[709]

Originally Posted by PB PM Don't recall saying I was.

Dude. Matthew 10:33.

You're going to hell.

[PB PM]

The greatly evolved, morally superior minds strike again!!!!!! Keep running with that theory, but from the looks of things you are blowing it big time. Do you realize you sound just like religious people, push your "religion" (secularism) on people?

Originally Posted by 709 Dude. Matthew 10:33. You're going to hell.

As if I wasn't already, by Christian standards. I believe there is more to the world than meets the eye, but a Christian, hardly.

[709]

Originally Posted by PB PM The greatly evolved, morally superior minds strike again!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure I'm a lot dumber than you imagine me to be (if you're even talking about me).

[PB PM]

I was just speaking in general, reading the various posts, its funny.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by 709 a): I say let people believe whatever they want. We're human, and we've made up shit to believe in for the past 20 thousand years. Go for it.

I agree to a point. I just think we should discourage it. It does contaminate people, like it or not. A show I just had to switch off on Channel 4 had a guy who has 12 children, saying the following:

1. That he lived by faith. That is, he didn't have enough money to support his kids, but that the Bible promises to provide it.
2. His kids don't go to school because "they're told for six hours a day that God doesn't exist and that humans came from monkeys. There's more scientific evidence to support the Bible than there is evolution."

Now I know this is another debate for another time, but to me that's 1. child abuse and 2. The pot calling the kettle black with a healthy slice of lies thrown in.

Originally Posted by 709 b): Don't get any on me. It's fine that you do what you do. Do it. Somewhere else than in my personal space. c): Religion is a business. Point. Tax it like any other business. You tax my amendment right to have guns, you should tax my amendment right to worship whatever the fuck I want (or the place I choose to worship at). d): Religious institutions should be absolutely banned from interfering in politics and social laws. No religion allowed in schools. No thinking allowed in religion (heh, that'll be my one dig ). Other than that, whatever. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Amen, brother!

Originally Posted by zsummers Yowser! I can't remember a post I so violently agree and disagree with, all at the same time.

Originally Posted by zsummers Some things are empirically better than others--and we should say it. But saying it doesn't change the fact that some people won't and don't see it that way.

Absolutely. But we should impose what we believe. That's not to say that we should instigate regime changes in theocratic countries, but we should help, on a low-level (MUST NOT, REPEAT MUST NOT, BE A BAY OF PIGS LEVEL), the rational people in those countries. Cf. British police who work with Pakistanis forced into arranged marriages in the UK and then essentially kidnapped.

I think people get edgy, quite rightly, when people start to say that one thing is empirically better than another and that we should defend it. Sometimes it's hard to see where sensible caution stops and the frog simmering in the pan starts.

Originally Posted by zsummers And that, in fact, those people make up far more than a majority. I guess that's what I'm concerned with when it comes to how we give people hope in the immediate situation in Haiti. If I could wave a magic wand and make a beer do what religion does for those people, I would--in a hearbeat. But I can't... and that makes me lean towards the devil you know, so to speak.

Religion does give them hope. But as we've already seen, 100% of people disbelieve in 99.9% of the gods, and the 0.1% is split, what, ten ways? As we said, we can do better.

Originally Posted by zsummers And eliminating the tax breaks: hallelujah.

I know. I can't believe this hasn't been done yet--particularly in a recession.

Originally Posted by zsummers But limiting when kids can be brought into religious congregations, etc., is a dangerous door to walk through, and requires absolute certainty regarding the results--both intentional and unintentional--of what would amount to a massive social experiment.

I'm not sure it's a social experiment. It's recognising that there are some dangerously misguided people in churches (cf. Intelligent Design) and that we need to protect our children from them. I don't want to sound crass, but it's harder because they're white middle class dudes and not the image of what the west typically associates with religious brainwashing. The other difficulty is that they've been in our society for hundreds of years. Parts of the frog's brain are starting to wake up and see a pan of boiling water...

Originally Posted by zsummers We do not have that certainty when it comes to social engineering. And I can only imagine the underground movements--nothing cements conviction like persecution--and the resulting, more extreme, behaviors. I'm not so sure that pushing things underground is the way to go. Better education at public schools, though? Yes please. Teach children to think rationally, and they'll handle the rest themselves.

