Book Review: The Church of Scientology by Hugh Urban

Hugh B. Urban’s The Church of Scientology: a History of a New Religion offers a non-judgemental look into the controversial new religious movement, Scientology for those who have little to no previous knowledge of the religion. Urban is aiming to fill the void in scholarly studies on Scientology, which he claims many scholars have avoided due to the repercussions they may encounter from Scientologists for being critical towards their organization. For this reason, Urban is also targeting other religious scholars like himself by expanding the availability of academic research on the subject. Urban’s book provides a historical account of the beginnings of Scientology, from the first publication of L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics, to the founding of Scientology as a ‘religion’, and continues in a fairly chronological manner, ending with where Scientology presently stands in society. Furthermore, he looks at Scientology in light of a few main themes. These themes include, how the movement was shaped through the time period and culture that existed in the 1950’s, the idea of secrecy in Scientology and the issues they have faced regarding religious freedom. In addition to these, the major underlying theme of the book is the question, “is Scientology a religion or a profit-orientated organization?” This is explored carefully and without judgement by Urban, who leaves the reader to come to his or her own decision.

Hugh Urban explains that he has chosen to approach this topic because he is not only a historian of religions (teaching a Comparative Region course at Ohio State University), but because he is primarily interested in the question “what is religion?” and wishes to use this book as a means to explore the idea of “which groups do we privilege with the label “religion” and which do we exclude?” and more important, “What are the stakes – legal, financial and political – in laying claim to the status of religion?” furthermore, “What is at risk when government agencies, media, or academics deny a given group such status?”(6).  Urban considers each of these societal concerns by examining the controversial implications surrounding the major theme, “is Scientology a religion or an profit-orientated organization?”

The first two chapters are mainly intended to educate the reader on the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard and how he crafted his invention of Dianetics into one of the most successful NRM’s in the twentieth century. Urban is sure to give Hubbard credit for his successful career, describing him as a charismatic leader and an excellent businessman and entrepreneur. He claims, “Hubbard is perhaps best understood neither as a romantic philosopher-hero nor as a cynical con man; rather, he was an extremely savvy entrepreneur and bricoleur[1] with an unusually keen sense of the spiritual marketplace of 1950's America" (55). In regards to the genuineness of his ‘religion’, this quote also encapsulates much of Urban’s critical discussion throughout the first and second chapters, in which he advances the notion that Hubbard constructed his religion solely based on what the market wanted, the same way that a businessman would craft a company; to perfectly suit the needs of the marketplace by filling a market niche and in order to maximize profit. By describing Hubbard using the term bricoleur, Urban appeals to Hubbard’s own words, in which he claimed to explore and use “anything that worked” in order to create a following behind his movement and “make profit” (55).  Furthermore, he explains how Hubbard had harsh feelings towards religion, especially Christianity, until he realized that he could use it to his own advantage as a means to keep his movement alive. According to Urban, this is what prompted him to take on the “religious angle”, creating the Church of Scientology.  

The first two chapters help the reader consider the major theme, “Is Scientology a religion or a profit-orientated organization?” and precondition the readers’ expectations for the preceding chapters from the idea that Scientology is a strategically crafted religious movement. In the third and fourth chapters, Urban explores the culture of the 1950’s and 1960’s and explains how they also played a role in the crafting of Scientology and the popularity that followed. It is interesting how Urban describes Scientology as “not just a reflection, but the very epitome of American religion during the cold war” (89) and claims that the historical overlap between the two is “hardly accidental.” Urban argues that Scientology is an embodiment of the cold war spirit in terms of its beliefs, practices, organizational structure, and in its obsession with secrecy. Urban see’s a clear parallel between the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union and Scientology’s relationship with the FBI; they were very much afraid of each other. Hubbard became so paranoid that the FBI, CIA and the IRA were spying on his organization that he implemented a new series of intensive audits called “security checks” to ensure there was no disloyalty or criticism towards the church from inside members who could potentially leak information. Urban successfully reasons that this mirrors the sense of secrecy and security that was experienced in the United States during the cold war era.

