Run For Your Life - It's Tom Cruise!

sevenoneeighty

mr. met wrote: last time i checked, you don't have to pay to be a jew, christian, or muslim. that's a big difference, if you ask me.

You're kidding, right?
We may argue over "have to" or even "pay" and their definition.
But you don't want to go there with respect to organized religion....really, do you?

One example of being forced to pay a tax because you were NOT Muslim:

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

That's not even including the prescribed and aforementioned 10% of income that so many Christan churches literally demand from their flocks. I won't even start in on the history of the Vatican....

Please.
They are ALL cults.

doctorj

I would say that Scientology is a mystery cult whereas mainstream Christianity and Judaism are not (though there have been sects thereof that have been). Part of the genius of Scientology is that it combines a modern twist on the old theme of a mystery cult with a financial and power structure that looks more like a pyramid scheme operating on the edge of the law than your typical religion or cult; or perhaps more like an army -- regular organized religion looks disorganized by comparison. Scientology is openly and exclusively owned and controlled by a holding company, the RTC, which is not the same as the relationship of the Vatican to all of Christianity or the State of Israel to all of Judaism. I have even seen a huge labelled pyramid diagram on a chart on a wall inside a Church of Scientology identifying exactly where everyone fits, and nothing remotely like it in any other house of worship. Brazen, and very very clever.

doctorj

I would say that Scientology is a mystery cult whereas mainstream Christianity and Judaism are not (though there have been sects thereof that have been). Part of the genius of Scientology is that it combines a modern twist on the old theme of a mystery cult with a financial and power structure that looks more like a pyramid scheme operating on the edge of the law than your typical religion or cult; or perhaps more like an army -- regular organized religion looks disorganized by comparison. Scientology is openly and exclusively owned and controlled by a holding company, the RTC, which is not the same as the relationship of the Vatican to all of Christianity or the State of Israel to all of Judaism. I have even seen a huge labelled pyramid diagram on a chart on a wall inside a Church of Scientology identifying exactly where everyone fits, and nothing remotely like it in any other house of worship. Brazen, and very very clever.

sevenoneeighty

Sure, the Church of Scientology has a specific organizational structure
You know, the more you explain it, the more similarities I see between the two...I see more similarities than differences. I can think of a few pyramid schemes in modern religions across the globe. Christianity was once considered a cult in it's infancy and I'm sure there were people able to tell you exactly why that was so. (a virgin birth, a guy claiming to be the son of God, he rises from the dead...)

Without even going in to great detail, a cursory review of the history of the Vatican, it's holdings, control over assets, hierarchy, claims to supremacy, persecutions, symbolism, materialism, claims of divitnity and outright kooky claims are right on par with Scientology.

No, they are not exactly the same, the names of the organizational structures and entities are different, but their GOALS (your mind, soul, money and loyalty in the name of ______) are strikingly similar, if not the same, and their TACTICS (fear, shame, proselytizing, mystery, salvation, exclusiveness and intimidation) are also the same. The Mormon Church is an American example that uses similar tactics on its members.

Watching that Tom Cruise video just reminded me of so many others I've seen speaking about their own faith (fill in the blank); There is just no escaping it. Give it time.Oh, just Give it time...

The final proof that it is a religion?
THEY say they are a religion:

http://www.scientology.org/religion/presentation/pg006.html

Introduction to Scientology

The word Scientology literally means "the study of truth." It comes from the Latin word "scio" meaning "knowing in the fullest sense of the word" and the Greek word "logos" meaning "study of."

Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. The religion comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by personally applying its principles and observing or experiencing results.

Through Scientology, people all over the world are achieving the long-sought goal of true spiritual release and freedom.

Doesn't all of this sound vaguely familiar?
In America, if you say you are practicing a religion, then you are practicing a religion. No one in the public eye will EVER come out and say anything about Scientology without serious social, professional or political repercussions. It is a religion practiced by many people who beleive it.

Would someone on this board go directly up to a Scientologist and say, "You are in a cult and not a religion"? you might say "sure I would" on this board, but you wont really do it at a party. The idea of a Catholic or Christian telling a Scientologist they are in a cult is absolutely ironic and hilarious to me.

