 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
Scientology and its Potential for Dominance as a World Religion - Page 5
By Stephen Linguito
We can apply Heelas' reasoning concerning "ego-functions" to this example because this particular method for improving one's life entails taking control over one's mind and fixing problems from a mental standpoint. Cruise had a disorder, but by learning how to deal with it, he was able to overcome his troubles. Once Cruise understood fully his condition and what actions were needed to be taken to better his life, "[he] realized [he] could absolutely learn anything that [he] wanted to learn" (Cagle and Cruise 2). This is a cornerstone concept that Hubbard emphasizes time and again: we can do anything we want, as long as we understand our relationship with the world and ourselves.
Notwithstanding such success stories, Kent suggests that Scientology's ineffectiveness (as he perceives it) results from its shaky status as a religious entity. He comments, "Rather than struggling over whether or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational, only one element of which is religious" ("Scientology" 3). This shines a different light on the issue. If Scientology were solely religious, as Hubbard claims, then you might say that it is an effective religion. However, Scientology has many other components to it such as politics and business ventures which you might conclude are a hindrance to Scientology as a religion. Jon Atack relates the story of Martin Samuels, a former Scientology Missions holder who was asked to pay money to the Church of Scientology to help fund Bridge Publications, the company responsible for publishing much of Hubbard's work. When he refused, reasoning that a donation to a for-profit organization would be illegal, the Church attacked Samuels, and "[i]n a few weeks, Samuels had lost the business he had built up over thirteen years, with an annual turnover of millions of dollars. His seventeen-year marriage was destroyed, and he was deprived of his possessions. Samuels felt like a college kid again, rolling up penniless on his parents' doorstep" (Atack 302). Certainly, enough situations similar to this could hurt Scientology in the future, for it is doubtful that people will still cling to Scientology if they hear of these experiences. Throughout his book, Atack argues that Scientology is out for money, and exposes many cases of indifference to the welfare of its members. However one feels about this issue, it is certain that the extra-religious activities that Scientology maintains, in addition to its religious ones, will have an impact on its future expansion and how people regard it in terms of effectiveness. What remains to be seen is whether Scientology's extra-religious activities will actually help it prosper, as Heelas suggests in his discussion of various New Age religions' ties to prosperity teachings and capitalism, or if they will mask the qualities of traditional religion that Scientology seems to possess. If the latter, people may resort to boycotting Scientology on the grounds that it does not have its members' needs as a first priority.
Another important question regarding Scientology's status as a religion must be asked: Can Scientology be considered a religion when its belief system is so elusive? We earlier discussed Scientology's efforts to conform to individual's needs. If Scientology claims to be so many different things, then how can it pinpoint exactly what its teachings are? Perhaps that is simply the nature of the religion. Even so, it is hard to believe that one belief system can promote so many seemingly inconsistent concepts. This is exactly what Heelas discusses. In his article, he relates the example of a person who owned ninety-three Rolls Royces and who at the same time claimed to be detached from material wealth. Heelas then writes, "there are certainly questions to be raised about the 'authenticity' of prosperity teachings" (Heelas 71). In other words, Heelas questions the ability of New Age religions to promise the world and actually fulfill their promises in a system that works. Can we then say that Scientology is not a religion because its beliefs are hard to pinpoint and because, in promising too much, it decreases its effectiveness? Returning to Martin's experiences at the Scientology orientation, he comments further on the movie he was shown: