Hello!

F

fraz

New member
Hi everyone,

I've been lurking for a while but thought I'd sign up and say hello. Not an ex-sociologist, just curious to hear experiences.

I'm currently studying sociology and doing a module on religion and cults, and where the dividing line is, and also study psychology, particularly research into conformity. So there's lots of overlap and opportunity to research into Scientology. It's always felt wrong to me to study things like this from a very academic and removed viewpoint - most of my classmates haven't heard ex-scientologist experiences and that's certainly reflected in the way they discuss cults in our lectures. It's a real shame and while your intentions in discussing your experiences probably aren't to help us lot out I am ever so grateful for forums like these in allowing us to remove as many myths + misreporting from academia as possible.

Very nice to meet you all, especially anyone else who's from the UK! :)
 
fraz said:
Hi everyone,

I've been lurking for a while but thought I'd sign up and say hello. Not an ex-sociologist, just curious to hear experiences.

I'm currently studying sociology and doing a module on religion and cults, and where the dividing line is, and also study psychology, particularly research into conformity. So there's lots of overlap and opportunity to research into Scientology. It's always felt wrong to me to study things like this from a very academic and removed viewpoint - most of my classmates haven't heard ex-scientologist experiences and that's certainly reflected in the way they discuss cults in our lectures. It's a real shame and while your intentions in discussing your experiences probably aren't to help us lot out I am ever so grateful for forums like these in allowing us to remove as many myths + misreporting from academia as possible.

Very nice to meet you all, especially anyone else who's from the UK! :)
Click to expand...
Hi Fraz, personally I don't see any difference between cults and religion. Our friends across the pond tend to disagree on that. I see love bombing, blackmail, manipulation of 'parishioners' using threats of excommunication and demands for money in both. Religions like the Catholic church have engaged in hiding child abuse and there was the scandal of the cruel treatment of unmarried mothers in Ireland. There are many more undiscovered scandals I'm sure in other religious communities. This article has the same idea as me... Child sexual abuse inquiry to be held into religious organisations.

From what I can work out cults work by getting you to accept more and more lies until you are trapped believing in the invisible walls that hold you in the cult. The same happens in religions and political parties as well as gangs and any movement that traps people in. It's probably true about fan clubs and groups of neighbours that go out collecting rubbish from beauty spots. Then where there is power over people there tends to be abuse of that power. Power over children often leads to the worst king of abuses.
 
La La Lou Lou said:
Hi Fraz, personally I don't see any difference between cults and religion. Our friends across the pond tend to disagree on that. I see love bombing, blackmail, manipulation of 'parishioners' using threats of excommunication and demands for money in both. Religions like the Catholic church have engaged in hiding child abuse and there was the scandal of the cruel treatment of unmarried mothers in Ireland. There are many more undiscovered scandals I'm sure in other religious communities. This article has the same idea as me... Child sexual abuse inquiry to be held into religious organisations.

From what I can work out cults work by getting you to accept more and more lies until you are trapped believing in the invisible walls that hold you in the cult. The same happens in religions and political parties as well as gangs and any movement that traps people in. It's probably true about fan clubs and groups of neighbours that go out collecting rubbish from beauty spots. Then where there is power over people there tends to be abuse of that power. Power over children often leads to the worst king of abuses.
Click to expand...
It is true that there is practically no difference between sects and religions.
Perhaps one difference would be that a sect systematically seeks to swindle the follower while a religion will have real charitable works.
 
Irayam said:
It is true that there is practically no difference between sects and religions.
Perhaps one difference would be that a sect systematically seeks to swindle the follower while a religion will have real charitable works.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But I think many cults are lead by people who believe their own lies, and who are convinced that they are 'special', and not like the 'herd'. They would be the last to see their behaviour as greedy or self-serving. Persuading a follower to sell their house and to give the money to the 'church' is a key thing in many new 'religions' like Krishna Consciousness. But all grandiose religious buildings with or without gilt decoration were and are paid for by people, many of whom couldn't afford it. The Mosques Churches Temples and Gurdwaras etc being built today around the world are doing so at the sacrifice of a lot of people's savings.
 