Hubbard also claimed that Scientology, most specifically, Dianetics was the solution to communism, claiming, “Dianetics was born as a response to the threat of nuclear war” (95). Urban uses this as evidence to show how Hubbard crafted his religion to attend to the needs and interests of his audience, who were, at the time, living in fear of communist threats. These cold war anxieties were also met with the fascination of UFO’s and aliens due to the amount of unidentified phenomena flying around during the 1950’s. Hubbard’s “space opera” stories about the origins of Scientology, such as the Xenu and Xemu story, Urban argues, were crafted to fit perfectly with this UFO fascination and thus, made the organization much more appealing to outsiders at the time. These among other examples given by Urban demonstrate his argument that Scientology was modelled off the cold war and perfectly embodied the post world war II consumer market. Urban does an excellent job of arguing this, especially with the numerous examples he provides that show a clear parallel between Scientology and the cold war. This type of argument that Urban presents is similar to theories discussed in class that answer the question “why do NRM’s emerge?” Specifically, the idea that a number of NRM’s rose in the 1960’s and 1970’s in response to the counterculture movement and sexual revolution that occurred in that time period. It can be observed, for instance, that the Children of God grew in membership by appealing to the corruption of society and the acceptance of hard drugs and sexual liberation in the same way that Scientology appealed to the threat of communism and fascination with UFO’s. Both of these NRM’s were crafted to suit the interests of the market during each respective time periods. 

Urban briefly touches on the theme of secrecy in NRM’s during his discussion of the cold war, however, he looks at secrecy within Scientology at a much deeper level in chapter six. In this chapter, Urban explores the numerous legal battles and aggressive approaches taken by Scientologists against people or organizations that have distributed Scientology’s highly secretive OT materials. There are two sides to the argument of whether or not these publications should be freely available. Scientology argues that based on their freedom of religion and copyrighted material, their secret documents should be left alone. On the opposing side, it is argued that based on the freedom of information act, anyone should have the right to learn and to know what is in these documents. Urban presents both sides of the argument fairly without showing any bias towards either side. However, when discussing the monetary costs that a member must put into the organization before being allowed to see the secretive OT documents, Urban presents an interesting argument in which he claims “this goes against the idea of copyright law, since one must literally buy into the doctrine before one has had a chance to actually read it” (197). This correlates nicely with his earlier arguments where he claims Hubbard was an excellent businessman, motivated by making profit. This type of secrecy within an NRM also can contribute to the insiders and outsiders’ mentality that has been discussed in class. By keeping information highly confidential within an organization that only they can see, members will feel bound to that organization and committed to protecting these secrets from any ‘outsiders’.

The theme of religious freedom, in which chapter five deals with, also brings the reader to Urban’s major theme/question, “is scientology a religion? And if it is, what does that entail?” This chapter deals primarily with Scientology’s struggle to become recognized as a true religion and the advantages that were gained as a result of successfully winning this battle. As mentioned in previous chapters, Urban is highly critical of Hubbard’s reasons for wanting to be recognized as a religion, and although giving a fair representation of both sides, it is apparent that most evidence in his discussion leans to the notion that Hubbard’s “religious angle” approach was primarily profit orientated. His argument is based on the large amounts of money being taken in by the church and Hubbard’s determination to become a tax-exempt organization. Furthermore, Urban states that initially, Hubbard said the religious angle was purely for “legal reasons and church services were minimal to non existent” (163).  However, after the IRS made the decision to revoke their religious status and tax-exemption, Hubbard began to demand “all staff to make certain to display religious paraphernalia of crosses, clerical collars, and Scientology Creed” and made it mandatory to display these visual evidences that Scientology is a religion. This aligns with and supports Urban’s earlier claim that Hubbard would do “whatever worked” to make money.

