Narconon is a popular free anti-drug program provided to some schools in California. "Its lectures have reached 1.7 million children around the nation in the last decade, Narconon officials said, and more than 30,000 San Francisco students since 1991." (source)

Narconon describes themselves thusly on their website:


They do not dispute that their methods and theories are highly influenced by L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, which many consider a religion.

The San Francisco Chronicle article states:


Questions for debate:
1. Given the close ties to Scientology, and the fact that the message sent by Narconon is largely the teachings of Scientology, should this anti-drug program be considered a form of religion?

2. If yes, should we be exposing our children to this program in schools while denying other religions the opportunity to do this, violating the separation of church and state?

3. If no, why do you feel this anti-drug program is not a direct extension of Scientology?

I don't think we can really even address these questions without backing the analysis up one step further and deciding whether or not Scientology itself is really a "religion" in the first place. Many people disagree on the issue. Some see the minimum definition of a religion as requiring a belief system anchored in and articulated around a basic commitment to a supranatural being or entity; in this respect, Scientology does not fit the bill. Others with a more expansive definition of religion would include belief systems that are anchored and articulated around a committment simply to a principle, and Scientology arguably could fall into the latter.

The Church of Scientology itself is very secretive about its inner core beliefs, and if you ask them they won't just tell you. Anyone looking for an anti-Scientology site that reveals much about scientology might want to try looking at Operation Clambake. If you'd like to skip ahead and just read Scientology's most closely held secret, jump here to learn about the secret of Xenu.

Well, I'm torn on this.

On the one hand, I think that Scientology is right on the border between being a laughably stupid collection of people who have fallen for one of the biggest con tricks of history - a made up religion by a man who is on record as saying that the easiest way to become very rich is to invent a new religion - and a dangerous cult that brainwashes and then robs people unwary or unlucky enough to stray too close to it.

On the other, I remember reading just the other day that the Twelve Step program at the centre of Alcoholics Anonymous (and NA, and other such organisations) has two steps relating to acknoledging the presence of a higher power, and then placing oneself in the power of God to heal. So it's pretty dependent on a monotheist worldview. As an borderline agnostic/atheist, I'm glad I'm not addicted to anything, as I'm afraid I just can't take any idea seriously if it is predicated on being a believer. But at the same time, AA and co do do some good things for addicts of all descriptions.

So I'm tempted to say we shoul judge Narconon on their results in drug edcucation and rehabilitation, and not on their underlying motvies. It's probably better to be a Scientologist than a junkie - even if you still end up forking over rather too much money to someone else, your life isn't really at risk.

A Unitarian atheist we knew belonged to Alcoholics Anonymous. He considered his "higher power" the Unitarian Universalist congregation he belonged to, so that was how he rationalized his adherence to all of the 12 steps.

Is it possible to adopt a system totally devoid of moral concepts from any religion? I do not think so. I think if we dig deeply enough, we can find some religious teaching somewhere that has originated any principle in any organization.

While it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that the inspiration of NARCANON was in no small part inspired by L. Ron Hubbard, I have to look at how effective the program is in keeping people drug-free.

Some substances are excreted through the skin in a steam room. While it may not be totally correct scientifically, it does provide a ritual of sorts that helps people feel cleaner. The steam room or sauna replaces getting the fix to produce a sense of well-being. Perhaps it is better for them to "sweat out" impurities than to dwell on the fact that some substances alter the brain permanently.

Are people being ordered by judges to join this program?

1.)It should be considered a form of religion, especially since "the church" of scientology does receive tax exempt status(they've fought rather hard to earn it) not only that, but it is religious in nature. I found this descriptor of the group from the New York Times:



It is absolutely inappropriate that non-scientific viewpoints are allowed at all in schools. It would be intellectually irresponsible to put such rantings into the school curriculum in any way.

2.)I believe this question is somewhat inaccurate. It's unconstitutional that any religious viewpoint would be the system of choice for an anti-drug program for a public school.

That in and of itself is a very compelling argument for holding Scientology accountable to the standards and status of being a "religion" with regard to the separation of church and state. Here is an amazing article on the 25 year battle between Scientology and the IRS:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/nytimes.html

yes, as all 12-step programs should be. did you know the twelve steps can be found in the christian bible? I would put money on it that L. ron hubbard got many of "his" ideas forsteps to better living from the bible as well (likely the same verses that inspired the 12 steps. by the way, AA was started WAY befor scientology, so it is likely that it is where L. ron got "his" ideas.

2. If yes, should we be exposing our children to this program in schools while denying other religions the opportunity to do this, violating the separation of church and state?

I'm sort of split on this issue. I view the 12 step programs (any and all of them) more as quasi-religious/spiritual cults than actually religion. (The Twelve Step Cult) they are not exclusive based on your perception of a higher power. I'm sure there are muslim, jewish and christians that participate in 12 step programs. these groups all have varying ideas of what "god" or "higher power" means. step 2 evidences this as PE mentioned, A Unitarian atheist they knew belonged to Alcoholics Anonymous. He considered his "higher power" the Unitarian Universalist congregation he belonged to. most AA groups wouldn't say he could be in aa because he didn't believe in a sky pixie (AKA "god") however where I'm split on this is that I view as an weakness to believe in gods or higher powers at all. this is one place where various religions bug me, by saying things like "it's how "god" wants it" or "god/goddess/whatever help me with this or that problem" I view it all as an opiate to help releive people of their responsibilties and to make it so it is THIER fault there SOL. it moves the responsibility from your shoulders onto someone elses. (in essence) in other words I think ALL religious beliefs should be discouraged and people should be taught to take responsibilty for THIER actions (as I learned when I was 13 or so: every action you make/take has a consequence.)

3If no, why do you feel this anti-drug program is not a direct extension of Scientology?

for the same reason I do not view AA, NA, GA, OEA and all the other "anonymous" programs as a direct extension of christianity. the 12 steps are somewhat sound ideas and when looked at secularly some make a lot of sense. for example admitting you are powerless over a given situation and need help with it. social change rarely, if ever, is the result of one person. it usually takes a group to effect REAL and lasting change. step 4 (made a searching and fearless invetory of oursleves) lets us see what we do wrong and to work to make that better, and it also shows us what we do that is right as well. in reality there are only a couple of the steps I do not like, such as "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of our Higher Power," this just seems like a cop-out to have "god" change us and do nothing for ourselves. kind of like people saying "oh, IU geuss it's god's will" type of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.


now whether narconon or anything else like should be taught in schools, I say no. e3specially with statements like "Narconon's anti-drug instruction rests on these key church concepts: that the body stores all kinds of toxins indefinitely in fat, where they wreak havoc on the mind until "sweated" out." an as the article states, there is no medical facts to back this up (though SOME things, THC for example, ARE highly fat soluble, (which can lead to being detected up to 3 MONTHS after ending use of MJ) most substances are out of your system withing 72 hours) but this goes along the same lines of teaching creationism in science, the empirical data doesn't support it. of course people don't always care if the data backs something up (otherwise most people would be atheist or agnostic)