Why is Ragging on Scientologists OK?

[Darth Wong]

Much of what Christ supposedly taught is remarkably different and more morally correct than what Hubbard wrote. Granted, most Christians seem to ignore what Christ is said to have said in favor of being greedy fuckholes, but if you judge them sollely on the basis of what they each said, I think Christs supposed teachings come out ahead.
A friend of mine over at SCN made this list and has given me permission to post it over here. I hope that's OK.

It's convenient having lists of everything Hubbard ever said. But since we don't have anything remotely like that for Jesus, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison to attack Hubbard with these quotes and compare them to Jesus quotes which were selected and refined by his followers for centuries. It's like taking a single post here on this forum which says at the bottom: "Edited 22445 times" and comparing its level of polish and flaw to the accumulated sum total of another person's entire posting history.

[Dark Hellion]

As per the OP, that is probably the best reason to rag on Scientology. Whereas mainstream Christianity, Buddhism etc have changed to reflect the public, Scientology is still as nuts as ever, becaue frankly "be nice to eachother, and sent some money to the mighty Sky Father" is much better than "argh crap alien nuclear DC8s of volcanic fury!"

[Darth Wong]

As per the OP, that is probably the best reason to rag on Scientology. Whereas mainstream Christianity, Buddhism etc have changed to reflect the public, Scientology is still as nuts as ever, becaue frankly "be nice to eachother, and sent some money to the mighty Sky Father" is much better than "argh crap alien nuclear DC8s of volcanic fury!"

You forgot about the "End Times" bullshit, the anti-gay bullshit, the anti-porn bullshit, the anti-sex bullshit ...

[Lord Zentei]

2) Scientology has no style. There's nothing venerable or ancient about it; again, existing in and being of the modern world works against it. The language of Christianity - sin, Lord, soul, chariot, rapture, redemption - puts people in a different mental world, where the rules seem to work differently. Scientology has no such language, at least not a popular one, hence common people see it with the mind they use to fill out taxes and bitch about their employers, not the mind with which they have Faith.

Bling: Had Hubbard not been a complete and utter hack, things might have been different. And people are not used to their faiths being expressed in sci-fi terms as opposed to high fantasy. It's sort of jarring in the manner of the FSM or IPU, bringing the bullshit into sharper focus.

Note that Mormon lived in recent times, and his bullshit is not frowned upon or mocked to the extent that Scientology is.


PS: arguably having a space emperor is LESS absurd than an omnipotent, omniprescent, omniscient, omnibenevolant being. All you really need is advanced life on other planets which have developed interstellar travel of some sort.

Now, the "body thetans" and the DC7 planes with warp drive, that's another matter, and here I refer to my earlier comment about Hubbard being a hack.

[Flagg]

Much of what Christ supposedly taught is remarkably different and more morally correct than what Hubbard wrote. Granted, most Christians seem to ignore what Christ is said to have said in favor of being greedy fuckholes, but if you judge them sollely on the basis of what they each said, I think Christs supposed teachings come out ahead.
A friend of mine over at SCN made this list and has given me permission to post it over here. I hope that's OK.

It's convenient having lists of everything Hubbard ever said. But since we don't have anything remotely like that for Jesus, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison to attack Hubbard with these quotes and compare them to Jesus quotes which were selected and refined by his followers for centuries. It's like taking a single post here on this forum which says at the bottom: "Edited 22445 times" and comparing its level of polish and flaw to the accumulated sum total of another person's entire posting history.

True, and the most hardcore Christians seem to feel free to ignore what Christ actually (supposedly) said anyway. I for one have always found it funny that people who believe in any of the biblical miracles can mock Scientology with a straight face. I mean we actually know without any shadow of a doubt that Hubbard lived and said the things he said. As far as the Xenu, Thetans, and rocketship DC-10's, that doesn't seem any more crazy to me than a global flood, the 10 plagues, or some guy dying after getting nailed to a board and coming back to life 3 days later.
What I was trying to point out by posting that (as my friend was wehn he posted it), is that if you take the message attributed to Christ today and compare it to the message put forth by Hubbard, then the message of Christianity comes out ahead in my book, although the motives for the 'originators' of each religion are most likely the same.

[Cao Cao]

I think the sole answer here it time.
Scientology is young and whatever nonsensical drivel it spouts out will be subject to hardcore mocking by even the most devout believer in Noah's Magic Boat Ride & Petting Zoo.