Upon finally winning the battle to gain religious status, Hubbard used it as a means to avoid government intervention and tax collectors and to attain tax and housing allowances (161). Hubbard also gloated that parliaments do not attack religions and Urban offers many examples within the chapter to demonstrate how Hubbard used his new found ‘religious freedom’ as a means of combating critics by claiming they were bigots and intolerant. Urban uses an example that followed the FBI raids on the church, where Scientologists used their religious status in their defence, claiming the raids to be a “frightening, abusive, and unnecessarily violent intrusion into a spiritual community” (168). Furthermore, they compared the FBI raids to a type of “Nazi Mentality” (168). Urban made a good choice to use this example, because it demonstrates the severity to which Scientologists took advantage of their religious status. Based on the information presented by Urban, it seems very evident that Hubbard was more interested in using his religious status as a means towards different ends, primarily profit, rather than truly wanting the religious title as its own end.

            Overall, Urban’s The Church of Scientology: a History of a New Religion is highly informative to someone like me who is new to Scientology and the depth of research, in particular, primary research is excellent, which makes Urban’s advancements highly persuasive. The main themes that are addressed in this book are interesting and useful in the sense that they can be taken and applied to other NRM’s as well. I do believe that although Urban tried to be very non-judgemental and fair towards Scientology, there is still an obvious bias throughout the book hinting that Hubbard was in fact a profit-orientated businessman and his religion was crafted solely as a means to maximize profit. With that said, it appears to be the case that one argument is just stronger than the other, making this type of bias unavoidable. In all cases, Urban was sure to fairly present both opposing sides, which allowed the reader to see each differing perspective. This was successful because rather than enforcing his own personal beliefs on the reader, we were able to read the facts and from there, come to our own conclusions.

Upon reading this book, I have a much greater understanding of Scientology, its history and where it stands in our society today. I am also much more clear on the different advantages of being defined as a religion as opposed to a secular entity. The advantages are plentiful and it seems as though religious status is something that could easily become exploited by groups, like the Scientologists, who wish to be granted this title. As Urban makes clear, whether or not to grant a group religious status is clearly an impossible decision to make, especially considering there is no set definition of what exactly counts as a religion and what does not. Based on the strong research and evidence presented in this book, I have been persuaded that Hubbard did not believe in his religion and was deep down, a con man that wanted to live the life of the rich and famous. It seemed that he enjoyed the immense success and popularity of his Dianetics publication so much that he was willing to do whatever it took to keep it in the spotlight and secure his followers, even if this meant lying to and misleading them. This book has also motivated me to investigate further into Urban’s question “How is religion defined and who get’s to define it?”

---

[1]  Bricolage: something constructed or created from a diverse range of available things (Oxford Dictionary, 2013)

Anti-Islamic Campaign Runs in New York City and San Francisco

            In January 2013, a controversial ad campaign was introduced to New York City’s subway systems and San Francisco’s Muni buses. The campaign featured a number of ads that were received by society as offensive and anti-Islam. The ads mainly featured quotes or references to extremist Muslims and drew attention to the Muslim practice jihad, implying both that it is violent (meaning holy war) and that all American Muslim’s have an underlying motive for this kind of practice. One ad, for example, shows a picture of Osama Bin Laden alongside an image of the burning Twin Towers with the quote “That’s his jihad, what’s yours?” Another ad includes a statement from the extremist militant group Hamas that reads, "Killing Jews is worship that brings us closer to Allah." The campaign ads were posted on the sides of buses, subway trains and on subway station walls and ran for a period of one month. In September of 2012, a similar campaign was run by the same organization, implying Muslim fundamentalists were “savages,” proclaiming, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” The main message being conveyed in these ads is that Islam and terrorism are in some form linked. 

          The campaigns were sponsored by an organization called the American Freedom Defence Initiative (AFDI), which supports individual rights and freedom of speech. The organization was co-founded in 2010 by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who also founded another organization called Stop Islamization in America. Pamela Geller has made many public appearances voicing her opposition to Islamization, particularly when she spoke out against Park51, the proposition to build a mega mosque on the site of Ground Zero in New York City. Robert Spencer is also well known as an author and blogger on the matter of Islamic terrorism and is the founder of the blog “Jihad Watch.” Both Geller and Spencer have been condemned by the public for spreading Islamophobia, which the Collins English Dictionary defines as “The hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture (Collins English Dictionary, 2009)."

