I really believe in trying to be polite and civil as much as possible in our interactions on discussion boards. Flame wars really benefit no one. It's like watching the screaming and obnoxious behavior we see so much on "discussion forum" shows on television, or even worse shows like Jerry Springer. I know that we can do better than that.
However, we can still be critical, objective and honest in our discussions.
In my time living in New York City, I became interested in the culture of the con-artists who worked their trade on the streets of the city - the 3 card monte and shell games which I would see everyday on Canal Street as I went about my business and errands. I would stop and watch the games and observe the situation. They would work in large groups and many of the "spectators" were actually a part of a very sophisticated team of con-artists. The local cons would meet each morning at a coffeeshop and put together their plan of attack for the day and scramble up different teams of people - decide who was going to play what role and such. Then when a "mark" would show up at the game - then in progress with nothing but team members playing - money flying, changing hands, people seeming to be making so much easy money, they would subtley slide over to make room for him and then the real game would begin. Now, I was trying to keep a low profile as I did my "research", but because the con-team made up most of the crowd around the game - they knew who the marks were very clearly. On a few occasions I tried to warn the mark and to get them out of there, but this was somewhat of a dangerous activity because these cons meant business. We aren't being rude to the team of con-artists when we try to inform the marks that they are walking into a trap, but we may need to watch out for ourselves when we do.
The connection between the above story and Scientology is that I "saw" L. Ron Hubbard planning out the con that he would later turn into Scientology. He did it very openly and in a context and language that made no mistake about the fact that he understood himself as a con-artist working his art on the "ignorant and gullible" masses.
Now that I have set up that scenario - let me share that I was an avid science fiction reader as a young adult and I devoured hundreds of books of this type. I can't recall the exact title, but I do remember that one was by L. Ron Hubbard, and I do recall the slick angling of his thought and characters in his story as Mr. Hubbard laid out the idea that would later become Scientology. Basically he was going on in a contemptuous way about the gullibility of people in general - the whole "a sucker is born every minute" angle - and then his character lays out what a great con idea it would be to create a religion - you could make a fortune and basically be treated as a god. It is all laid out in black and white and this ultimately is what Mr. Hubbard did, working from his conman roots. It is too bad that the majority of people who find their way to scientology haven't first read that book because it would at least put a very different spin on things if they had.
I am not saying that many people don't feel that they get something wonderful from scientology - I am sure that many do. We are capable of conditioning ourselves to believe and experience any subjective reality that we will choose. The objective thing to remember - is that Scientology was conceived in the mind of L. Ron Hubbard as a sophisticated con to enrich himself and to basically deify himself. So you can get involved with Scientology if you want, and you could even decide to have a good time and to feel enriched by it as well. Just remember the foundation upon which it was built and consider if you might not be able to do better by breaking free of the trances that control your thinking to truly empower yourself.
[This message has been edited by livingsuccess (edited March 31, 2004).]
