Completely up for debate. The detractors say business, the religion has its own take.
Was Christian Science originally started as a religion or a business? Same deal.
In fact, it can be argued that the major religions of Japan are basically run as businesses today. Does that make them not religions? Please, apply your conditioned statements fairly. Why the pile-on wrt Scientology? It’s doing the same thing other religions get away with without anybody making a peep!
That’s an interesting interpretation. I’m sure you can make the argument for it. The fact of the matter remains, Scientology is a legally defined religion. That’s the end of the matter as far as the IRS is concerned. It did become a federal case, but the fact of the matter is, you haven’t offered a rationale why a religion can’t spring from a business – it happened before, as I pointed out.
It’s not that all religions “don’t let people leave”, it’s that they all have that tacit message in their basic beliefs with the possible exception of a few of the more theologically liberal denominations. Even there, the tacit assumption is that the “right answer” is with the Church that you attend. Theologically speaking, that’s the name of the religious game. You get it right or you get it wrong. That no rabbinical enforcers “got after you” is beside the point because I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that Judaism wasn’t a religion just because a rabbinical enforcer did get after you. It’s totally specious argumentation. It has nothing to do with whether Scientology is a religion.
Maybe it has something to do with whether Scientology is dangerous, but the fact of the matter remains is that people attack Scientology as being somehow “different” or “more problematic” than, say, Evangelical Christianity which basically engages in similar “membership” tactics. That’s ALL I’m saying. You can decide if Scientology is dangerous for yourself. What you cannot do is say it is different in kind from accepted religions in our society because there are accepted religions that behave in kind.
This is interesting. It is basically admitting to a time bias. We’ll let it go as to whether the “Inquisition” is still in existence (the Congregational Office in the Vatican still exists under a different name). So, basically, Scientology is guilty of being a religion that was started too late. If it had started in the 16th Century and then morphed its practices to something more palatable to society then the religion would be okay? Fair enough, but when you put your blinders on with respect to history and simply evaluate religions as they exist today you strip all contextual authority from your argument.
New religions are more dogmatic than old religions. They have to be, because they have to define themselves as different. That’s the whole point. They don’t have the benefit of being mainstreamed into society and defined as the “social clubs” that a lot of the mainline Churches enjoy. They actually function as religions typically do in their infancy. If it’s alarming to you, then you should look seriously at all religions, because they basically start with that sort of dogmatism and move away from it. There are indications that Scientology is in the process, as it grows, of mainstreaming itself. It’s inappropriate to assume just because we are more immediately aware of the circumstances surrounding its inception that it is somehow a totally different beast or more dangerous than any other religion to come down the pipe.
The anecdotal stories are fascinating, but we could have just as easily started a thread about Catholic abuses and declared Catholicism to be dangerous and a cult. That’s wrong, in my book. Is it wrong in yours?
Missing the forest for the trees. I’m simply saying that “conventional” definitions of religions are biased towards religions that have been around for a while. Do you think that’s not true? Name a religion that was founded in the last 100 years that hasn’t suffered the “cult” ridicule.
Just like any other religion. That’s my whole point!
Well, one way to do it is to look at the legal designation of the IRS. By that definition, Scientology definitely is a religion.
Do a comparison of Tibetan Buddhist principles, beliefs, and practices and Scientologists principles, beliefs, and practices. Scientology borrows heavily from Eastern mystical traditions which is far different from the Unification Church which uses mostly Christian templates.
This is all simply covering up for the basic fact that there was no criminal prosecution.
You cannot, in this country, call someone guilty without proving it in a court of law. The CoS is not legal responsible for the death of that individual.
The independent judicial system is a thing that this country is very good at maintaining. To claim that a city is under the hold of a nefarious religion is a matter for state or federal review. It should be dealt with by those authorities. Until that is done, I don’t see how you can claim that you have proof of harassment.
Harassment is illegal. If the CoS is harassing people it is a matter for the courts. Period.
