Scientology has every right to be considered a legitimate religion

[Darius871]

Well, clearly I need educating then - so kindly explain the concept that Elok is trying to get across.

Oh wait, you can't.

Perhaps that there is no difference between religions and cults other than size, i.e. "quantit[y]" of membership? He said it in black and white, and yet you grill him for "mention[ing] quantitative differences without quantifying them"? Is it seriously news to you that there are more Christians, Muslims, j00s, etc. than Scientologists, Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo, etc.?

He didn't make any argument about their relative validity, FFS.

[Kitschum]

Do you rather like Hegelian or Marxian dianetics?

I'm not a card-carrying Hubbardian by any means. Sure I went to a meeting once when I was younger, but all they did was watch videos and do audits all day and and that didn't suit my radical anti-Xenuist beliefs at the time. All I wanted to do was smash some ****ing psychiatrist teeth in, the idealism of youth, you know? I just wanted to 'clear' the earth with one swift kick of the boot, haha!

Anyway, even though I'd like to think I've grown up since then (but even now when I hear about a new and improved anti-depression drug coming on the market it can really get my blood boiling again) I strongly feel that Dianetic Materialism is quite a useful analytical tool in many social sciences. And they've been doing some pretty interesting things within a Neo-Hubbardian framework at the Miscavige Institute recently in the field of extraterrestrial macroeconomics. I'm withholding my judgment for now, but still, looks promising.

[Elok]

I've encountered the argument you were making before, and was attempting to head it off. I'm assuming here that you say it's a legitimate religion in general, and not just as regards beliefs, because what beliefs are to be considered "absurd" is entirely subjective. But let's examine the behavior of the CoS as compared to, say, the Roman Catholic Church (most any other religion would do as well, but the RCC is well-known). I do this largely for Asher's benefit, because you, Moby, are quite closed-minded on the subject, and that's putting it generously.

Religions generally support themselves on contributions from the faithful. In the RCC, the traditional tithe amount is 10%, but tithing is entirely voluntary AFAIK. In the CoS, prompt payment is expected for all forms of spiritual counseling, and the payment is EXTREMELY steep. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to reach even "clear" status. And these counseling sessions are entirely obligatory; there's no point being a Scientologist if you're not advancing your "grade." Those who can't pay in money are expected to pay with labor, last I checked.

Religions often discourage criticism of their core tenets. The RCC today is pretty lenient to the point of being feeble in this regard; there's an organization called "Catholics for a free choice," supporting legalized abortion, for example, and apparently they haven't all been excommunicated. In the past, they were less friendly, but even when Martin Luther posted his 95 theses they tried debating him at first. Scientology? They keep records of your confessions for blackmail potential in case you even think about going "squirrel," and even the slightest criticism is verboten. If you start contesting L. Ron's teachings openly, you're declared a "suppressive person," and subsequently lose all human rights as far as the Church is concerned. In The Leader's own words (going from memory), you "may be lied to, cheated, tricked or destroyed." This policy is known as "fair game"; the title is no longer used for PR reasons, but the policy itself remains active.

Religions defend themselves against perceived "blasphemy." An outsider who says something nasty about Catholicism in public will face a nasty letter from the Catholic equivalent of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, I forget what it's called. If you're really outrageous and persistent, they might sue. For Scientologists, lawsuits are a standard opening move for any critic past a certain size, even if they say, for example, "Scientology sues anybody who disagrees with them." For major opponents they get vicious. They may, for example, attempt to frame you for terrorism. In less-known cases, critics have had their homes broken into, and regular death threats are to be expected.

And this is in the United States. In poor countries where law is weak, that kind of crap is to be expected from Muslims (and I would argue that certain sects of third-world Islam qualify as cults, ie totalitarian religions). Probably the CoS would act the same, except they don't go where there isn't money to be had.

In conclusion, no other religion, to my knowledge, has been caught infiltrating the FBI to destroy records.

[Asher]

In conclusion, no other religion, to my knowledge, has been caught infiltrating the FBI to destroy records.

Why would they have to? They run those organizations.

I'd stack up the bodycount of Christians to the bodycount of Scientologists any day.

FWIW I don't see Scientologists campaigning to take away my rights. I do see Catholics and other Christians doing so. Everyone who believes in religion is crazy, people are just crazy in different ways...that's all there is to it.

If you start contesting L. Ron's teachings openly, you're declared a "suppressive person," and subsequently lose all human rights as far as the Church is concerned.

