Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 1

Quack!

To the person who put up the "religion" part: I'm no fan of Scientology either, but I have to agree with the decision to take the comment down. We don't have to avoid acknowledging controversial opinions, but in general we (wikipeople) should avoid asserting them ourselves in our articles. What you could do instead is to mention other countries which have refused to acknowledge scientology as a religion, and perhaps give the reason why. In fairness to scientologists (if that's the correct adjective) you might then present their defense to the assertion that their religion is not a religion. Since there is some disagreement about it, I imagine that the debate itself must be interesting. You can see some of this discussion taking place on the scientology page. --KQ

Wow - Scientology is always and consistently self-described as a religion. It deals in the study of man as spirit which = religion throughout the east and the rest of the civilized world excepting those European countries who have caught the "anti-sect" bug (Notably Germany and France). I checked. They are officially recognized as a religion in over eighty countries, allowed to style themselves however they want in dozens more, and effort to deny they are a religion is afoot in twelve, count 'em, twelve countries. Even Italy, under the auspices of their supreme court relying in part on an expertise by a Vatican institute on comparative religion, finally said, yes, they are a religion. So, they are more recognized as a religion than not.

Why, oh why is it so necessary to heavily qualify, quibble, and cast doubt about "is it or aint it," in this, of all encyclopedias? I fear personal prejudice is much more heavily at work here than any will admit.

"...sometimes (controversially) described as a religion." Indeed! If this is the best we can do, we otta be ashamed. The controversy over Scientology, and what each side has to say about it, is pretty evenly covered in the Scientology article, itself. If one is curious, one can go there. But figure - we spend a few minutes or days at most on such subjects as these with which we are not personally intimately familiar. Courts, on the other hand, pore over proven documentary and testimonial evidence intensively to arrive at their decisions. I have read about sixty court decisions involving Scientology. Some have dealt with criminal or civil matters, and some constitutional. As near as I can tell, no court has ever found Scientology not to be a religion. The thirty-some decisions I have read on the subject, including in countries (like Germany and Fance) where lawmakers have denied recognition, have, one and all, found that Scientology is "a religion" or "religious in nature" or "deals chiefly or exclusively with religious matters." For example: from the 1983 Australian Supreme Court decision on the subject -

"21. The conclusion to which we have ultimately come is that Scientology is, for relevant purposes, a religion. With due respct to Crockett J. and the members of the Full Supreme Court who reached a contrary conclusion, it seems to us that there are elements and characteristics of Scientology in Australia, as disclosed by the evidence, which cannot be denied. They bear repetition, with particular reference to the indicia which we have suggested. The essence of Scientology is a belief in reincarnation and concern with the passage of the "thetan" or the spirit or soul of man through eight "Dynamics" and the ultimate release of the "thetan" from the bondage of the body. The existence of the Supreme Being as the eighth "Dynamic" has been asserted since the early writings of Hubbard (see Science of Survival, Book I, pp. 60 and 98, Book II, pp. 244, 289). The ideas of Scientology satisfy the first two indicia: they involve belief in the supernatural and are concerned with man's place in the universe and his relation to things supernatural. Scientology in Australia also satisfies all of the other abovementioned indicia. The adherents accept the tenets of Scientology as relevant to determining their beliefs, their moral standards and their way of life. They accept specific practices and participate in services and ceremonies which have extra-mundane significance. In Australia they are numbered in thousands, comprise an organized group and regard Scientology as a religion. It was submitted that Scientology lacked comprehensiveness particularly as regards the nature of, and man's relationship with, the Supreme Being. It has been seen, however, that that is something which Scientology shares with the great Indian religions from which some of its ideas would appear to have been derived. It was also submitted that the fact that Scientology does not insist that its adherents disavow other religious affiliations indicates that it is not a true religion. That, again, is something which could be said of a number of religions including Hinduism, some types of Buddhism and Shintoism. Again, reference was made to some unusual features of membership in the organisation and to the strong commercial emphasis in its practices. However incongruous or even offensive these features and this emphasis may seem to some of those outside its membership we cannot think that of themselves they can outweigh the other considerations to which we have referred. (at p176)

