Scientology given 'credibilty' by British court
Comments
-
-
bianchimoon wrote:bloody designer religions, what next the church of 'posh'n'becks'
Designer religions? No doubt Jonathan Ive's iChurch is on the drawing board as we speak. And will in no way be a subtle knock-off of something Braun manufactured in the 1950s, honest guv.
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
Scientology is really interesting to read up on, obviously it's all based on boll*cks, but that's not the point of it anyway. 'Auditing' has been used for control and blackmail, and just like JW's they're not bothered about pulling families apart or causing emotional distress at will, and this when they can either justify it (to themselves) or deny it.
Scientology is not a religion. Anyone can tell this. Once you give some rights to some mentalists, you have to give the same rights to other mentalists who believe (or claim to believe) something else, that's all that's happened.0 -
mfin wrote:Scientology is not a religion. Anyone can tell this. Once you give some rights to some mentalists, you have to give the same rights to other mentalists who believe (or claim to believe) something else, that's all that's happened.
Not sure what a religion is, but i'd argue it was as much a religion as any other belief system, movement, organisation or spin off from star warz, in that it's all fabricated nonsense, just some of them have more history, time and ignorance on its side.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
... in your opinion0
-
-
All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
But you weren't inviting an argument, you were making a personal statement ;-)
I've learnt not to enter into religious debate on Internet forums... It always ends in tears. Better in the pub over a pint. Your shout!
Actually, the telegraph article was well written and thought provoking and has altered my opinion about religion v cult0 -
Cost of reading the sacred texts of the major world religions - free online, or a fiver for the paperbacks.
Cost of watching the sacred movies of the Jedi - 30 quid for the DVDs, £50 for the Blu-rays, 50p at Oxfam on VHS.
Cost of an unreadable copy of the Zohar (Aramaic, no translation) from the Kabbalah Centre - £289. Now we're talking! Red string and special water extra, but you might meet Madonna. On the other hand, you might meet Madonna.
Cost of reading the complete sacred texts of Scientology - Priceless! Well, $380,000, allegedly. Possibly cheaper if you sign a billion year contract to work for pocket money, and don't mind living on a ship.0 -
Many people, myself included, feel that to any rational person all religions are nonsense. I can't see any differnece between any of the main religions and other "cults" except for age and number of adherents.bianchimoon wrote:Today, British courts classed scientology as a religion. Could this be a clever move by the judicial system to undermine religion as a whole. To any rational person it's nonsense, so why did the judge class them as a religion unless it's to undermine religion as a whole by showing how easy it is for one person to 'design' a religion and potentially get the associated tax benefits that come with it?
If people used reason or any objective mechanism to choose whether to identify with a religion or which one to join then religious allegiances would not run along ethnic and geographical lines as they do.
Yes, he was a very successful sci-fi author. Supposedly, while being interviewed in his author days he was once asked about how much he earned from his book sales and he joked that the money wasn't bad but the real money was in religion. (sorry I don't have a reference to hand so can't guarantee this is accurate).Mikey23 wrote:Wasn't L Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer before he became a deity? Quite a career advancement there then.
This supposes that the main religions are somehow more legitimate. Personally, I consider all religions to be in the same category as the other "cults" you mention. I don't understand why any of them get the level of public acceptance they are afforded. If one looks at this with a truely open mind I think it's very hard to define why the main religions are more deserving of public acceptance than any of the smaller religions or cults. They have familiarity and tradition going for them but they are no more rational or credible.Mikey23 wrote:I've always regarded scientologists, Mormons, JWs etc as cults and I'm surprised at the decision of the court. Which opens the way to charitable status and avoidance of corporation tax and a degree of public acceptance that they don't deserve0 -
^^^
:idea:
posts like that help restore my faith in humanity.tick - tick - tick0 -
RDW wrote:Cost of reading the sacred texts of the major world religions - free online, or a fiver for the paperbacks.
Cost of watching the sacred movies of the Jedi - 30 quid for the DVDs, £50 for the Blu-rays, 50p at Oxfam on VHS.
