Religion is Open Source

[PatrickG]

Okay... I grew up mostly on 19th century Restoration Movement Christianity. In general, individual congregations my family went to were fairly conservative, socially, but the entire movement is, itself, what I would describe as religiously libertarian. That is to say, denominational structure and hierarchy were seen as irrelevant, at best, and detrimental, at worst.

It varied from congregation to congregation but the basic idea tended to be that we held democratic elections at the congregational level. Each church had bylaws set forth by their founding members, with a constitution subject to amendment. The overall template tended to be that there was a Board of Trustees with an influential CFO (and sometimes CEO) acting as a kind of counter to the minister, who acted as an influential hired spokesman.

Because the movement was founded out of a disgust for sectarianism, the overall attitude that seemed common was that every denomination was probably misguided on some point (just as every one of our congregations might be as well) and that no denomination had exclusive claim to salvation.

Catholics get into Heaven. Methodists get into Heaven. Quakers get into Heaven. Baptists get into Heaven. Unitarians get into Heaven. All provided that the INDIVIDUAL in question lived a life in accordance with Biblical teachings.

If there is room for debate over a Biblical issue, nobody is "right" and all opinions should be respected. The flipside of that being that a serious enough dispute might mean you'd be more comfortable worshipping with theologically likeminded people either at a denominational body or another nondenominational church.

The most prevalent teachings were basically that we viewed baptism as essential and would baptize anybody as soon as they indicated a desire to be and we believed we were instructed to take communion weekly and it was offered at every service. (Though, honestly, it never made sense to me that people generally only partook at one of the services they attended if they attended multiple since the instruction cited is "as often as you meet".) These two things are basically seen as "Christian Civil Rights" within the movement and anybody who sets foot in the average Restoration Movement church could ask for either; our ministers would baptize somebody in a lake at 2:00 am if it was the most convenient method and while we generally taught that communion is for the baptized (which we viewed as immersion by choice), we wouldn't withhold communion from somebody whose views differed.

The core credo of most of these churches is taken from Augustine: "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

I realize that everyone is shaped in differing ways by their religious and cultural upbringing but I see this statement as an identifier of what religion is and should be in a free society. In my mind, religious teachings not compatible with this three part teaching can't be legitimately protected without compromising the freedom and autonomy of the individual.

In my mind, if it isn't open source (subject to interpretation at the individual level, citing sources and influences and accepting the consequences of where your interpretations lead you, both terrestrially and celestially) then it isn't religion.

For me, that's where Scientology fails. I could be a Catholic and lead an offshoot movement. I could be a Jew or a Muslim and practice my own brand of the religion, at least in the U.S. and most of the west.

You can't do that as a Scientologist because their teachings aren't public; their religion isn't open source. They do not allow scholarly and theological criticism and review of their beliefs and you are in no position to claim an understanding which differs from leadership.

Now, granted, some of this could be said of the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention but the reality with those groups is that you are free to take their religious teachings, take issue with them and start a separate religious movement which, while condemned by the old hierarchy on a critical basis, will not be denied the right to operate or exist.

At the heart of this for me is a rather simple idea: Truth is not owned. It is not fabricated by human hands or human minds. It is discovered. Truth exists independent of the observer. You may fabricate a figure of speech or an expression and own that phrase... But if the idea it relates is intended as a statement of truth and not observation, if it purports to express fact, no human or institution should be considered the owner of the idea.

If you report an incident as fact then you do not own it. It's the same problem I have with the "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" people and their legal action against Dan Brown for the "Da Vinci Code". They claim their interpretation of the bloodline of Jesus as the true "Holy Grail" to be fact. If it is fact then it should be subject to open source, free inquiry -- through subsequent writing and research and inquiry.

I'm not saying somebody should be able to photocopy their book and disseminate it. But if they purport their ideas to be truth then the ideas (independent of whatever copyrighted phrases and editorial notes they own) should be public domain.

It's like Shakespeare. Shakespeare is public domain. However, you CAN own an edition of Shakespeare. You can own the notes. You can own a non-standard annotation system, an indexing structure, an original edit of the text which rearranges, omits or inserts material. You can own your research without owning the truth which that research purports to find.

That is how I see religion, which like any science or academic inquiry, purports to deal in truth and truth MUST BE public domain and open source. (I don't get how DNA that occurs in nature can be owned either.) Moreoever, I don't see how any religion or entity which claims to deal in truth can be protected or recognized otherwise. If you don't open your findings to inquiry and criticism, you are, by my definition, calling yourself a liar.

[K-DoG7p7]

http://clicknoise.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/open_source_communism.jpg

[Hybrid2]

Okay... I grew up mostly on 19th century Restoration Movement Christianity. In general, individual congregations my family went to were fairly conservative, socially, but the entire movement is, itself, what I would describe as religiously libertarian. That is to say, denominational structure and hierarchy were seen as irrelevant, at best, and detrimental, at worst.

