86 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010
of critical inquiry leads to some conclusions that
appear biased, involves the use of polarized
language, and significantly diminishes the
quality of information that might have
challenged Scientology’s claims regarding itself
and its founder.
Perhaps most telling of these omissions is James
Richardson’s lack of inquiry into Scientology’s
claim to religious status in numerous countries.
Richardson states that “according to its
[Scientology’s] claims,” the organization has
gained religious recognition in a variety of
countries, most often through litigation (p. 285).
The countries that he lists include Canada
(among others). In Canada, however, “the
advancement of religion” is one of four criteria
that an organization can use to obtain federal
charitable status (the other three being “the relief
of poverty,” “the advancement of education,”
and “certain other purposes that benefit the
community”). My search on Revenue Canada’s
Website for any registered federal charity
containing the name “Scientology” drew a
blank. Federally, it appears that Scientology has
been unable to convince Revenue Canada that it
operates for the advancement of religion
(Canada Revenue Agency, 2010). Richardson’s
acceptance of Scientology’s claims can lead the
reader to believe that, federally, Canada accepts
Scientology as a religion, which it does not,
although some provinces may recognize it in
various capacities.
Other problems regarding evidence include
Gordon Melton’s avoidance of any data that
contradicts a hagiographic construction of
Hubbard’s life. Melton does not detail the roles
that Hubbard’s wives or his children played
either in his life or in Scientology, which would
have revealed rocky relationships with various
wives and children. Melton also states some
contested information as fact. For example,
about Hubbard’s childhood, he pronounces:
“Befriended by the local Blackfoot Indians, he
was made a blood brother at the age of six” (p.
18). Twenty years ago, however, historian Hugh
Dempsey concluded that it is unlikely that
Hubbard was a “blood brother” because
Blackfeet did not practice that custom at the
time Hubbard claimed (Suppell and Welkos,
1990, p. A38 Peters, 2008, para. 19). Suffice it
to say, therefore, that Melton’s claim that his
overview of Hubbard is “anchored by generally
agreed upon facts” (p. 17) is misleading.
Some contributors to Scientology use biased
language when they describe controversies
involving Scientology. For instance, Susan
Palmer calls a Scientology spokesperson one of
the “heroes of the Sect Wars” (p. 296).
Similarly, Anson Shupe calls NRMs “the
protagonists” in the “culture wars” (p. 269).
Shupe’s piece on the controversy between
Scientology and the Cult Awareness Network
(CAN) claims both sides used “illegalities” and
legal actions prior to CAN’s bankruptcy and
subsequent takeover by Scientology. He does
not, however, produce evidence of CAN’s
alleged “illegalities,” and he glorifies
Scientology’s actions by interpreting that it was
striving for “freedom of unrestricted religious
(and related business) practice, especially from
government interference and scrutiny” (p. 272).
Furthermore, Shupe’s chapter gives little
indication of the controversy surrounding his
own role in the Scott v. Ross case that financially
bankrupted CAN, and which led to its demise
(Kent and Krebs, 1998, pp. 41–42). For instance,
Shupe read only the depositions that the
prosecuting lawyer and Scientologist Kendrick
Moxon had selected for him—possibly taking
them out of context in the process (Kent and
Krebs, 1998, p. 41). For these and other reasons,
this chapter cannot serve as the definitive
interpretation of the case that bankrupted the
anti-cult organization.
Despite contributor Régis Deriquebour’s
recognition of the impression management
tactics that religious groups use—“Every church
reconstructs its history and tries to build a good
image of itself” (p. 166), even more authors in
this anthology accept Scientology’s claims as
facts. Susan Palmer supports her discussion of
one French organization completely on
Scientologists’ claims: “Scientologists assured
me that CAP [Coordination des Associations et
Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience] is in
fact composed of many different interest groups
and individuals” (p. 308). Similarly, Henrik
Bogdan also relies only on Scientology’s own
statistics, as posted online, to estimate the
number of current Scientologists (p. 338).
of critical inquiry leads to some conclusions that
appear biased, involves the use of polarized
language, and significantly diminishes the
quality of information that might have
challenged Scientology’s claims regarding itself
and its founder.
