Scientology trial

[Kuya]

I understand hating scientology is cool and all, but his argument is not pro scientology, its anti religion. While yes there are definitely distinctions to be made, you can not argue that his argument is baseless. I was raised in a conservative christian home, and we were certainly not taught tithing was a "donation". You give X% of your weekly net pay to the church or you go to hell. I am not going to argue that no differences exist between the way Scientology collects funds and the way its done by traditional religions, however you can not possibly argue no parallels exist. $10k raises you a level in one, $50k makes you an elder in another I don't really understand why you're all getting so bent out of shape about his argument. He makes some valid points, even if he is a Galka.

Clarify this for me, you're comparing being "revealed" more secrets from a religion if you donate to being told that you're going to hell if you don't donate (is this even common?)? The idea is ridiculous, and what i'm seeing here is essentially the strongly irreligious grasping at straws to, once again, bash religions with the argument that scientology is no different than any other religion, which has less to do with that ever being a fact, and more to do with people who just don't like religions using that as a motivation for absurd claims.

I haven't even mentioned the systematic(pay attention to this word) use of harassment to quell criticism of scientology. Not to mention the well documented cases (which, once again, are systematic) where families are purposely divided, and people taken away from their support groups, which is a classic tactic cults use.

The basic argument is that Scientology is a cult, and though while the purposely disingenuous might try to argue that some cases of what you see in scientology exist in other religions, they can't argue that it is part of a program, whereas in Scientology it is.

[Jaybar]

I understand hating scientology is cool and all, but his argument is not pro scientology, its anti religion. While yes there are definitely distinctions to be made, you can not argue that his argument is baseless. I was raised in a conservative christian home, and we were certainly not taught tithing was a "donation". You give X% of your weekly net pay to the church or you go to hell. I am not going to argue that no differences exist between the way Scientology collects funds and the way its done by traditional religions, however you can not possibly argue no parallels exist. $10k raises you a level in one, $50k makes you an elder in another I don't really understand why you're all getting so bent out of shape about his argument. He makes some valid points, even if he is a Galka.

Did you seriously just make a parallel to tithing? Is there even a religion that enforces that anymore? It's a ridiculous justification for religions making money. Parallels do NOT exist except in one case: Money is being put into an organization. That is all. What we are arguing about is HOW that money is being put there. One is by law/force and the other is by free will and good nature.

I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't want to go off on another tangent, but there was another line trying to relate Christianity and the crusades. Why are people trying to justify arguments with medieval practices/wars? Shit changes. Back then it wasn't corrupt to go to war with infidels (I didn't say it doesn't happen today, though). Hell I'm pretty sure if my history serves me right, every Christian supported it. Tithing on the other hand was ludicrous, but we know how that turned out with the Protestant Revolution stuff. Again, all medieval.

[Gadritan]

I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't want to go off on another tangent, but there was another line trying to relate Christianity and the crusades. Why are people trying to justify arguments with medieval practices/wars? Shit changes. Back then it wasn't corrupt to go to war with infidels (I didn't say it doesn't happen today, though). Hell I'm pretty sure if my history serves me right, every Christian supported it. Tithing on the other hand was ludicrous, but we know how that turned out with the Protestant Revolution stuff. Again, all medieval.

I mentioned the crusades. They didn't just "go to war with infidels." The extremely simplified story is they slaughtered countless innocents simply because they refused to convert. There's an enormous difference in war and murder. People were forced to join or die. People were also forced to pay the church or die. And yes, every Christian supported it...they had to...or they died.

Edit: If you get the time, you really should look into it. It's interesting stuff. It's noticeably absent in American history classes due to the fact that it's not exactly a part of history Christianity is proud of. It's really sad since it was such an epic event that literally directly affects us to this day. I guess when it's an evil dictator massacring Jews it's ok to teach, but it's not ok to teach it if it's Christians massacring Jews in the name of God.

I know that's an exceptionally old reference, but it's always stuck out in my mind as being one of the single most hypocritical and disgusting acts by any religion. So bad call on my part on that one. I should have used something more recent, such as the issues with children being molested by church officials. Personally I'd rather get screwed out of my money than get screwed by a priest.

