Revolt of scientology?

[Onhell]

What is wrong with it is the method. The method Scientology promotes itself in the first place. They stop you on the street asking you to do a personality test, and if you're not clever enough to have noticed their L. Ron Hubbart posters in the background (or have no clue what they are about), you do it, and whatever you answer, they will interpret it in a way that tells you there's something seriously wrong with you. They invite you to some sort of seminar, where they tell you how they can help you solve your problems for a 'little' fee, no mention of any religious sect. And once you're in that, you can't get out.
That, my friend, has NOTHING to do with religion.

That has NOTHING to do with promotion either. Subjects willingly go to these seminars. Cruise has simply stated that he is a Scientologist, because they've helped him with who knows what. BUT he doesn't drag people to these things, so these seminars are NOT part of his promotion, simply the inner workings of the church which I agree is cultish, dangerous and should be erradicated from the face of the earth.

@Forostar: Thanks for the article from wiki, I guess I don't agree with ideologies being lumped into that, specifically Nazism and Communism, but oh well, They're in there for a reason I suppose.

 

[Anonymous]

That has NOTHING to do with promotion either. Subjects willingly go to these seminars. Cruise has simply stated that he is a Scientologist, because they've helped him with who knows what. BUT he doesn't drag people to these things, so these seminars are NOT part of his promotion, simply the inner workings of the church which I agree is cultish, dangerous and should be erradicated from the face of the earth.

So we basically agree except we're stuck on technicalities, as usual

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

"If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard, 1950

I agree with you, SMX, that it's a dirty, dangerous cultish faith. However, how is the way they demand money different from how Christian churches guilt their congregations into giving each Sunday? They use all sorts of pressure, and some of the crazier Protestant denominations actually say that those who give most are somehow holier. The Catholics are a bit more sophisticated, but just as bad.

Thanks for looking up the quote, Duke.

It's a difference of degree, Duke. Xians may be encouraged or pressured to give, but it's not a requirement to be "saved" or whatever it is they call it. Any Xian churches who say payment is required are just as corrupt as the scientologists. And I wasn't kidding about scientology demanding thousands of $ from their people; I've never heard of such demands from an Xian church. Requests or voluntary contributions in those amounts, sure. But not "do it or else" type of demands.

Further, Xian churches have a few saving graces. Many do charity work. They at least teach morality (e.g. don't steal or kill etc.). Scientology (which I capitalize there only because it starts a sentence; normally I do not dignify those nutjobs with a proper noun) has no such redeeming qualities. Everything they do is about money.

At least the Xians base their silly stories on something that resembles history. Telling people about Xenu and using that to get money = scum.

 

[LooseCannon]

My favourite part of Scientology is the DC 8s.

 

[____no5]

I think I have to answer to this

no5, you fail.

Marxist-Communism is a term used to refer to straight-from-the-Manifesto Communism, in comparison to Leninism or Stalinism (sometimes refered to as Lenin-Communism & Stalin-Communism).  Mao-Communism is another term.  Marxist-Communism is an ideology because it's utopian, it's impossible.

sorry fella.... the terms are simply : Marxism, Leninism, etc.. we can speak for Mao-communism though

Secondly, your objection to Forostar's use of the term psuedoreligion is based, apparently, on ignorance.  It appears you don't seem to get what the term "belief system" means.  It means something that is, if not new, then politicised.  Was Christianity a psuedo-religion when it began?  Of course it was.  But then it became mainstream.  One can argue that it is still politicised.  Just because all religions go through a stage of psuedoreligion doesn't make the term incorrect.

I don't see why something is called pseydo(=fake, not true) in function with its popularity...anyway

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that you can assign fanatical political movements into a psuedoreligious role, ESPECIALLY Communism, which embraces the idea of atheism combined with patriotism to enforce a belief in the commune instead of the divine. That sure sounds religious to me, even if not in a typical sense.  The same way in which Nazism pushed loyalty beyond death to the Führer.  Oh, wait.  That's semi religious, new, and political...I need a term for that.  What, psuedoreligion?  Good term.