People usually disagree with me when I say Scientology is a religion. They often say "no, it's a cult, religion is good". My response is, "all religions are cults and some religions are worse than others". This, of course seldom receives a positive response from religious people.
 
Last edited:
Harold#1 said:
People usually disagree with me when I say Scientology is a religion. They often say "no, it's a cult, religion is good". My response is, "all religions are cults and some religions are worse than others". This, of course seldom receives a positive response from religious people.
Click to expand...

I agree that Scientology is a religion.

However, if the Church of Scientology should have U.S. income tax exemption then there are more requirements for that.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. :)
 
Last edited:
fraz said:
Hi everyone,

I've been lurking for a while but thought I'd sign up and say hello. Not an ex-sociologist, just curious to hear experiences.

I'm currently studying sociology and doing a module on religion and cults, and where the dividing line is, and also study psychology, particularly research into conformity. So there's lots of overlap and opportunity to research into Scientology. It's always felt wrong to me to study things like this from a very academic and removed viewpoint - most of my classmates haven't heard ex-scientologist experiences and that's certainly reflected in the way they discuss cults in our lectures. It's a real shame and while your intentions in discussing your experiences probably aren't to help us lot out I am ever so grateful for forums like these in allowing us to remove as many myths + misreporting from academia as possible.

Very nice to meet you all, especially anyone else who's from the UK! :)
Click to expand...


:) Greetings,

Scientology is a business and a system or psychology masquerading as a religion. Its primary activity nowadays is real estate acquisition.

Video on Scientology's fraudulent religious cloaking:

A brief - and balanced -tour of the Scientology operation, with two links to more material at the end.

Link to The Scientological Onion

Hope this helps.
 
Harold#1 said:
People usually disagree with me when I say Scientology is a religion. They often say "no, it's a cult, religion is good". My response is, "all religions are cults and some religions are worse than others". This, of course seldom receives a positive response from religious people.
Click to expand...

Scientology is a psychological cult.

By acquiescing to its number one fraudulent assertion, that it's a genuine religious institution, you're contributing to its power, and helping to make possible its continued massive fraud and abuse, including against children.
 
Veda said:
Scientology is a psychological cult.

By acquiescing to its number one fraudulent assertion, that it's a genuine religious institution, you're contributing to its power, and helping to make possible its continued massive fraud and abuse, including against children.
Click to expand...
Why do you think "a genuine religious institution" isn't a "fraudulent assertion"?

What is "a genuine religious institution"?

Why does calling something "a genuine religious institution" give it power?
 
Last edited:
Cults are at war. Cults have enemies that they are at war with. Cults conduct war against these enemies. These enemies don't know this. They're just people or some group that is going about its business.

Religions don't do any of this stuff.

The fact that some cults exist that call themselves a political party or a religion is just another aspect of cults...which is:

Cults misrepresent themselves as a benign and helpful institution that is good for mankind and deserving of broad public support.

Cults adorn themselves with ornaments that make them appear helpful or good.

Cults cloak themselves with titles and such that appear beneficial.

Cults are onions and as one descends the layers to the core the true nature of the cult is exposed and it's directly opposite of the outer layer that is publicized broadly.

Religions don't do any of this stuff and aren't comprised like this. There's no "enemies" lists. There's no shaming or blaming or cancelling or disconnecting or making up the damage.

Religions support and build communities.

Cults leach off of communities like parasites.

Cults abuse their members and demand much from them.

Religions nurture and don't do any of that.

Cults usually benefit a few at the expense of the many.

Religions are for the parishioners.

Cults have hidden agendas and private goals that cannot see the light of day.

Religions don't have this going on.
 
guanoloco said:
Cults are at war. Cults have enemies that they are at war with. Cults conduct war against these enemies. These enemies don't know this. They're just people or some group that is going about its business.

Religions don't do any of this stuff.