You’re completely missing the point. The argument is that the CoS is dangerous because it murdered Lisa McPherson. Last I checked the definition of murder is a legal one, not one based on websites and ex-members drumming up criticism.
Was that illegal?
Is that illegal?
You continue on basically making no claim other than you have evidence to the effect of something that should be brought to trial. Or at least that’s what it seems to me. If that’s the case, then that’s perfectly legit. But what you completely ignore is the fact that there doesn’t seem to be enough evidence available to make the case that CoS murdered the woman.
Are they legally required to? Last I checked, the Fourth Ammendment was pretty clear about such things.
If you were a member of the organization, you could make a claim to that opinion. Fact remains, neither you nor I are members. We don’t have a right to claim that the Church should “behave” in a certain way. As long as what they are doing is legal, that’s all that matters.
You want to know why it’s so hard to prosecute the CoS? Because most of the criticisms you and other detractors level against it could easily be applied to other religions. Forget 500 years ago, there are mainstream religions that exist today that have had questionable goings-on. We don’t demand “special consideration” in cases which involve those religions because they are mainstream. That’s simply the way things are. We respect religious privacy and they are allowed to organize legally any way they want.
That’s a preposterous argument. If you were innocent of a crime and you publically defamed a person who accused you of that crime does that make you guilty? Honestly, this is absolutely ludicrous.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?
I doubt it. Still, doesn’t mean the CoS was guilty of any crimes.
I’m not splitting hairs here. I could do the same thing for the Catholic Church in their sex-abuse scandals. The issue of guilt or innocence is decided in court, not in an internet forum.
Actually, yes. There are any number of organizations that were formed to investigate, for example, abortion providers in the name of Christ. Do I think that it’s a reasonable tactic? No. But I don’t think it makes Christianity a dangerous and problematic religion. Likewise for Scientology.
Except, see, it isn’t. Just because you spend your time researching claims against CoS and not against Christianity or other mainstream religions doesn’t mean that you have a balanced picture.
I challenge you to demonstrate that that’s CoS doctrine.
You’re saying the Church isn’t allowed to sue because other churches are less inclined to use the legal instruments of this country as a tool in the defense of their faith?
Big deal. I don’t care if CoS is unusual. Other religions are unusual too. Just because they use legal tactics, they are a problematic and dangerous religion? I don’t buy it.
If you don’t believe in legal tactics being part of a religion, DON’T BECOME A MEMBER of the CoS. If you do, then that’s one less barrier to your membership. I don’t see what your crusade is all about.
Within the confines of the law.
You know, this is all rather interesting. What you are doing is criticizing the CoS from ethical standards that you have declared somehow universal. Hell, I might even agree with them. But that doesn’t mean that someone who disagrees with them is dangerous or problematic. If that were the case, we’d have laws against being like that and we’d prosecute people for acting on such behaviors.
This has always been the case WITH EVERY RELIGION. It’s not different from Scientology. When someone has an agenda against a particular religion that they used to be a part of, the BIAS IS APPARENT. That’s all I’m saying.
Except, as I mentioned before, with a little research you too can find these things on the internet. Either you agree that they exist on xenu.net or you don’t. You can’t call it secret if it’s available.
[qoute] 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.
[/quote]
It doesn’t nullify them, it simply means that they have an agenda.
Agendas aren’t in-and-of-themselves bad. They simply aren’t free from bias. That’s all I’m saying.
Hooey. Just because you’re attacked for saying things doesn’t mean you’re correct.
I dealt with this complaint above.
People can evaluate the evidence for themselves. One can do it in court, actually. That’s where this should be taking place.
If there is a case, why haven’t these people successful in taking legal action? Don’t give me the martyrdom crap. There are plenty of examples in our legal system of people with fewer resources winning legal cases against financial giants.
I just don’t buy this pile-on at all. We have a venue to deal with claims of illegality and that place is the courts. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not on the defendent in this country. That’s the way it works. Those are the rules.
This is absolutely correct. Just because one religion is larger than another doesn’t make Scientology problematic in that regard.