Even just 100 years from now if it's still running (and presuming Emperor Xenu does not smite us all with his nuclear powered volcanos or whatever the hell it is they talk about) I think it'll be taken a lot more seriously. Progressing steadily as the faithful and the opportunists polish and refine L. Ron's pathetic claptrap until many a year from now it actually sounds plausable (to a fundamentalist).

[Uraniun235]

Look, I'm not saying it's not a transparent con, but the other guy ADMITTED it.

So? How do you know the early Jewish priests didn't admit it too? You're simply taking advantage of the fact that the origins of the Judeo-Christian religion are lost in the mists of history.

Yes, and? Scientology is such an easy target precisely because it is so new; we have the ravings of a man spiralling into self-delusion and spewing books of mental diarrhea and being forced to live on a boat out at sea to avoid prosecution.

It seems like it irritates you to see people singling out Scientology and Scientologists for scorn and derision. Is that an accurate perception? If so, why?

[Darth Wong]

Look, I'm not saying it's not a transparent con, but the other guy ADMITTED it.

So? How do you know the early Jewish priests didn't admit it too? You're simply taking advantage of the fact that the origins of the Judeo-Christian religion are lost in the mists of history.

Yes, and? Scientology is such an easy target precisely because it is so new; we have the ravings of a man spiralling into self-delusion and spewing books of mental diarrhea and being forced to live on a boat out at sea to avoid prosecution.

And that is any more bizarre than a guy who claimed to be the King of the Jews because God fucked his mother, and who promised to come back and conquer the world before his apostles died? Hell, at least we know that L Ron Hubbard was a real crazy person. Jesus was a nutbar who might not even have existed.

It seems like it irritates you to see people singling out Scientology and Scientologists for scorn and derision. Is that an accurate perception? If so, why?

It irritates me to see Christians believing that their religion is any less worthy of scorn and derision than Scientology.

[Cao Cao]

It's inevitable when you consider that Scientology is currently transparent while the hocus pocus of Christianity and related offshoots is clouded by history. The latter is percieved as.. intangible, I guess.

[SCRawl]

I think the sole answer here it time.
Scientology is young and whatever nonsensical drivel it spouts out will be subject to hardcore mocking by even the most devout believer in Noah's Magic Boat Ride & Petting Zoo.

Even just 100 years from now if it's still running (and presuming Emperor Xenu does not smite us all with his nuclear powered volcanos or whatever the hell it is they talk about) I think it'll be taken a lot more seriously. Progressing steadily as the faithful and the opportunists polish and refine L. Ron's pathetic claptrap until many a year from now it actually sounds plausable (to a fundamentalist).

I don't think that it's quite that simple.

In the time of the origin of the Christian myth, there were no mass media. All information was by word of mouth, and the mouths had a long way to go. By the time the story of the reputed divine lineage of some carpenter's son gets to the outlying areas, the story would have changed, grown into something bigger.

These days, in the world of the internet and 24-hour news networks, the word spreads much more quickly, and the story is the same all around. We can evaluate something based on (somewhat) reliable facts, rather than a large-scale game of telephone. And the general analysis is "holy shit, that's fucked!"

[Darth Wong]

Also, people 2000 years ago would believe just about anything. Today's population is post-Industrial Revolution, which means that literacy rates are more like 90% than 5% as they would have been in antiquity. It's relatively easy to build up a support base among the ignorant lower classes in a society where even the wealthy are usually ignorant and illiterate. And once you've built up that support base, the sheer number of followers force you to take the religion seriously even if it doesn't deserve it.

[Metrion Cascade]

How do you draw the line between mocking an idea and mocking a person for holding it, as far as what's appropriate? I've got acquaintances whose constant apologia for Atheism drive me up a wall specifically because I already share all of them. And I've got one friend who's actually a young-Earth creationist. Needless to say it drives me nuts just thinking about it. But I find her company far more pleasant (more accurately I think I love her), and she never proselytizes.

Of course I do have some concerns (such as creationism in schools), which simply haven't come up in conversation. Politically I can't think of a thing she and I have in common other than her support of gay marriage (based on summary dismissal of the Biblical arguments against it) and the fact that she's very grudgingly pro-choice. But we have a blast together and she's been a good confidant.

