Rod Dreher

Hitchens On Human Wrongs

Scientology, Exploded

By Rod Dreher • January 19, 2013, 8:07 AM

From Michael Kinsley’s review of Lawrence Wright’s new book on Scientology:

But Wright’s book, “Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief,” makes clear that Scientology is like no church on Earth (or, in all probability, Venus or Mars either). The closest institutional parallel would be the Communist Party in its heyday: the ruthless struggles for power, the show trials and forced confessions (often false); the paranoia (often justified); the determination to control its members’ lives completely (the key difference, you will recall, between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, according to the onetime American ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick); the maintenance of something close to prison camps where dissenters, would-be defectors and power-struggle rivals were incarcerated in deplorable conditions for years and punished if they tried to escape; what the book describes as mysterious deaths and disappearances; and so on. Except that while the American Communist Party, including a few naïve Hollywood types, merely turned a blind eye to events happening in faraway Russia, Scientology — if Wright is to be believed, and I think he is — ran, and maybe still runs, a shadow totalitarian empire here in the United States, financed in part by huge contributions by Tom Cruise and others of the Hollywood aristocracy. “Naïve” doesn’t begin to describe the credulousness and sense of entitlement that has allowed actors, writers and directors to think they were helping themselves and the world by hanging around the Scientologists’ “Celebrity Centre,” taking “upper level” courses and gossiping about who was about to be labeled a “Suppressive Person” (bad guy).

(By the way, readers, I’ll be away from the keys most of today, and unable to approve comments in a timely fashion. Back tonight.)

Posted in Religion. Tagged Lawrence Wright, Michael Kinsley, Scientology.

34 Responses to Scientology, Exploded

IsaacH says:

January 19, 2013 at 8:38 am

I don’t know much about scientology, other than snide comments you hear now and again and some reading on Wikipedia.

I don’t know whether this new book is accurate or not.

As a practicing Mormon, however, what I do know is that when it comes to marginalized religions, much of what is reported as “fact” is often exaggerated, intentionally stated in a way to make it sound suspicious, or just blatantly false.

Again, I’m not saying that that is necessarily true about this book. I don’t know enough about Scientology or this book to make that judgment. But having now gone through this last presidential election, where my religion got a lot of press and coverage, it greatly lowered my expectations of accuracy — especially accuracy that correctly captures nuance — from where it was before.

If you’ve never experienced the news media covering something you know in intimate detail, you probably still have an unhealthy level of trust in the thoroughness and accuracy of the process.

One of the main problems, though, is the ability to say something true in a way that misrepresents the truth. It is so common, at least when people are discussing my religion, to read articles that on the face of them are factually accurate, but the implications, assumptions, and nuances are all wrong wrong wrong. While being true from a fact-checkers perspective, they leave an impression that is absolutely false.

Anyway, it’s very possible Scientology runs prison-camps in the United States for disobedient members, and that all the despicable things said about it are true. I just have learned to take these things with a huge grain of salt, because of my own experiences. And I think we would all be wise to do so.
Brooklyn Blue Dog says:

January 19, 2013 at 8:49 am

“. . . Scientology is like no church on Earth . . .”

Actually, Aum Shinri Kyo, the religious fanatics who released sarin gas on the Tokyo subway in the early and mid-1990s, in an attempt to bring about the Apocalypse, were very similar in structure to Scientology, and carried out the same methods to reward members or keep them in line with Asahara Shoko’s authoritarian ideology. Aum was also involved in the disappearance of members who attempted to leave and outsiders who attempted to investigate the group.
Cole says:

January 19, 2013 at 9:50 am

This isn’t exactly news. Bare-Faced Messiah is available online for free on xenu.net; a British journalist told LRH’s whole nasty life story a few years after his death and got labelled an SP for it.

The nastiest part is the little bit–a footnote, almost–where a girl on board the Sea Org flagship appeared to have committed suicide. Her father came to get the body, but the CoS told the local authorities that she’d died of some horrid, virulent disease so he had to jump through eight hundred hoops to do it. He hadn’t threatened them with anything, he just wanted to bury his dead kid, but for some bizarre reason the Church decided to screw with him. Maybe just to send a message. Who knows?
Cole says:

January 19, 2013 at 9:56 am

Hmm, there was more to the story:

“Ten days later, when the Apollo was docked in the Moroccan port of Safi, Susan Meister locked herself in a cabin, put a .22 target revolver to her forehead and pulled the trigger. She was found at 7.35 pm lying across a bunk, wearing the dress her mother had sent her for her birthday, with her arms crossed and the revolver on her chest. A suicide note was on the floor.