Let me repeat: fail.

yes, there are similarities with religion, like fanatism and indoctrination (catechesis)

BUT

1. the belief in the commune is based in LOGIC and SCIENCE, and never to faith in allegoric stories as a virgin mother or I don't know what else.

2. I can't considere one religion without its divine, its metephisics etc


.... I find terrible that you compare communism and nazism,
I understand though : in North America there was always existed
a huge anti-communist propaganda, so people learned that communism is something bad
without really search about it and mostly without reading any book

modern American philosophers serve that very well : look what Fukuyama said in his End of History .....things to laugh really

you know, sometimes it's good to doubt about what you are been told in schools and media....

and I can say to you that I'm deffinetelly not a communist

you spoke about Manifest ...yes I agree, is laicaly written with tones of propaganda
but the "bible" of communism is the Capital, which, my friend CAN NOT reproduce any fanatism
as is a 100 % scientifique opus ......have you ever read it ?


ps : obviously I will not change your mind,
but I couldn't afford seeing you post all these terrible things
and no reaction from no-one ...at all

 

[LooseCannon]

Yes, no5.  People use the terms Marxism & Leninism & Stalinism.  HOWEVER, I have also read the expanded terms, especially in OLDER literature.  Forostar is *not* a native English speaker.  Nor is he a holder of a degree in history/political science, like, myself.  I've seen the terms.  I've read them.  They exist and mean the same thing.  Stop being so pedantic.

Psuedo:

a combining form meaning “false,” “pretended,” “unreal,” used in the formation of compound words (pseudoclassic; pseudointellectual): in scientific use, denoting close or deceptive resemblance to the following element (pseudobulb; pseudocarp), and used sometimes in chemical names of isomers (pseudoephedrine).

Therefore, in academic use, "psuedo" can mean something similar to or near to something.  So a psuedoreligion is close to or almost like a religion.  Gee, exactly the term it was used in.

1. the belief in the commune is based in LOGIC and SCIENCE, and never to faith in allegoric stories as a virgin mother or I don't know what else.

2. I can't considere one religion without its divine, its metephisics etc

Yes, the belief in the commune in COMMUNIST THEORY is supposed to be based on logic and science.  But if you look at Communism in practise, then you see that they certainly did not.  Because the Soviet Union was, at least for the first half of its existence, a "sea of peasants", the idea of belief in science wasn't working for them.  The allegorical stories are there, in fact.  Try reading "Time! Forward".  Tell me that it isn't religious then.

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Onhell]

Hey! I know the guy second from the right!!! I think it's Keung Hun Ho!

 

[____no5]

Yes, the belief in the commune in COMMUNIST THEORY is supposed to be based on logic and science.  But if you look at Communism in practise, then you see that they certainly did not.  Because the Soviet Union was, at least for the first half of its existence, a "sea of peasants", the idea of belief in science wasn't working for them.  The allegorical stories are there, in fact.  Try reading "Time! Forward".  Tell me that it isn't religious then.

yeap, this is a very sad thing

what remains from this story for me, is the practically undiscovered Marx's opus
some moment of his life Marx did say "I'm not a Marxist"
and that, I imagine, it sounded very controversial
-so no surprise, why in his funeral were less than 10 people for his farwell-
but 200 yeras after, this phrase sounds absolutely logical to me...
you see what I mean ?

 

[LooseCannon]

The intents and the beliefs of the FOUNDER have nothing to do with the events that occured under the FOLLOWERS.  In fact, I would argue that this adds to the religious nature of psuedoreligious politics.  The many followers of the Marxist (to assuade your easily maligned sense of noun-age) philosophy have split off into various sects - Leninism, Marxism, and Mao-Communism.  In fact, wars were fought over which version of Communism is proper (Soviet Civil War, anyone?).  And they identified close rivals (Nazism, Democracy), fought a genocidal war against one of them and came very close to doing the same against the second.  In fact, the Second World War was called the Great Patriotic War, and Stalin enlisted all the possible tools of the state (including the churches) to enrage and inflame his populace for a war that claimed something like 28 million of their lives.  Gee.  Does that sound like any major religions you know?

