Scientology has every right to be considered a legitimate religion

[Elok]

Actually, for a very long time the CoS was not recognized by the IRS, largely because it only became a "religion" to avoid having to prove its pseudoscientific claims. For about a decade, dianetics really was marketed as a "new science," but then that nasty old government got grumpy about them presenting utter nonsense as science, so they hid behind the first amendment. The government said fine, but we'll be damned if we'll give you tax exemption. Nobody knows why they changed it (in the 90s, IIRC). The general, unproven speculation is that they found pictures of somebody high-up in the IRS having sex with a horse or something. But it could just as well be intense lobbying pressure, I guess. Just FYI. Anyway, if you consider IRS status the be-all and end-all, there was no need to bother us with the question.

And I said you were being idiots because you are, in fact, being idiots. You're completely ignoring questions of magnitude and blathering some **** about thousand-year-old crusades--which I already addressed, dammit--or the weird kiddy-diddling epidemic, which is unfortunate but certainly not ordered by the church.

[Elok]

Then there's those evil Jehovah's Witnesses who control parents by preventing them from giving their children life-saving blood transfusions.

That's virtually murder...

IIRC, that's the Christian Scientists. And as it's not done with malice, but due to a peculiar religious belief, it's completely irrelevant to the current argument.

[David Floyd]

IIRC, that's the Christian Scientists. And as it's not done with malice, but due to a peculiar religious belief, it's completely irrelevant to the current argument.

Forced exorcisms aren't done out of malice, either, but that doesn't excuse the parties involved from liability if and when they get sued or charged. To me, withholding vaccines due to religious beliefs is right on the line of criminal negligence, if not over the line. And yes, I'd say the same for ANY crackpot parent who goes against the advice of virtually every doctor out there and the overwhelming wealth of scientific data and refuses to allow their child to be vaccinated.

[MOBIUS]

Anyway, if you consider IRS status the be-all and end-all, there was no need to bother us with the question.

No I don't, but it certainly adds to their legitimacy in the eyes of the law. Interesting how it is now you who is spreading unsubstantiated rumours about IRS higher-ups being engaged in 'horseplay', when that sort of tactic was one of your prime examples as to why CoSers were nasty people...

And I said you were being idiots because you are, in fact, being idiots. You're completely ignoring questions of magnitude and blathering some **** about thousand-year-old crusades--which I already addressed, dammit--or the weird kiddy-diddling epidemic, which is unfortunate but certainly not ordered by the church.

No, we're directly addressing them, and you're resorting to calling us names (another CoS tactic?). As for the 'weird kiddy-diddling epidemic' (your words - and you're defending this church!?), my main point is the premeditated cover ups instigated by the church, and the fact that in a number of cases, the cover up allowed the priest to continue 'kiddy-diddling'...

You STILL haven't proved that the basic tenets of the CoS (Dianetics, Thetans etc) are any less plausible than some old geezer spending 6 days making our planet and deciding he fancied having a rest on the 7th (amongst other really plausible stuff).

In fact, your only tactic has been to seek to discredit them in quite a vicious manner - which in your own words is a tactic that they use, and one of the reasons you don't like them...

[Asher]

Actually, for a very long time the CoS was not recognized by the IRS, largely because it only became a "religion" to avoid having to prove its pseudoscientific claims. For about a decade, dianetics really was marketed as a "new science," but then that nasty old government got grumpy about them presenting utter nonsense as science, so they hid behind the first amendment. The government said fine, but we'll be damned if we'll give you tax exemption. Nobody knows why they changed it (in the 90s, IIRC). The general, unproven speculation is that they found pictures of somebody high-up in the IRS having sex with a horse or something. But it could just as well be intense lobbying pressure, I guess. Just FYI. Anyway, if you consider IRS status the be-all and end-all, there was no need to bother us with the question.

And I said you were being idiots because you are, in fact, being idiots. You're completely ignoring questions of magnitude and blathering some **** about thousand-year-old crusades--which I already addressed, dammit--or the weird kiddy-diddling epidemic, which is unfortunate but certainly not ordered by the church.

Please. Witchhunters were not thousands of years ago. Southern baptist bigotry is alive and well in 2010. Fred Phelps exists.

