the media takes on scientology, again
When you’re a wealthy and influential religious cult with lots of celebrities in your midst, a predisposition to all sorts of angry outbursts the moment someone even looks at you the wrong way, and spokespeople who tend to descend into conniptions whenever they defend your interests, you shouldn’t be surprised that major news organizations make you the focus of their special reports. I’m talking about Scientology of course, the group founded around the work of a mediocre sci-fi writer and famous for guarding its image so jealously, many of its publicity efforts backfire, giving critics even more ammo to wield against the organization. And today, nearly two decades after Time Magazine wrote a scathing expose of the group, it’s tactics haven’t changed at all.
Yes, I said it. Hubbard was no Asimov or Heinlein, who were his gifted contemporaries. Known for his dense, often derivative stories and books, the only organizations which sing praises to his storytelling are small but grandly named groups with strong hints of Scientologist influence at the top. So instead of putting up with his also-ran status in the literary world, he decided to create a religious mythos in which an evil alien warlord with interstellar spaceships that look like very particular and very Earthly aircraft, wages war on the galaxy. To make some extra cash off his believers, he invented “auditing” which has about as much scientific basis as crystal balls and tarot cards but costs tens of thousands of dollars over intensive treatment courses. And to protect a lucrative business model, Hubbard decided to create a doctrine which allows Scientologists to go after their critics by any means necessary, including lying, stealing and bodily harm.
It’s his borderline pathological sensitivity to any sort of criticism that may have inspired some of Scientology’s best known efforts to silence anyone who took issue with that they did. From viciously harassing a journalist with the stated intent to either scare her into silence or get her certified as mentally ill, to stealing government documents that could cast Hubbard and his associates in an unfavorable light, and editing Wikipedia to get rid of critical information about the group, there seem to be very few things Scientologists won’t do. But as they try to bully or silence any ridicule, they’re blissfully unaware that their strong-armed tactics only inspire further criticism and build ill will. Their unhinged spokespeople don’t help either because there are few things worse for a public relations campaign than a ranting representative chanting that defectors who berate the group for its actions are all demented psychotics at a soothing 10,000 decibels.
And note the constant accusation of psychosis. According to Scientologists, the only people who could have a distaste for them are psychopaths which just begs us to ask a question of how one organization could inspire so many mentally unstable people and why its defenders are the ones screaming into the microphone about who’s sane and who isn’t. Of course there’s also the issue that Scientology believes that psychology is just a pseudoscience and all mental health professionals are dangerous quacks. If they truly agree on this concept, is issuing diagnoses reserved for the evil witchcraft of psychology and psychiatry really a good idea?