As long as parents have the right to homeschool children this will be a problem. Kids are at school for only a few hours a day. You can't compete with what generations of brainwashed parents are telling them I guess it would be a start, though!

Originally Posted by zsummers (As a side note, being from a rural town with a terrible school system, I learned 90% of my useful skills in church: parsing text, questioning authority, reading music, etc. Am I an exception? Probably. But even though I'm not a whit religious, I've often thought about how to replace what I got in church for my kids... and how difficult that will be).

We're not talking about the smart majority here though. Everyone on this forum is of above average intellect. No doubt in my mind. The problem is that there is maybe 30% of society who will just go with what they have hammered into their heads the most / at key points. For someone like you or me; reading the Bible is the best way to see that religion is phoney.

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb When we see footage of disaster victims storming churches or madly looting motel rooms for Gideon's as their #1 priority rather than crushing themselves queueing for food/water/medicine/blankets, I'll consider debating Maslow's pyramid.

Best post in the thread.

Originally Posted by zippy WHAT?? Religion is sinister, pervasive and threatening? Oh, but you don't mean to insult anyone. Oh, OK.

I don't. I'm simply calling it as I see it. I see religious terrorism around the globe. I see religious people congregating every week to affirm their beliefs despite a lack of evidence. I see religious pressure groups trying to tamper with the school system to get bogus science onto the curriculum. I see religious people shooting abortion doctors. I see military contractors engraving Bible quotes into the barrels of rifles sent for military service in predominantly muslim countries. I see people who don't know anything about science, on TV, saying that evolution is bogus, because they believe in a 2,000 year old book.

What do you think that is? A joke?

Originally Posted by zippy Your absolute disdain and intolerance for religion (and dare I say anyone who disagrees with you) is duly noted. Can we move on now.

I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that I'm disdainful of those who disagree with me. I've been having a pretty reasonable discussion on here for the past few hours about this. I only see theists being outraged that their beliefs are being called into question Everyone else can provide evidence and stand up for themselves.

I am disdainful of religion. Just as I'd be disdainful of you if you believed in fairies in the garden. You don't believe in Allah. If a Muslim asked you why you'd tell him. What's the difference here? I just don't believe in any gods.

Originally Posted by zippy And don't worry. I'll still pray for you.

I'm delighted you won't be doing anything useful with that time

Originally Posted by zsummers Now there's a great and unanswerable question... given religion's central role in shaping our world up until 2010, it is almost like asking, "is our world good?" My brain scrapes bottom (or top) on that one.

That's a big part of it. I'm certain our moral codes would have developed without religion. Although superstition is present in all societies, no matter how primitive; so is the notion of social cohesion.

Originally Posted by zsummers Here's what I think I can say for certain--I do wish that, if religion had to exist, it would have taken on Kurt Vonnegut's great humanist maxim as its one and only: "Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind."

That's a great idea. I really must get into Vonnegut. As an aside, any suggestions on where to start? I think a lot of religions problems begin and end with it entering arenas where it knew nothing 2,000 years ago, and continues to know nothing now. A lot of what Jesus said is great (racism towards Samaritans and calling that one woman a dog excepted.) Just a shame about Yahweh summoned 3 bears to kill 42 children for calling a dude bald, and approving of slavery, and pretending to create the world in six days 12,000 years ago.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Stupid side story. There was a woman trapped in the rubble for a week. She spent the entire time praying to God to help her out. They dug her out, and she's now alive. Do I personally believe that God intervened on her behalf based on her prayers? No. It's irrelevant though, because her faith is what gave her the strength to hang on when many would have given up.

Who is to say that an areligious person wouldn't have pulled through just as well, hoping constantly for another chance at life, of loved ones, the future, etc.? Substitute "God" with any number of things to think about and she may have pulled through just as well. Willpower and personal motivation aren't necessarily based in religion any more than morals or "sins" or enlightenment are. There's also the possibility that her mental well-being had nothing to do with her survival in the first place and that she was "fortunate" in her placement of the rubble, location, general health beforehand, etc. There are way way too many factors involved to jump to the conclusion that prayer kept her alive.

