James R. Lewis book Cults - Helping Scinetology rewrite history

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
I discovered a book on cults by James R. Lewis called Cults. The third edition, which I have quoted from is published by Equinox publishing. The previous 2 editions were published by ABC-Clio.

ISBN: 978-1-84553-973-3 (hardcover)
978-1-84553-974-0 (paperback)

I noted inaccuracies in the description of Scientology. They appear to be lifted directly out of Scientology PR statements with no critical statements or corrections. It seems that the author is either very lazy, a shill or both. He covers a number of cults and his apologetics also covers cults in general. I will post further quotes going forward. This quote is from the glossary.
pp 158-159

Scientology, Church of: The Church of Scientology, one of the genuinely new religions to originate in the United States in the twentieth century, was founded L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86). Hubbard grew up mostly in Montana, but as a teenager traveled throughout Asia and the East. In 1929 he enrolled in George Washington University, studying mathematics, engineering, and nuclear physics. He subsequently took up a literary career, publishing numerous stories and screenplays in various genres, including adventure, mystery and science fiction. Hubbard served in the United States Navy during the Second World War.

By 1950 Hubbard had completed enough of his research to write Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health. This book described techniques designed to rid the mind of irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses. Dianetics quickly became a bestseller, and groups were soon formed so that individuals could assist each other in the application of Hubbard's "auditing" techniques. He lectured extensively, and wrote more books. In 1951 he announced that the "applied religious philosophy" of Scientology had been born. It was described as a subject separate from Dianetics, as it dealt not only with the mind of an individual, but with one's nature as a spiritual being.

In 1954, the first Church of Scientology was established in Los Angeles, California. In 1959 Hubbard moved to Saint Hill Manor, in Sussex, England and the worldwide headquarters of Scientology were relocated there. In 1988, Hubbard resigned his position as Executive Director of the Church and formed the "Sea Organization," a group of dedicated members of the Church. In 1975 these activities outgrew the ships, and were moved onto land in Clearwater, Florida. From this time on until his death in 1986, Hubbard continuously wrote and published materials on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, as a number of works of science fiction.

The Church of Scientology has been involved in a considerable number of controversial episodes since 1958, such as battles concerning tax issues, a ten-year battle with the Food and Drug Administration regarding the Electro-meters used to assist auditing, and the conflict with the Australian government. The most notorious series of events in the Church began in July 1977, when the FBI conducted a raid on the Washington, DC, and Los Angeles churches and seized many files of documents. The raid was declared illegal, but the documents remained in government possession and were open to public scrutiny. According to these documents, the Church was keeping files on people it considered unfriendly, and there had been various attempts to infiltrate anti-cult organization.

After the raid, the Church sent a number of top officials incognito to selected government agencies which were collecting data on the Church. However, several members were indicted and convicted for theft of government documents. The convicted members were released from their offices in the Church, which began a reorganization and closing of the office responsible for initiating illegal activities.

Problems with the IRS continued through the 1980s and 1990. L. Ron Hubbard was charged with criminal tax evasion, and the IRS often moved against the Church in ways that questioned its tax-exempt status. These problems terminated in a landmark decision in 1993, when the IRS ceased all litigation and recognized Scientology as a legitimate religious organization. The Church has also been extensively attacked in Europe.