The beef is: Scientology isn’t particularly or peculiarly problematic. The complaints outlined by people are complaints that can also be leveled against mainstream “multibillion member” religions too. That’s why it’s disingenous to claim there is something especially dangerous or problematic with Scientology.
What I fail to see is how any of the problems are different than the problems that any other religion also has. I.e. if Scientology is problematic then so are other religions. That’s a fine thing to think, but so far few people who are engaged in the pile-on are aware that that is exactly what is required from a non-biased perspective.
Perhaps the basic problem is this: there is no objectivity when it comes to evaluating religious doctrine, dogma, or behavior. You have to apply your own standards. In the eyes of the law, there is nothing problematic about the religion of Scientology. Personally, you may have a problem with it, but there isn’t anything, as far as anyone has been able to show by me, that makes it any more problematic than religions that aren’t being attacked.
Without actually trying, JS Princeton has done the best job of answering the original question. JS, you are the best example of scientology I have ever seen.
Perhaps you should actually read my post. The point is that that particular essay is all over the internet and has been reeditted and reposted in many forms. Let me clarify my points:
one) it is clear that there are many ways to tell this story and even those that agree that Hubbard probably said the quote don’t agree on the evidence to that end.
two) EVEN IF Hubbard said such a thing, the unscrupulous behavior of a founder does not necessarily a dangerous or problematic religion make. Are Mormons problematic? Well, that’s a debate too. Religious tolerance simply says you let the religions to themselves unless they do things that are illegal. In that way, you cannot say that Mormonism nor Scientology are problematic or dangerous… they are simply religions.
In other words, if you respect the freedom of religion, then the idiosyncrasies of a particular religion are preposterous to hierarchically deliminate. They are for the members to work out, not for you. You need a frame of reference with which to evaluate a religion. Legally, Scientology is a religion, no more “problematic” than any other religion. It may have “problems” that people have pointed out, but that does not make Sceintology as a religion problematic.
I am not just parsing terms here. I fail to see how someone can say Christianity, for example, isn’t problematic or dangerous but Scientology is.
Personally, I think they are both equally unproblematic.
Well, it’s nice, netscape 6, that you have decided that God didn’t inspire or write that verse in the Bible. That’s fine. However, realize that for the great majority of Christian and Jewish history, the Bible was considered the word of God, not the word of the people who wrote it.
What you are doing is applying apologetics to the scripture. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just give the Scientologists the same right to do it with their documents. That’s all I’m asking for.
Actually, it is apologetics if you are answering a complaint (like mine). It’s OK to engage in apologetics for you. It’s also okay for Scientologists.
SIGH
You just aren’t getting it, are you?
Let’s make a few things straight about the “dead pets” argument.
There has never been a legal case brought before a court about the CoS condoning, supporting, or encouraging the abuse of animals (which is a crime, btw).
The claims that were offered on the site range from credible to ridiculous (i.e. “I found a dead pigeon… must be Scientologists!”). However, there was nothing to indicate that the CoS was the perpetrator other than the poster’s word. Why didn’t any of those people call the police? Leaving a dead animal on a doorstep is evidence of a crime. Instead they post pictures on a website? I’m sorry, that’s being an irresponsible citizen. You report crimes to the authorities, not to your cult-bashing buddies.
The actions of individuals do not represent the actions of the church. In other words, it is pretty difficult in my mind for you to claim that the church condones petkilling. Ask any Scientologist if the church condones the abuse and killing of pets.
The animal shelter in question was actually in violation of the law. They were operating an illegal animal shelter. Thankfully, the people running the shelter were able to relocate it, but it’s not the CoS’s fault that these people were operating an illegal animal shelter. It’s the government that were trying to get them to close it down, not the CoS. Why would the government want to close down an illegal animal shelter? I leave it to the reader to figure that one out.
It is the right of any citizen to issue a complaint. If you think it is harassment, you have the right to sue. The people on that site have a right to get an attorney and get to the bottom of the harassment. If the CoS is legally culpable, they have a right to hold them accountable.
