10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion

Editor Comment: Thanks to Rien for submitting this remarkable article. Although a relatively lengthy read,  it’s well worth taking the time as it’s resonance to all things RCS is uncanny.  For those of you working on helping family/friends out of the labyrinth, we highly recommend adding this to your “anti-KA” toolkit.  


Religion_IncBy Rien de Hogy

Back in the days when I was a card carrying Church of Scientologist I was immensely proud of the fact that “we” were not like other religions, we didn’t go in for all that authoritarian religious nonsense. We were all about self-determinism, about thinking for yourself – after all we even had an ad campaign to that effect.

But as I began the long journey out I was shocked to realise that the church of scientology had beome *exactly* that – just like every other religion.

One of things I have struggled with is the label of “Scientologist”. I continue to feel a strong connection with the philosophy but today it is in a completely different way. Over the last 5 years I have opened myself to other areas of intellect in business, in philosophy, in religion, in everyday living. I have, over time, come to the ability to separate the robitic religious from the useful in the large body of work that is Scientology. Some has been validated by other writings, in some aspects Scientology stands powerfully alone in observations of human nature. The great liberation has been in what I have left behind as observably irrelevant or what has become irrelevant through the passage of time – things that have been superseded by advances outside the field of Scientology.

I am now of the firm belief that spiritual development is important but can only succeed as a singular pursuit outside the walls of any kind of officialdom.

It is with this backdrop that I read the below article with great fascination – in just how much the church of scientology came to the same destructive destination as every other major religion.

The full article is included here in full.  I thought the full article should be here so it can be discussed with our unique experience rather than simply link to it.  The original article was written by Steve Pavilna on his site at stevepavlina.com. Full credit goes to him. The original can be found here.

10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion

While consciously pursuing your spiritual development is commendable, joining an established religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism is one of the worst ways to go about it. In this article I’ll share 10 reasons why you must eventually abandon the baggage of organized religion if you wish to pursue conscious living in earnest.

Since Christianity is currently the world’s most popular religion, I’ll slant this article towards Christianity’s ubiquitous failings. However, you’ll find that most of these points apply equally well to other major religions (yes, even Buddhism).

1. Spirituality for dummies.

If you have the awareness level of a snail, and your thinking is mired in shame and guilt (with perhaps a twist of drug abuse or suicidal thinking), then subscribing to a religion can help you climb to a higher level of awareness. Your mindset, however, still remains incredibly dysfunctional; you’ve merely swapped one form of erroneous thinking for another.

For reasonably intelligent people who aren’t suffering from major issues with low self-esteem, religion is ridiculously consciousness-lowering. While some religious beliefs can be empowering, on the whole the decision to formally participate in a religion will merely burden your mind with a hefty load of false notions.

When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. Religion is the off-switch of the human mind.

Leave the mythology behind, and learn to think for yourself. Your intellect is a better instrument of spiritual growth than any religious teachings.

2. Loss of spiritual depth perception.

One of the worst mistakes you can make in life is to attach your identity to any particular religion or philosophy, such as by saying “I am a Christian” or “I am a Buddhist.” This forces your mind into a fixed perspective, robbing you of spiritual depth perception and savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately. If that sounds like a good idea to you, you’ll probably want to gouge out one of your eyeballs too. Surely you’ll be better off with a single, fixed perspective instead of having to consider two separate image streams… unless of course you’ve become attached to stereo vision.

Religious “truths” are inherently rooted in a fixed perspective, but real truth is perspective-independent. When you substitute religious teachings for truth, you mistake shadows for light sources. Consequently, you doom yourself to stumble around in the dark, utterly confused. Clarity remains forever elusive, and the best answer you get is that life is one giant mystery. Religious mysteries, however, arise not from what is truly unknowable; they arise from the limitations of trying to understand reality from a fixed frame of reference.

A more intelligent approach is to consider reality through a variety of different perspectives without trying to force your perceptions into an artificial religious framework. If you wish to learn more about this approach, read Spiritual Depth Perception.

3. Engineered obedience training.

Religions are authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate your free will. They’re power structures that aim to convince you to give away your power for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people. When you subscribe to a religion, you enroll in a mindless minion training program. Religions don’t market themselves as such, but this is essentially how they operate.

Religions are very effective at turning human beings into sheep. They’re among the most powerful instruments of social conditioning. They operate by eroding your trust in your own intellect, gradually convincing you to put your trust into some external entity, such as a deity, prominent figure, or great book. Of course these instruments are usually controlled by those who administrate the minion training program, but they don’t have to be. Simply by convincing you to give your power away to something outside yourself, religion will condition you to be weaker, more docile, and easier to control. Religions actively promote this weakening process as if it were beneficial, commonly branding it with the word faith. What they’re actually promoting is submission.

Religions strive to fill your head with so much nonsense that your only recourse is to bow your head in submission, often quite literally. Get used to spending a lot of time on your knees because acts of submission such as bowing and kneeling are frequently incorporated into religious practice. Canine obedience training uses similar tactics. Now say, “Yes, Master.”

Have you ever wondered why religious teachings are invariably mysterious, confusing, and internally incongruent? This is no accident by the way — it’s quite intentional.

By putting forth confusing and internally conflicting information, your logical mind (i.e. your neocortex) is overwhelmed. You try in vain to integrate such contradictory beliefs, but it can’t be done. The net effect is that your logical mind disengages because it can’t find a pattern of core truth beneath all the nonsense, so without the help of your neocortex, you devolve to a more primitive (i.e. limbic) mode of thinking. You’re taught that this faith-based approach is a more spiritual and conscious way to live, but in reality it’s precisely the opposite. Getting you to distrust your own cerebral cortex actually makes you dumber and easier to manipulate and control. Karl Marx was right when he said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”

For example, the Old Testament and the New Testament in the Bible frequently contradict each other with various rules of conduct, yet both are quoted during mass. Church leaders also behave in direct violation of the Church’s teachings, such as by covering up criminal and immoral activities by their own priests. Those who try to mentally process such glaring contradictions as coherent truth invariably suffer for it. A highly conscious person would reject membership in such an organization as patently ridiculous. So-called divine mysteries are engineered to be incomprehensible. You aren’t meant to ever make sense of them since that would defeat the whole purpose. When you finally wake up and realize it’s all B.S., you’ve taken the first step towards freedom from this oppressive system.

The truth is that so-called religious authorities don’t know any more about spirituality than you do. However, they know how to manipulate your fear and uncertainty for their own benefit. How nice of you to let them.

Although the most popular religions are very old, L. Ron Hubbard proved the process can be replicated from scratch in modern times. As long as there are large numbers of people who fear the responsibility of their own power, religions will continue to dominate the landscape of human development.

If you want to talk to God, then communicate directly instead of using third-party intermediaries. Surely God has no need of an interpreter. Don’t fall into the trap of becoming a mindless minion. It’s a mistake to think that turning off your neocortex and practicing mindless “faith” will bring you closer to God. In truth it will only bring you closer to dog.

4. Toilet-bowl time management.

If you devote serious time to the practice of religion, it’s safe to say you practicetoilet-bowl time management, flushing much of your precious life down the drain with little or nothing to show for it.

First, you’ll waste a lot of time filling your head with useless nonsense. This includes reading some of the worst fiction ever written. Then there are various rules, laws, and practices to learn.

Seriously, if you have insomnia, try reading religious texts before bedtime. You’ll be asleep faster than you can say Methuselah. Why do you think hotels put Bibles next to the bed? It’s the greatest sedative known to man. I have to give props to the Scientologists for at least incorporating space aliens into their stories. It’s a shame Gene Roddenberry didn’t formally invent his own religion; Stovokor sounds like a lot of fun.

Once you finally realize your head has been filled with utter nonsense, you must then purge such garbage from your mind if you want your brain to be functional again. That can take considerably longer, assuming you succeed at all. It’s like trying to uninstall AOL from your hard drive.

Next, you can expect to waste even more time on repetitive ritual and ceremony, such as attending mass, learning prayers, and practicing unproductive meditations.

If I add up the time I attended mass and Sunday school, studied religion in school as if it were a serious subject, and memorized various prayers, I count thousands of hours of my life I’d love to have back. I did, however, learn some important lessons, many of which are being shared in this article.

I especially remember listening to a lot of bad sermons; most priests are hideously poor speakers. Maybe it’s because they drink alcohol while on duty.

Now if you really go overboard and throw in learning a dead language for good measure, you can kiss years of your life goodbye.

The more time you devote to religious practice, the more you waste your life on pointless, dead-end pursuits… and the more you’ll want to delude yourself with a phony “Hehe, I meant to do that” attitude.

5. Support your local pedophile.

In addition to being a serious waste of time, religious practice can also be a huge waste of money.

For starters when you donate to a major religion, you support its expansion, which means you’re facilitating the enslavement of your fellow humans. That isn’t very nice, now is it? If you feel the urge to donate money, give it to a real and honorable cause, not a fabricated one. Better yet, go outside and do something that really helps people. If you can’t think of anything better, grab a can of paint and clean up some local graffiti.

Your religious donations fund freeloaders who mooch off society but who generally provide little or no value in return. Sure there are some religious people who perform valuable public services, but for the most part, that isn’t their bailiwick. These freeloaders typically operate tax-free, meaning they’re effectively subsidized by taxpayers. That’s a great racket if you’re on the receiving side… not so great if you’re funding it though.

Religions offer a suite of special services to generate additional income. They’ll spout some gibberish while feeding you a crusty wafer, pronounce you bonded to a fellow human being, snip some of your excess skin, pour water on your head, proclaim your manhood, cast out your demons, pronounce your transgressions forgiven, and so on. When they can’t think of anything else, they make up some drivel like confirming you’re still loyal to them. The bill may read “suggested donation,” but it’s still a bill.

When you donate money to a religious organization, you’re doing much worse than throwing your money away. You’re actively funding evil. If you think that spending a billion dollars to defend pedophiles and rapists is a good use of your hard-earned cash, perhaps you should run for Pope. You could hardly do worse. At least Wall Street is honest about its greed and lust.

One of my Catholic high school teachers was later revealed to be a repeat child molester… written up in the newspaper and everything. I didn’t see any suspicious behavior at the time, and to be totally honest, I actually liked that teacher and was shocked to learn of his extracurricular activities. He was shuffled from one location to another by those who knew about his appetite for young flesh. I’m glad I wasn’t on the menu, but I feel sad for those who were. Methinks God should raise his standards… just a tad.

Why aren’t Catholic priests allowed to marry? This has nothing to do with what’s written in the Bible or with any benefits of celibacy. This rule was invented by the Church to prevent their priests from producing heirs. When the priests died, their property would go back to the Church, thereby enriching the rich even more. Apparently God needed more cash. It was a very effective policy, as the Church is now among the richest and most powerful organizations on earth. It’s hard to fail when you have a loyal force of lifetime indentured servants who work cheaply and then yield their life savings to you when they die.

Lay religious people (i.e. non-clergy), on the other hand, are encouraged to have lots of babies because that means more people are born into the religion, which means more money and a bigger power base. Condoms are a big no-no; they’re bad for business. Marriage is a big yes; it means more brainwashed babies will be made.

Would you seriously consider this sort of structure a “good cause” worthy of your hard-earned cash?

I have got to get me one of these…

6. Incest is best.

Religions frequently promote inbred social networks. You’re encouraged to spend more time with people who share the same belief system while disengaging from those with incompatible beliefs. Sometimes this is done subtly; other times it’s more obvious.

If you’re one of the saved, blessed, or otherwise enlightened individuals who stumbled upon the one true belief system, then supposedly everyone else remains in the dark. Certain religions are overtly intolerant of outsiders, but to one degree or another, all major religions cast non-subscribers in a negative light. This helps to discourage members from abandoning the religion while still enabling them to proselytize. The main idea is to maintain social structures that reward loyalty and punish freedom of thought.

This us-vs-them prejudice is totally incongruent with conscious living. It’s also downright moronic from a global perspective. But it remains a favored practice of those who pull the strings. When you’re taught to distrust other human beings, fear gets a foothold in your consciousness, and you become much easier to control.

When you join a religion, your fellow mind-slaves will help to keep you in line, socially rewarding your continued obedience while punishing your disloyalty. Why do they do this? It’s what they’ve been conditioned to do. Tell your religious friends that you’re abandoning their religion because you want to think for yourself for a while, and watch the sparks fly. Suddenly you’ve gone from best friend to evil demon. There’s no greater threat to religious people than to profess your desire to think for yourself.

There are better ways to enjoy a sense of community than joining a slavery club. Try making friends with conscious, free-thinking people for a change — people who are willing to connect with you regardless of how silly your beliefs are. You may find it intimidating at first, but it’s quite refreshing once you get used to it.

Since I get asked this question all the time, I might as well answer it publicly. Do I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior? No more than I’d accept a credit card from Crapital One. Either way I’d be worried about the fine print. Does this mean we can’t be friends anymore? Please don’t hate me because I’m doomed.

7. Idiocy or hypocrisy – pick one.

When you subscribe to an established religion, you have only two options. You can become an idiot, or you can become a hypocrite. If you’ve already chosen the former, I’ll explain why, and I’ll use small words so that you’re sure to understand.

First, there’s the idiocy route. You can willingly swallow all of the contrived, man-made drivel that’s fed to you. Accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Believe stories about dead bodies coming back to life. Learn about various deities and such. Put your trust in someone who thinks they know what they’re talking about. Eat your dogma. Good boy!

Congratulations! You’re a moron believer. You’ll be saved, enlightened, and greeted with tremendous fanfare when you die… unless of course all the stuff you were taught turns out not to be true. Nah… if the guy in the robe says it’s true, it must be true. Ya gotta have faith, right?

Next, we have the hypocrisy option. In this case your neocortex is strong enough to identify various bits of utter nonsense in the religious teachings that others are trying to ram down your throat. You have a working B.S. detector, but it’s slightly damaged. You’re smart enough to realize that earth is probably a lot older than 10,000 years and that pre-marital (or non-marital) sex is a lot of fun, but some B.S. still gets through. You don’t swallow all the bull, but you still identify yourself as a follower of a particular religion, most likely because you were raised in it and never actually chose it to begin with.

To you it’s just a casual pursuit. You’re certainly not a die-hard fundamentalist, but you figure that if you drink the wine and chew the wafer now and then, it’s good enough to get you a free ride into a half-decent afterlife. You belong to the pro-God club. Surely there’s safety in numbers. Two people can’t be wrong… although 4-1/2 billion supposedly can.

In this case you become an apologist for your own religion. You don’t want to be identified with the extreme fanatics, nor do you want to be associated with the non-believers. You figure you can straddle both sides. On earth you’ll basically live as a non-practitioner (or a very sloppy and inconsistent practitioner), but when you eventually die, you’ve still got the membership card to show God.

Do you realize how deluded you are?

Perhaps if you have to throw out so much of the nonsense to make your chosen belief system palatable, you shouldn’t be drinking the Kool Aid in the first place. Free yourself from the mental baggage, stop looking to others for permission to live, and start thinking on your own. If your God exists, he’s smart enough to see through your fake ID.

From time to time, some of my readers take a stab at converting me to their religion. Most of them come across as total loons, but I can at least respect their consistency. I’ve no idea why they bother to read my site (which is about raising, not lowering, consciousness). Perhaps some of them are getting ready to convert from fundamentalism to common sense.

You’d think I’d be quite a prize for any serious religion. With 2.4 million monthly readers, that’s a lot of people I could potentially enslave convert, not to mention how much I could fill the Church coffers by soliciting indulgences donations on their behalf. Henceforth I expect a much better conversion effort. If you won’t do it for the money, then do it for the souls. You can’t let so many of us go to hell without trying in earnest to save us, can you? ;)

Just keep those conversion emails below 10,000 words if possible, with no more than 9,000 of them quoted from your favorite great book.

8. Inherited falsehood.

Please tell me you aren’t still practicing the religion you happened to be born into? Surely you’ve outgrown your baby clothes by now. Isn’t it time you also outgrew your baby religion?

What if you were born into a different culture? Would you have been conscious enough to find your way back to your current belief system? Or are your current beliefs merely a product of your environment and not the result of conscious choice?

Many religions are just a mish-mash of what came before. For example, Christianity is largely based on pagan rituals. If those pagan beliefs and rituals had been protected by copyright, Christianity wouldn’t even exist. If you take the time to dig into the roots of Christianity, you’ll encounter various theories that Christianity’s teachings were largely assembled from pre-Christian myths and that Jesus himself was merely a fictional character pieced together from earlier mythical figures. You go, Horus!

Many religious teachers (i.e. priests, rabbis, ministers, etc.) are just brainwashed slaves themselves. They don’t have any real authority and aren’t even aware of the agenda being set by their superiors. This makes them better minions because they actually believe the B.S. they’re spouting and don’t know the truth behind it. A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar, but that’s as far as they get. They may interact with the bartender, but they never get to know the guy who owns the bar. They suffer from inherited falsehood just like everyone else.

Is your religion based on the inspired word of God? No more than this article. Just because someone says their text is divinely inspired doesn’t mean it is. Anyone can claim divine inspiration. The top religions are decided by popularity, not by truth.

Even the central figures in major religions didn’t follow the religions that were spawned in their names. If they didn’t swallow the prevailing “wisdom” about gods and spiritual leaders and such, why should you? If you want to be more like the people you worship, then follow their lead by striking out on your own.

Move beyond your baby religion. Consider maturity as a reasonable alternative.

9. Compassion in chains.

Religious rules and laws invariably hamper the development of conscience. This causes all sorts of problems like pointless violence and warfare. Those who preach nonviolence as a rule or law tend to be the most violent of all. Such people cannot be trusted because they’ll violate their proclaimed values with the weakest of excuses.

When you externalize compassion into a set of rules and laws, what you’re left with isn’t compassion at all. True compassion is a matter of conscious choice, and that requires the absence of force-backed rules and laws.

The more religious a person becomes, the less compassionate s/he is. The illusion of compassion substitutes for the real thing. Religious people tend to be the most bigoted and non-accepting people on earth. They’re the least trustworthy and suffer from the grossest character defects. They pretend they’re doing good, but they’re really collaborators in a system designed to push people into unconscious slavery to a “higher” authority. They are slaves promoting slavery.

