I have just been awarded the job of writing the Alternative Religion section at About.com. (Currently, the last writer's material is still in place. I will give an update when my material goes live.) Ironically, I was turned down last year when I applied for the Wicca and Neopaganism section. In retrospect, however, this might work out for the best.
When I write about Wicca, I can't help but be involved. Even when I'm trying to remain neutral, I know the topic well enough to have substantial personal views on it. Writing about other people's religions, on the other hand, is an entirely different exercise more conducive to unbiased presentation.
When I was trying out for the Alternative Religion position, I had to write several articles, including some on Scientology. This was both a challenge and an interesting exercise. I was raised by an anti-Scientologist mother. She has a friend now in witness protection because of his testimony against the Church of Scientology (CoS), which had previously also kidnapped said friend. As I became an adult, I did some research into Scientology to see if my mother's concerns were justified (I mean beyond the kidnapping issue) and came away with the very definite negative impression of it.
Now I have to write about it, and I need to direct it toward people who are interested in practicing it. I'm not required to not say anything negative about it, but it does need to be neutral and fact-based, and I also have to write articles about what Scientology offers, how it's practiced, etc. In short, the main goal cannot be to dissuade people from joining.
I've actually found this to be remarkably easy. The CoS now has published a tremendous amount of material online, so I no longer have to work from secondary sources. I can honestly say that I have a much better idea of what Scientologists believe, which makes it much easier to respect those who believe in it. I've also been reminded that there is a definite difference between the CoS itself and the individuals who practice Scientology. I've become sympathetic toward individuals who get targeted by Anonymous (an anti-Scientology group) even though I agree with many of their concerns about the Church.
I even have objections to some of the criticisms against Scientology. For example, the alien being "Xenu" is constantly flaunted about by anti-Scientologists as an example of the religion's "silliness," even though most Scientologists are not even aware of this being. It's not a central precept. Its existence doesn't govern the day-to-day behavior or beliefs of followers. Condemning Scientology for Xenu is like condemning Christianity because Adam and Eve probably weren't real people.
Being Neutral About Scientology
11/03/2008 04:50:00 PM | life lessons, other religions | 3 comments »
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I admire your being able to remain neutral while your mother's friend is still in witness protection from a criminal organization.
But I find your reasoning confusing. Knowing fully that the "church" is controlled by criminal elements, will you advice people not to join it, regardless of the religion?
As a legitimate movement, the mission statement of the anti-Scientology camp is of course not against the religion itself, but against the criminal elements that controls the "church". The Free Zone, various factions practicing Scientology outside of the "church" is an ally, often protesting along side others.
We can't stop people from expressing their opinions, protesters or not, that some believes in Scientology are crazy. The media isn't helping. But the bottom line is that, if people protest just because Scientology is a crazy religion, you will not find thousands of people in over a hundred cities in the world risking to go into witness protection.
I find it alarming that you find the CoS publications helpful. I hope you are aware of the fact that the "church" excels in silencing critics. So naturally they can get away with anything in their publications.
Wikipedia is a reasonable because they have a neutral point of view to maintain by a collective, and yet you can still remain anonymous to some extend. It's really hard to find somebody willing to reveal their identity while criticizing Scientology. Witness protection my dear.
Even better is Wikileaks. They have all the documents that the "church" don't want you to see, verified by the "church's" take down notices claiming copy right.
You totally misunderstand Xenu. We can't stop the media from making fun about Xenu. But South Park is fair as they do it to everybody, Christians and Muslims. The real point about Xenu is that the "church" have to deny that Xenu doesn't exist in the scriptures. Because believers only get to read the scriptures after paying level by level. Only believers reaching OT III level get to know the story, after spending well over a hundred thousand dollars.
While everybody knows about it, "church" officials still have to deny it in public. Scientologists who is below OT III, most of them, have to stop harassing protesters and hide when Xenu is brought up. Even if you are just mentioning Xenu as a matter of fact, you risk going into witness protection if they go after you, and leave criminal evidence.
I do not encourage or discourage readers to join any religion discussed on about.com. That is not the purpose of that site. I provide information. Readers can make their own decisions. This is the same approach the Wikipedia strives to take, which even you credit for its neutral position.
Not every vehicle of communication is appropriate for a writer's personal opinion. Besides, regardless of my opinion for their Church, that doesn't suddenly invalidate the beliefs of the faith. (Just like the fact that I don't agree with them doesn't invalidate them either.)
Alarmed that I listen to Scientologists about what the heck it is they believe? Part of even mediocre research is getting to the source material...or as close as you can get.
I didn't realize that people made fun of COS because of Xenu....I figured that people believe that the people that belong to CoS are unsympathetic because they belong to a church FOUNDED by a science-fiction- writer who once said (as if science fiction writer isn't enough reason to not believe in it) that the best way to make money is to create your own religion. I mean how can anybody with a brain take anything said after that as truth?