Cost of an unreadable copy of the Zohar (Aramaic, no translation) from the Kabbalah Centre - £289. Now we're talking! Red string and special water extra, but you might meet Madonna. On the other hand, you might meet Madonna.
Cost of reading the complete sacred texts of Scientology - Priceless! Well, $380,000, allegedly. Possibly cheaper if you sign a billion year contract to work for pocket money, and don't mind living on a ship.
This. Any organisation that pretends to be a religion, but won't freely publish what their beliefs are is pretty suspect. When they start offering to reveal their take on the Truth in exchange for your bank details. Most religions also emphasise a duty to the wider community whether they are also believers or not. When Scientologists start running something like The Connection at St Martin in the Fields, then I might think differently about them.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
They won't be a proper religion until they start killing unsuspecting, innocent people in the name of their god.
Until then they're only playing at it.0 -
pffft, what a bunch of hammer chewersPituophis wrote:They won't be a proper religion until they start killing unsuspecting, innocent people in the name of their god.
Until then they're only playing at it.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Yes, he was a very successful sci-fi author. Supposedly, while being interviewed in his author days he was once asked about how much he earned from his book sales and he joked that the money wasn't bad but the real money was in religion. (sorry I don't have a reference to hand so can't guarantee this is accurate).[/quote]Mikey23 wrote:Wasn't L Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer before he became a deity? Quite a career advancement there then.
This was a quote i read many years ago
The true story is he (Hubbard), John Campbell, Bob Heinlein and Asimov were at dinner one night Hubbard was his usual blow hard self moaning about pay rates for writers (Campbell was editor of Astounding at the time) He then went on to say - if you want to make real money you should invent a religion
This version of the conversation is supported both by Campbell and Asimov
His first effort failed in the early 50's Asimov thought he was quack, but Campbell had always had an interest in fringe medical woo initially supported him, but had a falling out over other issues
The original version of scientology went broke by about 1952.
Hubbard tried again in the mid 50's. Scientology was born and the rest was historyAll lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
I wonder if Apple are studying this judgement closely. 8)Purveyor of "up"
0 -
Well, their deity is in place now.Peddle Up! wrote:I wonder if Apple are studying this judgement closely. 8)None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
All religion is mental in the eyes of many non-religious people. The point with Cults is how they 'control' the members. Of course, on a day to day basis, they don't have to, but Scientologists and JWs for one both control situations in ways which can cause great distress to members, and more commonly to families members who are not part of those Cults. I've seen this at first hand with JWs, and the Scientologists are less palatable when it comes to this.0
-
I wonder why they have a blooming great cross on their building then. I don't think their theology has anything to do with JC so the symbol of his death and resurrection would presumably have no meaning... Puzzled0
-
... Squirrel buster seems quite a good job then...0
-
Mikey23 wrote:I wonder why they have a blooming great cross on their building then. I don't think their theology has anything to do with JC so the symbol of his death and resurrection would presumably have no meaning... Puzzled
It's a good point! maybe it's that it's easier to draw a cross than an easily recognisable mentalist, at least people know what a cross looks like, although if you popped inside there's a good chance you'd see what a mentalist looked like, there's bound to be a fair few milling about in the foyer ...It's really easy to find stuff to read up about Scientology, it's funny, sad, yet very interesting from both psychological and control perspectives.0 -
Which seems to have reached critical mass and taken off as a money making exercise and with as you say psychological and control issues. Sadly, most people have a limited and distorted understanding of what is religion and what is cult. Which enables wacky groups such as this to flourish0
-
Both "limited and distorted understanding" and "wacky" are very much in the eye of the beholder.Mikey23 wrote:......Sadly, most people have a limited and distorted understanding of what is religion and what is cult. Which enables wacky groups such as this to flourish
Your comment suggests that "right thinking" people see the world your way. You're saying that religion is normal and acceptable but cult is abnormal and harmful - correct?
Even within the mainstream religions you have a broad spectrum of "wackyness" among the members. They range from those who quite like the general concepts and benefits (a creator, life after death, being good to others, sense of community) but don't take it too seriously to those who take it all very literally, contradictions and all (angels, demons, good versus evil, crusades, jihads, infallibility, etc). I'm thankful that the majority, in this part of the world, seem to be moving away from the literal interpretation but in my opinion they're still subscribing to a pleasant illusion made acceptable only by familiarity and tradition.