However, I have done research on a lot of “cult-watchers”, and let me tell you, a lot of them aren’t as saintly as you might think. Now, I make no judgements on anybody in particular, but again you’ve taken the evidence from a site that is devoted to slamming Scientology. OF COURSE they’re going to say that Scientology is killing Rover. It only helps to bolster their case.
And it is illegal. If there is evidence of it, then it is the responsibility of those with evidence of it to bring it before the appropriate investigatory arm of the executive power of government in the area and let the wheels of justice turn.
If you want to go on a legal crusade against Scientology, that’s totally within your legal right. I find it disingenuous for you to assume that you know the entire story and are willing to find them guilty of being a crime syndicate totally without letting them defend themselves.
I think it’s really sad that people can’t honestly see how someone might defend a religion even though it’s not their own. I am an equal-opportunity defender when it comes to religions. I just happened to notice a pile-on that I thought was without rational basis. This board is about fighting ignorance and I have tried to make my arguments from reason.
I can understand why people would fight against Scientology. I can also understand why people would fight against any religion. I’m personally a fan of religious tolerance. That’s just who I am.
Honestly, make up your own mind about Scientology. That’s fine with me. I just think you should also look with equally critical eyes to other religions. What I have seen in my studies of religions is that the new religions tend to get bashed a whole lot more than the older religions. I think that’s unfair. Maybe I’m just a fan of the underdog, but I spend a lot of time dealing with many different religious traditions. Honestly, I have found more similarities between religions than I was expecting to find in the realm of practice, rules, and the structure of the religions. The criticisms leveled against Scientology I have seen leveled against many different religions. There isn’t anything new about the argument, “it’s weird, it’s scary, it’s authoritarian, it scams people, it intimidates people, it kills people,” etc. It’s the same argument that’s leveled against every new religion that comes around. Scientology just happens to be the one for today.
The government, acting on “anonymous” citizen complaints that were entirely unfounded and started simultaneously with the Seattle appearance of the lawbreaking private investigator who is known to work exclusively for the CoS under the direction of their in house attorney? The same private investigator who attempted to gain access, for no “apparent” reason to the property adjacent to the Young’s new, legal shelter location shortly after they moved? The same private investigator who was seen leaving defamatory flyers on cars near the Young’s new home and refused to identify himself when asked who he was and upon whose behalf he was acting?
Government acting on anonymous complaints that began simultaneously with the beginning of a series of pickets outside of the Young’s house, carried out by CoS members?
The government, acting at the same time that an anonymous, defamatory flyer campaign was started against the Youngs in exactly the same fashion as other flyer campaigns against other former Scienos or Scieno critics?
The government which was prepared to commit Stacy Young to a mental facility on the basis of more of these anonymous complaints?
There’s a lot more to the story than you’re willing to admit, and you know it.
I think you need to think about the idea that even if every religion acted in the manner that Scientology does, it would still be wrong, it would still be criticized for the exact same reasons which have been presented here. The comparisons to the way other religions behave or have behaved historically were raised by you, not by Scientology’s critics.
The issues raised here stand on their own as problems without comparisons, and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would say “Scientology shouldn’t do _______ because Islam/Christianity/Judaism/InsertYourReligionOfChoice doesn’t do that.” alone. The argument has always been “Scientology shouldn’t do _________ because it’s unethical, underhanded, deceitful, hurtful or illegal. It also runs directly counter to their claims that they are a religion like any other because no other religion would endorse _______ as a proper course of action.” There’s more than a little bit of difference there.
Are you seriously insinuating that the Seattle City gub’ment is in the nepharious paws of the Church of Scientology?
Color me skeptical, to say the least.
First off, putting “anonymous” in quotation marks is meaningless, I think. Are you insinuating they weren’t anonymous?
Secondly: entirely unfounded? They were breaking the law!
So sue the bastard for harassment. I said that in a previous post. Why do they need to play victimization games here? Why didn’t they DO something?
All we have to go on for that particular gem is the “we know it to be true” attitude of the Youngs.
