Scientology on the march

The Evening Standard's Jason Beattie is reporting tonight that the Labour Party has received thousands of pounds in donations from a charity linked to Scientology. The charity, the Association for Better Living and Education, based at the church's hq in Sussex, was given permission by the National Executive Committee to take a stall at the party's annual conference in Manchester. Stalls can cost up to £13,500. The stand was part of the religion's continuing attempts to promote its drug rehabilitation programme Narconon and its criminal rehab programme Criminon. The church recently opened a new centre in London  where one exhibit on display claimed “the Holocaust was conceived and
propagated by psychiatry”. The Standard targeted Labour but in fact Narconon also had a stand at the Conservative conference in Bournemouth. Church members include Hollywood stars Tom Cruise, said to be buying a house in Sussex, and John Travolta.  I used to be a Cruise fan but I'm afraid he further diminished his fading box office appeal for me with his attack on actress Brooke Shields for taking drugs to combat post-natal depression. His fiancee Katie Holmes was said to have given birth to baby daughter Suri in silence because Scientologists believe noise is harmful to a newborn baby. It emerged last year that gifts worth thousands of pounds appear to have been lavished on police officers from the City of London force by the church. When a police officer spoke at the opening of the London curch, he was criticised by the Cult Information Service.

But the new London church and the drive for political respectability are part of a much wider expansion of the Church throughout Europe. This story by Deborah Cole is running on AFP:

The US-based Church of Scientology will open a giant new center in Berlin on Saturday, sparking fears that the hotly disputed group is trying to muscle in on German politics. The controversial church, whose followers include powerful Hollywood film stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, has remodeled a six-storey, 4,000-square-meter building to boost its profile in the German capital.

Opponents say the group, which has rapidly expanded in Europe in recent years, tries to lure impressionable young people with aggressive recruitment methods and harasses critics. An internal Church of Scientology document about the gleaming new center in Berlin obtained by AFP indicated that the group sought not only new members but also political influence in Germany. “In order to implement our planetary salvation campaigns, we must have access to the highest levels of the German government in Berlin,” the document said.

Founded in the United States in 1954 by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology was accorded the status of religion there in 1993, and enjoys a tax exemption. But it is regarded with suspicion in many European countries, including Belgium, France, Germany and Greece, where authorities contend its leaders seek economic gain and use totalitarian methods to keep supporters in line.German authorities say between 5,000 and 6,000 Scientologists live in the country while the Los Angeles-based organization cites 30,000.

The group is under observation by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and several state security watchdogs, although not by the Berlin authorities following a successful court challenge by the group. The general secretary of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats, Ronald Pofalla, said the left-leaning government in Berlin had made a serious mistake by allowing the new center to open. “It is intolerable that Scientology can throw its weight around in the capital of Germany,” he said.

The chairman of the Lutheran Church in Germany, Wolfgang Huber, said Scientology had nothing to do with religion“and certainly nothing to do with Christianity”, and should not enjoy the protection of the state. “They want to pressure people and do business under the cloak of religion,” he told the Berlin daily B.Z., adding that Scientology aimed to make its followers into “perfect machines”.

A Scientology expert with the Hamburg interior ministry, Ursula Caberta, said the group aimed to undermine German democracy with a “cynical ideology”. “They want to be represented in all the capitals of Europe,” Caberta said, noting that the organization has already established centers in Madrid, London and Brussels.

A Scientology spokesman in Berlin, however, denied in a brief statement that the group planned to meddle in political affairs. And the US State Department has frequently criticized the policies of Belgium, France and Germany for its “discrimination against minority religions”, including Scientology.
Despite deep scepticism about Scientology in Germany, some observers have argued against state suppression of the group, saying that German citizens should be trusted to discover any faults of the organization on their own. “If, for example, school children are being targeted for indoctrination with tutoring courses offered by Scientology then the state must protect the weak,” Berlin’s daily Tagesspiegel wrote in an editorial this week. Otherwise the public’s most powerful weapon is democracy. Nothing more and nothing less."

