Scourge of Scientology dies in apparent suicide

Now that’s not shady at all. This is a fellow who created a documentary show for his public access cable channel, and angered more than a few scientologists in the process. He was even “battered’ at one point, while he was filming.

They called Lonsdale’s employer at a title company and his landlord and said that Lonsdale was a religious bigot, possibly dangerous.

If you disagree with the tactics of Scientologists, you’re a religious bigot? Really? I mean, seriously. L. Ron Hubbard said that if you want real money, you have to make up your own religion. Where’s that quote? Here it is on Wikiquote. So, he decided to do that.

If you make up a religion, should people be labeled as “bigots” if they oppose the activities of an organization they disagree with?

The answer is “no.”

I’ll restate it for clarity: Opposing the actions of an organization that calls itself “religious” does not make a person a bigot. Actions are part of the observable world, and are subject to evaluation on their merits alone. You are not a bigot if you oppose an action.

I think we all agree that we wouldn’t respect an organization if its stated goals were to oppress some other group. If they couch that activity in religion, it doesn’t make it any better. Certain fundamentalist Muslim organizations have a radical and violent agenda. Are we bigots if we openly disagree with those beliefs, and even work to oppose the activities of such a group? No.

If we agree on that, does it only apply to a violent agenda? I shouldn’t think so. If your disagreement is based in reality, it’s a rational objection, then it’s not bigotry. If you disagree with some of the ideas the organization espouses, that’s also a disagreement based on reality.

So, what do I think is religious bigotry? That’s easy. Like other bigotry it’s when you discriminate against an individual because of some group affiliation. here are some bigoted statements:

• “I refuse to have an Arab in my house.”
• “I will not hire a Jew.”
• “I refuse to ride in an elevator with a Scientologist.”
• “Christians have an anti-science agenda.”

That last one is tricky. I’m generalizing, so I’m applying my opinion to all Christians. That’s a problem, because it’s inaccurate and unfair. If I was trying to make a rational point with that comment, I should try to be much more precise, accurate and fair. Even if I make a comment that hurts feelings, if it is defensible as accurate and fair, it can be argued that there is value in the comment.

Not bigoted:

• “I won’t shop at that website because part of the proceeds go to the Church of Scientology.”
  • If you disagree with the activities of the Church of Scientology, you should not be expected to support them.
• “The people I talked to from that Baptist church have some pretty backward ideas about biology. I worry about their effect on the local schools.”
  • You may feel some beliefs are detrimental to your community without being a bigot, especially when they result in policies that affect you.
• “O’Leary was extremely rude last time he was here. I am never inviting that guy over again.”
  • O’Leary may be Irish, Black, left-handed or whatever. He was rude, you aren’t obligated to invite him over.

I’ve drawn a fairly clear line between individuals and organizations, your ideas and actions, their behavior and generalization.

But there is a borderland, of course.

Your actions against an individual, if they cause injury or are unfair and hurtful, are not just an opinion; they have a measurable effect. That will land you in the “bigotry zone” if they are motivated by a generalization.

But some organizations define themselves based on a specific behavior or idea you might find abhorrent. You might be able to defend against charges of bigotry if you think that people who believe aliens are hiding among us are not worthy of trust. And if those people form a group called “Humans Aware of Alien Presence” they’re self-identifying, and that doesn’t exempt them from your opinion. But what if a job applicant says he is a member of that group? Now you are in a situation with potential to do harm by not giving the person a fair shot at the job. Is this a grey area where your ability to be more certain of their beliefs collides with the knowledge that your actions could be unfair? Perhaps we need to err on the side of calling it bigotry if you don’t go out of your way to be fair here. Or is that, in turn, unfair to you, because it strips you of an aspect of your decision-making process?

Human Resource departments often have rules to avoid these situations altogether, by limiting what you are allowed to ask applicants. But presidential candidacies don’t. I had no problem with Romney for his Mormonism; there was plenty I disagreed about with him. I think that if I said I opposed Romney for president because of his religion, I’d have some real explaining to do to show it wasn’t for bigoted reasons, because that’s a bigoted statement¹.

How about whether you decide to be a part of the Catholic Church²? Let’s say you make that decision based on the Church’s priest scandal, because the organization acted to sacrifice the security of children in an effort to avoid criticism and retribution from the law. If it’s a church, a book club, or a bunch of model airplane hobbyists you can argue that your actions are a direct consequence of their actions. There is no bigotry there, and no religious discrimination. You cannot say that this priest or that priest is a molester, but it is entirely fair to say you don’t trust the organization.

