What is it?
I heard it's a religion is that true?
What is it about?
What are you thoughts towards it?
I heard it's a religion is that true?
What is it about?
What are you thoughts towards it?
Scientology?
| Denvis wrote: |
| What is it? |
A cult.
| Denvis wrote: |
| I heard it's a religion is that true? |
Refer to question one.
| Denvis wrote: |
| What is it about? |
A doctrine written by a fiction author. Oh, snap. This could actually apply to more than just scientology, but I don't want to offend x_x
| Denvis wrote: |
| What are you thoughts towards it? |
That threads like this shouldn't be put into the general forum.
I personally do not know much about the fundamentals, however from what I have seen in television and read in news, it is perceived to be a Cult, they do strange things and totally feel connected to something that does not exist. I can be wrong of course but that is how I understand it.
| sheedatali wrote: |
| they do strange things and totally feel connected to something that does not exist. |
Whilst not trying to offend, I could also say that applies to my opinion on most religions -- you're being a bit generic, here. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say my opinion is right, it's just the opinion I believe to be right.
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||
Whilst not trying to offend, I could also say that applies to my opinion on most religions -- you're being a bit generic, here. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say my opinion is right, it's just the opinion I believe to be right. |
Agreed, as I said I can be wrong and it is just my understanding of it.
Probably a cult, and a dangerous one. But personally i dont think such groups should be banned. Maybe only observed more carefully if they dont brake any laws.
They have an extremely bad name in Europe because here people tend to think they are morons. Mainly because they are willingly subjected to psychological brainwashing techniques. But I really don't care about scientology as long as they drop that brainwashing.
http://www.videosift.com/video/South-Park-explains-Scientology
this pretty much sums it up.
this pretty much sums it up.
haha lol. i've heard of scientology before. all i know is that its a cult and tom cruise and his wife and john travolta and a lot of other stars are scientologists.
Hehe, south park can take the jimmy out of anything. It is pretty funny though.
People, better define your terminology and cite your sources. As far as I'm concerned a cult is just a catchall term for an unpopular religion and threatening children with damnation is psychological brainwashing. Scientology is apparently in acceptable target by the media at the moment, but so was Christianity once and it's really no better or worse a belief than any other religion.
Some quick and good neutral sources are the wikipedia articles on Scientology. The most interesting articles in my opinion are Scientology, Scientology controversies, and Project Chanology.
Wikipedia gives a good factual overview of what Scientology is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
| Quote: |
| Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard characterized Scientology as a religion, and in 1953 incorporated the Church of Scientology in New Jersey. Scientology teaches that people are immortal spiritual beings who have forgotten their true nature. Scientology promotes spiritual rehabilitation through a type of counseling referred to as "auditing". Study materials and auditing courses are made available to members in return for specified donations.
A large number of organizations overseeing the application of Scientology have been established, the most notable of these being the Church of Scientology. Scientology sponsors social service programs, some of which have been described as Scientology promotional campaigns. Such programs include a set of moral guidelines expressed in a brochure called The Way to Happiness, the Narconon anti-drug program, the Criminon prison rehabilitation program, the Study Tech education methodology, a volunteer organization, and a business management method. Scientology includes the belief that souls ("thetans") reincarnate and have lived on other planets before living on Earth. Former members say that portions of Hubbard's writings on this remote extraterrestrial past are included in confidential Upper Levels and are not revealed until thousands of dollars have been paid to the Church of Scientology. Another controversial belief held among Scientologists is that the practice of psychiatry is destructive and abusive, and must be abolished. Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and other countries, and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a "bona fide religion." Even so, Scientology has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members. The Church of Scientology has also been accused of harassing its critics, and has consistently used litigation against them. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Yeah, I advise that people that aren't aware of this check out the Wikipedia page. It's effectively a cult, with a really odd and quite nasty approach to bad publicity. People first started hearing about it when celebrities started getting into it.
Also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology
Also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology
I'm not an expert, but from what I can see is that once you have their attention they just won't let go of you. And when they have you, you have to cough up quite a bit and toe the line as far as tough rules are concerned, they are quite invasive in that way. Christians have it easy in comparison 
Its a cult...Just like Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, etc 
Well basically its a religion they believe this;
Youtube link
The people who run scientology are basically money-hungry nazi-like people, and i think they should be punished for what they do to people don't EVER EVER join that church...
Edit; link fix
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Fri May 01, 2009 3:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Youtube link
The people who run scientology are basically money-hungry nazi-like people, and i think they should be punished for what they do to people don't EVER EVER join that church...
Edit; link fix
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Fri May 01, 2009 3:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| The people who run scientology are basically money-hungry nazi-like people, and i think they should be punished for what they do to people don't EVER EVER join that church... |
It depends in another countries.
| Nameless wrote: |
| People, better define your terminology and cite your sources. As far as I'm concerned a cult is just a catchall term for an unpopular religion and threatening children with damnation is psychological brainwashing. Scientology is apparently in acceptable target by the media at the moment, but so was Christianity once and it's really no better or worse a belief than any other religion. |
A cult, as i understand it (and i know there are numerous definitions, often contradicting) is an organization that uses religious trappings and seals itself off from the surrounding society, often getting antagonistic with them. A cult builds a wall between the membership and society - literally or figuratively - and is very strict about letting outsiders in, or insiders out.
Now, let's make this clear. Scientology is a religion. Suck it up. You may not like it, but that's what it is. It is a legitimate, bonafide religion (at least as bonafide as any other religion is).
But is it a cult? Well, now i have to make something clear. Scientology is a religion, but the Church of Scientology is a cult. And, a nasty one. They've killed people, they've committed crimes, they're just all round nasty people... and, as most people claim, they are probably a bunch of money-grubbing bastards.
But Scientology is not a cult, it is a religion, one of the sects of which happens to be a cult.
Let me try and put this in terms more familiar to most people:
- Christianity is a religion.
- Roman Catholicism is a sect of Christianity.
- Roman Catholicism is (so they claim) the official church, from which all other churches have split off.
- Scientology is a religion.
- The Church of Scientology is a sect of Scientology.
- The Church of Scientology is the official church, from all other churches have split off.
There are other Scientologist sects not part of the Church of Scientology (they call it the "Free Zone"). A lot of them are made up of people who were with the Church, but had a bad experience, so are now Scientologists, but not members of the Church of Scientology.
There is nothing in Scientology that requires paying for auditing. That is something done in the Church of Scientology, but it is not part of Scientology. (And, to keep going with the Catholic example: paying for indulgences was something done in Roman Catholicism, but it is not part of Christianity.)