AFDI’s campaign was not received well by the American Public and many could not understand why the transportation board had not forbid the ads. In particular, the Muslim community were not satisfied by being publically defamed and discriminated against. In a CNN interview on March 23, 2013, Linda Sarsour, a spokesperson for the National Network For Arab American Communities confronted Geller of AFDI saying, “The ads are absurd and offensive,” while also stating that the opinions of the Muslims in the ads were not American Muslims (Garcia, 2013).  In another interview on ABC News, Zahra Billoo of the Council On American-Islamic Relations said, “These ads make them (Muslims) uncomfortable to ride the busses, make them worry about their safety, and makes them think twice about how people are looking at them (Zap, 2013).”

With those perspectives in mind, it is clear that the content of the ads spread a prejudiced message about American Muslims, which has potential to instil fear into the minds of American’s towards the Muslim community. The typical American Muslim does not want to be linked to the extremist Muslims who are mainly located in the Middle East and they do not condemn their extremist actions or their interpretations of jihad. AFDI’s campaign does the opposite of this, promoting that all Muslim’s are ultimately the same. According to Stephen Prothero in his book God is not One, jihad in some instances, can refer to holy war against non-believers, however, to most Muslim’s, especially those in America, jihad is referred to as the spiritual struggle within oneself against pride and self-sufficiency (Prothero, 2010). Presently, Muslim’s are working to reclaim this definition of jihad to replace the idea of holy war and AFDI’s campaign stood as a set back against these efforts. 

            In addition, city officials, such as San Francisco’s District Attorney George Gascon publically condemned the campaign stating that the ads aim to “denigrate, marginalize and dehumanize our city’s Arab and Muslim communities (RT.com, 2013).” Likewise, the transportation boards responsible for displaying the ads considered their content to be racist. Although the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York City allowed the ads to run, they incorporated a disclaimer, taking up one third of the ad space, stating that the views of the AFDI are not endorsed by the MTA (Nelson, 2013). Even though New York City’s MTA and San Francisco’s transit agency both opposed the messages of the campaign, they were forced to accept the ads based on a court ruling on the First Amendment’s right to free speech. In a previous attempt to reject the AFDI’s campaign, Pamela Geller successfully sued the MTA for silencing her freedom of speech.

            According to the First Amendment, every American should be granted an equal opportunity to express their opinions. This is based on the idea that America ought to have laws that protect the minority positions from being silenced (Danisch, 2013).  Libertarian John Stewart Mill defended freedom of speech by arguing, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind (Mill, 1859).” Based on this, even though the anti-Islamic opinions of AFDI only represent a small minority, they should have an equal right to express their beliefs as anyone holding an opposing view. Therefore, the First Amendment is considered as a shield for minorities such as the AFDI to prevent them from being silenced by majority groups who dominate and hold more power.

The only way an individual or group can be oppressed from expressing their opinions is when their views constitute as hate speech. This is where the situation becomes difficult, as many would argue that the views expressed in the campaign are hateful and racist towards the Arab and Muslim communities of America. The issue is where do you draw the line as to what is considered as hate speech. According to the United States’ Supreme Court Case Law, all speech should be protected unless it is “directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action (Supreme Court, 1969).” In other words, a speech is only considered hate speech when it includes “fighting” words or leads to violence and physical harm. Based on this, the court ruled that AFDI’s campaign did not count as hate speech and was therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Pamela Geller of the AFDI has repeatedly exploited her First Amendment rights when addressing her critics. Furthermore, she has defended that the ads are not hate speech and instead, they serve as a reality check on the aggression of Islam and show the purpose of jihad. Geller says, "City officials denounce our ads, but not the actual quotes from high-profile jihadists calling for holy war and genocide (RT.com, 2013)." Geller strongly believes that the growing number of Muslims in America poses as a significant threat to the country because it will lead to an increased number of terrorist attacks. In her March 23^rd interview on CNN, Geller says, “The American people are being disarmed by obscuring the true reality of jihad and this (the ad campaign) is our way of leap-frogging over the media who white-washes and sanitizes it and alerting the American people to what is the gravest national security threat that our nation faces (CNN, 2013).” She also claims, “There have been over 20,000 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11 and Americans need to understand the ideology that inspires these acts of war (CNN, 2013).” In the interview, Geller acknowledges that not all Muslims support jihad and claims to only oppose Islamic politics, not Islamic people.

