Calling All Literalists

Religion seems to be on the minds of some of our politicians, and for once it’s something other than dog-whistling for easy conservative votes.

Last week Coalition leader-in-waiting Joe Hockey made a speech to the Sydney Institute about the evils of religious ‘literalism’, and this week senator Nick Xenophon called Scientology a ‘criminal organisation’ that should have its tax-exempt status revoked. (I agree, but why stop at Scientology?)

I’d like to think it’s because the increasingly vocal atheist community is getting noticed as a potential vote-winner … but sadly, ‘tis not the case.

Hockey has no time for atheists, despite taking the same line as Dawkins on fundamentalists. The interesting thing though, is that he has no time for theists either.

Hockey wants to promote a kind of touchy-feely deism, where scriptures can be accepted or ignored as you like and God doesn’t intervene in the world in any meaningful fashion.

Sounds a lot like atheism doesn’t it?

It strikes me that that’s what moderates like Hockey effectively are. They just choose to eschew the label.

Why? Maybe it’s the desire to distance themselves from the Dawkinses and Hitchenses of the movement. Or maybe it’s the inexplicable desire to continue considering the bible a source of meaning and purpose.

Either way, I’d like to see more moderates calling out the literalists in their midst. But I can understand why many don’t.

After all, to remove the literalists from Christianity is to remove the movement’s core support base.

Without those who consider God an extant interventionist force, and the political and financial clout they bring with them, Christianity would be just another school of philosophy.

And not a particularly interesting one.

Scientology: Damaged Brand

One wonders what the Senior Worshippers of Xenu must be thinking.

With the French branch of Scientology being charged with fraud and a recent high-profile celebrity departure, the name Scientology has more than a few unsavoury associations.

Maybe that’s why they’re moving away from using it.

The streetside “Free Stress Tests” have always been conspicuously missing any reference to Mr Hubbard’s little cult, but now even their advertising literature is being edited.

Exhibit A: the leaflet for Narconon Melbourne I found in my letterbox this afternoon.

Narconon is a branch of the Church of Scientology, not that you’d know that by looking at the leaflet.

After all, it’s so friendly and generic! “Get off drugs naturally” … “overcoming addiction for good” …

“Banish your engrams and realise your true thetan self”.

No, wait. That’s what it doesn’t say. Maybe you have to complete a few more levels before you get to that.

Even the small print refers to “The Association for Better Living & Education”. How lovely.

The websites for ABLE and the google-baiting getoffdrugs.com.au don’t leave you any the wiser, unless you happen to recognise some of the celebrity supporters.

So what’s going on? Has Scientology always been like this? Or has their brand damage reached the point where they’ve decided to quietly abandon it?

Maybe they should do what some of our other “more respectable” religions have done: start a crusade, kill the heretics and take over the government somewhere.

At the very least, it should get them some tax breaks in Europe.

Bart the Scientologist

I wonder what Matt Groening thinks about this.

The original version of this clip, which featured images of Bart, was pulled from YouTube for being a copyright violation.

But apparently it’s perfectly okay for one of their biggest characters to be used to spruik for an evil cult.

Scientology's New Digs

If you're a resident of Ascot Vale in Melbourne, you may be wondering what's been going on with the old Sisters of Mercy convent at 251 Mount Alexander Road.

It's surrounded by temporary fencing, security is tight and nondescript vans have been coming and going at all hours of the day and night.

Well, wonder no more. It's the new Melbourne headquarters of the Church of Scientology.

Apparently they'll be shutting up shop in their current location (Russell St in the city) and moving out to the burbs.


View Larger Map

On the weekend a friend approached and spoke to a security guard by one of the gates. The guard was somewhat reticent to talk about it, but it's not really a big secret.

Here is the agenda of the Moonee Valley Council planning meeting on 7 August 2007, in which the application was discussed. The minutes of the same meeting are here. Unfortunately, most of it's about car parking. Yawn.

What's interesting, although not really surprising, is that the Scientologists have set up shop in an old convent. Like their logo featuring a crucifix, they're latching on to the iconography of existing religions in a bid to appear . . . what? More accessible? Less threatening, maybe?

Well, why not? Christians used exactly the same strategy back in the day . . . co-opting the popular pagan festivals and changing the names on statues.

And it certainly worked out well for them.

Scientology

The recent focus on the Church of Scientology has got me thinking.

Where has all this vitriol come from? There seems to be a perception that the Church of Scientology is somehow fundamentally (ahem) different from other religions and that unlike, say, Judaism, mocking them incessantly is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not defending Scientology in any way. As you know, dear reader, I'm no fan of any religion. But it seems that Scientologists attract a particularly brutal heaping of bile that mainstream religions do not.

And I genuinely don't understand why this is.

Is it that their beliefs are way out there, and clearly the work of a failed science fiction writer? Give me any one belief of the Church of Scientology and I can name five wackier ones belonging to mainstream faiths.

Is it because they require large cash donations to advance in their organisation? So do a lot of other churches. The only difference is that Scientologists publish their fees.

Is that that their practices result in the breakup of families? This is a regular story from people who've had friends or family members join groups like Hillsong. And I saw of a lot of this myself in my evangelical Christian upbringing.

Is it that they target the vulnerable with their 'stress tests'? Vulnerable people seeking guidance and support are the backbone of mainstream religions, and have been for years.

Is it because they influence politicians and try to enforce their moral code and beliefs on people who don't adhere to their faith? Actually, they don't do that at all. That's Hillsong again.

Is it because it's a 'cult'? I'll leave aside the fact that this word is not well-defined, and simply say that every definition of cult (and there are a lot) that might apply to Scientology, applies just as well to the Catholic Church.

Is it because they use strong-arm intimidation tactics in denouncing any opposition (as seen in the fascinating short documentary Scientology and Me)? This also happens at Hillsong, and similar allegations have been made against members of the Catholic church, particularly in the latter's tactics used to cover up child sex abuse cases.

Now I'm not disputing any of these accusations. I think the Church of Scientology is genuinely scary and weird and probably a cult (whatever that means).

I just don't see how it's that different from mainstream religions.

In fact, I find them significantly less obnoxious than the Westboro Baptists. I'd like to see a lot more column inches dedicated to denouncing them.

So what's actually going on here? Why are Scientologists being singled out as the freaks of the religious community?

Am I missing something?