But it sure makes for sensational headlines!

[murbot]

This might not be the thread for it, but it's active and about the same thing, so what the hell.

Christ TV gets Rickrolled

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by Brad Who is to say that an areligious person wouldn't have pulled through just as well, hoping constantly for another chance at life, of loved ones, the future, etc.? Substitute "God" with any number of things to think about and she may have pulled through just as well. Willpower and personal motivation aren't necessarily based in religion any more than morals or "sins" or enlightenment are. There's also the possibility that her mental well-being had nothing to do with her survival in the first place and that she was "fortunate" in her placement of the rubble, location, general health beforehand, etc. There are way way too many factors involved to jump to the conclusion that prayer kept her alive. But it sure makes for sensational headlines!

I'm sure any of those things would have worked for any number of people. If faith in God gives people some kind of inner strength, why go to so much effort to 'educate' them that they're wrong?

Basically you end up acting like a 'missionary' for atheism, which is just as obnoxious if not more-so, since at least the religious people think they're saving your soul.

For her, she found comfort and strength in her belief. Why is that so threatening to atheists? Religious people will take it as a sign, atheists will shrug and say "it happens' and life goes on. Does anyone actually believe that by pointing out that in fact there's no proof God had anything to do with her survival that suddenly Christians everywhere will say "holy shit, you're right. This God stuff is bunk!" Of course not. So who cares?

It's not hurting anyone, it might help some, and life goes on.

You'll lose my tolerance at evolution vs. creationism in the classroom granted, but for many people, religion is a positive aspect of their lives, not a negative one. Sure there are people who take it too far, and it's often misused by those in power to try and affect/control behavior, but it's not like there aren't secular versions of the same thing that people buy hook, line and sinker anyway. (OMG WAR ON TERRAH!!!!)

Too many people who aren't religious seem to take another person's religious beliefs as some kind of insult or a sign of mental deficiency, and it gets tiresome.


ok, never would have thought i'd spend half a dozen posts defending religion

[Brad]

Originally Posted by alcimedes I'm sure any of those things would have worked for any number of people. If faith in God gives people some kind of inner strength, why go to so much effort to 'educate' them that they're wrong? Basically you end up acting like a 'missionary' for atheism, which is just as obnoxious if not more-so, since at least the religious people think they're saving your soul. For her, she found comfort and strength in her belief. Why is that so threatening to atheists? Religious people will take it as a sign, atheists will shrug and say "it happens' and life goes on. Does anyone actually believe that by pointing out that in fact there's no proof God had anything to do with her survival that suddenly Christians everywhere will say "holy shit, you're right. This God stuff is bunk!" Of course not. So who cares?

I'm not advocating that anyone go tell some traumatized victims that their belief system is bunk. That's no better than missionaries thumping bibles at people when the chips are down to win converts. It's spiteful and cruel, and you don't have to have "the fear of god" to realize that taking advantage of the meek to push an agenda is an inhumane thing to do.

But I do think it's foolish and harmful in general to keep persisting and spreading such fallacies and conclusion-jumping stories, just as I think that other forms of brainwashing and bandwagoning and propaganda are harmful to people. Aggrandizing stories like this breeds ignorance just like OMG WAR ON TERRAH!!! stories on Faux News do.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by alcimedes I'm sure any of those things would have worked for any number of people. If faith in God gives people some kind of inner strength, why go to so much effort to 'educate' them that they're wrong? Basically you end up acting like a 'missionary' for atheism, which is just as obnoxious if not more-so, since at least the religious people think they're saving your soul.

I think that's misguided on two counts. Firstly nobody was suggesting people act like missionaries for atheism. We were all just suggesting that we shouldn't bring religion into aid efforts. Just like politics shouldn't be brought into it. Or sporting allegiances.

Secondly, I think there's an element of social responsibility to it. These people are needy and traumatised. Their critical faculties are not working as they normally would. There's more than a little outrage that religious people are using this opportunity to snare them.

Originally Posted by alcimedes For her, she found comfort and strength in her belief. Why is that so threatening to atheists?