It varied from congregation to congregation but the basic idea tended to be that we held democratic elections at the congregational level. Each church had bylaws set forth by their founding members, with a constitution subject to amendment. The overall template tended to be that there was a Board of Trustees with an influential CFO (and sometimes CEO) acting as a kind of counter to the minister, who acted as an influential hired spokesman.

Because the movement was founded out of a disgust for sectarianism, the overall attitude that seemed common was that every denomination was probably misguided on some point (just as every one of our congregations might be as well) and that no denomination had exclusive claim to salvation.

Catholics get into Heaven. Methodists get into Heaven. Quakers get into Heaven. Baptists get into Heaven. Unitarians get into Heaven. All provided that the INDIVIDUAL in question lived a life in accordance with Biblical teachings.

If there is room for debate over a Biblical issue, nobody is "right" and all opinions should be respected. The flipside of that being that a serious enough dispute might mean you'd be more comfortable worshipping with theologically likeminded people either at a denominational body or another nondenominational church.

The most prevalent teachings were basically that we viewed baptism as essential and would baptize anybody as soon as they indicated a desire to be and we believed we were instructed to take communion weekly and it was offered at every service. (Though, honestly, it never made sense to me that people generally only partook at one of the services they attended if they attended multiple since the instruction cited is "as often as you meet".) These two things are basically seen as "Christian Civil Rights" within the movement and anybody who sets foot in the average Restoration Movement church could ask for either; our ministers would baptize somebody in a lake at 2:00 am if it was the most convenient method and while we generally taught that communion is for the baptized (which we viewed as immersion by choice), we wouldn't withhold communion from somebody whose views differed.

The core credo of most of these churches is taken from Augustine: "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

I realize that everyone is shaped in differing ways by their religious and cultural upbringing but I see this statement as an identifier of what religion is and should be in a free society. In my mind, religious teachings not compatible with this three part teaching can't be legitimately protected without compromising the freedom and autonomy of the individual.

In my mind, if it isn't open source (subject to interpretation at the individual level, citing sources and influences and accepting the consequences of where your interpretations lead you, both terrestrially and celestially) then it isn't religion.

For me, that's where Scientology fails. I could be a Catholic and lead an offshoot movement. I could be a Jew or a Muslim and practice my own brand of the religion, at least in the U.S. and most of the west.

You can't do that as a Scientologist because their teachings aren't public; their religion isn't open source. They do not allow scholarly and theological criticism and review of their beliefs and you are in no position to claim an understanding which differs from leadership.

Now, granted, some of this could be said of the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention but the reality with those groups is that you are free to take their religious teachings, take issue with them and start a separate religious movement which, while condemned by the old hierarchy on a critical basis, will not be denied the right to operate or exist.

At the heart of this for me is a rather simple idea: Truth is not owned. It is not fabricated by human hands or human minds. It is discovered. Truth exists independent of the observer. You may fabricate a figure of speech or an expression and own that phrase... But if the idea it relates is intended as a statement of truth and not observation, if it purports to express fact, no human or institution should be considered the owner of the idea.

If you report an incident as fact then you do not own it. It's the same problem I have with the "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" people and their legal action against Dan Brown for the "Da Vinci Code". They claim their interpretation of the bloodline of Jesus as the true "Holy Grail" to be fact. If it is fact then it should be subject to open source, free inquiry -- through subsequent writing and research and inquiry.

I'm not saying somebody should be able to photocopy their book and disseminate it. But if they purport their ideas to be truth then the ideas (independent of whatever copyrighted phrases and editorial notes they own) should be public domain.

It's like Shakespeare. Shakespeare is public domain. However, you CAN own an edition of Shakespeare. You can own the notes. You can own a non-standard annotation system, an indexing structure, an original edit of the text which rearranges, omits or inserts material. You can own your research without owning the truth which that research purports to find.

That is how I see religion, which like any science or academic inquiry, purports to deal in truth and truth MUST BE public domain and open source. (I don't get how DNA that occurs in nature can be owned either.) Moreoever, I don't see how any religion or entity which claims to deal in truth can be protected or recognized otherwise. If you don't open your findings to inquiry and criticism, you are, by my definition, calling yourself a liar.

Great post. Agree with it all.

[Weetomuncher]

I have a strange mixture of religious experiences with a few years of nominal (non church attending) Presbyterianism as a child, although my first primary school had quite a lot of religious teaching before I converted to Mormonism at age 8 and continued for 3 years before I started attending a conservative congregationalist church for about 3 years before another spell of nominal Presbyterianism (as a lot of people in Scotland seem to have nominal Presbyterian beliefs where they don't attend church but have some form of religious faith) until I started attending Salvation Army services about 4 years ago.