Yeah, that doesn't sound familiar at all. Oh wait? I'm not going to patronize you by citing all of the examples of the church ****ing over scientists...

Not to mention, again, the Christian churches are largely trying to take away some of my human rights. Doesn't the bible somewhere call for the stoning of many different types of people?

[Elok]

Perhaps that there is no difference between religions and cults other than size, i.e. "quantit[y]" of membership? He said it in black and white, and yet you grill him for "mention[ing] quantitative differences without quantifying them"? Is it seriously news to you that there are more Christians, Muslims, j00s, etc. than Scientologists, Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo, etc.?

He didn't make any argument about their relative validity, FFS.

Actually, that's not what I meant. I meant "quantitative" differences as opposed to "qualitative" ones; a standard argument for cult/NRM apologists is that "other religions do that too." Yes, but not as much, is what I'm saying. Not nearly as much. In the context of what these people do, it's like saying, "well, sure, this man shot a guy in the head with a .45, but plenty of innocent schoolboys shoot spitballs at each others' heads."

By the way, Scientologists actually have a little-known term in their jargon for shooting people in the head. It's called Special Auditing Procedure R2-45, after the recommended caliber to be used. It's described/defined as "a very effective means of exteriorizations [clamspeak for removing the soul from the body], but one whose use is frowned upon by our society at this time." Really.

I didn't go into the details because it was late at night, my wife wanted to go to bed, and I can't spare all that much time for educating the willfully stupid.

[Asher]

Actually, that's not what I meant. I meant "quantitative" differences as opposed to "qualitative" ones; a standard argument for cult/NRM apologists is that "other religions do that too." Yes, but not as much, is what I'm saying. Not nearly as much. In the context of what these people do, it's like saying, "well, sure, this man shot a guy in the head with a .45, but plenty of innocent schoolboys shoot spitballs at each others' heads."

Quantitatively, scientologists have done far less damage to human rights than Christians have. And that's not even counting the millions of people killed in the name of Christianity.

Not sure 'quantitatively' is a good approach.

willfully stupid.

Love this phrase. Synonymous with religious faith, isn't it?

[Elok]

Okay, Asher:

1. I was under the impression that we were mostly citing religions as they are today. The abuses of the past are largely the result of human beings acquiring far too much power. They require no religion to be realized; witness Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre, Hitler (though he did use the church as a tool), and so on and so on. Who gets hosed, and for what ostensible reason, changes, but the amount of hosing varies little.

2. If I'm blinded by my "brainwashing" (by the by, the CoS employs a barrage of crude hypnotic suggestion techniques before it even begins indoctrination; my church never has), you're blinded by your position as a gay man. If it helps you to see things more reasonably, the CoS would very much like to hurt and oppress you for your sexuality. Gayness is an enormous no-no to them, the result of very bad alien ghosts; John Travolta was "converted" straight, with a sham wife and everything, while L. Ron's gay son Quentin eventually committed suicide. It's just that they're too busy harassing psychiatrists and using every trick, legal or otherwise, that they can to silence critics. If you compare a bunch of lobbying efforts and social pressure against gay marriage and evolution to robbery, extortion, blackmail and death threats, you've lost perspective.

3. Dammit, I know you're not stupid enough to misunderstand what I mean by "quantitative differences." Scientology takes things which you might say are done by ordinary religions, and carries them out to a ludicrous and dangerous extreme. The different body counts might have something to do with Christianity being 2,000 years old, with about two billion followers, while Scientology is about fifty and has never had more than a couple hundred million or so. But that, in any case, has precisely dick to do with what I was talking about.

[Asher]

Okay, Asher:

1. I was under the impression that we were mostly citing religions as they are today. The abuses of the past are largely the result of human beings acquiring far too much power. They require no religion to be realized; witness Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre, Hitler (though he did use the church as a tool), and so on and so on. Who gets hosed, and for what ostensible reason, changes, but the amount of hosing varies little.

Why should we ignore the early Christian histories if we're comparing them to the early Scientology history?

Even today, Christians frequently use their religion as a tool of hate and as a political weapon to deny rights to others.

2. If I'm blinded by my "brainwashing" (by the by, the CoS employs a barrage of crude hypnotic suggestion techniques before it even begins indoctrination; my church never has)

Yeah, that must be it. Why do you think churches are the way they are? Why do you think there are hymns? Sunday school? Christian music? Christian children's camps?