If you are being harassed, then you have a right to seek legal protection.
Let’s review: These people had set up an illegal animal shelter. They were CoS critics. They feel harassed by CoS members and who do they turn to? The cops? No. They turn to the great internet support group of anti-scientologists to trumpet once again that the Big Bad Wolf was huffing and puffing.
I don’t see any evidence that they took legal action.
But maybe that was all for the better since it seems that the government might just simply be pawns of Hubbard’s Dynasty.
Now THAT’S a consistent opinion. Let’s try to figure out whether Scientology does things that are ontologically different from other religions. I say they don’t and I have offered my reasons why.
Yes, I know. That’s my biggest beef.
That’s a clever statement. I think I even buy it, as long as it’s administered fairly. However, what I’m not sure I like is the implicit assumption that Scientology “DOES” something. Scientology is a religion that people follow. There is an organization, the Church of Scientology, that might be held accountable (like any other religious organization, e.g. the Catholic Church) and there are people, but SCIENTOLOGY as a religion is not problematic.
You may think I’m playing semantic games, but I really do think there is a difference between organizations, people, and religions. That’s not necessarily something I think is germane to the discussion, but we can get into it more if you’d like.
What you then do is contradict yourself. This is part of your statement on why Scientology is problematic:
It is similar in kind to the statement that you said that I’d be “hard pressed to find anyone” who would say. How is saying “no other religion would endorse _______ as a proper course of action.” any different from “Scientology shouldn’t do _______ because Islam/Christianity/Judaism/InsertYourReligionOfChoice doesn’t do that.”
Maybe you’ll claim that it’s a difference in “endorse” and “do”, but I say that Sceintologists would never claim they endorsed _________. If you then refer to the Fair Game law and such, then I have to refer you to the fact that other religions have doctrines which basically do the same thing, so in effect “endorse” _________.
Did you not read any of my cites? They were acting on official policy. That is what the church does.
How about this: The Mafia isn’t evil. Nobody gets to say that. Instead, some deranged people acting on behalf of the Mafia sometimes do illegal things. How much sense does that make? None. Why? Because the Mafia is all about killing people and making money.
Scientology is all about making money, too, and its official documents condone and encourage harassment.
Show me where Jesus told people to lie about their enemies and make them look like child molestors.
Uh, again, haven’t you been reading any of my cites? If you don’t want to read my cites, this discussion is over.
I won’t try to debate with someone who won’t put forth a minimum of effort. Sorry, Potzie.
The legal status of the shelter pales in comparison to the accusations of felony-level abuses that the CoS claimed were taking place withing the shelter. If you park your car a couple of feet too close to a fire hydrant and I bring it to the policeman’s attention by saying you were molesting children in the back seat, I’m hardly doing the world favors.
Scientology claimed severe levels of animal abuse via anonymous calls and pamphlets. Later, they attacked the relocated permitted shelter with more pamphlets that claimed you could get AIDS from the animals.
Yes, that’s right. The CoS lackey, hired directly by the church delibrately or ignorantly mixed up Feline AIDS and HIV/AIDS as a scare tactic. Thats abuse.
Get off it. That has absolutely zero to do with this discussion. Unless you are claiming that OJ=Scientology. Sheesh!
Read 'em all.
That’s what all churches do. Problem is, when Catholics act on “official policy” and cover up sex abuses no one goes around claiming that Catholicism is problematic or dangerous without someone saying “hang on a minute.” They are right to do that. The whole point is that it was wrong for those particular people to engage in criminal activity in the name of protecting the church. It would be equally wrong for Scientologists to do that in the name of their Church. However, the official policy is not in violation of the law in point-of-fact. It’s all about the apologetics. If you say that it is inciting people to illegality, then you bring 'em to court. They’re going to tell you about the apologetics and I’m of the opinion that an unbiased and fair court is probably going to side with the person who actually believes in the documents rather than someone who claims they don’t believe in them, but really knows what they mean.
That might be my personal bias though.
