

I'm happy to admit that I'm rather unwilling to admit it.

Why? Whether or not everyone in the whole world already agrees the term "cult" encapsulates the distinctions chimaera is trying to make, those distinctions seem pretty useful, so much so that an argument about whether or not the term "cult" reflects them almost seems moot. They're real distinctions. They're a useful way of saying something objective about differences between religious organizations that actually exist -- and even if you find all theologies pretty incredible, that ought to be true from a socially descriptive standpoint.
posted by weston at 7:03 PM on February 11, 2007

There is no such thing as a legitimate religion, just longer-lived cults with better PR. If $cientology managed to become the state religion of an Empire, then the official religion of the only literate elite in a backward society, in 1700 years its "legitimacy" would still be taken for granted -- and a new religion based on the Son of God born of a virgin would be derided as a "cult" because that's what you do with upstart competitors.
posted by davy at 7:20 PM on February 11, 2007

Mock, I just watched the documentary and found it quite entertaining and enjoyable. I should mention that I have no reason to think that the Free Zone organization exhibits any cultish properties. In fact, while helping a Scientology member extricate himself from the cult I recommended he check them out as a way to free himself the influence of the abusive Scientology organization without having to overturn his entire system of thought.

Sotonohito, I pointed out that the word cult is not universally pejorative, because you cited that as the sole reason for your objection, thus invalidating it. Word games are as easy as they are spurious. I would not be comfortable describing my religious beliefs as a cult, because it is inaccurate. Since you are comfortable using the word Creationist (implying it is neither a slur nor pejorative) I guess it follows that we can use the term to describe your system of thought.
posted by Manjusri at 7:22 PM on February 11, 2007

Second the recommendation for Operation Clambake.

sotonohito, seeing as you can't toss a banana without hitting two dozen psych grads here or anywhere else, consider that there are probably many, many people on MeFi who have studied the psychology of religious experience and for whom "cult" and "religion" are structural terms, and what makes cults special, and dangerous, is not that their ideas are crazier but that their methods are tailored to break down a person's resistance usually through isolation, increasing commitment, less than full disclosure, and limiting access to information.

Moreover, this has been fodder for public discussion for some time now (which is great -- forewarned, forearmed and all that) so I'm sorry if your knee-jerk rejection of the term -- noting the negative connotations but not the reasons for it -- can't grasp that there's some other dialogue happening here. Actually

let's not pretend that you're using a proper term

let's pretend you're not being a willfully obtuse, obnoxious prick.
posted by dreamsign at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2007

Please stop feeding the xenoid.
posted by yhbc at 7:57 PM on February 11, 2007

Let's not pretend a shit sundae isn't a shit sundae. Scientology is an organization that literally uses criminal means to maintain its existence. It is impossible to use words too strong in describing its machinations. "Cult" is every bit as legitimate as "business" and "religion." It all amounts to the same thing: a bizarro mindfucking organization that seeks to extract maximum revenues and maximum compliance from its deluded adherents.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:00 PM on February 11, 2007

There is no such thing as a legitimate religion, just longer-lived cults with better PR.

I do so love semantics arguments. For various definitions of the word "love."
posted by illiad at 9:17 PM on February 11, 2007

I think you'd better give up, sotonohito. Most of your respondents today are intent on being willfully obtuse, obnoxious pricks.
posted by Chasuk at 12:17 AM on February 12, 2007

"'[C]ult' and 'religion' are structural terms, and what makes cults special, and dangerous, is not that their ideas are crazier but that their methods are tailored to break down a person's resistance usually through isolation, increasing commitment, less than full disclosure, and limiting access to information."

Which is not necessary for a "normal" religion because its wacky beliefs are considered "normal" enough to allegedly base whole countries upon them and its adherents have children and raise them in the faith. In the long duree the big difference between Christianity and $cientology is 1700 years of huge social influence and a few recent generations of relative mellowness.

Is $cientology worse than the Spanish Inquisition? Is it not true that through the Inquisition the "normal" Roman Catholic Church tried to "break down a person's resistance, usually through isolation, increasing commitment, less than full disclosure, and limiting access to information," plus threatening to burn them at the stake (a threat they carried out on dozens at a time dozens of times)?

See what I said earlier.

With all this in mind, how is $cientology morally worse than say Papism or Islam? (Which, lest some moron mistake my meaning, are clearly quite scummy?)

---

"While helping a Scientology member extricate himself from the cult I recommended he check [Freezone] out as a way to free himself the influence of the abusive Scientology organization without having to overturn his entire system of thought."

Which of course would be a horrible thing, to have to do without a corpus of craptacular inanities.
posted by davy at 12:31 AM on February 12, 2007

I do not believe that there is a single shining absolute ineffable meaning for the word 'cult' carved in a granite tablet laying at the bottom of each and every one of Xenu's volcanos. I call scientology a cult because (a) it is completely fucking insane and (b) it doesn't have centuries/millennia of tradition behind it to allow its members to function normally in a society which has adapted to their presence, unlike many other religions which are also completely fucking insane if taken seriously but are often not taken all that seriously.

Your personal use of the word 'cult' may vary and I'm cool with that.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:50 AM on February 12, 2007

"(b) it doesn't have centuries/millennia of tradition behind it to allow its members to function normally in a society which has adapted to their presence"

But centuries/millennia of inquisitions are not justified by the fact that people can adapt to their church's craziness, nor have we had the chance to live in a society where such craziness is not "normal". E.g., "Would astronomy have developed faster if people were not threatened with being burned at the stake for saying the Sun does not revolve around the Earth?" is an unanswerable question that we could have done without.

JFYI, the problem with Sam Harris is he's too soft on religion, "spirituality" and mysticism.
posted by davy at 1:16 AM on February 12, 2007

I should say "ONE problem with Sam Harris"; he's also too soft on the War On Terror crowd.
posted by davy at 1:18 AM on February 12, 2007

davy, you're right (about inquisitions; I have no idea who Sam Harris is). I'm not trying to justify the various evils of established religion, just saying in a roundabout way that my own hazy and arbitrary understanding of the word 'cult' has something to do with general acceptance. When a practising Scientologist has a chance of being elected as leader of a major democracy, I'll stop calling L Ron Hubbard's mind control routine a cult and start calling it a 'religion' (which is not a compliment either).
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 1:38 AM on February 12, 2007

The Spanish Inquisition was established by the Spanish state, almost entirely for political reasons. Of course, it doesn't make that piece of history any less deplorable, but if you're gonna pick an example of one church's shameful past to draw some moral equivalency to what a criminal cult is doing today, make sure the church actually instigated it, and do try to pick something that happened a little more recently than 500 years ago.
posted by brain cloud at 2:01 AM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Which of course would be a horrible thing, to have to do without a corpus of craptacular inanities.

Sometimes you have to walk before you can crawl. When you're living in a Scientology family's basement, spending your days on a phone bank in a Scientology sweatshop calling members to pressure them to come in and spend money on a workshop, having quit your job and spent all of your savings and inheritence on Scientology training yourself, and having alienated your family, and all of your former friends, your belief system might be all you have left, batshitinsane as it is.
posted by Manjusri at 2:07 AM on February 12, 2007

I've been reading history: the Catholic Church celebrated the Reconquista by repeatedly urging the Spanish kings to stop being so damn nice to the Jews, even though Jewish money funded the Reconquest. See The Separdic Frontier by Johnathan Ray: I'm currently in Chapter 3, so far he's saying that the Spanish kings resisted Church and social pressure against the Jews for many years for fear of "slaying the goose that lays golden eggs." Eventually the policy changed from goose-keeping to inquisiting, when the latter became more profitable and expedient, but as the Wikipedia article shows it was not the kings that had the idea first.
posted by davy at 2:58 AM on February 12, 2007

(How did a post about Scientology get turned into YeahOMGbutInquisition!!1! It's the religion-thread equivalent of Godwin.)
posted by brain cloud at 3:49 AM on February 12, 2007

I first read a bunch of "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" (sometimes called the Scientology bible), in 1974. Some years latter, I looked at a new copy. Odd, it had changed.

I asked people at a CoS about that, and they denied it totally. However, I know for a fact that I am right, and they lie.

Therefore, sorry, they are a cult, for some useful definition of the word. If that makes someone unhappy to hear me say so, oh well. Welcome to the real world, where sometimes people say stuff that makes you uncomfortable.

Once I read someone trying to define cult, separate from religion. Loosely, they stated that a religion is what people get raised in. A cult is what people join latter. This is a nice but nebulous twist on the concept. Lots of folks are raised LDS. Lots of people also convert to it.

Back in the 70's, there were some folks amongst the CoS willing to accept that it was a 'religion' only so as to avoid paying taxes on income. I suspect this was before the current bunch running things there came into power, but I don't care enough about it to do the research.
posted by Goofyy at 4:04 AM on February 12, 2007

fandango_matt wrote Just out of curiousity, sotonohito, if "cult" is too offensive, what shall we call the People's Temple (Jonestown), the Branch Davidians, the Solar Temple, and Heaven's Gate, all of which have been labeled as cults?

You, naturally, are free to call them whatever you want, and I'm free to object to your terms if I disagree. I call them religions, because that's what they are. Dangerous religions, yes, self-destructive religions no doubt, but religions.

