|
October 23, 2005
The Study of Misinformation
Ever wondered just what Scientology is? Like a poorly written script, this person did: When asked what she thought of Scientology, Ashley Ferrell, a junior in criminology and sociology said, "What is that? It almost sounds like some sort of religion." Yes, Virginia--I mean, Ashley--, there is a Xenu. But you'll have to shell out thousands of dollars and become 'clear' before you learn about him. In the meantime OSU's student paper, the Lantern, has a simpler answer to your question. Let's read it together. In this fluffy piece of filler 'journalism' promoting the Church of Scientology, Alan Woods makes the following claim: Scientology is a classic case of a mixed neo-classical compound like homosexual or television (telescope had already been taken). If scientology means anything it means the study of science or knowledge (L. scientia). If you want the study of truth you've got alethiology, which is Greek in both its parts. But this strikes me as the grade school essay technique: 'Webster's Dictionary defines happiness as ....' The rest of the piece follows. An expert is quoted to the effect that a religion must answer these questions three: the whence, and why, and whither we be: J. Gordon Melton, managing director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion in Santa Barbara, Calif., said there are certain criteria that a belief system must adhere to in order to qualify as a religion. Interestingly enough, by these criteria most corporate 'mission statements' would qualify as religions. But if that's not enough to convince you, people actually believe in it! In fairness, though, many people believe that Michael Bay is a good director. That doesn't make it true. But they've also got a code of behavior, which Melton also requires of true religions. Among this code are such revolutionary ideas as the following, excerpted in the piece as the only example: Melton said all religions must have a behavioral code. Scientology follows several moral codes that Baker outlined, including not supporting the enslavement of any person or injustice against innate human rights. Baker uses Melton's criteria to legitimize Scientology as an official religion. Finally! A religion for my generation! One that discourages slavery and injustice! The hard-hitting journalist informs us that "Lafayette Ronald Hubbard formed the religious philosophy of Scientology in 1951. However before this, he was an accomplished writer." You can't argue with credentials like that. But ignoring the kind of hardly-literary tripe generated by Hubbard (the sort of stuff that yielded John Travolta's magnum opus Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000), I would direct your attention to S.I. Hayakawa's 1951 review of Dianetics. I'll excerpt one bit that I particularly like, but I urge you to read the whole thing, which has an almost Housmanian acerbity (Housman qua scholar, not poet): Before going into a discussion of the rest of the chaff in dianetics, let me state my position at once: there is no wheat. Even if dianetic 'processing' produces, as Hubbard predicts, cures or apparent cures of neuroses, ulcers, falling hair, or diabetes, such results do not 'prove' a single item of dianetics doctrine. I do not say this in the spirit of the ecclesiastics who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, although I have no doubt such an accusation will be made. I say this on the basis of a simple distinction, familiar in general semantics literature, between kinds of predictions. If I predict that two cannonballs of different sizes dropped from a tower will hit the ground at the same time, my prediction cannot be overheard by the cannonballs, and hence cannot affect the outcome of the experiment. If, however, I hand you a mysterious bottle and predict that it will cure you of the loss of sexual vigor of which you have been complaining, and you believe me, you will drink the bottle and go to bed that night with changed expectations. Your improved performance of that night will prove nothing about the efficacy of the contents of the bottle; it will merely prove something very sad about your capacity for belief - in other words, about your system of semantic reactions. But all this is secondary. The real question is why a 'newspaper' would run a fluffy publicity piece for any organization. We end with a statement of how the church of Scientology 'changes conditions' through community service. Now I truly feel informed. I imagine the outcry would be deafening if a student paper at a public university published a similar piece on a Christian denomination. 'Hey gang, ever wondered just what the Methodist Church is? It's got all the answers.' That just wouldn't fly as news. posted by Dennis on 10.23.05 at 09:09 AM
Comments
Perhaps because of Scientology's litigious nature and secret police-y tactics in dealing with dissenters. But that begs the question: Why print the piece at all? Why bother writing it? j.d. · October 23, 2005 02:48 PM "Hey gang, ever wondered just what the Methodist Church is? It's got all the answers." Except that a Methodist would never say that. He would say the Bible has all the answers. A Catholic, on the other hand.... Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 23, 2005 07:17 PM This "Scientology" is what comes of the foolish notion that religions are founded from scratch by some individual setting out to do so. None of the great historic religions started that way. The "founders" commonly named (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, etc.) -- not one of them said: "Hey, I'm gonna start my own religion!" Buddha and Confucius (Latinized form of Kung-fu-tse) founded quite non-religious philosophies which later, centuries after their deaths, were integrated into already existing religious traditions. Muhammad wanted to purify Judaism and Christianity, cleanse the Abrahamic tradition of what he saw as "pagan" elements. Jesus wanted to purify Pharisaic Judaism, to fulfill the apocalyptic prophecies which were already in the air and in the ground, permeating the culture, and, Christians believe, to atone for the sins of all mankind on the Cross. Moses and, earlier, Abraham, were simply obeying Yahweh's commands. Other religions, Hinduism, Shintoism, Asatru (Norse religion), Native American religions, etc., do not have individual founders at all. If the Egyptian religion had a founder, it would have to be Osiris. It is Gods, not men, who found real religions. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 23, 2005 07:41 PM www.xenu.net Especially "Operation Foot Bullet." B. Durbin · October 25, 2005 12:47 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
L. Ron Hubbard is a Lafayette? Excellent.