I have had a few periods where I haven't been able to go to church for a while through illness (at the moment I haven't been able to attend church for a while due to ill health) and I don't like missing services.

It is very easy to start your own church nowadays and a theology degree and a small hall can get you quite far in religious terms.

Almost anyone call themselves Reverend as theological degrees and other religious qualifications can be obtained outwith the boundaries of a recognised church.

In the US, almost every religious wacko seems to claim to be a Baptist, with few of them being in one of the recognised branches of Baptist tradition.

As for the Bible, it is difficult to change the wording but it is easy to change the interpretation of the meanings of Biblical quotations.

I would rather people would just follow the general flow of the Bible and stop using literalism when talking about a 2000 year old book that is written in contrasting styles and contains a variety of different ideas.

The people who insist their entire lifes should be led according to ancient scripture should realise that many of the outdated concepts in the Bible are long extinct and that people should live a good life according to modern concepts and standards.

[MacQuarrie]

In the US, almost every religious wacko seems to claim to be a Baptist, with few of them being in one of the recognised branches of Baptist tradition.
The snake-handlers (Church of God of Tennessee) aren't fond of baptists, and vice-versa.

[MacQuarrie]

You could always just Be a God (http://www.be-a-god.com) yourself....

[Lovefloor]

But just for me to understand something, OP... you think that the fact that people at Scientology keep their doctrines/methods hidden, means that the freedom of religion should be partially mitigated/extenuated in the specific case(Scientology)?

[Grazzt]

You could always just Be a God (http://www.be-a-god.com) yourself....

Also useful for when you encounter Gozer.

[MartinRedmond]

nvm trail derailment!!!

[K-DoG7p7]

I am a god..
atleast thats what the ladies call me

[Weetomuncher]

I am a god..
atleast thats what the ladies call me

A goddamned freako is not the same thing as a god...

EDIT: I'm joking, btw.

[MacQuarrie]

Also useful for when you encounter Gozer.

I need to go rewrite that page now!

[MacQuarrie]

I am a god..
atleast thats what the ladies call me

but do you have a Certificate of Deity?

[K-DoG7p7]

but do you have a Certificate of Deity?

no but I reject the notion that I need one..

[Weetomuncher]

no but I reject the notion that I need one..

Gods don't need certificates, they only need superpowers!

[fireSTRIKE!]

at first I thought the title of this thread was, "Religion is an open sore"...

[sk716]

But just for me to understand something, OP... you think that the fact that people at Scientology keep their doctrines/methods hidden, means that the freedom of religion should be partially mitigated/extenuated in the specific case(Scientology)?

No, he's saying that based on his hypothesis, Scientology is not a religion.

[lonewolf23k]

No, he's saying that based on his hypothesis, Scientology is not a religion.

You hardly need his hypothesis to come to that conclusion.

Still, I like that idea: Religion as Open Source.

[Tobias March]

Sounds like something Douglas Rushkoff would say.

Course that's to pluralism we can host this argument, maintain the notion of religion as being a selection of condiment-like choices in how we view the world.

Yet this is only a very recent development. Religion has up until our generation been a fundamental determiner that resists attempts to share and share alike.

Scientology are late to a scam that's deeply embedded in cultural values. Poor johnycomelatelies that they are.

[Lovefloor]

Originally Posted by Lovefloor
But just for me to understand something, OP... you think that the fact that people at Scientology keep their doctrines/methods hidden, means that the freedom of religion should be partially mitigated/extenuated in the specific case(Scientology)?


No, he's saying that based on his hypothesis, Scientology is not a religion.

First, let me say that i am atheist/agnostic

But, well let not mess the fact that we don´t like Scientology with the concept of religion.
I partially disagree there... because he is trying to impose the "scientific method", logical/rational structure and scientific epistemology to... Religion... and then trying to mitigate the concept of Religion(and even the freedom of religious belief).

The problem is that religion... is not exactly committed to all that.
It is not committed to the "scientific method", logical/rational structure and scientific epistemology.
(even if sometimes we see people trying to use scientific method and logical/rational structures to explain their religious beliefs... and claim their "Truth")

So the concept of Religion is not related to that "Truth". It is something unrelated.

I totally agree with you that one can not claim something on scientific method/logical/rational structure and keep the proof, the data, and the experiment hidden...
Still, I think one can be religious/theist... and hide their methods and etc.

The problem of Scientology is not their method, or the fact that they keep their methods hidden.

The problem is that they are harming people. Mentally and physically. One may claim that others religions also harm people... for their belief. But then we must think what kind of "harm" can be tolerated, considering our society, and what can not.

But it, actually, is a religion. Their method to doctrinate is heterodox... but the problem is not in that method.

[Mick]

No, he's saying that based on his hypothesis, Scientology is not a religion.



