Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief

[Aractus]

I don't have to.......what reason is there to challenge scientology's right to practice as a religion?

Well, as I mentioned (and backed up with evidence) religion brings benefit. If it brings net benefit why would you want to stop it?

Why don't I put this another way. Scientology has been directly responsible for the deaths of some people. The most famous case is that of Lisa McPherson. Cars also directly cause death and injury. But they bring benefits also and they include mobility and convenience. A few years back, Australia began reducing the speed limit for general suburban roads from 60 km/hr to 50 km/hr. As this was done, cost-benefit analysis's were done. And if you're the kind of person who argues that human life cannot be quantified in a cost-benefit analysis, then you'd be the kind of person wanting to ban all cars outright.

In any case, reducing the speed limit reduced the average speed travelled on those roads by about 3 or 4 km/hr (I can't remember the exact amount). But it also significantly reduced road traffic accidents. Therefore the speed limit was rolled-out nation-wide.

Now I would argue that Scientology's dogmatic opposition to psychiatry makes it dangerous and harmful. But if the health benefits they bring outweigh the cost - for example by reducing the burden on the public health system - if that's the case - then fine leave them be. Why on earth would you want to police something that is bringing benefit for the community? You wouldn't. But if it's bringing undue harm then you'd be able to make a case for intervention. Now I can only see two reasons that would give you a legitimate reason for intervention: either for the general health of the population; or for economic benefit of the population. If you could show that Scientology somehow caused people to contribute less to the workplace then you'd have a valid reason for intervention, and one that would make politicians sit up and listen because they're always looking for ways that the economy can grow.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and again, I think you've given that position entirely too much credibility.  Believe we've had this "net benefit" business brought up in it's own right before and, personally, I wasn't satisfied then - nor am I satisfied now.  Nor would it matter if I was......

Many things have been directly responsible for the deaths of people.  Scientology is hardly the only religion in this camp - not even within the last year, let alone the history of the persuasion.  I have no interest in challenging scientology's right to practice as a religion because I'm an american....with a capital A, understand?  I could go on -at length- about the illegal shit they've gotten up to in the past (and are likely engaged in currently), and I would challenge -that- all day long......but there's this one thing about which we shall make no law...roger?

[Hatshepsut]

Responsible for deaths...say Hitler. Both Hitler and Elron are convenient proxies for the phenomena they presided over. Neither was able to operate without a round table of of like-minded councillors. But neither will get a bye from history. Yet, isn't it true that Scientology is more aggressive now  than it was with Elron at the helm?

Constitutional recognition of religion didn't help the Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord or the Branch Davidians. If you're doing something illegal the feds consider they have every right to shut you down, and will, even if it leads to a national fiasco on TV. But the Scientologists prefer lawyers to guns so I take it Uncle Sam has had less incentive to investigate, and wouldn't get as far if they did pursue a case.

Why is the ground fertile for any cult?  ... As for people who seem to have their wits about them and still choose to join: mind control techniques can be powerful.

Most attempts to start a cult fail. Most cults that do succeed in getting off the ground die with their founder. Only rare ones like the LDS and the Church of Scientology seem on their way to becoming permanent, mainstream institutions, with the Mormons a lot farther along the path to respectability.

I don't really buy the mind control thing as sold by professional cult deprogrammers. I can even understand, to some extent, Scientology's aversion to psychiatry because much of what we have for theory in psychology remains contestable: We still have therapists who believe in Freud's Oedipal complex. We get properly credentialed practitioners who wrap teens in "primal birthing" blankets and sit atop them until they smother to death. Mental health drugs have dangerous side effects yet patients aren't monitored closely to see if their meds are harming their bodies. It is possible to get so steeped in something that your mind does get warped. But I doubt this happens without the victim's cooperation, outside extreme cases such as POW camps or Jim Jones's People's Temple in Guyana.

[Silver]

I have noticed a recent trend since the release of this documentary. Scientologists in the area are now appearing in public with their parents, due to a part of the documentary which claimed children were separated and kept apart from their parents.

[The Grand Nudger]

"They think we're nutballs who separate kids from their parents.. quick, order all the parents to pair up with their offspring units!"
-"look at those fucking weirdos...taking their moms everywhere they go"......see..crazy people can;t win...because they're fucking crazy - total disconnect.....every attempt to solve a problem only deepens it. Call it a side effect of their affliction.

[Goon]

There are some ridiculous religions, with many seemingly trying to show the world they're more crazy than the craziest religion. lol scientology is for dopes. That one person said normal people join cults to fit in. That's what is wrong with this world, simply. These JWs claiming it a miracle from the divine god for letting themselves in your home and listening to them. All of these "divine encounters" every religion shows its members. People fall for this shit. lol

---

I don't have to.......what reason is there to challenge scientology's right to practice as a religion?

Well, as I mentioned (and backed up with evidence) religion brings benefit. If it brings net benefit why would you want to stop it?

Why don't I put this another way. Scientology has been directly responsible for the deaths of some people. The most famous case is that of Lisa McPherson. Cars also directly cause death and injury. But they bring benefits also and they include mobility and convenience. A few years back, Australia began reducing the speed limit for general suburban roads from 60 km/hr to 50 km/hr. As this was done, cost-benefit analysis's were done. And if you're the kind of person who argues that human life cannot be quantified in a cost-benefit analysis, then you'd be the kind of person wanting to ban all cars outright.

In any case, reducing the speed limit reduced the average speed travelled on those roads by about 3 or 4 km/hr (I can't remember the exact amount). But it also significantly reduced road traffic accidents. Therefore the speed limit was rolled-out nation-wide.

Now I would argue that Scientology's dogmatic opposition to psychiatry makes it dangerous and harmful. But if the health benefits they bring outweigh the cost - for example by reducing the burden on the public health system - if that's the case - then fine leave them be. Why on earth would you want to police something that is bringing benefit for the community? You wouldn't. But if it's bringing undue harm then you'd be able to make a case for intervention. Now I can only see two reasons that would give you a legitimate reason for intervention: either for the general health of the population; or for economic benefit of the population. If you could show that Scientology somehow caused people to contribute less to the workplace then you'd have a valid reason for intervention, and one that would make politicians sit up and listen because they're always looking for ways that the economy can grow.

Not trying to sum up what you're saying, but some people don't base their priorities off tax dollars.

[Clueless Morgan]

The government should not recognize ANY religions, period. 

Granting religious tax exemption...requires the government to establish what is or isn't a religion. The government has no business doing that. 

Only thing is, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and would allow government to target religions it didn't like. Though I hate to see organizations like Scientology and the Mormon Church be able to sock billions away with no public accounting whatsoever. Both organizations keep their books completely secret and furnish even the IRS with only minimal information because they don't have to file forms 990 as secular charities do. While the businesses they own or invest in aren't tax-exempt, the capital gains on their shares is. There really ought to be limits to what a religious body can shield from taxation. The costs of building and running meetinghouses, yes, but earnings on huge endowment funds, no. 

If unduly targeting a specific religion is a concern, then find a way to blind the tax examiners from know what religious organization that form is for.

Religions should also have to publish their books detailing stuff they are claiming exemptions for.

Yes.  If they want tax exempt status, they should have to submit to financial examination to demonstrate that they aren't defrauding those who donate, and that the money is going to where they say it is.