I’ve been participating in the CS thread about the tragic death of John Travolta’s teenaged son, and I noticed that a lot of folks are suggesting, if not outright doing it, that his death has some connection to the Travolta’s membership in Scientology and the church’s (?) stance on autism.
I am nominally a member of the Roman Catholic church, and a Christian. I don’t go to church. I would be incredibly offended if someone assumed that because of my baptism and occasion attendance at mass, that I followed and believed everything that the RCC says or does. I also know that my particular nomination has probably caused more bloodshed and heartache than most out there (partly because of corruption, and partly because it’s so danged old).
There are so many sites out there dishing the dirt on Scientology - and I suspect a lot of it is true. I’ve seen the famous BBC Panorama documentary when the reporter loses his shit after being stalked by members of the church. Having said that, I suspect that some people have found some kind of connection to spirituality through it, and people are entitled to find happiness however they wish, as long as they aren’t hurting anybody.
Having said all of that… I can’t work up any hatred for someone who’s a Scientologist, simply for that reason. I can dislike Tom Cruise because of his douchiness and belief that he actually knows more than psychologists and the like because he’s famous, but I suspect he’s the sort who would be obnoxious about his belief, whether he was a Scientologist or whatever. But a lot of folks on this board seem to think that belonging to this church is fair game for being ridiculed, mocked, etc.
I’m no Scientology apologist, and I’m quite familiar with the anti-sites, and I know that there are disturbing reports of people dying under odd circumstances in the care of church members, etc. But I think anti-Scientology sentiments are becoming an acceptable prejudice, and I think that’s wrong.
Gotta disagree. They deserve every gram of hate and bile people heap on them. They can all contract scabies and plague and jock itch and rot for all I care. I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on one if they were on fire. All members are fair game, because having joined this cult, they have proven that they are unfit to live.
What a load of shit. John Travolta deserves to be insulted over the death of his son?
If you’re willing to apply that standard to the adherents of almost every religion, fair enough. If not, you’re a hypocrite. There’s a billion Catholics in the world and their beliefs are every bit as ridiculous as Scientology and the apparatus of their religion responsible for vasty more misery and horrer.
I’m willing to say that I, for one, am one of the ones that is extremely biased against Scientology. Do with that what you will. I think you’re misinterpreting a lot of the Anti-Scientology bias out there though.
Nobody disputes that people should have a right to do whatever they want. I’m sure that being in Scientology has helped some people in some ways and many of the members see things, at least things they are ALLOWED to see, positively. Maybe they learn to lead better lives. Their propaganda machine would certainly like you to think so.
Most of the problems people have with Scientology (that I have) are their methods, things like: Trying to keep things secret, requiring large sums of money for their “services”, people randomly disappearing and/or dying, and even brainwashing and other extremes. That coupled with the fact that to your average rational person, most of what Scientology teaches is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it’s hard for them to fathom anyone ever believing any of it. To me, someone belonging to it says something deep about their character that cannot be ignored, and that is the basis for my bias. I don’t feel any benevolence on Scientology’s part for just helping people, I believe they more or less prey on the weak-minded and otherwise down on their luck individuals and promise them the world, and then slowly take whatever those people have left away from them.
I’m pretty anti-religious in general, but for the most part, I’ve see a lot of good come from established religions. I’ve yet to see ANYTHING AT ALL good come out of Scientology. Until then, and with all of the above factors considered, it’s enough for me to condemn them until something pretty drastic happens.
Why shouldn’t it be fair game for mockery? Just because it’s called a religion doesn’t make their beliefs any more rational.
How is it “prejudice” to discriminate against people on the basis of them funding a criminal organisation? A number of high-ranking members of the church, including the founder’s wife, have in the past been convicted of conspiracy against the United States government, for the benefit of the church. It’s like accusing people of prejudice against the Mafia.
Remember, Scientology is known to be fake. Its founder publically opined that one could start a fake religion to take advantage of religious tax breaks, then started Scientology.
Given that people seem to be jumping to entirely unsupported conclusions in that other thread (hollywood gossip sheets? on straightdope?), I would say that yes, Scientology hatred has gone too far. Lets wait until after we have some reason to think that John did something wrong before jumping on him. We can always condemn him tomorrow, after all.
I’d pit you, but it just isn’t worth it. “Unfit to live?” How about “unfit to post?”
You do realize that people who join the cult are (at least at first) innocent victims of the cult? How does that make them worthy of scorn? And besides, membership in a dangerous cult should be punishment enough. Further scorn is unnecessary.