22. As has been said, each case must be determined on the basis of the evidence adduced. With all respect to those who have seen the matter differently, we do not consider the present case, when approached on that basis, to be a borderline one. Regardless of whether the members of the applicant are gullible or misled or whether the practices of Scientology are harmful or objectionable, the evidence, in our view, establishes that Scientology must, for relevant purposes, be accepted as "a religion" in Victoria. That does not, of course, mean either that the practices of the applicant or its rules are beyond the control of the law of the State or that the applicant or its members are beyond its taxing powers. (at p176)"

Now - each of us may personally believe that this or that religion, or all religion, is heretical, hokum, harmful, hare-brained, or any number of things beginning with "H." Does that somehow confer upon us the authority to gainsay the fact that every single religious scholar or court who has ever studied and written on the subject acknowledges Scientology is a religion? We can flippantly reduce this to "...sometimes (controversially) described as a religion." ? This feeble pretense at "impartiality" betrays either an apalling ignorance of historical fact or a deep-seated animosity. Better we should do this: Drop any reference in the L. Ron Hubbard article to "is it or aint it" and simply link to the Scientology article. The curious may follow the link, and be treated to our best efforts at an even-handed treatment of the subject. This will solve the problem of how to mention the subject of "religion" in the Ron Hubbard article without betraying bias.

This, as Jimbo Wales once commented, is a real test of the ability of Wikipedia to avoid bias. There are feelings of blood-letting intensity on both sides of this issue, and we gotsta see if we can keep them entirely out of view in our authorship.

You've obviously done your homework, Anonymous. :-D I'll admit it, on this subject I have not; personally it didn't much matter to me one way or the other. My sole intention was to discuss why the "religion" bit should be taken down but without upbraiding the original author (Wikipedianism also not yet being a dominant world religion). I do admire your diligence. --KQ

well... thanks, but, I am perhaps not as diligent in all areas. Comparative religion, religion in general, religious freedom, freedom of conscience - HUGE issues with me. So there, I do not skim. I read in depth and, if possible, in depth on both sides of a given issue. Then, if available, I discuss things with an actual adherent or adherents, visit a chapel or mosque or facility, break bread with believers. Know what? I even hob-nobbed with "anti-cultists" for a time (Wayne Howard and Michael Trauscht and friends, of Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona - something called the Freedom of Thought Foundation if I recall.) How people harbor that much hate and sleep at night is beyond me. And cynical? You have no idea. In this wise, I feel I do address my homework in a workmanlike fashion, and so avoid the error of hearsay or second-hand info. Amazing how hard it is to hate someone once you have looked into their eyes and into their heart. Truth told? I feel adherents to many faiths, both old and new are working overtime deluding themselves and trying to justify their belief in the face of all evidence or logic to the contrary. BUT, I believe it possible that my antipathy for intolerance may actually exceed the antagonism many bear toward newer or less familiar faiths.

Anonymous, please add facts to the article, please, as you see them. Let us edit that. You've given us a lot to think about here on the /Talk page, where it does relatively little good. Since this is a wiki, what's the use of taking people to task for doing something you don't like? Why not just change it in such a way that will please you both? --LMS

Thanx, LMS. It was not my aim to reform the article as such, but the attitude toward it. I thot to caution (on the /talk page, more like "in private" so to speak) contributors again to keep their editorial impulses in check on controversial or sensitive issues. There is a ton of biographical data on Hubbard on the web, and if I get some time, I may try to distill and contribute some of it. But I didn't post the article and wasn't really inclined right now to expand on it because bios are difficult to do justice in short articles. I just caught the quibbling over "religion or not" and kinda went off, I'm afraid.

While we are on the subject, who is up on the pending French legislation (discussion here: http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/irf_rpt/irf_france.html ) which would brand everything but Catholicism, Judaism and Islam as a "sect," and provide that if any two members of a "sect" were ever convicted of certain crimes (including "mental manuipulation" or something like that), then that group would be disbanded in France as a matter of law. So, if priests molest little boys, Catholicism is not called to task; but if two Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists (yes, Buddhists) or whatever shoplift, embezzle, or talk a girl into joining against her parents' wishes, then that denomination is disbanded. The authors of the bill say that it is to promote freedom of conscience. does this strike anyone as odd?