So the bottom line: Scientology is a religion. The Church of Scientology is a cult.
(But since the Church of Scientology makes up like 99.9% of Scientology, i won't object to just saying Scientology is a cult. But it's still a religion, space planes and all.)
| Indi wrote: |
| So the bottom line: Scientology is a religion. The Church of Scientology is a cult.
(But since the Church of Scientology makes up like 99.9% of Scientology, i won't object to just saying Scientology is a cult. But it's still a religion, space planes and all.) |
| Indi wrote: | ||
A cult, as i understand it (and i know there are numerous definitions, often contradicting) is an organization that uses religious trappings and seals itself off from the surrounding society, often getting antagonistic with them. A cult builds a wall between the membership and society - literally or figuratively - and is very strict about letting outsiders in, or insiders out. Now, let's make this clear. Scientology is a religion. Suck it up. You may not like it, but that's what it is. It is a legitimate, bonafide religion (at least as bonafide as any other religion is). But is it a cult? Well, now i have to make something clear. Scientology is a religion, but the Church of Scientology is a cult. And, a nasty one. They've killed people, they've committed crimes, they're just all round nasty people... and, as most people claim, they are probably a bunch of money-grubbing bastards. But Scientology is not a cult, it is a religion, one of the sects of which happens to be a cult. Let me try and put this in terms more familiar to most people:
There are other Scientologist sects not part of the Church of Scientology (they call it the "Free Zone"). A lot of them are made up of people who were with the Church, but had a bad experience, so are now Scientologists, but not members of the Church of Scientology. There is nothing in Scientology that requires paying for auditing. That is something done in the Church of Scientology, but it is not part of Scientology. (And, to keep going with the Catholic example: paying for indulgences was something done in Roman Catholicism, but it is not part of Christianity.) So the bottom line: Scientology is a religion. The Church of Scientology is a cult. (But since the Church of Scientology makes up like 99.9% of Scientology, i won't object to just saying Scientology is a cult. But it's still a religion, space planes and all.) |
your words are golden oh great one...
ps - aren't all religion cults at first?
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Thank you.
I wouldn't call RCC a cult. They're just too plain big to create a wall between themselves and society. You can't really seal yourself off from society when you're so big, you are the society. Certainly they have a lot of cult-like behaviours - such as strict membership in-or-out rules, and secretive aspects supposedly only for "insiders". But cults are isolated pockets within society, cut off from society, and RCC is just too big to count.
| Bannik wrote: |
| your words are golden oh great one...
ps - aren't all religion cults at first? |
*bows* Om mani padme hummmmmmm...
Mm, not necessarily. Being a cult requires not only being small, but also being cut off from the mainstream society. It is possible to create a religion that is completely and entirely open - no secrets, no admission rituals, no insiders/outsiders, none of that guff.
Take "new age", for example (or "newage, rhymes with sewage" if you prefer ^_^) - originally a very small, grassroots religious movement that never went through a cult phase... it spread sort of virally, and then rapidly became mainstream, and there was never a phase where it isolated itself from society. Even today, when new age has lost much of its steam, there's no real "insider/outsider" notion - you're a new ager when you start doing new age stuff, and you stop being a new ager when you stop - and there's no notion of being cut off from, or friction with, the rest of society.
But yes, by far, most religions started out as cults. All the major religions that started in the last 2000 years or so did. Older religions, like Judaism and Hinduism... not so much, because there was no organized society at the time those religions were formed.
| Indi wrote: |
|
But yes, by far, most religions started out as cults. All the major religions that started in the last 2000 years or so did. Older religions, like Judaism and Hinduism... not so much, because there was no organized society at the time those religions were formed. |
really....no organized society, i must Google this till my fingers bleed, see this is what indi does commits me too higher learning......praise the indi (and now i am going too make a t-shirt with that slogan)
Scientology is a religion for the sake of avoiding paying taxes. Many countries don't recognize it as a religion.
You could name Scientology as a cult because of the way they operate, brainwashing and separating members from their family and friends are commonly practices used by many cults.
What really astonishes me about them is the way they deal with opposition, it ends on lawsuits or shutting down people who contradicts them. That contributes to that cult image.
You could name Scientology as a cult because of the way they operate, brainwashing and separating members from their family and friends are commonly practices used by many cults.
What really astonishes me about them is the way they deal with opposition, it ends on lawsuits or shutting down people who contradicts them. That contributes to that cult image.
| iyepes wrote: |
| What really astonishes me about them is the way they deal with opposition, it ends on lawsuits or shutting down people who contradicts them. That contributes to that cult image. |
LoL, a cult image? Then Christianity is one Hell of a cult in size because no religion or even organization that I can think of is as good as doing that is Christianity. Christians seem to think that anything that contradicts or even disobeys their religion is worthy of a lawsuit and being shut down...
That's true about any organization/group that stands on loose grounds and gives power to the ones who control it.
| catscratches wrote: |
| That's true about any organization/group that stands on loose grounds and gives power to the ones who control it. |
| iyepes wrote: |
| Scientology is a religion for the sake of avoiding paying taxes. Many countries don't recognize it as a religion. |
That is dishonest, and misleading.
Whether Scientology is a religion or not depends on what Scientology is, not why it wants people to consider it a religion. Scientology, in point of fact, is a religion.
Scientology wants GOVERNMENT to recognize it as a religion to avoid paying taxes. But whether the government recognizes officially or not is irrelevant, because the government definition of "religion" is a tax law definition, not a factual one. There are 30 and 40 year-old people that the government doesn't recognize as adults, because the government definition of "adult" is a legal definition based on social responsibility, not on the facts of either age or biology. That's just how definitions work when you bring laws into the mix: you can lay down a concrete foundation, put up four walls and a roof - complete with doors, windows and an entertainment centre - and the government will refuse to call it a house until it meets certain legal definitions, despite the fact that it plainly is.
Canada - so far as i know - doesn't recognize Scientology as a religion for tax purposes. That doesn't mean that Scientology is not a religion, it means that the Canadian government doesn't think it deserves the privilege of the legal protections and tax breaks that certain religious organizations (but not all) get. i, personally, will fight tooth and nail to prevent Scientology from getting the Canadian government to recognize it as a religion... but Scientology is a religion. There is nothing hypocritical about that. "Is" is not the same is "is legally recognized as".
Do not confuse legal or governmental recognition as something as equivalent with actually being that thing.
| iyepes wrote: |
| You could name Scientology as a cult because of the way they operate, brainwashing and separating members from their family and friends are commonly practices used by many cults.
