h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi,

I'm vaguely thinking of writing a relatively neutral piece on Scientology that would be EG material. Unfortunately, virtually every piece of information you can find on the internet is either virulently anti or virulently pro-Scientology.

It's even difficult to find more than a handful of undisputed facts in a biography of L Ron Hubbard - there are claims that various details have been changed by the Church of Scientology and so on.

I'm anti-Scientology (before anyone asks), but I want to give a sort of anthropological and non-judgemental slant to any Entry I'd write on the subject. Does anyone have useful sources? And don't say W*ki - it's been a bit of a battleground of competing editing...

Matt

How about writing the article so it illustrates both pro and con views?

Of course, if you provide verifiable, factual information I fail to see how it could remain neutral

I would describe the beliefs of scientologists in the same way I could write an article about Hogwarts. I could describe the grounds, the teaching structure, the classes, the personnel and some famous alumni, but that doesn't alter the fact that it isn't a real school. My article would be internally consistent without being based in fact.

I see what you're saying though. Simply giving equal credence to the two different sides (like the 'Intelligent Design' people are attempting to do with teaching of evolution in schools) can be inaccurate and destructive. I reckon I can look at some middle ground, though - someone made a point once that Scientology is only marginally odder than some other religious movements if you look at them from the outside: Christian Science is definitely uconventional, as is Mormonism. Those churches are just older and people have gotten used to them. There's a Mormonism Entry in PR right now, actually, and there isn't any anti-Mormonism in the thread thus far.

My problem is more that

a) Everything in Scientology is written in jargon-heavy prose that is difficult to wade through; and

b) Even the facts that should be straightforward, the ones like what L Ron Hubbard did before founding scientology or the history of the church's legal battles, are hotly debated in almost every detail. It's quite hard to work out exactly what's going on.


What I'm after is some sort of consensus of the fact-based history. I reckon I've got a handle on a lot of the basic practices.

Matt

Factual references must come from outside the cult, to have *any* credibility. There are plenty of newspaper articles, legal judgements etc., that could provide you with very detailed, objective information.

The trouble with jargon is it isn't objective, since it is subject to interpretation.

If you base your article on what scientology *does* rather than on what it *says it does*, you should be able to come up with a pretty good piece

Good luck

All I can offer is that L Ron Hubbard wrote the very, very worst stories it has ever been my misfortune to read.

If I were to judge "Scientology" on the quality of the late Mr Hubbard's literary accomplishments, I'd punch the bugger in the face before believing a word he said.

to " being"!?

Scientology should be renamed alienatology....

Save Katie Holmes
http://www.adrants.com/2005/06/campaign-launched-to-save-katie-holmes.php

I haven’t had a chance to take a proper look at it, but I think this is the kind of thing your looking for:

http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm

"My article would be internally consistent without being based in fact."

At least it would be internally consistent, which is more than can be said about Scientology.

You have picked a tough one there. Trying to produce measure arguments from the extreme rhetoric that is written on both sides is going to be difficult.

Rather you than me!

malus

Ooh, quite a challenge

I generally try not to write about controversial things (or people who are living, actually) but I think this could be a fun article. Just because it's controversial doesn't mean you can't poke fun at the religion. Any entry on Scientology is bound to have some jokes about it - and if that makes it biased, who cares? h2g2 ain't wikipedia, and it shouldn't worry about bias as much as it worries about entertainment and covering the facts. I say focus on those.

Facts may be hard to come by, but I know I've seen some interesting guides (maybe in newspapers, which someone mentioned, that are on the web) in the past. If you can't find a definitive answer for something important, just say that this point is debated. Or skip it.

Or make it up. That's what I do

Matt, I'll be interested to see how you place Scientology - in a religious context or a cult one. I think those are two distinct (although obviously overlapping) things.


Hard to know how serious Jodan just was, but I disagree - making fun of Scientology is not a good idea for the EG. They are a relatively serious cult that messes with people's heads and I can't see the room for making a fun piece about them alongside the serious stuff

I can
You dignify them by giving them a serious, balanced entry.

I'm not talking about dignifying scientologists, I'm talking about respecting people who've been damaged by them, or friends/family of people who've been damaged, by giving them a pertinent and useful entry rather than a pisstake.

I dunno if something that's called an unconventional encyclopedia is the best place for people who've been damaged to get help.

All I was saying, anyhoo, is that we make fun of Christianity and other religions here, and I just didn't want to see an entry become dry and fact spurting just because the subject is controversial. A fairly unimportant point to make, in hindsight, but... well, sorry.

I don't think this is the best place for people to get help about anything either, but it is a good place for people to get a good idea of a certain topic.

I'd be interested to see any EG entries that make fun of Christianity or other religions.

One of the things that has always fascinated me is how religions are started, what was the force that got it started and how, from the view of someone who has no truck with any religious bunkum, it got to the point that it went from someone writing down a way of living your life to one that is beyond criticism and all the superstitious/supernatural stuff threaded through becomes fact.

With Scientology we have a religion less than 50 years old and you can, if you hunt long enough, find out exactly how it started. Of course, the leaders in Scientology have been very clever and litigious in covering up the actual facts of how Hubbard did start it.

The one statement that should start any essay or critical explanatin of Scientology and Dianetics is the statement that Hubbard is,purportedly, have made: "The only way to make money is by starting a religion."

'The Church' has spent a lot of time and money stopping people sayign this and also debunking it as a myth and that it never was said. Some information about what Hubbard is supposedly have said, where and when and the witnesses who heard him is below. Of course, you should get secondary source material as the peson who wrote this could be talking out of his rear end.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html

So, you have two strands to the Scientology subject. i) What it is and what they do and ii) how it was 'created. The second part may well have too much conjecture in it but it could be worded and presented in such a way that it would not be considered as personal opinion - say by reporting other researchers conclusions.

Thanks all. I've also found quite a good book entitled "Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions" that documents a lot of what is known about scientology, as well as most of the major criticisms.

I'll post here when I've written a bit of an outline (probably a day or two).

Matt

Ok, it's in the Writing Workshop.

F57153?thread=975329

As for objective... I tried, really I did. But, well, ah... just read it.

Matt

I'm impressed you managed to resist mentioning the wilder claims by some of the current celebrity adherents

Did you read what the skeptics dictionary had to say about good ol' L-Ron's sca.. err, religious organization?

http://skepdic.com/dianetic.html

True enough. A slightly pithier version is on Salon:

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/06/28/dianetics/index.html?sid=1359102

Matt

"Internet-community: Scientology Church silences opponents with searches, law suits, intimidation and private detectives"



Oh btw, just ignore that black van with the darkened windows parked across from your house....

http://www.xs4all.nl/~felipe/cos/translate.html