Dan has deep-seated religious issues.
Either that or I suck at being a Christian and have to start obsessing about it more.

I think another contributing factor to the vast chasm in sympathy between the Scientologists and Mars Hill is that the former scientologists realize the error of, and renounce their beliefs. Mars Hill folks mostly just feel like they got in bed with a thief but they retain all their moronic beliefs and just go find other whacko congregations to join.

@3, nope, many of the dissidents still believe in the "tech," but think David Miscavige has wrecked the church. They're still believers, just schismatic.

@2

Savage has, in a way. Basically pagan sexual indiscriminacy with underlying structure of narcissism and virulent bigotry toward anyone who dares disagree with their 2 penny mesiah are the dogmatic elements. A smattering of left wing cobbled together nonsense dress it up a bit. Not a smart or a worthwhile or a meaningful faith, but it seems to appeal to some oddly enough.

@5

I (and most other adults) had less than wholly rewarding romantic experiences prior to my (real because heterosexual) marriage. So by your logic anyone who dies so shoukd chuck it in and stay single because one person wasn't perfect. How sad for you.

@6 - If that were true, then why provide a public forum for you to express your opposing beliefs?

I think Christianity (not solely, but in particular) has a deeper superstitious element that taps into something more base in the human psyche. It's common for a adult to leave their church, but less so to entirely abandon their faith.

There are ex-Mars Hill parishioners who are repenting for their beliefs and behaviors peculiar to their time that church (misogyny, homophobia, money-worship). But more need to do so, and more need to do so publicly. And more apologetic outreach needs to happen to those of us who lost a unique and wonderful part of our independent music and arts scene due to its rise. But true, the tragedies of Scientology are far greater due to the amount of decades of outlandish harm and billions of dollars involved, compared to Mars Hill.

I read Dianetics in middle school back in the 1970s. It seemed silly to me even then. I've never figured out why people followed Hubbard's cult.

When and where? I do not see a schedule!

@12 "The files are IN the computer."

Oh Seattleblahs, we have no idea if you're in a "real" marriage. I can't imagine what sort of woman would settle for such a thoroughly unpleasant person. She'd either have to be as awful as you, some poor beaten down thing who came from an abusive background, or a foreigner who was tricked into marriage to by the promise of citizenship.

Dan, on the other hand, we know is married, legally and otherwise.

@11
I never read Dianetics, but in one of our high school plays (all pre-1960), a friend of mine slipped "Dianetics" into the dialogue. Had our circle of friends cracking up. High School plays were always like that, each of us trying to outdo the others in making a small mockery of the event. Good Times. Sorry, this is my only connection to Dianetics.

Is it just me or do posts 6 and 7 make no sense?

@17: It's not just you. Seattleblues isn't particularly good at writing or proofreading. Of course, if we say anything about it to him, he'll just tell us that the dictionary has the spelling wrong and he's actually got it right, and he'll probably add for good measure the assertion that Strunk and White were notorious lefty commie loonies or something. (Basically he has no conception of the possibility that he may be wrong about things.)

@7 It's bad enough that your homophobic but now you're zombiephoic too? For shame. The Living Dead have as much right to love and be loved as you do. It's just that their love is going to involve lots of air freshener, cold spaces, and duct tape.

@18 - you mean like this? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kru…

Scientology and SeattleBlues;
Is there no Peace from such
wretched energy.

The first half of the documentary was somewhat boring. The second half was somewhat terrifying. So much awful content and they didn't even mention a number of the ongoing controversies (The maybe missing Shelly Miscavige, etc.)

@18

Fair point, boy. My spelling could use improvement. The wonders of technology that make this iPhone possible don't mean t high e tiny keypad is good for my fingers, alas. As to my writing, that's a matter of taste. Mainly what you object to is my mainstream center right worldview , if we're going to be honest, but oh well.

I have been and will be wrong about many things. And error honestly assessed and learned from is a great gift. That I wasn't wrong about any of the (actual as opposed to made up or misstated) positions you imagine I take doesn't mean I'm incapable of error.
What it is, junior, is a maturity issue. I've had 4 decades to observe the world and how I and others around me fit into it. You're just a callow boy. Your intelligence suggests you have the potential to become a mature and wise man. Unfortunately your leftist upbringing, which ideology by definition excludes maturity and responsibility and the ability to learn from experience, reduces the chances of such an outcome. At core the worldview of the left, and particularly the very far left like Savage, are the whining petulance of children. They're nursery cries of 'it's not faaaiiiir,' suited to preadolescent immaturity but pathetic in adults.

@19

There is no such condition as homophobia. It's mere propaganda to belittle people whose rational views you, lost in your delusional nightmare of reality as a plastic thing rather than simply what and as it is, don't share.

For this correction, no thanks are necessary.

I liked that Going Clear was balanced. It showed why people fell Scientology in the first place: In their sessions, people would talk about their problems with the aim of resolving negative emotions, which made them feel better--and why wouldn't it? One speaker said something like, "It was great and it helped me work out my issues. Only when I said, 'I'm cured and I want to leave,' did the manipulative tactics come out." The fact that it was presented as an alternative to both psychology and to the drugs that were so common in the sixties and seventies made the movement much more understandable. But it doesn't pull its punches about its financially motivated origins, ridiculous mythology or abuses. It made much more sense than if they'd portrayed everyone as a bunch of brainwashed nuts.