Another major reason we consider Scientology a cult and not a religion is that it spawned in modern times under the scrutiny of our generation. People are alive today the knew L Ron Hubbard. If Scientology was founded 2,000 years ago, where first hand witnesses, Geraldo, TMZ and the internet couldn't expose the so called "miracles" as a complete fabrications or hoaxes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
We would instead be accepting Scientolgy as any other religion today because previous generations sans youtube, Entertainment Tonight and a literate population, would have repeated the same stories as absolute truth.

Is it no wonder as we begin to understand the world more and more that fewer and fewer "miracles" as explained by religion are happening?

sevenoneeighty

Sure, the Church of Scientology has a specific organizational structure
You know, the more you explain it, the more similarities I see between the two...I see more similarities than differences. I can think of a few pyramid schemes in modern religions across the globe. Christianity was once considered a cult in it's infancy and I'm sure there were people able to tell you exactly why that was so. (a virgin birth, a guy claiming to be the son of God, he rises from the dead...)

Without even going in to great detail, a cursory review of the history of the Vatican, it's holdings, control over assets, hierarchy, claims to supremacy, persecutions, symbolism, materialism, claims of divitnity and outright kooky claims are right on par with Scientology.

No, they are not exactly the same, the names of the organizational structures and entities are different, but their GOALS (your mind, soul, money and loyalty in the name of ______) are strikingly similar, if not the same, and their TACTICS (fear, shame, proselytizing, mystery, salvation, exclusiveness and intimidation) are also the same. The Mormon Church is an American example that uses similar tactics on its members.

Watching that Tom Cruise video just reminded me of so many others I've seen speaking about their own faith (fill in the blank); There is just no escaping it. Give it time.Oh, just Give it time...

The final proof that it is a religion?
THEY say they are a religion:

http://www.scientology.org/religion/presentation/pg006.html

Introduction to Scientology

The word Scientology literally means "the study of truth." It comes from the Latin word "scio" meaning "knowing in the fullest sense of the word" and the Greek word "logos" meaning "study of."

Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. The religion comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by personally applying its principles and observing or experiencing results.

Through Scientology, people all over the world are achieving the long-sought goal of true spiritual release and freedom.

Doesn't all of this sound vaguely familiar?
In America, if you say you are practicing a religion, then you are practicing a religion. No one in the public eye will EVER come out and say anything about Scientology without serious social, professional or political repercussions. It is a religion practiced by many people who beleive it.

Would someone on this board go directly up to a Scientologist and say, "You are in a cult and not a religion"? you might say "sure I would" on this board, but you wont really do it at a party. The idea of a Catholic or Christian telling a Scientologist they are in a cult is absolutely ironic and hilarious to me.

Another major reason we consider Scientology a cult and not a religion is that it spawned in modern times under the scrutiny of our generation. People are alive today the knew L Ron Hubbard. If Scientology was founded 2,000 years ago, where first hand witnesses, Geraldo, TMZ and the internet couldn't expose the so called "miracles" as a complete fabrications or hoaxes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
We would instead be accepting Scientolgy as any other religion today because previous generations sans youtube, Entertainment Tonight and a literate population, would have repeated the same stories as absolute truth.

Is it no wonder as we begin to understand the world more and more that fewer and fewer "miracles" as explained by religion are happening?

sandcastler

Subject: shunning

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120061470848399079.html

Story about a sweet old lady who was banned from her church by the new pastor because ... um ... because he was on a power trip?

" [. . .] While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders. [. . .] "

sandcastler

Subject: shunning

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120061470848399079.html

Story about a sweet old lady who was banned from her church by the new pastor because ... um ... because he was on a power trip?