Comments

[Stuart]

I have often wondered what scientology is about. Your article, Ruth, leaves me as much in the dark as ever. Good tabloid journalism, though - should get the posters out and about ....

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Ruth,

I know little about this group's philosophy except what the media reports.

This is yet another example of America's expertise in marketing and recruiting. God really needs agents of this caliber on his side.

[Very Rude]

So a minor religion (or cult if you prefer it that way) is now trying to gain more adherents and extend its influence into the secular sphere. So what? Isn't this what all religions do? Isn't it how Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and all the rest came to prominence? Secularists and atheists have good reason to disapprove but for a religious person like you to do so smells of hypocrisy. After all, you Christians (and Muslims etc) showed them the way. Perhaps this will spell it out to religious people exactly why the rest of us think that the maintenance of a secular state is so important: it is nothing to do with trying to convince people to abandon their religious beliefs but to prevent a free-for-all where our laws, health service, education provision etc are continually pulled hither and yon by competing religious groups, with their usual escalation of aggression, intimidation and militancy.

[alistair mcbay]

This is precisely what happens when people are allowed to believe in the supernatural without being challenged to provide scientific evidence.

Tell your friends that you believe Body Thetans are clinging to your body because they have lost their free will as a result of an event in their past. Then tell them Body Thetans are the disembodied souls of the billions of space aliens brought to Earth and blown up by nuclear bombs in volcanos by an evil alien called Xenu, who is said to lead the Galactic Confederacy.

Your friends will think you've been smoking the waccy-baccy, or been sniffing glue. If you are serious, though, and they care for your mental health, they will suggest you get yourself sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Ah,...but tell them it's your religious belief and - abracadabra - that's perfectly OK, why don't we let you have a Scientology school for your kids? (there is one in Forest Row, East Sussex, in all but name! - I have the last Ofsted report on it, if anyone is interested)

Why is such nonsense permissable and even encouraged just because these idiots claim "it's a religion?" Or are the religious apologists on this blog going to tell me that I can't disprove the existence of Xenu, just like I can't disprove the existence of God or Allah, so that means it's a no-go subject area and it could have happened, so we must respect their beliefs?

And here we are this week with the perfect example of what happens when beliefs go unchallenged and are somehow automatically deemed to be 'sacred' and untouchable:

FAITH-BASED TOILETS!

Yes, folks, the new police station in Bradford has now been opened and boasts 'multi-faith toilets' and toilets 'designed specially for Muslims'

Here is the URL - read it and weep:

*http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/news/tibnews/display.var.1114485.0.its_in_perfect_nick.php

Can anyone possibly justify this absurdity? Have we all gone stark raving mad?

[Billy Corr]

Maybe, that phoney Tony wants the lend of Tom Cruise and John Travolta's home's for his next holiday when he will be on his uppers with no job.

[Emanuel Appel]

letter from America

Dear Mr. McBay,

A wise and hoary American dictum holds that "if you can't lick'em, join'em".

I'd suggest faith based furniture, beer, and drugs. Pretty soon, you'd be able to buy England.

[Peter Farrington]

Do atheists, agnostics and secularists really still believe that their position is not as faith based as that held by Christians, Muslims, Hindus and even Scientologists?

There is not one person in the UK who does not live by faith, whether faith in God or faith in God's absence.

That being the case why on earth should the public domain be abandonded to the religion of atheists and secularists?

We are rapidly leaving the age when atheism was any sort of reasonable position to hold and it is tiring to keep hearing adherents of the faith of secularism ranting on as if their faith alone was the one which should dominate the public domain.

Give it a rest! We are not living in the early 20th century anymore. We all know that the religion of atheism has led to more deaths, persecution and suffering than any other religion.

[Robin Bather]

Another hoary American dictum states that "There's a sucker born every minute" and that would seem to apply to Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

[alistair mcbay]

Peter, I am not sure which planet you come from, but here on earth religion and faith involve placing belief in a higher power without having any evidence for it whatsoever. Indeed, the religious apologists on this blog tell us that there can never be scientific evidence for God. The only evidence for faith seems to be that millions of others believe the same thing you do, so that makes it true.