@24...once again...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…

Does SB smoke pot, perchance?

What I don't understand for the life of me about this ridiculously obvious cult is that a single person has ever been duped into believing it is anything but that - a cult. It has every feature of one, starting with its recruiting tactics.

I watched the documentary last night. I'm about the same age as some of the people in it, or maybe a bit younger. When I was 19 in the mid 80's, living and working on Boylston Street in Boston (down the block from the present day location of the marathon bombings), every day I passed "Corey" with his clipboard, who every day asked everyone who passed - and this being Boston, there was always a heavier concentration 18 to 21 year old kids than in most cities - if they wanted to take a "free personality test." I knew even at that young/dumbass age that this was an obvious scam and a person to be avoided. I mean, Jonestown had just happened a few years before. Everyone, everywhere was aware of cults. You couldn't not be. Nor could the people I saw in the film.

One day my adventurous friend Chris was with me and he decided as a joke to say yes to Corey, much to my dismay. We were immediately asked for our full names, which Corey wrote down (we gave fakes). At no time, until we arrived at their lavish facility, were we told that the "personality test" was being administered by the church of Scientology or that they were in any way affiliated with same. If your "church" is not a cult, you don't recruit teenaged kids, firstly, and you don't do so by concealing who you are - who is attempting the recruiting.

I asked where this "test" was going to take place and Corey said it was "right around the corner". Each block we walked, I would ask again, um, how far is this place again? "Right around the corner" Corey would repeat. In truth it was 6 city blocks away. I wanted to stop and go back but Chris felt this would be a hoot, so we continued.

On our journey there, Corey launched into a 6-blocks-long monologue railing against the evils of psychiatry and blathering about other conspiracy theories I can't remember, in an obvious attempt to begin the brainwashing early, and distract these young, potentially very impressionable, probably far-from-home-for-the-first-time kids re how far a fucking walk it was.

When we arrived at the huge mansion that I believe they still occupy, firstly we were separated for some reason - that alone seems amazing to me now. I guess it was to help "break us" easier, or something. Then we were indeed each given a very long, detailed "personality tests" which were a pathetically clear ruse designed for one thing: to get us to buy the Dianetics book. The test was so obvious, a 3 year old could have seen through it. Asking "moral" multiple choice questions with the obvious "right" answer plain as day. I in fact made sure each time to select the obvious "right" answer, admitting to zero wrongdoing in my entire life, no lying, cheating, feelings of anger, never hurting another soul, etc., etc. I came out with a perfect score in fact.

Yet at the end, Corey still told me that the "test" "revealed" that I needed to buy the book. I remember looking him dead in the eye and saying, "this TEST says I have to buy the book? How is that??" I don't recall what happened afterwards except that we got the fucking hell out of there.

We later learned other people at our school - other 18 and 19 yr old kids - had also done the infamous "test" - everyone did it as a joke - we were a cynical bunch. Some were brought upstairs to view a sort of recruiting scare tactic conspiracy film. No idea what was in the film.

Again, is this how an actual legit church or religion (saying that with a grain of salt as I'm a staunch atheist) behaves when trying to bring increase its "flock"? Fuck no.

@23: "That I wasn't wrong about any of the (actual as opposed to made up or misstated) positions you imagine I take doesn't mean I'm incapable of error."
Oh, you CERTAINLY aren't incapable of error. And you seriously think you haven't been wrong about anything you've said here on the SLOG? You've bravely asserted that your refusal to renew a lease to lesbian tenants BASED on their sexual orientation broke no laws (source). AND YET IT WAS NOT SO (source).
See, that shit right there? Insisting that you've never been wrong about anything you've said here, despite the wealth of readily-available examples clearly disproving that assertion? THAT is the kind of shit that screams "I think I'm always right about everything no matter what!"

@30 - see link @20

Oh poor Subhumanblues soiled your diaper once again. *sigh* Sorry folks. It gets so cranky and temper tantrum prone when that happens. But well it is subhuman and just can't control itself.

Like Reverse Polarity, I read Cosmetics in the seventies (though I was in college) and I came away thinking, "What kind of fool would fall for this?"

Seattleblues, if observing the world for four decades makes you the smartest kid in the room, I am afraid you'll have to step aside. I've been observing it for six.

@31: Oh yeah, I agree completely.

@29 - Awesome, I enjoyed that.

Does anyone remember the Xenu filmstrip piece that they showed at d-film at the Moore in maybe 99 or 00? I have tried to find it on YouTube to no effect. I thought that retelling the scientology creation myth was amazing.

@24 - Your endless rant about the "correct" usage of the word "homophobia is tired, irrelevant, and incorrect.

The term phobia has both clinical and colloquial usages, and both are valid. (Just like "theory" has very significantly different meanings in scientific and non-scientific circles, yet both are valid.) In colloquial usage, phobia very often refers to "hatred or disgust of" rather than only "fear of." (One could also make a strong argument that hatred and disgust stem from fear.)

If the common usage is in the dictionary -- and the usage for "homophobia" has been for decades -- then your argument is irrelevant. And if you're parsing the etymology of a term's roots without recognizing that not all terms exactly match their root terms, you've already lost the debate.