Is Scientology really that weird?
![26-cruise-inside[1].jpg](http://www.urbanhonking.com/holymoly/archives/26-cruise-inside%5B1%5D.jpg)
After seeing Tom Cruise totally freak out on the Today Show, I got curious. I knew nothing about scientology, though i was possibly prejudiced against it because of my suspicion that if Beck hadn't converted, he probably would have stayed in touch with his indie roots and let Calvin put out that other disc of their old basement recordings.
Helpfully, Salon provides a 4-part series on the subject Particularly fascinating is Laura Miller's review of Scientology's founding text, L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics.
"Dianetics" belongs to a category of books that will be instantly familiar to anyone who's done time reading the slush pile of unsolicited manuscripts for a book publisher. This kind of book is typically an explanation of life, the universe and everything written by a choleric gentleman (often a retired military officer) who has holed up in a converted basement or former kid's bedroom to hammer out his ideas about how the world works -- ideas that have for too long been disregarded by the incompetents and assholes around him. (If you are not familiar with this sort of book, know that you have the slush pile readers of America to thank for that.)
Short answer: yes, scientology really is that weird.
But so are tons of other religious traditions.
Okay, so scientology teaches a rather novel sci-fi cosmology involving aliens messing around with evolution. Weird from a modern, rational perspective. But it seems less weird when you consider it alongside Hindu creation myths, for example. And yes, L. Ron Hubbard was probably a crackpot or a scam artist, or both. But how many people have said the same thing about Muhammed or Jesus?
So, the reason we should be worried about scientology is not because of the weird stuff they believe, but because of what they do. In this too, scientology is not unique.
They attempt to stifle criticism both internally (by making verbal interpretation and debate about Hubbard's ideas a punishable offense)and externally (through litigation, such as their failed lawsuit against Time Magazine). Just like the inquisition but with the friendly face of John Travolta. They have a history of being deceptive about the money required to get "clear", but christian televangelists are often just as corrupt in their financial dealings. Perhaps most disturbing, they attempt to use doctrines of faith (psychiatry = bad! addiction can be cured by trips to the sauna!) to set public policy with no scientific basis, just like the Christian Right (evolution, abstinence-only education, etc).
Is it a cult? Well historically all religions have had their cultic aspects and moments, when they value human desires (wealth, power) over transcendent concerns. In scientology, these cultic aspects seem to dominate. It's interesting to note, however, that there are some people who practice scientology apart from the organized church and are critical of the church's authoritarian tactics.
I'm sure the media will stick to its "Aren't these guys wacky!" narrative, but it's important to understand the fringes and how they relate to the greater religious climate. You can't get a sense of the larger shape of things without looking at the edges.
Categories
New Religious Movements0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is Scientology really that weird?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.urbanhonking.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/736
Nice take on this issue. I saw parts of Cruise's interview on The Daily show and it was a bit disturbing. But I got the same feeling that I get when watching these whack job charismatic guys give their spiels about faithing away your debt.
I don't know anything about scientology and I am really not into Tom Cruise, in fact, I avoid watching a movie with him in it...
but, for some reason, watching him, I didn't feel like he was that out of control. I can hardly understand why so many people are making fun of his behaviour. I do think that calling psychiatry a "pseudo-science" is pushing things much too far, but I agree with what he said about the drugs taken to cure the problem, for the most part.
I know for a fact that there is very little an average psychiatrist can do for a person. I truly believe that the cure for most mental illnesses is inside yourself and inside the world around you. Schizophrenia is seen as a disease in our society mostly because most people wouldn't want to have to deal with a person who's senses are hypersensitive all the time. In other cultures, a person who is "ill" with schizophrenia would be seen and respected as someone with special powers, an important character in the village who sees and hears more than anyone else. I feel like violent people who have a mental illness are acting aggressively due to the super-intense pressure weighting on them, and that if as humans we were willing to show more patience for differences the problem would be a lot smaller. Then of course, we have psychopaths...
I have a few friends who have schizophrenia and I know that they would never be willing to stop taking the drugs they are on and I am convinced that if I had schizoprenia, I would want to take medication as well. But this girl I know, she has manic-depression, the drugs are killing her kidneys, she is twenty-seven years old and she used to be very comfortably beautiful and now the drugs have made her very overweight and some doctors even recommend smoking to their patients to calm down the side-effects of the medication. so she is in really poor health.
I guess that I am really speaking from the heart, as I know very little about mental illnesses and psychiatry. All the things I just said are based on the few facts I have collected through years of trying to figure it all out, they are only my personnal opinion, which (oh, please, no!) might sound too much like Tom Cruise's...
It is truly a big problem that the medical model of dealing with psychological problems has taken over, at the expense of other models. I think part of this is because the pharmaceutical companies have so much power, and so they create a culture where drugs are supposed to be the answer to everything. The big HMOs also have changed the way therapy and psychology are thought about, so it's framed in terms of "business values" like efficiency and expediency. It's like the field of psychology is really really broad and deep and has all these amazing helpful therapeutic tools in its arsenal to help people with their lives, and to help people be better with each other. But the one tool that makes the most money for corporations and requires the least amount of social changes and imaginative restructuring is just to give everyone pills, and so we never find out about all the possibilities and other tools we could be using.
You say "the cure for most mental illnesses is inside you and the world around you" and I totally agree with you. When psychology/psychiatry is at its best, that is what it helps you to discover. My parents made me take antidepressants for a while in junior high and high school, and I think it sort of killed my senses for a while and really prolonged my struggles. Then I got to college and I learned about other kinds of options. I found out about depth psychology and meditation, and gestalt stuff, and about how eating better and exercising can help, and about how to actually work to put things right instead of looking for an easy answer.
Genevieve, what distinguishes you from someone like Tom Cruise is that you say what you believe with humility and you recognize that honoring different people's personal experiences is important, whereas he seems more like a fundamentalist who thinks he knows all the answers and anyone who disagrees or has contrary evidence must be wrong or uninformed. It just seems to me that Cruise is exploiting people's real and valid concerns about overmedication to promote his religion as the only possible solution.
"SHE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE!"
Anyways, other than that, I think it is almost healthy in a way for Tom Cruise--his scientology. I mean the idea of a religion is a very healthy idea. Sure it might be very eccentric, but it's a truth he supposedly sticks to. Any sort of religion is finding some sort of truth to life that rationalizes living or gives some sort of solution to life, etc. Now you might say "Well I am totally against religion and don't believe any one of them is the truth." Then I respond saying, "That's ignorant because there are some truths, good morals and ethics, etc." Anyways, in my opinion religion can be a very positive to live your life and make a positive impact on others. Sure, it might not be the absolute truth, but who the hell really knows these days? I personally lean towards Hemingway's theory of "nada" (minus the code hero stuff), but then again I am only 18 years of age and don't think I'll ever really find absolute truth. I'm just going to keep an open mind and open ears (and even more of a closed mouth).
That's it. It's pretty much bullcrap, but it's my two cents I decided to toss in.
Scientology is much worse than what Salon's 4-part series would lead you to believe. There's a book written by L. Ron Hubbard Jr. that details what went on during the beginning of the CoS. While I agree most other religions have an odd basis of belief, when a religion (Scientology) has their own navy it gets a little hairy.
i think scientology is great. i love it. i would marry it if i could.