Atheism, on the other hand, requires no such belief, so it is absurd to claim atheism is a religion or a faith. You need to be able to prove that atheists require at least as much faith to believe there is no god, as believers do to believe there is. The atheist believes in what he or she has good reason to believe in, by way of evidence. The atheist has no reason to believe in supernatural entities for which there is no evidence. If you wish to say that atheism on this basis is a faith position, then the amount of faith involved is utterly miniscule (at best) compared to the amount required to believe that a man-god was born of a virgin, was killed and resurrected. Then again, if you were a Muslim, you wouldn't believe Jesus was a man-god, or that he was crucified and resurrected. It seems just having millions of others believe the same thing you do is no proof that your god exists, then.

The question regarding who has killed nore people depends on one factor you carefully avoid - that of motivation. There is no doubt that the Crusades and the Inquisition were the direct result of people motivated by religous faith. I've yet to see books dedicated to explaining the Atheist Revolution, as opposed to a Communist one, for example.

Like all secular humanists, I have no time for any form of militant atheism that seeks to overturn religious belief by force. Atheism's most authentic political expression takes the form of state secularism, not state atheism.

Finally, I came across this quote recently about the Holocaust. "Religion played a central part in this. Christian churches from the time of Constantine in the fourth century had wanted to convert Jews and medieval Christian churches throughout Europe engaged in varying degrees of persecution because they felt it was the jews who had crucified Christ. This belief formed the basic foundation for anti-Semitism and was never contradicted, or even adressed directly, by any religious group throughout this period."

This is a direct quote form "Holocaust" in the Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion (Routledge, 1998, p338.) My guess is you would count the Holocaust as evidence of the religion of atheism, but clearly you'd be wrong.

[J Pearce]

Peter Farrington is clearly advocating the following:

1. A return to the Crusades (the full blown, lets retake Jerusalem for Christianity ones, not the half arsed Bush/Blair photocopies).

2. A return for slavery.

3. Burning heretics.

4. The earth as the centre of the Universe.

5. Interminable violations of state boundaries and holy wars, based on the belief that "my God tells me I'm right, thereore you are going to die".

6. The Bible as the sole fount of all wisdom.

7. The right of all religionists to dictate the lives of others, to the nth degree.

8. All blacks, women, homos, Jews and atheists reduced to the status of cattle.

Inumnerable other anti-human violations, based on the decrees of a self-appointed theocratic totaltarian regime, whose sole purpose in life is to ensure the perpetuation of its power and control over others.

Given the choice, I'd go with the flawed-but-works secularism that currently holds sway in this country every time.

[Simon]

Alistair

Peter, I am not sure which planet you come from, but here on earth religion and faith involve placing belief in a higher power without having any evidence for it whatsoever. Indeed, the religious apologists on this blog tell us that there can never be scientific evidence for God. The only evidence for faith seems to be that millions of others believe the same thing you do, so that makes it true.

Atheism, on the other hand, requires no such belief, so it is absurd to claim atheism is a religion or a faith...

You're playing semantics here. Atheism relies on the belief that the universe just appeared out of nowhere. This is of course contrary to many laws of physics. Meanwhile in Genesis we have the spirit of God speaking the universe into existence, and that very Word of God we as Christians believe to be Jesus - "through him all things were made". So if you take God (as we believe him to be) an unfathomable bring that exists outside of time and space, the Big Bang theory that is almost universally accepted amongst cosmologists fits very well indeed. Further insights and discoveries over the past couple of decades have lead us to a position where its simply not credible to believe that the universe could be as fine tuned for matter that supports life by random chance. So much so that cosmologists only way around this is to invent countless billions of other universes, none of which is there the slightest evidence for! And of course that is terrible science - and many physicists are very uncomfortable with this.

So any honest person, without an agenda, would say that the weight of scientific evidence is against atheism.