" [. . .] While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders. [. . .] "

mr. met

no church i have ever been to has kicked me or my family out for skipping masses. and you do not have to pay to go to a temple, church, or mosque...you just dont, and any assertion otherwise is a lie. in the past, the church may have imposed taxes, but that was then and this is now. scientology is nothing like christianity or any of the other major world religions and to suggest that it is is VERY offensive. and im an athiest, so no bias here.

yes, the church and religion as a whole has been behind a lot of suffering and injustice throughout history, but it is not like scientology. in this cult, you have to pay to "advance" to higher levels...they blackmail you if you try to leave...they put their followers to work under slave conditions. i suggest you do some more reading on the subject before throwing out brazen statements.

mr. met

no church i have ever been to has kicked me or my family out for skipping masses. and you do not have to pay to go to a temple, church, or mosque...you just dont, and any assertion otherwise is a lie. in the past, the church may have imposed taxes, but that was then and this is now. scientology is nothing like christianity or any of the other major world religions and to suggest that it is is VERY offensive. and im an athiest, so no bias here.

yes, the church and religion as a whole has been behind a lot of suffering and injustice throughout history, but it is not like scientology. in this cult, you have to pay to "advance" to higher levels...they blackmail you if you try to leave...they put their followers to work under slave conditions. i suggest you do some more reading on the subject before throwing out brazen statements.

mr. met

and whether or not the miracles actually happened (i dont believe they did either) has nothing to do with this conversation.

mr. met

and whether or not the miracles actually happened (i dont believe they did either) has nothing to do with this conversation.

carnivore

mr. met wrote: no church i have ever been to has kicked me or my family out for skipping masses. and you do not have to pay to go to a temple, church, or mosque...you just dont, and any assertion otherwise is a lie. in the past, the church may have imposed taxes, but that was then and this is now. scientology is nothing like christianity or any of the other major world religions and to suggest that it is is VERY offensive. and im an athiest, so no bias here.

yes, the church and religion as a whole has been behind a lot of suffering and injustice throughout history, but it is not like scientology. in this cult, you have to pay to "advance" to higher levels...they blackmail you if you try to leave...they put their followers to work under slave conditions. i suggest you do some more reading on the subject before throwing out brazen statements.

Scientology is exactly like the Christian church in the middle ages. Surely you've heard of indulgences, right? And it used to be common for people to bribe their way up the hierarchy of the Catholic church. Give it a few hundred years. There will be no difference between the Scientologists, the Catholic church or any other Western mythology.

carnivore

mr. met wrote: no church i have ever been to has kicked me or my family out for skipping masses. and you do not have to pay to go to a temple, church, or mosque...you just dont, and any assertion otherwise is a lie. in the past, the church may have imposed taxes, but that was then and this is now. scientology is nothing like christianity or any of the other major world religions and to suggest that it is is VERY offensive. and im an athiest, so no bias here.

yes, the church and religion as a whole has been behind a lot of suffering and injustice throughout history, but it is not like scientology. in this cult, you have to pay to "advance" to higher levels...they blackmail you if you try to leave...they put their followers to work under slave conditions. i suggest you do some more reading on the subject before throwing out brazen statements.

Scientology is exactly like the Christian church in the middle ages. Surely you've heard of indulgences, right? And it used to be common for people to bribe their way up the hierarchy of the Catholic church. Give it a few hundred years. There will be no difference between the Scientologists, the Catholic church or any other Western mythology.

sevenoneeighty

Religion doesn't use intimidation, threats, guilt, shame or blackmail?
Are you joking or smoking? Now I'M offended.

Help me out here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

cult
/kʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective
9.of or pertaining to a cult.
10.of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
[Origin: 1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action]

1. Religion: Check
2. Religion: Check
3. Religion: Check
4. Religion: Check
5. Religion: Check
6. Religion: Check
7. Religion: Check
8. Religion: Check
9. Religion: Check
10. Religion: Check


This isn't my arguement.
It's the Dictionaries arguement also.

According to what I have been reading here, somebody had better write these folks and tell them the distinction between cult and religion is in how each group handles, maintains, invests or obtains it's finances...

sevenoneeighty

Religion doesn't use intimidation, threats, guilt, shame or blackmail?
Are you joking or smoking? Now I'M offended.

Help me out here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

cult
/kʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective
9.of or pertaining to a cult.
10.of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
[Origin: 1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action]

1. Religion: Check
2. Religion: Check
3. Religion: Check
4. Religion: Check
5. Religion: Check
6. Religion: Check
7. Religion: Check
8. Religion: Check
9. Religion: Check
10. Religion: Check


This isn't my arguement.
It's the Dictionaries arguement also.