My point at the time was that there's plenty of documentaries about the disturbing activities of other religions. You had said "there are some great documentaries about Scientology and their convoluted ways of manipulating people or in some cases forcing people to join or give money." Nearly every major religion in existence today is guilty of these things.

[Jaybar]

You know why a lot of crusaders had joined the Crusades? They heard there were treasures in the East. I didn't go to some Catholic school where they ignorantly ignored facts of the past. There are a multitude of other atrocities followers of religions commit. The best part of this though is that it's not the religion that is forcing these followers to commit these heinous acts (don't even bother mentioning jihad please).

I don't know why I even have to explain why evil exists in human nature. People do bad things to other people regardless of their faith. When a faith starts raping the wallets of their followers in order for them to gain enlightenment, that is not religion. That is the underlying argument of why Scientology should not be given Religious status. Trying to include Scientology with other major religions simply because they are similar does not work because you are comparing them with the acts of men. The basis for a religion should focus on the faith and not what the followers of the faith have done.

[Bingbong]

The basis for a religion should focus on the faith and not what the followers of the faith have done.

The followers of Zen would directly refute this argument.

from wikipedia (under the "Zen" main page):

Buddhism, which had already been established, was perverted by superstitious devotionalism, devoid of true insight. Thus, Bodhidharma focused on direct insight about one's own experience.

[Gadritan]

You know why a lot of crusaders had joined the Crusades? They heard there were treasures in the East. I didn't go to some Catholic school where they ignorantly ignored facts of the past. There are a multitude of other atrocities followers of religions commit. The best part of this though is that it's not the religion that is forcing these followers to commit these heinous acts (don't even bother mentioning jihad please).

Actually it originally began to reclaim the "Holy Land." Those seeking riches were more interested in the titles and land that were promised to them back home. Those riches were guaranteed, the treasures in the East were just rumors. Many of the soldiers also joined because they were told their sins previous to the Crusades would be cleansed. It was a free ticket out of hell for them regardless of what atrocities they committed along the way.

Really I could ramble about this for hours. I'm actually going back to college in the fall for my history degree. I'm obsessed with it.

I wasn't referring to Catholic schools at all. I was referring to American schools in general. Other than the fact that history is taught in an absurd manner in the US, it's also taught from an extremely skewed perspective. You'd be surprised at the differences between English and American history books alone when referencing the same event.

And I somewhat agree and disagree with the rest of your post too. It's an interesting point of view. I'd be beating a dead horse if I went into my reasons why I agree/disagree by now anyways though, so I'll just leave it at that, lol.

(But I can't refuse one thing...Better to have them rape your wallet than your kids <.<! lol. Sorry, just too good to pass up.)

[isladar]

Actually it originally began to reclaim the "Holy Land." Those seeking riches were more interested in the titles and land that were promised to them back home. Those riches were guaranteed, the treasures in the East were just rumors. Many of the soldiers also joined because they were told their sins previous to the Crusades would be cleansed. It was a free ticket out of hell for them regardless of what atrocities they committed along the way.

Totally derailing like a jerk, but there was also the fact that many who became the 'leaders' of the first Crusade were younger sons who wouldn't have had a chance at inheritance under the primogeniture of the Frankish nobles.. why be the second son when you could be the Duke of Antioch? The King of Jerusalem?

The preached inhumanity of the Muslims was an ideological "we work under this idea but in the real world" kind of situation; the Crusaders often made alliances with the disparate, warring groups in the Levant. Fuck, by the time of the second Crusade the sons of the settled first Crusaders looked at the Europeans as foreigners.

It really came down to trying to reinstate the primacy of the Papal seat in Rome.. the perceived Muslim threat to the Eastern Church suddenly (after something like two years of the patriarchs of the region screaming for help) became relevant when Urban II found it to be politically viable.. 500 years of Muslim expansion through North Africa and even onto the Iberian peninsula hadn't roused the same response.

Sorry, one of my favorite subjects as well.

[Gadritan]

!

Well said. That just made my day, lol. Seriously. :D

[Khajit]

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These two experiments might be interesting. It largely(imo) disproves the argument about religion turning people into mindless zombies that atheists constantly toss around (in my experience)constantly on the basis that people were already built that way.


