Yet another "undercover Scientology" (alternate) article.

If I ever see a media feature on Scientology that begins, "I entered the Scientology Center and identified myself as a reporter interested in doing a story on Scientology," I think I'd be prying my jaw loose from the floor. Interestingly, we never see stories of the media infiltrating evangelical churches, Guradwaras, or even Wiccan covens- this particular method of religious reporting seems unique to Scientology coverage. It's a sneaky, self-justifying style-the first thing these narratives imply is that the reporter could never get through the front door without misrepresentation, that the cagey Scientologists won't give out information to anyone but naive seekers they seek to swindle. Then follow the usual adjectives: portraits of the religion's founder are "creepy," believers who claim beneficience are portrayed as deluded or naive. I find it apalling that mainstream papers even consider printing this stuff.

The beliefs, ethics, and policies of every faith group are, or course, open to public examination and rational criticism. As in almost any religion, there is plenty to criticise in Scientology. What bothers me in the case of Scientology is that these criticisms are always framed specially by the media- they are sinister, greedy, irresponsible, even deluded- yet identical practices of mainstream religions are never subjected to this sort of coverage.

Are Scientology's claims of spiritual efficacy for drug addiction and psycholocial problems any different from those of other faith groups? Take as an example, evangelical churches, wherein followers often testify that belief in Jesus cured them of drug addiction, depression, and even disease and poverty.

Then there is the relentless pounding of Scientology's founding mythology, and the not-so-subtle implications that ordinary, intelligent people couldn't possibly believe it- so by extension Scientology is a fraud preying on people who need to be rescued from their own credulity. Likewise, when Scientology fails to make all of its believers perfect, wealthy, and thin, it is evidence that Scientology's claims are bogus -witness the relentless snarking about the religion's inability to effect miraculous weight loss for Kirstie Alley.

Again- ithe concept that humans are plagued by the spirits of malevolent extra-terrestrial criminals really that different from the Judeo-Christian concept that supernatural beings cause humans to experience pain and disease, and act badly, or that believing that God was murdered can not only save you from sin, but effect miraculous healing? Is Scientology's financial cost to believers much different from the pressure on Church members to volunteer and to tithe as much as a tenth (or more) or of their income? (For that mater, does David Miscavige's net worth even equal the value of the gold on the Pope's left hand?)

We all know that a reporter who infiltrates a church and snarkily describes its occupants as deluded rubes being separated from their money with false promises of salvation would likely find himself short of a job...but pick on a religion everyone loves to hate, that's easy.All you have to do is turn up and act interested, then write about the 'creepy' furnishings and the 'glazed smiles' of the believers, who are, after all, not rational, thinking people like you and me, but poor deluded souls we have to rescue from themselves through ridicule...

Scientology, like most every emerging faith, has plenty of room for improvement, but the public interest isn't served by bias and dishonesty, or by ridiculing people for their beliefs.