Historically speaking, religious people love to fight each other. Instead of unconditional love, they practice conditional loyalty. The only unconditional aspect is their thirst for blood. If you disagree with them, you’re a target… either for conversion or destruction (both of which are really the same thing).

If you value the ideal of unconditional love, you won’t find it in the practice of religion. Real compassion doesn’t arise from believing in God, from practicing various rituals, or from studying the concept of karma. Compassion can only result from conscious choice, and this requires the freedom to choose without the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. If you’re obedient to your faith, it’s a safe bet that compassion is absent from your life. You probably don’t even know what real compassion feels like.

The more we collectively abandon all religion, the better off this planet will be. This doesn’t mean we have to abandon all spiritual pursuits. It just means we must stop turning spirituality into something it isn’t.

10. Faith is fear.

Religion is the systematic marketing of fear.

Blessed are the poor (donate heavily). Blessed are the meek (obey). Blessed are the humble (don’t question authority). Blessed are the hungry (make us rich while you starve). Blessed are the merciful (if you catch us doing something wrong, let it go). Blessed are the pure of heart (switch off your brain). Blessed are the timid, the cowardly, the fearful. Blessed are those who give us their power and become our slaves. Muahahaha!

That’s the kind of nonsense religion pushes on people. They train you to turn your back on courage, strength, and conscious living. This is stupidity, not divinity.

Religion will teach you to fear being different, to fear standing up for yourself, and to fear being an independent thinker. It will erode your self-trust by explaining why you’re unable to successfully manage life on your own terms: You are unworthy. You’re a sinner. You’re unclean. You belong to a lesser caste. You are not enlightened. Of course the solution is always the same — submit to the will of an external authority. Believe that you’re inadequate. Give away your power. Follow their rules and procedures. Live in fear for the rest of your life, and hope it will all turn out okay in the end.

When you practice faith instead of conscious living, you live under a cloak of fear. Eventually that cloak becomes so habitual you forget it’s even there. It’s very sad when you reach the point where you can’t even remember what it feels like to wield creative freedom over your own life, independent of what you’ve been conditioned to believe.

Faith is the coward’s substitute for courage. It’s also really good marketing if you’re the one who controls the faith. If you’re afraid or unwilling to assume total responsibility for your life, you’re a perfect match for religion.

Fear in one part of your life invariably spreads to all other parts — you can’t compartmentalize it. If you find yourself frustrated because you’re too afraid to follow your dreams, to talk to members of the opposite sex, to speak up for yourself, etc., then a good place to start is to rid your life of all religious nonsense. Don’t let fear get a foothold in your consciousness.

Stop trying to comfort yourself by swallowing religious rubbish. If you really need something to believe in, then believe in your own potential. Put your trust in your own intellect. Stop giving away your power.

Dump the safety-in-numbers silliness. Just because a lot of people believe stupid stuff doesn’t mean it isn’t stupid. It just means that stupidity is popular on this planet. When people are in a state of fear, they’ll swallow just about anything to comfort themselves, including the bastion of stupidity known as religion.


Religion is spiritual immaturity.

It’s entirely possible to enjoy your life without spending so much of it bent over in submission. Pull your head out of your rear, and look around with your own two eyes. If you need something to worship, then feel grateful for your own conscious mind. Pull it out of the cobwebs, and boot it up.

Besides… if some popular religious version of God does exist, there’s a good chance he’s a complete and total idiot. He made us in his image, right? So perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to worship an entity so lacking in intelligence. We’re better off on our own.

God isn’t going to smite you for not formally worshipping him. If he didn’t smite me by now, it’s a safe bet you’ll slide beneath the radar as well. And if that doesn’t work, you can borrow my fake ID. I’ve been baptized and confirmed, and I’m the son of an altar boy and the nephew of a priest, so I’m sure I’ll be fine. ;)

Praise Hestia!


206 thoughts on “10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion

    • A visceral over-the-top generalization that does contain truth. A more scholarly approach would have captured my intellectual and spiritual interest. Though it contains a general truth, the exaggerated and insulting nature of this article reminds me of the COS attacks on its detractors. Not my cup of tea….

      • You’ve articulated my honest response to this useful, but unnecessarily provocative and somewhat repulsively disdainful, piece perfectly, FlybyOT.
        Thank you.


      Head Hunter, this is not the platform for inappropriate profanity & ad-hominem attack on others commenting on this thread. It is obvious that you have an existing personal beef with this person and are attempting to use BIC as a vehicle to further your agenda. Your comment was off-topic, vitriolic and highly offensive. This is unfair to others on this thread who are enjoying a robust discussion/debate about the issue at hand.

      Please familiarise yourself with our moderation policy in this regard and bear same in mind while posting future comments.


  1. Religion is a belief system. It is your right to believe or not believe in what you wish to believe in provided it makes you happy and does not harm others. Today we have the biggest most fraudulent religion that has ever been created which virtually everybody on the planet believes in, even the most religious of religious people. It is called “Modern Science”.

    “Modern Science” became obsolete with the discovery of quantum physics around a century ago by some of the leading scientists of that time including Einstein. But today another religion (belief system) has been created by modern science called materialism which aim it is to destroy all other religions and belief systems. Materialism states that all is matter and there is nothing else. There is no after life, you are just a piece of meat with a brain and you are your brain. The materialist scientist has even created a war against the quantum scientist who say there is a spirit and another level of existence.

    Quantum Physics is here to stay and it validates the old age idea that there is a soul and an after life. Maybe religion with its belief systems has kept this idea alive until quantum physics arrived.

    But there are evil belief systems and practices which need to go. Materialism has been the cause of many wars and even just recently world war 3 could have broken out between the USA and Russia because of a “belief system” called materialism.

    While there is a lot wrong with Scientology today, it gave many people hope and kept the idea of spirituality alive in many people. Auditing is one of the great benefits of Scientology.

  2. I can’t say I agree with this article. It just cynically dismisses everything. I lost interest and stopped reading half way because there was too much I disagreed with. All such articles seem to ignore the fact that many religions have evolved away from when they were at their worst (especially the much-maligned Catholic Church).You may as well write a critical critique of any other activity people slavishly enjoy (but still ENJOY!) – it is easy to endlessly criticise something without ever looking at the good it does. I believe I could write you an equally convincing article giving 10 reasons you should participate in some religion – EVEN Scientology.

    • I think this offering from LRH, posted on the Milestone Two blog today, speaks more to the point being made by that article:

      By L.Ron Hubbard

      “I myself periodically study auditing and put a polish on my own skill.

      “I don’t have to say “I don’t know”, but I’m not so arrogant as to believe I’m above knowing how to do things. So if every year or two I can study how to audit without going into a long rigmarole about how I’m above all that, I can reasonably expect others to have a sane view of their own skill too.

      “Any skill can be improved—one can know more about any subject—unless one has already decided he or she already knows all about it.

      “The successful progress of a student is inversely proportional to the student’s preconception of knowing it already. An arrogant assumption of total knowing without inspection is the surest way to make no progress.

      “One does or does not know the data before him. That’s elementary. Why should it become involved with emotionalism?

      “The fast student is not concerned with necessities to maintain status by asserting how much he or she already knows. The fast student is only interested in knowing what he does not know, studying it and then knowing that he knows it.

      “The slow student is so busy putting on that he knows that he never finds out he doesn’t in fact know.”


    • Maven – it’s a pity you didn’t finish reading the article. As Rien stated in the beginning, ” I am now of the firm belief that spiritual development is important but can only succeed as a singular pursuit outside the walls of any kind of officialdom”.

      The truth is that if you speak to any Old Timer SCN, they will one-for-one agree the biggest mistake made by LRH was calling SCN a religion and forming the SO to “protect” his tech. Regardless of his reasons for doing so (tax evasion etc), this action doomed the Church to a sticky end.

      Lets face it – SCN has become a laughing stock and is being aligned as a fundamentalist zealous “cult”. An organisation which no-one of any import takes seriously any more. Not even the media are leery of taking them on as is witnessed by the recent feeding frenzy of negative publicity, full-length feature documentaries in progress and miles of black-PR all over the internet. And who do they have to blame? THEMSELVES. What else do you expect when top Church execs are filmed as they wildly ambush people in public – coming across as insane despotic banshee wailers? Stalking people, setting PI’s onto them, sending sex toys to a person’s workplace, labelling top OL’s in South Africa like the Corbetts and Dr. Retief (highly regarded in their field) as SP. And a myriad other actions which are utterly bereft of any logic, sanity and human dignity.

      What “religion” practices “fair game”, targeting of and attacking it’s own parishioners, writing secret reports on each other, holding gang-bang sec-checks, lies to it’s own public with false claims of unprecedented expansion, makes it’s adherents lives’ a living hell with crush reg cycles (even arriving at people’s homes at midnight), demanding every penny you have, ignore crimes committed by SCN’s on others as long as they are “in good” and donating to Church? And the list is endless.

      The “Church” has devolved into a harassing, malevolent money-grubbing cult. The more money you pay the more freedom you buy. The more of a yes-man you are, the safer you will be. If you dare speak up or disagree you are toast

      And if you do speak up or voice disagreement, your life becomes a living hell – ending up in a SP declare for trumped-up BS “crimes”. And then, as if this isn’t enough they continue to malign your reputation by whispering campaigns and enforced disconnection of lifelong friends and family who either toe the line or face the same fate themselves.

      And lets not pussy-foot around here. Those policies/edicts were written by LRH himself. He set the groundwork, opening the door for exactly this to happen should the tech fall into the wrong hands – hell, he even predicted it.

      There is a lot of good in SCN tech – I still believe this. But gone are the days where I blindly and unquestioningly believe or follow ANY dogma or philosophy without thorough self-inspection first. There is also a lot of harm and contradiction in SCN – show me one policy/issue, and I will bring out 10 more that contradict it. That’s exactly how the Church gets away with what they do – every action is justified in LRH writings somewhere – perhaps out of context, but it’s there – you just have to look.

      The pain/pleasure ratio of SCN tipped the scales years ago, and anyone still in if not an actually a mind-wiped zombie by now is hanging in there in a state of abject fear – grinning and bearing it. Either that or they have taken on the colours of DM himself and are so goddam PTS they cannot see the wood for the trees.

      IMO this article 100% applies to RCS and what is has become. Just another crazy cult carrying on dirty business while hiding under the cloak of “religion”.

      • Ok, I’ll read the rest but I’m NOT clearing any words. Before I could do that I would have to obviously redo GAT2 Student Hat, because how else could I fully understand it?
        On that subject, I got some great news today. I bumped into a staff auditor who wanted to know why I wasn’t on lines. On being told it was because I had been virtually bankrupted by OT levels without having any wins, I was duly informed the answer was now at hand: all I had to do was redo the Purif and Objectives and I was guaranteed to fly! How simple is that!
        This also gave me an insight into how streamlined scn has become because he didn’t even need to look at my folders or ask any questions of me at all to arrive at this amazing deduction. I did have a couple of reservations which he was able to dismiss immediately. The fact is I had done the Purif quite standardly under one of the top auditors and C/Ss in the country (at the time) and taken it all the way to 50 niacin. No problem! The vitamins are only now standard, I was told. Apparently the wins are out of this world as a result of these miracle vitamins. If these miracle vitamins make such a big difference should they not be made more broadly available to society??
        On the Objectives, it has often been to my embarrassment that no matter how high up the Bridge I got, when giving public speeches I always told people I had the biggest single win of my Bridge on Objectives, of which I did a ton. Why then would I need to do more? “Because you didn’t do the ‘special ones’!” Oh god, there’s some cretinous answer for everything.

      • Ha ha – you can leave the dictionary where mine is – propping up my screen so I can see better.

        Unbelievable about your encounter – you should write it up in an article and submit it to BIC – this is exactly the kind of BS that needs to be exposed. “Ideal Vitamins” What next???

      • This is a brilliant riposte to the article. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater never made any sense to me. I’d known for years before I left (many decades ago) that a lot of LRH’s information was completely self serving. However, a lot stuff had been snitched from others, without properly admitting it, which made him a liar in many instances. But some of what he stole was actually very good information which I put to good use. And when the time came that I felt I’d finished, I quietly left. (OT III, alone, was a great reason. I realized then that I was running HIS case!) So there is often (not always) some good in all such “movements”, but one needs to cherry pick very carefully and not get sucked into the BS.

    • Hey Maven, I’d be very interested in your article giving 10 reason one should participate. It would be an interesting counter-view. I say this quite genuinely.

    • I agree with you Maven. This article criticizes the logic “used” in various religions, and goes on using the same logic to push conclusions.
      “Perhaps some of them are getting ready to convert from fundamentalism to common sense.”, but the common sense part is avoided. This article seems more prone to create a problem than solve one, and to confuse basic Scientology with the mess that it has been twisted into.

      • Is it true that if you physically control another’s body you can then evaluate for them? I seem to remember Ron making that point I think in relation to CCH’s? What does that mean to be able to evaluate for another? David

      • David (Ballet Axioms), my understanding is that with objectives (processes to do with the physical environment rather than the mind) such as the CCH’s, the auditor controls the pc’s body and thus his bank (i.e. his stimulus-response reactions). That kind of control can be considered evaluating for the pc, but its purpose is to get the pc up to where he can control the bank himself. At that point he can be audited on subjective processes, which means he is able to confront and be audited on mental and emotional difficulties. On subjective processes, the auditor does not evaluate for the pc or tell him what to think about his case. Hope this helps.

  3. The article is fine as far as it goes, but it falls into the trap of affirming corporate Scientology’s number one empowering fraudulent assertion: That it is a genuine religious institution.
    Corporate Scientology is not a genuine religious institution. It is a destructive cult, and what a destructive cult is has been defined and discussed for years.
    Corporate Scientology uses “religion” as a gimmick, and as a protective shield.
    On corporate Scientology’s religious cloaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvqeGrbILw

    • I disagree. In the context of the world religions the church of scientology fits very well. It does the same thing as others.

      Christianity, Islam also use “religion” as a gimmick. Like Scientology they ultimately wish to control. Hence the entire point of the article, in my view.

      • Hi RiendeHogy.
        Some of the Destructive Cult of corporate Scientology’s best friends – whether they know it or not – are those who dislike religion generally. They see religion as bad and also see corporate Scientology as bad, and see corporate Scientology saying, repeatedly, that corporate Scientology is a religious institution.
        And they buy into it. They fall for it.
        And I assure you, David Miscavige and his accountants and his lawyers don’t mind at all.
        Recommend you watch the religious cloaking video.

      • Rien,

        Nothing can survive and prosper without good system, order and control.

        Look at your own life.

        Can you accomplish anything meaningful without good system, order and control?

        There is also a right way and a wrong way to do just about everything.


    • Neptune, thanks for stopping by and submitting your comment. Unfortunately we had to redact most of it due to the profanity and vulgar content. Please adhere to our moderation policy and bear this in mind when submitting future comments.

      • Right then the secret shall stay between us. Off to clean the Ra , this is a refrence to a part of the brain were the soul is believed to dwell,

        The *** in the air well the Muslims mass prey with **** pointed to sky!

        Will do my best to tone it down , blessings chinas

  4. Rein,

    When I got to your words:

    Quoting you: Have you ever wondered why religious teachings are invariably mysterious, confusing, and internally incongruent? This is no accident by the way — it’s quite intentional.

    By putting forth confusing and internally conflicting information, your logical mind (i.e. your neocortex) is overwhelmed.

    End of quote.

    you lost credibility with me. And I just could not stomach and read any more. You make non sequitors and make assumptions and wrong conclusions. That is intellectually dishonest. You see things that are not there. You are not objective.

    Seeing things that are not there, is a sign of insanity. Or at least a sign of a lack of intellectual integrity.

    It happens mostly by default, not intentional. For the most part, they just do not know any better.

    Then I skimmed over more of your write up and saw more nonsense.

    There are many grades of people on this earth.

    They range from barbarians and neanderthals to highly evolved on intellectual and spiritual levels.

    I would not criticize Christianity. I would say that even though it has lots of short comings, it is probably still the most sane religion in the world with the most useful and most stable data.

    I think that it is the main factor that has made this world last as long as it has. I don’t think this world would of made it this far without Christianity.

    There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost everything, And generally speaking man screws up everything.

    I think the only thing holding the world together now is a handful of the better Christian people, world leaders and business people.

    You have not done enough research by studying as many other POVs as possible.

    No one single source has all the truth on anything. And all sources are contaminated with the authors biases and ignorance.

    The best you can do on earth to find the answers for the real big questions is to objectively ( scientifically) read everything that exists on the subject and look for common denominators and pieces of the puzzle.

    You have to learn how to be a truth scientist ………a truthologist.

    Read the Revelatorium: http://www.revelatorium.com/contents.html

    Read the oahspe and the urantia too. Both free on pdf online.

    Read up on Carl Sagan’s Baloney detector. Do a search.

    That is only for starters. You need to read a lot more than that.

    I could easily write as much as you did, in rebuttal, but do not feel like it.


    • Dio – perhaps you missed the part where Rien made it clear that he didn’t personally write the article – it was written by Steve Pavilna on his site at stevepavlina.com. You are welcome to critique and communicate your viewpoints, but please target the correct source when doing so.

    • Dio – Whereas I would be the first person to defend your right to communicate a viewpoint, I cannot stand aside and say nothing when people assert their “rightness” by making others wrong.

      Who made you the authority on what is or isn’t true for others? You don’t know anything about Rien insofar as his intellectual ability, experience or knowledge on this or any other subject, yet here you are passing judgement on someone you have never met and don’t know from Adam

      Firstly, you incorrectly target “Rien” as being the author of the article when he made it abundantly clear he wasn’t, and secondly you then go on by admonishing him and making invalidating comments like “you have not done enough research” and “you need to read a lot more than that”. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, you then slot in a really nasty diatribe of “You make non sequitors and make assumptions and wrong conclusions. That is intellectually dishonest. You see things that are not there. You are not objective”

      I put it to you that by making such remarks, they are equally applicable to you.

      By your own admission, you “skimmed” through the article, very early on decided Rien’s credibility was out the window and then you proceed to wrong-target, criticise and find fault with him – when he was not the author of the article in the first place! Talk about killing the messenger.

