[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by netscape 6 *
I know of a quite a few churches that would be happy to have you come in for service, even if they did not think you lived a Bibilicaly moral life.
[quote]
So would scientologists.
One might say the same thing about scientologists.
This breathtaking reasoning of yours is entirely specious. The point of fact is that someone could easily level the very criticisms outlined by seaworthy that define so-called “cults” against all religions. Yes, one can argue against them. So can one argue against them being applied to Scientology.
That’s the whole point.
Either we admit that Scientology is a religion or we call all religions cults. At least, if you’re going to use seaworthy’s Soc. book as the rationale, your arugmentation is going to be completely subjective and therefore subject to being interpretation. Without an objective definition of cults that separates them from mainstream religions, there really is no difference that can be adequately described. Now, you may feel netscape 6 that Scientology is somehow problematic, but until you can show me how in comparison to other religions there doesn’t seem to be any teeth to what you are saying.
Well, JS Princeton, it’s all there in black in white. You can play the semantics game, but to me the differences between the CoS and real religions are far more profound than the similarities.
They’re scum, plain and simple.
I don’t find these debates to be fun or entertaining in the slightest, and I really have no interest in changing your opinion, so I’m just gonna leave this alone and go back to GQ where this mess all started.
Also, my saying “you are coming across as obtuse” was not meant to be an insult. It appeared you were doing this intentionally. My apologies if you were insulted.
Given that he has managed to convince millions of people that his greatest work of fiction (scientology) is in fact a work of truth, you’d have to say he was an exceptional writer.
Let the courts decide. If Scientology is truly responsible, then why hasn’t it been held responsible by the courts? Are the courts flawed? Did someone somehow give you the ability to mete out the divine eyes of justice to determine how things happened? I’m really curious because all you’ve demonstrated is that you’ve bought a lot of argumentation hook-line-and-sinker without even considering the counterclaim. That’s pretty shoddy debating if you ask me.
I can run down a rather long list of people who have felt other religions have harassed them upon leaving. Certain vocal critics of Christianity receive death-threats and outright harrassment. Do they blame Christianity? No. They blame the idiots who believe that they are doing right by God in carrying out such acts.
Same consideration should be held for Scientology.
[joke]By the way, “Scientology” doesn’t kill pets, people kill pets.[/joke]
Oh, and other religions don’t? Have you watched the 700 Club?
What religion allows people to leave? What does Scientology as a Church specifically do to stop them and how is it at all different from some of the things loonies in other mainstream churches have done?
Yathink you could find for us a source that isn’t biased on the subject? I mean, if I told you that Christianity was evil and then referred you to a former Christian’s website would that be a legitimate way to prove it by you?
And furthermore, the man got paid. I don’t see how the Church of Scientology “perverted” the legal system any more than, say, the Diocese of Boston did when dealing with the whole sex abuse scandal. This is all par-for-the-course stuff in religions. It is not unique to Scientology. It’s just easy for us to pile on here because there are, frankly, not very many Scientologists around to defend themselves and it’s currently “ok” to attack new religions. I think it’s disingenuous and without basis. To insist that Scientology holds a special place in lunacy and/or dangerousness compared to other religions.
Some do. That’s actually a taught tactic for evangelism among some Christians. They don’t “reveal their hand” until the “time is right”.
And it’s an outright lie to say Scientology keeps its practice and dogma secret. Dianetics is a book you can read for yourself. That there are “secrets” is supposed to be problematic? Why on Earth is that? I mean, why can’t you set up your religion the way you want to?
Like the LDS church and the Freemasons. Riiiiight.
If you really don’t care that anyone else has done it, then you clearly must think that these other religions are just as problematic and dangerous as Scientologists.
Will you agree that Catholics and Protestants are dangerous or problematic?
All I can say is, France and Germany–two countries which the vast majority of SDers would say are more tolerant/accepting than the US–are coming down pretty hard on Scientology.
There’s got to be a reason why.
My definition of a cult is an individual organization that tells you that you cannot obtain salvation elsewhere. If the 700 Club says that if you can’t obtain salvation if you don’t watch them or don’t give them money, then the 700 Club is indeed a cult.
Scientology is a cult. Christianity in general is not. Catholicism in general is not. Neither is Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc. FreeMasonry, AFAIK, is not about salvation.
If your grandmother’s church tells her that she can’t be saved unless she goes to that particular church, and unless she gives that particular church money, then she belongs to a cult. Get it?
Twist words and semantics all you want but there is no comparision between the great religions of the world and Scientology.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think this qualifies as an argument at all. ALl you need to do is explain the profundity. Here’s what I see:
Certain members of the CoS exhibit the church as authoritative, fond of using legal muscle, secretive, and actively tries to silence critics.
I don’t see that as being profoundly different from other mainstream religions. Granted, there are those that appear more innocuous than Scientology, but there are plenty of examples of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects that engage in such practices.
