Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Chanology?

<< < (2/27) > >>

MusicScribbles:
I wish I could answer your question, but I'm sure a bunch of Anonymous could do it pretty easily. I hope they don't though, otherwise this forum might be destroyed.

Spinless:
This is a great discussion, where do we draw the line at religious tolerance? Unfortunately, the thread will not go as far as it could because it's against the forum rules. Understandable, I suppose, assuming the person who makes the rules will read the thread.
I understand that people think that people are tricked and 'brainwashed' into believing Scientology, but again, how is this any different than any other religion? I bet a large number of us grew being told that God was watching us, and that we should do whatever he says. If I raised a child to 10 years old, explaining to him every day that Alan Rickman was a prophet for the one true god, who wanted the world to work together to bake the biggest donut possible in order to appease his insatiable craving for donuts, the kid would believe it, no matter how ridiculous it is.
The difference with Scientology is that you're trying to convince a fully grown adult of the same thing, in most cases.

Scientology isn't going to go away because of protesters. And I am glad. Because the longer is sticks around, the more people will begin to realise that just about every religion is the same and gradually turn their backs on it. If you want to do away with Scientology, you have to do away with just about every other religion too.

Spinless:

--- Quote from: Switchblade on 10 Feb 2008, 13:10 ---   1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.
   2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
   3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
   4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds and recruit people.
   5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society. 


--- End quote ---

These are no worse than any other religion I care to name. Infact, this sounds exactly like most religions I can think of. You have to assume that societies have multiple beliefs. If this is the case, then no church will ever be able to benefit society unless it donates to a charitable cause not associated with it's beliefs, or is taxed by the government.

ruyi:
edit: oops. what spinless said.

my gut feeling is still that the cos is worth criticism, but i haven't quite put my finger on why yet. i just feel like 'religious tolerance' is a slippery slope - that's all well and good if you think all religion is ridiculous, but it doesn't seem right to be bound by a blanket requirement of tolerance for institutions that may be demonstrably more harmful than others.

Ozymandias:
I consider everyone who says Scientology is the same as any other religion to just be an athiest who wants the abolition of all religion and is, also, wrong and kind of a dick.

There's a reason Scientology is considered a cult and not given religious status in many countries.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page