It isn't. It's the fact that people misrepresent it. In your original post for example you said that her faith gave her the strength to carry on. It probably didn't. She probably would have survived regardless. How many "miracles" of Haiti have you seen? I've seen three miraculous rescues. People praising god in the streets for the safe return of loved ones. I didn't see anybody blaming god when the eleven year old girl who was pulled from the rouble a few days ago died in hospital.

If faith legitimately gave people strength to get through tough times then I'd be all for it as a Plan B., but I don't see any evidence that it does. It's one of those things people like to suggest without much evidence. Like "the family that prays together stays together." In actual fact, Christian families get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians.

Originally Posted by alcimedes Religious people will take it as a sign, atheists will shrug and say "it happens' and life goes on. Does anyone actually believe that by pointing out that in fact there's no proof God had anything to do with her survival that suddenly Christians everywhere will say "holy shit, you're right. This God stuff is bunk!" Of course not. So who cares?

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by alcimedes It's not hurting anyone, it might help some, and life goes on.

I guess that's the difference. I see someone tithing 10% of their income to a church and perpetuating mythology, all the while gladly suffering hardship in the belief that they'll get a reward in the next life as someone being hurt.

Originally Posted by alcimedes You'll lose my tolerance at evolution vs. creationism in the classroom granted, but for many people, religion is a positive aspect of their lives, not a negative one. Sure there are people who take it too far, and it's often misused by those in power to try and affect/control behavior, but it's not like there aren't secular versions of the same thing that people buy hook, line and sinker anyway. (OMG WAR ON TERRAH!!!!)

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by alcimedes Too many people who aren't religious seem to take another person's religious beliefs as some kind of insult or a sign of mental deficiency, and it gets tiresome. ok, never would have thought i'd spend half a dozen posts defending religion

It's usually the formerly religious. I was very religious for a while, and have a very religious family. We know what these guys are thinking when they try and rationalise their beliefs, because we know how long we tricked ourselves into believing it. That's probably what annoys me most, anyway. I put off thinking about the big contradictions within religion for a long time because I knew in the back of my mind it was bogus. I just wish I'd listened sooner.

What I do know is that all the smart people around me, who would persistently and patiently explain why what I believed to be true about morality and religious philosophy was at best misguided and at worst flat-out wrong, were very important people to me losing my faith, even though I hated them at the time for being know-alls who made the religion my parents brought me into seem petty and devious.

[billybobsky]

I don't care for religion not because it is a crutch but because various (deistic) aspects of it require turning off one's brain. However, while I find the bibles to be a waste of electronics and the fuel needed to ship them there not worth the carbon dioxide released, some one will either get comfort or humor out of their presence in Haiti. it's the absurdist aspect of the image so produced in my head that leads me to think it is ok and that this is the least of the world's concerns right now. 'No water and no electricity, but at least I've got my fucking talking bible. tell me about jesus some more, idiot box...'

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Brad Who is to say that an areligious person wouldn't have pulled through just as well, hoping constantly for another chance at life, of loved ones, the future, etc.? Substitute "God" with any number of things to think about and she may have pulled through just as well. Willpower and personal motivation aren't necessarily based in religion any more than morals or "sins" or enlightenment are. There's also the possibility that her mental well-being had nothing to do with her survival in the first place and that she was "fortunate" in her placement of the rubble, location, general health beforehand, etc. There are way way too many factors involved to jump to the conclusion that prayer kept her alive. But it sure makes for sensational headlines!

Don't forget... perhaps she wouldn't have been there in the first place, were it not for her faith:

Ena Zizi was participating in a prayer group at the national cathedral in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, when the structure came down on her during the 7.0-magnitude earthquake that hit the island on January 12.

I take everything I've said back: there's just no good reason for people to gather together under one roof. Think of the earthquake danger!

'No water and no electricity, but at least I've got my fucking talking bible.'

IT TALKS. Let's not even get into the time, effort, and money that must go in to making a multi-lingual talking bible...