What really astonishes me about them is the way they deal with opposition, it ends on lawsuits or shutting down people who contradicts them. That contributes to that cult image. |
You could say the same things about any number of dozens of religions. That doesn't change whether or not they are religions.
Scientology is not recognized as a religion in some countries. That is a fact. Scientology is not dedicated to any God, what is what religions do, so, Scientology is more like a lifestyle. And yes, churches don't pay taxes, that's another truth.
You can try to support any theory with words, and you are very good at them. But, saying that the fact that a government does not recognize something as religion, does not mean it is not, is just a sophism.
You can try to disguise anything through words, but the reality will be there still.
You can try to support any theory with words, and you are very good at them. But, saying that the fact that a government does not recognize something as religion, does not mean it is not, is just a sophism.
You can try to disguise anything through words, but the reality will be there still.
| iyepes wrote: |
| Scientology is not recognized as a religion in some countries. That is a fact. |
So what? Women are not recognized as full human beings in some countries. That is also a fact. But it has no bearing on the reality of what women are, which is fully human beings.
Similarly, the fact that Scientology is not recognized as a religion in some countries has no bearing on the reality of what it is... which is a religion.
Put it this way: if you sincerely believe that because some countries don't recognize Scientology as a religion, that means it's not... then you must also believe that because some countries don't recognize women as fully people, that means they're not. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
| iyepes wrote: |
| Scientology is not dedicated to any God, what is what religions do, so, Scientology is more like a lifestyle. |
Wrong on all counts.
First of all, Scientology does acknowledge a god. Second of all, not every religion involves gods... or, are you going to insist that Buddhism isn't a religion? Jainism (the oldest religion of all!)?
Just because it doesn't look like your religion, that doesn't mean it's not a religion.
| iyepes wrote: |
| And yes, churches don't pay taxes, that's another truth. |
Yes, and so what? How does this affect whether or not Scientology is a religion?
| iyepes wrote: |
| You can try to support any theory with words, and you are very good at them. But, saying that the fact that a government does not recognize something as religion, does not mean it is not, is just a sophism.
You can try to disguise anything through words, but the reality will be there still. |
^_^;
So... let me get this straight. You believe that we should consider the reality of a thing when determining what it really is, and not labels that have been applied to it... yet you believe that Scientology is not a religion - not because of what it is, but because the label hasn't been applied to it? (By governments, no less?) ^_^;
You don't see the hypocrisy in your own position?
The only thing I see is that you are still using words to justify something that reality denies. Scientology is still a lifestyle, not a religion.
Another fact, you are using adjetives to disqualify my opinions, that's common on people who need to defend things that are not true.
Another fact, you are using adjetives to disqualify my opinions, that's common on people who need to defend things that are not true.
The only thing I see is that you are still using words to justify something that reality denies. Scientology is still a lifestyle, not a religion.
Another fact, you are using adjetives to disqualify my opinions, that's common on people who need to defend things that are not true.
Another fact, you are using adjetives to disqualify my opinions, that's common on people who need to defend things that are not true.
I gotta jump in here...
How exactly does "reality" deny Scientology as a religion? Is it because some countries don't recognize it as such? Well then, I got some bad news for you...
Wiki link here.
So, you feel like going to Laos and breaking the news to the Methodists, JW's, LDS, Baptists, and all the rest that they aren't actually religions, based on your twisted logic? In addition, you might want to take a trip to Italy...
Wiki link here.
By your logic, Islam is not a religion. I bet the second biggest "lifestyle" in the world might have something to say about it, though...
This makes no sense. You state as "fact" that Scientology is not a religion, but merely a "lifestyle". Then you claim you are only stating "opinions". And by the way, nobody needs to disqualify your opinions, that's why they are called opinions. Your facts, however, have just been disqualified.
Thank you, please drive through.
| iyepes wrote: |
| The only thing I see is that you are still using words to justify something that reality denies. Scientology is still a lifestyle, not a religion. |
| Wiki wrote: |
| Christian denominations that have some following in the country, but which are not recognized by the Government, include the Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Lutherans, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and Baptists. Official membership numbers are not available. |
So, you feel like going to Laos and breaking the news to the Methodists, JW's, LDS, Baptists, and all the rest that they aren't actually religions, based on your twisted logic? In addition, you might want to take a trip to Italy...
| Wiki also wrote: |
| Islam is not formally recognized by the state in Italy despite being the second largest faith after Catholicism |
By your logic, Islam is not a religion. I bet the second biggest "lifestyle" in the world might have something to say about it, though...
| iyepes wrote: |
| Another fact, you are using adjetives to disqualify my opinions, that's common on people who need to defend things that are not true. |
Thank you, please drive through.
Maybe iyepes is not that far off. There are opposing opinions whether scientology is a religion or not. Some view it as a cult. Depends also in which country you are:
Scientology is officially recognized as a religion in the United States:
My own opinion: it is a commercial organization. I like the way the Germans sorted it out for themselves:
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
| Quote: |
| The Church of Scientology has pursued an extensive public relations campaign for the recognition of Scientology as a religion. Opinions around the world still differ on whether Scientology is to be recognized as a religion or not, and Scientology has often encountered opposition due to its strong-arm tactics directed against critics and members wishing to leave the organization. A number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to protections and tax relief, while others continue to view it as a pseudoreligion or cult. The differences between these classifications have become a major problem when discussing religions in general and Scientology specifically. |
Scientology is officially recognized as a religion in the United States:
| Quote: |
| Recognition came in 1993, when the IRS stated that "[Scientology is] operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes. |
| Quote: |
| Elsewhere, Scientology has been able to obtain religious recognition in such countries as Australia, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden, Croatia, Hungary and Kyrgyzstan. In New Zealand Scientology is recognised as a religious charity, it has gained judicial recognition in Italy, and its officials have won the right to perform marriages in South Africa. |
| Quote: |
| The Church has so far failed to win religious recognition in Canada. In the UK, the Charity Commission for England and Wales ruled in 1999 that Scientology was not a religion and refused to register the Church as a charity, although a year later, it was recognized as a not-for-profit body in a separate proceeding by the UK Revenue and Customs and exempted from UK value added tax.