Local police were called, but the death of an American citizen inevitably alerted US consular officials and exposed the Apollo to the kind of attention that Hubbard had been trying to avoid for years. Following the Commodore’s oft-repeated doctrine, the Sea Org went on to the attack. Susan Meister, who had seemed a rather quiet and reserved young woman to her friends, was portrayed as an unstable former drug addict who had made previous attempts at suicide; Peter Warren, the Apollo’s port Captain, hinted that compromising photographs of her had been found.

These smear tactics were soon extended to embrace William Galbraith, the US vice-consul in Casablanca, who had driven to Safi to make inquiries into the incident. On 13 July, he had lunch with Warren and Joni Chiriasi, another member of the crew, at the Sidi Bouzid restaurant in Safi before being taken to look round the ship. Afterwards, Warren and Chiriasi both signed affidavits accusing Galbraith of threatening the ship – ‘He said that if the ship became an embarrassment to the United States, Nixon would order the CIA to sink or sabotage it.’ Galbraith also allegedly referred to the Church of Scientology as a ‘bunch of kooks’ and speculated that the ship was being used as a brothel or a casino or for drug-trafficking.

Next day, Norman Starkey, captain of the Apollo, forwarded copies of the affidavits to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, with a covering letter complaining that Galbraith had threatened ‘to murder the vessel’s company of 380 men, women and children, many of whom are Americans’. Letters were also sent to John Mitchell, the Attorney General, and to the Secret Service, all with copies to President Nixon, who was yet to be engulfed by Watergate.

A few days later, Susan Meister’s father arrived in Casablanca to investigate his daughter’s death but found it impossible to make headway with the disinterested Moroccan authorities, who were somewhat more concerned with a recent attempted coup d’état than a lone American making inquiries about his daughter. Meister, who refused to believe that Susan had committed suicide, could not even discover where her body was being kept and in desperation he turned to L. Ron Hubbard for help.

He later wrote a dispiriting account of his visit to the ship, escorted by Peter Warren: ‘Passing the guarded gates into the port compound, we had our first look at Hubbard’s ship Apollo. It appeared to be old and as we boarded it, the girls manning the deck gave us a hand salute. All were dressed in work-type clothing of civilian origin. Most appeared to be young. Upon boarding, we were shown the stern of the ship, which was used as a reading-room, with several people sitting in chairs reading books. The mention of Susan seemed to meet with disapproval from those on board . . . we were shown where Susan’s quarters were in the stern of the ship below decks where it appeared fifty or so people were sleeping on shelf-type bunks. Susan’s letter had mentioned she shared a cabin all the way forward with one other person. Next we were shown the cabin next to the pilot house on the bridge where the alleged suicide had taken place . . . We were not allowed to see any more of the ship. I requested an interview with Hubbard as he was then on board. Warren said he would ask. He returned in about half an hour and said Hubbard had declined to see me.’

After his return to America, Meister discovered to his anger and astonishment that his daughter had been buried even before he arrived in Morocco. He arranged to have the body exhumed and returned to the United States, but before the remains of Susan Meister were put to rest, a final dirty trick was played: Meister’s local health authority in Colorado received an anonymous letter warning of a cholera epidemic in Morocco that had so far caused two or three hundred deaths. ‘It’s been brought to my attention,’ wrote the poison pen, ‘that the daughter of one George Meister died in Morocco, either by accident or cholera, probably the latter.’”

http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfm18.htm
Neildsmith says:

January 19, 2013 at 10:28 am

Yikes! I guess I will never understand the pressures and motivations of people who end up in these cults or whatever word best describes scientology. What sort of torment, delusion, or desperation drives them?
Charles Cosimano says:

January 19, 2013 at 11:27 am

It really is not surprising. After all, Dianetics was written while Stalin was alive and L. Ron Hubbard certainly was influenced by him. If you look at the entire organization of the Co$, it seems to have been based on the old Communist party, individual small cells spread around controlled by a central body with organizational caches placed to ensure orthodoxy.
Phil says:

January 19, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Neildsmith: watch the movie “The Master” for which Joaquin Phoenix is nominated for best actor this year. That is who joins these cults.
Michael P. says:

January 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm

IsaacH,

I agree with you completely. I am also a Mormon and if the last couple of years of “news” has taught me anything it is that it is possible read a article after article on a subject and still know nothing about it.