In a recent blog post by Pamela Geller (March 27th, 2013), she further claims that the purpose of her campaign was to counter an “Israeli Apartheid” ad campaign that appeared in New York train stations and was sponsored by The American Muslims for Palestine group. The ads read, “Americans give Israel $3 billion per year,” “End Apartheid now! Stop U.S. aid to Israel.” Geller, who is a Jew herself, called the ads disrespectful and offensive to the Jewish community. She said she was shocked at the lack of fanfare, media condemnation and outraged opposition towards the “Muslim Jew-haters” and therefore, she felt her campaign was justified as the only counter-narrative that “effectively countered this anti-Semitic propaganda campaign (Geller, 2013).” She argued the AFDI’s campaign would “expose the lies and massive deceit about ongoing Islamic tyranny (Geller, 2013)” in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East.

A further interesting perspective on the AFDI’s campaign that ties to an issue discussed in our course comes from the Jewish Community where some Jews have referred to Pamela Geller as the Westboro Baptist Church of Judaism. In a Huffington Post column by Joshua Stanton, he writes, “Like the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, she (Geller) calls out in a faux prophetic voice, warning others of the impending doom of America -- in this case due to the presence of Muslims rather than gays (Stanton, 2013)." The Westboro Baptist Church is most commonly known for their extremist anti-gay beliefs as seen through their website titled “GodHatesFags.com” and for preaching their views, much to the horror of pragmatic American’s. Stanton says, as a Jew, he is “not only embarrassed but outraged and outright humiliated that people calling themselves Jews would in any way be associated with -- much less co-sponsor -- such hurtful protests against a fundraiser being held by a Muslim community organization (Stanton, 2013).” This is an opinion shared by many of the American Baptists who do not endorse the extremist views of the Westboro Baptist Church and consequently, consider their actions as an embarrassment to their religion. Less than half of Geller’s followers are Jewish (Stanton, 2013) and therefore, most Jews do not support her anti-Islam views.

This incident also concerns the issue surrounding the true meaning of the term jihad. Stephen Prothero acknowledges jihad as the most controversial term among all world religions. He says that jihad literally means struggle, which can mean either a struggle against ones pride and self-sufficiency or a struggle against non-believers (which can include war) (Prothero, 2013). According to Prothero, apologists for Islam have been trying to minimize the importance of jihad and emphasize that the personal struggle is of more importance than the second struggle. In the AFDI’s campaign, however, they focus solely on jihad as a struggle against non-believers, creating a biased rather than fair interpretation. For people who see these ads and are not familiar with the official meaning of jihad, this narrative may bias their views as well, putting Muslims in a negative light.

            This also ties to Prothero’s discussion relating Islam to fear. Prothero claims, “Most North American’s have never met a Muslim, so for them Islam begins in the imagination (Prothero, 2010).” He states that after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Islam has been perceived by many as a religion of terror, however, government powers such as former president George W. Bush and former U.K prime minister Tony Blair have repeatedly referred to Islam as a religion of peace (Prothero, 2010). Pamela Geller has stood up to this notion, declaring that the government is unjustly downplaying the evils of Islam and has made it her mission and career to ensure that American’s are not only exposed to one narrative (by the government) and have exposure to the “truths” of Islam. Considering Prothero’s claim that most North American’s perception of Muslim’s comes from their imagination, it would seem likely that they have been preconditioned to the negative aspects surrounding Islam that became prominent after 9/11. Therefore, it seems apparent that Geller is attempting to strengthen the preconditioning American’s have received and distract from the Government’s counter-narrative.

 What becomes apparent about religion in society after studying this case is that different religious beliefs have potential to fuel hate and create divisions among a society of otherwise equal humans. The actions of certain members of a religious group, if negative, can lead to a negative bias and intolerance towards all others affiliated with that religious group. For the Muslims, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 provoked Islamophobia to spread, which has led to physical attacks on Muslim people and has made them feel as though they are under siege. Many Muslims now feel afraid to do their daily shopping, they do not feel safe anymore at places of worship, or leisure as a result of the spread of Islamophobia, which has lead to the dehumanization of Muslims. Based on this reaction, it is evident that terrorism nowadays is commonly associated with the Islamic faith. This kind of religious intolerance is not simply limited to Islam, it can also be seen in the conflict in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics.