Indoctrination is used by both Christian and Scientology. While Scientology's methods may differ to the point of being, to you, bizarre I assure you that singing god-awful hymns in church every sunday morning is equally bizarre to me as anything they do in Scientology.

you're blinded by your position as a gay man.

I'm not. This assertion doesn't even make sense. I was raised a Protestant and I do go to church (a United church which actually lobbied the government to support gay marriage). I'm stating the facts -- the vast majority of the political groups aiming to ensure gays cannot marry are Christian. I'm not aware of a single group with that aim that is full of Scientologists. Feel free to find one.

If you compare a bunch of lobbying efforts and social pressure against gay marriage and evolution to robbery, extortion, blackmail and death threats, you've lost perspective.

You've lost perspective. No one cares what scientologists believe in (except you, as you've apparently done tons of research). The QUANTITATIVE destruction Scientology causes, even just present-day, is minuscule compared to the damage done by the Catholic Church and other Christian organizations.

3. Dammit, I know you're not stupid enough to misunderstand what I mean by "quantitative differences." Scientology takes things which you might say are done by ordinary religions, and carries them out to a ludicrous and dangerous extreme.

Not sure that you know what quantitative means. That's why Darius and others are awfully confused right now. Your argument is nonsensical using the words you've chosen.

[Elok]

Quantitative: With respect to quantity of the attributes or things in question. Feel free to suggest a better term.

I've deliberately avoided discussing what Scientologists believe. I'm discussing what they do, and what they do is far more aggressive and brutal than anything done by any mainstream religion.

--My priest does not order me to spread nasty rumors about people who question the Trinity, to refrain from talking to them, and certainly not to make threatening phone calls in the middle of the night.
--If I were to doubt the faith, I would not be kicked out summarily, and all my friends and family forbidden to so much as talk to me (admittedly, this is done by the Amish, but they're an unusual case).
--All the money I give is completely voluntary; I could go to services for ten years and not drop a cent in the basket. The parish keeps track of what we pledge to give only for the sake of budgeting.
--The church does not attempt to monitor what I read or write. I am using an uncensored version of Firefox, and my best RL friend is an agnostic. Scientologists are strongly discouraged from fraternizing with "wogs."
--We are exhorted to respect the law, and church leadership to my knowledge does not order crimes. We're actually not all that active politically, but our activities, like those of pretty much every other Christian religion, are strictly within the law and mostly consist of writing letters or soliciting (voluntary) contributions.

The reason the CoS has done less harm to date is that it started small, never really got big, and is rapidly waning. It only has so many people, so many funds, to use in spreading lies and threats around. Partly this is due to their eccentric beliefs, but until recently most of the public had no idea what they believed (most Scientologists aren't allowed to know about Xenu, if it comes to that). They disliked Scientology mostly because of the weird and often antisocial behavior of its followers, which was starkly different from that of your average Catholic, Muslim or Hindu.

The reason I oppose them is that I have done "extensive research." I have a fair idea how they started, what they've done, how they work. In a complete reversal of the ordinary circumstances around here, I know exactly what I'm talking about, while you (and Moby, but that's par) are talking out your ass.

[Asher]

Quantitative: With respect to quantity of the attributes or things in question. Feel free to suggest a better term.

The problem is quantitative speaks merely to quantity. The term is ambiguous in the context of religion, for quite obvious reasons. I cannot adequately explain how stupid the word is in this context, so you'll have to take everyone's word for it and do better.

I've deliberately avoided discussing what Scientologists believe. I'm discussing what they do, and what they do is far more aggressive and brutal than anything done by any mainstream religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

--My priest does not order me to spread nasty rumors about people who question the Trinity, to refrain from talking to them, and certainly not to make threatening phone calls in the middle of the night.

So what? Some priests do. Are you to say all people in scientology do all of this fringe bat**** crazy stuff? As someone who is supposedly a moderately sensible Christian I find it bizarre you assume all scientologists are of the extreme.

--If I were to doubt the faith, I would not be kicked out summarily, and all my friends and family forbidden to so much as talk to me (admittedly, this is done by the Amish, but they're an unusual case).

As you've said, this is done in Christianity also. It's also done to some extent in Mormonism.

--All the money I give is completely voluntary; I could go to services for ten years and not drop a cent in the basket. The parish keeps track of what we pledge to give only for the sake of budgeting.

Not in all Christian faiths.