The German government takes the view that Scientology is a commercial, rather than religious organization, and has even gone so far as to consider a ban on Scientology, saying that the goals of Scientology are incompatible with the German Constitution. France and Belgium have not recognized Scientology as a religion, and Stephen A. Kent, writing in 2001, noted that no such recognition had been obtained in Ireland, Luxembourg, Israel and Mexico either. The Belgian State Prosecution Service has recommended that various individuals and organizations associated with Scientology should be prosecuted. An administrative court is to decide if charges will be pressed. In Greece, Scientology was banned in 1997, and the Greek government upheld the ban in 2003, rejecting an application for Scientology to be recognized as a religion. |
My own opinion: it is a commercial organization. I like the way the Germans sorted it out for themselves:
| Quote: |
| In conjunction with the Church of Scientology's request to be officially recognized as a religion in Germany, around 1996 the German state Baden-Württemberg conducted a thorough investigation regarding the group's activities within Germany. The results of this investigation indicated that at the time of publication, Scientology's main sources of revenue ("Haupteinnahmequellen der SO") were from course offerings and sales of their various publications. Course offerings ranged from (German Marks) DM 182.50 to about DM 30,000—the equivalent today of approximately $119 to $19,560 USD. Revenue from monthly, bi-monthly, and other membership offerings could not be estimated in the report, but was nevertheless placed in the millions. |
| Quote: |
| The Church of Scientology and its many related organizations have amassed considerable real estate holdings worldwide, likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Scientology encourages existing members to "sell" Scientology to others by paying a commission to those who recruit new members. Scientology franchises, or missions, must pay the Church of Scientology roughly 10% of their gross income. On that basis, it is likened to a pyramid selling scheme. While introductory courses do not cost much, courses at the higher levels may cost several thousand dollars each. |
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
| deanhills wrote: |
| Maybe iyepes is not that far off. There are opposing opinions whether scientology is a religion or not. |
| Quote: |
| Opinions around the world still differ on whether Scientology is to be recognized as a religion or not, |
A religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices(according to Merriam-Webster, anyway).
Here's something:
Jesus died in 30-something AD. No government in the world recognized Christianity until Rome made it the State religion in 380-something AD. Between those two dates(about 350-ish years), what was Christianity? A "lifestyle", a "cult", or a bona fide religion? Of course it was a religion, in spite of the fact that it spent a few centuries not being recognized as one.
| Ophois wrote: | ||||
|
| deanhills wrote: |
| Iyepes is right about the "words" stuff as well. Maybe I don't have the right words, but as sure as cookies it may look like a duck, waddle like a duck, quack like a duck, but it ain't a duck. Scientology is not a religion. It is a modern commercial cult organization operating under the "guise" of "religion". Definitely dangerous. I don't know whether you did any searches on scientology, probably more than a hundred of the first hits were pure scientology hits,of the artificial kind which told me these guys are working hard on their image in the Internet. |
During the Dark Ages, when Christianity was burning women as witches, starting genocidal wars, inquisitions to convert entire cultures through the use of torture and terror in order to steal land, it still counted as a religion? Or was it in the category of a "modern commercial cult organization operating under the "guise" of "religion""?
If we want to disqualify a group from being a religion based on how harmful and corrupt they are, then I have some really bad news for you regarding just about every religion on the planet.
Scientology may very well be corrupt, it may also be harmful and deplorable, but that does not mean it isn't a religion. Just because you don't like them does not mean they are any less of a religion than any other.
| Ophois wrote: |
| If we want to disqualify a group from being a religion based on how harmful and corrupt they are, then I have some really bad news for you regarding just about every religion on the planet.
Scientology may very well be corrupt, it may also be harmful and deplorable, but that does not mean it isn't a religion. Just because you don't like them does not mean they are any less of a religion than any other. |
I found an article on this by Stepen Kent (a Canadian sociologist based at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada), in which Kent argued that Scientology is not a religion:
| Quote: |
| Although some social scientists insist that Scientology is a religion, the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components. Other components include political aspirations, business ventures, cultural
productions, pseudo-medical practices, pseudo-psychiatric claims, and (among its most devoted members who have joined the Sea Organization), an alternative family structure. Sea Organization's job demands appear to allow little time for quality child rearing. Most disturbing, however, about Sea Organization life is that members can be subject to extremely severe and intrusive punishments through security checks, internal hearings called "Committees of Evidence," and a forced labour and re-indoctrination program known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) and its harshest companion, the RPF's RPF. Taken together, these harsh and intrusive punishments likely violate a number of human rights clauses as outlined by two United Nations statements. |
| Quote: |
| In fact, I have made precisely the argument that Wilson dismisses. In a study that ]Berliner Dialog
(Heft 1-97) translated into German, and in another study that I hope to publish soon, I show that L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology's founder) claimed that Scientology was a religion because he saw the claim as a marketing device to make money and avoid taxes (Kent, 1997b: 25ff; Miller, 1987: 199- 203, 220) as well as a way "to reduce the likelihood of governmental interventions against it for allegedly practising medicine without a license" (Kent, 1996: 30). Moreover, Scientology denies its reputedly religious nature if it is attempting to enter a country that might react adversely to religious proselytization (such as Japan or Greece [Kent, 1997a: 18-19]). Nevertheless, the historical reasons behind Scientology's religious claims, as well as the organization's selectivity in making the claims, do not diminish the probability that many Scientologists view their commitment as a religious one. From a social scientific perspective, and probably from a legal one as well, the objective "truth" of an ideology is not the determinant of a group's "religious" designation. Mere belief in supernatural beings or forces may be enough to get an ideology designated as religious, even if the origins or doctrines of the belief system are highly suspect. Along these lines, the inspirational figure in the sociology of religion, Max Weber, refused to exclude charlatans from his identification of charismatic figures, since the devotion of followers was a far more salient fact than authenticity. After mentioning two types of charismatic figures, Weber added that "[a]nother type is represented by [the founder of a major faith], who may have been a very sophisticated swindler (although this cannot be definitely established)" (Weber, 1968: 242). Similarly, from a social scientific perspective, a belief system is religious if it contains supposedly supernatural elements, regardless of the accuracy of those elements. Perhaps unlike the religious founder whom Weber named, Hubbard's sophisticated swindle has been exposed by a number of researchers (for example, Atack, 1990; Kent, 1996; Miller, 1987) who have shown that his religious alignment was purely expedient. Now, however, many of his followers see their lives in the context of the doctrines that he developed. |
Source:http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/kent1999.pdf
Stephen A Kent: "Is Scientology a Religion"?
| deanhills wrote: |
| I don't see scientology as being corrupt. I see it as entirely commercial and a cult. |
| Quote: |
| It only started to identify itself as a religion when it wanted to get commercial benefits, i.e. tax advantages |
| Quote: |
| Also Hubbard was involved in psychiatric practises that he had not been licensed for, so getting religious status for scientology helped him get out of that dilemma as well. |
| Quote: |
| the organization is a multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components. Other components include political aspirations, business ventures, cultural
productions, pseudo-medical practices, pseudo-psychiatric claims, and (among its most devoted members who have joined the Sea Organization), an alternative family structure. |
Churches are organizations. Religions are not churches. I think this is where you are getting confused. You seem to be equating the church to the system of beliefs.The religion can exist whether or not there is a single church. All the religion is, is a set of beliefs. The crazy practices of the people and different groups within Scientology do not disqualify it from being a religion. Most religions have crazy sub-groups within them that hide under the banner of their religion.