The entire country of Paris strikes me as odd. :-D --KQ

I don't even know what street France is on. --MB

Way i read it somewhere was that Hubbard talked with Robert Heinlein about starting a religion back in the "old days" and Heinlein wrote about it (Stranger in a Strange Land) while Hubbard went ahead and did it! --JohnAbbe

CoS denies this and will take you to court if you say it. See Start a religion FAQ for more background. I haven't heard the connection with "Stranger in a Strange Land" earlier. It may also be interesting to know that within science fiction fandom scientologists are known as "elrons". // Liftarn

Having grown up among Gypsy kids and Hindu fortune-tellers and knowing what I've learned over the years, I gotta tell you guys I've looked closely at Scientology -- and it's a hustle. It's not a religion, it's a hustle. Like Mormonism is a hustle (go buy a copy of the Book of Mormon, read it side-by-side with any edition of the Bible and any edition of the Apochrypha -- the stuff left out of the Bible by the King James Committee). Like palm-reading is a hustle.

Yeah, so Mrs. Stranger and I both graduated from a Methodist seminary years ago (many years ago). Almost none of our time there was spent on doctrinal theology, most was spent in academic work and the rest in comparative theology. But in overriding terms we learned the skills we needed to critically dissect religious hustles.

Religious hustles are as old as time itself. The First Shaman probably wasn't the first hustler, but neither was Joseph Smith the last, nor L. Ron Hubbard, and certainly not Bagwan Shree Rashneesh. There'll be more, as sure as time itself.

-- Stranger

PS: This is not to say that some of the strangest things you've ever seen are not very real. Some of them are.

Stranger, I'm just an ignorant atheist here. Please explain to me the difference between scientology and a religion that asks me to believe that some guy from the Middle East was the son of god, who walked on water and fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and fishes? Or a religion which some people interpret to mean that it's the will of god for women to have their clitorises chopped off? Or, for that matter, a religion in which virtually all male babies have their foreskins cut off? From my perspective, calling scientology a hustle rather than a religion because its beliefs make no logical sense is pretty damn silly. Pointing out that they are secretive, abuse the legal system to defend themselves from criticism, rake in cash from their followers, use celebrities as a marketing tool when their experience with the religion is reportedly far different to the average schmoe who hears the call, and were probably founded by a guy for whom there's good evidence that he didn't believe his own religion, is entirely justified, and people can draw their own conclusions from it. --Robert Merkel

The last link on the page is busted. What's the Wikipolicy on this? Jeremy

As an amateur biographer of Hubbard myself, I've expanded the Hubbard entry, which I felt was a little thin (no coverage between 1954 and 1981?). Grateful for feedback!

Jeremy - I've replaced that broken link with a link to what is (IMO) a much better biography, written by a researcher at the University of Mainz. -- ChrisO

You did a good job on the rewrite, but you accidentally deleted the first paragraph of the article and the links to translated versions. Mind putting those back? -- Zack

Done - thanks for spotting that mistake! -- ChrisO

L. Ron Hubbard was a deplorable person and the "religion" he manufactured is merely an extension his morally bankrupt character. He stole Jack Parsons's money and girlfriend years before he began stealing millions of dollars from adherents to his bogus "religion", and his negative influence is still felt today through Scientology and all of it's front groups (Narconon, etc.). Scientology robs people of their freedom and clarity of thought, not to mention their money, sending many of it's followers into delusion and madness. Look into Scientology's "Fair Game" protocols and the terrifying "Introspection Rundown", L. Ron Hubbard authored these items and they prove what kind of person he was.

While the categories of "Scientology" and "L. Ron Hubbard" are similar, they're not identical and not redundant. The Hubbard category covers the entries for his writings, while Scientology covers the ones that are related to Scientology. Hubbard is essential to both categories. --Modemac 09:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) The image(s)

Image:L Ron Hubbard.jpg is almost certainly owned by Scientology. (Come to think of it, are there any pictures of him that aren't?) —tregoweth 00:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

What about this one: Image:L Ron Hubbard2.jpg? It's being claimed by the uploader as public domain; since when did anything that the CoS could conceivably make claim to fall into the public domain? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The last part where it talks about FAG and phallic objects seems to be either made up or highly biased.

Where and when did it say anything about that? I'm not seeing it in any recent versions of either the article or this talk page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Private life

I was looking to obtain information about Hubbard's private life, but didn't find any. I think these details should be part of his bio, even probably before the "career" section. I could write one but I would need to research quite a bit before, I suspect some people out there know more about it off hand. When did he marry, divorce? How many children? I know one suicided, when was that? etc etc. Povmec 15:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quentin Hubbard "died under mysterious circumstances" in 1976. [1] --FOo 23:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)