www.scientology.org
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
I will post this again with some commentary.
pp 158-159
Scientology, Church of: The Church of Scientology, one of the genuinely new religions to originate in the United States in the twentieth century, was founded L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86). Hubbard grew up mostly in Montana, but as a teenager travelled throughout Asia and the East.
He did not travel extensively in Asia. Author is taking biography directly from Scientology.
In 1929 he enrolled in George Washington University, studying mathematics, engineering, and nuclear physics.
Notable is the omission of his failures in physics and his inability to graduate.
He subsequently took up a literary career, publishing numerous stories and screenplays in various genres, including adventure, mystery and science fiction.
This is the standard Scientology ordering of his genres. Although he wrote predominantly science-fiction, this is placed last.
Hubbard served in the United States Navy during the Second World War.
A large number of omissions here, in particular his disability pension and the lack of correlation between the official illnesses of blindness and the actual reports of a stomach ulcer.
By 1950 Hubbard had completed enough of his research to write Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health.
If ever there was a shill line this is it. What research?
This book described techniques designed to rid the mind of irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses. Dianetics quickly became a bestseller, and groups were soon formed so that individuals could assist each other in the application of Hubbard's "auditing" techniques. He lectured extensively, and wrote more books. In 1951 he announced that the "applied religious philosophy" of Scientology had been born. It was described as a subject separate from Dianetics, as it dealt not only with the mind of an individual, but with one's nature as a spiritual being.
In 1954, the first Church of Scientology was established in Los Angeles, California. In 1959 Hubbard moved to Saint Hill Manor, in Sussex, England and the worldwide headquarters of Scientology were relocated there. In 1968, Hubbard resigned his position as Executive Director of the Church and formed the "Sea Organization," a group of dedicated members of the Church. In 1975 these activities outgrew the ships, and were moved onto land in Clearwater, Florida.
No one believed Hubbard's 'resignation.' This is the most uncritical cut and paste job I have ever seen. Interestingly, he refers to 'these activities [in the Sea Org]' without actually telling us what any of the activities actually were. There was obviously another sentence in there, possibly written by Scientology that he omitted, but then he did not bother to edit the final sentence so the paragraph was intelligible. What a lazy writer and editor.
From this time on until his death in 1986, Hubbard continuously wrote and published materials on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, and a number of works of science fiction.
The Church of Scientology has been involved in a considerable number of controversial episodes since 1958, such as battles concerning tax issues, a ten-year battle with the Food and Drug Administration regarding the Electro-meters used to assist auditing, and the conflict with the Australian government. The most notorious series of events in the Church began in July 1977, when the FBI conducted a raid on the Washington, DC, and Los Angeles churches and seized many files of documents. The raid was declared illegal, but the documents remained in government possession and were open to public scrutiny. According to these documents, the Church was keeping files on people it considered unfriendly, and there had been various attempts to infiltrate anti-cult organization.
After the raid, the Church sent a number of top officials incognito to selected government agencies which were collecting data on the Church. However, several members were indicted and convicted for theft of government documents. The convicted members were released from their offices in the Church, which began a reorganization and closing of the office responsible for initiating illegal activities.
This would have to be the most factually inaccurate portrayal of Operation Snow White I have ever heard. It is so ridiculous, I don't think the author wrote it. A few facts bear mentioning
1) The raid was not declared illegal.
2) The infiltration of the government by Scientology did not occur after the raid. The raid occurred as a result of Scientology's infiltration; specifically with Operation Snow White which occurred between 1973 and 1976. Infiltration of US govt also preceded the Snow White Raids.
Problems with the IRS continued through the 1980s and 1990. L. Ron Hubbard was charged with criminal tax evasion, and the IRS often moved against the Church in ways that questioned its tax-exempt status.
An interesting admission.
These problems terminated in a landmark decision in 1993, when the IRS ceased all litigation and recognized Scientology as a legitimate religious organization. The Church has also been extensively attacked in Europe.
www.scientology.org
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
I believe a person becomes a $cientologist at the instant they believe the first LIE.

arnie lerma
without truth you have nothing
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
What is the first lie?

The first lie they are told when they connect with the church. Could be from a book, or from it's promo, it's stress test staff, it's receptionist, it's div 6 personnel. or an FSM.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Just to give some perspective here, there are quite a few other threads about Lewis. There have been other books and papers since ( Cults was written in 2005) and there have been some shifts in his viewpoint. It's been the opinion of more than a few people that in the earlier years, he was buying the propaganda given him by the church but in recent years, he's come to see more along the lines of the facts than before but has a ways to go. He has noted some of the bad things the cult has done. He's since spoken to former execs, and has written other things which may usurp his previous claims in the Cults book. Here are some links

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...wed-shows-what-s-on-the-mind-of-a-NRM-scholar

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...new-paper.-2012-Scientology-Up-Stat-Down-Stat

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?15449-Scientology-Exit-Survey