I think you have to draw a distinction between the leaders of the organization, and the majority of members who are basically victims. Scientology isn’t a religion, it’s a scam, a legalized extortion racket. The people at the top are the moral equivalent of mafioso, but the rank and file members are mostly just marks.
Having said that, we don’t know that Scientology had anything to do with the death of Travolta’s son, and this far, no reason to believe that it was anything other than an unfortunate accident.
That still doesn’t mean that the leaders of the operation (I refuse to call it a church) are not scum, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they’re responsible for this kid cracking his skull in the bathtub.
Where I draw the line is with people, especially celebrities, who publicly support the tenets of their church. One could make the same claim about Orson Scott Card, who’s recently made several statements denouncing homosexuality, despite having written novels (esp. Songmaster) which portray homosexuality in a positive light. Perhaps he’s being pressured by the Mormon Church to make these statements, but the bottom line is that he is the one making them, nobody’s forcing him to make them, and our only choice is to take his words at face value.
Naturally, I feel sympathy for Travolta & his wife in this tragedy – but he’s been a Scientology poster boy for decades, so these are fair questions to ask, I think.
Well, I can’t argue about that latter line, but I must disagree with the former. Seeing as we’re not in GD, I’ll leave it at that. Of course, seeing as I am Catholic, my bias is clear.
As for the scientology hate, well, it’s best not to judge people, or at least not judge completely. Mockery and ridicule are a different story, although those behaviors also can be disgusting unless it’s either playful or with a specific purpose.
If that is the case, then the only thing separating it from Christianity is that Scientologists know they are ripping people off. In an odd way it makes them more rational.
As far as I’m concerned, no one who is a member of an organized religion can criticize Scientology without being a hypocrite. Anyone who doesn’t believe in religion can hate on Scientology as much as they want.
This isn’t fair. There are fundamental differences, the primary one being that Christian denominations do not charge their members money to find out what their doctrines are. Even if you belive (as I do) that the metaphysical claims of the Catholic Church are no more plausible than those of Scientology, at least the Catholic Church will tell me its beliefs for free.
And they don’t wait until you are a bishop to to let you in on the great secret that Jesus really came from the planet Zeist, and Satan is really an interplanetary assassin.
So anyone with an irrational belief can’t criticize someone else with an irrational belief without being hypocrites? But EVERYONE has irrational beliefs, including you, including me, and including athiests. (or is it just when their irrational beliefs are in the same vein that they become hypocrites? could you explain this one to me?)
Now, I usually try to search out and eradicate my irrational beliefs, but I don’t always spot them on my own. That means I need someone to give me some constructive criticism when they see that I have irrational or conflicting beliefs. And I really can’t expect everyone who gives me criticism to be perfect themselves, (or I would be waiting a long long time before I would accept it. And that would make me a real jerk. Never accepting criticism and always feeling free to criticize others. Oh, right, and that would also make me a hypocrite! [just a thought for you, Lakai.])
I can’t recall an OP’s question ever being answered so definitively, so quickly. **silenus **says “No” and, in the process, proves “Yes” to be true. Fascinating.
I love Scientology and Scientologists. They provide a delicious scam that really exists, a vicious cabal of greedy, manipulative hypocrites profiting off a mass of innocent gullible dupes, and getting away with it because they hide behind the banner of “religion.” You can’t make this shit up. Literally. If you did, you’d get all the theists playing the “insulted” card they pull out of their asses with the IPU, and with the Pastafarians, but if you stick with the Scientologists, they can’t say boo.
Not that they don’t still say “boo” a lot–but they look silly saying it. So hooray for Scientology!
The vast difference between the SC and the “regular” churches is the willingness to help you without pay. I guarantee you could attend 4 meetings a week at a standard evangelical church and have no one the wiser as to what you’re contributing in money. Your guilt at the “stewardship” sermons is between you and God, but you’ll not be turned away based on your checks.
Their Headquarters are just a few miles up the road from me and I’m a known associate here. Please be careful of what you say about them. (just a joke, ya know)
If people can be taken in by a scam called a religion that was founded by a failed science fiction writer, there is no hope for them. Rather the average member deserves opprobrium, I can’t say. But the folk in charge of the organization deserve all the opprobrium that we can muster. How in the hell they ever managed to get themselves defined as a main stream church, with all the attendant benefits, is beyond me.
Tom Cruise, however, deserves nothing but scorn for his vaunted membership and beliefs. I am only throwing his name out because I despise the man.