      This is typical of the Scientological habit of “thought stopping” as so very correctly coined by Jeff Hawkins. Thought stopping results in people not being able to apply a pan-determined view of the whole of something. At the sign of ONE word (neocortex) you analytically shut down and any further attempt at duplication was jaded in the direction of finding more fault.

      What a shame.

    • Hi Dio, as was already pointed out I didn’t write the article but, by and large, I’m in agreement with its data. The issue of the value of Christianity and other religions to the world is a divisive topic. Over the last 5 years my own pursuit and observations have led to the conclusion that civilisation would have been FAR better off without Christianity and Islam. In my mind there is no question that they have both been used as tools of mass control and served the interests of very few.

      The only positive from the Scientology point of few is how few people, relatively speaking, Scientology controls whereas Christianity and Islam, between them affect over 3 billion people.

      • One of my favourite Gandhi quotes speaks well to this subject: “I like your Christ; I don’t care much for your Christians.” And I have to agree that a great number of those who claim Christianity as their own simply do not follow or practice the words of the Christ. Just for beginners, if we take his words as real, he never asked to be worshipped, never asked – nor implied – that he was “king” of anything. His message was one of Love, nothing else. (I refer you here to a very short book by Stephen Mitchell, a gifted and well known biblical scholar: “The Gospel According to Jesus.” Very enlightening as to what the Christ *actually* said.)

        I don’t happen to follow any organized religion, sticking more closely to the aspects of spirituality. I do know that the spirit never dies and that we get the chance/choice of exploring MEST again. Not a belief, but a certainty since I experienced it. In actuality, even though I was once not at all sure, one time around made absolutely no sense to me. It was simply irrational to my mind. In any case, whatever our current beliefs, we’ll all find out for sure sometime or other.

      • I support you totally on this, Ren de Hogy.

        The ascertion that a lot of people have that Scn is massive, is a hoax, of course. The latest figures I’ve seen estimate 30 000 – 40 000. We’ve always thought of ourselves as such a big deal – propaganda and lies.

        However, Christianity is a whole other matter; and Islam.

    • “I think the only thing holding the world together now is a handful of the better Christian people, world leaders and business people.”

      that is such a frightening statement. it really scares me.

      FOX media is a cult and ruppert murdoch is cult leader.

      • Whitestar,

        You did not duplicate what I meant, and took what I said out of context, and deliberately perverted what I meant.

        That is the same as seeing something that is not there, which is a form or sign of insanity. You better read Dianetics very carefully.

        In fact the best thing that could happen to everyone, and I mean everyone, in scientology is to very carefully read or reread:

        1. Dianetics,
        2. The Evolution of a science,
        3. Fundamentals of Thought,
        4. The Science of Survival,
        5. Scientology A New Slant on Life.

        Because it is clearly evident that everyone has lost sight of the basics, if they ever had them.

        I assure you such an endeavor will be a very sobering, enlightening experience.

        Insanity: 1. the inability to discern right from wrong.
        2. Impaired judgment.
        3. Unsound judgement.
        4. To pervert the truth. Perverted judgement.
        5. To see right where there is wrong and wrong where there is right.
        6. To make right wrong and wrong right.
        7. Severe mental illness or derangement.
        8: Something that is very foolish or unreasonable
        9. Extreme folly or unreasonableness
        10. Something utterly foolish or unreasonable
        11. Extreme insanity is psychosis.
        12. Extreme insanity is a persistent desire to commit destructive acts.


  5. Speaking of which, the New Thought movement of the late 19th century spawned many, many ideas that found there way into Scientology. Two examples: Charles F. Haanel wrote “The Master Key System,” 24 lessons with 24 exercises. The practical from the first lesson is OT TR 0. Next, William Walker Atkinson wrote “Mental Therapeutics,” in which he describes precisely what LRH called Solo Auditing. There are countless parallels in the works of these people that LRH either developed independently 50 years later or else knew about and incorporated into Dn and Scn. The “subconscious mind” in Mental Therapeutics became the “reactive mind,” in Dianetics for example. The list goes on and on.

  6. Brilliant article, which I completely agree with.
    Thank you for posting it, I found it incredibly insightful.
    I am so happy to have “seen the light” and put as much distance between scientology and myself as humanly possible. I subscribe to very little as taught in the cult and I have raised my children to be free thinking and to believe in themselves.

    • I agree, Despicable Me. I’m surprised – or perhaps, not so surprised – at the number of people who cannot agree with it.

      To the Author – Well written and well done! Thank you! It makes absolute sense to me. For me, every word is true.

      I am of the opinion – and have been now for a long time – that many of the Independents/Free Zoners, are still in captivity.

  7. The heyday of Scientology was at St Hill. Individuals flocked there from all over the world. Then LRH created the sea org. Also at that time he wrote and published his ethics policies. At the same time he made HCO the senior division above qual which was the senior division previously. Then heavy ethics ensued. Bad mistake. Insane ethics officers were appointed in some organisations which nearly destroyed them. An insane ethics officer was appointed in the Cape Town org in 1966 who started declaring staff and public and virtually destroyed that org, I know I was there. Scientology was not a church at that time.

    Who knows what may have happened if qual remained the senior division and Scientology was not made a church and the sea org never created.

      • Frankly, I can’t think of one good good reason why I shouldn’t have. That’s probably why, I “get it” on the can’t haves being run on people, and the can’t haves they run themselves.

    • 10 Reasons You Should Never Have ……………….

      I’m into CAN HAVE.

      Most of our laws in today’s forward societies, are based on the ten commandments. That is why people are not allowed to steal, murder, etc etc.

      The PURPOSE of religion, is not a bad purpose. It is mostly to agree on social policies that improve conditions.

      I can have that. Religion does not bother me and I am not afraid of it.

      A study through history shows that at one time, religion and magic were one and the same.

      But all of that aside, “never have” sounds to me like an eternal curse. It is another “can’t have” being run on me.

      I have never personally been harmed by religion. It’s not a button for me. And I like to keep on the table with all of the things i can have,

      • To walk Godless, must be the most severe can’t have a person can run on them self. To not feel the Gods, to not feel the elements, to not have that connection, to never know the halls of Valhalla, to not reach out and know these things, to not be in harmony with a magic, to not have that connection, to not know the invisible, ….music, music is invisible. To not have that, to not feel that, that must be a very terrible loneliness. I can endure many things, but that is a condition I would never hope for myself,or wish upon another.

        So many very beautiful manifestations come from this magic or religion. That one orphan was ever saved and raised,as a result of this reaching into this beautiful invisible, that homeless people are taken in and fed and sheltered, that others have been comforted where I might not have been, makes it a value. It is a mercy. And the only place where we are brought to understand and manifest mercy, is through religion. It is not taught in any other platform. There is no shame in being bought to your knees. The Earth is beautiful thing.

        This is why,religion matters.

      • Scientology at one time, was a merciful endeavor. It became a liability when the culture became merciless. It stopped being a religion when the mercy was cancelled. It is not a religion now. Because there is no mercy. But that is peculiar to one group. And that does not mean all religions are bad.

      • I don’t think that the article says one should not be spiritual. It does not take spirituality out of the equation.
        Ones connection with god or the elements is personal and does not need to only be addressed through the subject of religion but possibly that of ones own awareness and spirituality.

      • To Despicable Me, I never said or implied one can not be spiritual with out religion, as you have distilled my message to mean.

        “Spiritual”, is not even a synonym of “religion” or “religious”.

      • Catholic charities of Nevada provided food,clothing, shelter, and even paid the utility bills for those families in Nevada without gas to heat their homes through this past freezing winter, regardless of the person’s faith or lack of it. That is just one group, in one state, one country. There is a lot of value to our world many Churches provide. A lot of CAN HAVES Churches grant people. If you do no volunteer work to contribute to these endeavors, you can not know the value these people mean to one another and to us. To make nothing of this work, these people, these groups and their value, is just plain anti social.

      • Lastly, and I do hope someone will expand upon this with an article, Scientology was NOT a “religion” while Hubbard was alive. Hubbard himself stated, that Scientology was NOT a RELIGION. THAT is SOURCE.

        David Miscavige made Scientology a “religion”. NOT L.Ron Hubbard. Not me.

        And those of you that keep referring to it as a religion areon some kind of David Miscavige program. NOT L. Ron Hubbard’s.

        That the fanatics and fundamentalists even fly into this off source program written and executed by David Miscavige, with the PURPOSE of dodging tax debt, and working with U.S. gov to separate Scientology from church and state, to depower Scientologists politically, is an indicator of their confusion.

        Hubbard said, SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT A RELIGION. Just because Miscavige had it labeled that by a government institution DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

        “Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.” This is from 1954 edition of COHA.

        “But mysticism/occultism isn’t our source. Our source, actually, is magic.” from a Lecture given on 29 January 1958, The History of Clearing by L Ron Hubbard.

        Please make some effort at noticing differences and similarities. Just because Miscavige asserts it is a “religion” does NOT make it so.

      • Oracle, whether or not scientology is a religion may be debatable. The book COHA may not be the only LRH reference about it. For example, I found one that came out a couple of months after COHA was published: here’s a quote from PAB 42, 24 Dec 54:

        “It is only after man is sufficiently exteriorized to become a spirit that we depart from the field of Dianetics; for here, considering man as a spirit, we must enter the field of religion.”

        There is also the following definition from the Tech Dictionary:

        DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, religion is basically a philosophic teaching designed to better the civilization into which it is taught. Backed fully by the precedent of all the ages concerning teachings, a Scientologist has a better right to call himself a priest, a minister, a missionary, a doctor of divinity, a faith healer or a preclear than any other man who bears the insignia of religion of the western world. I do not see any inconsistency of any kind in the issuance to those well-schooled and wellskilled in Scn the degree of Doctor of Divinity as a passport into those areas where they are needed. (PAB 32)

      • Man does not become a spirit with Dianetics. Dianetics does not make spirits. People are spirits whether they become involved with Dianetics or not. Whether they are exterior or not. Heroin puts people exterior, does that make it a religion? Sex puts people exterior, does that make it a religion? Love puts people exterior,does that make it a religion? That may not be what Hubbard said, it is what I know. If this was his premise, what is built on top of it if faulty. A definition in the tech dictionary does not make it a church or a religion. I don’t need anyone else to tell me whether it is a Church or not or a religion or not. I do not see it as a Church and I never have. When I got involved it was not a Church, it was not a religion. The labels changes to SOLVE PROBLEMS relative to finances and military draft, not to accurately define it. It was not a religion while Hubbard was alive, it isn’t one since he died. It is not a Church.

        Church definition:

        A building used for public Christian worship. A particular Christian organization, typically one with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines. The hierarchy of clergy of a Christian organization, especially the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England..

        The ROOT word of church: Old English cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to Dutch kerk and German Kirche, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek kuriakon (dōma) ‘Lord’s (house)’, from kurios ‘master or lord’.

        Translated, THE LORD’S HOUSE. Lord as in the biblical sense. Other religions do not have Churches, they have Temples and Mosques. CHURCH refers to Christian faiths and is regarded as the house of the Lord.

        How simple does this have to get?

        The Church of Scientology is NOT a Church. They might have obtained a label of “religion” to write off that tax debt. They labeled themselves a Church. It is wrongly labeled and it is a wrong item. It is not a house of the Lord.

        Hubbard himself said it is not religion, and unless he meant to imply that he is the Lord, the Church of Scientology is not a Church. But he never said he was the Lord or these were his houses.

        This is straight up common sense. I don’t see what is debatable about this at all.

        It was not called a Church when I got involved, it was not called a religion. Same thing with different packaging. If I pour soda pop into a bottle that says “milk” on it, am I to think I am drinking Milk?

        Scientology is an exploration into the supernatural, into the “invisible”.

        “But mysticism/occultism isn’t our source. Our source, actually, is magic.” from a Lecture given on 29 January 1958, The History of Clearing by L Ron Hubbard.

        He said this AFTER your quote from 1954, you don’t mention that. He said this four years later.

        Magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

        A lot of people have out lists and wrong items on this. But not me.

      • TO, I guess we have two subjects going. One is whether or not scientology is a religion, and the other is whether LRH himself said it’s a religion or said that it isn’t a religion. I think he used the word “religion” differently in different contexts, since there are so many ideas of what the word means.

        In part of the Tech Dictionary definition I quoted (an LRH quote), he said “religion is basically a philosophic teaching designed to better the civilization into which it is taught.” There, he used the word “basically”, and I get that’s what he means when he calls scientology a religion.

        In a BC tape, he described the “basis” of religion:

        “But the spirituality of man is the basis of religion and is the one thing that all religions have in common. They have different creators, different gods, different altars of worship, but in one thing they hold a common truth and that is that man is a spiritual being.” SHSBC-447 – 13.12.66

        To me, the above actually differentiates religion in general from materialism. But other than that basic commonality, there are many different ideas about what religion is. As for how magic ties in, here’s something I found in Wikipedia:

        “Magical thinking in various forms is a cultural universal and an important aspect of religion.”

      • Well, I guess if you think Hubbard was the Lord, and you are in one of those organizations, I guess you would think you were in the house of the Lord. I just can’t wrap my head around that one. Especially when you are taught Jesus was a sex pervert. Churches are relative to Christians. Someone would have to very damned blind to think they were in a Christian Organization while standing in the Church of Scientology. And pretty hallucinatory to think Hubbard was “the Lord.”

        Especially with Commander Miscavige declaring him the overt product maker of the century. So, is Miscavige now “the Lord”? Seriously? That guy who does the events and comes off as a ventriloquist dummy? Is that the Lord? Because those “houses” are HIS. The buildings belong to David Miscavige and so doesall the other real estate.

        When you walk into one of those places you are in the house of David Miscavige. You would have to consider him “The Lord” to think you are standing in a Church.

      • “If you want to get real tragic, forget it was just magic.” L. Ron Hubbard

        It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that a lot of people wanted to get real tragic.

      • DEAR HELEN 10 APRIL 1953

        RE: CLINIC, HAS

        The arrangements that have been made seem a good temporary measure. On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the place – probably not a clinic – but I am sure that it ought to be a company, independent of the HAS [the Hubbard Association of Scientologists] but fed by the HAS. We don’t want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3. keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business.

        I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn’t get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we’ve got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We’re treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy treats the past and the brain.

        And brother, that’s religion, not mental science.

        Best Regards,


      • Oracle, great reference. One of the things many critics like to keep harping on is LRH’s phrase “religion angle” and insinuate a derogatory meaning. This reference shows that LRH really did consider scientology a religion – in the sense that “We’re treating the present time beingness,..And brother, that’s religion, not mental science.”

        Of course, he had some practical considerations too, such as to “keep the HAS solvent” and to “make enough money to shine up my operating scope” – in other words, solvency and expansion. Basically, LRH was attempting to handle the factors of the situation at that time for one reason – to keep scientology in existence.

      • If “treating present time beingness” is the definition of religion. I have not seen “religion” described as such anywhere else but in this letter. Because Hubbard says this is what religion is, and if you need to believe everything Hubbard said, then I guess this makes a religion, to you too. Your ideas may just not align with the rest of humanity on this, and that’s O.K. with me too. I treat present time beingness when I take a shower, set my hair and put on make up.

        Listen, if you need to believe it is a religion, I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t, and it wasn’t when I was intorduced to it. I had a religion when I got involved with Scientology, and it wasn’t Scientology. I belonged to a Church when I got involved, and the Church wasn’t Scientology. I still belong to by Church, I still belong with my religion, neither, are connected to Scientology.

        What you do do, when you assert that Scientology is a religion, and a church, is that you instantly wall off the hundreds of millions that already belong to a Church and have a religion they are happy with. You wall them off from exploring Scientology. And I think that is exactly why Hubbard did not turn it into a religion or a Church, while he was alive.

        Turning Scientology into a religion was David Miscavige’s doing. I did not explore Scientology because I was curious about David Miscavige, his wants or needs or ideas. I don’t care to have him or any of of his programs enforced on me, as a tax to explore the ideas of Hubbard. I can see the direction he is taking and I never had in my interests to follow or be lead by someone like that. And those that do, it is along their purpose line. In some way. But I am not them.

      • Oracle, I tend to agree with you that it wasn’t a good idea to call scientology a church or a religion. But it has been called the “Church of Scientology” since 1953, and LRH had everything to do with that and obviously knew about it for the next 3 decades before his death.

        Also, there are other definitions of “church” besides the one referring to Christianity.

        1. a building for public and especially Christian worship
        2. the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
        3. often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers

        As for whether or not scientology can correctly be called a religion, the fact that it has to do with the spirit and spirituality is the reason LRH described it as such. He was obviously using the first definition of religion below (based alone on the quotes I posted above):

        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.
        2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects [the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion]

        But again, this is all aside from whether it was a good or a bad idea to call scientology a religion and a church. I got your point on that.

      • Miraldi, “But it has been called the “Church of Scientology” since 1953.” Not true. When I was introduced it was called “The Org”. Or,”The Scientology Organization.” Nobody referred to it as a Church or a religion.

        In 99% of Hubbard’s policy letters, he refers to Scientology organizations as “Org’s or Orgs or “the organization.”

        He may have alluded to it being a religion or to call it one, but he specifically said it is NOT a religion.

        Page after page after page of policies all the the green vols, he refers to the places as ORGS. They are called the ORGANIZATION POLICY LETTERS. Not the CHURCH POLICY LETTERS.

        ORGANIZATION POLICY LETTER Blahdy blah. Hubbard Communications Office blahdy blah. Hubbard Bulletins and Policies. His books are “how to” books.

        Evidence is all over the place that this is no church and no religion.

        There is not a religious person in one of those buildings right now. For get religion for a minute, those people are not even civilized. They do not even live by the ten commandments or the golden rule. There is nothing holy about what goes on in there.

        Did you see the deposition video of Marty bleeding all over the net? They USED legal protocol to lure him into “legal obligations” pertaining to one incident, then tried to set him up by personal attacks. Then the video leaked. These are cloak and dagger maneuvers to destroy credible testimony. Let’s get off the words. Hubbard himself called them ORGS, not Churches.

        Legally they are organizations, corporations. They are MONEY MAKING organizations and if you do not have money to buy what they are selling you are supposed to throw yourself and work like a slave to contribute. It is a BUSINESS and they are selling CONVERSATIONS.

        The conversations that place has with the world now, are false reports, wrong whys, wrong whos, wrong items. What part of religion is that? That isn’t even Scientology.

