A little. But why does it matter?
Scientology is a Fraud - Officially
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
A little. But why does it matter?
Let me rectify. I don't think it's a scam. I just think someone made it up, which is true, Mr. Hubbard I believe. Why are you getting on me, when Ophiolite actually wrote it.
there is a debate that needs to be had about "religion" in public policy. There are oviously positive and negitive effects of religion (in the broud sense of the word). I dont mean things like muslim vs christan wars but rather quacks who use religion to extort money from people. For instance cancer patients who are convinced that giving all there money to x will mean that god will cure there cancer. This sort of debate has already started in the Aternitive and Complementry Med field but religion also needs to be looked at. We should be smart enough as a sociaty to find a way to crack down on these con artists without removing the comfert patients and there families recive from having a priest (again in the broud sense not only christan priests) help them with the dying proccess (for an example but its not only there). The current ways that Aborigional people recive medical and psycological services are a good example of how this can work well and there is good resurch to back up that sort of aproch.
The other issue is how to clamp down on those seeking only to exploit peoples belifes without stoping the ability for church affiliated non goverment organisations to do the work that goverments either dont have the money for or have refused to do or in some cases have even outsorced to them directly. One example is the St Johs Ambulance service which provides first aid services for the community as well as providing people trainned in handling emergencies when diasters happen and the health services and ambulance services are overwhelmed. Just because it has a religious connection when it was first formed doesnt mean it isnt a worth while organisation in its own right
Another example is the salvation army who are directly connected to a church but still provide vital secular surport to people in distress and again have the resorces to back up the govermental agencies in diasters (they are included in the diaster management plan as the organsation responcable for providing immidiate food, clothing and shelter before the department of family and communities moves in to provide the more long term surport). There are govermental agencies which can take up these rolls to a point but that would mean higher long term taxes (for instance to increase the surplies the army had on stand by so that they could be deployed for disaster surport as a first line aproch rather than a back up only) rather than apeals when there is a need.
The other issue is how to clamp down on those seeking only to exploit peoples belifes without stoping the ability for church affiliated non goverment organisations to do the work that goverments either dont have the money for or have refused to do or in some cases have even outsorced to them directly. One example is the St Johs Ambulance service which provides first aid services for the community as well as providing people trainned in handling emergencies when diasters happen and the health services and ambulance services are overwhelmed. Just because it has a religious connection when it was first formed doesnt mean it isnt a worth while organisation in its own right
Another example is the salvation army who are directly connected to a church but still provide vital secular surport to people in distress and again have the resorces to back up the govermental agencies in diasters (they are included in the diaster management plan as the organsation responcable for providing immidiate food, clothing and shelter before the department of family and communities moves in to provide the more long term surport). There are govermental agencies which can take up these rolls to a point but that would mean higher long term taxes (for instance to increase the surplies the army had on stand by so that they could be deployed for disaster surport as a first line aproch rather than a back up only) rather than apeals when there is a need.
I have to say ( and though this may offend some people) I think Scientology is a crock of caca. That's just my personal opinion. Either way though, I'm not for banning religion. It goes against freedom of expression and the right to believe whatever the hell you want. So I say if someone wants to be conned, then let them. Most people won't believe you if you tell them they are being conned anyway, especially when it comes to religion.
jessie thats great but where do you draw the line?
Do you let "faith healers" continue fleacing money away from cancer pts and there families simply to satisfy some freedom of religion thing?
what if the cancer pt has a young child who they have a duty of care to provide for and they are DESPRATE to stay with that child and are there for conned out of all the money which should go to provide for that child. Yes the state could take the child away but who would that benifit? better to punish the crooks, just because you lable it as "religion" shouldnt mean that it can skate anti fraud laws which would be in place to protect the public in everyother cirumstance.
Do you let "faith healers" continue fleacing money away from cancer pts and there families simply to satisfy some freedom of religion thing?
what if the cancer pt has a young child who they have a duty of care to provide for and they are DESPRATE to stay with that child and are there for conned out of all the money which should go to provide for that child. Yes the state could take the child away but who would that benifit? better to punish the crooks, just because you lable it as "religion" shouldnt mean that it can skate anti fraud laws which would be in place to protect the public in everyother cirumstance.