Alistair

You need to be able to prove that atheists require at least as much faith to believe there is no god, as believers do to believe there is. The atheist believes in what he or she has good reason to believe in, by way of evidence.

What evidence ? The idea that this universe, with all its amazing symmetry and order (without which physics would be useless), just came into existence from nowhere is completely lacking evidence of any kind. It seems as if you have been blinded by your faith!

Alistair

The atheist has no reason to believe in supernatural entities for which there is no evidence. If you wish to say that atheism on this basis is a faith position, then the amount of faith involved is utterly miniscule (at best) compared to the amount required to believe that a man-god was born of a virgin, was killed and resurrected.

We have a good degree of evidence, such that all mainstream historians (atheist or not) are prepared to accept it, that Jesus existed as a person and was crucified. That he resurrected was not something we find rejected in any remaining records from when the Romans were hammering the early believers. For example Try reading Tacitus (Annals 15.44), who would surely have mentioned if there was any reason from the administration in Jerusalem to believe the central claim of this new 'sect' was contested.

So all you have left is the idea that God created a gamete compatible with human DNA. Next to the existence of this universe, the ability of its creator to do that (in order to fulfil his promise) does not seem too difficult to accept.

Alistair

There is no doubt that the Crusades and the Inquisition were the direct result of people motivated by religous faith.

Yes sure - the Muslims were destroying places that were important to Europeans at the time, and the Byzantines (who had been invaded) requested assistance in defending them. The fact those places were important because of religion is irrelevant. We used to brutally invade France on a regular basis because there were parts of it we considered to be important to us - does that mean that the idea of Englishness itself is somehow responsible for all the deaths ?

[Stuart]

How quickly did the debate shift from the designated subject to an attack on religion itself. Thank you, atheists, everywhere! Your urge to use every opportunity to attack the thing you do not believe in is psychologically revealing. Interesting posts - keep 'em coming!

But I would like to hear more about scientology.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear all,

We're repeating old arguments re new circumstances.

The Hebrew Bible is the history of Israel as the Anglo Saxon Chronicles is yours. Political events listed there are only incidentally connected with a higher faith or ethics. Yes, our traditional teachers maintain that every single jot and comma is a sign from God. Good - they have their belief and I have mine. We're all Jews, we're all the community of Israel. The fur starts to fly when religious professionals seek career and money from the State. Then you see fire , brimstone, and "expulsions".

Faith is exactly that. Does it work for you? Fine. Act it but don't cut my throat or regulate my diet.

Switzerland and 2-3 Scandinavian countries actually forbid Jews from slaughtering cattle according to our norms. This is under the guise of "humanitarianism" dating back to before WWII. Of course, Moslems can cut the throats of their women if they dress like Britney Spears but they're allowed because you fear them. Cattle get more protection.

[Very Rude]

"why on earth should the public domain be abandonded to the religion of atheists and secularists?"

Why on earth are you Christians squealing about the Scientologists then? They have at least as much right to dominate the public domain as any other superstitious mob. Let them take over the public domain, displacing Christianity if they can. The rest of us will just ignore the tedious ranting of the latest mob and get on with our lives.

[alistair mcbay]

"What evidence ? The idea that this universe, with all its amazing symmetry and order (without which physics would be useless), just came into existence from nowhere is completely lacking evidence of any kind."

Not true. There is ample evidence.

What is "completely lacking evidence of any kind" is that it came about because a supernatural power floating around in nothingness worked for six days to create it. That is what constitutes blind faith.

Even if there was evidence for your belief, Simon, that would merely pose the question as to who created the supernatural being who created it, would it not? Turning Behe's irreducible complexity in on itself, if the universe is so incredibly complex that it must have had a designer/creator, then how much more infinitely complex is the designer who designed that designer, and surely there must als have been a designer who designed the designer who designed......well, you get the picture.

And your argument about "Englishness" is nonsensical. What you are saying here is like arguing that we should waste any effort trying to tackle cancer, because if that doesn't get you another disease will. We are told poverty and inequality stoke war as well as countless other factors - does that mean we shouldn't try to tackle poverty and inequality because other things cause war too?