Religion is not, by definition, a good thing. Its simply a thing. It covers everything from the Aztec with their human sacrifices, to a Jain sweeping the street so he doesn't step on bugs.

Theists often want to restrict the term "religion" to what they see as good religion, while using a separate term for bad religion. That is perfectly understandable, and I'm sure that the pros do have a variety of terms they use to describe actual separations between religions, religious practices, etc. But "cult" is an emotionlly charged term, it isn't used discriptiviely but to indicate contempt, fear, disgust, etc. Look at Mock's statement that he used the term purely to keep people from thinking he was a Scientologist, he just outright stated that his use of the word cult was not descriptive but to indicate that contempt, fear, disgust, etc.

I say this becaue there isn't a generally accepted definition of the word cult that is used by actual students of religion. Lots of people have checklists, all different, and usually tailored to describe a particular religion they don't like. Those lists, if used objectively, will either be so specific that they define just one religion, or so general that when applied objectively they cover at least one generally accepted religion.

"Sotonohito is clearly a Scientologist"

Nope. I am an atheist. My only relation with the CoS is that I once knew a couple of former Scientologists, oddly they never mentioned any trouble or attempts on their life, or anything regarding their leaving the CoS.

"More to the point, why does sotonohito give a damn what we call Scientology?"

Because I like words, and I like to argue terminology. Amberglow and I had a month long argument over the use of the term "radical", in that case I was taking the position that it is a word with a proper and non-derogitory use, while he maintained that it was improper to use due to its negative connotations.

Also, I'm still waiting for your appology for this statement "You've succeeded in convincing yourself the criticial distinctions between the two terms are insignificant enough to be dismissed, so you continue to disfigure this thread with your convoluted logic, pomposity, and befuddlement, the sound of which is indistinguishable from the braying honk of a retarded jackass."

Have you read the definitions I linked and discovered that, amazingly enough, I was correct and that there were no "critical distinctions" I was dismissing?

Manjusri wrote "Since you are comfortable using the word Creationist (implying it is neither a slur nor pejorative) I guess it follows that we can use the term to describe your system of thought."

Creationist is a legitimate term, it has a specific meaning. Much like "Klansman" is a legitimate term that has a specific meaning. If I wrote the sentence "David Duke is a Klansman" it would be accurate, and I don't think he'd take offense.

That doesn't mean other people wouldn't take offense if I used the word to describe them. Were I to write "Manjusri is a Klansman" it (I assume) would not be accurate, and you'd probably be pretty annoyed.

I'm not a Creationist, and while the term is legitimate, I consider the group it describes to be delusional, so I'd be annoyed if you described me as a Creationist.

Unlike "cult", "Creationist" has a specific meaning and is not used purely as a slur. In the context of this discussion, I'd consider it a slur if you called me a Creationist. When talking with my Creationist associates, it isn't. Context is important too.

dreamsign wrote "let's pretend you're not being a willfully obtuse, obnoxious prick."

And you were doing so well up until then.

What I want to know is where all the nastyness came from? I've been looking over my posts and I notice that I didn't call anyone names, I haven't insulted anyone, yet I've been subject to a lot of name calling in return. WTF people?

"consider that there are probably many, many people on MeFi who have studied the psychology of religious experience and for whom "cult" and "religion" are structural terms,"

If that's the case, I notice that none of them have jumped into the discussion to make that point, or offer the definition that makes "cult" and "religion" structural terms and clearly and objectively distinguishes between the two.

Since they haven't jumped in, I think its safe to assume that maybe you are wrong, and they aren't structural terms, but rather both refer to the same thing with one being a pejorative term.

Again, if you want to insult the CoS that's your concern, I'm arguing because people are insisting, wrongly, that there is a legitimate use for the word "cult".

Goofyy wrote after a claim that the CoS has lied "Therefore, sorry, they are a cult, for some useful definition of the word."

In order to qualify as a cult in your book all a religion has to do is lie? So, er, does this mean that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult because it lied about the pedophile priests? Or because Bill Donohoe lied on national television claiming that he'd never said things he's on record as saying?

Again, I note that you are defining "cult" as "religion I don't like". Thats fun, if you want to insult people of that religion, but hardly a definition that produces a clear and objective distinction between a religion and a cult.

in general I think a lot of the problem, especially regarding the odd hissy fits many people are throwing, is that by noting (correctly) that the terms "cult" and "religion" are functionally identical, differeing only in that one is pejorative and the other isn't, many religious people are feeling that I've somehow insulted them.