      • TO: “Evidence is all over the place that this is no church and no religion.”

        And nobody is arguing with that. Other than those in the CoS.

      • Even IN the CoS, I would say very few people think of it as a church. I had the same experience as you did when I was there – we were aware that it was called “Church of Scientology”, but to us it was the org, not a church.

        And the only way it now qualifies as a religion is to the degree that there are still people who are expanding spiritually due to the tech actually being applied. But it’s questionable as to how much that is occurring. The only reason I know of that it could be called a religion would be the fact that it has become a system of beliefs rather than the original idea of looking for oneself.

      • I agree. And then there are plenty of people that would testify that they are expanding spiritually from visiting with their therapist or psychiatrist.

        The value of conversation in therapy can not be denied. Communication is a healing thing. Even if you are sitting in an empty room staring at a wall, you are communicating. By the mere fact that you are looking at a wall of feeling yourself on the floor.

        Hubbard’s genius was in the art of communicating. Knowing the right questions to ask, teaching others how to have a worthwhile conversation that could and would really mean something.

        The “Church” of Scn today, as an entity, is producing conversations that are stacking up the T.A. within and between itself and the world. It alter ises,false reports, gives wrong items and wrong indications. If man is as alive as he can communicate, so is an organization. The “Church” can not communicate.

        About the “religious” status D.M.was able to buy. First, Hubbard left something like 480 million behind to the Church, D.M. could have wiped out the tax burden. He chose not to do that and he chose not to pay taxes. Any organization with basically no pay roll, that can not set aside money for taxes, is not solvent. That the Orgs looked solvent for many years, was illusion. They were not.

        When D.M. obtained his “religious” status, it was based on false reports to the I.R.S.. It was an overt product and a false attest.

        The testimony is all over the Internet of what D.M. did NOT tell the I.R.S. and U.S. Gov. This is why they work so hard to cut communication lines and suppress testimony. This is D.M.’s personal P.T.P. that he created for himself. Yet everyone exploring Scientology is burdened by this mess and D.M.’s continuous unusual solutions. He himself does not have conversations, he barks commands.
        He himself does not avail himself to sec checks or O/W write ups. He with holds all evidence even from his own people.

        There is no reason for you and I to become enemies, or any other two people out here to become enemies. For any two Scientologists to become enemies. For any two of mankind to become enemies, because of D.M..

        Why are people getting declared suppressive in the “Church” now? For having conversations.

        Why has Marty Rathbun been hit over and over and over? For having conversations.

        The “Church’s” stable datum now, is that conversations are dangerous. Why? Because of the testimony out here about D.M..

        Why is there an Independent movement with people still engaged in conversation? Because Marty built a platform for people to talk. And,you look at the conversations people are having, you just look at the conversations people are having, and you will learn a lot about who/what called themselves Scientologists and what kind of people were in that group and what their fundamental purposes are. This is not a bad thing to know, and explains the entire story.

        Conversations are not a bad thing. The truth of the matter is, everyone makes their life what it is, based on their conversations with others.

        Sure, there are people and organizations that have conversations or put out words with a purpose to confuse and mislead their fellow man. Those people are not really in communication with the world, and you can see it in their life condition.

        Healing through conversation is the value we found in exploring Scientology.

        Healing through conversation is a value found in religion, and other avenues of communication including reading books.

        If the “Church’s” main purpose was still healing through conversation, I would not mind at all if it called itself a Church. Or a religion.

        But the Church is under D.M. and it is using conversations to mislead others and set people up for losses through conversation. This is what truly makes it a fraud.

      • TO: “The value of conversation in therapy cannot be denied. Communication is a healing thing.”

        Even a blog conversation is valuable and a healing thing, as you commented on one time and I really liked it! That is why I hope Boggle, for example, continues to post here (if he’s willing to play by the rules, of course, which I think he is). It’s because of posters like Boggle, who pointed out some of LRH’s mistakes and personal flaws, that I started looking for myself and stopped being a “true believer”. Likewise, I think that at least some of those critical posters – because of all the “conversations” – became less stuck in condemning LRH, and they also learned that at least some of the ideas they had about the tech were based on MU’s, their own or the MU’s and false data of others.

        Regardless of my now seeing the whole picture with a different perspective, more objectively,I still agree wholeheartedly with what you said – that LRH was a genius in what he contributed – and I’m not stuck in condemning him for the wrongnesses, or in insisting that the tech is perfect and can’t be improved upon. If LRH had lived longer, I’m sure he would have improved it himself, as he continued to do his whole life! Those who are stuck in their views about LRH and the tech might only need more conversations. LRH – in his right mind – would have agreed that he made mistakes. In fact, at the end of his life he basically did so, big time, when he told Sarge that he had “failed”. All along he had said that the tech wasn’t perfect, just workable when applied correctly.

      • Beyond that, waving the weapons around and marching in military garb, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that behind closed doors, these are in fact, not religious people as part of any “church”.

      • These are the conversations D.M. is having with the world:


        Scientology Is Going To War Over A New Documentary

        Church of Scientology launches attack on HBO documentary

        New York Times Runs Scientology Ad Targeting Upcoming HBO Documentary

        Church of Scientology works behind scenes against Clearwater Marine Aquarium

        Church Of Scientology Launches Attack Ad On Upcoming HBO Documentary

        Church of Scientology stiffs pizza delivery guys on tip for $2K order

        Scientology faults HBO documentary

        Scientology Stalin? Former Church Bigwig Compares ‘Psychotic’ Leader David Miscavige To Hitler, Khomeini & More In …

        Katie Holmes Spends Christmas with Tom Cruise; Will Scientology Respond?

        The Scientology Christmas Catalog Is Totally Insane

        What Islam and Scientology Have in Common

        Judge warns of huge legal bill in Church of Scientology dispute

        Explosive Interview! Former Scientologist Claims Church Came Between Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman

        Etc etc etc………

        D.M. had bought nothing but ill repute upon the Scientology community.

        If you Google, “The Church of Scientology denies” this is what comes up:

        About 367,000 results (0.43 seconds)

        He has a restraining order on him in Texas for domestic terrorism.

        He swims in law suits as a defendant.

        He spends millions to avoid a 250K refund in Florida.

        He spends his days in a JUSTICE arena for a REASON.

        Do you think he escapes justice? He doesn’t.

        He is even a failed soldier.

        “Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily”.

        Napoleon Bonaparte

      • David Miscavige will not be salvaged. He does not have the courage to face the consequences of his actions.

        The people involved with the Church and currently supporting him, also do not have the courage to face the consequences of their actions.

        Meanwhile they have become utterly obsessed with making others confront their own actions and consequences.

        A person in the condition of confusion, or below, confuses flows.

        Most people are scared to death of Scientology. People that propitiate in any form are in a fear or terror. That explains the “volunteers”. A.K.A. the “Sea Org” .

        I am not afraid of magic. I am still curious.

      • You look at David Miscavige compared to Marty Rathbun, there are differences and very little similarities,

        Marty is not afraid. That is how I trust people.

        David Miscavige is in terror. He sits in the shadows and manifests through puppets. He has millions to spend for intel. Representation. He sends Jenny Linson to fight his battles.

        Just keeping it real. He is not a “tough guy”. He is not a qualified “leader”. He is not a “power”.

        These are simple failures to notice. He hides, he is in hiding.

        Marty does not hide. Marty is not covert, he is overt.

        You have to ask yourself,how come these “Scientologists” that are supposedly “in the know”, can’t see this simple attribute?

        Davis hides behind body guards, lawyers, puppets. Plants. Spies. P.I.’s.

        Marty isn’t hiding from anyone.

  8. I am an Aussie ex Scientologist and was the longest serving executive in the history of an org over here and I also lived with a South African Scientologist here, and I also love this blog!

    The collapse of Scientology in South Africa parallels it’s collapse here in Australia as well and I predict it has about 3 years to go before it folds entirely here. The author of this article has done an outstanding job and nails the control nature and brainwashing in all religions. I did an article recently on my blog on this subject which some of you might find interesting too http://www.answerstofreedom.com/coming-demise-religion/#more-2001 Thank you and looking forward to more great articles from you guys..

  9. It seems to me that there is a paradox when it comes to organized religion, or any type of organized system of thought and practice. It’s true that organizations have inherent pitfalls, including first and foremost the fact that the individual’s self-determinism is inevitably compromised.

    I think from the beginning LRH sincerely wanted his discoveries to spread (as well as the discoveries of others that he found workable and incorporated into his own), so that a greater number of people would benefit from them than if there were not an organized movement. It’s just an empirical fact that there are beings in this universe who are not well-intended, and because of that the need to organize seems unavoidable as there is strength in numbers.

    The other relevant fact of life is that an organization has to be able to operate successfully within the culture if it is to survive. As an obvious example, if Scientology as an organization was not surviving because of the tax laws, as a deciding factor, then its decision to be viewed as a religion was perhaps optimal at the time. Furthermore, I don’g know that it is incorrect that it IS a religion.

    The whole question of organized groups is not as cut and dried as it seems, IMHO. I believe the much more important factor is the intentions of those involved in the organization – and that’s sort of a chicken and egg paradox. Or, as LRH put it, “We build the world with broken straws.”

    • Is not the paradox here that the cofs has become controlling and demanding obedience, despite what it’s founder may have wished?

      • Yes, Subreption, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

        Here’s part of a tape excerpt that was posted as a blog post here on BIC a couple of months ago. It is applicable to this discussion thread and very worth repeating:

        “And as I look into the future I see that we are handling here material of a potential control and command over mankind which must not be permitted at any time to become the monopoly or the tools of the few to the danger and disaster of the many. And maybe in this I am simply being overly proud, conceited or optimistic. But I would never for a moment step back from a role of being conceited just to be approved of. Or just to be wrong in a prediction.

        “And I believe that prediction is right. And I believe that the freedom of the materials which we know and understand is guaranteed only by a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information. And if we can do these things we will win. But if we can’t do these things, sooner or later the information which we hold will become the property of an untrustworthy few. This I am sure, because it has always happened this way. But that’s no reason it has to keep on happening this way. I am not of an inevitable frame of mind.”

        “I have no illusions about either the unimportance of Scientology or its importance. You see, it’d be very, very easy to get a swollen idea either way. It’d be a very simple thing, you know, to take a look at it and then take an opinion of it, independent of its actuality.

        “Scientology, well understood, is a very powerful thing. Well used it can do a great deal for the social order and for the individual. Poorly relayed, poorly communicated, monopolized or used exclusively for gain, it could be a very destructive thing.” 6 Jun 55, “What Scientology is Doing”, Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress.


    • “I think from the beginning LRH sincerely wanted his discoveries to spread (as well as the discoveries of others that he found workable and incorporated into his own), ….. ”


      In the beginning, LRH’s purpose was to make money! And he did, plenty of it!

      • Hadawakeup: This post is really stirring up the emotions and got the opinions flying. Not to add fuel to the fire, but I feel obligated to speak up in LRH ‘ S defence here. If you were one of the few of us left who knew him in person and spent time with him and worked and ate with him you would not be saying things like “in the beginning LRH’s purpose was to make money” Speak to the old timers who knew the man before you say shit like that. I’m not saying everything worked out perfectly. The Sea Org and suppressive use of ethics tech certainly derailed the original purposes but he did not start out to make money.

      • LosingMyReligion, quoting you:

        “If you were one of the few of us left who knew him in person and spent time with him and worked and ate with him you would not be saying things like ‘in the beginning LRH’s purpose was to make money’.”

        Thanks for confirming other accounts I’ve read of those who knew LRH personally and state that he was sincere in his desire to help people (regardless of whatever personal flaws he may have had). I found one of those postings, an interview of Peter Moon on youtube.

        Within the first 15 minutes or so, Peter talks quite positively about Scientology in the 70’s and also gives a favorable description of LRH based on his experience working in LRH’s “Personal Office” on the ship. At about 12:20 in the video, he says “LRH was very convinced that he was trying to help people…and he WAS helping people…” Then Peter goes on to explain what happened to LRH that may have been what “led to a degenerative situation.”

      • Greetings Marildi,

        One of the most unbiased acccounts of LRH the man, can be found on the “Otto J Roos Story”. Otto was right there working directly under LRH as one of the top auditors and C/Ses from that time , even better than Mayo and that’s a lot to say. He KNEW LRH’s case as he personally FSEed and C/Sed all of LRH’s PC folders. His story is unique , and more so because he was able to separate LRH the researcher from LRH the man , highly admiring his capacity to identify that which works technically speaking , but capable at the same time to confront LRH’s flaws and observe them for what they were ; the correct balance that ALL scientologists should seek.

        I don’t know what happened to Otto after the ’90s. He used to write great articles on the “International Viewpoints” magazine with Tony as the editor. I don’t know if he dropped his body already or not ; he should be around 80 right now. I would certainly love to talk to him if he still inhabit his body.

        Please, I would really appreciate if any poster knows anything about him. I can be reached at “thetaclear68@yahoo.com”. I am ok with posting my e-mail if you don’t mind, dear BCI Admin.

        ARC PETER

      • Greetings Thetaclear,

        Well stated post. And I agree that the Otto Roos Story is a good one. Here’s an excerpt from the end of it, the “Conclusion”.

        “…LRH, to me, does remain a pc in NEED, with more OUT TECH (of most unbelievable magnitude and force) on his case than any other 10 people combined.

        “The reasons for his never permitting anybody to handle these folders (and thereby him) is quite irrelevant and is also contained in these folders.

        “If anybody could find ‘reasons’ to be against him, it would be me, yet stupid that would be!

        “He did give a lot of false data about his background, I have known this ever since the folders, but who cares!

        “He also found, wrote up, relayed and trained us in a technology towards IMMORTALITY and showed us the possibility to regain PAN DETERMINED CONTROL over our lives, times, events and places by handling our interrelations with all of the Dynamics, by indicating the road toward restoring our CAUSE over our own INTENTIONS & ACTION CYCLES.

        “Whatever one may say, without him the Bridge, as we know it, would never have existed.

        “I am no theety weety or airy fairy individual, I never ‘idolised’ him or ‘sang (muster) songs’ in his praise, or became a fanatic.

        “He never even needed any of this nonsense, but, if he himself thought he did, well, that was OK by me too. It would have come out in the wash of his folder handling.

        “His idiosyncrasies? He liked playing ‘Commodore’, OK, but, at least as a seaman, he did it well.

        “The great tragedy of it all is not even that he got caught in his overts to the extent that in the end virtually everything restimulated his OUT RUDS, but is the fact that he finally penalised himself horribly by denying himself the only thing which could have saved him, his own creation, AUDITING.”

        [signed: O.J. Roos]


  10. My first reaction on reading this article was, “here we go, another stab at LRH and the tech” maybe Im wrong, but there are some jumping on that bandwagon.

    My problem with people having a go at, say, the SO or Ethics tech, is I can see their uses, IF and a vital IF, the people using them, use them with the intention to do the most survival thing. I can see the use of Justice in extreme cases, we have all used “justice” on others, in one form or another during our lives, and those who don’t suffer personally, from its neglect. LRH just happened to spell it out, but it was there all along, don’t shoot the messenger!

    So parts of the tech came from Joe Blow back in the 18th century, whoopty do, if LRH hadnt spotted it and brought it to my attention I would put money on the fact I would know nothing about it now! If I remember rightly he mentioned this in earlier tapes anyway, maybe “Evaluation of Importances” on the Student Hat. (Someone might know the reference I am referring to)

    The name of the game is just to get force off the case so the being can be there and play a decent game, and to teach others how to do that. It aint that friggin hard, all this bs significance is just that, bs significance on rightness and wrongness. Does the Bridge actually get force off the case and lead to a being who can play a decent game? There seem to be 2 opposing answers to that question on this blog, lets stop the pussy footing around and just pick sides!


    • Does the bridge do this within organized Scn? A floating needle within a church of Scn happens within the context of the current organization. An FN in the independent field is more ethical in that respect. It does not have the context of criminal fundraising, massive prices for student hat and the myriad of other ills described here daily.

      Does tech delivery within this church context take charge off the case? Really. Long term?

      This blog seems to lean toward ‘free’ tech within a sane context. IMO.

      • Subreption, I think we agree with each other. I am not advocating the current church, far from it. The problem I have with these sorts of posts in the past, is that it ends up being LRHs fault, when the tech wasnt actually applied in the first place. And from what I saw, the use of the Ethics and Admin tech and finally the Auditing tech itself being applied as stated and for the end result as stated, totally depended on the intention of the person “using the tech”. That intention has deteriorated over the years.

        Thinking for yourself, not following group think etc etc is a no brainer. But personally I am not going to invalidate another persons beliefs, if they dont harm others, but I will stand up for mine! I am even getting to the point where if someone wants to be a member of daves church and do gat gat2, the return of gat or whatever, thats fine by me just dont call it Scientology!

  11. A bit abusive to read not very graceful either. But its now in my “Yeah but…whatever” file… I think the superiority of Scientology is that of certainty, we have better certainty and function as if we really are operating thetans, and that seems to be a huge advantage over normal folks, religious or not.

    • I don’t think scientologists have any ”superiority” except the superiority they mistakenly believe they have which has been instilled in them by LRH with nonsensical statements that they are the ”top 10% of the top 10%” and non scientologists are nothing but ”wogs”.etc. Validatory stuff to ”pump up one’s ego” in order to get them to donate or give their labour for next to nothing.

      The so-called certainty of scientologists is just a generalized fallacy too, as scientologists do not have any more success in life than the average ”normal folks”. Probably less in fact.

      • Jeff….I agree with you completely.
        I have always struggled with the attitude of superiority by many scientologists, when in reality they really know little more than the next person. …and in all honesty probably are trusting and believing in a belief system which is not going to free them from this “trap” in any event…..but will free them of their hard earned cash instead.
        I really dont see scientology as a kind and merciful organisation which delivers on the promise of true spiritual freedom. And I feel sorry for the arrogant lot who think that they are going anywhere. …or are any better than the rest of the souls in this universe or any other…..

      • “The so-called certainty of scientologists is just a generalized fallacy too, as scientologists do not have any more success in life than the average ”normal folks”. Probably less in fact.” – Jeff Lee Brown.

        This is one of the truest statements I’ve seen in a long, long time. Thanks, Jeff.

