I see no real difference between Scientology and any other belief system. Wanting people to pay up front is a good thing, as it puts up a barrier to entry.
ETA: In reading the other replies, I’m baffled by the idea that it’s bad for them to charge to be a member. If you think their ideas are wrongheaded, you want to slow the dissemination of them. That’s what requiring payment does. It’s keeping them small. If you want them to be small, that’s a good thing.
On the flip side, it also gives people more reason to stay with the ‘church’. The longer they’ve been a member, the more they’ve invested in it in a very literal sense.
Remember, the biggest reason people dislike Scientology isn’t the beliefs themselves, but the behaviour of the organization. It’s like a 419 scam–by the time you realize you’ve been taken in, you’re already out the money. They’re not a church, they’re a cult, and the harm that they cause is very real.
Well put.
I certainly have no love for Scientology’s take on mental illness and its treatment and feel that the organization does a great deal of harm, but that in no way justifies the blind hatred that silenus demonstrates nor the exploitation of whatever personal tragedy that happens to befall a Scientologist as fair game for made up shit.
Such behaviors only undermine the efforts to fight against the real harms of Scientology.
I do not see a difference between a church and a cult. Sorry. It’s all on the same continuum to me–differences in degree rather than kind, and at times the differences in degree aren’t substantial.
And yes, the further people get in the more reason they have to stay. That’s true of every organization in the history of the world. People don’t like to be wrong, so they won’t admit to being wrong. It’s true of the stock market. It’s true of small business owners. It’s true of members of a political party, members of a religion, and members of the Lion’s Club.
How bizarre that one can be member of an organization, and when it’s assumed that the member believes in all the tenets of that organization, that’s actually “incredibly” offensive.
I am not familiar with the details of Scientology but I had the impression that at least some of them tend to regard standard medicine and medications with skepticism. So one question that might come up is whether or not an individual with a seizure disorder had had access to at least basic efforts to control it. I have no idea what Mr Travolta had sought in terms of medical care, or whether his son had been diagnosed as an epileptic, or whether or not any recommendations were followed or not, so I take no position here.
I am unwilling, in general, to make an inference from the outside regarding any parent’s best efforts to take care of their children, but if a parent’s personal beliefs prevent medical care and if that lack of medical care results in a potentially avoidable problem, I wouldn’t say the one is entirely unrelated to the other. I reiterate that I do not know if that is the case here.
Since the organization in question is famous for its secretive doctrines and manipulative practices, it’s kind of hard to say whether the hate for them has gone too far or not. That’s the risk you take when you try to sue everybody who looks at you cross-eyed into oblivion.
Admittedly I’m no fan of Scientology (nor, truth be told, of John Travolta), but this particular situation doesn’t seem like an unmotivated excuse to bash Scientology at random-- in this case, the argument is that the religion might have contributed to Jett Travolta’s death, since Scientology evidently doesn’t recognize the diagnosis of certain disorders as legitimate.
It’s noteworthy that, even before the kid’s death, others suspected that he might have autism. If the parents didn’t seek proper treatment because of their belief in Scientology, then that belief is deserving of criticism. If the kid really wasn’t autistic to begin with, then that criticism is not relevant here-- although it leaves open the question of how other Scientologists with autistic relatives are advised.
In my opinion, Scientology hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt. They court celebrities like Travolta for the publicity; so if the man’s personal tragedy also sheds unwanted light on the Church’s policy on autism, that seems only fair. If Scientology can give me success and power over the women like John Travolta, I would also like to know if its practices might cause my child’s head to implode.
If Travolta were a member of the snake-handling religion, and his kid turned up dead from symptoms consistent with reptile envenomation, there’d be hard questions about that too. As it happens, Travolta’s church doesn’t recognize certain types of developmental disorders, and now his kid appears to be dead from a seizure.
Did Scientology prevent the boy from getting proper treatment? You’ll have to sue them to find out.
Why is that strange? If we all were only members of organizations that we agree with 100%, well the world would have a hell of a lot of organizations with only one member.
I think it’s a given that most organizations that people belong to of any size greater than four or five people that there will be stances or positions that the group takes that individuals are not in favor of. Some people would argue “then you should quit!” but that’s ridiculous. My employer does not grant domestic partners benefits, for example. I have participated in petitions and so forth about this, but I doubt very seriously I will quit my job over that issue. Rather, the pressure from employees and others will eventually lead to this prohibition being overturned (I think and hope).
Similarly, I don’t assume that because someone is a member of the Boy Scouts of America, that they’re homophobic.
Is it really too much to ask people to take the time to learn individual’s preferences and stances before assuming that every single aspect of a belief or value system is held to the highest degree? I wouldn’t think so, especially with religion. I can think of friends and acquaintances who are Muslim, Baptist, Catholic, and Jewish that don’t follow all of the tenets of their religion to the nth degree, and I suspect that’s not uncommon.
Not the disagreement part. The idea that assuming agreement with the organization that one actually belongs to is actually considered incredibly offensive. That’s what’s strange.
I can certainly imagine being part of an organization that I do not agree with 100%. I cannot imagine being part of one where when other people assume I agree with all its tenets I become “incredibly offended” at the idea. That does not seem bizarre to you?
This is sort of how I feel. I’m much more disdainful of someone at the highest level behaving badly (think of all the televangelists who scammed and stole from their congregations) than I am of people who are the rank and file. I suspect that most Scientologists aren’t high level operatives.
Let’s suppose that you have a Muslim friend and you know that some adherents of the faith wear hijabs (the headscarf that women wear). If you don’t see her wearing one, isn’t it reasonable to assume that she doesn’t subscribe to that belief, or she belongs to a different sect? Would you approach her and ask why she isn’t wearing a hijab?
Would you assume that because someone is Catholic that they’re pro-life?
I think if you walk around with these types of assumptions you’re going to encounter a lot of blowback.
I think you are missing my point.
It’s perfectly reasonable to me that people do not follow all the tenets of their religion.
It’s perfectly reasonable to me that one should not assume people follow all the tenets of their religion.
What’s bizarre is that when somebody assumes you follow all the tenets of your religion, you become “incredibly offended”. I cannot think of any example where I might self-identify as part of some organization, but find some of its tenets so heinous that the when people assume, because of my identification with that organization, that I follow those tenets, I take high offense at the simple assumption.
Perhaps you simply did not mean to say you are “incredibly offended”, but something much less strong? Surely it’s not that unreasonable an assumption that a self-identified member of the Roman Catholic church follows the tenets of the Roman Catholic church?
Okay, perhaps “incredibly offended” is the wrong term. But as someone who is not particularly devout at this point in my life, it seems presumptive to assume that all the tenets of a faith are ones that a person subscribes to. I think among the folks I primarily associate with, where faith and religion are mired in family tradition, habit, and simple comfort, it’s a given as fairly progressive thinking, independent-minded people, that we don’t follow every tenet of the faith.
With Scientologists, I figure they deserve the same deference. Though they may not have the family thing… but some do. I know the musician Beck was born into a Scientologist family. Who knows? Maybe Travolta was fired up about everything Scieno and isn’t that enthused about everything anymore.
If the child of a Christian Scientist gets sick and dies don’t you think there’s going to be some questions about whether or not the parents’ beliefs may have had something to do with the death? So when prominent members of Scientology have a son who, according to some at least, has autism and he dies it’s pretty reasonable to wonder if his parents’ beliefs was a contributing factor.
Why is it wrong to be prejudice against certain people? Perhaps that’s too broad a question. You haven’t demonstrated why it’s wrong to be prejudiced against Scientologist.
Odesio
Yeah. Why not ask?
Probably. I’d also assume they believed in transubstantiation, papal infallibility, and the virgin birth. Of course the phrase Cafeteria Catholic has been around a while so you’re probably right.
Odesio
Good point. Scientology seems worst.
If you hold beliefs that you criticize others for holding then you are a hypocrite. Any argument that is used to disprove Scientology can be used to disprove Christianity. The slight difference being that Scientologist won’t let you in on the secret unless you pay money. Still, with the standard of prove necessary for Christianity, even secrecy doesn’t mean Scientologists are wrong.
If only faith is necessary for your beliefs then how can you criticize others whose faith leads them to believe different things?
You’re not a hypocrite if you criticize me for liking George Bush while you believe in invisible elephants. But if you then make fun of me for believing in my invisible unicorn, then you’re a hypocrite.
Well, you know, its entirely possible that the only person within Scientology who actually knew, for a fact, that it was all made-up hokum was L. Ron Hubbard. Hence, it is possible that the leadership of this gigantic Crock O’ Shit are true believers, who think of their money-gouging procedures, etc., as nothing more than the necessary efforts to advance the true faith.
But note: not one Scientologist speaks herein. We have all manner of faiths represented. All manner of non-faith as well, from the shrugging agnostic to the strident atheist. We got your Baptists, your Methodists, your Hindu and your Buddhists, none of whom feel any need (apparently) to shrink from identifying themselves. Shit, we even got a couple Objectivists!
But no Scientologists.
Most of the rank and file members don’t actually know about Xenu yet, and they’re heavily discouraged from driving around unchaperoned on the information superhighway.
A big enough difference in degree IS a difference in kind; rather like the difference between an oven and a blast furnace. As I see it, a cult and a church differ in, for lack of a better word, distillation. In, a cult, everything is more extreme; the isolation from outside information and influence, and the sheer concentration of fanatics. To use the Catholic church as an example; if the Pope demanded that Catholics commit suicide, few would do so. If a cult leader does, he can likely pull it off as we see from history. The difference being that while a church has extremists, a cult IS extremists. A cult basically concentrates everything bad about religion.