Perhaps most telling of these omissions is James
Richardson’s lack of inquiry into Scientology’s
claim to religious status in numerous countries.
Richardson states that “according to its
[Scientology’s] claims,” the organization has
gained religious recognition in a variety of
countries, most often through litigation (p. 285).
The countries that he lists include Canada
(among others). In Canada, however, “the
advancement of religion” is one of four criteria
that an organization can use to obtain federal
charitable status (the other three being “the relief
of poverty,” “the advancement of education,”
and “certain other purposes that benefit the
community”). My search on Revenue Canada’s
Website for any registered federal charity
containing the name “Scientology” drew a
blank. Federally, it appears that Scientology has
been unable to convince Revenue Canada that it
operates for the advancement of religion
(Canada Revenue Agency, 2010). Richardson’s
acceptance of Scientology’s claims can lead the
reader to believe that, federally, Canada accepts
Scientology as a religion, which it does not,
although some provinces may recognize it in
various capacities.
Other problems regarding evidence include
Gordon Melton’s avoidance of any data that
contradicts a hagiographic construction of
Hubbard’s life. Melton does not detail the roles
that Hubbard’s wives or his children played
either in his life or in Scientology, which would
have revealed rocky relationships with various
wives and children. Melton also states some
contested information as fact. For example,
about Hubbard’s childhood, he pronounces:
“Befriended by the local Blackfoot Indians, he
was made a blood brother at the age of six” (p.
18). Twenty years ago, however, historian Hugh
Dempsey concluded that it is unlikely that
Hubbard was a “blood brother” because
Blackfeet did not practice that custom at the
time Hubbard claimed (Suppell and Welkos,
1990, p. A38 Peters, 2008, para. 19). Suffice it
to say, therefore, that Melton’s claim that his
overview of Hubbard is “anchored by generally
agreed upon facts” (p. 17) is misleading.
Some contributors to Scientology use biased
language when they describe controversies
involving Scientology. For instance, Susan
Palmer calls a Scientology spokesperson one of
the “heroes of the Sect Wars” (p. 296).
Similarly, Anson Shupe calls NRMs “the
protagonists” in the “culture wars” (p. 269).
Shupe’s piece on the controversy between
Scientology and the Cult Awareness Network
(CAN) claims both sides used “illegalities” and
legal actions prior to CAN’s bankruptcy and
subsequent takeover by Scientology. He does
not, however, produce evidence of CAN’s
alleged “illegalities,” and he glorifies
Scientology’s actions by interpreting that it was
striving for “freedom of unrestricted religious
(and related business) practice, especially from
government interference and scrutiny” (p. 272).
Furthermore, Shupe’s chapter gives little
indication of the controversy surrounding his
own role in the Scott v. Ross case that financially
bankrupted CAN, and which led to its demise
(Kent and Krebs, 1998, pp. 41–42). For instance,
Shupe read only the depositions that the
prosecuting lawyer and Scientologist Kendrick
Moxon had selected for him—possibly taking
them out of context in the process (Kent and
Krebs, 1998, p. 41). For these and other reasons,
this chapter cannot serve as the definitive
interpretation of the case that bankrupted the
anti-cult organization.
Despite contributor Régis Deriquebour’s
recognition of the impression management
tactics that religious groups use—“Every church
reconstructs its history and tries to build a good
image of itself” (p. 166), even more authors in
this anthology accept Scientology’s claims as
facts. Susan Palmer supports her discussion of
one French organization completely on
Scientologists’ claims: “Scientologists assured
me that CAP [Coordination des Associations et
Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience] is in
fact composed of many different interest groups
and individuals” (p. 308). Similarly, Henrik
Bogdan also relies only on Scientology’s own
statistics, as posted online, to estimate the
number of current Scientologists (p. 338).
