Szasz and Scientology

I'll have to respectfully disagree with Sheldon.

Sheldon links to this defense of Tom Cruise by Jeffrey Schaler, an ardent fan of libertarian philosopher and psyotherapy critic Thomas Szasz. I've written before on the Szasz-Scientology connection, and noted before that I find it more than a little troubling.

I think the piece is pretty weak, even offensive in places. It's offensive, for example, to draw comparisons between the way some governments treat Scientology to the way some governments have historically treated Jews. No one is denying Scientologists their civil rights. Scientologists aren't being rounded up and slaughtered. Some European governments have taken some action against the church that I find troubling, but it's generally been in response to complaints of fraud and brainwashing by former Scientologists. Schaler closes with"the enemy of my enemy is my friend," a silly slogan that's patently untrue. I share an opposition to affirmative action, for example, with the Aryan Nation. The Aryan Nation isn't an ally of mine.

I believe in freedom to practice religion, including the freedom to practice a particularly wacky, cultish one. But make no mistake -- Scientology is an especially wacky, cultish attempt at religion. Google"Lisa McPherson," for example. Or"Rondey Rimando." Or"Susan Meister." Here are a few more. Look also for terms like"disconnection" or"dead agenting." This isn't religion as most of us know it (and I'm not much of a fan of any religion). It's a particularly paranoid, aggressive, manipulative kind of religion. If you've followed the Cruise story, you've probably also read about the odd way Katie Holmes disappeared for several days shortly before their relationship began, how she has since been cut off from friends and family, and how she's now minded round the clock by a Scientology rep, who apparently won't even let her go to the bathroom alone. I'd also note that the Scientology practiced by Tom Cruise and John Travolta is a far cry from the Scientology practiced by just about everyone else. L. Ron Hubbard wrote about the importance of recruiting celebrities into a new religion to establish early credibility, and how those celebrities should get different treatment than the rest of the church's following.

The article says Szasz and Scientologists merely want to prevent people from being medicated against their will. I mostly support that idea (I'm more open to coerced treatment on people who have committed violent crimes). I certainly oppose President Bush's plan to start screening public school children for mental illness, even when it's against their parents' wishes. And I think we should all be concerned about the"anti-euphoria" drugs many U.S. pharmaceutical companies are working on in conjunction with the drug war efforts of the federal government.

But while Szasz's problems with psychotherapy might be limited to the practice of state-coerced treatment, that certainly isn't true of Scientology. Scientology wants to forbid voluntary psychotherapy, too. Cruise, for example, has called for making all psychotherapy illegal. And while I'm generally supportive of Scientology's efforts to keep mental health assessments out of the public schools, the church at the same time sets up various front groups aimed at getting its own mental health counselors and propagandists into the schools, usually under the guise of anti-drug programs (Narcanon is the most well-known Scientology front group).

I haven't read enough Szasz to know exactly what I think of him. I do know that many people I respect have a great deal of respect for Szasz. But I've done a lot of reading on Scientology over the last several years, and I find the connection troubling, to say the least. I've also known lots of people whose lives were immeasurably improved by psychotherapy. Those people likely wouldn't be any better if Scientology had its way.