"Wacky groups" flourish because many people like tidy definitive answers to the big questions in life and they want people around them who don't challenge these answers. I think it's mostly about quelling the fears that I'm sure we all have about life, death and reality. Some people will take any solution put in front of them to get those answers and find a community they can feel a part of. Cults or the more extreme flavour of most religions offer this.
The most obvious common characteristic of all religions and cults is that they promise answers without evidence, they promote subservience and blind obedience and they provide a community of the like minded. All decisions and opinions become subject to groupthink (look it up if you're not familiar with the term).
Anyone who is willing to unquestioningly swallow the ready-made answers and opinions of religions or cults already have a big problem to my eyes. I don't think blurring the perceived lines between religions and cults is that problem. In the long run it's likely to be beneficial if anything - again just my opinion. Watching a cult begin from the ground up and seeing the similarities between that and the main religions may help people realise just how tenuous their own religions beliefs might be.0 -
A timely and light-hearted reminder of some of the wilder things in the bible.
The good stuff can be summed up quite simply. Purveyor of "up"0 -
So clearly this particular major religion is not in the least "wacky"....Peddle Up! wrote:A timely and light-hearted reminder of some of the wilder things in the bible.
The difference now seems obvious. What was the judge thinking?0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
^ This.Giraffoto wrote:Set of stories that adherents are required to believe? Check.
Stories are the most unbelievable cr@p? Check.
Set of rules/guidelines to follow? Check.
Rules/guidelines are bizarre, pointless or impractical? Check.
No proof or evidence offered for any of the above? Check.
Large number of believers? Check.
Yep, it's a religion.
It makes me laugh when I hear people from mainstream religions slagging off Scientology when the stories behnd their own beliefs are only marginally less ridiculous . (I've married into a familty of Catholics so I get this drivel first hand. Doesn't help being a big fan of Father Ted and Monty Python).
Couldn't agree more. Scientology is as much of a religion as Catholicism, given that the 'followers' religiously follow everything in the face of no evidence, nor logical reason to support that belief whatsoever. All people who go to Church, whatever their religion, make me chuckle. But it's up to them if they want to look ridiculous.0 -
bianchimoon wrote:Keith1983 wrote:I'm just wondering why those on here who feel the need to slag it off are actually concerned. It makes no difference to me so let them get on with it.
You obviously haven't read up on the behaviour of this scientology cult to past members to say, "so let them get on with it" Give 'em credibility... what next can they lobby to have to it taught in schools.
No religion should be taught in schools. It is wrong to indoctrinate kids with this garbage. If the parents want their kids to follow a cult then they should do it in their own time. I absolutely detested RE at school, 6% in my last exam testifies to that. What a load of utter rubbish.
As for behaviour I don't think any of the major religions cover themselves in glory on many fronts. If you live your life in this manner - Treat people like you want to be treated yourself - no religion comes remotely close, there are always those who don't fit into the religiously acceptable pot from women, to infidels, to gays blah blah blah.0 -
@ai-1..thanks for your input. I was just doing some gentle stirring on a boring, wet afternoon. Nope I don't think I was saying that I am right thinking and scientologists are wrong. The point I was making badly is that there is not the grounding in knowledge these days whereby people can make an informed decision about what they believe and what they don't believe. I grew up with Sunday school and formal RE teaching which I thought was complete balderdash at the time. But much later on in life, I had the basis building blocks on which to decide for myself. These days I think many lack that. In my experience most are seeking some meaning to existence and might find it in a cult which is simply after your money and your mind0
-
2 kings 6:29 the context is that the king and the people had been really naughty and not obeyed gods commands. They were therefore under siege to a mighty army and were starving to the point where even a donkey's head ( unclean item ) was fetching 80 shekels of silver. So they were eating their kids to stay alive. Seems fair enough to me. Refers directly back to the covenant curses as in Leviticus 26:29 and Deuteronomy 28:53,57 ie gods wrath being bad. Simples innit...0