[curiousuburb]

Guardian reports on the Scientologists and Haiti

All I can say is, thank God for John Travolta. The Wild Hogs legend has unveiled his response to the unfolding crisis, announcing: "I have arranged for a plane to take down some Volunteer Ministers and some supplies and some medics." For the medics and supplies John must obviously be thanked, but for the Volunteer Ministers – arriving in Haiti via Air Travolta along with scores from other Scientology churches – the same cannot be said. According to an official press release, the corps will be on hand to dispense "spiritual first aid" to Haitians. Because really, nothing should feel more appropriate right now than gadding about Port-au-Prince offering survivors the chance to be hooked up to an e-meter. Hopefully if they find any gay people, they can begin curing them. For the Volunteer Ministers, you see, a tragedy is not so much a tragedy as a tragitunity. ... continues ...

[drewprops]

Wow.
I read about 12 posts on the first page and skipped to the end to remark on how surprised and disappointed I am at some of the comments in this thread.

Nobody sent beer.

...

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Every time there's a situation like this, you hear people stateside complaining about these "converting missionaries" But despite being watched by news crews from around the world, you never hear such reports from the field.

Just thought I'd hold your feet to the fire, Frank, since now there are reports complaining about exactly this. The Scientologists took landing slots that legitimate aid agencies could have used, and did more harm than good, and some Christians apparently 'mis-heard' God and tried to take some Haitian children out of the country to an orphanage, despite the fact that they told them they had parents.

After this, if you can't see why it would be better to leave the religious bullshit at the door, I guess you never will.

I've quoted the Scientology article since I'm sure everyone is familiar with the Baptist kidnappers:

Originally Posted by Gawker I knew we were traveling with doctors and EMTs, but I didn't expect to see 50 scientologists, in their yellow shirts with Volunteer Minister on them. They were completely unprepared for going to a third world country, let alone a disaster zone. One girl was in designer cowboy boots. I asked her if she'd brought any sturdier footwear. "Oh no, these'll be fine." I asked another guy what he'd packed and he said he hadn't bothered to bring soap or toilet paper or food, but that he'd just "buy whatever I need at Port-au-Prince airport." I couldn't break it to him. They had no place to stay, and no supplies — their idea was to use the ton of money they had to buy food to distribute when they got there. But there was no food and no water. That was the point. By the time we arrived in Haiti, after a stopover in Miami, we had missed three landing slots at the airport. Aid agencies — genuine aid agencies — from other countries were being turned away, refused permission to land. But we still got a slot straight away. The guy who ran our charter seemed to think that the Scientologists had some real influence with the US Government, who were assigning the slots. [...] But they had no-one who spoke Creole, and they brought the weirdness of touch healing into a very superstitious society. They'd leave the tent and come into the general hospital downtown, and try healing people. One of the doctors and one of the nurses told me that the wounded started coming to them to tell them they didn't want to be treated by the people in the yellow shirts. One nurse told me that the Scientologists actually caused harm — they gave food to people who were scheduled to go into surgery. That then led to complications in the operating theater.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Iago The Scientologists took landing slots that legitimate aid agencies could have used, and did more harm than good, ... After this, if you can't see why it would be better to leave the religious bullshit at the door, I guess you never will.

Sorry Iago, but as much disdain as I have for religion, I don't see what this cult has to do with religion

But I suppose that's an argument for another thread

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by joveblue Sorry Iago, but as much disdain as I have for religion, I don't see what this cult has to do with religion

The difference between a religion and a cult is much like the difference between a compound and an estate... depends on whether the speaker agrees with you.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by joveblue Sorry Iago, but as much disdain as I have for religion, I don't see what this cult has to do with religion

Just like those loopy Cult of Christ and Cult of Mohammed followers, amidoinitrite?

[Iago]

Originally Posted by joveblue Sorry Iago, but as much disdain as I have for religion, I don't see what this cult has to do with religion

Originally Posted by Kickaha The difference between a religion and a cult is much like the difference between a compound and an estate... depends on whether the speaker agrees with you.

Originally Posted by Brad Just like those loopy Cult of Christ and Cult of Mohammed followers, amidoinitrite?

Precisely. Scientology is recognised as a religion. The point is that people are bringing their religious beliefs to Haiti either as a motive or as a 'service', and it does harm. Even if you don't recognise Scientology as a legitimate 'faith' (I'm amazed that you're drawing a distinction between Scientology and Christianity... the only difference I can see is a few thousand years of cultural putrefaction) you must be able to see how it's actions of faith causing problems.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Iago Scientology is recognised as a religion.