I don’t have any experience with Scientology, but I also approach with caution when people say things like this about religions.
Raskolnik says:

January 19, 2013 at 2:50 pm

“As a practicing Mormon, however, what I do know is that when it comes to marginalized religions, much of what is reported as “fact” is often exaggerated, intentionally stated in a way to make it sound suspicious, or just blatantly false.”

I’ve often said that people should view Mormonism as no more plausible (indeed, as equally fraudulent) compared to Scientology. Thanks for validating that stance.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

January 19, 2013 at 3:28 pm

If the fairly well known beliefs of the CoS aren’t enough to put it out of business, then I doubt this book will.

BTW I suspect that this blog post will attract CoS spamming because they always seem to show up when they’re written about.
"joe" says:

January 19, 2013 at 3:57 pm

“individual small cells spread around controlled by a central body with organizational caches placed to ensure orthodoxy.”

hmmm …
John E_o says:

January 19, 2013 at 5:12 pm

One good touchstone for differentiating between a cult and a religion is whether or not you have to have to pay (or be paid up on your tithing) to access the teachings and/or participate in the most “sacred” ceremonies.

Take Catholicism – anyone can ask about the teachings and receive instruction for no cost.

Any Catholic can present himself for Temple Ceremonies such as the sacraments of Confession and The Eucharist and can attend their family member’s wedding without having an interview with their Bishop to obtain a card showing that they are up to date on their tithing.

That’s not the case for Scientology and other cults.
Cole says:

January 19, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Re: Mormonism, I’ll certainly allow that the LDS get a raw deal, but the CoS is rather different in a number of ways. Not just from Mormonism, but from all other religions I’ve heard of. It goes to great pains to conceal its teachings where others spread them. You can get the Book of Mormon for free, but anybody who leaks a few words of OT III might get sued. You can only legitimately read any of their “scriptures” by paying a very large, fixed sum of cash–something like $300K to get to OT VIII. They do not deny the “fair game” policy, though they claim it was rescinded (actually the memo they cite only says to stop calling it that). None of this is a matter of doctrine. Every religion’s doctrine can be made to sound screwy. But nobody else acts this way, and that should be a red flag.

Also, consider “Operation Snow White.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

Synopsis: Scientology infiltrated the FBI during the Seventies to destroy their files on the CoS. They were caught, and a number of top people went to jail, including Hubbard’s wife. LRH himself was what they call an “unindicted co-conspirator.” I’ll allow that it could have been blown out of proportion by this party or that, but I cannot envision a credible scenario under which a large number of people at the top were doing something seriously illegal, and the founder of the Church was either in on it or was utterly oblivious to what his people were doing.

This is leaving out the claims of superpowers, LRH’s suspicious death, all the awkward scandals, etc. All the accusations seem to agree on a lot of details, too. But there have been books and books and books written on the subject.
Judith says:

January 19, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Scientology could have made a positive contribution if it had stayed within it’s pedogogical bounds, like speed reading, or “How to Win Friends and Influence People” type workshop.
Glaivester says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:34 pm

I think I heard someplace that there are a lot of rumors of a gay casting couch for males who want to make it in Hollywood. There was a theory that one of the ways that Scientology got big in Hollywood is by providing an alternative route to get into the business. That also is part of why it has been able to maintain its anti-gay stance.

Whether it has anything to say about the hetero casting couch I do not know.

I also think that there was another theory that it also provided people who had fewer connections with the Jewish community opportunities. In other words, it made friends by creating an alternate network for people who lacked connections in the existing networks*.

