Why is Ragging on Scientologists OK?

[Max]

Sure, if people still practiced it.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Because it was started by a man who made it pretty clear the goal of the religion was to make him money.

And of course, the early Roman Catholic Church was a paragon of virtue in comparison

Seriously, the above argument is quite characteristic of religious opinions I've heard on why Scientology deserves to be treated differently from Christianity. In fact, I've heard that exact argument countless times. These kinds of arguments are mostly based on three major conceits:

1) Christianity never did any of these things (in reality, the early Roman Catholic Church did it all: profiteering, persecution of heretics, the whole nine yards).

The Roman Catholic Church did it all the way through to the 20th century! Man, the things the secular popes of the 15th century did, and the indulgences they gave out... it boggles the mind.

The good thing about it was that it brought about the reformation, splintering the church's power.

TWG

[The_Nice_Guy]

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.

snip

Christ's teachings, if followed absolutely by everybody, would be utopia.

But it's not, so it becomes a suicide pact instead. Turn your other cheek!?! Sorry, but I'm not that holy.

TWG

[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. 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.

So? Even Jesus had his moment of doubt on the cross, and no matter how you spin-doctor it, his claims are more retarded than those of Hubbard.

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

There's actually plenty of evidence that the Old Testament rules were made up for the benefit of the priests. The fact that it does not come in the form of an easily digested quote doesn't change that.

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.

How is it more stupid than joining a religion whose Great Prophet's Greatest Prophecy failed to come true in spectacular fashion? "This is a great money-making scheme" is more stupid than "I'm gonna come back and conquer the world in a few years?"

[Simplicius]

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.

It's not just because any one religion is less absurd than the other, although age somehow being equivalent to validity is a significant factor. It's also a simple matter of numbers.

As previously noted, people will get defensive about their religion if it's attacked, because it's an intensely personal thing. Someone taking Scientology seriously will be just as enraged as someone taking Christianity, Islam, Wicca, etc. etc. seriously.

So why does it seem 'okay' to rag on Scientologists but not on - for example - Christians? Because there are more people (non-Scientologists) who think Scientology is a ridiculous sham - including people of other religions. The only people guarnateed to passionately defend Scientology are serious Scientologists, and they are relatively few in number. The number of Christians who will vociferously defend their faith is much greater, so the number of people who think it's okay to bash Christianity is much fewer than for Scientology, making Christianity less palatable to insult for those only vaguely inclined to do so.

It's a simple case of preferring the easier target over the harder one.

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.

It's no more or less absurd if it's new or old. But the weight of tradition is a useful crutch for people who approve of an old idea, while simultaneously being what people who prefer new ideas try to overcome.

If Scientology survives for 2000 years, it may not gain any more favor among people who don't buy it - just like Christianity being 2000 years old isn't enough to convince me to become a believer. But for Scientologists, those centuries will in a sense justify the religion. The emotional appeal of longevity and tradition easily equate to truth for anyone who wants that truth to exist.

[Max]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

[Elheru Aran]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

You hear about the celebrities because they get all the parapazzi, and are willing to boast about being a Scientologist if it'll let them lvl up a few more thetans. There are *much* more people out there that send in their weekly check to LA, but you never hear about them because they don't get any press.

[Flagg]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

Because they have money. To get into the upper levels of the Church you either have to pay millions of dollars to take seminars, and be given their teachings. For celebrities it just means writing a check, but for average people you basically have to get a job in the Church and work your way up.
They also don't tell you the "secrets" about the church, like Xenu, and other assorted nonsense until you have spent so much time and/ or money on the church that to just walk away at that point is almost unthinkable for the dupes.

[Darth Wong]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

The width of the target demographic validates a religion?

[John of the Dead]

In my opinion, you have to consider the sociological evolution of the church versus Scientology. The church began as the tribal religion of the Jews, and all its history and law was designed to foster a community and to protect that community. Say what you will about the absurdity of Mosaic law (and some of it was quite absurd), the original intent of that law was to protect and expand the people. The dietary and cleanliness laws are quite sensible in terms of promoting human health. Adding in the supernatural slant helps to give it an extra importance. The stuff about conquering and the like are to give divine weight to the tribe's natural desire to expand and to maintain (or gain) access to natural resources. All this in promotion of the tribe's well being.