Keep up the crusades talk. The Wikipedia page sucks for the crusades. I'm betting it's one of those things where the opposing sides keep on editing each other to look better. Kinda like how it's been reveals that Microsoft, Israel , etc have been deleting anything bad said about em when they can get away with it.

[Acturus]

Again, the issue with scientology is not what the members of the group believe, but that the system of acquiring the teachings, tenants, and practices of scientology requires a substantial amount of money prior to being made aware of said knowledge.

At the core of it all, scientology offers you a free stress test to tell you that your life sucks and you have to buy their courses in self-help in order to improve yourself. It is a business that preaches NO "religious" beliefs... at first. It instead offers you a hierarchy of understanding of the business and its teachings. Said hierarchy is based entirely on money paid, courses taken, and ever increasing brainwashing and alienating tactics. The higher you progress in the group, the more paranoid, introverted, and scared you become.

Once you are fully indoctrinated into the system, your entire belief set is shattered when you find out the nonsense about the evil overloard and the trapped souls on Earth and the need to "clear the planet", which takes scientology away from an alternative to Psychology, and puts it smack dab into the realm of fantasy. Here's where it shares similarities with other self-help groups that rely on fantastic stories to teach lessons, but the difference is that scientology will never tell you up front what they actually believe, and what actually drives them. Hence the bait-and-switch label.

The BBC interview mentioned earlier is right here:

BBC Media Player (Scientology and Me, originally aired March, 2007)

[Gadritan]

These two experiments might be interesting. It largely(imo) disproves the argument about religion turning people into mindless zombies that atheists constantly toss around (in my experience)constantly on the basis that people were already built that way.


Keep up the crusades talk. The Wikipedia page sucks for the crusades. I'm betting it's one of those things where the opposing sides keep on editing each other to look better. Kinda like how it's been reveals that Microsoft, Israel , etc have been deleting anything bad said about em when they can get away with it.

Good stuff. I'd read about the Milgram experiment a bit previously. It's pretty scary how easy it is to manipulate people into doing things that they normally would never do simply by having an authority figure give them vocal commands.

The Asch experiment kinda caught me off guard too, lol. Didn't expect the results to be to that extreme.

Wiki has always been hit or miss with a lot of things. You can usually pluck out the "real," information somewhat easily if you cross reference it.

[Kuya]

The wikipedia psychological definition of cult is pretty much a near perfect match.

Psychological definition

Studies of the psychological aspects of cults focus on the individual person, and factors relating to the choice to become involved as well as the subsequent effects on individuals. Under one view, an important factor is coercive persuasion which suppresses the ability of people to reason, think critically, and make choices in their own best interest.

Studies of religious, political, and other cults have identified a number of key steps in this type of coercive persuasion:[26][27]

People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;

Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;

They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader;

They get a new identity based on the group;

They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.[28]

Also has the characteristics of a pyramid scheme.

edit: thought it should be understood that there are a lot of definitions of cults, and that they aren't inherently bad. In this case, we're referring to a group that tends to have powerful control over its groups and its teachings, keeping them relatively hidden for whatever reason. It's bound by secrecy and extreme isolation.

[Gadritan]

Once you are fully indoctrinated into the system, your entire belief set is shattered when you find out the nonsense about the evil overloard and the trapped souls on Earth and the need to "clear the planet", which takes scientology away from an alternative to Psychology, and puts it smack dab into the realm of fantasy.

I agree with most of your post, but I get really sick of hearing this used as a reference.

Have you really thought about the stories that are passed along as fact in so many religions that are absolutely ridiculous to those outside of the faith?

Easiest example since more people are familiar with it is Christianity.

You have people dying and being reborn, walking on water, talking bushes, etc.

If a new religion formed that was based on stories such as these in modern times, they'd be made out to look like lunatics. Case in point, Scientology. If you watched the full BBC report as well, that's one of the things they agreed upon. The story is nothing more than a story. That's quite contrary to how so many other faiths stick to their guns that their stories are indeed facts despite all evidence that proves otherwise.