In addition to this, it brings up the question, whether or not more than one religious group can harmoniously coexist in a society. With the spread of Islamophobia following 9/11 many Muslims came to feel isolated and unwelcome in their communities. This made religious segregation much more desirable to them as it would be more likely for them to be accepted by others who shared the same religious and cultural backgrounds as themselves. As a result, religious and ethnic groups are far more likely to live together in their own communities, rather than integrate into the larger societies. In London, England for example, most Muslims are concentrated in the east London boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. This type of religious segregation goes against the blending of society of new immigrants because they immediately move to their ethnic areas.

The media further provokes this type of segregation and discrimination, though mediums such as the news and campaigns like those of AFDI.  The damage caused by the media has been a leading cause behind the spread of Islamophobia. The major issue is the media’s use of inflammatory language and terms that become headlines across the globe, confirming the preconditioned biases that people have already developed. For example, use of the words “Islamic Militants” and “Muslim Terrorists” instead of just terrorists further enhance the association between Islam and terrorism, whereas in the 2011 terrorist attack in Norway, no mention was made of Anders Behring Breivik’s religion. In the AFDI’s campaign, the statements are exceptionally inflammatory, only quoting the opinions of the most extreme and violent Muslim’s, rather than those of the majority population.

When I first heard of the AFDI’s transit ad campaign through the news, my immediate reaction was disbelief and confusion as to why such discriminatory ads were permitted and displayed in such high traffic, public platforms. I explained the issue to my mom who argued that there should be no reason to encourage racist and discriminatory speech, which is what these ads were ultimately provoking. She raised the concern of what would happen if more people were to publicize their religious and cultural prejudices in the same fashion done by AFDI and what a hateful society it would create. She said she supports being able to express your opinions, however, having the ability to do so on such a large platform should be prohibited. She compared the US to Canada, noting that Canada’s tighter free speech laws may help explain why the different religions in our society have had less conflict when compared to the US. 

I also discussed the topic with my Communication Ethics professor, Robert Danisch who was brought up in New York City. As an American, his perspective allowed me to better understand Pamela Geller of the AFDI’s point of view and my opinions were slightly altered as a result. The first thing he said was that American’s have a tremendous suspicion of authority (the U.S Government) and fear for their freedoms being taken away (Danisch, 2013). This can be seen when Pamela Geller claims that the US Government is trying to cover up the “truths” about Islam by referring to it as a “religion of peace.” Furthermore, my professor also explained that this is why the USA places such high value on protecting the minority and their freedom of speech. He stated that freedom of speech encourages equal opportunity, which is backed by the question of why the government should be allowed to choose to allow one persons opinion but not another’s.  He says that by being exposed to many differing opinions, we are better able to make decisions without judgment and thus become morally superior people. Therefore, by exposing ourselves to the AFDI’s hateful ads, we are proving that we are open-minded and willing to listen to other’s views without silencing them.

After considering each differing viewpoint surrounding this issue, I still believe that the most harm is being done to the Muslim community and therefore, there would be less suffering if AFDI’s campaign was not allowed to run. The major question that reoccurs in my mind is what is of superior value, protecting our communities, or protecting freedom of speech? To me, it is protecting our communities but perhaps Americans value things differently than we do here in Canada. I also believe that although there are tensions among our different religious groups, drawing more attention to these issues through campaigns such as the AFDI’s will only lead to further segregation. American’s need to be properly educated on the realities of American Muslim beliefs instead of having their perceptions skewed by the negative portrayals of Muslims through the media. If American’s perceptions of Muslims were changed, Muslims would feel a greater acceptance and become more willing to blend into our societies. However, with the right to free speech in America for even the smallest minorities, is there any hope for our different religions to truly understand and accept one another without judgment and fear?