The bible says what it says. I don't think you want me to quote all of the lines of violence and immoral and illegal behaviour in the bible. Stop pretending like it's not relevant.

If we're going to talk magnitude, there's no contest. The magnitude of the devastation caused by Christians reigns supreme -- overtly in terms of murder, subtly in terms of shaping a bigoted society that continues to this day.

Let's be serious for a bit here. Almost all scientologists would be categorized as extreme, because very few people are raised as scientologists and most convert. Christianity "benefits" in that it is the "norm" people are born into in most cases, so the vast majority of people are normal. You'll note born again Christians (eg, Ben) are the whackiest.

So let's do a like for like. Are extreme Christians just as bat**** crazy as extreme Scientologists? Yes. Yes, they are.

Fred Phelps vs Tom Cruise...which would you rather be sitting next to?

[MOBIUS]

IIRC, that's the Christian Scientists. And as it's not done with malice, but due to a peculiar religious belief, it's completely irrelevant to the current argument.

Actually, you're wrong to say it's not Jehovah's Witnesses...

Medical emergencies in children of orthodox Jehovah's Witness families: Three recent legal cases, ethical issues and proposals for management

Three recent Canadian legal cases have dealt with the proposed blood transfusion of adolescent members of Jehovah's Witness (JW) families. In each case, the court permitted transfusions if medically necessary. Much critical analysis of the issue of forced treatment of decisionally competent adolescents focuses exclusively on competence and questions why mature minors may not decide for themselves. The authors argue that a focus on decision-making competence alone is too narrow. Before one may legally give or refuse consent to medical treatment, three conditions must be met: competence, adequate information and lack of coercion. In striving to find agreement on medical treatment, physicians, patients and JW family members seek and, in fact, often achieve mutual understanding and cooperation. Coercion by actual or threatened shunning and excommunication can occur, and these factors may affect adolescent decision-making. In this context, a court order authorizing medical treatment can, therefore, be seen as enhancing patient freedom. The authors suggest that, in addition to fulfilling existing statutory duties to report a child in need of protection, health care professionals caring for acute patients of JW families should actively look for evidence that the patient has accurate medical information and is acting without coercion. The authors also explore suggestions on how to deal with the unusual complexities of such cases.

Maybe you're wrong about Scientology too?

[Asher]

Yes, the JW **** comes up every other year in Canada. Stupid Christian parents killing their children by denying blood transfusions and organ transplants.

IIRC these days the country steps in and intervenes. You can't trust Christians to make sane decisions. 'cause they're not sane. Crazy, even.

Just like scientologists.

[rah]

So let's do a like for like. Are extreme Christians just as bat**** crazy as extreme Scientologists? Yes. Yes, they are.

I'll give you that one 100% but I would be willing to bet that the % of extremists is higher in Scientology. But yes, every religion by definition is wacked.

[Asher]

I'll give you that one 100% but I would be willing to bet that the % of extremists is higher in Scientology.

Yes, for reasons I described.

It's basically a religion of converts. Converts are ALWAYS the craziest.

[Ming]

It really is funny when somebody tries to claim their silly beliefs are less silly than somebody else's silly beliefs...

Based on just about any scholars definition of religion, Cos fills the bill as much as the RCC.

For somebody from the RCC to claim they are more evil or more controling and therefore not a real religion like the RCC is just plain silly. Feel free to ignore the history of your own faith if you wish, but if you really looked at it, you would be shocked and be embarassed to be called a RCC. But no, I guess it's much easier for you to say, that's the past, and ignore the evil and controling nature of your religion.

I think Scientologists are the dumbest people in the world to fall for their crap... but that doesn't make them any less a religion than the RCC.

[Asher]

Ming Ming Ming

[MOBIUS]

I think Scientologists are the dumbest people in the world to fall for their crap... but that doesn't make them any less a religion than the RCC.

If anything, we should pity the majority of Scientologists...

[Asher]

If anything, we should pity the majority of Scientologists...

They are all clearly mentally ill in some way. Look at John Travolta and Tom Cruise.

It's a shame, really.

[MOBIUS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezlClilZJSw

[Elok]

This conversation is worthless until you educate yourself on how Scientology actually works. "Convert's zeal" has nothing to do with it. Gaymarriagegaymarriagegaymarriage!