Also, that reporter really, really fucked up on the story. That wasn't objective reporting, that was harassing people to get a reaction. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to defend Scientology. He showed them absolutely no respect whatsoever from the start. He knew what story he wanted to tell before he even began, and even set up that picket line they showcased. Did you see the clips as well of him screaming harassing comments from the crowd like a lunatic? It's not included in the BBC's version for obvious reasons.

I think an objective approach to it would have simply allowed scientologist to showcase the fallacies of the religion. They've been doing a fine job of it on their own for quite some time. Why fuck up your credibility to force the story when they're such easy targets to begin with? From what I've seen, all you need to do is ask them a simple question and let them dig the hole themselves, lol.

Good call there too Kuya. It's difficult trying to get people to understand what the difference really is between a cult and a religion.

I have to go with Scientology is a cult and not a religion. While there are many parallels to religions, the very definitions of cult and religion share parallels, yet are two entirely different things altogether.

[quannum]

cult + mass-faith + 2000 years = religion

[Seraph]

I agree with most of your post, but I get really sick of hearing this used as a reference.

Have you really thought about the stories that are passed along as fact in so many religions that are absolutely ridiculous to those outside of the faith?

You keep completely missing the point. It's not what they teach, it is how they teach it. If they weren't such cockbags about getting money from the people they entrap, Zenu might hold as respectable a position as the FSM.

[Gadritan]

No, I got your point there. I completely agree with it as well. I just didn't agree with how you used that tidbit to demonstrate that it's "nonsense," and "fantasy." They agree that it's just a story. Most other faiths in this world would tell you it was fact.

That's all I meant there. You were spot on otherwise though.

[Obev]

cult + mass-faith + 2000 years = religion

I've often pondered on this. The "salvation for $" schtick in Scientology is by no means exclusive to Scientology. Think of medieval Catholicism - sins absolved for a price? Tithes? Religions throughout the centuries have been run as successful businesses. The thing is, they're not so explicitly money-grubbing these days. It may be the link to the hardly pristine past of "real" religions that make Scientology's present-day practices in a time where we've convinced ourselves that religion and business are mutually exclusive seem more morally unappealing than they really are. I still wouldn't pay any money for religion, not because I'm a nonbeliever, but because I'm a child of the 20th century who really does think that we've moved on at least a little since the Holy Roman Empire.

I don't think they're crazy for the whole Xenu thing though. Hell, virgin births and angels are just as improbable as soul engrams and intergalactic overlords. What's crazy is spending years of your life and thousands of dollars just to learn another variant of the fairytale which all religions tell you.

Plus, the flying spaghetti monster could totally kick that intergalactic cocksucker's ass. HAIL HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE.

[Conformity]

we ran by the scientology "celebrity center" (wtf does that mean anyways) and they had a for sale sign on their property lol

[Khajit]

cult + mass-faith + 2000 years = religion

jabbing at Christianity eh? of course this completely ignore the fact that it started out as a poor mans religion and the tithes were to help feed the poor/homeless and what not. After all it's not like Jesus would have been pissed off at the church running itself like a for profit business for the last few millennia amirite? A somewhat major point in the new testament was Jesus getting pissed about the church doing that kind of crap.
Yes please everyone go on. saying that the catholic church was fleecing people for cash for centuries doesn't exactly prove anything other than the fact that the church has never stuck to it's guidelines very well. This change in behavior once they came into power technically isn't surprising at all.
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What a shocker there. It's the simple fact that power corrupts that's the problem and religion had nothing to do with it other than the fact that you can attain said position of power through that route. The same thing can, has, and will happen again whenever any person or group obtains power of which atm the most obvious example is any goverment.
Saying that religion is the root of all problems and whatnot blah blah is like looking at the bush years and saying that democracy causes torture, the bombing of children(Afghanistan,Palestinians,Iraq),fear mongering, propaganda, racism(cause arabs are teh most evil people on earth now apparently), and a ridiculously long list of other crap.
It started off perfectly fine and got derailed to hell by human nature.

[Milks]

Some guy came up to me today outside of KaDeWe (Kaufhaus des Westens) and asked me if I wanted to take a free stress test. I looked at his booth and saw scientology fliers and books...I quickly declined. lol