        Just look around you. I know so many Scios, OTs, who are struggling badly in life. I work with non-Scios and generally they are well, much better, have successful marriages, prosperous businesses, good kids and so on. And they have money. Only a few Scios in the field have money and they probably would have had it or made it, anyway.

        The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

      • For whom the bell trolls… look ‘mate’ what is the most basic statement of your personal applied religious philosophy then ? i.e., your statement of life “mate” is what? You are an accident of gravity force and time? God did it? Befuddled? Are you real? What are YOU then? Can’t say? Wont’ Say? Not sure, except that “it sure aint Scientology?” Are you superior to Scientologists then in or out of the ‘church’ ? I am curious as to the foundation of your point of view here. Or are you just a bean plant? Have you even read 1984? Thanks.

  12. A not graceful article I agree. IMO the article describes some truths but the datum on gradients seems to be true for me.

    The article is a black and white statement. It is all this and all not that. In reality, we have shades of all of this.

    Another way to read the article is to agree that religions have truths that are workable for many. That if you maintain your independent viewpoint and your own integrity, you can take, or not, whatever is workable for you from a religion. That makes a religion a handy place to go and source good information.

    The rituals and dogma can be skipped, I agree. Certainly you do not have to be controlled by a religion if you choose not to.

    I always felt weird genuflecting as I walked into the church. And dipping my fingers into the holy water. Just as I did standing for DM at events, or standing and clapping at preordained intervals. Or reporting on my colleagues.

    Somewhere in that organization were books printed that said I was a spiritual being, that be and do and have were concepts I could use. That an L1C was quite a cool device.

    It comes back to your singular and independent viewpoint.

    It seems that the search for truth, your truth, really relies on your ability to evaluate data, to make judgments about the value of the organization of those truths, and to assemble your truths for yourself, and to work with those of a like mind to share those truths to help othes.

  13. Great article! In my opinion, the worst thing about religion is that it encourages a person to drop responsibility for their own mind and their own spiritual progress.

    That’s any religion at all – not singling any one out. It’s most obvious in those religions that ask the believer to submit to an all-powerful creator who owns the universe. It’s more insidious in a philosophy or self-help system that ends up taking on the name of religion. After some big wins early on, I became lazy and started believing whatever I read as long as it came from the officially-approved source. No need to think, just agree and get an illusion of self-satisfied superiority.

    The recent atrocity in Paris is a reminder how religion can subvert a person’s inherent sense of right and wrong. Those men had gone into agreement with an ‘absolute’ moral authority that calls murder a laudable act if done in defense of their faith and lord.

    • And it’s true of Scientology, as well. Freedom of speech? Power of choice? Naaa…. These are empty words in Scn.

      Look at the nastiness that goes on and has been going on since the beginning of this “religion”. LRH himself persecuted people, throwing them overboard, locking them up in a degraded fashion in the chain locker with no ablutions and scraps of food hurled at them in a bucket, young kids too. Declaring loyal, dedicated staff SP if they “failed” him in some way. This was often done on a whim.

      Just take a look at the “legacy” he left behind on the 2D! Three families he had and all three families in smithereens. Didn’t he say himself, that one failing dynamic would pull all the others down?

      I could go on but this is enough, I reckon.

      • Canspeakatlast. As Losing my Religion posted above, have you actually spoken to people who were there with LRH – lived with him, worked with him – ate at the same table as him? How do you know it was LRH that threw people overboard or put them in the chain locker? Surely by now with all the “documented (DOX)” evidence there would be SOMETHING in his handwriting (orders of the day, Ethics Orders, etc) putting these procedure into place. I know that he watched the overboardings and it’s highly likely he conceived this “too gruesome” for gross auditing errors/down stats and the like – there are many accounts of this occurring and I don’t deny this. The fact is that no-one actually died or came to serious injury (besides having the bejesus scared out of them).

        I have first-hand info that LRH was not the originator of throwing people into the chain locker – this was actually the “bright idea” of Otto Roos who was the MAA at that time. My husband was on the Apollo and thrown into the chain locker at the age of 7 – the MAA that ordered it? Otto Roos.

        Also, please let’s get this into perspective – all of this occurred nearly half a century ago – do we really have to keep flogging the same dead horse over and over again?

        Same cannot be said for the increasing numbers of dead, injured, broken and permanently disabled people who have suffered ECT as a form of “punishment” – particularly in an attempt to “cure” homosexuality, depression, psychosis and the like – all well documented and undeniably still happening today. I personally interviewed a pregnant woman in 2008 who had been subjected to ECT without anaesthesia on numerous occasions because she did not want to get out of her pyjama’s (she was suffering from debilitating morning sickness – and this was her “punishment”.) I had it confirmed to me by the guards in this “institution” that ECT is threatened and used as a punishment for patients who don’t conform.

        As for LRH’s 2D “legacy” – before you are so quick to judge, lets look at a couple of other “greats” in our history (source = Wikipedia):

        Einstein had a child out of wedlock in 1902 (a daughter) whose name and fate to this day is unknown. He then married the woman he had fostered the bastard child with, but that marriage ended in shambles and divorce in 1910. His eldest son Eduard committed suicide after being diagnosed with schizophrenia. Einstein then married his first cousin Elsa in 1919. A major scandalous affair indeed. Does this make Einstein’s work and legacy he left behind invalid and deserving of mockery?

        Likewise, Ghandi, although married, decided to take a vow of celibacy and refused his wife conjugal rights. But then he “experimented” by having his grandniece and other young girls sleep naked in his bed with him. He was a mediocre student, failed his bar exam and was “unremarkable” by many of his teacher’s reports. Does this make him any less of the revered and great humanitarian he was?

        As an analogy, if you suddenly discovered the person who invented the can-opener was a bigamist and beat his children will you go back to opening your tin cans with a pen-knife? I think not.

        So please let’s get this into perspective. LRH was not a God. He never claimed to be. He was not infallible – he never claimed to be. He made mistakes – he acknowledged this. He didn’t necessarily apply his own philosophy at times – he acknowledged this too. Does this repudiate and invalidate the workable and useful technology he codified and presented for others to improve their lives? Most certainly not.

      •   Oh , come on Shelly , you are just being too reasonable here, and very conveniently so I may add with all due respect. If you want to defend LRH’s actions , then please present good arguments based on facts not on opinions and plain generalizations and unrelated points.

         what does it really matter if LRH really originated or not ,wrote about it or not , about “overboarding” ? what does that has to do with the wrongfulness  of the act ? He WATCHED it and did absolutely NOTHING about it ; that is a FACT , not an opinion. Did you took the time to carefully read the “Otto J Roos Story” ? I did , 10x !

         I had not seen anybody before being  so unbiased about  his account of LRH’s weaknesses as Otto was in his story. He was in fact , a gentlemen . He KNEW many “discreditable creations” of LRH and never even hinted at ANY of them , and he personally FESed and  C/Sed ALL of LRH’s PC folders.He KNEW more about LRH than any of us in the Field , a lot more than Rathbun ,Rinder and even Mayo and the Broekers.

         Otto accepted his responsibilities in his story , each one of them. You can’t say the same about LRH. He never accepted not even one , he was infallible according to his actions. Read the Otto story then read each and every one of the “International Viewpoints” magazine issues where Otto posted several articles and see for yourself how Otto always respected anda dmired Ron the researcher , and actually defended him in multiple occasions.  

        And about LRH acknowledging his mistakes please present one evidence , just one to support your comment.  “If it isn’t written it is not true”, you scientologists utter so frequently. Show me just one ref where he publicly accepted the wrongfulness of the Fair Game and the”Disconnection” practice and please , don’t quote the infamous RJ68 as that was pure PR to ease off the many inquires going on at the time including the “Victorian Inquiry”.

        ANY old-timer KNOWS that the practice of Fair Gaming and family disconnections continued . So present ONE evidence to support your view. ‘ll be waiting to argument about and publicly accept my mistake should I be found wrong in my assessments .Fair enough ?

        The fact is that nobody expected LRH to be a god or to be perfect. However he DID projected him as infallible and never wrong as clearly evidenced by his viewpoints on KSW #1. And the Church and in fact, almost ALL of us , deified him beyond belief.

        So please , do not compare LRH with Ganhdi or Einstein as far as PR is concerned. Just do the experiment yourself : Google search “Einstein” and “Ganhdi” and see what you come up with. Then do the same with LRH and see for yourself that for every “good” thing about him you’ll find 35-50 negative posts. Are you going to use now the trite argument that the media prople are “plain SPs” as your reason for the incredible bad PR that LRH pulled in ?

        What happened with us Scientologists (in my case “borderline” Scientologist) that became so blind to plain and obvoius facts ?

        I wrote a whole and detailed article about all of this. It is very unbiased and directly to the point. I don’t know whether it will actually get posted or not. If not , you’ll see it very soon at other platforms. I challenge any Scientologist to read it and to friendly argument with me about it but with REAL arguments , not plain HE&R and BPC on the subject. Let’s get use to confront facts and be willing to truly observe.

        ARC PETER

         ARC Peter

      • Hi Peter,
        Thanks for replying to my comment, even though it wasn’t addressed to you I understand you felt it necessary to say something.

        I always enjoy your comments and although I don’t know you personally, have respect and ARC for your viewpoints and comments on various blogs.

        I don’t want to op-term with you, and would prefer to leave my comment as it stands as that is MY viewpoint of things – much of the data having been gleaned from first-hand information from people who were there. I am not delusional when it comes to LRH – this is evidenced by a number of my comments on this thread. I don’t deify him, and I certainly don’t think he had clean hands. I have the fortunate position of being the daughter of someone who knew & worked with LRH personally (she audited and was audited by him, looked after his children and was the first ever appointed HCO EXEC SEC WW). I am married to a Flag-Interned LRH Pro-TR’s pass Course Supervisor who also knew and worked with LRH – albeit he was very young at the time and in fact one of the first CMO’s appointed on this planet. In fact my husband and Arthur were good mates and LRH C/S’d my hubby on Power Processing as he and Arthur raised up the bridge to see who went clear first. I prefer first-hand accounts as opposed to 2nd,3rd, and 4th-hand passed down stories that have become embellished and now resemble something akin to folklore. I am in no way saying that Otto Roos was untruthful and didn’t even raise this as a point. I merely stated that Otto was the one who tied the great big chain around my husbands scrawny 7-year-old arm and threw him into the locker. LRH did not even know that this had happened. I make no other statement about this incident.

        I stand admonished for rising to the bait on the issue of protecting LRH – usually I just disregard these remarks. My interest and focus is actually on the CURRENT state of affairs in the RCS and the fact that SCN is no longer what it once was.

        There has been SO much history regurgitated time and again that quite frankly I get bored with it all. None of this detracts from the fact that the RCS under DM is not a nice organisation and needs to be brought to book for the atrocities it is perpetrating in PT.

        With much ARC

      • Thanks for the comm Shelly,

        My apologies is my comments were too abrupt ; I might have overreacted to the comment of “LRH acknowledging his mistakes”. There has been too much injustice already and many falsities regarding that , and I sometimes lack tolerance for such matters.

        Your point about your first-hand account from your mother and husband is understood. I always deal with first-hand accounts myself. Otto is definitively first-hand as well as Mayo, Ken Urquhart , Alan walters, and many others that I fully researched.

        I am, as well, very fond of your comments and intelligent views.

        I know your comments were not directed at me as such, but this being a blog , is quite expected that other posters comment on your posts, and more so if they feel that some views needs clarification. I have no problems with the opinion of others. In fact, I very much foster freedom of thought as evidenced by my many posts here. But if an opinion is presented as a Fact rather than an opinion, and if that “fact” goes against the unbiased analysis of a subject or character, then it is my moral duty to step in. I hope you can understand that.

        About LRH not knowing about your husband chain-lockering , he didn’t need to know. You can’t expect him to know all the details as to who and when. But he KNEW quite well about those practices in general. I have not been able to find not even one single account from anybody as regards to LRH protesting about them. If you know of any, please tell me about it.

        I got it about your emphasis on the CofS and DM and his suppressive injustices. Did you ever stop to wonder whether DM was using exact LRH refs, unadulterated , to bring about his suppressive acts ? I did , fully researched the matter and wrote a very deatailed analysis of it. Should you want to know my findings, just let me know. DM was never the real target for handling. That’s why it never could get as-issed and will never be until we, as a group, wake up and confront the facts that have always been right under our noses.

        So, do you really want to handle the DM sit ? , then find the right WHY and the right WHO. It ain’t DM. And the right WHY ain’t his alteration of the Tech either. But on this, a whole article should be devoted to. I am ready when Scientologist be ready to listen.

        ARC PETER

      • Hi Shelley

        “So please let’s get this into perspective. LRH was not a God. He never claimed to be. He was not infallible – he never claimed to be. He made mistakes – he acknowledged this. He didn’t necessarily apply his own philosophy at times – he acknowledged this too.”

        Why didn’t LRH use his own tech on himself and his life and his family? Tech he SWORE worked one hundred percent of the time – refer KSW 1.

        (REST OF COMMENT REDACTED – Please refer to the moderation policy)

      • Shelley, I like your comment above (in reply to canspeakatlast’s reply to mine). It’s an important point that the “great men of history” had faults and committed overts, just like us. It would be childish to reject the contributions they have made to human progress on this account.
        There’s a pervasive myth of the perfect man, the hero, the guru, the genius who is always right and never wrong… I might even call it an implant. Sooner or later we have to grow up and understand that there are no such beings. All those former Hubbard-worshippers who in their disappointment have become Hubbard-haters still haven’t understood.
        It might be closer to the truth to say that the individuals who have original ideas and insights tend also to be problematical personalities, difficult for their associates and families. Einstein and Gandhi are excellent examples, and there are many more.

      • “So, do you really want to handle the DM sit ? , then find the right WHY and the right WHO. It ain’t DM. And the right WHY ain’t his alteration of the Tech either. But on this, a whole article should be devoted to. I am ready when Scientologist be ready to listen.

        “ARC PETER”

        Hi Peter

        I’m ready.

        I am a respecter of the truth no matter how controversial.
        It is what it is.

        Have you such a write up ready yet? If so, would you be willing to let me have a look at it? Is there an email address that you could let me have so that I may respond and let you know mine?

      • Greetings Canspeakatlast,

        Thanks for the comm.

        Yes, I do have some writings fully researched and ready , pending for some minor editing and grammatical corrections. You can e-mail me at


        Dear BIC Admin, I am ok with Canspeakatlast having my e-mail address.

        ARC PETER

      • To Shelley

        “…would prefer to leave my comment as it stands as that is MY viewpoint of things –”

        I respect your right to your viewpoint, just as I respect mine, albeit not in agreement with yours. That’s OK, isn’t it?

        Just as you may want to protect the reputation of LRH as he did himself, I apologise for preferring to confront the facts and to confront from that point of view.

        “….have you actually spoken to people who were there with LRH – lived with him, worked with him – ate at the same table as him?”

        I don’t need to have known him. You didn’t know him either even if you knew people who did. What has that got to do with anything? Perhaps knowing him makes it more difficult to be objective? He had charm and charisma…. Other apostates have written how they were ensconsed in his personality and therefore had blinded themselves to the atrocities they witnessed. Am I allowed to say “atrocities”?

        You do not have to remind me of the moderation policy. I know what it is. I forget, from time to time. I take the Creed somewhat literally, it seems.

        I hope you post my comment.

  14. My first comment here, but I love what you have been doing and are doing in S. Africa
    Thank you for that excellent article on religion. Yes, it is black and white only, whereas life deals in many shades of grey. I appreciated the snotty tone and can still use what is workable in Scientololgy and other religions.
    I did that ‘Minister’s Course’ when it became mandatory for auditors but steadfast refused to wear that black cloth and wearing that ridiculous huge cross around my neck.
    Scientology was always an applied philosophy on a personal level. All else was indeed ‘religious
    cloaking .
    I would also like to thank your moderator for the policy to omit confidential data. It allows those who want to do their auditing outside the Co$ to do so without stumbling across data they are not ready for and which just isn’t helpful.

  15. I enjoyed the article.
    It has a lot of truth in it.
    I suppose that a religion “could” exist that didn’t exhibit these characteristics but I am not aware of any. Running with the theme that “absolutes are unobtainable” I am still glad I was involved in the “religion” of Scientology. I don’t regret all I learned but feel somewhat bad about all I allowed myself to be fooled and pushed around by a bunch of nuts.
    I will probably never again be involved in something where I am not allowed to utter my true feelings.
    All in all I found this article to be pretty funny and I feel that it should be read from a very non-serious attitude. I feel he is being very insouciant with a VERY SERIOUS subject.

  16. I think that the author of this article have managed to discuss some very interesting points about what he erroneously call “religion”. He is obviously identifying the word “religion” with the word “cult” which is the actual word that correctly describes the several manifestations and “belief systems” that he discussed in his dissertation.

    I think that exploring the origin of the word “religion” is of the essence for the correct understanding of the actual role that it has played in civilizing human kind by providing them with ways to comprehend life and existence and to raise them towards higher spiritual awareness.

    Historical linguists disagree about the word’s ultimate roots. There is however, some type of consent about its latin root “religare”. “Religare” breaks down into “re” which means “back” , and “ligare” , which means to “tie or bind”.The word “religion” also shares its origin with the English words “ligature” and “ligament”. A “ligature” is a “tie” that derives from the latin word “ligare”. Putting all this together we have, “To tie onself back”. In essence religion means, “to tie oneself back to some prior state of existence, to an early Source of being”.

    Religion has the role of “binding” our life together in a meaningful way. To “tie” us to “Source” whatever that might mean, as the the virtue itself does not necesarily lies in getting us to “Source” but in encouraging us to follow a path leading to ENLIGHTENMENT. Just the fact of following that path brings with it several understandings and an improvement of spiritual awareness with the consequential appearance of higher ethical and moral virtues.

    Religion is not only a good thing , it is a MUST for a existence with a sense of purpose and direction. Religion can’t be dissociated with “higher spiritual awareness” , “freedom of thought” , “free will” , and
    “self-determism” ; as those states of being are a DIRECT result of the “enlightenment” brought about by religious rituals. Religion is never to be confused with its lower harmonic version called a “cult”. A “cult” is a symbol of “suppression of free will” ; religion, actual religion , is a symbol of “freedom of thought” and of “higher spiritual awareness”.

