Knowledge is Power
The best defense against Scientology’s manipulation is knowledge.
In their never ending quest for relevance and good PR Stand League spends a lot of time promoting itself as an all inclusive champion of religious rights.
Notwithstanding the fact that Scientology has a solid relationship with one of the most intolerant, divisive, bigoted and anti-Semitic organizations in modern history, the Nation of Islam; Stand League wants readers to believe they are the epitome of tolerance.
Scientologist Jeffrey Murphy tries to keep the illusion alive in his recent article defending the need for including teaching of the historical contributions of religions in school curriculum.
Murphy cites a recent case, HILSENRATH v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CHATHAMS et al, as the basis for his post.
The Plaintiff in this lawsuit shares an affliction with Scientology; poor comprehension skills.
Libby Hilsenrath’s entire argument against her child’s school was based upon the lack of understanding the difference between teaching about a religion and proselytizing for one.
Hilsenrath’s case centered around the misguided belief that her seventh-grader’s social studies course, “World Cultures and Geography” which included information about various mainstream religions, attempted to indoctrinate students into the Islamic faith.
Presiding Judge Kevin McNulty dismissed the case stating, as Murphy notes, “‘Religion… is a fact about the world, and no study of geography and cultures is complete without it.’ He went on to say that there is ‘a line to be drawn between teaching about religion and teaching religion. On the record, I must conclude that the school did not cross that line.'”
Jeffrey Murphy’s article is filled with quotes from this and another landmark case, the 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp. Here, the Supreme Court banned the reading of the Bible in public schools for religious purposes.
By grounding his piece with legal quotes and important background commentary, Murphy tries to lay the foundation for the idea that he, as a concerned Scientologist and citizen, supports the court’s decision.
More smoke and mirrors for the sake of keeping up the illusion.
What is interesting about this article is Murphy’s statement, “I think it is vital that students learn something about religion, including how it has influenced society and the lives of the people who make it up. The goal of watchdogs should be to make sure that instruction doesn’t cross the line into advocacy”.
Scientology’s premiere flagship school, Delphian School in Sheridan, Oregon, bills itself as a secular educational institution. In fact, any of the church’s teaching groups who utilize Hubbard’s Study Tech, aka Applied Scholastics, all carefully distance themselves from Scientology and claim non-religious status.
Murphy fails to include some of Judge McNulty’s comments addressing whether or not Libby Hilsenrath met the criteria to claim damages for suffering injury at the hands of the school. Perhaps this omission is because it hits a little too close to home for comfort. McNulty’s statements are pertinent to COS’ subterfuge surrounding their teaching institutions.
“Parents have a cognizable interest in the conditions in their children’s schools. Donovan ex rel. Donovan v. Punxsutawney Area Sch. Bd., 336 F.3d 211,217 n.2 (3d Cir 2003)”
Promoting Delphian and Applied Scholastics as secular and advising the public that they are separate entities from Scientology is an egregious violation of parental rights and ultimately the law.
McNulty also stated, “Accordingly, parents suffer an injury when a school’s actions disfavor or favor religion.”
Hiding the fact that Scientology is inextricably part of the very fabric of Delphian School’s existence is to handicap a parent’s ability to make an informed decision for their child. Students who attend Delphian are exposed to Scientology beliefs, rituals and morality and expected to conform.
Despite insisting they are secular, there can be no doubt that Delphian School is most definitely a religious institution. In this case there is a clear and dangerous difference between teaching about religions in a general, secular manner and actively working to instill one religion’s ethics, morals and beliefs into the students.
Judge McNulty ruled against Hilsenrath, denying her claim for damages. He affirmed the school’s right to include historical information about world religions and clarified that such teaching is not an attempt to convert or indoctrinate.
This is the disconnect between the case Murphy references and Scientology’s own, dishonest actions. The first is a secular approach to education, the second is directly utilizing religious doctrine as part of a school’s core curriculum.
Murphy appears to agree that religion needs to be taught as part of world history as long as the lesson does not become an attempt to convert. However it is clear that like Hilsenrath, Murphy is confused.
Or is he, like Scientology, just being disingenuous for the sake of good PR?
McNulty’s decision stated that there was a legitimate secular purpose for the inclusion of religions in the curriculum. The intent is the education of students. He found no proselytizing in the material and therefore dismissed Hilsenrath’s case.
The line between an attempt to indoctrinate someone with a particular religion’s belief and the secular teaching of religion in historical context has been made clear.
That is to all but Murphy who displays his lack of understanding with this statement;
“Further, the human race has always had a strong yearning to know the ultimate meaning of things, and the wide variety of answers people have found and agreed and disagreed upon over the years has had considerable influence on the kinds of societies we have created, the ethical and moral standards we have adopted and our efforts to change human life for the better.”
This is exactly what the court cases Murphy cites in his article are not advocating for.
The moment the ethics and moral standards of a religion are taught the secular intent is superseded by religious doctrine. Stating that the human race has always had a strong yearning to know the ultimate meaning of things when in a religious context as Murphy does here, is to introduce the spiritual into the equation.
Murphy completely misses the point entirely.
HILSENRATH v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CHATHAMS supports keeping religious spirituality out of the public school classroom while acknowledging the need for its inclusion in a secular, instructional manner.
Jeffrey Murphy’s article ultimately shows that he fails to understand the difference.
First Amendment protections include the right to not have any religion forced upon one. Scientology has no care or concern for the rights of others. Indeed this is proven by the use of their Enrollment Contract which requires members to sign away their rights as a condition of salvation. COS’ ultimate goal is to reshape the world into its own image, policy and belief system.
Whether the rest of the world wants it or not.
Children attending Delphian School or in any other way exposed to Applied Scholastics are indoctrinated into the core Scientology beliefs such as the Eight Dynamics and L. Ron Hubbard’s peculiar and toxic Ethics ideology.
Had Libby Hilsenrath’s child been daily exposed to any particular religious doctrine at the same level Delphian School displays Scientology, she would undoubtedly have won her case.
Hypocrisy is stock in trade for Scientologists and this article by Jeffrey Murphy is classic two faced propaganda.
For a religion who claims superiority to the rest of the world, this dishonest subterfuge in order to manipulate should be noted. This is the truth of what Scientology wants for their cleared planet.
If one’s technology truly is so effective, then why does one need to lie, deflect and misdirect in order to keep it working?