Why does Scientology use the volcano on book covers as a symbol but they

J

Just Wondering...

New member
refuse to discuss the meaning of it? I saw an interview on ABC's NIGHTLINE with a major leader of Scientology and he threatened to walk out of the interview if asked about the Xenu legend. He explained that ANY questions on that subject "are deeply offensive to us" and then did walk away when asked to explain.

So if the topic is so offensive, why do they use the primary symbol of the Xenu story (the volcano) on millions of DIANETICS book covers but then refuse to answer questions about it. [It doesn't seem to be a speech taboo where a sacred name cannot be uttered without profaning it.]
DESIREE: Your comparison with Mormons -- by claiming that Mormons believe in "magic underpants" -- is rather humorous and even ironic. Mormons have no such belief, so your effort to make yourself sound superior to them backfired and puts you at risk of sounding "like complete and utter lunatics."

Furthermore, questions about the Mormon practice of wearing special underwear have been posted on this forum many times (including once by me) and a great many Mormons quickly provided informative answers. (There was no hesitation or embarrassment of any sort because they all pointed out that the idea of "magic underwear" is simply a silly myth perpetuated by the ignorant who know very little about Mormons. Sound familiar? Yes, people often ridicule things of which they have little knowledge.)
 
Because it makes them sound like idiots, just like Mormons don't like answering questions about their magic Mormon underpants because it makes them sound like complete and utter lunatics.
 
Because it makes them sound like idiots, just like Mormons don't like answering questions about their magic Mormon underpants because it makes them sound like complete and utter lunatics.
 
The internal logic is that if unprepared people come into contact with "confidential material" it will be physically harmful to them.
Scientologists never raise this arguement in public because:
1. It is demonstrably wrong.
2. It would make them sound even stranger.
The PR logic is that if you don't talk about out you can tacitly deny it, or leave people doubting that it is true - just because it is so weird.

It really is a quite a bizzare attitude for a "religion" to take. What sort of question would you have to ask a Catholic Bishop, or a Buddhist monk to make them walk out of an interview? Surely if you were to ask a Christian about some of the more bizzare aspects of Christian doctrine - like deuteronomy, or Genesis, then you'd expect either to get a homily on the nature of faith, or the arguement that those are "stories" - that they convey in a deeper meaning that the unbelievable form is irrelevant.
Scientologists never react like that. One has to wonder why.
 
Back
Top