Scientology

joe_chicken

Asiaprod wrote:

I still want to know how the hell they snagged John Travolta. I thought he was cool, guess I was wrong.

and Beck

koneko

And Jason Lee

humanji

Wicknight wrote:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_scientologist.html

Its nuts!

It says that Katie Holmes is one, yet she says she isn't.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

and Beck

His dad was Scieno but Beck doesn't seem to know much about it, it sounds more like the way someone born into a Catholic family will say they are Catholic, even if they don't understand what that actually means.

Or maybe that is me just being hopeful. If we lose Beck all is lost ...

Zombrex

humanji wrote:

It says that Katie Holmes is one, yet she says she isn't.

If it walks like a duck ...

beans

It gives me hope for us all to think that Beck isn't a Scientologist.

carl_

... and Chick Corea. I think I might cry now

humanji

Wicknight wrote:

If it walks like a duck ...

If you waddle you're a Scientologist? :eek:

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

His dad was Scieno but Beck doesn't seem to know much about it, it sounds more like the way someone born into a Catholic family will say they are Catholic, even if they don't understand what that actually means.

Or maybe that is me just being hopeful. If we lose Beck all is lost ...

All is lost

Update - March 2005: As recently as 2002 Beck was reported as denying that he was a Scientologist, but in a New York Times interview that was published since this page was written (March 6, 2005, “Beck at a Certain Age”), he has publicly admitted for first time that he is a Scientologist. The writer, Arthur Lubow, questioned Beck about his involvement in Scientology and attempted unsuccessfully to elicit a comment from him about the 'continuing controversy' regarding the COS. Beck responded by fixing his eyes in the by now familiar "unwavering gaze" and detoured into a vague digression about intolerance and appreciating other cultures and ideas (touching themes reminiscent of his earlier "I am not a bigot" response to Ms. Richard). When Lubow tried to get him to speak more specifically about his experiences with Scientology, Beck declined, claiming that it was personal.

beans

We never had Beck to lose him it seems. His schooling was purely Scientological, it appears to be all he's ever really known.

Kinda hard to reconcile what I know about Scientology with what I've seen and heard of Beck. Guess it's a testament to the guy in a way.

CathalMc

I highly recommend xenutv.com for actual video'ed encounters with scientology.

Also, have a look at the first video on http://www.xenutv.com/originals/4th.htm - it starts getting interesting 2 minutes in. They're freaky, but it's entertaining.

WindSock

Myself and ex popped over to the scientology stand for a giggle at an expo a few years back and we started asking simple questions. We were asked to 'please leave' after a few minutes...

kleefarr

Sorry for digging up and old thread...

I saw the Panorama programme last night and then spent the remainder of e night and a little time this morning looking into Scientology a bit more.
It's plain to see that there is little to be discovered about this "outfit" that is offered by themselves other than the books and rantings of L Ron Hubbard.

There are plenty on Scientology related videos on youtube. XenuTv is a great source. That guy is really peeved about the way the have hounded and harassed him, picketing outside his house FFS.

Do we have any board members that are Scientologists who may be able to shed more light on the workings of this group?

karen3212

Why is there not a sticky of dangerous cults. I mean dangerous cults, not the bigger cults that are religions,

as they are not churches here yet why don't we have a sticky of the names at least?

Winters

kleefarr wrote:

Do we have any board members that are Scientologists who may be able to shed more light on the workings of this group?

I know some boardsies can be stupid, but I hope none of them are stupid enough to join a clut like Sientology

Another thread on them is on the Spirituality forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53244546#post53244546

Dades

karen3212 wrote:

Why is there not a sticky of dangerous cults.

For the same reason we don't have a sticky about leopards, or flying a kite near electrical pylons.
The users here are well aware of the dangers.

karen3212

Oh yeah, I posted this in the wrong place

Binomate

Bringing up Scientology, is anyone covering the epic Internet propaganda war between Scientology and the BBC? The current battlefield is Youtube.

They're trying to discredit a reporter called John Sweeney because he's doing a documentary that could be quite revealing and dangerous to Scientology.



[Edit] Just saw that link and saw mentions of the above war in there. Ignore above.

Tim Robbins

karen3212 wrote:

Why is there not a sticky of dangerous cults. I mean dangerous cults, not the bigger cults that are religions,

as they are not churches here yet why don't we have a sticky of the names at least?

One problem is how do you define a cult?
christianity has probably being the most violent religion ever in the history of supernatural beliefs systems. Most Christians are refined now, but go back into history and they burnt people alive for not converting, Scientology hasn't done that yet.
Christianity also preys on fear, using the concept of hell to scare people into believing and adopting their belief system. I could go on but I am preaching to the converted here.
the irish government could come down harder on scientology but it would unfair for it to do that and leave Christianity alone.

Binomate

Tim Robbins wrote:

One problem is how do you define a cult?
christianity has probably being the most violent religion ever in the history of supernatural beliefs systems. Most Christians are refined now, but go back into history and they burnt people alive for not converting, Scientology hasn't done that yet.
Christianity also preys on fear, using the concept of hell to scare people into believing and adopting their belief system. I could go on but I am preaching to the converted here.
the irish government could come down harder on scientology but it would unfair for it to do that and leave Christianity alone.

cult /kʌlt/
–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

Fallen Seraph

Tim Robbins wrote:

One problem is how do you define a cult?
christianity has probably being the most violent religion ever in the history of supernatural beliefs systems. Most Christians are refined now, but go back into history and they burnt people alive for not converting, Scientology hasn't done that yet.
Christianity also preys on fear, using the concept of hell to scare people into believing and adopting their belief system. I could go on but I am preaching to the converted here.
the irish government could come down harder on scientology but it would unfair for it to do that and leave Christianity alone.