Which is a completely arbitrary basis for such a distinction, in my opinion.




But then "arbitrary" describes every attempt I've seen to distance Scientology from 'real' religions.

[jesse_custer]

But then "arbitrary" describes every attempt I've seen to distance Scientology from 'real' religions.

I think you're overlooking how much Scientology differs from other religions at face value.

Really, I'm not sure how pointing out the qualitative differences between religions is arbitrary.

[Typo Lad]

But then "arbitrary" describes every attempt I've seen to distance Scientology from 'real' religions.

How about the fact that a dude who was in the room with the founder when he whipped it up has stated outright that they were flim-flammed? Read the intro to ":Hard Candy" By Ellsion sometime.

[PatrickG]

At a certain point, you really have to define what religion is.

The problem I have is that people who hate religion seem to be oblivious to the logic structures that most conventional religions are built around and unwilling or unable to see any difference between religious groups. Even if most or all are guilty of some serious crimes against society, the nature of the group is still worthy of inquiry.

Ultimately, I think you have to define religion in terms of its philosophical function, its relationship to cultural institutions and the degree to which it is capable of existing in a form that respects western democracy. A ton of religions are hesitant on that last point but that doesn't mean they can't exist in some meaningful form. However, if a branch, sect or larger body is incapable of existing (even as a frustrated contrarian element) then you're dealing with a cartel, not a religion.

I personally think Scientology is bullocks. I also think it could be practiced in forms that would definitely be a religion but the CoS is not necessarily one of them. The Catholic Church of 500 years ago isn't necessarily something I'd consider a religion in the sense of the religion our constitution is designed to protect (or is capable of protecting without invalidating itself) but the modern Catholic Church doesn't operate like the Church of 500 years ago. Arguably the same thing for LDS of 100+ years ago.

There are and must be constraints on what a religion is. Protecting a right to religious expression is important... But if doing so requires immunity to laws that predate the founding of the religion or invalidating other rights, well, I think you have to limit your definition of a religion to entities which don't demand such exceptional provisions.

Religion as we recognize it has to be a practice and not an imposition... And has to offer a claim of some kind of inspired truth, spiritual, deistic, animistic or otherwise.

And if you present something as fact and your organization as a service that promotes virtue through its claims, I don't see how you can limit the dissemination. To do so intrinsically means that you are unwilling to cite your beliefs as true. Truth is public domain and open source and while you can own an account of it, the idea that you can own a truth is unsustainable and repugnant in a western democratic society.

[Mick]

How about the fact that a dude who was in the room with the founder when he whipped it up has stated outright that they were flim-flammed? Read the intro to ":Hard Candy" By Ellsion sometime.



I have a copy of it not far from my computer.



Again, I feel to see how this relevant.

[Lovefloor]

And if you present something as fact and your organization as a service that promotes virtue through its claims, I don't see how you can limit the dissemination. To do so intrinsically means that you are unwilling to cite your beliefs as true. Truth is public domain and open source and while you can own an account of it, the idea that you can own a truth is unsustainable and repugnant in a western democratic society.

But, Patrick, all religions got their "truths" and their dogmas too.
What I was saying is that these "truths" don’t work the same way as in formal logic/scientific method/ etc... so there is no problem for they to claim their belief and keep it hidden.

The problem is not that they hide it, or that we don’t like their beliefs, or that many believe they do that for financial purposes. The problem is that they commit crimes, put people on drugs, try to censor free press, try to storm people who want to leave, etc..

[Typo Lad]

I have a copy of it not far from my computer.



Again, I feel to see how this relevant.
Because Ellis states there, and in tons of other places, that he knows for a fact that Scientology was a scam because Hubbard told him so.

[Charles RB]

How about the fact that a dude who was in the room with the founder when he whipped it up has stated outright that they were flim-flammed? Read the intro to ":Hard Candy" By Ellsion sometime.

That and the fact they've been willing to say they're not a religion and drop the "church" part of the name if it makes it easier to set up shop in a country and/or make money.

[Mick]

Because Ellis states there, and in tons of other places, that he knows for a fact that Scientology was a scam because Hubbard told him so.



So Scientology's a scam?


I guess that makes it not at all like all those other religions, then...

[Typo Lad]

Oh. CLEVER! I see what you did there!

So how about "Scientology is a blatant scam, which the founder was pretty open about."

We weren't around when most Religions were founded, so we can't say it with surity about them, but wow yeah, we can say it about these wankers.

Same goes for the "Kaballah Center" bastards.

[Charles RB]

And it's not just the founder either: the current leader and most of the higher-ups seem in on it.

While I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure the Archbishop of Cantebury believes in God and salvation through Jesus Christ.

[Typo Lad]

Let's be honest though Charles, there are plenty of people who do believe in their faith and still use it to line their own pockets. Sceintology is, in a way, at least honest about it.