Calling someone a bigot because they don’t like the actions of the Church of Scientology is inaccurate and unfair. It attempts to protect the organization from valid criticism. And it dilutes the meaning of “religious bigotry” from an unfair treatment of an individual to meaninglessness.

¹ If you had a sense that a candidate was only in a race to impose his religion on the country, or if he didn’t seem to be able to make a rational decision without making it a religious issue, you would have a real basis for questioning his judgment as a humanist.

² I apologize to my Catholic friends for this example, not because I think the Church shouldn’t be criticized for its actions but because I think that Catholics and Priests are disproportionately criticized. I think that, as an organization, the Church deserves all the criticism it gets for its scandals, but the fact that other churches are less organized, or smaller organizations, or more splintered makes it less likely you’re going to hear about a scandal. And there’s possibly as much of a chance that some random non-Catholic cleric is taking advantage of his position as there is for a Catholic one.

Did you catch the Tom Cruise video that was all the rage last week on the interweb? It was on Gawker (via YouTube) and the Church of Scientology is suing to take it down. Or something.

As I watched the video, I was reminded of what creeps me out the most about Scientology, and it isn’t limited to scientologists.

It’s the whole personal power gig. Now, I’m all for giving people advice to help them sort their lives out. Especially when they ask for it. But when people are on a crusade to supersize their personal power, it makes my skin crawl. That’s a visceral reaction, and I’ve had it since I first learned about est when I was in college.

With Scientology, they seem to have cranked the skincrawl factor (I like to abbreviate it to SF because it’s cool to have your own secret acronym language) up to eleven by insisting that their thoughts can change reality, something that the cult of The Secret also has latched on to.

My thoughts can change reality, too! If I think the right thoughts, like I’m going to give you noogies, and then I allow my muscles to move my arm and grind my knuckle into your scalp, then my thoughts have changed reality. The thing is, I have to use my physical body to do it. That, inconveniently enough, is the way the universe works.

Some people think that all they need to do is think, and reality bends toward their will. That’s dopey, but it’s the “drunk on your own personal power” trip that really gives me the heebie jeebies.

The idea that I keep hearing with selfish belief systems is that if you are focused enough on your success, then you will achieve it. My take is that if you are focused enough on your own success, you will be an insufferable bore, a self-absorbed ninny, possibly a danger to the world and you will make people’s skin crawl. The more focused you are on changing reality with your thoughts, the more your own brain is going to become out of synch with reality.

There are people who don’t believe that their thoughts change reality, but are self-deluded beyond the norm and craft their own versions of reality. Our president is possibly one of those people, and all you have to do is watch the news to see the results of staying focused on how you want reality to be rather than facing reality. Now imagine how much worse a situation you could get yourself into if you not only deluded yourself about reality, but also on how you interacted with reality. It’s a double dose of delusional thinking.

Something else was bugging me, this time about Buddhism. The idea that suffering comes from attachment bothered me because on the one hand it makes some sense. On the other hand, I want to be attached to certain things, like my wife and children, and I think that good comes out of those attachments. I am only superficially informed about Buddhism, though, so I looked it up for an explanation.

One explanation that I read led me to believe that my interpretation of attachment was wrong. This explanation said that our attachment is to ideas, such as an idea of how reality is. For example, you might become attached to the idea of your life being perfect. Your attachment to an idea would cause you suffering when your idea differed from reality. Or, you could have an idea about the world which brought you misery — perhaps you imagine that you are jinxed or cursed.

In any case, an attachment to an idea of something, or an idealized version of something could certainly cause you suffering when you have a “cognitive dissonance” between your thoughts and reality. Suddenly, I found this explanation of attachment to be comforting rather than troubling. A philosophy which urges you to try to see things more clearly rather than to bend reality to your thoughts is one that I can find wisdom in.

I think that facing reality, especially the reality of change which is beyond your control could help these folks who are attached to the idea that they are the shapers of reality. And maybe the rest of us can benefit from it, too, Buddhist or not.

Bonus:

Craig Ferguson practically nailed the video in this brief parody.

PS.

“You revived your blog for this?”