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?21708-An-Open-Letter-from-James-R.-Lewis
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
Just to give some perspective here, there are quite a few other threads about Lewis. There have been other books and papers since ( Cults was written in 2005) and there have been some shifts in his viewpoint. It's been the opinion of more than a few people that in the earlier years, he was buying the propaganda given him by the church but in recent years, he's come to see more along the lines of the facts than before but has a ways to go. He has noted some of the bad things the cult has done. He's since spoken to former execs, and has written other things which may usurp his previous claims in the Cults book. Here are some links

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...wed-shows-what-s-on-the-mind-of-a-NRM-scholar

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...new-paper.-2012-Scientology-Up-Stat-Down-Stat

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?15449-Scientology-Exit-Survey

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?21708-An-Open-Letter-from-James-R.-Lewis
Thanks very much for those links. That has given me more to work with.

The interview you cite in your quote here occurred in 2012. After having read his work my suspicions about his 'change of heart' with Scientology are that it coincided with the movement against Scientology which began in 2008. I quote from it here:
Obviously, what I've now learned, is that people who've been observers and participants of the chat sites on Scientology, are far more expert in all sorts of details relating to Scientology, compared to these scholars who look at the outer layers and at the factors they are interested in
In other words, people won't buy the bullshit I have been selling anymore so I have to admit this 4 years after the Anon raids began in order to retain some semblance of credibility.

In this other link you have provided here he has also perpetuated the official Scientology myth that the infiltration of Operation Snow White occurred after the FBI raids which were in actually in response to them. In 2012, he is still distorting facts for them. If he was an honest man, after having realized that he had been selling Scientology, he should have checked up on Operation Snow White. He did not. It would have been very easy to do. Why didn't he? Because most people don't know anything about Operation Snow White. He can still continue to lie about it. This is the point where I can no longer believe that he is just a Scientology dupe. If he knows about the dangers within the church, what possible excuse could he have for not checking the public records in a criminal case? He calls himself a researcher?

As to the link here, he essentially admits that his reasons for accepting the facts as presented by Scientology were that he trusted Heber Jentzsch. This is the point where any credibility he ever had goes out the window. How about checking facts? Public records? How can this guy hold up his head after writing this?

I will be posting more from his book going forward, but he has also distorted other things about cults in general. In short, he does the following in his book:
1) He denies the impact of psychological coercion.
2) He has a list of indicators of a dangerous cult which is rather bare.
3) He refers to deprogramming continuously, but never refers to exit counseling.
4) He uses the term anti-cultist and NRM repeatedly.
5) He polarizes complex situations.

This guy may have changed his tune on Scientology because he had no choice, but he never had a very nice tune to begin with. I also think it is the end of an academic's credibility when they have to wrote an apology for what they have written over the past 10 years. Particularly when one of his excuses is that he took a PR guys statements at face value. What researcher takes PR statements at face value without checking them?
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Just to give some perspective here, there are quite a few other threads about Lewis. There have been other books and papers since ( Cults was written in 2005) and there have been some shifts in his viewpoint. It's been the opinion of more than a few people that in the earlier years, he was buying the propaganda given him by the church but in recent years, he's come to see more along the lines of the facts than before but has a ways to go. He has noted some of the bad things the cult has done. He's since spoken to former execs, and has written other things which may usurp his previous claims in the Cults book. Here are some links

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...wed-shows-what-s-on-the-mind-of-a-NRM-scholar

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...new-paper.-2012-Scientology-Up-Stat-Down-Stat

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?15449-Scientology-Exit-Survey

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?21708-An-Open-Letter-from-James-R.-Lewis


I know several writers on new religious movements and they in personal
conversation are even more critical than one might think.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I know several writers on new religious movements and they in personal
conversation are even more critical than one might think.

Not nearly critical enough for if they were they would realise Scientology is far from a religion. In fact, it mocks religion by using the label to mask its core function as an on-going organised criminal conspiracy to defraud. Duped academics are duped.
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
I know several writers on new religious movements and they in personal
conversation are even more critical than one might think.

Personal conversation is no good; it's the public domain that is important.

Which writer's do you refer to and where are these personal conversations documented?
 

Random guy

Patron with Honors
I also think it is the end of an academic's credibility when they have to wrote an apology for what they have written over the past 10 years. Particularly when one of his excuses is that he took a PR guys statements at face value. What researcher takes PR statements at face value without checking them?