The fact that some cults exist that call themselves a political party or a religion is just another aspect of cults...which is:

Cults misrepresent themselves as a benign and helpful institution that is good for mankind and deserving of broad public support.

Cults adorn themselves with ornaments that make them appear helpful or good.

Cults cloak themselves with titles and such that appear beneficial.

Cults are onions and as one descends the layers to the core the true nature of the cult is exposed and it's directly opposite of the outer layer that is publicized broadly.

Religions don't do any of this stuff and aren't comprised like this. There's no "enemies" lists. There's no shaming or blaming or cancelling or disconnecting or making up the damage.

Religions support and build communities.

Cults leach off of communities like parasites.

Cults abuse their members and demand much from them.

Religions nurture and don't do any of that.

Cults usually benefit a few at the expense of the many.

Religions are for the parishioners.

Cults have hidden agendas and private goals that cannot see the light of day.

Religions don't have this going on.
Click to expand...
Organised Religions cloak their activities and their intentions too. Sending missionaries to third world countries to convert the ignorant heathens while pretending to be there as doctors, or teachers, the third world countries send people to the West to convert the evil Christians. People in Saudi in prison for owning a Bible, or praying publicly. People in western countries protesting the against a Mosque with a sledgehammer. Fatwas on people who stop being Muslim. People in a Jewish cemetery cleaning up the broken tombstones.

So Christians are really happy that Islam is a growing influence? Not so, and they are fighting back.

Rich Popes, glittering cathedrals vast collections of priceless works of art, with billions while the poor of the planet starve in their millions.

The Church of England is a huge landowner in a country with thousands sleeping on the streets.
Ex-communication is Church policy.
Child Sex abuse might not be Catholic policy, but covering it up was.
American evangelists working in Africa with politicians to get death penalty for homosexuals.
No I don't see any difference.

Your friendly local priest is not intent on the destruction of life as we know it, they rather like the status quo, but the Christian message does not. Christ demanded that his followers pool their finances. Don't forget that it's as hard for a rich man to enter the gates of Heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, yet the head of the Church of England is one of the richest people on the planet. Mainstream religions have moved so far away from their beginnings as to be unrecognisable by the people who started them.

The Catholic church in Ireland was a leech on its parishioners. They wouldn't have had to say sorry if there was no need.

Irish Catholic Church apologises to victims of church-run homes

There may be truth and goodness in organised religions, but there's also a lot of bad. I like going in to religious buildings, they are fabulous, the architecture is designed to make you feel awe and to have a sense of something much bigger than my pathetic little short life, but they are also very disconnected from the fundamental message of their founders.
 
Harold#1 said:
Why do you think "a genuine religious institution" isn't a "fraudulent assertion"?

What is "a genuine religious institution"?

Why does calling something "a genuine religious institution" give it power?
Click to expand...

I think, you mean "why do I think it IS a fraudulent assertion," and the number one (most important) fraudulent assertion, as Scientology Inc.'s power depends on it.

Despite the impression that Scientology Inc. seeks to create, it is not universally regarded as an authentic religious institution. There are counties that regard it as a for-profit psycho-political operation. What's remarkable is that Hubbard, albeit inadvertently, admitted as much, but that's another topic.

This has been discussed so much, and explained in such detail, that I am slightly amazed that there are some people who still don't get it. But, as with Big Lies, repeated so often, with Scientologists trained to use the words "religion," "the Scientology religion," "my religion," "parishioners," "ecclesiastical," "religion, religion religion," especially when in the presence of "wogs," I shouldn't be surprised.

It wasn't always that way, back in the 1960s and into the 1970s, only the dumbest people in Scientology regarded Scientology as a religion. All but a few knew the religious pose was a defensive and protective measure to allow Scientology's tech to be applied.

As early as 1952, Hubbard wrote and stated that religion was an "implant." It was degraded. People who were "religious" who came into Scientology were regarded - quietly - as Degraded Beings who were dramatizing one or more implants.