Of course, not knowing any Scientologists I don't know what the odds are that you'd meet one who doesn't proselytize. But when it's something really controlling like that I'd tend to think of it almost like I think of a drug addiction - a problem the person has rather than an aspect of their actual character.

[mr friendly guy]

I think Flagg has a point. Because the Bible is contradictory in a lot of points, a Christian can select out verses which don't mash with modern morality. For example they conveniently ignore a verse where Jesus asks his enemies bought before him and killed in front of him, in favour of those verses where Jesus ask you to turn the other cheek. Scientology most probably has less contradictory things, so its harder for Scientologist to selectively quote good verses from Hubbard.

For the record, some of those lines attributed to Hubbard seems like methods to how to defend Scientology, rather than a manual of morality as such, and seem to my mind to be morally neutral (provided the other side actually deserves it, which most probably don't in Scientology's case). I also have no qualms about Hubbard wanting to make money. I do have problems with how Scientology proceeds to do it, by peddling bullshit to the gullible and black mailing people.

[Stravo]

Its funny how people pile on Scientology for trying to bilk their flocks or make money off of them yet turn a blind eye to the wanton selling of Indulgences by the Catholic Church and the selling of a slot in heaven if you went to go kill infidels in the Holy Land.

The Church gets a free ride on this shit because it happened long ago? So Scientology gets penalized because its recent and the other religions get a free pass because it happened before our life times?

And someone in earlier mentioned a pyramid scheme. Is the Church itself not a pyramid scheme? You have to go to a priest to get your sins cleansed in an act of contrition in order to get into heaven. No priest. No heaven. That's somehow NOT a scheme?

In fact I would say Scientology has a leg up on the Church and other institutions just for the fact that it hasn't actively urged its flock to kill anyone nor tried to cover up pedophilia.

[Stuart Mackey]

How do you draw the line between mocking an idea and mocking a person for holding it, as far as what's appropriate? .

Thats the problem that people dont get. In a free country, you dont have to respect any idea, you only have to respect the right to have that idea. People sometimes cannot distinguish between the idea and themselves, possibly due to indoctrination. This is something that most of the religions I have seen cannot stand, because such a process inevitably erodes their power base.

[Darth Wong]

Is the man stupid, or is the idea stupid? Consider the following exchange:

Jim: "Smoking is a fucking stupid habit."

Bill: "I smoke. Are you saying I'm stupid?"

Jim: "No, I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying that you're doing something stupid, because smoking will take years off your life."

Bill: "Who said I don't know that already? Maybe I know that and I choose to do it anyway, because the pleasure of smoking outweighs the exaggerated health risk and medical fearmongering."

Jim: "I take it back."

Bill: "Thank you."

Jim: "No, I mean I take back the part where I said you weren't stupid."

[Stuart Mackey]

Is the man stupid, or is the idea stupid? Consider the following exchange:

snip"

And I think that encapsulates the premise of the thread, people take religion as part of themselves in some way, therefore it bcomes a social taboo to disscus it {which is conveniant for the church, because no one will challenge their authority}, scientology is not as wide spread and does not exert the same kind of control, so it becomes legitimate to take the micky.

[Uraniun235]

And that is any more bizarre than a guy who claimed to be the King of the Jews because God fucked his mother, and who promised to come back and conquer the world before his apostles died? Hell, at least we know that L Ron Hubbard was a real crazy person. Jesus was a nutbar who might not even have existed.

That's kind of the point. It's much easier to attack someone we know existed and deliberately set up a money-making scam. It's much easier to attack someone who fairly obviously descended into mental illness (if Christianity was originally just a money-making scam, did those early Jewish priests ever fall for their own BS? Who can say?)

In fact, you summed it up perfectly:

If there was as much obscuring of the origins of Scientology a thousand years from now, would it become more of a legitimate religion?

I'd say that in the eyes of the public, it would. Unfortunately.

And I think that encapsulates the premise of the thread, people take religion as part of themselves in some way, therefore it bcomes a social taboo to disscus it {which is conveniant for the church, because no one will challenge their authority}, scientology is not as wide spread and does not exert the same kind of control, so it becomes legitimate to take the micky.

Indeed, I used to describe myself as "agnostic" in high school rather than "atheist" just so I wouldn't have to put up with a bunch of crap from people who took umbrage at my disbelief in their god.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Other religions, you don't know who started it. Even if we DO know who started a religion, historically there isn't much information about them left.

