As I recall (Parish probably can clarify) the high court decision on religious status is about the eligibility to tax concessions etc rather than a theological approval.

Scientologists care about money first, last and in between. You just cannot advance “spiritually” without paying huge sums to them. No other religion does this. (well since Luther stopped those bloody catholics).

Scientology’s criminal activities are well documented, just google “scientology criminal cult”

And if anyone wanst to test out the benign nature of scientologists try putting a critical article on a blog every week and write a few letters to the editor and see your privacy invaded and lies spread to all and sundry about you. Look up “fair game” and scientology.

I believe Victoria’s own Henry Bolte was the first leader anywhere to initiate an inquiry (enquiry?) into Scientology. It was eventually banned in Victoria. The ban was one of the main incentives for Scientology to seek to be registered as a religion. Melbourne, Victoria and Henry retain a special and high place in the (long) list of hated enemies of scientology.

Jason – if you have a spare hour or two someday, spend it poking around xenu.net. I think there’s plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence there that the senior echelons of Scientology are the inheritors of Hubbard’s scam, rather than his dupes.

In terms of the broad-brush circumstantial evidence, what else to make of Scientology’s method of recruiting adherents via tactics that any psychologist will instantly recognise as a process of disorienting and confusing the brain’s normal patterns and sense of self in order to create a dependency on the implanted doctrine (the techniques that the term “brainwashing” was coined to describe), and then charging the “believer” increasingly substantial sums of money to access the successive levels of “technology” that are necessary validate their new sense of self?

I just don’t see another explanation for a “religion” that behaves that way other than the obvious.

You’ll note that I qualified my statement about the relatively benign nature of Christianity by confining it to “mainstream” churches and the 20th century. Fairly clearly the abortion clinic bombers are anything but mainstream, just as the extreme Fundamentalist Jews who stubbornly occupy someone else’s land and violently resist all efforts to remove them are not representative of Judaism (although they’re a significantly larger minority of that faith than the clinic bombers are of christianity).

Moreover, I certainly wouldn’t argue that Christianity was “relatively benign” during the Middle Ages or the Renaissance and even up to a bit after the Reformation. But then again maybe I would. The christian churches preserved western learning and therefore the possibility of modern western civilisation through the Dark Ages and generated the flowering of the Renaissance, the influence of which is what creates the very possibility of the broad liberal/libertarian belief systems with which you now judge and condemn it. So in a relative sense maybe it was benign even then in a barbaric world (although I wouldn’t push that argument too far).

I also agree with your points about lapsed/nominal Christians and Muslims, except that devout christians in mainstream faiths don’t generally exhibit the violent, fascistic, intolerant tendencies that seem all too characteristic of fairly large swathes of modern Islam.

However, I think you’re far too relaxed and comfortable about Scientology. Read the whole of the Wikipedia article and you’ll see what I mean.

When was the last time Scientologists blew up an abortion clinic?

Let’s be real here: Scientology is, in comparison to the 2 major expansionist religions (Islam and Christianity), incredibly benign, its primary crime seemingly being to bilk a few overpaid and unintelligent actors out of a small percentage of their extremely large paychecks.

In comparison to the hundreds of thousands that died in the crusades, the inquisition, and the current Islamic war on everything, Scientology has nothing to answer for.

You may believe that current “mainstream christian churches” being relatively harmless means that Christianity itself is harmless. I disagree. It’s more of a case of people choosing to only follow their religion in a casual fashion. Christianity is no less oppressive than it ever was, it’s just that most modern Christians don’t take it so seriously any more.

I have nominally Muslim friends who drink, shave, smoke, engage in premarital sex, don’t pray and generally ignore everything in the Koran, but still call themselves Muslims and give their kids Muslim names. This doesn’t mean that Islam has reformed, it just means that not everyone takes it so seriously.

I suspect the same thing is true of Scientology. On the one hand you have Tom Cruise going mental on morning talk shows, while other famous Scientologists like John Travolta don’t seem to be exhibiting any crazy behaviour at all (or no more than they ever did anyway).

Buddhism is different in my opinion because it actually *IS* a relatively benign belief system, and that Buddhists have never made any attempt to forcibly convert others to their beliefs. Same goes for Judaism.

Does a conman who markets (say) a pyramid-selling scheme acquire any form of legitimacy merely because some people continue to believe in his “get rich quick” schemes? By contrast, can we simply dismiss (say) a discredited economic theory like Marxism or the ideas of Henry George and treat them as mere charlatans even though their theories were espoused in good faith and were based on careful (if misguided) thought and analysis? I guess you end up broke in either case if you rely on their teachings, and one may even argue that misguided notions advanced in good faith can be more powerful and therefore more damaging than calculating scams. Nevertheless I don’t think it’s all that useful to argue that they’re the same thing and that bad faith in the inception of a belief system is irrelevant.

Another angle is that it is entirely possible for a highly intelligent, educated person to accept christian dogma, as long as one doesn’t insist on taking it all too literally and sees lots of even the New Testament as allegorical. It isn’t similarly possible IMO for such a person to embrace the teachings of Scientology in all their glory, which is no doubt why the “operating thetan” knowledge levels are kept secret until adherents get sufficiently brainwashed. For an example of an extraordinarily intelligent, subtle modern mind embracing christianity, read some of the works of Karl Rahner. For a more antique example, St Thomas Aquinas. Can you think of any similar examples of highly intelligent, educated Scientologists? Tom Cruise perhaps? Isaac Hayes?

Moreover, at least in their twentieth century manifestations, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism would appear to be relatively benign belief systems (however misguided many here may think them), whereas Scientology has some much more troubling aspects as the Wikipedia article discusses (although perhaps not as troubling as the Jehovah’s Witnesses with their opposition to many forms of medical treatment). Of course, young women denied abortions in catholic countries may take issue with the suggestion that christianity is relatively benign, but it still seems to me that the modern mainstream christian churches are qualitatively very different from and considerably more benign than the Scientologists. OTO I would concede that part of my reaction may flow from my being much more familiar, and therefore comfortable, with mainstream christianity than with scientology.

I’m sorry but the passage of time and the number of believers should count for naught re giving Christianity anymore legitimacy as a genuinely professed belief system than Scientology. all this stuff about the ‘real doctrines’ being kept top secret is a red herring – as Liam has pointed out, some religions are secretive and it’s their perogative to be so. Perhaps only long-time initiates get the whole thing at once and it’s uncovered bit by bit like a striptease act. so what? there’s every possible combination and variation of ceremony n religion.

I don’t think Scientology is like the other religions. I susepct Scientology is in some ways an inevitable progression – more or less the fast food restaurant of religion – that is, ‘new and improved.’ And one particular aspect that appears to seperate it from most other religions is that it keeps alot of secrets, not for reasons of taboo or any other factors that seem to fit within the overall philosophy. The other religions are indeed open to more scrutiny, at least in the following way. People thinking about getting involved generally have nothing kept from them until after they commit to join. As I understand it, this is a very distinguishing feature of Scientology. Now maybe that is part of the philosophy, and fits within some sort of timetable. But it does look to the outsider like a bit of argy bargy that other religions don’t tend to get involved with as much.

I don’t think Scientology is like the other religions. I think Scientology is an inevitable progression – more or less the fast food restaurant of religion – ‘new and improved.’ One aspect seperating it from most other religions is that it keeps it’s secrets rather closely, not for reasons of taboo or any other factors that seem to fit with the overall philosophy. The other religions are more open to scrutiny – people thinking about going into them generally have nothing kept from them until after they commit to join. As I understand it, this is very different in the case of Scientology. Now maybe that is part of their philosophy and fits within a timetable for gaining alot of self improvement. But it does look like a bit of argy bargy that other religions don’t tend to get involved with as much.

Can you see any real difference between L. Ron Hubbard, the Pope, the Rev Moon and Osama Bin Laden? Beyond the different degrees of time and money they always seem to be demanding from their herd?

Basically all them, and everyone else who tries to pull such scams, are claiming an invisable superhero from outer space gave them the right to dispose of your cash, mind, body and soul as they see fit.

Fuck that!

A lot of people who are involved in pyramid selling schemes are convinced that they are a good idea too.

Whether or not L. Ron Hubbard was a deliberate scam artist or not, the one thing that all 4 have in common is that they were all likely:

A:) Batshit insane – as you’d have to be to start a religion to begin with – and B:) Extremely charismatic, which is necessary to gain a critical mass of followers.

What are the doctrines of Hinduism by the way?

We’re operating with a very narrow and ethnocentric concept of religion here.

link to site in article
http://downwindmedia.com/

These days tourism is a religion too, and the high priests are hypocritical shites there as well.

If you’d bothered to read through to the paragraph immediately following the long quote, you might have realised that your comment was redundant.

As opposed to other religions which aren’t scams?