In late 1954, guided by the notes of his confidante, and editor, John Sanborn, and having activated what he called "the religion angle" (for tax purposes and to avoid various laws), Hubbard lectured about Scientology's similarity to Buddhism, Taoism, and the Vedas. There was even a quote from the Bible prominently placed in the front of a latter edition of the book Creation of Human Ability.

Link to the Hubbard, Buddha, Crowley thread (Note: Crowley despised religion, and did not regard his teachings as religious, and warned that any attempt to make them a religion would lead to "a rather stupid kind of mischief.")

For the record, Buddhism was originally a Wisdom School, Taoism was wisdom, the Vedas were a collection of writings quite varied. Over long stretches of time, these became debased, and descended into propitiation and ceremony. Yet, even today, Yoga is not a religion, Buddhism, in its highest expression, is a discipline and a system of psychology, etc.

The Rosicrucians are not a religious. The Monroe Institute (Out Of Body etc.) is not religious. The various societies of Psychical Research, etc., are not religious. Psychotherapists, who do past life recall therapy, do not claim to be religious. And the list goes on.

Why does posing as a religion give Scientology power? It only gives it power in some places. Where it's not expedient, and it doesn't give it power, it doesn't pose as a religion.

"Why" should be obvious.

Maybe these links will be helpful:

Link to Religious cloaking thread

Link to Scientology's Sharia Law thread

Link to Scientology's Religious Angle: A Twisted History by Mike Rinder

Edit: Links added
 
Last edited:
Harold#1 said:
People usually disagree with me when I say Scientology is a religion. They often say "no, it's a cult, religion is good". My response is, "all religions are cults and some religions are worse than others". This, of course seldom receives a positive response from religious people.
Click to expand...
Scn "scripture" says past and future lives exist and scientologists give credence to that belief in various degrees so it's as much a religion as Buddhism or Hinduism even without a belief in a Supreme Being or Beings as in Hinduism. Some countries have disqualified scn as a religion on the grounds of its financial system of paying for religious (haha) services rather than its professed beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Veda said:
I think, you mean "why do I think it IS a fraudulent assertion," and the number one (most important) fraudulent assertion, as Scientology Inc.'s power depends on it.

Despite the impression that Scientology Inc. seeks to create, it is not universally regarded as an authentic religious institution. There are counties that regard it as a for-profit psycho-political operation. What's remarkable is that Hubbard, albeit inadvertently, admitted as much, but that's another topic.

This has been discussed so much, and explained in such detail, that I am slightly amazed that there are some people who still don't get it. But, as with Big Lies, repeated so often, with Scientologists trained to use the words "religion," "the Scientology religion," "my religion," "parishioners," "ecclesiastical," "religion, religion religion," especially when in the presence of "wogs," I shouldn't be surprised.

It wasn't always that way, back in the 1960s and into the 1970s, only the dumbest people in Scientology regarded Scientology as a religion. All but a few knew the religious pose was a defensive and protective measure to allow Scientology's tech to be applied.

As early as 1952, Hubbard wrote and stated that religion was an "implant." It was degraded. People who were "religious" who came into Scientology were regarded - quietly - as Degraded Beings who were dramatizing one or more implants.

In late 1954, guided by the notes of his confidante, and editor, John Sanborn, and having activated what he called "the religion angle" (for tax purposes and to avoid various laws), Hubbard lectured about Scientology's similarity to Buddhism, Taoism, and the Vedas. There was even a quote from the Bible prominently placed in the front of a latter edition of the book Creation of Human Ability.

Link to the Hubbard, Buddha, Crowley thread (Note: Crowley despised religion, and did not regard his teachings as religious, and warned that any attempt to make them a religion would lead to "a rather stupid kind of mischief.")

For the record, Buddhism was originally a Wisdom School, Taoism was wisdom, the Vedas were a collection of writings quite varied. Over long stretches of time, these became debased, and descended into propitiation and ceremony. Yet, even today, Yoga is not a religion, Buddhism, in its highest expression, is a discipline and a system of psychology, etc.