[Simon]

Alistair

Not true. There is ample evidence.

Why can't you provide any then ?

Alistair

What is "completely lacking evidence of any kind" is that it came about because a supernatural power floating around in nothingness worked for six days to create it. That is what constitutes blind faith.

Its obviously not six 24 hour earth days - that would be an arrogant and bizarre interpretation given our current knowledge. Leading physicists like Bernard Haisch speculate on a depth of understanding expressed in the story that is still beyond our understanding such as in this article on the Zero Point Field, whilst (real) theologians are finding ever more depth to the spiritual and human dimensions expressed - such as John Paul II's commentary on the second creation story here.

Alistair

Even if there was evidence for your belief, Simon, that would merely pose the question as to who created the supernatural being who created it, would it not? Turning Behe's irreducible complexity in on itself, if the universe is so incredibly complex that it must have had a designer/creator, then how much more infinitely complex is the designer who designed that designer, and surely there must als have been a designer who designed the designer who designed......well, you get the picture.

No - this ignores what we actually believe about God. Its based on a ridiculously shallow view of his existential nature - based on projecting relative reality onto him. Revelation describes God as having an absolute nature; eternal - without beginning or end. God called himself "I am that I am", Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am". For you to ignore the nature of God as he is believed to be, and instead criticise an image of him you have created yourself, is to be a strawman. God was not created, he 'simply' is.

Alistair:

And your argument about "Englishness" is nonsensical. What you are saying here is like arguing that we should waste any effort trying to tackle cancer, because if that doesn't get you another disease will. We are told poverty and inequality stoke war as well as countless other factors - does that mean we shouldn't try to tackle poverty and inequality because other things cause war too?

By your argument, the only common cause of war is humans - and so we should get rid of humans and that would solve the problem ? People always tend to find something to fight about. We are tribal creatures by nature - and if its not the tribe then its the religious beliefs, and if its not the religious beliefs its the political beliefs, and if its not the political beliefs its the football team, and if its not the football team its the person that slept with the wife etc. The best way to try to avoid war is to repress that side of our nature(1), to communicate and mediate diplomatically(2), and to have the wisdom to know the difference between things we can and can't change(3). These are all a central part of Christianity, and those ignoring them are going against Christianity. For example;

1) Luke 6: "28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."

2) Matthew 5: 23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

3) Mathew 22: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"

The cases where Christians have fought each other and ignored these things is when they are acting as humans, not Christians. Of course there are cases when you can follow all of these, and its still not possible to avoid fighting - such as with someone like Hitler rolling his armies across europe. These are the equivalent to standing against someone, say, beating a child up on the street. Some people are simply aggressive and/or evil, and that's due to the fact we are given free choice about how we react to what life throws us. No amount of laws on an international or local level will ever avoid that completely, nor will eliminating religion. But to blame it on a religion like Christianity is absurd.

[J Pearce]

Simon:

"The best way to try to avoid war is to repress that side of our nature(1), to communicate and mediate diplomatically(2), and to have the wisdom to know the difference between things we can and can't change(3). These are all a central part of Christianity, and those ignoring them are going against Christianity."

So why the religious hoo-haa about homosexuality, Simon? There doesn't appear much "wisdom to know the difference between things we can and can't change" going on in that debate, from certain sections of the Christian community, does there?

And the quote from Luke(6) - "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic" - doesn't that give carte blanche to thieves everywhere? Is the Bible saying that property rights are irrelevant?

Talk about mixed messages...

[Simon]

J Pearce

So why the religious hoo-haa about homosexuality, Simon? There doesn't appear much "wisdom to know the difference between things we can and can't change" going on in that debate, from certain sections of the Christian community, does there?