Yes, but it also goes the other way as well. Where do you stop drawing the line? I mean, if you take away one religion because someone shouts fraud, then what's stopping them from banning all religions because of the same thing? How can you say one religion is fraud over the other? How do you tell one set of people that their beliefs are fake while condoning others?:shrug:
It's a shitty situation when people get scammed because they are desperate or just can't see reason, but you really can't tell people what to believe. I don't think people should be conned, but really, what can you do? Many people truly believe that faith healers work. Many people think that giving all their money to the church will cure them. Many people think that prayer alone will save them from a physical ailment and refuse medical treatment. It really is a personal choice and you can't make someone believe otherwise. Anti-fraud laws won't change that.
this is by no means my area of experties and if it came to a legislative solution there are alot of people better able to concive this sort of legislation That being said there has recently been a positive move in SA as i said, that is the outlawing of people pushing crack cancer cures. Its a crime now to claim to be able to cure cancer. i havent seen the exact bill so i dont know how its drafted as there are oviously SOME cancers which can be cured, specifically by surgury and there is always a chance science will find a true cure.
My sugestion would be to take religion out of it all together, for instance if someone said "i can go in and talk with the pt and there family and provide some level of surport" then no one is going to critize them no matter wether they are a shrink, a nurse, a lay person or a priest. Objectivly this is a good outcome
If we look at the negitive side however of someone saying "i can cure your cancer" then that is something which requires PROOF and there for the same standards should aplie.
Now when you get into the Simson's "The Leader" (ie a massive rip off of the church of scientology if you watch that episode) it is both harder to justify that level of state interfearance and also harder to prove ovious out and out fraud. To be honest if the john travolta's of the world want to blow there money on scientology it doesnt bother me in the slightest. The problems come in where you have truly vulnerable people in these situations, in the case of scientology the issue is mental illness. People with a mental illness are extreamly vulnerable socially as well as medically and to be preyed on by this group of nut jobs IS wrong. More than once have i herd of a situation of there own making which sent a mental health crisis from an acute crisis to the coronors court and THAT is unaceptable.
There are other groups which have similar legitimate concers around there activities, the exclusive breathern come to mind as a group which preys on children, not in the theoretical sense that some around here would like to claim ALL religion does but in the sense of compleatly isolating children from any sociatal inputs and even going so far as to cut them off from family if they chose to leave (or if other family members do). There are more than a few reports of parents refused to see there children, siblings cut off from each other ect.
That being said there has recently been a positive move in SA as i said, that is the outlawing of people pushing crack cancer cures. Its a crime now to claim to be able to cure cancer. i havent seen the exact bill so i dont know how its drafted as there are oviously SOME cancers which can be cured, specifically by surgury and there is always a chance science will find a true cure.My sugestion would be to take religion out of it all together, for instance if someone said "i can go in and talk with the pt and there family and provide some level of surport" then no one is going to critize them no matter wether they are a shrink, a nurse, a lay person or a priest. Objectivly this is a good outcome
If we look at the negitive side however of someone saying "i can cure your cancer" then that is something which requires PROOF and there for the same standards should aplie.
Now when you get into the Simson's "The Leader" (ie a massive rip off of the church of scientology if you watch that episode) it is both harder to justify that level of state interfearance and also harder to prove ovious out and out fraud. To be honest if the john travolta's of the world want to blow there money on scientology it doesnt bother me in the slightest. The problems come in where you have truly vulnerable people in these situations, in the case of scientology the issue is mental illness. People with a mental illness are extreamly vulnerable socially as well as medically and to be preyed on by this group of nut jobs IS wrong. More than once have i herd of a situation of there own making which sent a mental health crisis from an acute crisis to the coronors court and THAT is unaceptable.
There are other groups which have similar legitimate concers around there activities, the exclusive breathern come to mind as a group which preys on children, not in the theoretical sense that some around here would like to claim ALL religion does but in the sense of compleatly isolating children from any sociatal inputs and even going so far as to cut them off from family if they chose to leave (or if other family members do). There are more than a few reports of parents refused to see there children, siblings cut off from each other ect.
Yes, this I agree with. It's one thing for a religious leader to offer support in a time of need, but it's very different to claim to be able to cure cancer and then take advantage of vulnerable patients who are dying and desperate.
I agree it's wrong and sad, but I don't think the solution is to remove the religion. I think the solution is to have laws that better protect people with mental illness, that way if a family member or a friend suspects that someone is taking advantage of them by hiding behind religion, then lawful action can be taken. That way you don't have to step on the toes of the first ammendment and people who are easy prey for con artists, like those with mental illness, have legal protection.
thats one good thing about not having a bill of rights, unscrupulas people cant use it to mask there actions without goverments ability to deal with it. Theres no first ammendment in Australia infact the only claws in our consitution to do with religion forbids the federal gov and ONLY them from making a state religion. Thats because it was seen as a right of the states. If the goverments wanted to they could abolish religion in Australia all together but they wont because they want to be relected. What they CAN do is deal with situations where the surport is with them to take action.
Not from what you said:
You want to ban parts of religion. If you ban one part you may as well be banning the lot. Therefore you want to ban religion.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I'd like to know what I was responding to in the first quote - I may have changed my mind since then OR maybe taken out of context?
Anyway, I didn't say ban. Or if I did what I meant by it was shame. It's not possible to ban something - if anything it makes matters worse. It's much better to make people feel somewhat ashamed for teaching certain memes. Like racial bigotry. Saying the word nigger in a derogatory manner. This should give people a cause to pause. Reflect. Feel uncomfortable. Then in some way make the person who said this feel ashamed they said as much.
See how this works? I'm not saying banning. I'm suggesting teaching.
Teaching proper manners I suppose
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
This is reason enough:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
I mean only the simple or dirty minded would want that man putting his 'ethics' into them!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
I mean only the simple or dirty minded would want that man putting his 'ethics' into them!
Last edited:
Regarding religion I recommend this book by philosopher Daniel Dennett:
'Breaking the Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' :Viking Press, 2006;
As with any subject that is controversial; dialogue is the first step..... but when people say that their beliefs are beyond question I start to get a little queasy. I also wonder about those who appear desperate to strip others of their beliefs who obviously fail to understand why humans 'need' to believe certain things....
And there are definately charlatans out there who love to part the needy, unwell and naive from their cash.......quacks and false prophets.....
'Breaking the Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' :Viking Press, 2006;
As with any subject that is controversial; dialogue is the first step..... but when people say that their beliefs are beyond question I start to get a little queasy. I also wonder about those who appear desperate to strip others of their beliefs who obviously fail to understand why humans 'need' to believe certain things....
And there are definately charlatans out there who love to part the needy, unwell and naive from their cash.......quacks and false prophets.....
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Fraud... hmm.. about damn time.
If we can condemn cults then we can condemn scientology. I would compare it to a cult of personality devoted to Hubbard.. but it's slightly more complex.
If we can condemn cults then we can condemn scientology. I would compare it to a cult of personality devoted to Hubbard.. but it's slightly more complex.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
It's not the only crazy space religion. The Raelians come to mind as being even crazier, and even the Mormons believe that God lives (physically) on or around the star/planet "Kolob."
That said, there's one religion that believes some random guy from 2,000 years ago is god just because he healed the sick, raised the dead, was born to a virgin, was persecuted, died and came back after death. Of course I mean the cult of Apollonius of Tyana. It's a ridiculous tale because he was a well-respected philosopher. Had he been a carpenter or something, then it might have made sense.
I think Scientology is crap, but all religions are crap to those who don't believe in them.
Is there anyone who thinks that *all* religions are not making money off their parishioners? Do we imagine they burn the money people put into collection plates?
That said, there's one religion that believes some random guy from 2,000 years ago is god just because he healed the sick, raised the dead, was born to a virgin, was persecuted, died and came back after death. Of course I mean the cult of Apollonius of Tyana. It's a ridiculous tale because he was a well-respected philosopher. Had he been a carpenter or something, then it might have made sense.
I think Scientology is crap, but all religions are crap to those who don't believe in them.
Is there anyone who thinks that *all* religions are not making money off their parishioners? Do we imagine they burn the money people put into collection plates?
actually some are reasonably honest about how they collect donations. For instance in the catholic church there are 3 seprate collections, one is specific to there charity arm, the second pays for the living expenses of the parish priest and the third is general revinue. Each of these envolopes is marked with exactly what its collecting for.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Certainly I've been hearing voices, I just didn't know it was you.
What? You mean you do not have the ability to read your posts in the thread? and your memory is so short that you cannot recall your stance? Or could it be you just trying to be an artful dodger.
Ok here is what you said:
Case closed.
Yes you did. Look up at the quote liar.
Or if I did what I meant by it was shame. It's not possible to ban something - if anything it makes matters worse. It's much better to make people feel somewhat ashamed for teaching certain memes. Like racial bigotry. Saying the word nigger in a derogatory manner. This should give people a cause to pause. Reflect. Feel uncomfortable. Then in some way make the person who said this feel ashamed they said as much.
See how this works? I'm not saying banning. I'm suggesting teaching.
Teaching proper manners I suppose
Proper manners?
You just ooze hypocrisy don't you.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days