According to what I have been reading here, somebody had better write these folks and tell them the distinction between cult and religion is in how each group handles, maintains, invests or obtains it's finances...

mr. met

yes, the church was messed up in the middle ages -- i acknowledged that. it is probably still messed up, i dont know; but i do know that it is not messed up in the same way that scientology is.

religion does use shame and guilt, but not in the same way that scientology does. the major religions also don't use blackmail in the same way that scientology does; im actually not aware of how the major religions use blackmail at all. if you go to confession and tell a priest your deepest sins, then you decide to never go to church again, the priest is not going threaten to tell people your secrets.

l. ron hubbard was also a pedophile and murderer -- are you going to say the same about jesus, for example?

read hubbard's original "scripture." also read about e-meters.

i really dont believe in god and i think there are a ton of messed up things about organized religion, but scientology is something completely different. a lot of the most intelligent people in history were christians/jews/whatever, and to equate their beliefs with those of scientologists is ignorant and insulting.

mr. met

yes, the church was messed up in the middle ages -- i acknowledged that. it is probably still messed up, i dont know; but i do know that it is not messed up in the same way that scientology is.

religion does use shame and guilt, but not in the same way that scientology does. the major religions also don't use blackmail in the same way that scientology does; im actually not aware of how the major religions use blackmail at all. if you go to confession and tell a priest your deepest sins, then you decide to never go to church again, the priest is not going threaten to tell people your secrets.

l. ron hubbard was also a pedophile and murderer -- are you going to say the same about jesus, for example?

read hubbard's original "scripture." also read about e-meters.

i really dont believe in god and i think there are a ton of messed up things about organized religion, but scientology is something completely different. a lot of the most intelligent people in history were christians/jews/whatever, and to equate their beliefs with those of scientologists is ignorant and insulting.

mr. met

and numbers 6 and 7 don't support your argument. be fair.

mr. met

and numbers 6 and 7 don't support your argument. be fair.

doctorj

One hallmark of Scientology that sets it apart from most other cults and religions: it's not at all interested in poor people. It has zero penetration in poor countries. That points to a subtle difference from your indulgences, taxes, and tithes, present and historical, in faiths that take all comers. It begs the question, what is the primary purpose of Scientology? I would argue that it is a business first, and a faith second, whereas most religions and cults are a faith first, business second (if at all).

doctorj

One hallmark of Scientology that sets it apart from most other cults and religions: it's not at all interested in poor people. It has zero penetration in poor countries. That points to a subtle difference from your indulgences, taxes, and tithes, present and historical, in faiths that take all comers. It begs the question, what is the primary purpose of Scientology? I would argue that it is a business first, and a faith second, whereas most religions and cults are a faith first, business second (if at all).

lilbangladesh

The church in the middle ages for all intents and purposes WAS the government, thanks due mostly to the feudal system, with strong barons and weak kings. But they never were "ALL YOUR BASE ARE US". Tithing was necessary (10% of income usually) because the church did many of the functions that we expect of the government today. The Church of Scientology basically acts as if it owns ALL of a worshipper's income. Unless you are a celebrity.

Tithing is voluntary now as it should be. But it is still necessary. Churches don't run themselves for free. Staff have to be paid. And most are working for peanuts (we're not talking about the megachurches here).

I also feel that it is wrong that ALL religions are being equated here when Judaism never had a central organization since the Diaspora.

And here's the thing: Tithes and dues are VOLUNTARY. You can still attend church or synagogue without paying them. Not so with Scientology.

And if you look at cults and how they function financially, Scientology falls MUCH more under the cult side rather than legitimate religion side, mostly because of their proprietary attitude toward their parishoners' money.

lilbangladesh

The church in the middle ages for all intents and purposes WAS the government, thanks due mostly to the feudal system, with strong barons and weak kings. But they never were "ALL YOUR BASE ARE US". Tithing was necessary (10% of income usually) because the church did many of the functions that we expect of the government today. The Church of Scientology basically acts as if it owns ALL of a worshipper's income. Unless you are a celebrity.