A most grievous error...

I won't bother analysing the difference, there's a billion websites out there that do just that.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by joveblue A most grievous error... I won't bother analysing the difference, there's a billion websites out there that do just that.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that any rational or legal distinction between a cult and religion holds much weight. Either they're all cults, to varying degrees of benevolence, or they're all religions, and equally exempt from certain obligations and laws.

Stating that some are 'blessed' and others aren't is a clear violation of separation of church and state, IMO.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by joveblue A most grievous error... I won't bother analysing the difference, there's a billion websites out there that do just that.

Actually, and sorry to be blunt, you're wrong. Scientology empirically, absolutely, definitely is recognised as a religion by the following nations:

• Australia
• Brazil
• Croatia
• Indonesia
• Kyrgystan
• New Zealand
• Portugal
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Sweden
• Taiwan
• UK
• USA
• Venezuela

Sorry if you think a belief system needs some sort of a historical currency to qualify which scientology doesn't have, but the fact is, scientology is a religion.

Originally Posted by Kickaha Unfortunately, I don't believe that any rational or legal distinction between a cult and religion holds much weight. Either they're all cults, to varying degrees of benevolence, or they're all religions, and equally exempt from certain obligations and laws. Stating that some are 'blessed' and others aren't is a clear violation of separation of church and state, IMO.

I agree with this, but think it's moot in this instance: Scientology is a religion. I don't see a distinction between Christianity, Scientology and the crazy guy in the street who wants me to drink the kool-aid, but legally, in many countries, Scientology is a religion.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Iago Actually, and sorry to be blunt, you're wrong. Scientology empirically, absolutely, definitely is recognised as a religion by the following nations: Australia Brazil Croatia Indonesia Kyrgystan New Zealand Portugal Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Taiwan UK USA Venezuela Sorry if you think a belief system needs some sort of a historical currency to qualify which scientology doesn't have, but the fact is, scientology is a religion. I agree with this, but think it's moot in this instance: Scientology is a religion. I don't see a distinction between Christianity, Scientology and the crazy guy in the street who wants me to drink the kool-aid, but legally, in many countries, Scientology is a religion.

And precisely why religion and government need to be kept as far apart from one another as possible.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Iago Actually, and sorry to be blunt, you're wrong. Scientology empirically, absolutely, definitely is recognised as a religion by the following nations:

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant it was a grievous error by those countries/institutions to recognise it as a religion, not by yourself in making that statement.



I'm well aware of the unfortunate legal situation, and some of the various attempts to rectify the situation.

A cult can be differed from a religion in that they have designed, systematic, intentional and aggressive practices of mind control/brain-washing techniques, societal alienation, blackmailing, enslavement, surveillance and record-keeping, and so forth, of members. They are also contained completely within an organisation.

Sure, elements of these can be found in religions, but not in the same designed, systematic, intentional and aggressive (and, ultimately, destructive) way as a cult. Note that there are cults within religions (e.g. Exclusive Brethren). But religions per se operate differently from cults and exist outside of defined organisations.

If you need any further explanation, Google is your friend...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Iago (I'm amazed that you're drawing a distinction between Scientology and Christianity... the only difference I can see is a few thousand years of cultural putrefaction)

And mysterious murders. And opaqueness. And mafia-like schemes. The held beliefs may be similarly strange, but the systemic practices may exist in sects like JW, but not mainstream Christianity.

Ask a local pastor a question about what they do all day. They'll be happy to answer. Now, ask the same of any Scientologist…

[Iago]

Originally Posted by chucker And mysterious murders. And opaqueness. And mafia-like schemes. The held beliefs may be similarly strange, but the systemic practices may exist in sects like JW, but not mainstream Christianity.

The same things have happened in Christianity in the past thousand years, too. I appreciate what you're saying but the problem is we're living in an age where information is so pervasive that it's impossible for a myth like Scientology to catch on. That's why it's viewed with suspicion and disdain by so many, not because it's any worse than Christianity or Buddhism or Islam--it's just that calling bullshit has been a lot easier since the Enlightenment.

