From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:04:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.111142.3605@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>     The reason I made that post is because I really want to know why
>someone would spend so much time being critical of Scientology.  I first
>read this newsgroup in Janurary and the same people have been posting the
>same critical comments about the Church since.  For almost a year they
>have continued to attack this church.  So I just want to know what is their
>motivation for doing this.  I mean, "Do they just enjoy suppressing religion,
>or do they have some other vested interest that we don't know about?"

	This is still a biased question.  It reminds me of a time when a
friend of mine was asked "Is Dan Quayle really an idiot or is he just
acting that way?"  (Now I think that he ~IS~ an idiot,  but my friend
actually ~likes~ Quayle,  so he was bothered by this question)  This question
still tries to frame the actions of people who are not 100% delighted with
Scientology as something sinister.  Whereas,  I think that the primary
answer that's been given here,  that many people have reason to believe
that Scientology is very hurtful to many people is what motivates most
of them.  People who just want to "suppress religion" can probably have alot
more fun bashing fundies on alt.athiesm,  or punching out LaRouchites
at the airport.

>     At least once a month, certain people will be challenging Scientology
>to produce "proof" of its claims.  They generally want some type of 
>published scientific study because that is what they consider to be 
>reputable.  In actual truth, something like that would be the easiest
>thing to fake, and would have been done a long time ago if Scientology
>was the "ruthless global scam" they try to make it out to be.  

	This is a good one.  We can't prove it,  because it would be too
easy to fake.  Maybe Uri Geller should go around and say,  "Hey guys,
I can bend spoons with my mind (and not just pushing them against my
forehead :-).  But,  I won't do it because scurillious knaves like
James Randi can fake it."

>     Also, if you know anything about the subject at all, you will see
>that the skeptics and critics don't know even the most basic principles
>of the science of Scientology.  Every time they refer to a Scientologist
>"sending his thetan" into the next room, I have to laugh.  This is still
>Soooo Misunderstood.  Anyone who investigates Scientology for himself will
>find that it is a completely workable technology.  

	This much like the arguments of nuclear power advocates who believe
that the populace should have no right to make decisions regarding nuclear
power since "they don't understand."  This is also a way that Scientologists
are trained to defend their religion.  Instead of actually defending their
beliefs,  all they have to do is say...  "You don't know anything about the
subject of Scientology".  And they all do this from the lowest levels up to
David Muski-whatever when he was on Nightline.  If I actually did waste my
time and read more books on the subject,  they would still tell me that
I don't understand it.

>2.  LRH played the largest practical joke in history.  He discovered a
>way to cause people to have hallucinations that they were "outside of 
>their body" so then the people formed one of the fastest growing 
>religious movements on the planet and proceeded to rip-off every person
>they could get their hands on.        

	I would hardly say that it is the largest practical joke in
history,  or even that it was meant as a joke.  BTW,  OOBEs are not a new
phenomenon -- I had an experience which could have been construed as one
last week.  With the use of certain drugs,  OOBEs can be induced very
rapidly (several minutes to hours) in a good fraction of the population.
Even without drugs,  it is easy to see how an OOBE-like state could be
produced with several months worth of processing.  Sometimes it can be
done very quickly with hypnotic language patterns,  particularly with
people who are stoned (i.e.  I have a stoner friend who doesn't come
around when he's stoned because I can talk him into having OOBEs).  As
such,  I don't think that having a method to produce OOBEs is all that
remarkable.  Particularly if you have the whole context weight of the
church,  the whole Org and all the investment of time and money that
people put into it.

>     Do you see what I mean?  Critics try to say that Scientology doesn't
>work and that auditing is an expensive rip-off.  Some even suggest that
>auditing should be free.  If it was, Scientology could never survive but
>that is just what the critics have in mind.  Scientology services are the
>most valuable things in existence at this time, and would be worth the
>money if the donation was 10x higher.

	The argument that "Scientology works" is meaningless on an
anecdotal level.  Just about anything that a client believes in can at
least temporarily cure neurosis.

>     I am convinced that certain people who post to this newsgroup have
>the intention of harming the Curch.  For reasons unknown, these people
>are opposed to the Church of Scientology as they would be to any group
>who was effectively handling suppression on planet Earth.  

	BTW,  what is the Hubbard theory about suppression?


-- 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology