#scientologist

[msclaritea]

Celebrities in the cult look even worse, now.

[wtf-fun-factss]

The Genesis II Church of Health and Healing sold Miracle Mineral Supplement as a cure for HIV, malaria, hepatitis viruses, autism, acne, cancer, and more. The name was coined by former Scientologist Jim Humble in his 2006 self-published book and its main ingredient is chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleach. – WTF Fun Facts

Source: Miracle Mineral Supplement - Wikipedia

[yeahiwasintheshit]

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Do you think Scientology will ever become a mainstream religion, or will it always be fringe bullshit for rich suckers?

Like, Mormonism started as a cult. Joseph Smith made it up for money and was ridden out of town on a rail, so his people set up shop in the middle of the desert away from the government so they could do whatever they wanted, and that's how we ended up with Utah. Scientology is unapologetically a cult, invented by a science fiction author (not even a particularly good one), and run like a business, not a religion with copyrighted texts and paid memberships. It's a scam, but a very successful one; it makes SO MUCH money, they literally kill people and sweep it under the rug! If they wanted, they could buy a seat in the House of Representatives, maybe a few, and legitimize themselves in the eyes of he gullible public.

I don't think they could wrangle a senate seat or a governorship, there would be too many detractors, but the House is already full of crazy people, so it wouldn't be hard for them to secure a nomination in some far-right district in like Idaho or Oklahoma, somewhere nobody lives. Republicans were duped into worshipping a bankrupt game show host, it wouldn't be hard for Scientologist leaders to promote one of their own as the next face of the party (though they'd have to wait until Trump is dead; he'd just as soon start his own cult than give power to an existing one, he doesn't need competition)

[theempiricist]

[orbeavariegata]

Imagine a world where Tom Cruise wasn't a scientologist

[suswous]

Honestly, one of the most fascinating groups/phenomena nowadays, particularly in terms of religion, is that of the Freezoners.

Free Zone, as it’s called, is basically a term for various groups/individuals who are not associated with the Church of Scientology, but still follow many Scientologist beliefs and practices. How closely they resemble the current practices of the Church of Scientology, or those of L. Ron Hubbard, varies significantly, but they’re all still based off of this original idea of Scientology, and reject or practice outside of the Church of Scientology.

And, what I find so fascinating about this group is what it says about religion in general. Like, the Church of Scientology is one of the most agreed upon cults. Obviously, not everyone agrees it’s a cult, especially not its members, but it’s still a widely shared opinion. Scientology is one of the most businesslike, least religionlike religions. Other sects that have been called cults are generally either nowhere near the size and scope of Scientology, or, while they may be harmful, are very clearly nowhere near as outwardly profitseeking or capitalistic. It’s based, not on previously existing religious beliefs, or other culturally entrenched ideas, but on Sci-Fi tropes, and on the work of one man, who died in 1986. 

And yet!

This idea, this organization that was founded only in 1953, based off a book and article published in 1950, still is unable to control its beliefs. Hell, one organization claims to have been founded before the Church of Scientology was, on the basis of Hubbard’s works. Even before Church was founded, Scientology did not belong to it!

And I just find it fascinating what this says about religion in general, and how impossible it is to control a religion or belief once it enters the public sphere. Religions belong to the people, not to organizations or the individuals who created it. No matter how rotten the fruit, people will find ways to build on it, to make something that is their own, and is independent. And of course, they’ll often be apologists for previous actions of the Church, as it’s a lot easier to believe in something that was originally good but then corrupted, rather than that which was corrupted from the start, but it also speaks to the lack of control over one’s legacy when it comes to religion. Some of the groups that split after Hubbard’s death lionize Hubbard, and claim that it is the new leadership that is the source of the problems with the CoS, that they’re distorting his work, which ignores a lot of the shitty things Hubbard did. But it also steals Hubbard’s legacy away from him. He’s no longer a person, he’s a religious figure, he no longer exists as a human being, but as a holy mouthpiece. They cite quotes of Hubbard saying “The work was free. Keep it so” and use it to justify practicing Scientology separate of the the Church. And, of course, the Church of Scientology quotes Hubbard back at them to justify their own actions. Hubbard becomes not a person, but a collection of works and quotes used to justify and support one’s beliefs.

People often say that the difference between a Religion and a Cult is whether the founder is still alive or not. Obviously that’s quite a simplification, and doesn’t entirely apply to this, as many organizations split before Hubbard died, but it still makes sense, I guess? When Hubbard was alive, he could say things, he could say what his opinion of a situation was, he could object to someone using his words, he could denounce someone as Wrong. But, now that he’s dead, he can’t. People are free to pick and choose his words to argue what he would think, or what he did think, and quite often they can find evidence that they can interpret as supporting their beliefs. People can argue over how to interpret something, and they can project their own beliefs onto him, without him being able to dispute it. So there sorta is some truth to the saying. Obviously, that’s not the sole difference, and Cult, in its most common usage, is a subjective term, that’s mostly just a value judgement, but still. When someone puts an idea into the world, they no longer control it, but they still hold control over people who put faith in them to interpret and express that idea. Others can disagree, and interpret it differently, but, for most, what’s the point of following a religion, when you disagree with the founder, who based the religion off of nothing but himself? But, when the founder is dead, there’s no one left to further explain the idea. People are left to interpret what is left, and I’d argue, that’s when it goes from being a Movement, or a Religious Movement, to a Religion (which, of course, doesn’t mean it’s not a cult, or that was before, or anything).

It’s sorta like this feeling I get when people try to simplify widespread religions into being, like, One Thing. Like claiming that Christianity has always been about X thing, or Y thing, whether that’s good or bad. And it’s like, it has been around for over two thousand years, and has been practiced so many different ways by so many different people in so many different places. Like, if a Religious Idea that was founded 60 years ago still has breakaway sects and splinter groups who don’t follow the Centralized Church, it seems ridiculous to claim that any more widespread or older religion is any one thing. Any religion that survives will be split apart and have disagreements, whether the religion is centralized or not. And, I think, if Scientology does continue to exist into the far future, it won’t be because the Church of Scientology, but because of individuals who follow the ideas and beliefs of Scientology, and incorporate it into their daily life, syncretizing it with folk beliefs and whatnot as they go, without solely dedicating their lives to a moneymaking scheme. Although, considering how small the Free Zone movement is, and how few people know about them, it’s not very likely to happen.

[x-heesy]

Tom fucKing Cruise 🚢