The argument that Scientology is not a religion based on the fact that some of it's churches support and promote harmful practices, is like saying Islam is not a religion because some of it's Mosques support and promote harmful practices(and there are some that do).
| Ophois wrote: | ||
|
As far as I know, I'm not alone in this perception. Neither are you in your perception about Christianity.
| Ophois wrote: |
| Can you tell me where Scientology made a statement, prior to receiving these commercial benefits, that they didn't consider themselves a religion? |
| Quote: |
| Scientology was developed by L Ron Hubbard as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Dianetics uses a counseling technique known as auditing, developed by Hubbard to enable conscious recall of traumatic events in an individual's past. It was originally intended to be a new psychotherapy and was not expected to become the foundation for a new religion. |
| Quote: |
| Dianetics soon met with criticism. Morris Fishbein, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and well-known at the time as a debunker of quack medicine, dismissed Hubbard's book. An article in Newsweek stated that "the dianetics concept is unscientific and unworthy of discussion or review". In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners instituted proceedings against the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for teaching medicine without a license, which eventually led to that foundation's bankruptcy. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
In addition, according to Kent, when Scientology tried to get into Japan they denied that they were a religion. In other words, they are using the status of religion selectively if and when it suits them. In the United States they adopted it for commercial and marketing reasons, in Japan and Greece when it suited them to be a science and mental therapy, they changed it to something else. This was in the 1990s. I guess by now they are probably back to a "religion" in those countries as well.
| Quote: |
| Moreover, Scientology denies its
reputedly religious nature if it is attempting to enter a country that might react adversely to religious proselytization (such as Japan or Greece [Kent, 1997a: 18-19]). |
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/kent1999.pdf
| Ophois wrote: | ||
|
| Ophois wrote: | ||
|
| Ophois wrote: |
| Churches are organizations. Religions are not churches. I think this is where you are getting confused. You seem to be equating the church to the system of beliefs.The religion can exist whether or not there is a single church. All the religion is, is a set of beliefs. The crazy practices of the people and different groups within Scientology do not disqualify it from being a religion. Most religions have crazy sub-groups within them that hide under the banner of their religion. |
| Ophois wrote: |
| The argument that Scientology is not a religion based on the fact that some of it's churches support and promote harmful practices, |
To start, here is the Webster dictionary definition of religion:
My mistake. I thought we were talking about Scientology.
That doesn't matter. If Scientology wanted to call itself a purple elephant in order to get a tax break, that still doesn't mean it's a purple elephant. A religion is what it is by definition, not by the actions of it's church or it's followers, no matter how much people want to say otherwise.
Again, those are the actions of the church and it's members, not the religion itself.
Let's go down the list:
1 - Multi faceted organization - Megachurches.
2 - Political Aspirations - Ever heard of an Islamic nation? The Pope? The Dalai Lama?
3 - Business ventures - I shouldn't even have to tell you this one. Just Google the Christian business directory.
4 - Cultural productions - Seriously? This is every religion.
5 - Pseudo medical practices - Ever heard of "faith healing"?
6 - Pseudo psychiatric claims - Demonic possession, anyone?
7 - Alternative family structure - Mormon's who marry multiple 12 year olds is just about as alternative of a family structure as I have ever heard of.
The problem is that you are equating the religion, which is the set of beliefs, with the church, which is an organization. The two are not the same. The church swaps out it's religious status for different reasons, and while that's a shady move, it does not change the actual religion itself.
| Quote: |
| The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| During the 1950's Dianetics represented itself as a science and as mental therapy. It was not a religion: |
| Quote: |
| In addition, according to Kent, when Scientology tried to get into Japan they denied that they were a religion. In other words, they are using the status of religion selectively if and when it suits them. |
| Quote: |
| That was not the point. The point was that Scientology would use any status it can find, including religion to get what it needs to get for commercial and other gains, such as not having to have a license when it is doing its invasive psychiatric type treatments. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
How so? |
1 - Multi faceted organization - Megachurches.
2 - Political Aspirations - Ever heard of an Islamic nation? The Pope? The Dalai Lama?
3 - Business ventures - I shouldn't even have to tell you this one. Just Google the Christian business directory.
4 - Cultural productions - Seriously? This is every religion.
5 - Pseudo medical practices - Ever heard of "faith healing"?
6 - Pseudo psychiatric claims - Demonic possession, anyone?
7 - Alternative family structure - Mormon's who marry multiple 12 year olds is just about as alternative of a family structure as I have ever heard of.
| Quote: |
| If you read the article that I included, you will note that that is not what the argument was based on, that was one aspect of it. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||||||||||||
Maybe iyepes is not that far off. There are opposing opinions whether scientology is a religion or not. Some view it as a cult. Depends also in which country you are:
Scientology is officially recognized as a religion in the United States:
My own opinion: it is a commercial organization. I like the way the Germans sorted it out for themselves:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology |
First: "Opinions around the world still differ on whether Scientology is to be recognized as a religion or not". So what? Opinions around the world still differ on whether or not women deserve full rights as human beings, or whether Jews should be eradicated. "Opinions differ"? Give me a break. Pick any well-established definition of religion - sociological or philosophical - and you get the same result: Scientology is a religion. The only reasons people give for denying that conclusion are either bigotry (they don't like Scientology because of it's nasty behaviours, or because it's religious teachings are silly), or ignorance (like iyepes, who didn't even know that Scientology includes a god).
Second: "A number of governments now view the Church as a religious organization entitled to protections and tax relief, while others continue to view it as a pseudoreligion or cult. The differences between these classifications have become a major problem when discussing religions in general and Scientology specifically" Nothing in here has anything to do with Scientology... it's about the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY.