But with Scientology, we know all about it's founder. And the parallels between his life experiences and the development of Scientology (especially the parallels between those he hated and that which is wrong according to the OTs) is far more than coincidence.

[The Yosemite Bear]

same reason ragging on the mormons is to a lesser extent. The religion was "invented" in recent times by a certifable crackpot from the united states.

[The Yosemite Bear]

mind you I consider Anton LeVey a much more classy guy to start his own religion for tax exempt status and to basically create publicity/money then I do L. Ron Hubbard.

[The Yosemite Bear]

As per the OP, that is probably the best reason to rag on Scientology. Whereas mainstream Christianity, Buddhism etc have changed to reflect the public, Scientology is still as nuts as ever, becaue frankly "be nice to eachother, and sent some money to the mighty Sky Father" is much better than "argh crap alien nuclear DC8s of volcanic fury!"

You forgot about the "End Times" bullshit, the anti-gay bullshit, the anti-porn bullshit, the anti-sex bullshit ...

yet another reason Anton LeVey is better then L. Ron Hubbard.

let's hear it for Lucifer, please take my hand.

[drachefly]

Look, I'm not saying it's not a transparent con, but the other guy ADMITTED it.

So? How do you know the early Jewish priests didn't admit it too? You're simply taking advantage of the fact that the origins of the Judeo-Christian religion are lost in the mists of history. If there was as much obscuring of the origins of Scientology a thousand years from now, would it become more of a legitimate religion?

Because anyone nowadays has access to his admission, should they choose to google it. We do not have that for the ancient priests.

Decisions are made on the available evidence, not the evidence that could have been gotten a few thousand years ago.

In a few thousand years, if Scientology persists yet L. Ron's plan was forgotten (somehow), then joining scientology would not be AS stupid. It would still be pretty freaking stupid.

[Max]

We all chuckle with glee at the Tom Cruises and Nancy Cartwrights of the world as they talk about how Scientology was there for them and that L Ron Hubbard was speaking to them in a passage in one of his Scientology books. Thetans, Lord Xeno, what have you. Yet if someone talks about finding Jesus and the washing away of sins if we were to chuckle and point and laugh the reaction is markedly different.

Many of the people laughing at Scientologists and thinking that they're a cult would be deeply offended if the same logic were applied to Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Wicca, etc.

What's the difference? Honestly I would love to hear from a RELIGIOUS person - not you horde of faithless heathens - why they feel that Christianity, etc is better or above Scientology. Be honest on why you think so.

I think the fact that Christianity has thousands of years of history and countless volumes upon volumes upon volumes of theological, scholastic, and even philosophical writings to its name gives it just a tad bit more weight, or at the very least, respect for those who follow it, than a religion that has started in the last century based on science fiction works of a single individual.

[Stravo]

We all chuckle with glee at the Tom Cruises and Nancy Cartwrights of the world as they talk about how Scientology was there for them and that L Ron Hubbard was speaking to them in a passage in one of his Scientology books. Thetans, Lord Xeno, what have you. Yet if someone talks about finding Jesus and the washing away of sins if we were to chuckle and point and laugh the reaction is markedly different.

Many of the people laughing at Scientologists and thinking that they're a cult would be deeply offended if the same logic were applied to Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Wicca, etc.

What's the difference? Honestly I would love to hear from a RELIGIOUS person - not you horde of faithless heathens - why they feel that Christianity, etc is better or above Scientology. Be honest on why you think so.

I think the fact that Christianity has thousands of years of history and countless volumes upon volumes upon volumes of theological, scholastic, and even philosophical writings to its name gives it just a tad bit more weight, or at the very least, respect for those who follow it, than a religion that has started in the last century based on science fiction works of a single individual.

So a ridiculous idea like say a homeless unemployed Carpenter coming back from the dead and then floating up to heaven (after no one but his most trusted disciples see him after his resurection) is OK because it has a pedigree and people dicussed it over thousands of years?

What about Greek Mythology? Babylonian myths (many of which the Jews ripped off of) shouldn't they have even more credibility than Chirstianity, Islam or Judiasm. They are older after all. People discussed them alot. They're just out of fashion.

Just so I have your position clear, if in 2000 years Scientology still has adherents and treatises have been written about it then it should have the same respectability as Chrisitianity? Religion is OK if it's old? I wonder what the First Christians would have thought about that idea.