TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [100]
1
 2  3 4

What's wrong with Scientology anyways? It's just another religion...:

Always Right
You know, I coulda sworn there was a Useful Notes Scientology page in this wiki...what happened to it?

I know that this religion originated from a work of fiction. But isn't that the origin of pretty much ALL religions? It's status as a religion is heavily challenged in most parts of the world, but that's only because it's new.

To avoid making this a Wall of Text, I'll just make my point short...

  • this is pretty outrageous* , no denying that. But is that any more insane than the stories mainstream religions are based on?

So what make scientology so special that makes it an Acceptable Target? It's the same thing as all the mainstream religion people believe in. They have a lot of dirt on them. But so do many other religion that aren't Acceptable Targets, in fact, they probably have even more than Scientology due to how much longer they existed.


PS-not a scientologist or even religious in any way. It just bugs me how Scientology is treated as an Acceptable Target even though it's pretty much the same as all the other religions out there, whose one and only fundamental difference is "being new"

edited 29th Apr '11 12:23:30 AM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
Is that cake frosting?
The problem is not its creation myths, or anything like that. I would say that most religions are at least honest attempts, while Scientology pretty clearly wasn't; but that's not the real issue.

It's things like Fair Game, or Operation Snow White, or the Lisa McPherson issue that worry me about Scientology - not to mention the pseudoscience it is endorsed by it, or that nonsensical anti-psychology stance, or the despicable ways with which it responds to criticisms.

Now, I can admit that many other religions have done their share of messed up stuff - far more messed up than all of this, in fact - in the past. I am not excusing them. If, say, some organization today behaved as badly as the Catholic Church did during the Renaissance, it would deserve to catch more flak than Scientology does.

edited 29th Apr '11 12:38:23 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Always Right
I know that Scientology has a lot of dirt on themselves. And they don't take criticisms that well* .

But do those things make them any less a religion than the mainstream one who are just as dirty? Many countries give benefits to religions* , yet Scientology is often excluded.

edited 29th Apr '11 12:49:16 AM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
betaalpha
Also worth noting is that most people don't have an issue with Scientology itself, but with the Church of Scientology, the organisation that puts itself in charge of the religion, is responsible for all of the awful things Carciofus mentioned and much more besides. Imagine if a mega church not only called itself the only way to practise Christianity but also used hundreds of lawyers, millions of dollars and sometimes illegal and malicious actions to enforce this.

Non Co S Scientologists exist and are called Freezoners to help avoid litigation by the Co S. They are persecuted a whole lot.

Always Right
I'm willing to bet a majority of the people who criticize them are unaware of the difference...
"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
 6 joeyjojo, Fri, 29th Apr '11 1:14:19 AM from The Magic Land Of Oz Relationship Status: Get out of here, STALKER
Storm the bastille!
@Signed: I'm going to have to ask this you outright:

What offends you more? That it's acceptable rip on scientology? Or that it's not acceptable to rip on christianity?
Mn Hovercraft st plen de nguills

 7 captainbrass 2, Fri, 29th Apr '11 1:16:30 AM from the United Kingdom
It probably doesn't help that L. Ron Hubbard, the founder, was (a) a controversial and many would say flawed character who (b) lived in modern times with modern media, so we all know that's what he was. No-one in the 1st century AD did a hatchet job on Jesus. You can either read that as meaning that there was no dirt to dig up (my opinion) or that in that world, digging up dirt on religious leaders wasn't possible.
"Well, it's a lifestyle"
Always Right
What offends you more? That it's acceptable rip on scientology? Or that it's not acceptable to rip on christianity?

More along the lines of "X and Y are being treated differently, one negatively and one acceptingly even though both are essentially the same"

So to answer your question...a bit of both? If it's okay to rip on scientology, then islam, christianity, jewish christianity, buddhism, hinduism should be fair game. If it's not okay to rip on all those other religion, then it shouldn't be okay to rip on scientology.

I may not be religious in any way, scientologist or buddhist or christian, but it still bugs me.

edited 29th Apr '11 1:25:19 AM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
It should be acceptable to rip on all of them. Anyway, www.xenu.net

 10 Morven, Fri, 29th Apr '11 1:34:38 AM from Seattle, WA, USA
Nemesis
Yeah, the beliefs are not my issue about it. The behavior of the organization over the years is what puts them beyond the pale.
A brighter future for a darker age.
*

It's newer and behaves like an insolent child. It deserves humiliation.

