"Cults and New Religions", chapter 2, pages 44-46, Bromley and Cowan new religious movement scholars are the authors.
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
scholars, from the book "Cults and New Religions", 2008, Chapter 2
"The Church of Scientology", pages 44-46, Blackwell Publishing:
"Why, then, is there such debate over Scientology’s claims to and
credentials as a religion? There are four principal reasons:
appearance, expense, ambiguity, and secrecy.
“First, however much it tries, there are a number of dimensions on
which Scientology does not appear to match the profile of groups
traditionally regarded as “religious.” That is, for many people it
just doesn’t look like a religion. It does not maintain church
buildings or sanctuaries; there is no deity central to its religious
practice’ and for the majority of Scientologists weekly worship
services are incidental at best. For millions of people, without
these dimensions in place, Scientology can never legitimately claim
the title of “church.”
“Second, there is the issue of expense. When it made the transition
from therapy to religion, Scientology retained the fee-for-service
basis on which Dianetics was originally offered, and indeed, has
continued to expand its religious product line ever since. Because of
this, critics contend that any claim to religious status is expedient
at best, spurious at worst, and is deployed only to serve the
transnational business interests of the organization. Both Stephen
Kent (1999a, 1999b) and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (2003) have published
lengthy articles arguing that Scienotlogy is little more than a
multinational corporate empire that purports to be a religion solely
for the purpose of securing the social benefits available to religious
groups--most notably tax relief, though in some countries this
includes state recognition and access to educational systems. Others
suggest that it is precisely Scientology’s claims to religious status
that have allowed what they regard as its “deviant business” practices
to succeed where so many other similar enterprises have failed (Passos
and Castillo 1992). These suspicions about Scientology’s ultimate
interests are fueled by a conviction that Scientology added religious
trappings only to conceal its true commercial interests. Scientology,
after all, began as Dianetics and later self-consciously chose to
organize itself as a church. Indeed, during the late 1940s, Hubbard
is believed to have told group of fellow science fiction writers that
“writing for a penny a word is ridiculous… If a man really wanted to
make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his
own religion” (quoted in Miller 1987:148). For many people, however,
a group either is or is not a religion; it does not calculate whether
to become one on the basis of expedience or avarice.
“Third, in addition to resembling a business more than a religion in
the eyes of its critics, Scientology has blurred the line between
religious practice and secular therapy by providing what resemble
therapeutic services under the mantle of religion. Not unlike
Transcendental Meditation, which we will consider in the next chapter,
while Scienotlogy presents itself as a religion, it legitimates its
truth claims in scientific terms. Scientology, however has not only
stepped outside the organizational niche that more traditionally
religious groups occupy, the Church has also asserted its interests in
what many regard as a profoundly militant fashion. As one Scientology
spokesman candidly stated, “Scientology is something people feel
very , very strongly about… It’s not a go-to-church-on-Sunday kind of
religion. It’s an intense religion. If people get in your way, they
need to be dealt with one way or another” (quoted in Lattin 2001b).
And Scientology has done just that. In its contentious battles with
the FDA and the Internal Revenue Service in the US, and various
governmental organizations in Europe, Scientology has publicly alleged
that these bodies have proactively and maliciously infringed on
individual rights to freedom of religion. In its long-running
conflict with the psychological and psychiatric professions,
Scientology has referred to psychiatrists as murderers, and the
psychiatric profess as nothing more than a gruesome means of social
control.
“Finally, although some of its teachings have come to light through
legal proceedings (see Cowan 2004a), the Church remains intensely
secretive about its internal workings and esoteric material.
Scientology claims to be among the most open religious movements in
the world, but to date the Church has not permitted the kind of
systematic social scientific research that has been conducted among a
number of other controversial religious groups ---Eileen Barker on the
Unification Church (1984), for example, or James Chancellor on The
Family International (2000). On one hand, this creates the public
impression that the Church has something to hide, and that any claims
otherwise are little more than attempts to avoid scrutiny. On the
other hand, also not unreasonably, Church concerns that their beliefs
and practices will be misrepresented, and that this will negatively
impact their quest for recognition as a religion, has led Scientology
to take a cautious and guarded stance toward scholars, and vice versa
(see Cowan 2004b). It is therefore not surprising that mistrust of
Scientology runs strong and its claims to be a religion have generated
(and will likely continue to generate) such acrimonious debate.”
My comments, reading the two chapters, the one on Scientology, and
then the chapter on Transcendal Meditation, back to back, provide an
interesting couple of viewpoints about Scientology having chosen the
religion label, and TM having chosen the secular label.
I think Scientologists need to read what scholars say about their
religion and think about it, and think of how the hell they are going
to undo the worst of the Hubbard crap that keeps the controversies
being generated.
It is NOT the outside world's fault for Hubbard's problamatic penalty
rules that penalize and upset people's lives who find fault with
Hubbard's system.
I wish there would be a book on the Hubbard penalty system and its
detrimental effects, despite all the good intentions for the penalty
system.
Danny Sherman ought to originate communication to these two scholars,
Bromley and Cowan! Danny as a free man ought to allow full access
and unlimited interviewing of himself as the top in house Scientology
scholar!
Danny Sherman, and Andy Lenarcic!!!! Speak up you guys!
OSA internet people, please print this off and give it to Danny and
Andy, and DON'T cut out my suggestion that Danny and Andy contact
these scholars!
THAT would be progress!
Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me anytime!)
http://tinyurl.com/49g722
http://tinyurl.com/295khy
http://tinyurl.com/cgrg7
http://tinyurl.com/38ptz8
http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf
http://tinyurl.com/5xkdl5