4 Votes
Where to start learning, and government support of religion
I don’t know much about Scientology. My problem with your post is that after reading it, I still don’t know much about it.
Yes, you provided a link. But, after reading just the title, it was obvious that was not the place to start. (The title “A New Face of Evil” just didn’t ring objective to me … for some reason.)
Yes, you said they control people with mind tricks, but it appears to be nothing more than an assumption. You don’t understand how someone could possibly want to be a Scientologist … so they must be brainwashed. Again, that isn’t the way to start learning.
So, in the end, I can’t support something as extreme as passing laws against their religious practice.
On the other hand, there has to be clear reason for any sort of government support. For example, if tax money was given to the church, it would have to be used in the interest of the public – by running a soup kitchen, or housing a homeless shelter, or something like that.
As for tax breaks, the requirements should be the same for them as it is for any other non-profit organization. Is that not the way it is now?
And, lastly, your comments on Mormons made me chuckle.
We have been giving the Mormons a hammering over the last few days.
This statement is just silly on multiple levels.
We must be careful not to pick ineffectually at them as we have with the Mormons, because that will only make them stronger.
So, instead we should be harsher to make sure they don’t survive? Maybe if we get all of the governors to issue extermination orders … it just might work!
RE: Where to start learning, and government support of religion by Anonymous
So, you respond to what you think is intellectual lazinesss with your own laziness. Most critics would never profess to describe and/or define every aspect scientology and suggest that you get the net and read both sides. However, what we talking about here is the organisation and the policy driven actions of scientology, not the belief system.
Nobody cares what the individuals believe. However, when you entangle the belief system in with your church policies then there is an overlap. For example, in their appleal on the Wollersheim v. Scientology case they tried to claim that their “Fair Game” policy was a core practice…. like a religious rite. Yes, they actually expected to win an appeal by trying to tell a court that they should be allowed to trick, lie to and destroy utterly, anyone who attacks scientology, because it was “protected” as “religious expression”.
You see, it is not the critic who generally brings religion into the argument, it is always the scientologist because they expect to be able to hide their abuses under some sort of default forcefield of religiosity. They want to drag you down that convoluted route because they expect to garner sympathy from the broader religious community. As Admiral Ackbar says: “It’s a trap”.
Today in the newsmedia you will read reports of scientology trying to stop a the showing of German drama film based on a true story of a scientologist (who approves of the film), claiming that the film attacks their “religious beliefs”. They do this almost everytime and it is wearing thinner and thinner each time they do it.
Australian Senators, under controlling party voting, fell for the scientology bait this week in round #1 of the push for a inquiry. The arugments were typically non-sequitur and not unexpected. One of them even “godwinned” himself (like some people have here) by using the Nazi persecution/extermination of Jews as an argument. It gave the chance for the newsmedia, who saw right through it, to complain and come out in favour of Senator Xenophon’s call for an inquiry into the abusive cult of scientology. Round #2 in the Sentate in coming weeks will be different now that many of the the stupid arguments are out of the way.
Get this into your heads: It is NOT a religious persecution issue. Such overbearing sophistry is tired and weak. Stick to the crux of the matter.
As for tax breaks, they certainly should be questioned when the actual “non-profit” status of a particular organisation is highly questionable. Here’s basically what scientology does: They sell courses, books, CD’s, DVDs etc at exhorbitant prices, all as part of the persons wallet-shrinking path to spiritual elightenment yet the profits are creamed off and sent to the mother church in the USA (they do this even if the local organisation is in debt). Tranfers between international scientology organiations are done by “purchasing” non-tangible items such as fees to use certain “religious technology” or whatever other typical scheme that many for-profit organisations use to shuttle monies around the world to avoid local taxation/scrutiny. At worst it is laundering and at best it is tax avoidance. You’d think that scientology would be penalised in the USA for receiving large quanties of monies from around the globe but over there they enjoy even less government scrutiny and oversight.
Also, to end the persecution argument, if Australian senator Xenophon was attacking the “religion” of scientology then he would also be going after all the non-official scientologists who left the trademarked church of scientology and who practice on their own or in small groups. He isn’t though and like he said in his original address to the senate, “There are no limits on what you can believe, but there are limits on how you can behave. It’s called the law and no one is above it”.
All the victims want is fairness.