I guess the question can be asked, can you blame the CoS as a religion for the excesses of individual members? Remember, there are millions of people who are in the CoS who don’t engage in these detrimental tactics. I think it’s unfair to level undue criticism on the group as a whole.
Maybe you think that the CoS hierarchy is problematic in-and-of-itself. Then compare it to other Church hierarchies and see what goes on, e.g. the Vatican. I honestly don’t see the profound difference and, no, I’m not just being argumentative.
This is incorrect. Or rather, this is incorrect as far as the conventional definition of “religion” goes.
In fact, Scientology has more in common with the Unification Church, Branch Davidian, and The People’s Temple than with Christianity and Buddhism, say.
But you say that Christianity in general isn’t a cult, but I am here to tell you that this very sort of dogma exists in the vast majority of Churches. That is the way it has been for hundreds or thousands of years in some cases. As I said, it seems to me that you aren’t being fair in the application of your definition. All I’m saying is that these types of statements are made by people in religions because that’s the nature of the way religions do business.
If you set up a religion where you really didn’t care if people gave you money or whether people believed in your particular brand of spirituality/theology/doctrine/practice/belief, I think you’d be hard pressed to keep said religion going. There has to be something which convinces you to stay there. Generally speaking, all religions at their core (with the possible exception of Unitarians) tie their beliefs to an idea of hegemony of power, principle, and, yes, economic support.
Like moving to ban religious clothing items in school or throwing musicians in jail? The notion that France and Germany are more tolerant/accepting than the US is ridiculous, at best.
Anyhoo, when members of the CoS start slamming planes into buildings or strapping explosives to themselves in the belief that they will get 70-some virgins in the great beyond, let me know. Then they will qualify as a dangerous cult. Until then, however, they are just some oddball religion that for some reason is OK to slam on.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the conventional definition of a religion is: a belief system that has been around for a while.
In what quantifiable or objective ways?
We’re supposed to just take your word for it?
I can tell you one way that they’re similar: they’re all new religions. Does that mean they necessarily have more in common?
Do be quite frank: if you did a point-by-point comparison of the beliefs and practices of the Scientologists with the Moonies, for example, do you really think they would have MORE in common with them than, say, a Tibetan Buddhist Temple?
Well, in point-of-fact, Scientology does not talk about salvation in the same sense Christianity talks about salvation. So I guess by your definition Scientology isn’t a cult?
Have you ever seen an employment application for a Scientology center? They are blatantly illegal. How can the organization manage to serve such applications without legal action? Is it because of the “religion status”? If you can fathom the invasion of privacy question, it’s in the application.
Well, JSP, did Hubbard originally start a religion, or a business? (I’ve got the Astounding with the original Dianetics article.) Why did Dianetics, a business, become Scientology, a religion (and thus protected by the Constitution.) Could it be because the law was on Hubbard’s tail?
Your claim that religions don’t let people leave is a lie. Some of the more cultlike religions do, but I know lots of people switching Protestant churches with no problems. No Rabbinical enforcers ever got after me when I stopped going to shul.
Your mention of the Inquisition is extremely interesting. If it were still going on today (and of course it is not) anyone defending it would be an immoral piece of crap. I’m sure you agree.
Two personal experiences. An old girlfriend’s brother got money sucked out of him by Scientologists. They actually got it back because he was under age, something the CoS cared nothing about. A friends brother joined the church, had a high position, and was kept from having his children contact their grandparents. Sounds like a cult to me.
The courts can’t make a determination when no case has been laid before them. Scientology has made huge inroads into the city of Clearwater, Florida where Lisa McPherson died. There is extraordinary political pressure brought to bear on any authority which attempts to run against Scientology – in this case, charges were dropped because the prosecutors were wary that the medical examiner was not willing to give full and complete testimony as to the nature of Lisa McPherson’s injuries and her overall condition at the time of her death. There are affadavits on file from employees in the medical examiner’s office about weird goings-on at the time the case was pending, such goings-on pointing to typical Scientology harassment tactics.
There is no counterclaim. It’s not argued, by anyone, that Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist. It is not argued that she was significantly malnourished, dirty, bruised and covered in bug bites when she died. Her body was in deplorable condition.
It is not also not argued that Lisa McPherson was taken to a Clearwater hospital after she was involved in a car accident and observed by paramedics to be acting erratically. It is not argued that Scientologists came and removed Ms. McPherson out of the hospital because their official doctrine opposes psychiatric and psychological treatment and McPherson was set for psychiatric observation due to her behavior.
It is not argued that Lisa McPherson’s whereabouts between that day and the day of her death are unverifiable by Scientology’s own records.
It is not argued that Scientology has a specific “methodology” which is to be used on members who have suffered psychiatric breakdowns, a program called the Introspection Rundown. Former Scientologists who are well aware of the organization’s practices have described the Introspection Rundown as a period during which the suffering member is placed in isolation until they are able to explain the cause of their breakdown to the satisfaction of their Scientology minders.