I don't think you've seen much "hoo-haa" from me - I think there is a weird tenancy to concentrate on the issue. I have no issues with people claiming I'm sinning having sex outside of marriage, because I am going against the ideal for society as a whole - the law which was made for man, not to control him. So I do also understand some people being concerned that society is disintegrating its foundation in an ideal, and replacing it all with nothing more profound than "me, me, me" rights. Our society has (rightly IMO and that of the Church) removed its criminalisation of homosexuality, but to some the turn in tide, from acceptance to celebration, has become a symbolic representation of the way the increasing secularisation of society is leading to people who even claim a different ideal to be criminalised. If someone wants to ensure their children (in the event of their death) are brought up inside a traditional male/female marriage, its not up to the government to criminalise them for demanding that.

The logic of this ever increasing barrage of laws to protect peoples sensibilities, at the expense of basic freedoms, starts to get silly. The heart of the law gets lost in arbitrary and generalised dictates, such that its now okay for a 60 year old man to have sex with a vulnerable 16 year old boy, but not for a 16 year old boy to have sex with a 15 year old girl. There are surely some bigots on the issue of homosexuality, but the Catechism of the Church condemns such discrimination. This new legislation will not stop people being bigots - if anything it will make them feel legitimised and increasingly marginalised by the 'secular project', which is in principle a just model for an increasingly diverse society. But bend back too far to accommodate everyone but the tradition of the country, and eventually the country will fall down.

Personally I get more peed off that the Red Cross feels it would be offensive for it to put Christmas decorations in its shops! But in a way that's my symbolic issue, for others its SOR.

J Pearce

And the quote from Luke(6) - "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic" - doesn't that give carte blanche to thieves everywhere? Is the Bible saying that property rights are irrelevant?

Talk about mixed messages...

No its not a mixed message. Its in no way condoning stealing - that is a sin and everyone knows that. He is talking about breaking the petty ways we react that make the world a worse place - in ever increasing spirals. The context is;

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Do you remember in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, when the criminal Jean Val-Jean steals two of the silver candle holders of someone who gave him a room for the night ? When the owner discovered this, instead of giving him up to the police, he instead gave him the other two in the set. Obviously its fiction, but Val-Jean is changed completely by this one act - it affects the rest of his life.

What Jesus is doing is laying out a better way to be, an ideal. It sounds bizarre I agree, and I don't claim to live to it! But if everyone at least tried to follow, his ideal the world would be a better place. Strangely enough, one of the few leaders to actually follow this advice of Jesus was a little Indian man, and he defeated the British Empire by it.

[A Christian]

Living very close to Saint Hill (the Scientologists head quarters just outside East Grinstead) I have experience of these people. A few random comments and anecdotes:

1) They can appear underhand - they run Greenfields school in nearby Forest Row under the banner of Applied Scholastics rather than Scientology. Can you imagine a Church of England school hiding the name of their religion?

2) They have questionnaires to determine whether your life is so bad that you need to join them. They are tailored in such a way that however you answer the questions the answer will always be "Yes, you do"

3) If you join then its all about working your way up a number of levels. Obviously it costs a lot of money to move from level to level.

4) L Ron Hubbard is on record as saying "If you want to make a million start a religion".

5)Staff at Saint Hill wear naval type uniform (a nod towards L Ron who had a ship in Tampa) and have no road awareness - I have had to swerve numerous times on dark country lanes as they wander into East Grinstead wearing dark blue without any reflectors etc.

6) Their shop in East Grinstead was closed after numerous attacks of bricks, arson etc.

7) They have excellent security. When EG Rugby Club's fire alarms went off the security from Saint Hill (over the road) was on the scene before the caretaker was out of bed.

[Robyne Chamberlain]

Where is this Scientology school in Forest Row? The only school I know in Forest Row is the Steiner school and that is far from a scientology school, in fact the methodology of that school has been adopted by many governments now including some states of Canada?
I would love to know where the scientology school is...curiouser and curiouser..as the white rabbit said

[Atoms for Peace]

I don't know which is the bigger fraud - Scientology or their followers. I think I'm going to start up a new religion about how cats are supreme beings and creators of the universe and sell some special cat food through MLM. I bet I would get rich quick!