Understand the difference. Catholicism is a religion (specifically, a form of Christianity). The Catholic Church is not a religion... it is an organization devoted to a religion (Catholicism). Scientology is a religion. The Church of Scientology is not a religion... it is an organization devoted to the religion of Scientology.
There is absolutely no conflict in saying that Scientology is a religion, but the Church of Scientology is a business. That's no different from saying Catholicism is a religion, but the Vatican is a national government... which is true.
You don't need to be part of the Church of Scientology to be a Scientologist anymore than you have to be part of the Catholic Church to be Catholic. Both institutions claim they are the only official and legitimate organization for their respective religions, but so what? There are non-profit Scientology organizations unrelated to the Church of Scientology in what they call the "free zone".
Now, understanding the difference between "Scientology" and "the Church of Scientology", read those quotes of yours above again. What does Canada (for example, or Germany, if you like) really say about Scientology vs. the Church of Scientology? (And, read it carefully, because - as often happens - whoever wrote those quotes was sloppy indeed, and mixed up the terms often. Just use your comprehension skills to understand whether they're talking about the idea or teachings of Scientology, or the organization - which is the Church of Scientology.)
| Indi wrote: |
| Nothing in here has anything to do with Scientology... it's about the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. |
| Indi wrote: |
| Understand the difference. Catholicism is a religion (specifically, a form of Christianity). The Catholic Church is not a religion... it is an organization devoted to a religion (Catholicism). Scientology is a religion. The Church of Scientology is not a religion... it is an organization devoted to the religion of Scientology. |
| Indi wrote: |
| Now, understanding the difference between "Scientology" and "the Church of Scientology", read those quotes of yours above again. What does Canada (for example, or Germany, if you like) really say about Scientology vs. the Church of Scientology? (And, read it carefully, because - as often happens - whoever wrote those quotes was sloppy indeed, and mixed up the terms often. Just use your comprehension skills to understand whether they're talking about the idea or teachings of Scientology, or the organization - which is the Church of Scientology.) |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Scientology is still not a religion. It is a method of treatment that was supposed to be scientific, hence the word "Scientology", and made into a "religion" for the purposes of marketing and commerce. |
| Quote: |
| it was then made into a religion as the founder must have found that he could market it more effectively to people with religious leanings than people who were into science |
| Quote: |
| He was also practicing something for financial gain that as a scientist he would have needed a license for. So it was handy to change what he was practicing as "religion". |
Your argument is rife with conjecture and opinion. Scientology is a religion. Just because it didn't start as one, doesn't mean it isn't one now. Many religions started as a personal philosophy for a single person, and went through changes to become a religion. Just because you don't like the way Scientology evolved does not mean it is not a legitimate religion.
| Ophois wrote: | ||||||
Your argument is rife with conjecture and opinion. Scientology is a religion. Just because it didn't start as one, doesn't mean it isn't one now. Many religions started as a personal philosophy for a single person, and went through changes to become a religion. Just because you don't like the way Scientology evolved does not mean it is not a legitimate religion. |
If any one is interested, there is more information at this link about how scientology evolved out of dianetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics
| deanhills wrote: |
| Even though you would like your opinion to have the appearance of "an expert" by shooting mine down with as little facts as you have |
| Quote: |
| I wonder how much you do know about scientology and dianetics? |
The reasons you give for Scientology not being a "real" religion, are opinions and conjecture. You claimed to know what Hubbard was thinking when he was making decisions:
| Quote: |
| it was then made into a religion as the founder must have found that he could market it more effectively to people with religious leanings than people who were into science |
| Quote: |
| Scientology is still not a religion. It is a method of treatment that was supposed to be scientific, hence the word "Scientology", and made into a "religion" for the purposes of marketing and commerce. |
| Quote: |
| He was also practicing something for financial gain that as a scientist he would have needed a license for. So it was handy to change what he was practicing as "religion". |
| Ophois wrote: |
| I am only asking you to prove these claims about what Hubbard was thinking, the "marketing and commerce" claim, and if in fact he did gain religious status for the purposes of practicing without a license. Until evidence is given to prove any of this, your entire argument is opinion-based, and it is you who are trying to sound like an expert by making bold claims with no evidence to back them up. |
1. Dianetics was not a scientific method. It was a discipline of mind over matter.
| Quote: |
| Dianetics is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body that were developed by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, and practiced by followers of Scientology. Hubbard coined Dianetics from the Greek stems dia, meaning through, and nous, meaning mind. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics
2. Hubbard went almost bankrupt with Dianetics and then changed tact. He had to drop the use of Dianetics, as when he went bust, he lost the use of the name Dianetics as well. In order to market it better he focussed on spiritual and religion. He re-invented everything.
| Quote: |
| By the autumn of 1950, financial problems had developed, and by November 1950, the six Foundations had spent around one million dollars and were more than $200,000 in debt. Disagreements emerged over the direction of the Dianetic Foundation's work, and relations between the board members became strained, with several leaving, even to support causes critical of Dianetics. One example was Harvey Jackins, founder of Re-evaluation Counselling, originally a sort of discrete reworking of Dianetics, which L Ron Hubbard later declared suppressive to Scientology.
In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners instituted proceedings against the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth for teaching medicine without a licence. The Foundation closed its doors, causing the proceedings to be vacated, but its creditors began to demand settlement of its outstanding debts. Don Purcell, a millionaire Dianeticist from Wichita, Kansas, offered a brief respite from bankruptcy, but the Foundation's finances failed again in 1952. Because of a sale of assets resulting from the bankruptcy, Hubbard no longer owned the rights to the name "Dianetics", but its philosophical framework still provided the seed for Scientology to grow. Scientologists refer to the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health as "Book One." In 1952, Hubbard published a new set of teachings as "Scientology, a religious philosophy." Scientology did not replace Dianetics but extended it to cover new areas. Where the goal of Dianetics is to rid the individual of his reactive mind engrams, the stated goal of Scientology is to rehabilitate the individual's spiritual nature so that he may reach his full potential. |
Perhaps if one is not religious, then it must look like religion, but if you were religious, then you would see the claim of religion as completely phony. I see it as phony for commercial reasons, as well as phony to mask the cult aspects of it.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Perhaps if one is not religious, then it must look like religion, but if you were religious, then you would see the claim of religion as completely phony. I see it as phony for commercial reasons, as well as phony to mask the cult aspects of it. |
If you look into the history of the Mormons, for example, you will find that it was "created" for very suspicious reasons as well, not to mention their "cult-like" aspects, outright racist beliefs, and so on. How are they any more of a "real" religion than Scientology?