You will be surprised at the gullibility of NRM apologists like Lewis. If you think his tone regarding the cult is bad, you would no doubt be entertained by the this:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist7.html
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Not nearly critical enough for if they were they would realise Scientology is far from a religion. In fact, it mocks religion by using the label to mask its core function as an on-going organised criminal conspiracy to defraud. Academics are

Many consider scn a valid religion. I do, with a broad definition of this
term.

One must also look at how other, even mainstream religions, get involved in areas that may be considered criminal. Many far worse than Scn. As a couple of "sound bites " Jihad and Crusades, and inquisition.

This of course goes way beyond defraud.

We are looking at the human condition here.

Needs upgrading :)

" Academics are duped"

Note that governments, and media have been duped. And one may say the world at large. But the info is now out there and the world
dosn't like it.

The idea that there were 10,000,000 scientologists persuaded the
people who made this program to make it in part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emKvMPGSc0s

CO$ has always been very active in PR areas and has very often lied.
And they also have the whole GO/OSA intelligence network.

Having been a scientologist for decades, and on critical forums for
maybe 14 years I of course have great background knowledge as do some others here. Academics don't have this backgound. But they are catching up!

Yes Academics have been duped, as have just about everyone.
There hat is not criticism. Its perhaps better described as description.

Mostly for other academics.

I suggest sending them data they might find valuable. They are not
an enemy.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Personal conversation is no good; it's the public domain that is important.

Which writer's do you refer to and where are these personal conversations documented?

You wish me to divulge who I have such conversations with and the content, and consider I document them?

Maybe OSA would be interested.
 

Boomima

Patron with Honors
It is completely possible to critique Scientology while recognizing it as a religion. It's lazy to only get your information from the official church and its apologists. Academics are trained in research; that's all the do besides teach. Looking for alternative sources for information about Scientology is not that bloody hard even if you are dismissive of apostate narratives (which I think is ridiculous). Hugh Urban seems to have found some information but maybe he's got a secret stash of information at Ohio State...:p

I would not write about the actions of the Catholic church in WW2 by only using official church records and statements. You would not write about the Hasidic groups in NY by only speaking to their Rabbis.

Don't make excuses for poor scholarship.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
You will be surprised at the gullibility of NRM apologists like Lewis. If you think his tone regarding the cult is bad, you would no doubt be entertained by the this:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist7.html
That is a fascinating link. I will post the test here for posterity.
Tokyo Cult Finds an Unlikely Supporter
The Washington Post/May 5, 1995
By T.R. Reid
Tokyo--As new evidence seems to implicate the secretive Aum Shinrikyo in case of terrorism, murder and kidnapping the sect's leaders have found an unlikely supporter: an officer of the American Bar Association.

Barry Fisher, a lawyer in Los Angeles who said he is chairman of the bar association's subcommittee on religious freedom, traveled to Tokyo with three other Americans [including J. Gordon Melton] --Aum paid the bill--to warn that the Japanese police were threatening the group's religious freedom.

The Americans said Monday that they spent three days in Japan talking to cult officials and others, but were not permitted to visit the sect's chemical factories or its headquarters campus.

The American held a pair of news conferences to suggest that the sect was innocent of criminal charges and was a victim of excessive police pressure.

The sect has emerged as the chief suspect in the gas attack on the Tokyo subways on March 20, that left 12 dead. The police are also said to be investigating whether the sect is linked to a 1994 poison gas case that killed seven, and to the shooting of the national police chief who was supervising the investigation of the cult.

One of the Americans, James Lewis, told a hostile and evidently incredulous roomful of Japanese reporters gathered at an Aum office Monday that the cult could not have produced the rare poison gas, sarin, used in both murder cases. He said the Americans had determined this from photos and documents provided by Aum.

According to press reports here, Mr. Fisher of the Bar Association subcommittee called on the Japanese police to resist the temptation "to crush a religion and deny freedom." The fear of terrorism in Japan "is being used by some as an excuse to strengthen police powers."

Mr. Lewis said it was "outrageous" that some children had been removed by the police from an Aum dormitory where they were housed apart from their parents. He also said he was not familiar with details of how the children were treated at the cult.