*As in job-hunting by “networking,” not as in broadcast networks.
Curle says:

January 19, 2013 at 10:49 pm

The commenters here discussing Mormonism have a point, but not particularly the one I think they intended. Though the con artistry of LRH is execrable it is not particularly worse than the demonstrable fraud of Joseph Smith founder of Mormonism. LRH likely learned a thing or two from Smith and Smith’s success is instructive to the future and possible mainstreaming of Scientology. That Smith and his associates stole an unpublished novel and turned it into the Book of Mormon, a pile of money and a harem is more than sustained by the great bulk of evidence. See “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon” by Wayne Cowdrey available on Amazon.

Whether the rest of the world’s religions, those formed in antiquity, deserve respect or not is debatable. But those created in the modern era by known and demonstrable frauds should not be given the comfort of perpetuating their nonsense unchallenged especially when the evidence is at hand. Real religious impulse can do great good for a society and it deserves better than to be lumped in, and eventually diminished, by association with con artists like Smith and LRH.
John E_o says:

January 19, 2013 at 11:03 pm

Curie, another point – both L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were involved with occult practices before they invented their religions.
Consequences says:

January 19, 2013 at 11:18 pm

I doubt Scientology would have come to be considered a religion if it hadn’t had “Church of” in its name from the beginning.
Church Lady says:

January 20, 2013 at 1:48 am

LRH was closely associated with Aleister Crowley and various occult groups before he created Scientology. It’s a major influence in what he did. The model is taken from occult esoterica, with all its secret practices, levels, and hierarchy of privilege and access. It works very well in “binding people together”. It’s definitely a “religion” in that general sense, not merely a philosophical self-help methodology. That’s only what it looks like at the lower levels. As one ascends through the ranks, it becomes much more evident that it’s an all-consuming religious life.
Cole says:

January 20, 2013 at 6:05 am

“I doubt Scientology would have come to be considered a religion if it hadn’t had “Church of” in its name from the beginning.”

It didn’t. LRH worked in the “religious angle” in the sixties or so when his Dianetics approach didn’t work as well as he hoped. Essentially, the CoS is a religion tacked onto the end of a pseudoscience–one which predated it by about a decade.

Re: Mormons, they’re hardly the same. While I don’t consider Smith a true prophet, I don’t consider Mohammed one either and that doesn’t make Islam “not a religion.” Whatever Smith did, the LDS today are a perfectly functional segment of society, and their members seem to be *more* healthy and stable than the population at large. It has shucked a number of unpopular beliefs (e.g. bigamy, a ban on black priesthood) to become more mainstream.

Whereas the CoS is immensely destructive and destabilizing to everything it touches, and shows no intention of reforming. There is a splinter group called the Free Zone (I think that’s the name) which seems to be less repressive, but the CoS is fighting like hell to crush it.
Judith says:

January 20, 2013 at 9:23 am

Could some of the Mormon readers of this blog explain something to me.

Mormonism appears to be a truly conservative organization, with truly conservative beliefs, the overall tenor of which establishes groups, ranks, and clearly delineated associations that a non-associate cannot cross. One such unit is the family. Everything I have read has given me the impression that these ranks continue after death, and in fact are established in the after life according to how one lives now.

It is my understanding that Mormons believe they will be reunited with their family, physically after death. I watched an interview on TV once, where a fairly young Mormon woman, with a fatal disease, state that what gave her lasting comfort was the knowledge that she would eventually be reunited with her family, and in saying this she gestured around the dining room table, where they were all sitting. Everything else that I’ve read about Mormonism, has also given me the impression that the reuniting after death concept is circumscribed by the nuclear family.

If this is true, then the parents are with their children, and their parents are with their children, and your inlaws parents are with their children and their parents are with their children etc… So inevitably, the fact of reuniting after death creates one world, which will eventually include all ethnicities, and will transcend the concept of the temporal nuclear family.

Given that biological reality, how do Mormons explain their belief about the reuniting being circumscribed by the nuclear family, with the projected existence of planets that men will rule as polygamous Gods after death with all the comensurate rankings?

Please don’t tell me that this is a matter of faith, and that logic doesn’t matter. Mormons go to great lengths to apply the dressing of science to explain their faith when they see fit.
Michael P. says:

January 20, 2013 at 10:48 am

Judith,

Re: Mormonism, I am not entirely sure what your question is, but I will take a stab at it. Are you asking how all of these families will coexist and be together for eternity? A logistical nightmare? I believe it is much the same way it is now. Even though I have my own family that lives apart from my parents and siblings, we are still a family. I don’t know how the bedrooms will be arranged there, but I think the point is that we will continue to exist as a family. Not simply as angels or as heavenly individuals but with the same relationships as in this life. By the way, when you say stuff like “projected existence of planets that men will rule as polygamous Gods” it is entirely meaningless to most Mormons. I certainly wouldn’t call it doctrine.

Curle,
Your theory on how Smith took an “unpublished book” and turned it into the Book of Mormon is silly at best. That other book eventually was published. These days, the LDS church makes the manuscript available and the two books are nothing alike.
JohnE_o says:

January 20, 2013 at 11:32 am

Church Lady says:
January 20, 2013 at 1:48 am

LRH was closely associated with Aleister Crowley and various occult groups before he created Scientology. It’s a major influence in what he did.

Specifically, Hubbard worked with Jack Parsons, who was appointed as head of the OTO’s (Ordo Templi Orientis) Agapé Lodge by Aleister Crowley.

Jack Parsons also was a researcher at Cal Tech in the field of rocket science the co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

Aleister Crowley was said to have regarded Hubbard as a con artist and seems to have been proven correct when Hubbard shafted Parsons in a business partnership involving buying and selling boats.

When this part of Hubbard’s life was exposed, the CoS claimed that Hubbard was actually a secret agent sent in to destroy the power of Black Magic in the United States.
Mike W says:

January 20, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Lance Armstrong might make a good scientologist. He’d just need to swap one fraud for another. Or better yet, one “lance” for another.
Thehova83 says:

January 20, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Cole said:
“Whatever Smith did, the LDS today are a perfectly functional segment of society, and their members seem to be *more* healthy and stable than the population at large. It has shucked a number of unpopular beliefs (e.g. bigamy, a ban on black priesthood) to become more mainstream.

Whereas the CoS is immensely destructive and destabilizing to everything it touches, and shows no intention of reforming. There is a splinter group called the Free Zone (I think that’s the name) which seems to be less repressive, but the CoS is fighting like hell to crush it.”

I don’t know about that.

I honestly don’t know any scientologists. But especially in California, they have a reputation for leading “perfect” lives like Mormons (wealthy, stable families, good career paths, etc…). Of course, there is a strong perception of disfunction at the upper levels of the organization….but isn’t that true of most organized religions.
Curle says:

January 20, 2013 at 2:32 pm

“Curle, Your theory on how Smith took an “unpublished book” and turned it into the Book of Mormon is silly at best. That other book eventually was published. These days, the LDS church makes the manuscript available and the two books are nothing alike.”

———— Hardly, there is every reason to believe the Church does not have the book mentioned in contemporary testimonials and the Cowdery book “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon” does an excellent job of exploding your dismissal. The evidence, taken in its totality is extremely strong that Smith and associates turned an unpublished novel regarding a subject of great topical interest in the day, the origination of the North American Indian tribes and the meaning of Indian mounds, and turned it into a theological story. Nobody’s saying there weren’t interpolations made to the original, but simply adopting the church’s line that the many people who attested to prior knowledge of the Book of Mormon story and that they attained this knowledge from a prior novel (one later deposited with an associate of a Smith associate) is, as contemporary testimonial evidence, more persuasive than the objections of Smith and the church for, among other things, this testimony came from people without Smith’s record of shady dealings. For these folks, if they were lying to hurt the church (as supporters of Smith argue) it is the first time such people were implicated in shady dealings, in stark contrast with Smith who’d engaged in questionable activities his entire life.

For those who suggest that Mormonism has redeemed itself from its founding, I contend such suggestions are nonsensical. To suggest such, is to suggest that any amount of nonsense, provable as fraud, is worthy of respect if its followers seem nice. By such a measurement, we can hardly condemn LRH until 150 years have passed. A better view is that religions suffering from an origination fraud that is provable should be exposed. As I said before, by permitting con men like Smith and LRH to be canonized we tarnish all religion. Mormonism by the volume of evidence undermining its origination claims exposes all religions to suspicions of similar fraudulent beginnings. This is a slur that religion in general does not deserve simply so we can avoid offending the sensitivities of Mormons or Scientologists.
Judith says:

January 20, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Michael P:
Thank you for taking a stab at a question that probably seems not clear.