Tithing is voluntary now as it should be. But it is still necessary. Churches don't run themselves for free. Staff have to be paid. And most are working for peanuts (we're not talking about the megachurches here).

I also feel that it is wrong that ALL religions are being equated here when Judaism never had a central organization since the Diaspora.

And here's the thing: Tithes and dues are VOLUNTARY. You can still attend church or synagogue without paying them. Not so with Scientology.

And if you look at cults and how they function financially, Scientology falls MUCH more under the cult side rather than legitimate religion side, mostly because of their proprietary attitude toward their parishoners' money.

sevenoneeighty

lilbangladesh wrote:
And if you look at cults and how they function financially, Scientology falls MUCH more under the cult side rather than legitimate religion side, mostly because of their proprietary attitude toward their parishoners' money.

I don't think this discussion is about Judaism specifically.
But as a start in just dealing with all "Abrahamic" religions, for example, the examples of interests, pursuit and attainment of money, assets and wealth are many.
Well....The Catholic Church ,for example, is technically a "non for profit" But the folks at the top are living well, kinda' like a pyramid scheme - one which you can never reach the top of...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7558375/

...The Catholic Church has numerous assets, including a vast amount of real estate. It owns more land globally than any other organization on the planet, but trophy properties like Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City produce little income, cost a considerable amount of money to maintain and will certainly not be “flipped” for a profit....

But I think that whether they invest money a certain way or put it in this or that kind of an account is NOT, by definition, what makes something a cult or a religion.

There are too many other examples of Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups who use religion to accumulate wealth, power and influence.
Their leaders live VERY lavish lifestyles (have you actually been to the Vatican?) Think about why such a show of extravagance and wealth is necessary and how it is obtained. Yes, it is "donated" (and in some historic cases taken by other means) But why is this necessary if the interest is truly in the "soul"? Would their own prophet live in such a place? I think we know the answer.

They all have ways of "suggesting" donations by intimidation, guilt, fear, shame, and peer pressure. They have had centuries to perfect it so that it looks less like extortion... But is methodology of monetary gain the definitive point of cult vs. religion? Are we talking technique here?

Does Scientology help the poor? I'm sure if you asked them they will have some cult answer as to why they do or don't, etc.
Just as a Muslim cleric will have an answer as to why a woman must cover herself and/or have seven witnesses to prove she was raped, for example. Or as another example, why a Jewish Mohle will tell you that it is God's will to mutilate (circumcise) a penis (which in itself is curious since God makes everything perfect: Why does God need you to modify anything God has made?). Or why an Amish person will tell you why the creator of the heavens prefers buttons or hooks over zippers on clothing.

If you beleive in those things, Tom Cruise doesn't seem so crazy after all...OR there is a flip side to that too...

All cults have their rules and reasons. They all seem to have hints of man's self interest in ...man...ahead of any "Gods" in spite of what is said (see the Vatican). The founders of older religions have the benefit of not being around to be scrutinized like L. Ron Hubbard was under a modern media.

If I am understanding these posts, transforming their techniques is what will bring them in to "religious legitimacy". In time, Scientology will transform and perfect it's money gathering techniques (as all religions do) and they will transform their message delivery techniques (as all religions do) and fit right in with all the other cults; they are just the new Mormons now...Hey man, Romney 2008

I do think the REAL reason people hate Scientology (as proof by the posts about money) is that it has become too powerful too fast.

"Religion" is old, traditional and powerful over time. It has power and influence by tradition and age through generations of repetition. Scientology hasn't paid its "religious dues" (no pun intended) but it is still rich, influential and powerful and not "weak" like most cults.

Scientology is the "Barack Obama of Religions", if you will,...It rubs the "Experienced Hillary Religions" the wrong way for this reason alone...

sevenoneeighty

lilbangladesh wrote:
And if you look at cults and how they function financially, Scientology falls MUCH more under the cult side rather than legitimate religion side, mostly because of their proprietary attitude toward their parishoners' money.

I don't think this discussion is about Judaism specifically.
But as a start in just dealing with all "Abrahamic" religions, for example, the examples of interests, pursuit and attainment of money, assets and wealth are many.
Well....The Catholic Church ,for example, is technically a "non for profit" But the folks at the top are living well, kinda' like a pyramid scheme - one which you can never reach the top of...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7558375/

...The Catholic Church has numerous assets, including a vast amount of real estate. It owns more land globally than any other organization on the planet, but trophy properties like Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City produce little income, cost a considerable amount of money to maintain and will certainly not be “flipped” for a profit....

But I think that whether they invest money a certain way or put it in this or that kind of an account is NOT, by definition, what makes something a cult or a religion.

There are too many other examples of Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups who use religion to accumulate wealth, power and influence.
Their leaders live VERY lavish lifestyles (have you actually been to the Vatican?) Think about why such a show of extravagance and wealth is necessary and how it is obtained. Yes, it is "donated" (and in some historic cases taken by other means) But why is this necessary if the interest is truly in the "soul"? Would their own prophet live in such a place? I think we know the answer.

They all have ways of "suggesting" donations by intimidation, guilt, fear, shame, and peer pressure. They have had centuries to perfect it so that it looks less like extortion... But is methodology of monetary gain the definitive point of cult vs. religion? Are we talking technique here?

Does Scientology help the poor? I'm sure if you asked them they will have some cult answer as to why they do or don't, etc.
Just as a Muslim cleric will have an answer as to why a woman must cover herself and/or have seven witnesses to prove she was raped, for example. Or as another example, why a Jewish Mohle will tell you that it is God's will to mutilate (circumcise) a penis (which in itself is curious since God makes everything perfect: Why does God need you to modify anything God has made?). Or why an Amish person will tell you why the creator of the heavens prefers buttons or hooks over zippers on clothing.

If you beleive in those things, Tom Cruise doesn't seem so crazy after all...OR there is a flip side to that too...

All cults have their rules and reasons. They all seem to have hints of man's self interest in ...man...ahead of any "Gods" in spite of what is said (see the Vatican). The founders of older religions have the benefit of not being around to be scrutinized like L. Ron Hubbard was under a modern media.

If I am understanding these posts, transforming their techniques is what will bring them in to "religious legitimacy". In time, Scientology will transform and perfect it's money gathering techniques (as all religions do) and they will transform their message delivery techniques (as all religions do) and fit right in with all the other cults; they are just the new Mormons now...Hey man, Romney 2008

I do think the REAL reason people hate Scientology (as proof by the posts about money) is that it has become too powerful too fast.

"Religion" is old, traditional and powerful over time. It has power and influence by tradition and age through generations of repetition. Scientology hasn't paid its "religious dues" (no pun intended) but it is still rich, influential and powerful and not "weak" like most cults.

Scientology is the "Barack Obama of Religions", if you will,...It rubs the "Experienced Hillary Religions" the wrong way for this reason alone...

doctorj

The accumulation of capital by the Vatican is part and parcel of its legacy of centuries as the only State-Church, when it was a major organising power in society. This is incidental to the wider practice of Christianity. Modern governments also hold a lot of capital under the Nation-State system which replaced the Church-State system in the West; they tax their citizens who believe in their power to protect them, and thus have largely superseded the former role of the State-Church in most places. Few of us question such modern institutions, just as few questioned Catholicism when it was the only game in town. If you look at the Christian church prior to Establishment by Constantine, or the behaviour of non-Establishment mainstream churches created since the Reformation, they are much more decentralised and have generally not held the accumulation of capital and power as their raison d'etre. Some eschew worldly wealth entirely; ascetic groups such as the Amish spring to mind, or the early Essenes from whom Christianity grew. A modern recent exception is the rise of exploitative teleevangelism, which, like Scientology, is a cynical exercise in leveraging religion to extract money from the gullible.

What I am saying is: there are religious bodies founded as a forum for practising a particular faith, some of which accumulate no capital over a long time, some a little capital, some a lot, especially if by historical accident they've been united with a political system at some point. And then there are businesses founded to make money, whose leaders find that creating a slick belief system can be a good money spinner and pyramid builder. Scientology is very much of the latter type. I think it matters what the primary goal behind the religion (or sect or whatever) is. Goals and intentions matter, as do outcomes. For example, the Anglican Communion, even though parts of it are or have been Established in some places, is not active in Africa today for the purposes of further empoverishing it to swell the coffers of its head, Queen Elizabeth II. I can admire people of strong faith belonging to an organisation whose purpose is to serve that faith and its members, and even moreso, those whose purpose is to improve the lives of non-members in tangible ways (e.g. Salvation Army). But I pity people of strong faith belonging to an organisation whose primary purpose is to take their money. The Salvation Army and Scientology both incorporate belief systems based on faith not empiricism, and you could lump them together as religions, but their behaviour, goals, and outcomes couldn't be further apart.

doctorj

The accumulation of capital by the Vatican is part and parcel of its legacy of centuries as the only State-Church, when it was a major organising power in society. This is incidental to the wider practice of Christianity. Modern governments also hold a lot of capital under the Nation-State system which replaced the Church-State system in the West; they tax their citizens who believe in their power to protect them, and thus have largely superseded the former role of the State-Church in most places. Few of us question such modern institutions, just as few questioned Catholicism when it was the only game in town. If you look at the Christian church prior to Establishment by Constantine, or the behaviour of non-Establishment mainstream churches created since the Reformation, they are much more decentralised and have generally not held the accumulation of capital and power as their raison d'etre. Some eschew worldly wealth entirely; ascetic groups such as the Amish spring to mind, or the early Essenes from whom Christianity grew. A modern recent exception is the rise of exploitative teleevangelism, which, like Scientology, is a cynical exercise in leveraging religion to extract money from the gullible.

What I am saying is: there are religious bodies founded as a forum for practising a particular faith, some of which accumulate no capital over a long time, some a little capital, some a lot, especially if by historical accident they've been united with a political system at some point. And then there are businesses founded to make money, whose leaders find that creating a slick belief system can be a good money spinner and pyramid builder. Scientology is very much of the latter type. I think it matters what the primary goal behind the religion (or sect or whatever) is. Goals and intentions matter, as do outcomes. For example, the Anglican Communion, even though parts of it are or have been Established in some places, is not active in Africa today for the purposes of further empoverishing it to swell the coffers of its head, Queen Elizabeth II. I can admire people of strong faith belonging to an organisation whose purpose is to serve that faith and its members, and even moreso, those whose purpose is to improve the lives of non-members in tangible ways (e.g. Salvation Army). But I pity people of strong faith belonging to an organisation whose primary purpose is to take their money. The Salvation Army and Scientology both incorporate belief systems based on faith not empiricism, and you could lump them together as religions, but their behaviour, goals, and outcomes couldn't be further apart.

jackson

man, this thread went out of control! I just wanted to make fun of cruise, not spark a debate on religion. But whatever...

jackson

man, this thread went out of control! I just wanted to make fun of cruise, not spark a debate on religion. But whatever...

sandcastler

Maybe a comparison to the "prosperity theology" of the Pentecostal movement would find more parallels to the payments required by Scientology? (quotes and link below)

I once went to a pentecostal church in East New York with a friend who had heard that the singing was exceptionally good. And so it was. But my friend she was troubled by the pastor's lengthy and insistent appeal for money. It may have been an exception, we were not there again, but the talk of donation far outlasted the talk about brotherhood, forgiveness, love, humility, etc.

Sitting in the pew next to me was a young woman who I saw discreetly place about a dozen pieces of paper money into the donation envelope. The top piece was a hundred. I don't know for sure what the other pieces were, but I think the whole stack was hundreds. I mean, would she try to plump up the appearance of her donation? She's not trying to play the big shot at the restaurant, flashing a roll of money, peeling a twenty off the outside (when the inside is ones).


"Churches have become formidable economic empires. Most troubling to critics is the enrichment of enterprising preachers, who say their fine cars and expensive suits can convince others of what God's grace can provide. Critics accuse them of duping the poor and doing little to ease poverty or repair endemic corruption."
[ . . . ]
"Like other proponents of prosperity theology, the pastor likes to remind his congregation that God multiplies what the faithful give to the church. ''If you don't sow, you don't reap,'' he says.''
[ . . . ]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E4DA113FF937A25753C1A9659C8B63