Michael Moore - A Scientologist: To Be or Not to Be
|Michael Moore - A Scientologist: To Be or Not to Be|
|Topic||A Scientologist: To Be or Not to Be|
|Type of Article||Category:Property "Is type of article" (as page type) with input value "Category:" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.|
Since a bevy of sites which include the word, scientologist in the name have appeared the Church of scientology have attempted to redefine the word 'scientologist' by calling it 'a collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology.'
Apart from the jocular reference to being a 'collective', there are a number of fallacies to this.
The first is that the word scientologist has already been defined by Lafayette Ron Hubbard as the following:
- SCIENTOLOGIST. 1. one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scientology technology. 2 . one who controls persons, environments and situations. A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist. 3 . one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life. 4 . a specialist in spiritual and human affairs.
- Lafayette Ron Hubbard - Ref: Scientology & Dianetics Technical Dictionary
Looking carefully I see no where in this definition where it says that a person is only a scientologist by virtue of being a member of the church in good standing or that one is obliged to be an officially approved member of the Church of Scientology.
The word scientology itself does not mean, that which is owned by the Church of Scientology and that which can only be practiced by the church known as the Church of Scientology. Indeed in that very same dictionary the word is defined as, “a science of life. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life. It contains the data necessary to live as a free being. A reality in Scientology is a reality on life.”
Lafayette Ron Hubbard himself pointed out,
"I know no man who has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others."
Presuming that the RTC agree with the tenets of Ron Hubbard, who founded the very groups which comprises the Church of Scientology, then the Creed of the Church of Scientology should also should be studiously followed, quote.
- "We of the Church believe:
- That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.
- That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist and support their own organizations, churches and governments.
- And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights overtly or covertly.”
I venture to believe the Church of Scientology to be less than God.
The second fallacy is that this definition precludes anyone not in good standing with the church. This defines anyone below the condition of non existence in the church is instantly not a scientologist. It defines anyone in the RPF as a non scientologist. This means that anyone in the RPF is legally free to leave anytime and holding them against their will could be construed as kidnapping at best and sweatshop labor at worse as technically, by their own definition, they are holding non scientologists captive.
The third fallacy is that there are, in fact, many scientologists who are NOT members of the church, either because they have been barred from the church for some real or imagined reason, or have left of their own accord or simply never entered the church but practice the philosophy outside of the church. These people come under the definition as found in the technical dictionary definition given above.
In fact this is more a covert attempt to monopolize the word rather than clearly define it. The word ‘scientologist’ cannot, in fact, be copyright since it is a generic term to describe a person who follows and/or believes in the philosophy and religion of scientology. One does not need to be a member of a church to do that. One simply needs to follow and agree with the precepts of scientology as laid down by the Founder Lafayette Ron Hubbard.
Anyone who has made a serious study of the Koran and believes and follows the traditions of the Moslem faith is entitled to call themselves a Muslim. Anyone who has studiously studied the Bible and believes in Christ and what he stands for is entitled to call themselves a Christian. Anyone who has similarly made a study of scientology and follows and applies the traditions and practices thereof is also entitled to call themselves a scientologist. None of them are obliged by law to 'belong' to or be subservient to any official church.
Moreover, the Catholic Church does not demand that only Catholics can be called Christians. Orthodox Judaism does not insist that all Jews be a member of the orthodox religion or not be allowed to call themselves Jews. I know of no other religion, except some minor cults, such as the Brethren for example, who deny or attempt to deny a person the right to call themselves what they choose.
This is, then, not the mark of a religion for the people. The most successful religions in the world are not those that exclude people. They are those that include people.
Any attempt therefore to reduce ones inalienable right to their religious practice and their performance of scientology would be, at the very least, to any ethical and moral scientologist, a distasteful act, certainly not in the spirit of spiritual freedom which Ron Hubbard intended for the church or even for the spiritual freedom of this planet. There is also the question of course as to whether it is actually legal to do so constitutionally.
The majority of the original scientologists who assisted Ron Hubbard in building up the Church have been ousted since his death. Even his late wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, a tireless supporter and major contributor in developing the technology is persona non gratia as far as the Church is concerned. One wonders, if Ron Hubbard were alive now, whether he would be ousted as persona non gratia along with his original adherents.
Fortunately, the The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists, along with many other free organizations, are not cowed or bound under the new regime of the official Church of Scientology. They stand upright and practice their right to call themselves whatever they wish. They believe they are entitled to call themselves scientologists. Independent scientologists, in the original meaning of the term, as per the definition cited above. And are proud to do so.
They also believe:
- That a scientologist is one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using scientology technology.
- That scientologist is a person, whether an accepted member of the ‘official’ church or not, who practices and uses the philosophy and technology of scientology to the best of their ability.
- That a scientologist is one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life
- That a scientologist is a specialist in spiritual and human affairs.
- And that lastly, a scientologist is not one who lives in fear of 'what the church may do'.
Man's spiritual freedom does not depend upon one man's whim or a private organizations obsession for protecting financially lucrative copyrights and trademarks as being more important that mans spiritual freedom.
It depends upon that individual who can stand up straight and be the scientologist of which Ron would be proud.