The Christian churches grew from that base, and it seems to my layman's (though a Methodist Sunday School teacher) eyes that the primary distinction of Jesus' followers was to apply the tribal mentality to the whole of mankind. We're all just one big tribe, so we need to take care of each other. Then, throw in some fun stuff about eternal life to sweeten the deal. After all, if it's wrong, who's going to know?

Of course, as has been pointed out several times already, many, MANY church leaders have enriched themselves through the church, and the church has committed (or allowed to be committed) atrocities. That doesn't change the idea behind the founding of the religion: looking out for the well-being of the tribe, and later, the world as a whole.

Compare that to the driving principle behind Scientology - lining the pockets of L. Ron Hubbard (and his estate). Even ignoring Hubbard's stated goals, does Scientology teach anything about the good of the group versus the good of the individual? I'm up on the basic teaching of most major religions, but everything I've seen about Scientology is all about helping me Me ME! It seems very selfish.

Anyhow, from one deluded religios person's perspective, that's the difference.

[Phillip Hone]

I don't think that liberal Christianty is the same as scientology, because it only requires you to believe in things with out evidence.

How ever, if you're a creationist, that's different because you have to believe in things are contradicted by evidence.

[Darth Wong]

Speaking of liberal vs fundamentalist Christianity, are there similar shades of belief in Scientology? Strong vs weak Scientologists?

[Phillip Hone]

If a Scientologist wants to claim that it's metaphor, then yes. It would be funny if Scientology 'grew up' and started to take to claim that it's stories are metaphor, instead of actual events.

For the record, I think that both the liberal and strict versions are absurd, but there are different degrees of absurdity.

In the end, Scientology isn't really that much different from other religions.

[Dark Hellion]

Speaking of liberal vs fundamentalist Christianity, are there similar shades of belief in Scientology? Strong vs weak Scientologists?

I don't believe that there are any other sects of Scientology other than the main one, it is just how high you level or whatever. Which was somewhat of the point I was trying to make, liberal christians pick and choose what to believe in order to more closely mesh their religion with a common viewpoint (I have seen pastors talking about gay tolerance amongst other examples) instead of being blind zealots of thier fairy tale.
Its just different levels of absurdity. Any Biblical literalist deserves the same degree of mocking as a scientologist, but many christians religion is all but the equivilent of believing in Santa Claus. They may go to church once a month and occationally say grace or some bullshit like that but really that kind of thing doesn't hurt anyone. It's kind of like the Supreme Courts take on Obsenity, when you see it, you realize wether the person deserves mocking very quickly.

[Elfdart]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

Same reason you have more cokeheads among celebrities: You have a large number of young and stupid people with a shitload of money.

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.

Neither Mormons nor Scientologists exercise any real power or influence outside their little enclaves. Utah might as well be in the Gobi Desert it's so isolated from the rest of the country. So comedians, commentators, pundits and others can dump one bucket of shit on them after another.

For example, all the bedsheet-sniffing in the papers (and not just the tabloids) about Katie Holmes' engagement to Tom Cruise, pregnancy and "silent birth". Ask yourself this question: Would even the trashiest tabloid ever dare print anything comparable about a shiksa goddess who married a famous Jew? For example, when Kate Capshaw, Catherine Zeta Jones, or Nikki Schieler married Jewish husbands or converted to Judaism, how much was written about it? Any tabloid or TV show or website that snickered over a bris for the son of a Jewish celebrity the way they have over "silent birth" would catch hell for it. Certain Catholics and Southern Baptists can also make those who insult their religion pay dearly for it. Which leads to:

Another reason Scientology is considered fair game is because it's pretty safe to ridicule them. I don't remember any Scientologists engaging in one one-thousandth the kind of violence against infidels as fundie Christians in this country have done. Which leads to:

While Hubbard's acolytes haven't bombed clinics, shot doctors, sucked the cocks of Third World dictators for diamonds and so on; they have gone out of their way to be major league assholes. Hiring private dicks to snoop around for blackmail information on people, as well as nuisance lawsuits can and should turn people off in droves.

If the Church of Scientology really wanted to get a better image, they might want to have new spokesmen to put a new public face on the religion. When your BEST advocates are bimbo actresses like Kelly Preston (only two good reasons to watch any of her movies) and Jenna Elfman (she's cute enough to say all kinds of stupid things and get away with it), you're going to have an image problem. When your most famous advocates are mutton-headed jackoffs like John Travolta (it would be flattery to call him an imbecile) and a no-talent, obnoxious, thin-skinned, homophobic little prick like Tom Cruise, you have a public relations nightmare.