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
We are not discussing any churches at all. We are discussing a religion.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Scientology is still not a religion. It is a method of treatment that was supposed to be scientific, hence the word "Scientology", and then made into a "religion" for the purposes of marketing and commerce. |
If Scientology is a "method of treatment", then Sikhism is a "method of wearing turbans".
Scientology has a treatment component - but that is hardly all of Scientology. Scientology has a creation myth, a theodicy, behavioural restrictions, etc. etc. etc. Far more than just Dianetics.
| deanhills wrote: |
| You're shooting with a huge number of words again. Sophisticated words. |
Would you prefer i talked to you like i talk to small children?
| deanhills wrote: |
| Scientology did not work as a scientific treatment. And it was a treatment. it was then made into a religion as the founder must have found that he could market it more effectively to people with religious leanings than people who were into science. He was also practicing something for financial gain that as a scientist he would have needed a license for. So it was handy to change what he was practicing as "religion". Sort of made it more appealing to a segment of people that he wanted to reach, as well as now he could be completely in control, government could not interfere with his methods any longer. |
Your facts are not correct. Dianetics was Hubbard's replacement for psychology - a pseudoscientific counselling method based on his mystical beliefs. Scientology was never a "treatment", and it was certainly never scientific (although Hubbard thought it was).
His Dianetics was always mystical mumbo-jumbo, but eventually he formalized it as a full-fledged religious doctrine... called Scientology.
You can speculate on his motivations for creating Scientology all you want. i can also claim that Jesus only formed "Christianity" to create a movement of rebellion against Rome. Or that Mohammad faked his revelations to give himself fame, fortune and power. Irrelevant.
Let me ask you this: you surely know what my definition is, because i've repeated it dozens of times, and clearly Scientology fits or i wouldn't be calling it a religion. So, what is your definition of religion? And why does Scientology fail, but Mormon pass?
| Indi wrote: |
| You can speculate on his motivations for creating Scientology all you want. i can also claim that Jesus only formed "Christianity" to create a movement of rebellion against Rome. Or that Mohammad faked his revelations to give himself fame, fortune and power. Irrelevant. |
| Quote: |
| Let me ask you this: you surely know what my definition is, because i've repeated it dozens of times, and clearly Scientology fits or i wouldn't be calling it a religion. So, what is your definition of religion? And why does Scientology fail, but Mormon pass? |
Here's my theory, and I am sure people will disagree, even though that in their heart of hearts it is most likely true: If "JESUS" is involved, then the "religion" is automatically more legitimate.
I am pretty sure that if I tried to sell anything like Christianity to someone, but without the "Christ" part, I would not only be laughed off of their door step, but I would be called every name in the book by Christians themselves.
So yeah, Christ is so ingrained into peoples' psyche that most people just accept the legitimacy of anything having to do with him, hence Mormonism being a "real" religion.
Just a theory...
| Ophois wrote: |
| Here's my theory, and I am sure people will disagree, even though that in their heart of hearts it is most likely true: If "JESUS" is involved, then the "religion" is automatically more legitimate.
I am pretty sure that if I tried to sell anything like Christianity to someone, but without the "Christ" part, I would not only be laughed off of their door step, but I would be called every name in the book by Christians themselves. So yeah, Christ is so ingrained into peoples' psyche that most people just accept the legitimacy of anything having to do with him, hence Mormonism being a "real" religion. Just a theory... |
Well, if that's the requirement, no problem.
Scientology includes Jesus as well.
Not really surprising. What religion formed in the last 2,000 years - especially ones that are popular in the West - doesn't include Jesus in one form or another? Mormonism, Islam, Baha'i... all have co-opted Jesus in one form or another. Scientology is no different.
| Indi wrote: |
| Let me ask you this: you surely know what my definition is, because i've repeated it dozens of times, and clearly Scientology fits or i wouldn't be calling it a religion. So, what is your definition of religion? And why does Scientology fail, but Mormon pass? |
Iyepes put it very well for me:
| iyepes wrote: |
| The only thing I see is that you are still using words to justify something that reality denies. Scientology is still a lifestyle, not a religion. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
Iyepes put it very well for me:
|
Iyepes put WHAT well?
I see a bogus allegation in front of a very strange notion of 'reality' and an unsupported red-herring fallacy to finish. You think that is 'put very well' do you?
"I'm right, you're wrong, because I say so, so there..."
i'd have to agree with Bikerman. Not only is that not a definition of religion, it is a fairly plain-stated statement of ignorance and bigotry.
Just look at how empty it is when it is turned around: "The only thing I see is that you are still using words to justify something that reality denies. Christianity is still a lifestyle, not a religion." i can even make a better justification for that format than the one slandering Scientology. After all, the vast majority of Christians couldn't differentiate real from fake Biblical rules - and i can prove it, too... see how many Christians think "God helps those who help themselves" is Biblical. The average Scientologist is far more... religious... about their beliefs than the average Christian, hm?
Just look at how empty it is when it is turned around: "The only thing I see is that you are still using words to justify something that reality denies. Christianity is still a lifestyle, not a religion." i can even make a better justification for that format than the one slandering Scientology. After all, the vast majority of Christians couldn't differentiate real from fake Biblical rules - and i can prove it, too... see how many Christians think "God helps those who help themselves" is Biblical. The average Scientologist is far more... religious... about their beliefs than the average Christian, hm?
| Indi wrote: |
| Well, if that's the requirement, no problem.
Scientology includes Jesus as well. Not really surprising. What religion formed in the last 2,000 years - especially ones that are popular in the West - doesn't include Jesus in one form or another? Mormonism, Islam, Baha'i... all have co-opted Jesus in one form or another. Scientology is no different. |
I really don't know why people keep saying Scientology isn't a real religion. I've heard so many reasons, but none make any sense. It was formed by a guy to avoid licensing issues and/or tax issues(let's just assume that's true).
So what? Mormonism was formed by a charlatan who was so obviously lying that he was run out of town. Multiple towns, in fact. Mormonism stands or falls on the history of one man, Joseph Smith. He either was a true Prophet of God, or it's all totally fake. He Prophesied that before 1891, and before he turned 85, Jesus Christ would return. Now, unless anyone here can point to the newspaper article of Jesus returning in the 19th Century... oh wait, it doesn't matter, Smith was murdered in 1844.
And no, Jesus didn't return.