It is not argued that the state of Lisa McPherson’s body at the time of her death are consistent with someone who was mentally unstable and confined (in an unclean place, as many of the areas of one of Scientology’s Clearwater properties happened to be at the time) in isolation without access to adequate food and water.
(It’s also not argued that Lisa is just one of four people who died under mysterious circumstances while at – or supposedly at – the Fort Harrison hotel, the CoS main property in Clearwater. But that’s another story.)
Where was Lisa McPherson from November 18 to December 5? Scientologists seem to know, though their otherwise meticulous records do not coincide with their official statements nor with the evidence as contained within Lisa’s corpse. Why won’t the organization in Clearwater cooperate with authorities and McPherson’s family in investigating her death if they have no culpability?
For an organization as concerned with their public image as Scientology otherwise is, why would they want to put forth any indication that they are disinterested in finding the truth behind Lisa’s death and helping the police and her next of kin unless they have something to hide? Why has the CoS publicly defamed Lisa’s family and their legal representation if CoS has no culpability in her demise?
There is also no argument that since Lisa McPherson died, the CoS now requires members to sign a waiver before beginning an Introspection Rundown.
If you look at the Lisa McPherson Trust’s website you can see the released court documents. You can see the CoS logs. You can see the documents from the Clearwater police department. You can see the ruling which suspended the license of the CoS staff doctor who prescribed drugs for Lisa sight unseen. You can say that the family is biased, are the CoS logs biased? Was the police department biased?
Well, are any of the people who carry out harassment in the name of Christianity private investigators who are paid by attorneys who are in the private employ of Christ or some Christian denomination? Because that’s who was responsible for the harassment of Stacy and Vaughn Young in the Seattle, Washington area, a well-known Los Angeles based PI who is retained by the CoS’s cheif in-house counsel. That same PI has run afoul of the law on numerous occasions, including a charge of impersonating a officer of the peace (a police officer) in the state of Florida.
Yet another difference between other churches and the CoS.
I don’t know of any Christian church or branch of Judaism which has a doctrine teaching that people who have a change of heart away from the faith or attendance of a particular congregation should still be obligated to pay their annual tithes or membership due. You’d be hard pressed to find any religion whose (sub)organizational headquarters has a policy to sue former members who publicly criticize the faith with the following stated purpose;
That’s direct from L. Ron himself. That’s what he says should be done to former CoS members who publicly state their dissatisfaction with their former church. Unless you can show anything remotely similar from any other religion, you have to agree as a matter of plain faced logic that CoS uses unusual tactics against its critics with an express purpose of causing enough upheaval in their lives that they feel forced to shut up and go away. Not to protect its copyrights, not to end libel or slander, not to uphold the dignity of the church, but to destroy anyone who dares speak against it. Ruin them utterly.
Have you ever heard of the word “whistleblower?” Former insiders of Scientology are the best source of (damning) information about the organization because of its closed nature. Outsiders do not have the ability to know about CoS practices because they’re all kept behind closed doors, in copyrighted manuals and out of the public eye, and the doctrine demands their secrecy. The “disgruntled former adgerent/employee” argument only goes so far. It simply cannot be used to nullify the reports of literally thousands of those in the know about CoS.
The attacks that these people have endured lend credence to their claims; if they were all liars who were just making things up to try to discredit a church in which they no longer believed, why would the CoS go to such lengths – even so far as creating a specific doctrine on the matter – to try to prevent them from sharing their stories instead of trying to disprove the claims by presenting evidence to the contrary?
Heh, the parallels Princeton is using are getting more desparate each post. 500 year old christian persecutions somehow make Scientology ok. Hes drawing parallels by the actions of multibillion member religions and other cults and thinks that somehow makes Scientology ok. How that applies to the OP is lost on me.
Let me repeat the OP. “What exactly is the problem with Scientology?”. The question isnt “is Scientology worse than other religions or cults?”. The problems with Scientology have been mentioned by multiple posters. The onus is on Blake and Princeton to show how pet slayings and persecutions, bilking, etc. are not problems or disprove them.
However, religious freedom law is very sensitive to the needs of a religion. If the religion gets federal funding (for charity work, e.g.), it is covered under privacy laws, EEO, etc. Many religions have problems with such laws and so forgo federal funding. Scientology has a right to set-up itself in the same legal setting as any other religion. Just because it’s a new religion doesn’t mean it shouldn’t receive the same considerations.
The exile is saying that, not God. The exile thinks doing that would be great. Given the eye for eye mentality of the time, it was what the exile thought would be just. Babylon had just killed many of Jewish children.
If I were I were to say blessed is anyone who shoots your kids*. Would that be reflective of God or me?
It’s not alogizing if’s the truth.
Care to explain to me why the “church” of scientology felt all those cats and dogs in that animal shelter deserved to die?
from an earlier link:
You can read the rest of it here for those you who don’t feel like going to Nanoda’s link to it in this thread.
Intimidiation of witnesses to a murder, sounds likes something the mafia would do.
*I am not saying that. They are going to have enough troubles having a scientologist for a parent. For one thing