The children of Aum members have said they were permitted two meals a day and four hours of sleep a night. They did not go to school, were not permitted to contact friends or relatives who were not cult members and were not permitted to play outside because the cult's leader said his enemies were attacking the group with poison gas.

The Americans said the sect had invited them to visit after they expressed concern to Aum's New York branch about religious freedom in Japan. The said their airfare, hotel bills and "basic expenses" were paid by the cult.

In the eight weeks since the Tokyo attack, the police have seized thousands of documents and literally tons of physical evidence from sect buildings. They have arrested about 150 cult members, most on minor charges. But they have not yet arrested or charged a single person with the subway crime.

That seems to reflect the standard police procedure here of bringing criminal charges only after they have enough evidence to make a conviction certain.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
Many consider scn a valid religion. I do, with a broad definition of this
term.
There is no valid criteria for determining what a valid religion is.

If two scientists wish to debate whether the universe is 13.72 or 13.75 billion years old, they can meet on a common ground. They can debate the efficiency and precision of the CCD chips used in the astrometry, for example. If a Scientologist who believes the universe is trillions of years old wishes to debate a young earther who believes the universe is thousands of years old, there is no common ground. This is the same for theology as well. If a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim walk into a bar and want to debate whether Jesus was a God, a prophet or a heretic, they will run into the same problems.

There is no point of reference for religion. That is why it is such a useless term. Any term that places Wahhabi Islam next to Buddhism, and Mormonism in the same group as the Mayan heart choppers is a pointless term. The term itself lends no credence to the beliefs. Calling Scientology a religion is not a compliment. It is meaningless.
One must also look at how other, even mainstream religions, get involved in areas that may be considered criminal. Many far worse than Scn. As a couple of "sound bites " Jihad and Crusades, and inquisition.
If I tell you you are green with envy and you reply by saying so is the grass, this does not stop you from being green. If Scientology is fraud, saying that other religions are fraudulent at times does not stop Scientology being fraudulent. This argument is an attempt to derail and distract.
... Yes Academics have been duped, as have just about everyone.
There hat is not criticism. Its perhaps better described as description.

Mostly for other academics.

I suggest sending them data they might find valuable. They are not
an enemy.
From what I have read of James R. Lewis, he has not been duped but he is a conscious fraud. His apologies are only there to retain some semblance of credibility.
I know several writers on new religious movements and they in personal
conversation are even more critical than one might think.
As this thread is about James R. Lewis, I must ask: Is James R. Lewis one of these people or not?
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
Many consider scn a valid religion. I do, with a broad definition of this
term.

One must also look at how other, even mainstream religions, get involved in areas that may be considered criminal. Many far worse than Scn. As a couple of "sound bites " Jihad and Crusades, and inquisition.

This of course goes way beyond defraud.

We are looking at the human condition here.

Needs upgrading :)

" Academics are duped"

Note that governments, and media have been duped. And one may say the world at large. But the info is now out there and the world
dosn't like it.

The idea that there were 10,000,000 scientologists persuaded the
people who made this program to make it in part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emKvMPGSc0s

CO$ has always been very active in PR areas and has very often lied.
And they also have the whole GO/OSA intelligence network.

Having been a scientologist for decades, and on critical forums for
maybe 14 years I of course have great background knowledge as do some others here. Academics don't have this backgound. But they are catching up!

Yes Academics have been duped, as have just about everyone.
There hat is not criticism. Its perhaps better described as description.

Mostly for other academics.

I suggest sending them data they might find valuable. They are not
an enemy.

Oh well, that's it all explained for us! The Crusdaes! Jihad! So that makes it OK to defraud thousands of people from their money, to leave a woman in her mid 30's a prisoner in a hotel room dying of dehydration and for a young man to jump to his death clinging onto the last of the money he has. It just looks so small in comparison, so it's all OK?

You wish me to divulge who I have such conversations with and the content, and consider I document them?

Maybe OSA would be interested.

Then why did you mention it in the first place? And why are people saying one thing publicly and something different in private? Your OSA comparison is a classic diversion tactic because you drop hints and can't answer the question.