 

[____no5]

The intents and the beliefs of the FOUNDER have nothing to do with the events that occured under the FOLLOWERS. 

Exactly

In fact, I would argue that this adds to the religious nature of psuedoreligious politics.  The many followers of the Marxist (to assuade your easily maligned sense of noun-age) philosophy have split off into various sects - Leninism, Marxism, and Mao-Communism. 

Yes but as you say it, one can have wrong impressions : between Marx and Mao we have 100 years, two major wars and many others.... Each "wave" (sect if you like) is at least one generation before the next one, they are not really contemporaneous to each other , exept -->

In fact, wars were fought over which version of Communism is proper (Soviet Civil War, anyone?). 

-->the great war between Lenin and Trotsky

[...] and Stalin enlisted all the possible tools of the state (including the churches) to enrage and inflame his populace for a war that claimed something like 28 million of their lives.  Gee.  Does that sound like any major religions you know?

I don't know about this... But it doesn' sound to me impossible for Stalin to have done that

anyway, I see your point, it's usefull not to forget the religious practices of political waves
I think though that Nazism is the one really close to religion status
after all, the relations between Hitler and Catholic church have never been "interupted"
(source : Michel Onfray)

 

[LooseCannon]

I *do* know about how Stalin fought the Second World War.

And I do believe that Communism embodies a religion.  You can accuse me of being influenced by propaganda.  However, I do challenge what I am taught.  It is pretty obvious to me by reading the actual literature from the time (like Time! Forward) that they wanted to create a psuedoreligious atmosphere surrounding the welfare of the state & commune.

It's called learning.

 

[Onhell]

I *do* know about how Stalin fought the Second World War.

We all know about his monkey army

And I do believe that Communism embodies a religion.  You can accuse me of being influenced by propaganda.  However, I do challenge what I am taught.  It is pretty obvious to me by reading the actual literature from the time (like Time! Forward) that they wanted to create a psuedoreligious atmosphere surrounding the welfare of the state & commune.

It's called learning.

Marxism was never meant to be a pseudoreligion, but I do agree that in practice it became just that... sadly.

 

[IronDuke]

We all know about his monkey army

Marxism was never meant to be a pseudoreligion, but I do agree that in practice it became just that... sadly.

I hate to belabour the point, as it's alreadt been discussed ad nauseum, but I don't think a political/economic ideology can be considered a religion, pseudo or otherwise.
A religion has to make a positive claim about the supernatural (ie God exists, Fairies will kill you, ghosts are real, you can be reincarnated under certain conditions, etc.) If it makes no such claims, it's not a religion. It can be a belief system, and a very powerful one at that, but it isn't a religion.

Marxism, for instance, makes no such positive claims about the supernatural. Most real Marxists believe that there is/are no God/Gods. That's a negative claim, and by definition one cannot prove a negative claim. This is not to suggest, though, that some followers of Marxism do not cling to its tenets as others cling to religious beliefs. One would not say that Keynesian economic beliefs are a pseudo-religion, even if those who believe cling to them without any logical basis in their own experiences and would go to great lengths to protect & propagate those beliefs. They are important to people, but as they make no exclusionary positive claims to the supernatural, it is a misnomer to call them religions. (As with Darwinism, atheism and agnosticism. The lack of belief is not a form of belief in itself.)

By using this standard, Scientology IS a religion. (Upon reflecting on an earlier post of mine, I think I'll have to backtrack and agree that is is also a cult too!) It is a set of beliefs which make positive claims about something which cannot be proven or disproven for sure.
Like most other religions, it has myths about creation,  it has a hierarchy, it has a set of rules to which members must adhere, it even has a critical mass of numbers. It seems gross to us, but it is a fully-fledged religion in its own right.
Perhaps this is just semantics, though. We all basically know what is meant by labeling

 

[Natalie]

I think he shouldn't be discriminated against because of his religion. If he were some convicted criminal of some kind it would be a different story, but just because he is a scientologist? I think thats taking it a bit far and the Germans certainly don't need to encourage the popular view of them as being a discriminating people which I think they have tried hard to dispel until now.