I happen to believe that in the modern era, Scientology is more dangerous and stupid than Christianity (they're both dangerous and stupid, but Scientology is massively so), but I think you're being pretty generous to Christianity in your assessment. BTW, last night's Office episode was well worth watching

[joveblue]

Conversely, I think you're being generous to Scientology.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Iago The same things have happened in Christianity in the past thousand years, too.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Iago I happen to believe that in the modern era, Scientology is more dangerous and stupid than Christianity (they're both dangerous and stupid, but Scientology is massively so), but I think you're being pretty generous to Christianity in your assessment.

If we're going for present-day mainstream Christianity? Nah. It simply doesn't pose any harm. Evangelicals who try to politicize (that would include people who bullshit their way around with "moral majority", fighting gay marriage, etc.) obviously do. Fringe groups like JW and FLDS do. American absurdities like "televangelists" and "megachurches" (ZOMG) arguably do, too.

Originally Posted by Iago BTW, last night's Office episode was well worth watching

Heh.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by joveblue Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant it was a grievous error by those countries/institutions to recognise it as a religion, not by yourself in making that statement. I'm well aware of the unfortunate legal situation, and some of the various attempts to rectify the situation. A cult can be differed from a religion in that they have designed, systematic, intentional and aggressive

So... dogmatic.

practices of mind control/brain-washing techniques,

Repetitive liturgies, chanting, etc... What? They work!

societal alienation,

Church groups... if your entire social life is church based (as several people I know are), then leaving the church means leaving all of that too. For many people that's too large a price to pay.

blackmailing,

Got me there... but does peer pressure count?

enslavement,

Does tithing count, since it's pulling in your hard-earned time and cash? Not to mention "Oh, we really need someone to run the bake sale this weekend, OR YOU'LL BURN IN HELLLLLLLLLL... yes? kthx!"

surveillance and record-keeping, and so forth, of members.

When I was living in SLC, I lived a couple blocks from the only (at that time) drive through espresso stand in UT. I got to know the owner, and he said that for the first month he was open, a cop car sat across the street. When he asked the police officer if there was a problem, the officer very nicely said no, he was just taking down license plate numbers, to cross-check with the DMV and give the names to the appropriate church leaders so that they could talk to the congregation members.

I hope I don't have to tell you on how many levels that is seriously fucked up. Most people in UT didn't see a problem with the situation.

They are also contained completely within an organisation. Sure, elements of these can be found in religions, but not in the same designed, systematic, intentional and aggressive (and, ultimately, destructive) way as a cult

It's just a matter of degrees, really.

Note that there are cults within religions (e.g. Exclusive Brethren). But religions per se operate differently from cults and exist outside of defined organisations.

So the Catholic Church isn't a defined organization? Or the Missouri Senate Lutherans? Or the Anglican Church? I'm sure they'll be devastated to hear that...

If you need any further explanation, Google is your friend...

Again, it's just a matter of degrees, is all. If you personally believe in it, it's a religion. If it's close to what you personally believe in, it's a religion you tolerate. If it's sufficiently distant from your beliefs, it's easily dismissible as a cult. For some of us, the whole ball of wax looks an awful lot the same from this distance. *shrug*

There are folks who, I'm sure, Scientology has been a wonderful influence in their lives, just as there have been folks for whom Catholicism or being Baptist was tragic and horrific. It's the same methodologies, the same reliance on faith over reason, and the same bizarre exclusionary thinking, just in varying degrees.

Which is why you can't rationally come up with a legal delineation between Scientology and any other religion, and make it stick. Either any whacked out set of beliefs can be slapped with the religion label, or none can, from a legal standing. Since the churches in the US are terrified of being stripped of their special status and rights, they don't make too big a stink about cults getting the same economic and legal protections. Scientology figured out how to make the racket pay *big*, is all.

But really, in the end? SSDD*.

*Same Shit, Different Denomination.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Kickaha So... dogmatic.

What, using some words to define the difference between a cult and a religion?

Repetitive liturgies, chanting, etc... What? They work!

I'm talking about techniques designed to weaken the brain and put the subject under an altered state of consciousness like hypnosis and low-protein diets (not sure if Scientology uses the latter). I'm sure this has happened in the name of religion from time to time but it's not an inherent part of the religion.