It is completely possible to critique Scientology while recognizing it as a religion. It's lazy to only get your information from the official church and its apologists. Academics are trained in research; that's all the do besides teach. Looking for alternative sources for information about Scientology is not that bloody hard even if you are dismissive of apostate narratives (which I think is ridiculous). Hugh Urban seems to have found some information but maybe he's got a secret stash of information at Ohio State...:p

I would not write about the actions of the Catholic church in WW2 by only using official church records and statements. You would not write about the Hasidic groups in NY by only speaking to their Rabbis.

Don't make excuses for poor scholarship.

I don't believe that academics alone can be the best people to tell anyone what a subject is. To understand Scientology, current and ex-members, as well as the founder and the works all need to be studied and discussed by multiple sources.

That is a fascinating link. I will post the test here for posterity.

There is no valid criteria for determining what a valid religion is.

If two scientists wish to debate whether the universe is 13.72 or 13.75 billion years old, they can meet on a common ground. They can debate the efficiency and precision of the CCD chips used in the astrometry, for example. If a Scientologist who believes the universe is trillions of years old wishes to debate a young earther who believes the universe is thousands of years old, there is no common ground. This is the same for theology as well. If a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim walk into a bar and want to debate whether Jesus was a God, a prophet or a heretic, they will run into the same problems.

There is no point of reference for religion. That is why it is such a useless term. Any term that places Wahhabi Islam next to Buddhism, and Mormonism in the same group as the Mayan heart choppers is a pointless term. The term itself lends no credence to the beliefs. Calling Scientology a religion is not a compliment. It is meaningless.

If I tell you you are green with envy and you reply by saying so is the grass, this does not stop you from being green. If Scientology is fraud, saying that other religions are fraudulent at times does not stop Scientology being fraudulent. This argument is an attempt to derail and distract.

From what I have read of James R. Lewis, he has not been duped but he is a conscious fraud. His apologies are only there to retain some semblance of credibility.

As this thread is about James R. Lewis, I must ask: Is James R. Lewis one of these people or not?

Scientology may be considered a religion by many; doesn't mean it is not harmful.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
There is no valid criteria for determining what a valid religion is.

If two scientists wish to debate whether the universe is 13.72 or 13.75 billion years old, they can meet on a common ground. They can debate the efficiency and precision of the CCD chips used in the astrometry, for example. If a Scientologist who believes the universe is trillions of years old wishes to debate a young earther who believes the universe is thousands of years old, there is no common ground. This is the same for theology as well. If a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim walk into a bar and want to debate whether Jesus was a God, a prophet or a heretic, they will run into the same problems.

There is no point of reference for religion. That is why it is such a useless term. Any term that places Wahhabi Islam next to Buddhism, and Mormonism in the same group as the Mayan heart choppers is a pointless term. The term itself lends no credence to the beliefs. Calling Scientology a religion is not a compliment. It is meaningless.

Most of the rest of the world considers religion a valid concept. There is of course much room for disagreement. Its well known to be a potentially explosive subject.

Some scientologists don't consider Scn to be a religion. I happen to do so.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497082/religion

religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred,
absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have ... (100 of 429 words



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . <snip> . . . http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Academics like Lewis must love definitions such as those because they leave open almost any human undertaking as a possible religion available, of course, for their "learned" study and indentured apologies. Anyhow, how do those definitions apply to Scientology when Scientologists don't "believe" in anything and their "Source" said his cloaking of the subject was purely a matter for solicitors and accountants?

6470570839_377bdbed35.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 6470570839_377bdbed35.jpg
    6470570839_377bdbed35.jpg
    72.5 KB · Views: 8

Terril park

Sponsor
Anyhow, how do those definitions apply to Scientology when Scientologists don't "believe" in anything and their "Source" said his cloaking of the subject was purely a matter for solicitors and accountants?

From perhaps the most respected Encyclopedia there is:-

"Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence."

Scn has lots to say about human beings relation to the spiritual.

Scientologists may believe in much, or may not. As for any other religious person.

You say:-

"Source" said his cloaking of the subject was purely a matter for solicitors and accountants?

Thats just the cloaking, assuming you are correct in what he said. An
admin area.

Its not a comment on the philosophy of scn.
 
Top