The Church of Scientology
20 reasons the Church of Scientology is a cult and a fraud
By Jeffrey Augustine
1. Cult: The hallmark of a cult is that one person — the cult leader — has all the power and complete control of the money. David Miscavige is a cult leader who has all the power and complete control of the money. This was true of founder L. Ron Hubbard when he was alive.
2. Cult: There are no internal checks and balances on David Miscavige’s power.
3. Fraud: David Miscavige was never elected by Scientologists to lead the Church of Scientology. Rather, Miscavige is a dictator who clawed his way to power in a series of purges.
4. Fraud: The form of Church governance represented to the IRS in Scientology’s 1023 application was a fraud. The Scientology boards and directors represented to the IRS are rubber stamps without any actual power.
5. Cult and Fraud: Scientology is a cult and a fraud because it lies to its own members and to the public about L. Ron Hubbard. See: 25 of the biggest lies told by L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology.
6. Cult and Fraud: The Church of Scientology runs an intelligence-gathering and Fair Game operation called the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). The purpose of OSA is to attack perceived Church enemies and engage in character assassination, smears, and to get people fired from their jobs. Because OSA is funded with tax exempt dollars it is a fraud upon the governments and taxpayers of all nations where OSA operates.
7. Fraud: The Sea Org is a fraud on its face because it does not actually exist. Per David Miscavige’s attorney Wallace Jefferson in his 2014 Writ of Mandamus, the Sea Org cannot have any members or volunteers and has no physical or legal existence:
8. Fraud: While David Miscavige’s attorney Wallace Jefferson states in the quote above that the Sea Org can have no volunteers, , the official Scientology.org website section “What is the Sea Org?” states that Sea Org members are volunteers:
The Sea Org is one of the most heinous frauds in the Church of Scientology, for even Sea Org members are lied to by the Church about the SO’s legal non-existence.
9. Fraud: Given that the Sea Org does not exist in any way whatsoever, the term “Sea Org” is just a phrase used to mislead, deceive, and con people into working for the Church of Scientology without being called employees, thus depriving these people to their rights to minimum wage, overtime, healthcare insurance, the right to sue their employer, or any other worker protections.
10. Fraud: Scientologists and Scientology attorneys lie to the public about Church membership and growth. Scientology does not have millions of members. No independent third party has ever been allowed to audit Scientology membership records. The declining membership is demonstrable in numerous empirical terms: To choose just one, shrinking attendance at Church events, calling for the renting of smaller venues. In Los Angeles, the downgrade from the LA Shrine Auditoroum (capacity 6,300) to the Kodak Center (capacity 3,332) is instructive.
11. Cult and Fraud: The Church of Scientology video records all auditing sessions. This is allegedly done for training purposes. However, the confidential contents of auditing sessions are routinely used by OSA to attack, slander, defame, and embarrass Scientologists who leave the Church and speak out against the abuses of Scientology.
12. Cult: The Church of Scientology teaches its members to lie when needed in order to protect the Church.
13. Cult: The Church of Scientology puts its own members through brutal interrogations called security checks, or “sec checks.”
14. Cult: The Church of Scientology breaks up families and friendships through its brutal policy of Disconnection. (A couple of recent examples — Sara Goldberg and Sylvia DeWall.)
15. Cult: The Church of Scientology indoctrinates and controls its own members through a program of isolation, thought-stopping, mind control, milieu control, and propaganda.
16. Fraud: In exchange for money, the Church of Scientology has long promised its members miraculous spiritual powers it cannot actually deliver.
17. Cult: The Church of Scientology makes its members sign an unconscionable contract which allows the Church to kidnap them and hold them against their will if they are deemed “Type III” (psychotic) by the Church. This “kidnap contract” was put in place after the negligent death of Scientologist Lisa McPherson.
18. Fraud: The Church of Scientology raises money for a David Miscavige slush fund called the International Association of Scientologists. Under IRS rules, IAS donations are “undesignated” and can be spent for anything Miscavige sees fit. IAS donations can fund Fair Game campaigns, lawyers, and private investigators. The fraud here is that IAS monies are not spent in the public benefit. To cement the IAS fraud, Scientology makes its members sign a contract stating that all donations to the IAS are nonrefundable.
19. Fraud: The Church of Scientology raises money from its members for the purchase of unneeded buildings it calls “Ideal Orgs.” These largely empty buildings are tax free real estate purchases.
20. Fraud: The Church of Scientology offers no financial transparency whatsoever to its members or the public. Indeed, it was the Underground Bunker that broke the story of the IRS records showing a Church book value of $1.5 billion.
Thanks for that list, Jeff. And we’re looking forward to seeing the additional reasons our readers will no doubt hit us with in the comments. — ed
It is important to differentiate between cults, frauds, different but still Christian ideologies. With respect to the Church of Scientology, we must remember it was started by a Science Fiction writer, and not a particularly good one at that.
Sanctified gaseous carbon! Are you just messing with me? Your linguistic methodologies confound my cognitve abilities at times!
If I were to try to convert your text there to the NIV version, I am thinking it might read:
Is there any supervison over those supervising? Does the system here have a built in lack of simplicity?
If I have that correct, then:
No, not much, and it is not so much complex, as it is vague.
Did I answer questions? Were there questions? Were the answers I provided, to the right questions?
ahhhh, it dawns on me maybe . . . .
your first question is exploring the possibility, that a moderator deleted by post!
Repost of the other missing post from yesterday:
One thing I notice in some of the debates or discussions here on Worthy Christian Forums, is that some people like to state things and expect it to be accepted that what they say is true. They state things in such a way that when they provide their own opinion, they seem expect you to accept it as if it was a fact.
For example, one person said that it is important to note that nothing about the five points of Calvinism are in the Bible. Now if that is a true statement, and that can be demonstrated to be the case, then the debate is over and Calvinism is false.
However, claiming something to be the case does not mean it is the case.
This person said that there is nothing in the Bible about election being unconditional.
I could just as easily say that the Bible says nothing about God being a Trinity. It is actually true that the Bible does not say God is a Trinity, however that does not mean that the concept of God being a Trinity is not taught in the Bible. With respect to unconditional election, what Calvinism is teaching on that point, is that the Bible does not point out any conditions which a person must meet before God will choose them.
So instead of just asserting that the Bible does not contain the concept of unconditional election, the burden of proof should lie on the person making that claim. All they would have to do to substantiate that assertion is to show one single verse which says that God will not choose a person unless some specific requirement has been met.
As you all read through the posts on this thread, ask yourselves: "Is the point which this person is making actually in the Bible, and have they backed it up with verses which when taken in their proper contexts and when compared with other verses or passages of Scripture, demonstrate clearly without speculating, that their point is established.
If they have not done that, then suspend your assessment of the claim until they do so. If and when they fail to do so, and you know of a verse or a passage of Scripture that does substantiate their claim, then by all means share it with the rest of us so that we can learn.
Even then hold on to your idea with a loose grip, until you see that no one has responded in a way that either undoes their interpretation or at least casts doubt upon it.
It is far too easy for us to come into a discussion or a debate with preconceived ideas. Some of these ideas can be very dear to us, we can believe in them strongly, but our faith in an idea, our conviction about it, is not proof of its truth.
So even when we have a strong belief or attachment to an idea, we should be ready and willing to suspend our belief in the idea when confronted with a Scripture which is contrary to what we believe to be true. I could say, that I beleive in free will. Then, based on that beleif, reject a position. However, I should not use by belief in free will, to render a position as incorrect, until I have a thourough understanid of what the kind of free will, we are talking about is, discover if it is absolute, or limited, to what things does it apply or not apply, and also consider, whether we even have the ability, to exercise free will if we indeed have it. We are not to be slaves to our thoughts and feelings, we are to be submissive to God, and subordinate to his word.
Please keep these thoughts in mind as you read through the posts in this thread. Examine each post with an open mind, and be willing to submit to God not as you feel but as you see what it is that he has truly said and what it is that he has not said. It might be a great exercise to start a notebook, and divided into columns, putting down what you see as a strong point for a position in one column, and in the other column alongside of that leave the space blank, so that you have room to add rebuttals or strong points of the other position alongside it.
As this fills out you might notice that the evidence in one column is outpacing the evidence in the other column. Be wary of weighing the evidence by how you feel about it be objective and actually use your mind to determine what it is that is truly being taught.
If you find yourself being in favor of the position with less or weaker evidence, ask yourself why it is that you are not going with the evidence.
That is all I wanted to say in this post. It doesn't mean that the method I am suggesting here is even correct. It is however the method I use as a way to move me from emotional attachment to an idea, and instead move me to the idea which is most likely true.
If you do not think this is a valid way to approach topics and would rather go with gut feelings instead of God's word, you are free to do so.