[CarsonPalmer]

Elfdart, I greatly resent your comments. The sheep of the world are offended at the bodies of their relatives being compared to John Travolta.

[Elfdart]

One more thing: Could anyone imagine say, Harrison Ford threatening to sue the shit out of anyone for telling gay jokes about him? I think Tom Cruise doth protest a bit too much and if he ever took Dr. Adams' test, my money is on him falling into the 80 percent category.

[mr friendly guy]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

I thought one of Scientology's marketing strategies was to target celebrities (or high income professionals) in the belief that it would promote more adherents to the cult. These celebrities aren't told about the EVEL XENU until later.

[Elfdart]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

I thought one of Scientology's marketing strategies was to target celebrities (or high income professionals) in the belief that it would promote more adherents to the cult. These celebrities aren't told about the EVEL XENU until later.

That's part of it, but the main reason is that swindling a dope like John Travolta out of money would require about as much guile as tying your shoes. You know what they say: A fool and his money...



...are welcome everywhere!

[RedImperator]

Christian nonsense has had 2000 years to work itself into the fabric of Western culture. That's why people snort at warp powered DC-8s and Lord Xenu but not at talking burning bushes and a guy who used magic powers to turn water into wine. Even if you're raised atheist, if you grow up in the west you grow up in a culture whose music, art, literature, even its architecture takes these stories seriously. That makes an impression on people.

It probably doesn't help either that Scientology sounds exactly like a wretched pulp serial (not surprising, since Hubbard was a wretched pulp writer), and the whole thing reeks of sci-fi cliches at which people would snicker even if it wasn't being sold as a religion. It's so transparently absurd it's hard not to laugh; I'd have an easier time taking seriously someone who followed the Jedi religion (actually following it, and not just putting it on the census form as a joke), because at least Star Wars is a better executed story.

[Max]

One is rooted in history, receiving support from reputable philosophers, the other is rooted in a known dumbshit, supported only by eccentric entertainers who have a habit of jumping religions. That's why I think Christianity should at the very least receive a bit more weight in an argument.

[Surlethe]

One is rooted in history, receiving support from reputable philosophers, the other is rooted in a known dumbshit, supported only by eccentric entertainers who have a habit of jumping religions. That's why I think Christianity should at the very least receive a bit more weight in an argument.

What's so historic about a book which claims the entire planet was once submerged in water to a depth of 10 km?

[mr friendly guy]

One is rooted in history, receiving support from reputable philosophers, the other is rooted in a known dumbshit, supported only by eccentric entertainers who have a habit of jumping religions. That's why I think Christianity should at the very least receive a bit more weight in an argument.

What's so historic about a book which claims the entire planet was once submerged in water to a depth of 10 km?

I think he means Christianity's claims have been around than Scientology's.

[Darth Wong]

One is rooted in history, receiving support from reputable philosophers, the other is rooted in a known dumbshit, supported only by eccentric entertainers who have a habit of jumping religions. That's why I think Christianity should at the very least receive a bit more weight in an argument.

OK, you're starting to piss me off. You made a post like this earlier, Stravo made a detailed response to it, you blew him off with a one-liner, and then you posted basically the same shit again. Either answer the points, shut the fuck up, or expect consequences.

[RedImperator]

One is rooted in history, receiving support from reputable philosophers, the other is rooted in a known dumbshit, supported only by eccentric entertainers who have a habit of jumping religions. That's why I think Christianity should at the very least receive a bit more weight in an argument.

OK, you're starting to piss me off. You made a post like this earlier, Stravo made a detailed response to it, you blew him off with a one-liner, and then you posted basically the same shit again. Either answer the points, shut the fuck up, or expect consequences.

The first half is accurate, and goes back to what I said. Christianity has had the support of major philosophers for most of the last 2000 years, and their apologetics have succeded in justifying or rationalizing away a lot of the more transparent absurdities--that's why, for example, the Catholic Church doesn't adovcate Young Earth Creationism, because they've put a lot of brainpower into adjusting their theology around the fact their creation story is utter nonsense. Whereas, so far as I know, every Scientologist is supposed to believe Hubbard's pulp story is 100% literally true. In a sense, Scientology as a whole gets the scorn which is usually reserved for YECs in Christianity--though even YECs aren't openly mocked the way Scientologists are.

All that said, I don't see how it follows that Christianity deserves more respect as a system of thought than Scientology based on the fact it had more philosophical support. A lot of major philosophers supported phlogiston theory, too.