L. Ron Hubbard article at Slate

[Libertarian]

A rather damning (no pun intended) article about LRH at Slate.com.

http://slate.com/id/2122835/

What is interesting are the "letters" (what they call the Fray) from his followers.

 

[Zep]

You can bet Tom Cruise won't be reading that story...

 

[hgc]

I don't appreciate thin, unsubstantiated hit-jobs such as this. Though I can readily believe its claims, the way it was written makes is easy for the kooks to defend their messiah against "religious persecution."

 

[Libertarian]

I don't appreciate thin, unsubstantiated hit-jobs such as this. Though I can readily believe its claims, the way it was written makes is easy for the kooks to defend their messiah against "religious persecution."

Actually, I was surprised that there was absolutely no mention of the harrassment of ex-members of the church, which I have read of elsewhere..............

 

[advancedatheist]

American culture in the 1940's and 1950's would by today's standards seem really understimulating. You have to wonder if people drifted towards weird cult narratives like Hubbard's out of sheer boredom with everyday existence.

 

[advancedatheist]

BTW, the Slate article states that Sun Myung Moon lacks national influence.

Uh, what about Moon's founding of The Washington Times, and his well known connections with and funding of conservative American politicians?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't appreciate thin, unsubstantiated hit-jobs such as this. Though I can readily believe its claims, the way it was written makes is easy for the kooks to defend their messiah against "religious persecution."

Writing style aside, is there anything not true?

 

[Diamond]

I don't appreciate thin, unsubstantiated hit-jobs such as this. Though I can readily believe its claims, the way it was written makes is easy for the kooks to defend their messiah against "religious persecution."

Scientology is so paranoid and reactionary that any criticism of L Ron Hubbard, however mild or truthful, is construed as "religious persecution"

 

[hgc]

Writing style aside, is there anything not true?

You should know better than that. The party making the claim provides evidence for veracity.

My concern is not at all about writing style, but about substantiation. I don't know if it's true or not. Sounds plausible, but I've never heard these particular tales before now.

 

[David Carroll]

You should know better than that. The party making the claim provides evidence for veracity.

My concern is not at all about writing style, but about substantiation. I don't know if it's true or not. Sounds plausible, but I've never heard these particular tales before now.

Then get yourself some substantiation.

 

[hgc]

Then get yourself some substantiation.

I've been to xenu.net before. Don't particularly care to spend my time rooting around for more funny stories about LRH. It's obvious for all the world that he was a massive fraud and his "religion" is a hoax.

What I am trying to say, but what is apparently not getting across, is that Slate should provide substantiation when recounting the stories.

 

[CFLarsen]

You should know better than that. The party making the claim provides evidence for veracity.

It is not a scientific article, but an article for Slate readers.

My concern is not at all about writing style, but about substantiation. I don't know if it's true or not. Sounds plausible, but I've never heard these particular tales before now.

I've heard quite a few of them myself, actually.

 

[Warren]

I've been to xenu.net before. Don't particularly care to spend my time rooting around for more funny stories about LRH. It's obvious for all the world that he was a massive fraud and his "religion" is a hoax.

What I am trying to say, but what is apparently not getting across, is that Slate should provide substantiation when recounting the stories.

There are plenty of articles ridiculing LRH's work. Unfortunately the whole world does not see that he was a massive fraud. Scientology keeps growing, and the stories to ridicule it seem to be of little use save our entertainment and perhaps to warn the very gullible away from the 'religion'. However they do not in general help the people who are already involved. Scientologists pride themselves on being able to defend their beliefs to the n'th degree, they can call on their 'scientific proof' to substantiate their claims unlike Christianity which has sketchy proof on the subject of Jesus etc. Making an iron clad argument to help those already involved to see the facts is what is needed. If you have a close relative involved it makes this goal a little more pressing.

 

[hgc]

There are plenty of articles ridiculing LRH's work. Unfortunately the whole world does not see that he was a massive fraud. Scientology keeps growing, and the stories to ridicule it seem to be of little use save our entertainment and perhaps to warn the very gullible away from the 'religion'. However they do not in general help the people who are already involved. Scientologists pride themselves on being able to defend their beliefs to the n'th degree, they can call on their 'scientific proof' to substantiate their claims unlike Christianity which has sketchy proof on the subject of Jesus etc. Making an iron clad argument to help those already involved to see the facts is what is needed. If you have a close relative involved it makes this goal a little more pressing.

I'm sorry, I should have qualified my statement. The whole world of reasonable people, who have even cursorily examined the question, knows it. This does indeed constitute a fractional subset of the whole world.

I am all in favor of Slate and other media outfits speaking the truth (probable) to educate the unwary, but only wish they would do it in a way that doesn't help to bolster LRH's apologists and defenders, ie., by providing a dallop of evidence.

As for the ardent defenders of the faith, no amount of evidence will pierce their iron-clad arguments, as they have already surrendered all reason and accountability in embracing Scientology.

 

[Warren]

Perhaps, if as you say there is no argument that will enlighten these people, one should consider whether the scriptures and teachings they work from are a danger to themselves or others. I have sympathy for those involved in Scientology, dianetics teaches them that most ills are psychosomatic, that homosexuals are perverts and very phsyically ill (from the book, not from a website). However I do not read about Scientologists commiting murder in the name of LRH, becoming suicide bombers in the need to rid themsleves of Thetans and the like.

I will continue to try to understand how seemingly rational people, for I know many, become involved in such an obvious scam. For a religion that claims to be scientific fact based it has a unnatural adversion to the scientific community. Even a skeptic like me should be able to 'see' the proof if they are correct.

Who knows perhaps they are - what a scary thought!