In ancient times, as today, the seasons changed. For part of the year, the nights grew longer and longer until they froze. And then, just near the darkest time of the longest nights, people celebrated the promise of the return of the light. They had different symbols for the coming of the light. Evergreen represented rebirth — the promise that warmth would always return. People gathered with their loved ones, flung their voices against the darkness and shared a marvelous feast. Some called this celebration “Yule.” And, slowly at first, the light has always returned.

Another very old story tells of an anointed one (the “Christ”) who represented a new beginning, a chance for redemption. Some people who believed the anointed one had already come combined their story with the traditions of Yule and called it “Christmas.” This became a time to celebrate the fulfillment of a promise, like the return of the light, but embodied in a specific human person.

Many people all over the world celebrate this time of year. In my country, the United States of America, we have made “Christmas” an official national holiday, though nobody is required to celebrate it. It is a very inclusive holiday if you are open to the idea, no matter what your religious beliefs are. Perhaps you believe, through some supernatural force, an anointed one has already come. Perhaps you believe he has yet to come. Perhaps you believe in no such supernatural force at all. Perhaps you choose to celebrate something in your heart, some idea. It’s up to you, as all your choices are up to you.

And what a very wonderful idea it is, that at the darkest time there is hope that the light will return. And what a very powerful idea that the light can be embodied in a human person.

When things seem at their darkest, I choose to believe that you are that person. It is an important idea that the return of the light is not outside of you, but is within your heart and mind. And if you believe it, too, then you will act on it. Through your actions, change will happen slowly at first, but the light will always return. This is the magic the world needs.

Merry Christmas to you, and may your heart be filled with joy and bereft of despair. And may your friends, family and everyone you meet share that joy.

When you read that post title, you have to read it like that “What’s in your wallet” commercial. So, do that for me, won’t you?

Did you know that your colon is slowly poisoning you to death?

If you do, then you’ve fallen for one of many stories about how your colon is slowly poisoning you. Maybe you’ve had someone blame it on red meat¹. The presentation is usually something like, “if you’ve been eating meat all your life, your colon has all sorts of red meat packed into it, rotting away and poisoning your body.” Or, maybe someone was just trying to get you to use bowel cleansing products.

Years ago, I read with some astonishment that medical fads of years past included consuming products like paraffin wax that were thought to help you expel stuff from your colon. In other extreme cases of quackery, people would have large portions of their intestines removed simply on the principle that it was good for nothing but making them sick.

At the turn of the century, this theory of colon poisoning was called “autointoxication.” From an abstract of the paper Colonic Irrigation and the Theory of Autointoxication: A Triumph of Ignorance over Science:

Autointoxication is an ancient theory based on the belief that intestinal waste products can poison the body and are a major contributor to many, if not all, diseases. In the 19th century, it was the ruling doctrine of medicine and led “colonic quackery” in various guises. By the turn of the century, it had received some apparent backing from science. When it became clear that the scientific rationale was wrong and colonic irrigation was not merely useless but potentially dangerous, it was exposed as quackery and subsequently went into a decline. Today we are witnessing a resurgence of colonic irrigation based on little less than the old bogus claims and the impressive power of vested interests. Even today’s experts on colonic irrigation can only provide theories and anecdotes in its support. It seems, therefore, that ignorance is celebrating a triumph over science.

These colonic fixations survive today in the form of colon cleansing products and “irrigation” techniques.

Today, you may encounter people who tell you that you have a dangerous “mucoid plaque” that is clinging to the walls of your colon, but that they can sell you a product which will help you expel this plaque. It’s a convenient story, not backed by any science, and nobody who does not use one of these cleansing products ever sees a “mucoid plaque.”

If your gut is bothering you, see a doctor². He will best be able to do the tests to find out if you have an actual problem. But if you don’t have a condition requiring medical or surgical intervention, he will likely tell you that even healthy bowel functioning has a range of variation. Including fruits, fiber-rich veggies and whole grains in your diet is the moderate and safe way to keep the average colon functioning. Stay away from that guy with the 30 inch hose and the 20 gallon tank of herb-infused water.

¹ There are a lot of reasons to be careful about your red meat consumption. But the question here is what this has to do with your colon. I haven’t yet seen evidence that a diet with moderate amounts of red meat puts you in any danger. Of course, we all wonder about BSE…

² I’m serious. I am not a doctor; see a physician for medical advice.