Actually, the mafia is set up deliberately to flaunt the law. Thus the term “crime syndicate”. The “organization” is denied to exist by its members to those in legal authority for that very purpose.
Contrast that, if you will, with Scientology which is a religion (and the mafia isn’t), is very forthright about its own existence, going as far to ask to be legally defined as a religion, and is not set up to deliberately flaunt the law by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, they are pretty much “law happy”.
They would dispute your last qualifier and probably could make a good legal case for it, as I demonstrated above. Making money isn’t a crime. Suing people isn’t in-and-of-itself a crime. I’ve said all this before.
Well, show me where the CoS tells people to lie about their enemies and make them look like child molestors. I believe that’s not part of their official doctrine, per se. And again, apologetics. You really aren’t paying attention, it seems.
The fact of the matter remains, people use the words of Jesus to justify all kinds of mean and nasty things. That doesn’t make Christianity problematic or dangerous.
It would, but that’s not really the reason that the City came down against the Youngs. The story goes that many complaints were filed with the city. Some may have been aggregious and libelous. If that’s the case then you go to court. It’s as simple as that.
Hell, I don’t think the people who did what they did to the Youngs were doing the world favors. That’s not the point in the least.
Scientology claimed no such thing. At least, not according to any legal statement I’ve seen.
I really think the Youngs ought to collect evidence and sue. That’s the proper course of action.
And it’s prosecutable by law.
However, does this make Scientology problematic or dangerous? Maybe. But then shouldn’t we also look at the questionable hirings of some other religions too? They might be just as problematic and dangerous.
OJ Simpson stabbed his ex-wife and her friend, period. Lizzie Borden hacked up her parents, period. Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, period.
All of those individuals are guilty of their crimes, in spite of the lack of prosecution or of their aquittals for various reasons.
Courts of law are useful and have their place in civilized society. But they are not a replacement for our own cognitive abilities. Just because a court says it doesn’t necessarily make it so. An individual can evaluate the evidence in the MacPherson case, or in any of the other charges leveled at Scientology, and reach their own conclusions independently of any judicial determinations, and can validly use those conclusions in forming an opinion about Scientology.
No, its not as simple as that. Getting into a civil suit over this matter would cost more than it would return, and the CoS would never pay. They would drag things out for years. They love this sort of thing.
A criminal case would involve a lot of police work to track down an anonymous paphleteer and phone calls. Sadly, urban police don’t have the time for that sort of thing.
You seem to have this stock answer that the courts are some kind of magic bullet that will stop the cults activities cold. Our court system has demonstrated that it has many limitations.
Yes, your point seem to be one of several apologetics for the cult with a few tu quoqu arguements thrown in.
No, their hired goons and followers did it.
Oh yeah, lets do what the CoS want, get into long expensive litigation. That makes sense :rolleyes:
These hired goons have a few warrents out for their arrest in certain states. Its done no good in the 1/2 dozen years since they were issued. In fact there have been several more such abuses of the legal system by Scientology goons. They have yet to stop because the consuquences are few and far between. Its easy intimidation cost return for them.
Tu Quoque arguement. I’ve been with a few religions in my youth (Quakers, Episopalians, and Presbys) none of them even come remotely close to the activities in the criminal enterprise known as the CoS. Even catholicism, with is various sex scandals and lurid history, does not have the density of nefarious activities as the CoS.
My main criticism of $cientology: it has never PROVEN its claims about :
=Auditing: auditing is supposed to raise your IQ and improve your mind…judging from Tom Cruise and John Travolta, I’d take these claims with a grain of salt.
-“ENGRAMS” as the source of human ills…let’s SEE some proof!
-this “Xenu” chap" where’s the proof of his existance?
Finally, the COS hands out booklets about how psychiatry harms young people…before they make these claims, let’s see some evidence please!
Finally, the late L. Ron Hubbard was a liar, a swindler, and a con man…yet the COS insists that he was a humanitarian genius…where’s the truth?
So, those of you who defend $cientology, please back up your claims!