Out of curiosity, how many of you people blowing their tops and writing posts laden with insult are atheist?
posted by sotonohito at 4:27 AM on February 12, 2007

Out of curiosity, how many of you people blowing their tops and writing posts laden with insult are atheist?

Not me, I'm a sophist.
posted by mock at 4:45 AM on February 12, 2007

heh
posted by sotonohito at 4:49 AM on February 12, 2007

Sotonohito: It's terribly easy to take a statement out of context in order to make it mean something you can conveniently attack. Perhaps this impresses some idiots, but I think you'll find Metfites a little more difficult an audience.

How much $ off are you getting on your dianetics processing, for your efforts here? Your empty arguments really make you sound like nothing more than a shill.
posted by Goofyy at 6:22 AM on February 12, 2007

Goofyy How did I take your comment out of context. First you said the CoS (actually, that's an assumption, you just specified "Scientologists", not that what you got was the official CoS position) lied, and followed it up with a "therefore they are a cult".

To me this looks like you said "when a religion, or its spokesmen lie, it means the religion is a cult". This sounded a bit odd to me, so I asked if you really held that position and used a few examples from the Catholic church (largely held to be not a cult) to explain why I thought your comment sounded odd.

As for the rest of your post, I find it amazing that some people here are unable to believe that a non-Scientologist would object to the word cult. If this were a thread on the LDS and I was objecting to the word cult, would you assume I was an operative of the LDS?

I'm arguing because I like to argue language and terminology, and I think I'm right. There is no objective distinction that can be drawn between a "cult" and a "religion", the only reason to use the word cult is to indicate disgust, to give offense, etc.

I've said multiple times that if you want to express disgust with Scientology, or be offensive to Scientologists, that's your business, my only objection is the claim that the word cult has a non-pejorative meaning, the claim that it draws a valid distinction. It does not. Stripped of all emotional baggage, the two words refer to exactly the same thing, therefore the emotional baggage is the important part.

I'm not in the business of defending the CoS, they're a scam job, same as all the othe religions. They may even be into brainwashing and other quite unsavory practices. I'm just saying that the word cult has no valid meaning.
posted by sotonohito at 6:50 AM on February 12, 2007

quonsar: "spoken like a truly ignorant douchebag! but funny, yes."

Just a second there, professor... I'm a little late to this one, but this is kind of striking: why the pile-on about CoS's set of unbelievable stories being qualitatively worse/more dangerous/more evil than $OTHER_RELIGION's fantastic stories? Maybe I'm offending your sensibilities here, but there's this central set of tenets for Christianity, right? And it's full of stories that make no goddamn sense, and can barely be parsed for meaning except in the most liberal, metaphorical sense? And lots and lots of people really, truly believe that daddy = junior = spooky, and the bits about the water and the wine and the fishes and the loaves and the miraculous healing? And none of those stories are any less innately believable than (say) volcanoes and hydrogen bombs, or reincarnation, or regenerating hymens?

I mean, sure, I'm willing to posit that scientology is more intrinsically evil than your average world religion, because of its horrible and deceptive treatment of members past and present, and because it likes to throw its weight around litigiously, but trying to question the validity of a belief system based on how ridiculous its canon of literature is is going to be something of a liability if you adhere to ANY religion.

Ah, screw it, from now on I'm just going to channel loquacious in every religious discussion we have in here.
posted by Mayor West at 7:19 AM on February 12, 2007

Like I said upthread, sotonohito, I worship Crom, who was invented by fantasy author Robert E. Howard about twenty years before L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology in a sci-fi novel. My cult is older, but, since we have fewer adherents and Howard never realized the financial possibilities of starting his own religion (and therefore never had the wherewithal to mount a campaign for the tax status that religion confers), worshiping Crom is not recognized by the US government as a religion.

Scientologists, when cornered, fight tooth and nail to banish the word "cult" from general use, on grounds that all religions could be called cults, and that the only difference is that cult is offensive. There are some real differences between the way the CoS conducts its affairs and arrive at their doctrines, and the way established religions do. This thread is chock full of examples, but, like a cornered Scientologist, you're keening over and over to have "cult" whitewashed out of existence. Is it any wonder that, even though you claim otherwise, many here think you're a Scientologist? You even claim oppression when people here get fed up with your obtuseness.

If you aren't a Scientologist, why go to such lengths to make people think you are? Maybe you are a Stygian, from whose twisted mouths drip only falsehood and fear. No matter; you've sprung your trap so often here that its iron is feeble and worn. And I spied a tunnel that might lead out of this murky labyrinth. Crom! To think, I'll be free of this fool's errand by nightfall, drinking wine in some dusty tavern, a servant girl on my knee. Ah, that gives me the will to fly!
posted by breezeway at 7:29 AM on February 12, 2007