    What Steven described on his article are CULTS , or cult(ish) approaches to religious rituals. In what state do you think you would have find this crazy planet w/out the influence that great religions like “Taoism” , “Vedism” , “Buddhism” , and “Hinduism” , just to mention a few , had in shaping the ethics and moral virtues of Humanity ? You would only have chaos.

    No, it is not religion that is at fault , but an incredible suppressive education system failing to properly train our kids in correct values and the history of our race, and failing as well, in fostering the adoption of Human Rights and “free thinking”. The cult(ish) approach to spiritual knowledge is a DIRECT result of illiteracy. This word is commonly associated with “unable to read ot write”. But I am talking about other acceptions of the word which describes states of beingness widely spread in “modern” society, particularly described in the below 3rd acception of the word.

    il·lit·er·a·cy (ĭ-lĭt′ər-ə-sē) n. pl. il·lit·er·a·cies 1. The condition of being unable to read and write. 2. An error, as in writing or speech, made by or thought to be characteristic of one who is illiterate. See Usage Note at literate. 3. The condition or quality of being ignorant or unknowledgeable in a particular subject or field: cultural illiteracy; scientific illiteracy. (Free Dictionary Only By Farlex)

    The cult(ish) approach to religion is a direct result of M/Us on the subject of fixation or in earlier similar subject engaged in. It is also the result of the adoption of “false data”, “false laws” , and “false axioms” ; and just a plain lack of training in the Humanities which include general history (including “history of religions” and general philosophy) , general literature (specially classics) , and general scientific methodology (which include training in dealing with illogics).

    -With the establishment of a REAL education system , this fixation on cultism can be reverted to an actual search for higer spirifual awareness leading to a much better society endowed with great moral virtues. That’s the actual role of religion, the one it always had.

    By the way, Scientology was never a true religion. Perhaps is was ironically until the time that LRH decided to change it from a “Scientific Philosophy” to a “religion” for protection , control , and monetary reasons, back in 1954 with the creation of the 1st “Church” in L.A. , California. And before his famous and yet destructive article on “Ability” magazine in mid March 1955 tittled, “The Scientologist , A Manual On The Dissemination Of Material” , where the attitude of “attack the critic and dissenters” and the strict adherence to scriptures or else started to emerge. After that the first indicators of cultism began to appear , and after 1965 with the creation of KSW #1 , there was no turning back and a man who supposedly tried to save Humanity died in seclusion and totally isolated from the same people that he once intended to help.

    But true religion unites races and fosters fellowship and tolerance. So let’s not identify it with a cult , shall we ?


  17. Since leaving the so at the flag land base with my family in 1986 it was quite devastating as I felt I had lost something in my life. The reason for my leaving was for the insanity I experienced there and the cruelty bestowed upon my wife due to them making her work nearly 20 hours per day and also no schooling for the children.

    My first priority after returning to South Africa was to get a job and earn some money because after 22 years of serving the “church” I found myself penniless and homeless and I was 46 years of age with a wife and 3 children. But I got a job in my profession which I studied all those years ago.

    I decided that Scientology cannot be the only philosophy so I started looking around and read other books. I discovered that there was a new scientific approach toward religion which I started reading. What I found was amazing and quite incredible.

    What one has to do today is to differentiate between religion and spirituality, they are not the same, absolutely not. You can be the most religious individual on the planet but not a spiritual person at all. Spiritual people are very different from religious people, they don’t go around shouting there head off trying to force others to join there belief system. They are more honest. Religious fanatics are borderline psychotics.

    With the discovery of quantum physics a hundred years ago many scientists started investigating the field of spirituality which has resulted in the creation of the science of spirituality which now validates the concept of the human spirit (thetan) and re-incarnation. There are now hundreds if not thousands of scientists involved in spirituality.

    Scientology went wrong when religious fanatics (psychotics) managed to get into power using ethics destructively for there own gain. There are other destructive belief systems besides religion such as politics when it feels the only solution is war and materialism currently the major belief system on the planet. Religion itself is not necessarily spiritual but in certain practices money making such as the Catholic church. The Christian church denies spirituality and re-incarnation and is definitely not spiritual. The official church of Scientology is absolutely not a spiritual religion but a money making religion.

    Thousands of books have been written by spiritual people and still are being written many of them scientists and philosophers and some very ordinary people.

    • Beautifully stated, Travis. You’ve put it in a nutshell.

      I like this statement particularly:
      “What one has to do today is to differentiate between religion and spirituality, they are not the same, absolutely not. You can be the most religious individual on the planet but not a spiritual person at all. Spiritual people are very different from religious people, they don’t go around shouting there head off trying to force others to join there belief system. They are more honest. Religious fanatics are borderline psychotics.”

      And this one:
      “Religion itself is not necessarily spiritual but in certain practices money making such as the Catholic church. The Christian church denies spirituality and re-incarnation and is definitely not spiritual. The official church of Scientology is absolutely not a spiritual religion but a money making religion.”

  18. a question that invariably arises when pursuing truth is “is there, in reality, a single unifying truth?”, of course it can be phrased many ways. in essence, it’s an eternal question to ponder.
    cults/religions address that question.

    a scientologist believes there is a single unifying truth from which all other truths spring from.
    they believe know where reality came from. how things have come to be. in other words they have answered the question.

    in that way i would say they are a religion.

    you don’t need to have a god to be a religion, you just need dogma.

    there is an eternal question that people pursue. others claim they have answered it. if you do not accept it, you are out, you are denied the answer, the truth, they have found.

    that is ALL religion.

    in science, there is no dogma, one aspect that makes it a non religion.
    in science, the eternal question is pursued. other people claim to have answered it. if you do not accept it, you can question anything you like, you can argue with any scientist, you can even take their work and use it against them, you can attack any aspect of the answer and you will never be thrown out of science. you are denied nothing.

    so it’s two schools pursuing the same question and what demarcates the two is dogma.

    take dogma out of any religion and you automatically and simply have a bunch of people pursuing their own philosophical curiosity.

    take any philosophy and add in some dogma and presto you have a religion/cult.

    and it is dogma that makes religions and cults identical.

    i would even go so far as to say the organization that is scientology is a religion and all religions are cults, yet independent scientology is a philosophy but not a religion, because as i understand it, dogma is not part of the independent field.

    • WhiteStar, did you know that there are 2 branches of science and there is a war between them. It is a war to the death of at least one. The one branch is called classical physics and also goes by several other names. The other is called Monistic Idealism. Monistic Idealism posits that you are a spirit and that there is a higher power. The other posits that all is matter and there is nothing else.

      Monistic Idealism is based on the fundamental principles of Quantum physics and classical physics is based on the principles of Isaac Newton and that is over 300 years old. The classical scientist refuses to acknowledge the idealist scientist and has declared war on him so I would like to know which branch of science you are talking about and please remember that classical science is now obsolete.

      • i think classical science being obsolete would be shocking news to a classical scientist.
        i’m not really sure what is meant by that, i know it’s been a trendy thing to say the last few years, but i don’t see how something that is true can be obsolete.
        unless it becomes a mere matter of semantics, like one can take the point of view that quantum physics has supplanted classical because classical describes things that are comprised of quantum particles anyway.
        but there is no theory, at least that i know of, that unifies the two.
        just the fact classical laws mysteriously break down at the quantum level and quantum behavior vanishes as you scale up, shows there is a lot more explaining to do before something can be called obsolete.

        but regardless, i was merely using science as a backdrop, to serve as a contrast to what a religion is not, in order to reason out what a religion is, what is a cult and is scientology either, both or none. i wasn’t trying to interject science itself into any equation.

        i’ve heard of Monistic Idealism but i don’t know anything about it.
        i’m guessing it’s a philosophy based on quantum physics.

        in my opinion QP is way too young for there to be fleshed out philosophies based upon it. i prefer just to keep abreast of the lasted science and ponder myself the implications. for instance contemplating the higgs field, collapsing wave functions, quantum entanglement, any science with substance is fodder for my own philosophizing and a lot of fun. and honestly, to me that is a way to ensure i don’t need to unfu@k myself at a later date because i got caught up in someone else’s case, to use a scientology expression. give me the facts and i’ll work out my own philosophy.

        if there are two branches warring, that bolsters the point that in science there is no dogma, there are many competing theories precisely because there is none.
        stubbornness, hardheadedness, yes.

      • WhiteStar, you wrote:
        “one can take the point of view that quantum physics has supplanted classical because classical describes things that are comprised of quantum particles anyway. but there is no theory, at least that i know of, that unifies the two.”

        Actually there is a unifying “Theory of Everything” – a very compelling one, IMO. Here’s the first of a series of short videos that explain it. Under the video is this description:

        “Physicist and consciousness researcher, Thomas Campbell, Discusses the nature of reality in terms of consciousness — this video logically and scientifically explains the normal and the paranormal, mind and matter, physics and metaphysics, philosophy and theology.”

        Tom Campbell has done lectures and workshops all over the world and has quite a grass roots following.

      • 1984, I’m glad you liked it. That was the first talk I ever watched of his. It’s broken up into 18 short videos of about 10 minutes each. I think it was the first of many speaking engagements in the years since his book was published (in 2007), and the oldest series of his on youtube. He has given talks all over the world and. I’m sure you would also like the in-depth seminar he did in Calgary, which you can easily google to find on youtube. It’s amazing how much his ideas align with LRH’s, though expressed somewhat differently.

        Here’s another short one that is more on topic for this blog post and discussion. It’s basically about the difficulties of religions that start out with “a bigger idea” but, in trying to survive against the many counter-intentions, get caught up in the traps of organization and lose sight of their original ideals. Sound familiar? 🙂

      • Miraldi. I too thank you for the links. You and Dan Koon earlier have again added to my reading and watching lists.

        I have 3 of Tom Cambell’s book in my Kindle and now I see a slew of videos to boot.

        Thanks again.

      • Subreption, you are more than welcome. I have the hard copy of Tom’s trilogy but found it to be tedious reading, personally. 😦 However, the YT vids are very enjoyable to watch – and truly enlightening. I even have a better understanding of the double slit experiment, as well as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment(!) – both of which fit in beautifully with his whole model, which itself centers around basic understandings of QP in both the micro and macro sense.

        On top of it, his theories align well with principles in scientology. One of the two basic assumptions (most theories have many more, per my understanding) is that the only true fundamental of existence is consciousness. All else is virtual – basically, a digital computer – and is a product of the “Larger Concsciouslness system”. Similarly, LRH said reality is agreement.

        Here’s a link to his explanation of the mysterious “delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment”, if that interests you: http://www.matrixwissen.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=639:delayed-choice-quantum-eraser-experiment&catid=125:quantenphysik&Itemid=105&lang=en

        Tom’s TR’s in the youtube vids are usually impeccable, and he is uptone with a sense of humor. I’m sure you will enjoy watching! 🙂

      • Ah, that explains why it disappeared off the screen after I pushed “Post comment”.

        Thanks for letting me know what happened.

      • Subreption, the reply I wrote to you a bit ago seems to have disappeared after I pushed “Post Comment”. Anyway, I mainly wanted to say that you are quite welcome. Tom Campbell is one of the most enlightening of modern teachers, IMO, and his wisdom aligns amazingly well with scientology. Plus, his TRs in the YT vids are beautiful, and he is uptone with a sense of humor. Enjoy! 🙂

  19. Reading all these comments is interesting, thought-provoking and a whole lot of fun. Regardless of the disagreement some have communicated, in the main such is being politely communicated without any force or expectation that others change their own viewpoint.

    The importance here is the granting of beingness to other viewpoints and steering clear of ramming one’s own reality onto others. There is a ton of robust discussion and debate occurring here and I for one am enjoying this immensely.

    I believe this is exactly in alignment with what BIC is all about – getting Scientologists back into communication with each other.

    Thanks BIC – an awesome article to kick off the year. 🙂

    • I totally agree. It has woken up everybody, and they’re all here with: insightful comment; theta; disagreements; cretinous observations; ad hominem attacks (mild); personal digs; unnecessary slights on each other’s intelligence. I even detect a slight easing up on criticisms of LRH! That’s what I love about this blog. BIC: don’t get too polite on us!

    • Shells, the debating is very interesting. To me it is very obvious that there are those who still subscribe to the LRH writings and believe in what he says. They seem to possibly feel that organised religion is necessary and beneficial. Then there is a more esoteric side which seems to be anti formalised religion and pro spirituality. To me it promotes free thinking and breaks the shackles of control that formalised religion creates.
      I used to believe that religion was important but I don’t any more. I definitely feel that I have found my own spiritual path outside the confines of religion and I have never felt more liberated and more connected with people at large.
      scientology isolates people…..so does other organised religion because people can no longer relate to others outside the confines of their beliefs.

      • Scientology does isolate people. We became so judgemental. Most of us felt superior to anyone who wasn’t one of us.

        I know exactly what you mean, Despicable Me, when you say you feel “more liberated and connected with people at large.” I feel exactly the same way. For two decades, I didn’t have this. That’s twenty years lost and living an illusion and in a bubble.

        Anyway, it’s over now and I will never be drawn into something like that again. I’ve had a massive wake-up call and learnt a most valuable lesson.

    • I agree, too.

      Great discussions here on this article.

      One of the subjects that Scientology created a lot of DISINTEREST in was Social Psychology. I believe that the reason for this was because Social Psychology studies the power dynamics between an individual and a group. It is also the subject which studies, defines, and catalogs the phenomena of cults.

      I do not believe that it was in Scientology’s interest to promote such a subject to Scientologists, and I believe that everything was done to distract Scientologists away from its concepts and discoveries.

      If you study some of the fundamental concepts of Social Psychology and re-read this article, you can see the holes in the article from a completely different angle.

      For instance, there is a huge social benefit from being a member of a religion – any religion – in terms of friendships, sharing of resources needed to survive, mutually agreed upon values of standards of conduct and behavior, and other very real benefits a human being experiences as a member of a group of other, like-minded human beings.

      It’s only when an individual’s trust is betrayed by the group, and the spiritual vulnerabilities of the individual are exploited as they are in Scientology (and other cults) that being a member of a religion becomes more damaging than helpful.

      Not all religious groups betray an individual’s trust the way Scientology does, or exploits their followers’ spiritual vulnerabilities, or deems people “unethical” for thinking for themselves.

      It is important to not let yourself be turned away from this area of life as a human being just because you were betrayed by Scientology. Scientology was a very rare example of a “religion” and the great majority of religious groups would never do what Scientology did to Scientologists.

      I believe that the author’s conclusions about ALL RELIGIONS are his own. He does present his ideas provocatively, and this makes his readers think.

      Which is good.

      There are a lot of very smart people in this group.

      I can’t recommend studying the various concepts of Social Psychology strongly enough for anyone who has been involved in Scientology. It gives you a lot of tools to view your experience in Scientology in a very productive and sometimes very profound way. Learning what these professionals have learned about religions over the last 70 years can be very therapeutic after Scientology.

      Here’s a link to get anyone started who has ears to hear:



    • Shelley I whole heartedly agree with you. I do not agree with everything in the article but it has opened a door for discussion which is quite interesting. I have brought into this discussion a bit on quantum physics in answer to WhiteStar’s post which lifts religion to a much higher plain and combines it with spirituality. So the old branch of religion together with “Modern Science” are obsolete. Remember that modern science is also a belief system and can be classified under religion.

    • I fully agree with you Shelly,

      This blog has become indeed , a safe space in which to freely exchange ideas and viewpoints. You see the adoption of different angles and views from different posters and yet , a lot of respect and granting of beingness with just very minute exceptions which are quite expected as we are all here learning tolerance for divergence.

      I validate BIC Admin very mich for his very wise handling of moderation policy and his incredible capacity to keep a correct balance ; not an easy task indeed.

      This reminds me of the “International Viewpoints” magazine and its incredible articles from such great minds.

      Keep up the good work BIC.


  20. Frankly, an article so full of grossly generalized, visceral and negative statements, that it’s not worth my time reading. The few sentences I read were enough.
    “Blessed are the poor…” obviously the author does not understand this statement.
    “Blessed are the meek…” obviously the author does not understand this statement.
    “Blessed are the humble…” obviously the author does not understand this statement.
    Dear author, you can take any statement, even a most simple, basic truth, and interpret it and use it in a million wrong and negative ways. There is a scale of emotion by which anything can be dragged down.

    • I didn’t read more than the headlines and getting the gist of it either. I didn’t see any indication that the ‘article’ was going to show me anything useful. What jumped out at me was what could be called “a shocking lack of appreciation.” If someone wants my attention, explain universal ethics. Draw out the points common to all religions. Explain the role of pure faith. Explain what people hope for. Talk about the evolution of man’s understanding. Tell me why what we call “goodness” is central to a happy life. Place goodness in context with the trials and tribulations of life.

      When I ask directions in a city, I don’t need a long list of “Don’t go down this avenue, and that bridge over there is not for you, and these streets here are faulty but you wouldn’t see that because I can tell you’re dumb, and the gas stations are too far apart because idiots built this city with evil intent persisting over centuries with no other objective than to mess people up, and you cannot find your way around it and the streetlights don’t work and … blah blah blah.” I just want to know where the museum is (or whatever).

      Someone posted earlier suggested writing up ten good points about religion.
      1. Man is a spiritual being
      2. There is hatred and evil in the world
      3. Man can overcome hatred and evil
      4. Man can learn to love and that makes one happier
      5. Creation is good and one can live in harmony and good
      6. Eternity is conceivable because we are given eternity
      7. It is possible to repair and better oneself
      It would be a fault to not add what Dianetics and Scientology have added
      7. Very specific methodologies for repair and betterment
      8. The first precise definition of life, a spirit, and its functionalities
      9. The conclusive integration of truths of philosophy and psychology
      10. The hopes of good men are now realizable in one lifetime, and faith rewarded.
      There is much more.

      I obviously lack in compassion or something, because I look at the article and some of the comments favoring it and think, “Oh, great … what next? A call for book-burning and the rule of evil?” This whole internet scene is reminding me of Lord of the Flies. Mad cackling. “PTS” is not a pejorative label – it is a technical condition calling for a remedy.

      • Agreed! I liked your description of the city – too good and funny! – and the ten good points about religion.
        No, you don’t lack in compassion. Too many have never understood what religion is or can be in the first place and/or have had too many bad experiences brought about through the perversion of the original truths contained in their religion.

  21. This is progress! I think that a basic approach to understanding and contextualizing the Scientology experience, without getting all upset about it, is to familiarize oneself with the subject of Religion.

    The way Scientology was put together by the Founder, was that of the Classical period Mystery Religions, which most people are not aware of, unless they have a PHD in Comparative Religion Studies and Mythology.
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries, particularly Egyptian:

    Here is the definition from Acharya S. what the word ‘mystery” refers to:

    The word mystery (Greek, musterion: “what is known only to the initiated”)
    A hidden thing, secret, mystery.

    1a) generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to ordinary mortals.

    1b) a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding.

    Joseph Campbell is also a wonderful resource to understand the highly symbolized language of Religion, and to be able to navigate through all the storytelling and allegorical teachings, which is what usually overwhelms people.
    See here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=joseph+campbell+power+of+myth

    Just old fashion analytical study produces understanding which is usually barred by our prior confusion with the subject. Have fun!

    • “The way Scientology was put together by the Founder, was that of the Classical period Mystery Religions,….”

      Some more truth on the line, Conan. Thanks for that.

      Now I wonder why he did that?! So that he could keep us reeled in and the money rolling in.

      • Inspired,

        Thanks. Studying the links I provided will hopefully answer those questions. But basically ” a mystery compels and a spiritual mystery compels the most”.

        Scientologists need to understand WHERE they ended up, and knowing the history of religion and spirituality will go a long ways.in understanding that what happened in Scientology is by no means unique.

  22. The model for corporate Scientology is not a religious one, but a model that more resembles a totalitarian political system: (LINK REDACTED DUE TO UPPER LEVEL CONTENT).

      • No Boggle it’s not. And please let’s not go down this road again. You are trying to throw discussion threads off-topic and cause upset by directing attention to site/s that contain Scientology Upper Level data, are mocking of LRH and contain contemptuous remarks about his tech. You have repeatedly and politely been asked to refrain from doing this. Despite having banned you for a period of time we decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and allowed a few comments from you. True to form, you are at it again. Either adhere to our moderation policy or we will permanently ban you from this blog. This is your last warning.

      • Hi Scnafrica,
        What can I say, I’m surprised. How is that Marty Rathbun’s blog is still linked? By the criterion you cite, it also should be excluded.
        The links may contain – if one really searches for it – some limited amount of upper level data, and I suppose they contain some things which might be regarded as less than reverential to L. Ron Hubbard, but there’s no “mocking,” and 99+% of the information has nothing to do with upper level data.
        In any event, I’ll keep in mind the BIC prohibition on these links and won’t try posting them again.

      • Inspired – This is my opinion:
        Perhaps those who came into RCS after it was already a “religion” bought it, but I can assure you the old-timers who were around when it was still the HASI didn’t – and neither did I.

        Have you ever spoken to any of them? My mother was one such person, and I knew many others. One for one, they ALL told me they were in disagreement with the “religion” positioning of SCN. My mother hated that cross and made no bones about it. Whatever his reasons for doing this (tax issues, evading persecution from the AMA etc), I don’t believe it was bogus or money motivated. And yes, I concur that it was clever – the move ensured the survival of the SCN tech which otherwise would have been wiped because of the threat it posed to main-stream medical and psychiatric fields who considered SCN as a threat because of their own agenda to medicate (or worse) the population into subservient oblivion.

        Scientology tech has it’s place. There are powerful workable tools in the body of knowledge – many have experienced this. The unfortunate truth is that the workability and merits of the tech were long ago buried under a zealous totalitarian rule of madness where the focus has become amassing of wealth, lavish empty buildings producing zero products, false stats, IAS and 4D campaign money-grubbing and other “fish to fry”. Scientology has been warped into a harmful cultish practice of declaring people SP, enforcing disconnection, defaming people and running black-ops mission and the most despicable of all, avid fair game practices. All of which have nothing whatsoever to do with using the technology of SCN as a tool to HELP.

      • Hi Shelley,
        Thank you for your insightful observations.
        One thought… Off the top of my head, thinking of a few examples – the Monroe Institute is not a religion, nor is Rosicrucianism, nor is Yoga, yet these seem to have survived.
        I wonder if it wouldn’t have been better if Scientology, rather than aiming at being a monolithic “juggernaut,” and focusing on accumulating large amounts of money by using “hard sell” and by not paying taxes, was mostly an information outlet and applied philosophy training provider, with no emphasis on becoming big and powerful, if it wouldn’t have turned out better.
        As early as 1955, the monster that Scientology was going to become was visible in nascent form in the ‘Manual on Dissemination of Material’. Now the monster, with David Miscavige at the controls, largely using the totalitarian patterns put in place in the 1960s and 1970s, is an abusive – religious cloak protected – public menace; this, while persons of good will, seeking to use the best in Scientology to help others, have not only the monster with which to contend, but also the terrible public image the monster has created.
        Scientologists were taught to believe that the monster – and religious cloaking – was necessary for Scientology to survive because of Scientology’s many enemies, but an examination of the accounts of Scientology’s enemies, starting with the supposed theft of the 1938 manuscript ‘Excalibur’ by the Russian KGB, has shown that many of these accounts are of dubious authenticity. Sure, Scientology has had some real adversaries, but nothing like Scientologists were led to believe, IMO.
        Thanks again for your keen observations.

    • I saw that on facebook a while ago – one of my (non-SCN) friends posted it – and he didn’t know my SCN history. I thought it was hilarious.

      • Shelley, in response to my comment, you’re entitled to your opinion based on the information you have. As I do mine.

        (EDITOR COMMENT: This discussion thread is off-topic. The article was not about SCN, LRH or his intentions – we have been tolerant of some discussion on this, but the issue is becoming heated now and we respectfully request that our moderation policy is applied to future comments. BIC ADMINS).

      • Thank you, BIC.
        I commented when the article was first posted that I thought it was a good article. I do, but in the interests of returning this thread to the subject at hand I have this to offer:

        Sir Arthur Canon Doyle created the image of Tarzan swinging through the jungle, passing from one vine to the next. In order to get through that jungle required many vines.

        One needs a place to start to unravel the confusions of his life. Religion, science and even stamp collection provide a place to start and, hopefully, a map that one can use to negotiate his jungle and discover, on the other side, the result he desired when he began his adventure.

        It is often true, in my opinion, that when someone is confused and a bit overwhelmed by his life, the commitment to a path, whether scientific or religious or dietary or one of his own creation, brings relief and comfort. He has a vine, and where the rest of the jungle presses in, he at least has a point of purchase. He feels less confused.

        One can argue the truth or fiction of any track, but in the end the function of these, in my view, is that they provide the individual at least temporary relief from his confusion.

        Those who debunk religion or science or any other of these “vines” deny Man this point of purchase and the relief it provides in those first moments of discovery.

        This sudden relief can be intoxicating in the succor it provides, and one can linger with a particular vine and even become quite stuck to it. He continually tries to recall the first moment of his relief, and forsakes any notion that this is not the most important thing in his life. He even defends his vine and attacks anyone who challenges it. He is threatened by the fancied loss of his own relief.

        I have had the feeling over the years that people often advance their opinions, even aggressively, because they are not sure of them and need reassurance. They consider that if they get “converts” it validates their own point of view. The hardest things to doubt are those that provided relief from a prior confusion.

        If spiritual freedom is a person’s ideal, he must be constantly alert to any side-tracks or momentary victories. He keeps his attention on progress, and grabs the next vine. Each step is by his own decision, as is the decision to stop and cleave to one vine.

        But it’s not about the vines. It’s about getting through the jungle. If a person fixates on one vine or another, he is left hanging in his jungle. If your chosen course is not getting you where you want to go, change course.

        Again, my opinion: those who criticize others for the vines they chose are, themselves, not sure of their own tack. Who does not want to be right? But those who want to be right by proving others wrong need to check their own compasses.

        Getting to the other side of the jungle is not a purpose everyone shares. Some feel there is no jungle, and that all these vines are just “crutches” for the uninformed.

        There are swingers and there are hangers. And there are people who don’t care one way or the other. But everyone needs some point of purchase that makes sense to him and which provides a stable center to an otherwise entopic universe.

        I liken myself to be a swinger, what can I tell you? I enjoy the company of other swingers – people who want to know what’s over the horizon, and are excited about what they discover along the way. I don’t concern myself so much with the routes they chose, as that is their own business. I am interested, though, in what they learn from their experience, and in sharing my own when I think it might provide a valuable perspective.

        To that point I would add that my own experience of the observations advanced in the fundamentals of Scientology have had tremendous value in my own progress through the unique jungle I have gathered around myself.

        To each his own.

      • Mark, wonderful post! I just now saw it – for some reason, I didn’t get an email notification, but that happens sometimes on WordPress blogs.

        Just to mention one point, I very much agree with the idea that many. if not most, people need some sort of structure as a start on their journey through the jungle of life. It might be sports, or playing a musical instrument, or science – almost any interest. So many of them have the potential of affording growth as a being.

        Scientology too has been such a structure for many people, and some of them move on from there to a structure that is more to their likes – or else they move on to being capable of creating their own structure. Either way, I tend to believe most of them do move up (if that was their intention) – even if it was only because they learned something about what is NOT true for them.

        You pretty much covered all the bases relating to this discussion, except for maybe one other element. In my view, people are inclined to protest what seems to them to be untruth. I imagine this is the case for some of the critics of Scientology, or critics of religion or what have you. Likewise, the proponents of Scientology, religion, or whatever, also feel it’s their duty – perhaps a 4th dynamic duty – to speak out rather than allow some false (to them) idea to spread. Actually, I guess this is similar to what you wrote about wanting to share one’s own experience with others.

        Anyway, thanks for shedding this much light on truth! I’ll see you at the other side of the jungle. 😀

  23. Ridding the world of religion poses a huge problem for the world at large. Getting rid of religion would undoubtedly result in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The ruling establishment have done just that because they do not differentiate between religion and spirituality, they are not the same but our politicians are blind to this and today we live in a materialist world. In a materialist world we have wars and lies and intolerance where human life is worth nothing and the dollar is the religion of the day.

    Today in our materialist world we have governments destroying our world with pollution and allowing big business to poison our soil and our food resulting in the biggest epidemic/pandemic the world has ever seen, dwarfing all previous epidemics combined. World war 3 nearly happened between America and Russia just recently over the debacle in the Ukraine and might still occur.

    The World Health Organisation announced just a couple of weeks ago that there are 3 billion diabetics and pre-diabetics in our world while the Institute of Functional Medicine in America announced that 1 out of 2 Americans have a chronic disease and it’s spreading to the rest of the world. The increase in diabetes in South Africa is frightening according to a medical spokesperson and our medical profession are powerless to handle it. Our medical profession is based on materialism because their answer to human disease is drugs. They are also becoming obsolete with the establishment of functional medicine which allows other practices such as naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractice etc. Scientology auditing would also have a place as a spiritual practice.
    What is happening to our youth in many countries is disastrous which I will not go into here.


    When I joined Scientology in 1964 the message that I got was about spirituality. When I joined the SO in 1968 I was introduced to a lot of violence with chain lockers, over-boards etc. The violence that Miscavige is doing is destroying the mother church.

    • I would like to add to the above and that is Scientologists have distinguished between religion and spirituality and have moved on, they do not need a religion they have their own belief system however for most of the world it does not apply. LRH wrote “you cannot save people from anything, you have to save them into something.

      Also in the above article I mentioned chronic disease and how Scientology auditing can help relieve this disease epidemic. Well, all disease has an element of stress associated with it. An SD can pinpoint the stress factor and with some 2 way comm can help. Many Scientologists have died of cancer including some friends of mine, an ex wife and 4 members of my family.

      There are of course other factors involved but these diseases can be handled without drugs and/or chemo therapy.

      • Yes they can be handled, such as living naturally by eating organic food and getting into nature daily if possible. Wild animals don’t get cancer and don’t need the crutch of another through auditing. But each to their own.

    • Hi Travers,

      Sorry to step in,  but I think that a clarification is of the essence.

      You can disassociate “spirituality” from “religion” , true religion I mean. They are practically synonyms. Buddhism (original Buddhism) was all about achieving higher spiritual awareness and getting us closer to “Source”.

      Taoism the same. Hinduism the same,  to name just a few. I think that many posters here are equating religion with “cultism” ; definitively not the same thing.

      W/out all those great religious movements that I just mentioned,  we wouldstill have barbarism as the normal operational basis of society.

      I want our readers to Google search “The Upanishads” and see for yourselves how that ancient Vedic scripture, for example ,  so closely resembles the Scn principles (the original ones before it turned into a cult) and those of many “spiritual practices”. Of particular interest is “The Thirteen Principal Upanishads” translated from the Sanskrit (the primary liturgical language[Holy language] of Hinduism) by Robert Earnest Hume. Here is the definition of “Upanishads”:

      “are a collection of texts in the Vedic Sanskrit language  which contain the earliest emergence of some of the central religious concepts of Hinduism, some of which are shared with Buddhism and Jainism. The Upanishads are considered by Hindus to contain revealed truths (Sruti) concerning the nature of ultimate reality (brahman) and describing the character and form of human salvation (moksha).”

      Those Vedic texts are incredible spiritual and abound with many fundamental Truths , and they were written around 1000 BC !!!

      those who differentiate “religion” from “spirituality” needs to fully research the subject of “Comparative Religion” , including the history  of the subject  in its original roots. W/out the spirit there is NO religion , PERIOD.

      Let’s not fall into the “Propaganda By redefinition Of Words” trap as many fell on the subjects of “squirreling” , “SPs’ , “Suppressive Acts”, “standard Tech” , and so many others. Religion is what it IS , not what anybody wants it to be.

      this is not Peter’s opinion ; it is a HISTORICAL fact. Just do your own research. And research as well the subject of “cultism” so that the clear and obvious difference can be established. That an incredible amount of individuals called “religion” to the cult(ish) approaches of the so many religious rituals that abound in “modern” times , does not and can not change the ACTUAL  definition of the word “religion”.

       ARC Peter

      • Buddhism was originally a practical wisdom school and not a religion. It became a religion after it was degraded and mixed with local beliefs and rituals. At its inception, Taoism was not a religion, and it’s doubtful that Vedic knowledge, in its earliest and highest expression, was a religion.
        Listen to the 1952 PDC lectures. The key antecedent to Scientology, mentioned by LRH, is Magic, specifically the magical societies of the Middle East of a thousand years ago. The modern author he recommended on that topic was Aleister Crowley, and Crowley’s ‘Magick’ was not a religion.
        In 1954, after implementing what he had described in a letter to Helen O’Brien as the “religion angle,” LRH gave a series of lectures in Phoenix, Arizona. At that time he presented Scientology as being a religion and related to Buddhism, Taoism, the Vedas, and also Christianity. The Magical societies of the Middle East of a thousand years ago were not mentioned, nor was Crowley.
        IMO, the LRH of 1952 was being more frank and less public image conscious than the LRH in 1954.

      • Thanks for the comm Boggle ,

        Have you actually read and study the Vedic texts, specially the Upanishads ?

        I have and it is clearly religious in nature.

        You point about Taoism, Buddhism and Vedism, not being a religious ritual in their origins is just faulty, and clearly not based on historical references and an in-depth study of their texts. I don’t know in what definition of “religion” you are operating on, but clearly it is not based on the actual historical roots of the word. I did my full and very long research about it, did you ?

        About LRH the PDC lectures, I have listened to it at least 5-6X ALL of them as well as ALL the SHSBC lectures , and I don’t remember LRH ever stating that the “Key antecedents of Scn is Magic”. Please correctly quote the EXACT lecture by number to support your argument.

        I couldn’t care less whether LRH based Scn on Vedic, Buddhism ,or Taoism’s texts ; that was never my point. My point was and is that religion is what it IS, and not the “opinion” that anybody has about it nor whatever anyone want it to be. History and the subject of “comparative religions” is VERY clear as to how religion is defined ; and Hinduism, Taoism, Vedism, and Buddhism ARE and always WERE religions. But I won’t do the research for you. You have to sweat it out and fully research it by yourself just as I did for weeks.

        Your ONLY attempt here is to prove LRH wrong by adopting all kinds of faulty arguments and I am not into playing those games. I need not to, I am quite pass that.

        LRH PETER

      • Hi Thetaclear,
        From Crowley’s ‘Magick in Theory and Practice’:
        “The whole and sole object of all true Magickal training is to become free from every kind of limitation.”
        From PDC lecture 18:
        “Our whole activity tends to make an individual completely independent of any limitation… Old Aleister Crowley had some interesting things to say about this…”
        Crowley, Magick, and other related topics are discussed through out the 1952 PDC lectures. I’d have to consult my old notes to give you the various lecture numbers.
        The truly important point, and the only one worth arguing about, is whether or not the organization headed by David Miscavige deserves to be regarded as a religious not-for-profit institution, and deserves the tax and legal exemptions that classification as such provides.

      • Thanks for the comm Boggle,

        I knew about those quotes. They however, say nothing about “Scn key antecedents being magic”. Of course LRH has talked about magic and Crowley , most Scientologists know about that. Now, from talking about it and saying LRH ever stated that they were “Scientology’s antecedents” , there is a HUGE different. So I rest my case on that as well as the true meaning of the world “Religion”.

        Regarding your point about the CofS not being a bona-fide religion and not qualifying for tax exemtions , I agree with you 100%. And more, Scn was not ever a true religion either. Not in the full sense of the word. Perhaps before 1954-55 had some resemblance with Vedism or Taoism. But after the establishment of the first Church, it lost all its religious characteristics.

        ARC PETER

      • Hi Thetaclear,
        The statement by me re. Magick and Scientology was not a quote, which is why I didn’t use quotation marks. It was an observation based on the totality of the content of the PDC lectures, plus having read virtually everything written by Crowley, plus conversations with a reliable source who was a close confidant of LRH during the time of the PDC lectures.
        IMO, Scientology has several key antecedents, Magick is one, Korzybski’s General Semantics is another, Abreaction therapy is another, etc.
        I’m satisfied that we agree on the most important point: that Scientology is not a religion, and does not deserve the privileges afforded a religion.