So I ask, yet again, why is Mormonism given any more validity than Scientology? Is it because of their ties with traditional Christianity? Deanhills, do you consider Mormonism to be a "real" religion? Much like your claims about Scientology, Mormonism was built on lies, for devious purposes. So why do you accept one, but not the other?
| Ophois wrote: |
| Much like your claims about Scientology, Mormonism was built on lies, for devious purposes. So why do you accept one, but not the other? |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Instincts. I've lived with mormons. Their devotion to God is very real to me. |
| Quote: |
| I don't see any devotion to God among scientologists. |
| Quote: |
| More "lifestyle" requirements and limitations involving enormous sums of money as well that open up a number of real dangers of corruption and exploitation as well. |
| Quote: |
| I just see a completely absence of devotion to God. |
"Instincts" was your very first word to define why Mormonism is more legit than Scientology. That's very interesting. You have "lived with Mormons", so you have seen their devotion to God. How many Scientologists have you lived with? Scientology is not a real religion because you simply don't like it. You don't think they have enough of a devotion(or any) to God, and you dislike their lifestyle, therefor they have no business calling themselves a religion. Even though the Mormon religion was created for equally shady reasons, by an equally shady person, it still gets your blessings of legitimacy.
This just reeks of prejudice.
This is getting extensible boring, all this quotation of quotation thing......
For those who believe on Scientology as a religion, it would be interesting to know which are your trascendental aspirations? how Scientology makes you trascend your human life and make a difference on your afterlife.
For us, who don't believe it is a religion, it won't change with all your wording thing. And I feel totally offended when you compare Women Rights with Scientology recognition. Are Scientologysts suddenly a third gender? your words go too far. Nobody is born Scientologyst, diferent to men and women.
For those who believe on Scientology as a religion, it would be interesting to know which are your trascendental aspirations? how Scientology makes you trascend your human life and make a difference on your afterlife.
For us, who don't believe it is a religion, it won't change with all your wording thing. And I feel totally offended when you compare Women Rights with Scientology recognition. Are Scientologysts suddenly a third gender? your words go too far. Nobody is born Scientologyst, diferent to men and women.
| iyepes wrote: |
| This is getting extensible boring, all this quotation of quotation thing...... |
| Quote: |
| For those who believe on Scientology as a religion, it would be interesting to know which are your trascendental aspirations? how Scientology makes you trascend your human life and make a difference on your afterlife. |
| Quote: |
| For us, who don't believe it is a religion, it won't change with all your wording thing. |
| Quote: |
| And I feel totally offended when you compare Women Rights with Scientology recognition. Are Scientologysts suddenly a third gender? your words go too far. Nobody is born Scientologyst, diferent to men and women. |
The only comparison was this quote from Indi - "So what? Women are not recognized as full human beings in some countries. That is also a fact. But it has no bearing on the reality of what women are, which is fully human beings."
The point Indi was making was that it is irrelevant if a government recognizes a woman as a full human being, common sense(and biology) says she is. So it does not matter if you or anyone else recognizes Scientology as a religion or not, the fact remains, it is a religion because nothing about it's makeup says otherwise.
It was created by a madman? So was almost every other religion. It was created for legal/tax/money/power/fame/shady/unknown reasons? Look up Joseph Smith, and how he created the Mormon religion. They have a crazy/strange lifestyle? Again, see Mormonism(amongst others). They bilk their members for money? Check out anything with the word Christ in it, namely any Mega-Church. They are a new religion? The Mormons are only about a 100 years older than Scientology, so no dice.
If Scientology doesn't pass muster, then neither do the Mormons.
| Ophois wrote: |
| Or is it because you are using a very broad brush to paint an entire group of people with your own prejudices? |
Is it possible because it is not a religion?
Scientology may claim it is a religion, but its actual behaviour is as a business and a cult. To be truthful, even if I had the opportunity to get to know scientologists, I would be very very careful about getting involved. There is enough documentation on the Internet to justify this concern, and this is not prejudice talking, but common sense and factual information about people who have been badly burnt by its cult aspects. Refer Time Magazine article on:"Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power":
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html
| Quote: |
| The Church of Scientology, started by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard to "clear" people of unhappiness, portrays itself as a religion. In reality the church is a hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner. At times during the past decade, prosecutions against Scientology seemed to be curbing its menace. Eleven top Scientologists, including Hubbard's wife, were sent to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing and wiretapping more than 100 private and government agencies in attempts to block their investigations. In recent years hundreds of longtime Scientology adherents -- many charging that they were mentally of physically abused -- have quit the church and criticized it at their own risk. Some have sued the church and won; others have settled for amounts in excess of $500,000. In various cases judges have labeled the church "schizophrenic and paranoid" and "corrupt, sinister and dangerous."
|
| iyepes wrote: |
| For those who believe on Scientology as a religion, it would be interesting to know which are your trascendental aspirations? how Scientology makes you trascend your human life and make a difference on your afterlife. |
Your grammar is atrocious, almost to the point of being incomprehensible. If you meant "for those who believe Scientology is a religion" (which includes me), then i don't know that my transcendental aspirations matter. If the second sentence actually means, "How does Scientology make you trascend your human life and make a difference on your afterlife?" then this is the answer, in part:
Scientologists believe that the "soul" - their word is thetan - is immortal, and exists before, during and after life. It has been, and will continue to be, reincarnated in other bodies until we escape the illusion.
Scientologists believe that this universe is all a grand illusion created by us as an amusement, which we have now become trapped in. What we need to do is become intrinsically aware of this fact, so we can escape the illusion and return to the grander outer cosmos that we really exist in.
But before we can even begin to escape the illusion of the "mest" (matter/energy/space/time, as the Scientologists call it), we have to "clear" ourselves of other thetans (body thetans) that have attached themselves to us like leeches, and engrams (powerful negative memories) that have been implanted into our psyches to confuse us.
So, here's how Scientology makes someone transcend human life and make a difference on the afterlife. First, it tries to get you to free yourself of engrams and body thetans. It does this by auditing (basically, counselling, but actually more similar to Catholic confessional), and mediation, along with ritualistic body purification (fasting and stuff). Once this happens, you should begin to become aware of past lives, and start to recognize the illusion of the universe you're in, and be able to manipulate it (similar to Hindu and Buddhist beliefs about religious people being able to do ridiculous feats like sitting on nails without pain, or being able to change your body temperature to ridiculous ranges). Eventually, if you expand your awareness enough, you should be able to will yourself out of the illusion, and escape into immortality in the greater universe beyond.
That's a very brief overview. To me, that reeks of religion (and, in point of fact, it is plagiarized from a dozen religions).
Related topics
 |