 

[Genghis Khan]

This is not to suggest, though, that some followers of Marxism do not cling to its tenets as others cling to religious beliefs. One would not say that Keynesian economic beliefs are a pseudo-religion, even if those who believe cling to them without any logical basis in their own experiences and would go to great lengths to protect & propagate those beliefs.

This is what makes it a pseudoreligion.  Clinging to tenets when proof exists of its antithesis is blind faith. 

Perhaps this is just semantics, though. We all basically know what is meant by labeling

I rather like the connotations to religion because dumb beliefs that have no basis in reality, if applied, can be dangerous.


Oh... and Tom Cruise, despite, having many good movies is a douche bag.  I feel no pity for him if the German people are descriminating against him.

 

[Onhell]

This is what makes it a pseudoreligion.  Clinging to tenets when proof exists of its antithesis is blind faith. 

Proof of antithesis is not necessary for blind faith tho exist.


as for Cruise being barraged by the Germans, the Argentinians did the same to Madonna when she made Evita with Antonio Banderas, horrible movie, and she did it anyway, just like Cruise will do this movie anyway...

 

[Genghis Khan]

Proof of antithesis is not necessary for blind faith tho exist.

True.  But, when a theory or a hypothesis is disproved time and time again, you'd think a person would challenge the theory and not human nature.  Human nature is like that of any animal, it is what it is.  If a political, economical or any philosphical theory does not work in practice time and time again, the people who still wish to apply it are following that theory on blind faith.  Communism (or more precisely socialism) may often work on a social level between a group of friends, but it has never and will never work in a political or economical spheres.


Oh I forgot to mention this before, but scientology is a pathetic excuse for a religion.  Since pyramid schemes are illegal, I wonder why the American federal government does not look more closely into the inner workings of this cult?! 


I agree that Cruise will make this movie; and it may even be good.  But if the German government will not play nice for not allowing use of public property, well, too bad for Cruise. 

 

[Onhell]

True.  But, when a theory or a hypothesis is disproved time and time again, you'd think a person would challenge the theory and not human nature.  Human nature is like that of any animal, it is what it is, if a political, economical or any philosphical theory does not work in practice time and time again, the people who still wish to apply it are following on blind faith.  Communism may often work on a social level between a group of friends, but it has never and will never work in a political or economical spheres.

Untrue, Marxism was designed for England, Germany and the United States. Not peasant-ridden Russia, China and Vietmnam or Cuba. So until a country with the Capital to be able to impliment Marxism does so, THEN we can talk if it is bound to fail, until then it is unfair and a bullshit move to say it will never work. If it is given a true chance THEN we can see if it works or not. Not to mention the U.S has vowed to wipe and fought Russia, Korea, Cuba, has pratically destroyed South and central America and the only reason it hasn't messed with China is Size....

 

[Genghis Khan]

If Marxism was to be used in the the countries you mentioned, it would SUCK all the money sooner or later.  Human nature is simple.  If you're forced to give much of your wealth to those making less, there will be less innovations.  Why should I bother working my ass off, when the person sloppier, lazier, dumber, etc. next to me will receive as much money.  Why break my back?  I only live once and I want to make sure I live it well to the best of MY ABILITY, whether I succeed or not it'll be on my merits and not because someone has served for me like a fuckin' slave.  Pretty soon (few decades, no more) the economy will crash, if communism takes root in any western nation. 

On another note, economies will likely crash in many of current western worlds; as the statism is encroaching more and more into every economy.  Governments are giving special priviledges to many companies at the expense of others.  Look at Walmart for example.  Many smaller communities are giving away public money so the giant store moves into the town.  So much for free competition.  If it is free, then keep the government out it.  This may be called exact opposite of communism, but it is statism none-the-less.  I don't know what the future has in store in the western world, but the way things are going, pretty soon the corporations and the government will be one and the same.  Western economies, especially USA, will become more and more fascist.