      • Boggle, I did a word search for “Crowley” on the PDC lectures, and the following if the only place LRH actually makes an evaluation of Crowley’s work:
        “Old Alistair Crowley had some interesting things to say about this. He wrote a book of the law. He was a mad old boy! I mean, he… you’d… you’d be surprised though, that Crowley, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Aristotle, all the boys, practically, along the line […] – they all talked about the same thing. And actually you can find all these ideas we’re talking about, someplace in the writings of practically any philosopher who ever thought things over. He couldn’t fail to fall headlong across the most salient facts in the case. He never organized them or was able to evaluate or use them, but he had ‘em.

        “Schopenhauer, THE WILL AND IDEA, tried attempted breakdowns of this and that. You read this fellow now and ‘By God,’ you’ll say, ‘this guy really made sense.’ Don’t… don’t forget, you’re talking from an aligned viewpoint of knowingness. And you can make anything make sense now[…]”

        If you have a quote that conflicts with this, please post it. Otherwise, it’s good that you did put your observations in the category of opinion, and that should be noted by the readers.

  24. Excellent views. Independent Scientology will enjoy thinking people walking through their doors. Those folk will quietly improve themselves and their families using all the tools LRH gave us. This is a fantastic way to live through 2015.

  25. Concerning the issue of Science as religion, I highly recommend the short talk delivered by Rupert Sheldrake to a TED audience. It speaks to the central issues posed by this article, and can be applied as easily to the subject of religion as it is to science. The talk was removed from the TED site, but due to the resulting public outcry it was re-instated and can be viewed here: http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

    • I’ve seen that talk a few times, Mark, and I really like it. He makes many very important points in it.

      Science is limited by what can be measured.

      Human existence contains so many phenomena that can not be measured that taking on science as your religion is condemning yourself to an unbelievably drab and depressing existence, and is a complete mis-use of science.

      Most people are not scientifically literate enough to understand the limits of science. If a person can understand the limits of science, then they can see that there is no conflict between science and religion, and there never has been.

      A great guy to study on this is Karl Popper, the founder of the the philosophy of science. Also I would recommend studying the branch of philosophy called epistemology – the branch of philosophy that deals with “knowing how to know”.

      Here’s a link to Karl Popper:



  26. Interesting article, but of course coloured by the authors own viewpoints and baggage.

    I also like the discussion here about what is religion.

    Could it not be said that anything people believe in that is some kind of external belief system created by others and adopted by individuals, is a kind of religion? Especially if it has been accepted without thorough evaluation, for reasons such as “fitting in”, “everyone believes it”, “I will be discriminated against if I do not embrace it”, “I will be punished if I don’t conform”, etc.

    Very few people are of a mind to sail trough life solely by their “own rudder”. Most will stick with the culture and beliefs they find in family and surroundings (contagion of aberration, may be a factor here). Many look around for already existing belief systems which somewhat suits them. And a very minute percentage go through life evaluating everything and forming their own conclusions.

    It matters little if they believe in some God, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Materialism, Consumerism, Body worship, Economics, Veganism, Man made Law, Government, New World Order, or anything else.

    This may be in our nature. Maybe from when we roamed the land in small groups or tribes and had to cooperate and fit in or succumb, or from having played this Physical Universe and Civilization game for so long that it becomes the only thing we can see.

    So it is not fair to slag off one group for blindly following an externally dream t up system (CofS) while at the same time conforming to others that are just as flawed. Such as “Modern science” or a Government – which is nothing more than a bunch of thetans like you and I who with manipulation, indoctrination, force, PR, manufactured interdependence, false promises, got the other thetans of an area to more or less willingly agree to be slaves to them.

    Organization in groups can only be done in a sane manner when every participant is there knowingly, willingly and voluntarily. The C of S fails in that regard on a number of points that have been mentioned above.

    • Excellent post! You make all the significant points, IMO. To me, the error in discussions such as this one is that there is too much focus on such things as LRH’s personal character, the gross outpoints in management – whether from the early days or not, and whether or not the outpoints included LRH, or even whether or not scientology can be called a religion. All of these are separate issues from the tech itself when applied with skill and good intention.

      One of the biggest errors in discussion is actually the use of the word “Scientology” – some use it to mean the tech, others mean the admin/management and/or CoS, and still others conflate those two basic meanings. If each poster would make it clear how he/she is using this most basic term, I think there would be much greater understanding of what is actually being said and much better discussions. Talk about a crashing M/U!

      • the trouble with that is that scientology is not just a technology…..there is another component, which i would state clearly but an even further component prevents me from discussing it freely. what i just wrote in itself says something about scientology.

        in addition to “workable technology”, there is also an origin aspect, but not every scientologist knows that or what it is. that is also scientology, but it can’t really be mentioned. and it is also central to scientology not because of it’s philosophical nature, but because it speaks to where the “tech” derives it’s potency from.

        in other words, how reality has come to be relates directly to the power of the tech.

        i hope i’m not putting the mods in a tough spot. but can anyone really address a post like marildi’s if part of the subject matter is verboten to speak.

        i understand why that is mods, scientologists of any level should feel this is a safe place for them to come to. so they shouldn’t be ambushed by something they were taught not to look at until ready, but that sort of puts you in sort a box.

        how can some of those lower level scientologists know if the upper level people are telling the truth about some experience, say for example, someone says bi annual sec checks out tech. how can the lowers actually know who’s the squirrel and who not in that case?
        i find it confusing that the word thetan is used freely yet it’s actual origin can’t be mentioned to even long time scientologists. that also makes me think,
        how can someone say they know scientology when they have not done every level. someone on OT1 for example knows for a fact there is a LOT they don’t about scientology and the people on OT8 know for a fact the lower people don’t have a clue. everyone knows what they don’t know and yet they all say they know scientology.

        i’m having a discussion or a debate with a scientologist and i say something that is a fact but because they never heard it they look at me like i’m crazy, yet if a different scientologist were there, they would know what i’m saying.

        those two scientologist go out into the world both claiming to know the subject.

        someone can say they’ve been in the church for 30 years and it could literally mean nothing, if they have been a pre clear all that time they know next to nothing about the subject, regardless of their wins. the subject is still foreign to them.

        i say this with all due respect, unless a person is an OT8, they are not qualified to debate or defend the subject, because they don’t fully know the subject.
        the upper levels significantly defines the subject.

        the origin of the universe is central to why the tech “works”.

        btw hasn’t anybody ever wondered how miscavige, who is a lower level OT, could have cleaned up the tech and how can he know better than OT8s if he even isn’t supposed to know what they know? how can he administer a religion who’s doctrine he by rule cannot know fully.
        how can he oversee the tech if he can’t even see the tech?
        do you think he’s the type of guy who would not look at all the levels? yet officially he is not on the upper levels. would he leave the church’s closest secrets blindly in the hands of others?

        mods please feel free to edit this anyway you see fit. i’m really not trying to give anyone a hard time.

      • White Star, I understand what you’re saying. However, even though it’s true that lower-level scientologists don’t (and can’t possibly) know the whole subject of the tech as fully and thoroughly as you describe, they can still benefit greatly from what they do know – and usually do benefit, if it’s delivered well to them. TRs alone, for example. can change a person’s life for the better right at the very start – without them having to know any of the theory of it, much less the esoteric data you are alluding to. The same could be said for the whole lower Bridge, actually – all of which is available to those who train.

        Just about every aspect of Scientology (in the broadest sense of the word) – from its founder’s personal characteristics and history to the whole history of the organization up to PT – can be rightfully criticized and, in some respects, harshly condemned. Nevertheless, the tech itself, at least as it is free to be applied outside the Church, can and is helping people with their lives. I consider that to be a far more important isness to dwell on. That’s all.

        I would agree that it’s also important to learn the lessons that are there to be learned as regards all the various facets of Scientology as a movement/religion (however you want to view it). And it makes sense that one should eventually know the tech itself very thoroughly, as you indicate, since this can only add to their understanding and growth. But, to my way of thinking, the fact that some truly incredible tech is there to be had, even by beginners, shouldn’t be underestimated and undervalued.

        Mary Freeman did the original Class VIII course under LRH, and in spite of her knowing his and the Church’s grossest outpoints, she still believes “standard tech” will get highly beneficial results for people and practices it to this day. In this short video, Mary defines what StandardTech actually is. At about 1:20 into the vid (after some preliminaries regarding the convention she speaking at), she begins her talk about “Standard tech and the value of training”.

      • Hi WhiteStar,
        OT 8 is described as the first OT level.
        The earlier levels – after Clear – are described as pre-OT levels.

        According to LRH, there are many more OT levels after OT 8, already in note form, etc.
        Does that mean that no one really understands Scientology?
        Just curious.

  27. For those who think that spiritualty and religion are synonymous, go to a New Age convention. There you’ll find many spiritual people who are not religious.

  28. I think the essay below by Prof. Amit Goswami is quite appropriate for the discussion we are having about religion.

    In View of Rampant Elitism, Can Democracy and Capitalism Be Saved?
    By Amit Goswami, Ph. D.

    Elitism is rampant today. Even in America and Europe, the cradles of democracy, we are losing it. People talk more about income disparity in this country, but the truth is, gradually, in the last three decades, oligarchy, rule by an elite few, is replacing truly representative democracy. Economic disparity is only a symptom.

    Can democracy be saved? Can capitalism be sustained? The answer is yes, but only if the worldview changes. Currently, there are two competing worldviews. First, there is the worldview of Christianity—religious elitism—which holds that there is a creator God who is also the ultimate ruler of the universe; on the judgment day, God doles out rewards and punishments to us humans depending on whether we have followed a path of virtue or sin in our lives. Religious elitism of Christianity, like that of all other religions, is an offshoot of spiritual elitism, an elitism of people who can understand and live by spiritual values such as love and goodness: In other words, an elitism of moral authority. When people are inspired by the moral authority of spiritual leaders and try to follow them, civilization progresses. In religious elitism, the idea gets corrupted: religious leaders don’t necessarily live by spiritual values any more. They just talk about them and uphold them with borrowed political power. Obviously, civilization suffers with this corruption.

    Scientific materialism says everything is the movement of matter in space and time; there is no God, virtue or sin; all movement is the result of matter and material interactions. If instead of these two competing worldviews of Christianity and scientific materialism that have given us social and political polarization, we heed the message of the latest and most successful theory of science called quantum physics, we could save democracy. We could also find the answer to income disparity and save capitalism, to boot.

    So why aren’t we doing it? The answer to that is easy. The elitists are also in charge in science, which is, after all, a social institution above all else bound by the same elitist culture of polarization. The scientific elite’s main job is to protect and expand its territory against the religious elite. It behooves scientists to set up some of the simplistic notions of popular Christianity—God as a white male emperor in heaven doling out rewards of heaven and punishments of hell, for example—as easy targets to refute and prove the superiority of scientific thinking. If you have ever read a book or heard a lecture by Richard Dawkins, you know what I mean. Don’t expect a scientist to act like the proverbial fool who sits on a branch of a tree and cuts off the very branch he is sitting on by embracing an integrative worldview. The scientists are too smart for that.

    And it behooves the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck to battle with a science based on scientific materialism and its equally simplistic ideas such as humans are machines, evolution is not purposeful, and there are no timeless values.

    Before the advent of modern science, it was Christian elitism that ruled Western society. Eventually, it gave the West the Dark Ages. Modern science indeed rescued us. For three hundred years, science and religion coexisted under a philosophical truce—a worldview called modernism. Our internal experiences—vital energies, mind, soul, and spirit—are the territory of God and religion and the external experiences—the body and the outside world—are the territory of science. The great contributions of modernism are the three great institutions that we covet: democracy, capitalism, and liberal education. Democracy was founded on the intuition that all people are created equal—an affront to elitism. Capitalism came about to take the affront further: First, to distribute capital, and second, to spread the processing of meaning and values to all people. Liberal education was designed to save us from dogma that excludes people from fully participating in society.

    But something strange happened to science as it, too, achieved the sweet smell of success. It became a dogma—scientific materialism, the idea that everything is matter and material movement. Like all dogma, scientific materialism also excludes and in this way creates a new elite. Before it was an elitism of spiritual/religious knowledge; it has since become an elitism of material knowledge. Initially, the slogan was “[worldly] knowledge is power.” But it eventually developed the more objective slogan, “information is power.”

    The dogma of the religious worldview left out the material knowledge with which to better the human condition. The dogma of scientific materialism leaves out meanings and values to live by—the quality of living, the basis of civilization. Eventually, the burden of mass poverty initiated change from the religious worldview. And you cannot progress indefinitely on material prosperity any way because the finiteness of material resources and the environment creates barriers. This problem of sustainability is sinking the scientific materialist worldview.

    So now there is a worldview polarization. We are caught between two dogmas, each an incomplete worldview without integration with the other. Fortunately, a hefty percentage of people are in the middle; they want to integrate, they want a complete worldview free of dogma, free of exclusivity, free of elitism. To integrate is to bring back the causal efficacy of both the mind (and God) and matter as in modernism.

    Modernism failed because its inherent mind-matter dualism is not compatible with science—it’s dualism. How do the dual partners interact? In science all interactions are accomplished by signal exchange; signals carry energy. However, the energy of the material world never changes, energy of the material world never goes out to or comes in from another world. Quantum physics solves this problem of dualism in every respect. Here is a brief summary of how:

    Objects in quantum physics are waves of possibility residing in a domain outside of space and time distinguished by the fact that no signal is needed to communicate in this domain. Signal-less communications are called nonlocal.

    When we look, a wave of possibility—a multifaceted object, becomes an actualized and localized particle—somehow a single facet manifests.

    The nonlocal domain of potentiality where objects are possibilities is consciousness itself that is the agent of choice from a multifaceted wave of possibility to a one faceted manifest object.

    In this way, there is causation outside of matter. Call it downward causation since its causal agent—nonlocal consciousness—must be recognized as a non-ordinary “higher” state of consciousness than our usual familiar and local ego. Material “upward” causation (so called because all material causes arise upward from the base level of elementary particles whose interactions ultimately are the only material cause) produces the waves of possibility. It requires downward causation by a higher consciousness to convert possibility into actualities that we experience.
    It recognizes higher consciousness as “God” of religions and realizes that the basis of an integration of science (scientific materialism) and religions (religious elitism) is now a done deal.
    Further integration, legitimizing our internal experiences of feeling, thinking and intuition is easily achieved by positing four different worlds of possibility within nonlocal consciousness which is the ground of all being. The first, material, gives us the material world that we experience by sensing. The second, vital, gives us the experience of feeling when manifest. The third, mind, gives us thought and meaning when manifest. And the fourth, the supra mental world, gives us the archetypes that we intuit such as truth, goodness, love, beauty, justice, abundance, etc. The mind-body problem is now solved.

    Coming back to elitism, does elitism go away in this integration? Does a quantum society achieve what historically no other human society has ever been able to achieve? The answer is yes.
    The reason is subtle. A quantum society where the worldview is based on consciousness allows us outer creativity to accommodate information and material prosperity, no doubt. But the society also legitimizes subtle internal experiences and acknowledges the value of inner creativity that manifests subtle energies, that is positive emotions, meaningful knowledge, embodiment of archetypes, and even happiness in the form of wholeness. Inner creativity does not necessarily require acquiring sophisticated knowledge systems. And more importantly, the creative inner achievement makes you humble, not an elitist. Now that you have experienced transformation, you no longer are happy denying inner suffering by the carpet of material pleasures. If an inner creative has any authority, it is moral authority; it comes from nonlocal consciousness transcending separateness.

    Today, we see Republicans and Democrats fighting with each other about how to help the poor. The Democrats want the government to help the poor because it is a disgrace that a rich country like the USA should have people going hungry. Republicans attribute poverty to people who don’t work hard enough. Republicans don’t approve of government coming to the aid of the poor because that only makes the poor even lazier. In a quantum society, we help the poor materially, yet we also teach them tools for inner happiness that reduce their material needs in favor of spiritual satisfaction with positive emotions, meaningful thinking, and archetypal values.
    In view of the growing income disparity, we often lament how the American dream is no longer available to most people of our society. But by redefining it to include both material and spiritual prosperity in a quantum society, we restore the American dream.

  29. Talk about kicking off 2015 to an explosive start, yee ha!!

    BIC you have done it again, got people talking freely and robustly. I could spend hours researching all of the added links and various sites posters made reference to from today..but I wont, not now anyway, too busy recovering from a camping expedition you see. I did check out the Otto Roos story though, very very interesting! LRH is and always will be a fascinating character, flaws and genius combined! I cant help but respect him despite anything, sue me 😉

    As to the rest of the comments, wow! Excellent entertainment! Better than a good movie, SciFi novel or SA vs the All blacks rugby match any day! All of you people are true thinkers, poets and philosophers (well mostly) and I thank you all for making me think and look, cheers for that!

    Recently completed OT1 and that was a joll! I cant wait for the next level cause it may be better than the last (who knows?). To the chap/chapess who said earlier that the freezoners may be still in the same boat of slavery all I can say is I like it indeed. Having experienced both brands in and out of the church, this wins hands down! I guess Im rather smugly content with it all. If anything changes I will relook. Sorry if that irritates or offends anyone but it is what it is.

    Have a happy new year ahead all of you rebels and lets toast to the church of Jericos walls crumbling with DM lying at the bottom of the rubble!

  30. I have news for you. You are living in a composite body with attendant software to procreate, eat and breathe. You cannot simply will it and go off to another planet or galaxy and leave your body behind. If you could we wouldnt be having this conversation.

    Like it or not we are all to a greater or lessor degree trapped or enslaved.
    I take slight offence to your statement. I liken it to an irresponsible broad accusation like all Jews are greedy and all Germans are closet Nazis
    My experience in the freezone has been extremely pleasant. Ive found more and more freedom. Less control, more pan determinism and greater sense of perception and beingness. This makes sense to me at least. There is no comparison between RCS and freezone
    for me. Cheese tastes delicious, chalk tastes awefull, makes you gag, retch and spit. Ille eat my cheese and be happy with it thanks.

  31. “Religion is a systematic marketing of fear” I liked that.
    Though not the majority, a good number of people are members of some organized religion because they have some compulsions for being so. I am one of that sort.

    But my spiritual faith is some thing personal. But I do have it. The Urantia Book is my guide book that has helped me to develop my personal faith and my life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s