Scientology and controversy
From Wikinfo
See also: Scientology and Scientology controversy.
Scientology is a philosphy developed by L. Ron Hubbard. It was entrusted to and is disseminated by the Church of Scientology. It is a young church and was founded by Hubbard, in the early 1950's.
Hubbard published in the public eye and the public eye has published an amount of criticsm about Scientology. Generally, press coverage is negative. Personal websites criticize many of its elements. Psychiatry chose publically ignore it, as did psychology.
What is actually happening
Yet the philosophy and the Church that disseminate it continue to grow. Bad organisations like Al-Qaeda also grow. A growing organisation may be good or bad. Recently a court in Spain has ruled in favour of listing the Church of Scientology among the nation's official register of religions [1] A few months earlier, the European Court of Human Rights published their decision, requiring that Russia allow the Church of Scientology to register in Russia.[2]
A difference appeared about 50 years ago. On one hand a growing list of governments recognize the Church. On the other hand, a diminishing number of governments strongly oppose, and seem to oppose strongly. For example, a popular prosecutor in Belgium, on behalf of the government, has proposed the Church defend itself in Belgium Court. The press gives critical voice in articles. Professional - looking but extensive personal websites dedicate themselves to criticim.
There are several reasons for there to be a divide. The most basic one has to do with the subject that scientology address. It says that it can help. It says it has workable methods that can help you, can help society, and can help mankind. BUT (and here is the kicker), it says those methods require your personal understanding. There is no magic pill to swallow. There is no magic belief. Its methods all involve personal effort that results in personally gained understanding. That is the workable method that scientology presents.
Church is for Sundays! Church doesn't need my effort, except for my beliefs! say critics. The idea of going to a church, putting in personal effort, and thereby improving your own life is too foreign. It grates on the conciousness, or something. It doesn't conform with what a church should be. Some people criticize the Church of Scientology because its main activity isn't your normal Sunday Sermons and inspirational speeches. Others criticise Scientology because large numbers of former Scientologists claim that they have harmed. Other people still claimj that scientology has harmed relatives or friends. Scientology beliefs seem irrational as with Xenu.
The second element that rouses critics against the Church of Scientology was spelled out by Hubbard, himself. He said that about 20% of people are not rational about the subject help all of the time. Instead, these 20% are soon reactive about help. When you talk with these people about the subject for a while, soon you are talking criticizms. Your subject quickly becomes "criticsms of help", and "help gone wrong". An example of the percentage is the press. When the press reports a fire, does it report the heroic efforts of the firemen? Does it report the people who escaped without a scratch? Or does it seek make large of the smaller number of people who received injury? The 20% are soon talking about hurt and harm, about tragedy and horror, about reducing and minimizing help. And in this one fifth of mankind, according to Hubbard, are the critics and the press.
Levels
Hubbard's philosophy and betterment program are presented on a single sheet of paper called The Bridge to Total Freedom. The page, like other Scientology papers, requires understanding. It is built around a center column which is a description of human awareness. The Church says that through study an effort a person can increase what they are aware of. That is, instead of looking across a group of people and seeing a lot of threat, a person can become able to separate the good from the threatening quickly, almost intuitively. And understand ways to improve their life through application of such awareness.
Critics say it cost too much, religion should be free, and imply that religion should not require study. Yet, this might de facto be addressed by former members of the church who have been expelled or left voluntarily, now working as independent auditors, e.g. in the Free Zone.