--The church does not attempt to monitor what I read or write.

The Church has been gravely guilty of this in the past. Many western nations use Catholic morality to justify gross censorship (eg, Australia)

--We are exhorted to respect the law, and church leadership to my knowledge does not order crimes. We're actually not all that active politically, but our activities, like those of pretty much every other Christian religion, are strictly within the law and mostly consist of writing letters or soliciting (voluntary) contributions.

You're once again guilty of taking fringe behaviour and attributing it to the commoner.

The reason I oppose them is that I have done "extensive research." I have a fair idea how they started, what they've done, how they work. In a complete reversal of the ordinary circumstances around here, I know exactly what I'm talking about, while you (and Moby, but that's par) are talking out your ass.

So what? I could do assloads of "extensive research" showing you all kinds of bat**** crazy things people do in the name of Christianity. I could easily point you to many passages from the bible that contain violent, illegal, hurtful things. The fact that you and your priest chose not to do everything the bible says (while you apparently assume everyone who is a Scientologist must practice all of the insane bat**** crazy stuff in their teachings) is not relevant.

The simple fact is both Christians and Scientologists are EQUALLY bat**** crazy for believing in EQUALLY bat**** crazy things. In terms of which one of you is more crazy and hurtful, it doesn't really matter. Both Christianity and Scientology are psychologically harmful, both believe in stuff that any person of sound mind would dismiss outright as nonsense, and both have dark sides. The fact that you are choosing to ignore the immense evilness in past and present Christianity just speaks to your own biases.

Just because you may be sensible as far as Christians go doesn't mean you can wave your hands and dismiss elements like Fred Phelps because you don't agree. Not all scientologists believe all of the same things, just like Christians pick and choose what they want to believe.

That's another reason you guys are bat**** crazy, FWIW. If the bible is real and true, then you better follow every ****ing word to the letter. Stoning adulterers, etc. Picking the stuff you find nice about the bible is a ****ing joke.

[Asher]

For some reason I have this mental image of Elok doing his "extensive research" of Scientology through various Christian websites and believing every word they say and thinking every Scientologist must be like that.

I hope no one gets the impression that I'm defending Scientology -- I'm not. But the moral snobbery Christians display to scientiology is aggravating. To an outside it looks obvious, but to Christians who have grown up believing what they do, they don't see what's absurd about their beliefs. To outsiders, we look at both of you and silently wonder WTF is wrong with the world.

[Asher]

As a sidenote, there's a reason why in academia -- where people study this stuff -- "cults" are merely referred to as New Religious Movements.

What used to be what we called a "cult" thousands of years ago is now just known as "religion". Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism...whatever it is, it's ****ing crazy ****. No more out there than believing in the Aliens nonsense Scientology teaches.

[rah]

While I do have to agree with a lot of what you say Asher, I do have to give some credence to what Elok has researched. I've heard a lot of the same wacko crap from what I would consider reasonably reliable sources, and some of the extremes are truly scary. I can only assume that it's part of the reason why it's not more mainstream. And yes I too have a RC background but I no longer practice for a lot of reasons, current issues and past actions, so I think I can say that I'm not as biased.
Now I know a lot of the history of what the church has done for those that left the church or spoke out against them, in the past, but currently it's pretty tame. What the hard core Scientologists are rumored to do is considerably more wacked then current RC practices.

[DaShi]

9 out of 10 religions fail in their first year.

[MOBIUS]

Perhaps that there is no difference between religions and cults other than size, i.e. "quantit[y]" of membership? He said it in black and white, and yet you grill him for "mention[ing] quantitative differences without quantifying them"? Is it seriously news to you that there are more Christians, Muslims, j00s, etc. than Scientologists, Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo, etc.?

He didn't make any argument about their relative validity, FFS.

But size is irrelevant when deciding whether one form of religious nuttery is a cult or a religion. I thought that was a given, unless you were a total and utter moron, so I did not consider that to be Elok's argument (as I think he is a bit more intelligent than that).

You, OTOH, have just proved that you ARE a total and utter moron...

Many of the most ancient religions still extant in the world have memberships of <100K, whereas a number of cults (er, 'New Religious Movements') like Scientology, for example, claims to have a membership in the millions...

Christianity started off as a cult once...

Your total ignorance of the subject is, frankly staggering! There are literally thousands of religions, ancient and modern, currently being practiced in the world - their mere proliferation alone should be a massive clue that religion as a whole is a total crock!