Church groups... if your entire social life is church based (as several people I know are), then leaving the church means leaving all of that too. For many people that's too large a price to pay.

Here I'm referring to: "TALK TO ANYONE ON THE OUTSIDE AND YOU'RE FUCKED!!!!" and, if you leave: "TALK TO ANYONE ON THE INSIDE AND YOU'RE FUCKED!!!!". Most churches don't care who anyone talks to, although yes, if you decide to leave, you are likely to lose a lot of friends. Also, by "YOU'RE FUCKED" I mean blackmail and threats.

Got me there... but does peer pressure count?

Absolutely not. I'm talking full-blown, illegal blackmail and various types of threats systematically made to members.

Does tithing count, since it's pulling in your hard-earned time and cash? Not to mention "Oh, we really need someone to run the bake sale this weekend, OR YOU'LL BURN IN HELLLLLLLLLL... yes? kthx!"

Don't compare running a bake sale to enslavement please. We're talking years of physical labour here... I suppose large-scale, compulsory tithing counts, although it's rarely more than someone can possibly afford. If the religion (e.g. The Bible, Qur'an) actually specifies tithing, it's a relatively affordable percentage of a persons income to be donated to charity. Cults like Scientology have people getting mortgages on their house to pay for compulsory "personal development programs", the profits of which go toward growing the cult. Sure, large-scale compulsory tithing happen occasionally in the more cult-like churches for the purpose of growing the church but we're talking about cult-like churches here, not the religion as a whole.

When I was living in SLC, I lived a couple blocks from the only (at that time) drive through espresso stand in UT. I got to know the owner, and he said that for the first month he was open, a cop car sat across the street. When he asked the police officer if there was a problem, the officer very nicely said no, he was just taking down license plate numbers, to cross-check with the DMV and give the names to the appropriate church leaders so that they could talk to the congregation members. I hope I don't have to tell you on how many levels that is seriously fucked up. Most people in UT didn't see a problem with the situation.

Is that a systematic part of the entire religion? The surveillance conducted by Scientology is to gather information that can be used to (a) prey on the weaknesses of the individual and (b) more importantly, blackmail and threaten the individuals.

So the Catholic Church isn't a defined organization? Or the Missouri Senate Lutherans? Or the Anglican Church? I'm sure they'll be devastated to hear that...

I never said that. But The Catholic Church isn't Christianity. They are not a religion, they are a church/sect/denomination within a religion. If you think that they display systematic cult-like behaviour, feel free to say you think they may be a cult. A cult can exist within a religion.

It's just a matter of degrees, really.

A religion is a relatively uniformly-held set of beliefs. A cult is closer to a single church than a religion. A church and a religion are obviously (I hope) completely different concepts. At risk of being repetitive, a cult can exist within a larger religion, and many do. They can also exist outside of religions. In time, the beliefs that Scientology is known for may eventually establish themselves as a religion in their own right, but I seriously doubt it. I don't think they're even a crucial part of Scientology, to be honest. The only reason the wacky set of beliefs exists is to allow them to pretend they are a religion/church, and thus gain tax exemption and, with any luck, acceptance among society. New members aren't even allowed to know about the full extent of the "beliefs". They're eased into it gradually. All the tenets of a religion are set out right from the start, not hidden.

Again, it's just a matter of degrees, is all. If you personally believe in it, it's a religion. If it's close to what you personally believe in, it's a religion you tolerate. If it's sufficiently distant from your beliefs, it's easily dismissible as a cult. For some of us, the whole ball of wax looks an awful lot the same from this distance. *shrug*

This is not merely a group of people with a particularly wacky set of beliefs and a particularly unethical set of practices. This is a malignant organisation using a particular set of techniques to prey on people to grow itself, cleverly disguised as a religion so people like yourself can ignore what is really going on here

There are folks who, I'm sure, Scientology has been a wonderful influence in their lives,

I doubt it.

Which is why you can't rationally come up with a legal delineation between Scientology and any other religion, and make it stick

It's tricky, I will certainly acknowledge that. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening. But I suppose any organisation systematically conducting illegal practices would be a very good start.

*Same Shit, Different Denomination.

If only...