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

rockbeer

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

Not sure I agree with you here.

Firstly, there's little doubt that most 'flock-variety' scientologists would be sincere in their beliefs, just as would most lower order christians.

Secondly, there's nothing illegal as far as I know about any religion making money out of its followers. Otherwise the collection plate would be banned on a Sunday. The Catholic church has arguably been a 'cynical money making cult' ever since its inception, regardless of the sincerity of belief or otherwise of its leaders.

Its the effects and activities of these organisations that should be considered, not their proclaimed beliefs. Or don't you agree that the Catholic church marching its way round the globe on an eternal mission to convert non-believers is way more insidious than whatever the whacko scientologists are up to? If only as a function of scale.

Winters

rockbeer wrote:

Secondly, there's nothing illegal as far as I know about any religion making money out of its followers.

There is one thing about making some sort of money and its another thing about draining people of money so much that they commit suicide as they feel there is no other way out of it.

karen3212

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

From what I understand scientologists at present are using coersive techniques to get members into their organisation. They haven't laid out all the beliefs before the people to judge. It seems to me they keep much of what they believe in secret until you reach a certain level. This is what I find disturbing, people could be having a look at the beliefs out of curiosity not knowing the whole philosophy before they go into the organisation. For me that is the difference just now between established religions and cults. I could be wrong though.

I'd say as cults get more members they don't have as much need to coerce so forcibly, they just use peer pressure more.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

when xtianity started out, most people didn't know what it was about either... the church was quite pissed off when people started to print the bible in english because then lay people would be able to form their own opinion on what was inside it, and church authorities (rightly) figured that would be very dangerous for church power.

the main difference 'tween scientology and the rest is that scientology is newer, given time it will be just as respectful and worthy of religious tolerance as any of the abrahamic religions or hinduism, buddhism or raelianism (not sure I spelled that right)

karen3212

Mordeth wrote:

when xtianity started out, most people didn't know what it was about either... the church was quite pissed off when people started to print the bible in english because then lay people would be able to form their own opinion on what was inside it, and church authorities (rightly) figured that would be very dangerous for church power.

the main difference 'tween scientology and the rest is that scientology is newer, given time it will be just as respectful and worthy of religious tolerance as any of the abrahamic religions or hinduism, buddhism or raelianism (not sure I spelled that right)

OK so as I understand it, christianity was a coersive cult once, but isn't now.

So should we just say give Scientology a few hundred years and it will be ok then, should we tell people not to worry about it? I suppose we just have to use the law when they break the law, does anyone know if brainwashin/mind control is against any laws?

Tim Robbins

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

You are arguing off perception, you can't legislate on subjective perception.
Let's take a look at each defintion posted by binomate:

1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
- applicable to Christianity and Scientology

2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology

3.the object of such devotion.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
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.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
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.
- applicable to Christianity and Scientology

If Scientology was around for 2,000 years and all are parents told us it was ok, it would get a more favourable roll in the same way christianity does. If the bible was only written 50 years ago, but said exactly what it said, people would laugh at it.
Both belief systems have absolute no objective evidence, they both preach ridiculous scary stuff, burning in hell for example and only survive because the people who participate in them either suspend or are incapable of critical thinking.
Christianity promotes indoctrination, resulting in the silly labeling of people which causes political problems.
Do you think less or more people would have died in the North if there was no such thing as that?
Christianity is just hypocritical critizing Scientology. What ever happend to it's own maxims: "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

Is it not absurd to doubt the sincerity of Scientologists?

I've no doubt that most of them, including people like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, honestly believe this stuff.

Certainly the early founders, such as L. Ron Hubbard would have known it was nonsense, and used it to make money. But as a religion spreads the people "in the know" die off and are replaced by the early true believers who have moved up the ranks of the organisation. While these people lead the religion they also genuinely believe in the religion, giving the religion a self sustaining energy.

I suppose that could be one definition of the different between a cult and a religion. A religion is a cult that has had its leadership, who know it is nonsense, replaced by true believers.

Tim Robbins

karen3212 wrote:

OK so as I understand it, christianity was a coersive cult once, but isn't now.

So should we just say give Scientology a few hundred years and it will be ok then, should we tell people not to worry about it? I suppose we just have to use the law when they break the law, does anyone know if brainwashin/mind control is against any laws?

That's an excellant point. There is no way Christianity would be arund today if it didn't do the things it did to keep itself as a massive powerful instuition.
Demanding money, brainwashing, wars, supression of critism, you name it they are all there in the history of Christianity. If they didn't do all those things, Christianity would have died out a long time ago. It has only refined itself recently, due to the rise of skeptism and an education of the masses if you ask me.

5uspect

Mordeth wrote:

the main difference 'tween scientology and the rest is that scientology is newer, given time it will be just as respectful and worthy of religious tolerance as any of the abrahamic religions or hinduism, buddhism or raelianism (not sure I spelled that right)

The optimist in me says that people will be at least consistent and apply the fear and loathing they have of Scientology to all religions.

The cynic in me says people will compartmentalise this just like everything else.