The reference to planets that men rule on as gods is mainly a reference to FLDS dogma, not mainstream LDS. However, the distinction is not as clear to an outsider as it is to an insider, because the impression has been developed through reading historic literature, not through day to day contact and practice.

But my main question is about families in the afterlife, and I do thank you for doing your best. I know this isn’t really the best format for the question.
j
Michael P. says:

January 20, 2013 at 7:10 pm

Judith,
Glad I could be of service. You are right, this is a difficult format for religious discussion.

Curle,

Yes, yes, yes, I have heard all of this before about Joseph Smith and the origin of the Book of Mormon. Obviously, we aren’t going to convince one another here in the comments section of Rod’s blog, but I think we can agree that “taken in its totality”, the evidence says different things to each of us.

I know next to nothing about LRH and Scientology, but I would be more careful than to dismiss the LDS church based on what you think you might know about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

Many Mormons, including myself, find a rich and meaningful theology that touches every aspect of our lives and influences for the better, how we behave in society. The truth is, we are here and are not going away. We want to interact with the religious and non religious alike in a civil manner, we want to discuss matters of belief and practice. Would you turn us away?
Joseph D'Hippolito says:

January 21, 2013 at 3:16 am

Essentially, the CoS is a religion tacked onto the end of a pseudoscience–one which predated it by about a decade.

Cole, it might be more accurate to say that Scientology is a Ponzi scheme based on fourth-rate science fiction written by a monomaniacal hack.
Magister Aurelius says:

January 21, 2013 at 10:49 am

The real reason Scientology came about was due to a bet between Hubbard and Harlan Ellison after a night’s drinking, and Ellison bet Hubbard that he couldn’t do it that nobody could be that stupid (and Ellison was a well known curmudgeon when it came to humanity).
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

January 21, 2013 at 11:52 am

Magister Aurelius, the story is that it was a bet between Hubbard and Heinlein which was witnessed by Ellison. Hubbard won the bet and Ellison insists to this day that it happened and Heinlein paid Hubbard. Some people claim Ellison is making it up, but everyone else is dead, so we’ll never know.
Curle says:

January 21, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Michael P. says:
January 20, 2013 at 7:10 pm

“Many Mormons, including myself, find a rich and meaningful theology that touches every aspect of our lives and influences for the better, how we behave in society. The truth is, we are here and are not going away. We want to interact with the religious and non religious alike in a civil manner, we want to discuss matters of belief and practice. Would you turn us away?” —————–

With all due respect, I don’t accept your premise that Mormonism won’t go away. I think it will. At least as a major or growing religion. Religions decline at times and I would fully expect both Mormonism and Scientology to decline as more becomes known about the origins of both religions. I don’t think you can separate a religion from its origination story. And, I think the internet age will likely prove a disaster to Mormonism and Scientology. Too much information, too easily accessible, maintaining control over the reading habits of the faithful is too difficult going forward. I think the external circumstances that facilitate the maintenance of such religions is declining. At present, both groups are also aided by an American cultural attitude of live and let live in such matters. I think this is likely changing as well. And, I think Mr. Hubbard’s church is drawing attention to others like it and as a consequence drawing unwanted scrutiny to the origins of Mormonism.
Michael P. says:

January 21, 2013 at 11:11 pm

Well, I can’t predict the future, but I think you give too much credit to “the internet age”. Yes, all sorts of stories, true and false, are available online about the church and its origin story and what goes on today. Some of it will present new challenges and others new opportunities.

Most adult mormons I know are aware of whatever you could find online and go to church and believe anyway. My wife is a convert of just a few years and is quite skilled in Google and the use of the internet. We have just as many young missionaries as we have ever had and they probably live on the internet. I don’t share your pessimism that the LDS church is going to cease to be a factor in American Religion because of the internet. That is not what drives us.

So much of what I read about my own church in this last election cycle was just plain absurd… and that was about stuff happening NOW.
Lindsey says:

January 22, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Scientology’s response, chapter by chapter: http://www.LawrenceWrightGoingClear.com