Christianity is like a formerly-delinquent grandfather in comparison.

edited 29th Apr '11 1:45:40 AM by AllanAssiduity

 
 12 feotakahari, Fri, 29th Apr '11 1:44:08 AM from Looking out at the city
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
So, does this mean it's PC for me to insult the Catholic church?
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
 13 Morven, Fri, 29th Apr '11 1:50:14 AM from Seattle, WA, USA
Nemesis
It depends whose P you want to be C to.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Is that cake frosting?
You can certainly criticize the Catholic Church in any way you see fit. Other people certainly did and still do, in many different venues and with varying degrees of accuracy and politeness.

People may disagree with you, or even get offended, depending on what is said and on their own personalities; but I really doubt that the Vatican would send an army of lawyers after you, or have people harass you, or try to dig up some dirt about you.

Sure, eight hundred years ago the Catholic Church might have had you burned alive for daring to criticizing it - I am not justifying that, but all ancient people's grasp on basic morality was very much shaky from our present point of view. I expect than in the future, people will regard our own moral failings with the same bafflement with which we regard our ancestors', that's how progress rolls.

edited 29th Apr '11 2:12:56 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 15 joeyjojo, Fri, 29th Apr '11 2:24:10 AM from The Magic Land Of Oz Relationship Status: Get out of here, STALKER
Storm the bastille!
The general rule of tumb is it okay to criticise religion is an organisation but you can't criticise religion on any actual tenants of belief.

So you can say is wrong that the church does y because it believes X. But you can't say that it wrong to believe x because it leeds to y

Of course it's a free country. You can if you want it just that it tends to piss people off.

edited 29th Apr '11 2:26:22 AM by joeyjojo

Mn Hovercraft st plen de nguills

Is that cake frosting?
I do not see the problem with saying that it is wrong to believe X, whatever X is and no matter whether the objection is or isn't correct.

Criticizing religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable - yeah, as you said, some people could get pissed off, but some people get pissed off if you say that M&M's taste like crap (which, by the way, is the truth).

I would draw the line at "people who believe that X are bad people", though.

edited 29th Apr '11 2:33:16 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 17 joeyjojo, Fri, 29th Apr '11 2:57:36 AM from The Magic Land Of Oz Relationship Status: Get out of here, STALKER
Storm the bastille!
Well yes it depends on the audience.

Although objectively the idea of physical resurrection and salvation is no less absurd then the idea of aliens having spaceships shaped like B-52 bombers

edited 29th Apr '11 2:58:17 AM by joeyjojo

Mn Hovercraft st plen de nguills

The Happy Bremblespreck
Scientology brainwashes people, forces them to pay up for their beliefs, and destroys them if they try to leave.

I can't believe there are people who haven't seen this yet, but if you're honestly questioning why people don't like the Church of Scientology, you clearly need to see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCGP-0545EU
The Happiest of all Bremblesprecks.
Is that cake frosting?
^^ Eh, that's nothing that Saint Augustine has not said already - you know, credo quia absurdum and all that ;)
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 20 Insanity Addict, Fri, 29th Apr '11 3:25:12 AM from Out of the Left Field
Because it's not a religion, but a brand. They have copyright on the name, for chrissakes.
I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.
"M&M's taste like crap (which, by the way, is the truth). "

A metaphorical truth at best. I've never eaten an M&M which tasted like excrement. Or at least, tasted like excrement smells.

 22 joeyjojo, Fri, 29th Apr '11 5:39:27 AM from The Magic Land Of Oz Relationship Status: Get out of here, STALKER
Storm the bastille!
I'll never eaten excrement so I'll take your word for it.
Mn Hovercraft st plen de nguills

 23 captainbrass 2, Fri, 29th Apr '11 5:52:34 AM from the United Kingdom
@Insanity Addict - This is true, although in the broader sense of "a name that evokes certain qualities and which is used for marketing purposes", all religions are brands. There is certainly something questionable about one that's adopted this approach quite so enthusiastically, though.
"Well, it's a lifestyle"
Always Right
Because it's not a religion, but a brand. They have copyright on the name, for chrissakes.

How does that make it not a religion? Is there some universal written law that says a religion's name can not be copyrighted? Many were formed long before the idea of copyright even existed.

It's like saying "opposition to scientific research is an important part of christianity" when in truth stuff like stem cells and the concept of genes were never around during the faith's conception.

edited 29th Apr '11 3:54:23 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
Trademark is the word, not copyright.

 
Total posts: 100
1
 2  3 4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy