# Should Scientology be destroyed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2011, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263 "2011-10-11T04:59:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263/101 "2011-10-13T23:48:21Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > No you didn’t. You didn’t qualify it with the word “some.” The first quotation is the one that I quoted and referred to. You just referred to how he was not unique among religious leaders. Adding the word “some” would have changed the implications of your sentence. That is the very kind of broadbrush painting that I object to. If you had said “some” I would have added an “Amen!” > > Maybe you were more generous in another post. I do see your other efforts to be fair. In all sincerity, how are you defining the phrase “not unique”? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263/102 "2011-10-14T01:23:56Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > You didn’t qualify it with the word “some.” The first quotation is the one that I quoted and referred to. You just referred to how he was not unique among religious leaders. Adding the word “some” would have changed the implications of your sentence. It would not have changed the implications at all. The meaning would have been the same, but the wording would have been redundant and ugly: “Hubbard was not unique among some religious leaders.” That sentence doesn’t specify who is being excluded and who is included, so anyone who was of a mind to be offended still would have been offended. I wrote exactly what I meant to write. Hubbard is not the only religious leader who was a liar and a criminal and screwed over his own family. That doesn’t mean they all did it - I don’t need to make such a broad statement and it’s too easy to disprove a statement of that type - but Hubbard is not the only one who did. I already mentioned a couple of others. I am not sure why you are reading something into the post that is not there, but you’re asking for an unnecessary exception. ---
**Author:** ![Sirreal72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Sirreal72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sirreal72)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263/103 "2011-10-14T01:39:47Z")
To answer the original question: I’d say “no”. I don’t think religions are bad. I think ORGANIZED religions can be. There are a lot of good lessons to be learned in various religous teachings… but when people start to accumulate wealth and/or power by the organization of that religion, then it becomes corrupt. If Scientologist want to preach what they believe on the sidewalks, I say let them. If they want to control the actions (and wallets) of those within the church on without, then I’d start to ask myself why that might be. I’d say the same about any religion. The best antidote to corruption is sunlight… forget who said that, but I agree. You don’t have to actually attack something to disempower it, you just need to expose it. I never knew what Scientologest believed until that episode of Southpark gave a rundown of the “mysteries” revealed (once you paid enough money) to church members. Now I think it is pretty rediculous. Don’t have to attack them… just laugh at them. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263/104 "2011-10-14T04:25:36Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > This has been covered again and again. Religion is extremely destructive, and even the milder versions serve as enablers for the more extreme variants due to the fact that they use the same exact flawed reasoning to justify themselves. You seem to expect everyone to take your statement on faith. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263/105 "2011-10-14T23:46:51Z")
A brief tangent on secular humanism has been split off from this thread. [The posts are now over here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=627891) ---
**Author:** ![Da\_Mikster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Da\_Mikster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Da_Mikster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263/106 "2011-10-14T23:48:49Z")
To finish my thought, sir. I am very confused. The subject was scientology Der Trihs responds with a blanket statement that, in his opinion, **all** religions are bogus, and that is somehow still ON topic. But my response that I find HIS stated philosophy, which in many corners HAS indeed taken on the trappings of a psuedo-faith, is depressing, is not?..and therefore should never have been posted this thread? please elucidate. Is it because he’s a long time member? Is it because this board gives preference nihilism, atheism, and humanism? I’d like an honest answer. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263/107 "2011-10-14T23:54:14Z")
**Der Trihs** ’ posts did not mention secular humanism and I’ve never seen him say that secular humanism is his faith. I don’t think he’s a secular humanist and I find it difficult to imagine him describing anything as his faith. You’re welcome to your view that secular humanism is depressing and boring, but I don’t think it’s related to Scientology or to what’s been said in this thread. Please continue that discussion in the new thread. This is the last time I’ll say it. If you continue posting about it I’ll have to warn you for ignoring staff instructions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-scientology-be-destroyed/599263.md?page=5)