The Rosicrucians are not a religious. The Monroe Institute (Out Of Body etc.) is not religious. The various societies of Psychical Research, etc., are not religious. Psychotherapists, who do past life recall therapy, do not claim to be religious. And the list goes on.

Why does posing as a religion give Scientology power? It only gives it power in some places. Where it's not expedient, and it doesn't give it power, it doesn't pose as a religion.

"Why" should be obvious.

Maybe these links will be helpful:

Link to Religious cloaking thread

Link to Scientology's Sharia Law thread

Link to Scientology's Religious Angle: A Twisted History by Mike Rinder

Edit: Links added
Click to expand...
"It wasn't always that way, back in the 1960s and into the 1970s, only the dumbest people in Scientology regarded Scientology as a religion."

laughter! I couldn't have said it better - lol

In the orgs and missions a couple of people walked around wearing a collar for the sake of appearance. I never tried one. haha
 
Veda said:
I think, you mean "why do I think it IS a fraudulent assertion," and the number one (most important) fraudulent assertion, as Scientology Inc.'s power depends on it.

Despite the impression that Scientology Inc. seeks to create, it is not universally regarded as an authentic religious institution. There are counties that regard it as a for-profit psycho-political operation. What's remarkable is that Hubbard, albeit inadvertently, admitted as much, but that's another topic.

This has been discussed so much, and explained in such detail, that I am slightly amazed that there are some people who still don't get it. But, as with Big Lies, repeated so often, with Scientologists trained to use the words "religion," "the Scientology religion," "my religion," "parishioners," "ecclesiastical," "religion, religion religion," especially when in the presence of "wogs," I shouldn't be surprised.

It wasn't always that way, back in the 1960s and into the 1970s, only the dumbest people in Scientology regarded Scientology as a religion. All but a few knew the religious pose was a defensive and protective measure to allow Scientology's tech to be applied.

As early as 1952, Hubbard wrote and stated that religion was an "implant." It was degraded. People who were "religious" who came into Scientology were regarded - quietly - as Degraded Beings who were dramatizing one or more implants.

In late 1954, guided by the notes of his confidante, and editor, John Sanborn, and having activated what he called "the religion angle" (for tax purposes and to avoid various laws), Hubbard lectured about Scientology's similarity to Buddhism, Taoism, and the Vedas. There was even a quote from the Bible prominently placed in the front of a latter edition of the book Creation of Human Ability.

Link to the Hubbard, Buddha, Crowley thread (Note: Crowley despised religion, and did not regard his teachings as religious, and warned that any attempt to make them a religion would lead to "a rather stupid kind of mischief.")

For the record, Buddhism was originally a Wisdom School, Taoism was wisdom, the Vedas were a collection of writings quite varied. Over long stretches of time, these became debased, and descended into propitiation and ceremony. Yet, even today, Yoga is not a religion, Buddhism, in its highest expression, is a discipline and a system of psychology, etc.

The Rosicrucians are not a religious. The Monroe Institute (Out Of Body etc.) is not religious. The various societies of Psychical Research, etc., are not religious. Psychotherapists, who do past life recall therapy, do not claim to be religious. And the list goes on.

Why does posing as a religion give Scientology power? It only gives it power in some places. Where it's not expedient, and it doesn't give it power, it doesn't pose as a religion.

"Why" should be obvious.

Maybe these links will be helpful:

Link to Religious cloaking thread

Link to Scientology's Sharia Law thread

Link to Scientology's Religious Angle: A Twisted History by Mike Rinder

Edit: Links added
Click to expand...
nonsense
 
Irayam said:
It is true that there is practically no difference between sects and religions.
Perhaps one difference would be that a sect systematically seeks to swindle the follower while a religion will have real charitable works.
Click to expand...
My personal criteria:

Do they actually primarily seek the betterment and comfort of the religion's members? Then they are a religion

Do they primarily seek to squeeze money out of the members to create a lavish lifestyle for the leaders? Do the leaders exploit the members for their own personal benefit (financial, sexual, or otherwise) ? Then they are a cult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top